SEQ Bus Network Review

[STB]

But this moves on to my next point - locations in zones 5 and above do not deserve express services to the CBD. Most of the current exceptions (130/140/150/330/444/555) are required due to the utter failure of successive governments to build any rail infrastructure and the ignorance of pre-existing rail infrastructure by governments at all level. The 250 is not one of these routes - I believe the bus should be both terminated at Carindale, and long-term, the Cleveland line should be re-aligned along a fast alignment which goes from Murrarie to Manly with maybe one station in between. Cleveland line could then be extended down to Victoria Point. The 250 just duplicates pre-existing routes.

The 280 (Mt Cotton Rd) corridor is more efficient at doing that job, there is no need to go via a circuitous route to get to the city from Victoria Pt and Redland Bay, although there are still people that do it simply out of habit of the pre-TransLink days, despite the advertising.

[#Metro]

I totally agree, the network is not broken. That's why we have large sections of the western suburbs served by one infrequent bus route. Given there's such an emphasis on seats, maybe we should look at how many seats operate between Toowong and the CBD. We have:
- Four 6-car trains per hour (236 x 2 x 4) = 1888 seats
- 24 buses per hour (40 x 24) = 960 seats
Total: 2848 seats

Ah, for trains it is more like this 800 x 4 = 3200 spaces/hour
And bus 65 x 24 = 1560 spaces/hour

Notice how 4 trains have capacity to replace all buses down coronation drive and then still have space. Someone should tell BT...

Total spaces = 4760 spaces/hour

With two extra trains per hour, you could probably take all buses off Coro.

[techblitz]

But it was better for the northside. I don't care about what was happening in other regions but the review for the northside (Milton and west is not the northside) was truly a step forward. The network was also set up for future infrastructure projects and allowed longer buses to operate on the northside.

If you can remember all the quest newspaper media releases...you will see that majority of complaints were from the southside.
So i guess you could say majority from northside didnt have any issues with translinks proposals.
I would say the southside is what did it for translink.

http://ps4.tv/images

[James]

Wasn't the plan that outside of uni periods some buses would terminate at Indro station instead?

Decreases network legibility. Having a *Terminates at Indro during University Semesters makes things more complex. University loads also have more spread peak loads. Having all those routes going to UQ also creates an illegible mess along Swann Road (the network review posed 6 bus routes - frequent, but confusing as hell).

You would also have this issue on weekends too. The Swann Road/Hawken Drive corridor does not justify any more than 4bph to Indro during weekends. It is one thing I did oppose - 428s do not carry good loads counter-peak and on weekends.

Ah, for trains it is more like this 800 x 4 = 3200 spaces/hour
And bus 65 x 24 = 1560 spaces/hour

Notice how 4 trains have capacity to replace all buses down coronation drive and then still have space. Someone should tell BT...

Total spaces = 4760 spaces/hour

With two extra trains per hour, you could probably take all buses off Coro.

Trains actually have 500 at a full load, so it is above 5000. I disagree with the addition of more trains at Indro unless it is giving Ipswich 4tph and/or a full-time express (which would lead to Richlands/Springfield getting 4tph). There is so much air in the network you could take every bus off Coro tomorrow morning and I doubt there would be much troubles aside from during core peak and the fact everybody would whine about how they no longer get an air parcel to their office in the CBD from their doorstep. I had my own western suburbs bus network drawn up as my own submission for the bus review, although once BCC got control I decided sending it in would be a waste of effort.

[somebody]

Frequent route 11 seems to take in the 330, 333, 370 and part of the 340.  Not sure how this will cover the stops involved without being insanely slow.

Mate, sorry, but I have to call bull on that. If you traveled along the Gympie Road corridor you'd know that it's not the stops slowing services but its actually the traffic light cycles and the busway entrances/exits which are the main things that are slowing services. IIRC the 370's are only scheduled to be 2-3 minutes slower than the buz services despite being listed as an All stops service.

You think 2-3 minutes in a trip CBD-Chermside doesn't matter?  I'll see your "bull" and raise it by a "crap".  At around midday, an inbound 330 is tabled at 24 minutes to get between stop 37/38 and KGSBS.  A 370 is tabled at 34 minutes from stop 37/38 to Adelaide St stop 42, and it's also 5 minutes slower to RB&WH.  So you can clearly see that you are understating the advantage of the 330 in particular.  Not that facts like these seem to matter around here. 

In addition if you have one stopping pattern you will get far more people not bothering to walk to an express stop who clearly could, and this will have an end result of making the services slower, perhaps even slower than the current 370 even if stops are consolidated due to the low frequency which stops would be bypassed with.  You aren't the only person on here who misses or (more likely) chooses not to see this point.

I was going to write a longer reply, but thought better of it.

I totally agree, the network is not broken.

Gah, I actually said the exact opposite.

[HappyTrainGuy]

But it was better for the northside. I don't care about what was happening in other regions but the review for the northside (Milton and west is not the northside) was truly a step forward. The network was also set up for future infrastructure projects and allowed longer buses to operate on the northside.

If you can remember all the quest newspaper media releases...you will see that majority of complaints were from the southside.
So i guess you could say majority from northside didnt have any issues with translinks proposals.
I would say the southside is what did it for translink.

http://ps4.tv/images

Yep. Most of the things that I read online or saw on tv were people having a whinge towards the southside. From the occasional read of the local quest newspaper most of the reports were just a general sense that things were changing, new cross town - well for us its across town - routes such as the Strathpine-Sandgate route, new loop routes around Redcliffe, something about trial routes between Lawnton-Strathpine becoming permanent, writing small snipits into reports about the MBRL along with reporting about people unhappy about the translink reviews. Very quiet to say the least. From what it sounds like in Brisbane all the locals were scared into thinking that everyone was having their local bus route removed and no alternative was available. Just miss information after miss information was being passed around getting everyone scared. The TV and Courier Mail reports didn't help by only reporting the high fares, people losing their routes and the extent they were going to by putting up info at bus stops or even going as far as knitting bus stops as a protest rather than reporting on the good bits, new routes, areas with pt for the first time etc.

You think 2-3 minutes in a trip CBD-Chermside doesn't matter?  I'll see your "bull" and raise it by a "cr%p".  At around midday, an inbound 330 is tabled at 24 minutes to get between stop 37/38 and KGSBS.  A 370 is tabled at 34 minutes from stop 37/38 to Adelaide St stop 42, and it's also 5 minutes slower to RB&WH.  So you can clearly see that you are understating the advantage of the 330 in particular.  Not that facts like these seem to matter around here. 

Hahaha. All this coming from someone that has no idea what happens in along the Gympie Road corridor day after day, basis his assumption off 'similar' corridors and thinks he knows what's best as a result. I honestly can not take anything you say seriously as you obviously have no idea what goes on in the Gympie Road corridor. Also kudos on trying to skewer the argument your way. Never said the CBD mate. Always mentioned Chermside to RBWH. Any merger of the 370 stops into the 330/333/340 corridor means the route deletion of the 370 route and removal of RBWH-Valley-CBD leg. The current corridor is a mess. Too much duplication. Too many patterns. Too much air. Buses running similar times. Buses running in packs rather than spread out. Busway stops not on current frequent corridor routes. Too many buses in 1 corridor where they aren't needed while areas that need extra buses don't have them.

and it's also 5 minutes slower to RB&WH.

Wait wait wait wait wait. An express bus. Express from Chermside to the RBWH. The same express bus that goes into a quiet tunnel bypassing every bus stop Chermside-RBWH. The same express bus that misses 12 sets of traffic lights. The same express bus that has longer dwells at Chermside for the timetable to catch up. The very same express bus that misses 17 stops. The very same bus that I see day after day at times carrying the same amount of air as the 328. The very same express bus that I was on that followed behind a stopping 370. After all that its only 5 minutes faster? Now that's one f**king slow express bus from Chermside-RBWH in that case.

So you can clearly see that you are understating the advantage of the 330 in particular.  Not that facts like these seem to matter around here.

Hmmmm not really. If they want an express service get on the train or catch a 331 rocket in peak hour.

[newbris]

...I don't like the idea of converting King George Square to a lead stop configuration.  Firstly, I'm not aware of somewhere in the world which has an underground bus station with passengers waiting areas in the vehicle exhaust. Bondi Junction has similar screens to Queen St and King George Square.  Britomart in Auckland has diesel trains underground and people breathing exhaust fumes - reputedly not at all pleasant.  The electrification plans in Auckland will solve this problem.  Secondly, a lead stop configuration for something that is more than 50% longer than the Cultural Centre would be a very unpleasant passenger experience.  Far nicer to be at the place where the bus is going to stop rather than having to predict where it might and move to where it actually goes.  The lead stop configuration also adds to dwell times and reduces productivity.  It's a necessary evil at the Cultural Centre.

I love the idea of lead stop at KGS (and elsewhere). Totally frustrated at the different stops spread around the city. Would much rather wait in a/c in KGS at a lead stop for the first bus to come along going to my area. Would shorten the wait, spread the load better and therefore reduce the buses needed. The plan said they would have to look at how it could be done so it is possible a few stops would have remained for the different areas served by KGS. I doubt the whole place would have ended up as one long lead stop as different areas in the west were still being served.

The benefits I saw were:
- Better spaced buses. The 379, 380, 381 running from different places never seem spaced well. All arrive at once.
- Proper buz that fills in non frequent holes and sundays.
- Better legibility for the casual user
- Better routing of the 379, 380, 381 route through the busway into KGS.
- Super stops. Other Waterworks routes like the new frequent service to Mitchelton also running from the same KGS stop so passengers spread more evenly across route numbers + more frequency available.
(Currently to Ashgrove 379, 380, 381 leave from Adelaide, 350 from Ann, Glider from KGS etc)
- Main bus on trunk route through more dense parts.
- Best use of glider.
- Better network geography for cross linking routes if each major trunk road has frequent route.

I don't agree with the rationale for moving the current 385 to Waterworks Rd rather than Coopers Camp Rd.  The rationale being that people cannot remember 3 route numbers 379, 380 and 381 to reach the inner part of Waterworks Rd.  I completely disagree with this line of thought; people can remember three consecutive numbers.

If it is only peak hour commuters who live in the area and catch the bus every day they can remember the numbers. But for casual users it is a matter of remembering 3 numbers on that route and working out which one's stop and/or deviate before their home + remembering 3 numbers on another route and another all over brisbane if they want to use a connected network. For many it is very confusing and leads to people using the service as a local commute and back only and never venturing into the world of other people's "multiple routes" in other parts of town. The three routes also leads to inconsistent gaps between buses, both planned and as a consequence of their different starting points, and different timetabling peccadilloes you need to remember for each of the 3 routes. It also makes it hard to map all the frequent trunk routes into a legible connected network map.

To me it provided a nice balance. A legible frequent network for users throughout the day...with peak hour express routes still providing commuter services from Payne Rd etc from The Gap along Coopers Camp for regular peak long distant commuters.

  That will then mean needing to run inbound along congested Countess St, then Roma St and enter the busway at Turbot St, assuming that move is possible and safe.  This will mean that there is no real benefit to the busway inbound for the 385/Frequent Route 6.

The plan was for the F6 and F7 to run in the far less busy right lane of countess st and make a right turn onto Upper Roma St rather than a left onto Roma and Turbot. They would then do a quick right turn and be on the busway into Roma St station and onto KGS. Far quicker than the current route into town.

Currently the route via Countess St is 9 minutes slower from Greenlanes Rd to Roma St than the 385.  I also disagree with getting out of the way of the Maroon Glider.  If council insists on funding this to the detriment of the network, Translink shouldn't be helping them.  One might argue that the 385 should serve Settlement Rd and a Waterworks Rd bus serve Payne Rd, but people beyond Settlement Rd would not like this.

Is there that much in it? Waterworks has bus lanes and as mentioned they were re-routing the end of the route through the busway so this would chop the times down considerably. From what I can tell the main difference is caused by the stop spacing.

For example in morning peak route 379 takes 28mins to service 18 stops from West Ashgrove to Roma St. The 385 only services 6 stops in its 18 min journey from West Ashgrove to Roma St? Maybe spacing on the new frequent service would have been different, more similar to the 385? Additionally, peak commuters from The Gap could use Coopers Camp services as well, and people living on Coopers Camp also had their own Coopers Camp originating service.

...Frequent route 7 doubles up the 390 along Samford Rd west of Wardell St.  Seems to be overkill also along a train line.

Yes, it did provide frequency to Wardell (improving the removed 350) and the very dense Red Hill section which I'm presuming their data showed was needed. Maybe the first part of the route was to just connect it to the local interchange?


From the point of view of an inner west resident I thought the translink review was far better than what we have and as a patron was very disappointed we would be stuck with what we have. Now, instead of these improvements, our current service is being downgraded instead through the bcc review. I also noted that translink emphasised that secondary routes would be under constant review for some time so they could adjust them to peoples needs....as we subsequently found out probably because bcc provided little input so they had to put up a best guess and promise to refine constantly.

[somebody]

I love the idea of lead stop at KGS (and elsewhere).

I differ.

Totally frustrated at the different stops spread around the city.

But the lead stop idea is separate to this.

Would much rather wait in a/c in KGS at a lead stop for the first bus to come along going to my area. Would shorten the wait, spread the load better and therefore reduce the buses needed.

Have you ever been to the Cultural Centre?  Dwells and the passenger experience are awful there, because of the lead stop configuration.

I doubt the whole place would have ended up as one long lead stop as different areas in the west were still being served.

Well the report said it would on my reading, but it could have turned out the way you suggest.

The benefits I saw were:
- Better spaced buses. The 379, 380, 381 running from different places never seem spaced well. All arrive at once.
- Proper buz that fills in non frequent holes and sundays.
- Better legibility for the casual user
- Better routing of the 379, 380, 381 route through the busway into KGS.
- Super stops. Other Waterworks routes like the new frequent service to Mitchelton also running from the same KGS stop so passengers spread more evenly across route numbers + more frequency available.
(Currently to Ashgrove 379, 380, 381 leave from Adelaide, 350 from Ann, Glider from KGS etc)
- Main bus on trunk route through more dense parts.
- Best use of glider.
- Better network geography for cross linking routes if each major trunk road has frequent route.

Got to have some sympathy for inner Waterworks Rd, one area that did get a genuine benefit out of the review.  FWIW, the 350 actually non stops between Normanby and Wardell St, which is an interesting option for minimising the city stop location issue for that route.

The plan was for the F6 and F7 to run in the far less busy right lane of countess st and make a right turn onto Upper Roma St rather than a left onto Roma and Turbot. They would then do a quick right turn and be on the busway into Roma St station and onto KGS. Far quicker than the current route into town.

BTW, the report did NOT say that the frequent route 6 would turn right at the end of Countess St on the inbound.  The map infers that it would turn left!  Thinking that it would turn right seems to be wishful thinking on the part of some, although I think it would be better turning left anyway.

Is there that much in it? Waterworks has bus lanes and as mentioned they were re-routing the end of the route through the busway so this would chop the times down considerably. From what I can tell the main difference is caused by the stop spacing.

Well if I said so there would be.  It's not just Waterworks Rd which is the problem though.  By going that way you don't get the benefit of the bus queue jump at the end of Coopers Camp Rd or the Upper Roma St bus lane.  It's also marginally more direct.

From the point of view of an inner west resident I thought the translink review was far better than what we have and as a patron was very disappointed we would be stuck with what we have. Now, instead of these improvements, our current service is being downgraded instead through the bcc review. I also noted that translink emphasised that secondary routes would be under constant review for some time so they could adjust them to peoples needs....as we subsequently found out probably because bcc provided little input so they had to put up a best guess and promise to refine constantly.

I can certainly see and sympathise where you are coming from.  That part of Brisbane has a raw deal now and it's to get rawer with the BCC review.  It's a shame that they won't get rid of the Herschel St route too.

There, that's the reasonable post dealt with, now on to the "other" one.

But it was better for the northside. I don't care about what was happening in other regions but the review for the northside (Milton and west is not the northside) was truly a step forward. The network was also set up for future infrastructure projects and allowed longer buses to operate on the northside.

Yep. Most of the things that I read online or saw on tv were people having a whinge towards the southside. From the occasional read of the local quest newspaper most of the reports were just a general sense that things were changing, new cross town - well for us its across town - routes such as the Strathpine-Sandgate route, new loop routes around Redcliffe, something about trial routes between Lawnton-Strathpine becoming permanent, writing small snipits into reports about the MBRL along with reporting about people unhappy about the translink reviews. Very quiet to say the least. From what it sounds like in Brisbane all the locals were scared into thinking that everyone was having their local bus route removed and no alternative was available. Just miss information after miss information was being passed around getting everyone scared. The TV and Courier Mail reports didn't help by only reporting the high fares, people losing their routes and the extent they were going to by putting up info at bus stops or even going as far as knitting bus stops as a protest rather than reporting on the good bits, new routes, areas with pt for the first time etc.

Although it has to be said that there were a number of people losing out unjustly.  411 removal is probably the worst offender.  It shouldn't have taken ministerial intervention to fix that.

I honestly can not take anything you say seriously

I was resisting saying so, but I say exactly the same thing about you.

Exactly what makes this review better for the northside than present other than fitting with your idealistic ideas on what the routes should do?  Would it have increased passenger-km per service-km, boardings per service-km?  I seriously doubt that.  Most of the choice riders were happily sacrificed by this review as far as I can see, which would have been a bad outcome.

The current corridor is a mess.

I'm happy to concede that point.  But it's far less bad than the proposal.

and it's also 5 minutes slower to RB&WH.

Wait wait wait wait wait. An express bus. Express from Chermside to the RBWH. The same express bus that goes into a quiet tunnel bypassing every bus stop Chermside-RBWH. The same express bus that misses 12 sets of traffic lights. The same express bus that has longer dwells at Chermside for the timetable to catch up. The very same express bus that misses 17 stops. The very same bus that I see day after day at times carrying the same amount of air as the 328. The very same express bus that I was on that followed behind a stopping 370. After all that its only 5 minutes faster? Now that's one f**king slow express bus from Chermside-RBWH in that case.

So you can clearly see that you are understating the advantage of the 330 in particular.  Not that facts like these seem to matter around here.

Hmmmm not really. If they want an express service get on the train or catch a 331 rocket in peak hour.

Yes really.

I should add too that in public transport planning, express services is simply crowd management, it's not meant to get you somewhere quicker, that is psychological.  At the same time, having multiple versions of the same route is just simply silly and childish planning.

You might think that you speak with authority, but it doesn't make you correct.

[STB]

I should add too that in public transport planning, express services is simply crowd management, it's not meant to get you somewhere quicker, that is psychological.  At the same time, having multiple versions of the same route is just simply silly and childish planning.

You might think that you speak with authority, but it doesn't make you correct.

And I could say the same about you!

By the way, that info I wrote....that came from the actual Network Planners, it is not my own opinion.

[HappyTrainGuy]

So suddenly your an expert regarding services on the northside simon? You must travel up this way quite alot then to know the ins and outs? Looking at timetables and routes etc is one thing. Actually seeing all the problems with traffic, knowing the traffic flows, congestion, light cycles, busway entrances, buses shadowing each other, the massive bus jam at Chermside with the 330/335/340 blocking the exits etc first hand is quite different.

Fact remains a vast majority of the northside has hourly routes. The buz network is vastly under performing for its expense. Areas still don't have sunday services. Areas still don't even have public transport. There's the massive cock up of the 338, 357, 359. THERE'S STILL F***ING 1h30m+ FREQUENCIES AROUND CHERMSIDE/ASPLEY/GEEBUNG/STAFFORD/MITCHELTON!!!! The Translink review addressed most of those issues. They even had a way to get longer buses operating up here via using the Hamilton Road stops of the Chermside interchange. Areas even saw more high frequency routes.

[somebody]

I should add too that in public transport planning, express services is simply crowd management, it's not meant to get you somewhere quicker, that is psychological.  At the same time, having multiple versions of the same route is just simply silly and childish planning.

You might think that you speak with authority, but it doesn't make you correct.

And I could say the same about you!

By the way, that info I wrote....that came from the actual Network Planners, it is not my own opinion.

It's someone else's opinion then.

Are you able to refer me to a published paper which argues the same?

[James]

I totally agree, the network is not broken.

Gah, I actually said the exact opposite.

Then why are you so strongly opposing the new network which was to cut so much waste? The only sore points in the review around these parts I could think of in my area and surrounds were:
1. UQ through-routing - Swann Road was going to become the new Coronation Drive for buses, and space at Chancellors Place was to quickly become an issue.
2. St Lucia/Taringa/West Toowong Local service - this service was a poor replacement for the routes which currently exist. A better local service which included west Toowong, connected to Toowong Village and avoided unnecessary duplication (Carmody Road and Long Pocket service) needed to be made. Loop was also a poor choice of route.
3. 444 frequency reductions - 444 should have at least remained a 7am - 7pm CFN route (which could in turn replace the other routes heading to UQ), with an expanded P443.

Centenary suburbs were set for a great revamp - the only issue was parts of Jindalee being forced to change to get anywhere. Other parts of the west were set for a revamp too.

[somebody]

My post of March 13, 2013, 04:56:44 PM quoted above on this page is such a full answer to that question, I don't know what to add.

[James]

Alright, I'll respond to the sections which I believe I could contribute feedback to (I've ignored some because I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on something I'm not).

I really dislike the unstated idea of removing the distinction between all stops services and express services which seems to be implicit in the review.  This is sure to result in significant slow downs in the services overall, making them a less attractive alternative to driving and also increasing the operating cost.  The current system sees the majority of people walking to the express stops rather than just using the nearest stop.  The speeds up services while still providing for the less mobile.

I've already made my position clear with this one. If we are to continue having all-stops services, stop spacing needs to be improved, especially on the major corridors. Right now along Coro Drive stops go yellow - white - yellow - white etc. Either increase the stop spacing or include 1-2 more stops and get rid of the all-stops services. Right now the all-stops services are just duplicating pre-existing routes.

It seems that the service between Fortitude Valley and Royal Brisbane Hospital is being removed, as well as the 393 which connects Bowen Hills to Royal Brisbane.  This combination is a terrible feature.  The connection to Fortitude Valley is well used and the S99 proposal will go near Royal Childrens Hospital but not Royal Brisbane.  What should happen is that the 393 should be returned to running to Roma St similar to what it did until 2008 and be increased in frequency.  There is probably no particular reason why one needs to go via Fortitude Valley instead of Bowen Hills but needing to loop around via Roma St will be very annoying and a needless deterrent to public transport use.

I think minor modifications are all that is required to S99. From Bowen Hills, hop on a train to Fortitude Valley (which should not take long) and then connect to the S99, which should go near RCH and then on to RBWH. If you don't like indirect trips, walk.

I don't like the idea of converting King George Square to a lead stop configuration.  Firstly, I'm not aware of somewhere in the world which has an underground bus station with passengers waiting areas in the vehicle exhaust. Bondi Junction has similar screens to Queen St and King George Square.  Britomart in Auckland has diesel trains underground and people breathing exhaust fumes - reputedly not at all pleasant.  The electrification plans in Auckland will solve this problem.  Secondly, a lead stop configuration for something that is more than 50% longer than the Cultural Centre would be a very unpleasant passenger experience.  Far nicer to be at the place where the bus is going to stop rather than having to predict where it might and move to where it actually goes.  The lead stop configuration also adds to dwell times and reduces productivity.  It's a necessary evil at the Cultural Centre.

I'm confused about what is proposed for Adelaide St.  I really don't see a reason for major changes there - the current system works quite well.  The part which doesn't work well is having some routes bound for Woolloongabba for example on Adelaide St, some on Ann St, some in Queen St bus station and some in King George Square bus station.  Some consolidation could be helpful, but a very long lead stop configuration would be annoying and reduce productivity, similarly to the above.

Agreed, but a simple solution to that one is to give each route its own stop (maybe for less frequent routes make it one stop per 2/3 routes). Adelaide Street somewhat works in its current form. It needs a "BUSES TO ASHGROVE LEAVE HERE" sign at each stop, for example. I've had to interchange multiple times at Adelaide Street and remembering stop numbers isn't user friendly.

Pretty disappointing that the easily achievable traffic arrangments at the Cultural Centre, sending West End bound buses into the general traffic lanes and removing phases from the traffic light cycles aren't going to be proceeded with.

I don't know why "rocket" routes like the P119, P137 etc would be removed.  That will certainly necessitate increased buses through the Cultural Centre in spite of the Cultural Centre still experiencing congestion with the changes.

I disagree with putting West End buses in general traffic lanes. This would slow them down and remove a good common interchange point. In regards to the prepaid rockets, remember the 111, 140 and 150 were all going via CCB, so congestion was to go down in a huge way. I strongly disagreed with putting Frequent #20 (i.e. 111/160/555) on to the CCB - if we are going to try and run the busway like a metro/train line, we need to start treating it like one. Taking the core route out of it is like relieving congestion in the core section of the rail network by running Ipswich trains via Exhibition. Yes, it reduces congestion, but it is at a huge cost to convenience of the service.

Congestion at Cultural Centre could be significantly reduced just by removing air parcels like the 172, 212 and MaroonGlider and routes which have no need to be there like the 300 and 400 series routes. I don't think we will ever reach a state where the Cultural Centre doesn't have a queue in the middle of peak, but peak hour needs to stop looking like this:

* I don't like the frequent route 23 serving Buranda before using the old O'Keefe St portal and exiting onto Ipswich Rd.  The new O'Keefe St portal which the current 77 uses would be superior, particularly in the outbound direction.  Serving the stop on O'Keefe St would allow a short walk to effect an interchange for those that would like to.  Also, no service for Ipswich Rd between Woolloongabba and O'Keefe St appears to be planned.  That's a long distance without a bus stop served at all. I also dislike frequent 17 for the same reason.  It should be either via the entire length of Logan Rd for coverage, via Cornwall/Juliette Sts or two routes for speed, one doing either thing.

I don't agree with the rationale for moving the current 385 to Waterworks Rd rather than Coopers Camp Rd.  The rationale being that people cannot remember 3 route numbers 379, 380 and 381 to reach the inner part of Waterworks Rd.  I completely disagree with this line of thought; people can remember three consecutive numbers.  That will then mean needing to run inbound along congested Countess St, then Roma St and enter the busway at Turbot St, assuming that move is possible and safe.  This will mean that there is no real benefit to the busway inbound for the 385/Frequent Route 6.  Currently the route via Countess St is 9 minutes slower from Greenlanes Rd to Roma St than the 385.  I also disagree with getting out of the way of the Maroon Glider.  If council insists on funding this to the detriment of the network, Translink shouldn't be helping them.  One might argue that the 385 should serve Settlement Rd and a Waterworks Rd bus serve Payne Rd, but people beyond Settlement Rd would not like this.

At the time it was much easier just to accept the existence of WasteGlider and just leave it alone. If I were TransLink I would have played hardball with BCC and started cutting its beloved welfare network and single-seat connections. Waterworks Road also has the T2 lanes, and provides this high-demand corridor with two frequent routes. BCC's review, from what I see, is in fact siphoning passengers from Ashgrove on to MaroonGlider in order to claim it is a "huge success" and proceed to introduce another glider which wastes just as much money.

Removing the 135 and 131 will mean that Hellawell Rd is unserviced.  The comment states people will have to walk 600m.  I make it 900m from Hellawell/Jackon Rds along Jackson Rd and 1400m along Hellawell Rd   This is pretty disappointing.

I would question whether frequent route 26 Mt Ommaney via Indooroopilly can be attractive relative to a car.  Going via Indooroopilly as compared to the Western Freeway is heaps slower and I feel that a route via the Western Freeway is needed, except for people who are actually going to Indooroopilly of course.

Jindalee feeder service requires a long trip at a 90 degree angle to the direction to the city to reach rail line and then the city.  This will not be attractive either.

In regards to Hellawell Road, if the demand isn't there I see no reason why to keep the service. If it is still necessary, send a secondary cross-town route through there (I saw S409 as a good choice).

For frequent 26, this is the only real viable choice. A lot of passengers (especially key public transport users - your teenagers, Uni students and elderly) are all bound for Indooroopilly - not the CBD. Cutting Indooroopilly off in any form would be a big loss. When time matters, peak hour expresses can go down the Western Freeway. From Mt Ommaney, if time is such a concern, people can connect to rail at Darra. I agreed with your Jindalee feeder comment, however I believe it is superior to the current situation. My thoughts on this were to send F26 via Arrabi Avenue and through Jindalee there. Yes, it would make the trip a few minutes slower, but I anticipate you would get a decent amount of patronage along that corridor.

I like the Moggill to UQ service, #500, but this should follow the current 432 route and stopping pattern between Indooroopilly and UQ.  Also, there should not be a downgrade in the frequency through Kenmore in particular.

Why isn't there a UQ-Toowong non stop service, as with Melbourne's 601 to Monash and Sydney's 891/895 to UNSW?

I disagree with the route following the 432 stopping pattern. In terms of duplication and waste, it really shocks me that I only have to walk out my door and see a classic case. Along the Hawken Drive/Swann Road corridor, in the off-peak, we have a brilliant case of useless express services and waste. Two buses (411 and 428) leave UQ at the exact same time, leaving passengers for intermediate stops a half an hour wait for the next bus - which for most passengers, will mean they either use a 412, 432 or walk. The 432 also runs twice an hour - forming a uniform 4 buses per hour along Hawken Drive and Swann Road - too bad it runs express!

The 432 corridor also doesn't get much patronage. About half the route is lined by schools or parks (neither of which are good trip generators) and most patronage is bound for Indooroopilly. All services should be made all-stops between UQ and Indooroopilly, with non-stop expresses only when they are warranted.

402 is in the same boat - don't put on non-stop expresses unless they are going out full. I have once been on a 428 which arrived before a 427. Everybody piled on to that bus leaving passengers at intermediate stops behind, while the 427 just behind it went past empty. Waste!

For all the compromises made to reduce the number of routes, it seems that three quarters are to remain.  It seems a pretty poor trade to me.

I don't like frequent route 8 much - 15 minute weekend frequency feeding 30 weekend train services seems daft. It's also something of a deviation.  I would have thought that the goal of serving the Brookside shopping centre would be left to a secondary route.

Yes, it may seem like we aren't losing many routes, but the routes being put in place will allow for better connections, better frequency and thus improved public transport. The thing is in the western suburbs past Indooroopilly you don't need to cut many routes at all - you just need to terminate them at Indooroopilly. I believe Frequent 8 implied Ferny Grove line was to get its frequency expanded, or that Mitchelton was somehow to be provided with TUAG frequency.

Frequent route 7 doubles up the 390 along Samford Rd west of Wardell St.  Seems to be overkill also along a train line.

I don't like the removal of the 411.  It's a major deviation to go via Taringa (with a walk), Indooroopilly or UQ.

Frequent route 11 seems to take in the 330, 333, 370 and part of the 340.  Not sure how this will cover the stops involved without being insanely slow.

Agreed with 390 comments, I don't see why the 390 exists - yes, high patronage, maybe because it exists on a corridor which already has high-frequency services. It seems a bit daft to me why we continue to run buses beside train lines.

411 I agree with, and Frequent 11 I've already covered in my stuff about Coro Drive.

I do like the frequent service 23 and feeders for Inala/Forest Lake, as against a BUZ 100.  The inner part of Beaudesert Rd is underserved and high patronage, which could be grown.

I support the removal of the 10 minute peak frequency standard from the "frequent service" standard.  That will remove confusion and increase operational practicalities regarding turn around times, particularly at Queen St bus station.  This will allow such things as the 119 and 120 to leave from the same stop in Queen St bus station as they used to.  This is actually one of the best aspects of the review.

Agree with F23 - the last bit of BUZ 100 along Ipswich Road seems to get too close to the railway line for my liking. I disagree with removing 10 minute peak frequency, though. Much like having service late at night, I feel it is necessary to have that additional standard of service to minimise wait times. 10 minutes is 33% shorter than 15 minutes - removing that standard will mean that additional capacity (if it is required) needs to be put on somehow.

A lot of the issues you raise are minor things - I don't see how that had "2/3 spoiled the bus review" and made the network "worse than the current one".

I had the intention on providing comments on the bus review, but at the time was too focused on emailing Scott Emerson providing measured and realistic comments on retaining the 411 rather than the 'SAVE OUR 411 BUS PLZ' that everybody was going on about, ignoring the fact that the rest of the network was changing (accepting that the St Lucia Local could already be set in stone, and suggesting the route be made semi-useful rather than a safari with stupid interchange options).

[HappyTrainGuy]

379, 370, 335 all lining up to go to the Valley. All of which could have been thrown onto a single bus.





Also from earlier in the week. 330 and 340 fighting for space at the Chermside interchange.


Waste... Waste... and just more waste in our current bus network. Enjoy your rate rise Brisbane residents 

[#Metro]

Thanks for the photos, we need an evidence dossier!

I was on a 330 today, what a joke! Popped out of AirportLink and raced a 333 to Chermside side by side and both buses were 60% empty. This is a COMPLETE WASTE of cash!! There is little justification for a direct BUZ all the way to Bracken Ridge - the bus crosses over a rail line (could feed trains?) and go to Chermside. So many buses everywhere carrying air, half loads, quarter loads, no loads,  no wonder Quirk asked Emerson for 21% cash increase.

WASTE!!

[kazzac]

Also those inbound 'air parcels' 200 and 222 I See on OC Road every arvo between 3.45 and 4pm!

[HappyTrainGuy]

LP, I've been preaching for aggggggggges that Bracken Ridge shouldn't have express to the city services

I'd like to see the BCC fast track the Norris Road extension (in conjunction with the new overpass) to Carseldine railway station. Bring back the Translink review so the 310/325/326/327/328/329/330/331/335/336/337/340/341/346 can be cut and better utilized by having routes feeding railway stations and interchanges. Get that road extension into Carseldine and send the 330 to the train station at Carseldine. Terminate it at Chermside. Remove the pedestrian crossing on the southern and eastern side of the Hamilton/Gympie Road intersection so traffic can turn left quicker improving the bus and traffic transit times. That enables the 333 to run higher capacity vehicles. Maybe with the mods the 333 can have a frequency boost to every 10 minutes to make up for the 330/330/340/370 being merged with a single stopping pattern. Consider adding a ped overpass from the interchange to the pathway across the road. That way passengers transfering from the east-west routes terminating at the interchange can simply cross over the road to the north-south services along with enabling the quick crossing of Hamilton Road without having to walk around/wait for lights. Remove the centre island and the Thomas street entry into Chermside and replace it with a bus priority entrance only for the eastern service going into the interchange westbound.

[James]

Unfortunately with rail frequency the way it is, it is a 'chicken or the egg' scenario. TransLink won't put on more trains because not enough people are using the trains because not enough buses feed the rail line because TransLink won't put on more trains because.... and it goes on. Self-fulfilling prophecy. This is why I disagreed with a review of the bus network without looking at the rail network. Without frequent rail, to introduce a frequent connection to the city a bus needs to run all the way to the CBD. Caboolture line should have been given 15 minute frequency - it is the next best line to introduce 15 minute frequency on - even if only to Strathpine/Petrie.

Now I don't disagree with BUZ 330/340, but one of them needs to be cut off at Chermside/the rail line and made into a feeder along with the 370. I don't think keeping the 330 in Airport Link is necessarily a bad thing, but if so the bus needs to be co-located with the 333 and timed so that the 333 does not even arrive until the 330 departs and takes all City-bound pax with it, with similar timetabling outbound. Unfortunately, we live in Queensland and not even the 314 can run to timetable. So I honestly have no hope for any form of co-ordination like that occurring.

[HappyTrainGuy]

To right. The rail network already is at the limit of its catchment for walk up patronage as evident by park and rides filling up quickly due to lack of feeders or services (6pm is the last train out of the City before you have no bus to get home alot of the time between Strathpine-Caboolture. The 680 is the most frequent service in Bald Hills-Petrie at 30 minutes... its off peak frequency is better than every peak hour service in the area).

The rail network was considered along with other infrastructure projects which is one of the reasons why the Brisbane North region was to be the very last to have its bus network modified (late 2014/early 2015 IIRC). The bus network also wasn't complete as routes stopped short due to infrastructure constraints/planning for the future. A Lawnton-Petrie bridge was to be completed in late 2015/early 2016 IIRC. MBRL is expected to be running services early to mid 2016. NGR was to be up and running in mid-late 2015 but that's been pushed back a little bit. the new housing estates around both sides of Carseldine station are to be built/ready around late 2015/early 2016. The Norris Road extension was to be built in 2014 IIRC but plans went on hold when BCC took over the plans from the State Government. Both rail overpasses on Telegraph Road and Geebung are to be done before 2016 (Carseldine was going to have an overpass done by the state government as part of the development there but BCC now has the responsibility to fund it). The 3 story apartment blocks next to Zillmere station are to be completed in a couple months. There's also been a proposal for something north of the station. Property to the west is being redeveloped including the Queensland Transport facilities having now or about to relocated to Carseldine. More industries are moving in further down the road. Work at the old QUT campus is finishing up. No sure of the status on the resumption of the scrap yard but I remember seeing one of those black and white property community consultation signs up on the fence a while ago. The new Aldi up the road is well underway. The bikeway from Aspley/Carseldine/Graham Road to Carseldine train station is underway. Any additional frequency boost short term has issues with the MBRL/Lawnton-Petrie works due to speed restrictions, stabling removal, track removal, signaling changes, track changes, earthworks etc associated with the upgrades.

Peak hour already has trains every 7 minutes with plenty of capacity available. Off and counter peak is really the only areas that would be let down in the short term and with a late 2014 implementation that's only a year and a half... or even shorter if they can drag it out or fast track a few projects (MBRL will be completed very quickly as about 600-800m of earthworks has been done ready to lay track tomorrow if needed. The second biggest bridge finished ahead of schedule. The biggest projects would be the bruce highway crossing and the Petrie works).

[#Metro]

HTG, perhaps you have done this before, but can you draw up a CFN like proposal for the Northside?

I sure hope that as part of these excess land selloffs we get bus interchanges. What's the chance that halfbake will come into the equation here??

[HappyTrainGuy]

The translink review was pretty good from what I saw. It was better than what I thought of as they modified basically every single route in some sort. I tend to just focus on development near the railway line. I spotted some small errors (eg future infrastructure changes - Geebung overpass has changed for example) and routes that could be improved but overall it was pretty good. What was lacking was frequency/running times to get a idea of what it would have been like. The biggest part or the 'pt black hole' was what happened to Nudgee and Banyo. Given it was a few years away there has been massive development next to the cemetery where the 306 runs to Nudgee Beach. Even if Nudgee Beach was left out they could have run a loop route along Nudgee road and back to the station. Maybe even with a detour down to Nudgee or to Banyo Station.

If I can get some free time this weekend I could try to document some of the areas/post plans around the stations/railway line etc for an estimated 2016 outlook if someone wanted to make their own or compare it to the Translink review plans. I'll also try to do a quick HF map.

Once Carseldine became a major hub etc this is one layout I had for routes HF/Secondary/loop routes (I'll find the post and meanings in the morning).

[HappyTrainGuy]

I had to jump on the 7.52 Petrie-Richlands train this morning and it had 22 empty seats (pretty much all the window seats were taken ) with 4 standees (3 got on at Virginia and 1 got on at Geebung) in the first carriage alone on the way to Northgate after departing Virginia. LETS GET MORE PEOPLE ON THESE TRAINS! NOT MORE CITY BUSES!

[ozbob]

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review-2013

[HappyTrainGuy]

I like the 66 but the timings need to be considered with the current layout. 2x 66 departing within seconds of each other. Another reason to cut and merge the 330/331/332/333/340/341/370 into a single stopping pattern and have 66 take up the inner city slack.

370 + 335 running into the valley together. 333 and 340 running northbound together.

[somebody]

I've already made my position clear with this one. If we are to continue having all-stops services,

Umm, of course there will always be some all stops services.

stop spacing needs to be improved, especially on the major corridors.

Unlikely to happen.  But even if we put that aside, the end result would necessarily be most services stopping more frequently than the existing services.

I think minor modifications are all that is required to S99. From Bowen Hills, hop on a train to Fortitude Valley (which should not take long) and then connect to the S99, which should go near RCH and then on to RBWH. If you don't like indirect trips, walk.

Not sure how you're imagining S99 would serve both RCH and RBWH without double backing on itself.

Agreed, but a simple solution to that one is to give each route its own stop (maybe for less frequent routes make it one stop per 2/3 routes). Adelaide Street somewhat works in its current form. It needs a "BUSES TO ASHGROVE LEAVE HERE" sign at each stop, for example. I've had to interchange multiple times at Adelaide Street and remembering stop numbers isn't user friendly.

What is needed after improving the logic of the setup is maps around the city similar to the maps of QSBS bus routes, only they need to cover all routes, not just the QSBS ones!

I disagree with putting West End buses in general traffic lanes. This would slow them down and remove a good common interchange point.

Would it slow them down?  Firstly, you're talking about completely removing them from the congestion.  But putting that aside there is also:
- removing a phase from the traffic light cycle at the Melbourne St portal
- removing a phase from the traffic light cycle at Merivale St
- no longer will West End bound buses going straight at the Melbourne St portal with a green light be caught behind a south bank bus with a red left turn arrow.  Obviously vice-versa also occurs.

Even if you were correct (which I doubt highly) the benefit to other users would outweigh it.

I agree that removing the common interchange point is a negative, but one that is outweighed by the positives.  If you're really too lazy to use the stairs you can still interchange for another route on Adelaide St.

I strongly disagreed with putting Frequent #20 (i.e. 111/160/555) on to the CCB - if we are going to try and run the busway like a metro/train line, we need to start treating it like one.

Agree with you there.

Congestion at Cultural Centre could be significantly reduced just by removing air parcels like the 172, 212 and MaroonGlider and routes which have no need to be there like the 300 and 400 series routes. I don't think we will ever reach a state where the Cultural Centre doesn't have a queue in the middle of peak, but peak hour needs to stop looking like this:

Which is the sort of thing the review did.

As for the 400 series routes, only the 444 appears in the Cultural Centre in the AM peak, and in the PM peak it's the only route on the outbound platform.

At the time it was much easier just to accept the existence of WasteGlider and just leave it alone. If I were TransLink I would have played hardball with BCC and started cutting its beloved welfare network and single-seat connections. Waterworks Road also has the T2 lanes, and provides this high-demand corridor with two frequent routes. BCC's review, from what I see, is in fact siphoning passengers from Ashgrove on to MaroonGlider in order to claim it is a "huge success" and proceed to introduce another glider which wastes just as much money.

SOP for BCC.

In regards to Hellawell Road, if the demand isn't there I see no reason why to keep the service. If it is still necessary, send a secondary cross-town route through there (I saw S409 as a good choice).

Who says there isn't demand?  The review stated "High value for money, Very High average patronage" for the 131.

For frequent 26, this is the only real viable choice. A lot of passengers (especially key public transport users - your teenagers, Uni students and elderly) are all bound for Indooroopilly - not the CBD. Cutting Indooroopilly off in any form would be a big loss.

Not the only choice.  What you outline is why you have two frequent routes, one via Western Freeway to the CBD and one via Indro to UQ.  Allow interchange at Jindalee.  One frequent route cannot cover the area adequately without being a yawn as the 450 is.

I disagree with the route following the 432 stopping pattern. In terms of duplication and waste, it really shocks me that I only have to walk out my door and see a classic case. Along the Hawken Drive/Swann Road corridor, in the off-peak, we have a brilliant case of useless express services and waste. Two buses (411 and 428) leave UQ at the exact same time, leaving passengers for intermediate stops a half an hour wait for the next bus - which for most passengers, will mean they either use a 412, 432 or walk. The 432 also runs twice an hour - forming a uniform 4 buses per hour along Hawken Drive and Swann Road - too bad it runs express!

Well Hawken Dr from UQ is perfectly adequately served by the 411 as you point out.  Around Swann Rd you can either wait for a less frequently operating 428, walk to the Gailey Rd 5 ways or walk to Taringa rail and interchange at Toowong.  I think it is a good trade and reasonably fair.  Death to the 427 though.

The 432 corridor also doesn't get much patronage. About half the route is lined by schools or parks (neither of which are good trip generators) and most patronage is bound for Indooroopilly. All services should be made all-stops between UQ and Indooroopilly, with non-stop expresses only when they are warranted.

It's more for people from Indro or beyond, I agree with that point.

Not sure what you mean by "non-stop expresses only when they are warranted" the rest of your comments infer that you don't really think there should be such a route.

402 is in the same boat - don't put on non-stop expresses unless they are going out full. I have once been on a 428 which arrived before a 427. Everybody piled on to that bus leaving passengers at intermediate stops behind, while the 427 just behind it went past empty. Waste!

Gah!  I would agree to disagree with you then.

I disagree with removing 10 minute peak frequency, though.

Queenslander!  When am I getting my redundancy?

Much like having service late at night, I feel it is necessary to have that additional standard of service to minimise wait times. 10 minutes is 33% shorter than 15 minutes - removing that standard will mean that additional capacity (if it is required) needs to be put on somehow.

Best provided by rockets and short workings.  So ner.

A lot of the issues you raise are minor things

I think not.

[somebody]

TransLink won't put on more trains because not enough people are using the trains because not enough buses feed the rail line because TransLink won't put on more trains because.... and it goes on.

This **** again.  Have a look at the loadings of the 329 in the TL report, or any other rail feeder of your choice BTW.  There needs to be a stick to get people to use feeder buses in peak hour - paid parking, now!

To right. The rail network already is at the limit of its catchment for walk up patronage as evident by park and rides filling up quickly due to lack of feeders or services

I challenge you to go to any particular park and ride on a weekend and tell me that it is full.  It's just the peak hour commuters filling it up.

[ozbob]

Most of the time weekends, park n' rides have plenty of room, except when events on.  Goodna often fills on weekends for footy etc.  I expect that in time park  n' rides will become more occupied on weekends.

[#Metro]

Where park and rides are close to being full or are over full, car parks need to be charged for, at least during peak times. The extra money generated can be put towards better bicycle facilities upgrades, footpath upgrades and if enough, more bus services.

This idea is not radical. It already happens in Perth. Without prices queues form, you get shortages, someone has to decide what someone else gets and things get misallocated.

[HappyTrainGuy]

LP, the problem that us northsiders have are that there are just no other PT options to get to or from the station/interchange or if there is its unideal to use eg hourly peak hour frequencies, unlit streets, long distances etc. The only option is to drive there. Take Strathpine-Petrie and as far out to Warner etc. The bus network is hourly. First service to last service is hourly. Most final bus routes stop running at 6-6.30pm (my local 338 from Strathpine-Eatons Hill which is only 10 mins or so and can be faster than a one seat trip on a 357/359 departs with the final service from Strathpine at 5.20ish) which really sucks if there is a small peak hour delay as there might not be an option to get home from the station. The 680 already and other routes too leave people behind at Petrie station because the trains dump so many people there with the high frequency yet the bus network doesn't boost its frequency to help cope with the demand. The Narangba/Burpengary loop routes have their last service at around 7-7.30pm otherwise its over a k to get to the first set of houses in Narangba and hopefully the road you take has street lighting or a footpath. If its closer to the city then by all means charge for parking but I'd ideally like to see a better and revised feeder network available first. Then charge a small section for parking if available (eg parking lot design) by charging for peak hour arrivals only, then apply full time to smaller areas before rolling out paid parking for the whole park and ride on a station by station basis.

Oh for f**k sake Simon! Would you stop picking all the flawed routes just to make your argument. Its the weekend. Of course they won't fill up. The demand to the city isn't that high as we have our own big local hubs to go to. If you live in Strathpine there are 3 Westfields all available within a 15 minute drive. The only time they ever become full on the weekends is due to big events in the city. Its things like this where local knowledge trumps looking at timetables, .pdf reports and maps on a computer or mobile phone screen.

The 329 is a very heavily flawed route. It runs one direction only during peak hour only and doesn't venture any distance into Bracken Ridge or runs at all on weekends. Oh I'll get the 329 to the shops just up the road... oh but then how do I get back. It also terminates in the whoop whoop part of Bracken Ridge. Just like the 327 stopping next to the highway on the opposite side of a boral cement factory instead of going to Bald Hills/Strathpine during peak hour. The 328 is flawed as its run at the same time as faster more direct routes. 336/337 does the exact same. It duplicates the 335 leg by running at the same time and then the same on the 325 leg. The 336/337 also only runs on a frequency worse than the Nambour line between peaks and on Saturdays only. The final services of the day can have standing capacity due to School students using it to access the Aspley interchange, the Chermside interchange or Geebung station, students and others using it to feed from other buz services at Aspley and Chermside, the train line at Geebung and the shops/rsls along the route. Ever been on a Nerang/Helensvale rail feeder bus simon? Strathpine-Petrie only has a few buses after 6pm during the week heaven forbid should someone look at a weekend timetable.

I could challenge you to many things that would involve you sitting at a bus stop or a train station overnight but I won't as you have no idea about the northside network.

[#Metro]

...and are starting to sound like a BT planner.

HTG, if you disagree with Simon that's fine. Try and keep to tangible arguments rather than personalities though.
That to one side, I do believe you have just gold-coined a very valuable new term for this forum, up there with CFN and Foam.

If its closer to the city then by all means charge for parking but I'd ideally like to see a better and revised feeder network available first.

From my perspective it makes little difference where you start. You just need to start somewhere. A charge, any charge, will reduce the demand for car park spaces and free spaces for those who really value them more whether or not buses are altered. In the process, people will search for alternatives, pressure would be placed on TransLink and politicians to either repeal the charge or provide alternatives, and if the outrage was strong enough, force this to happen.

In any event, pricing car parks that are at or over capacity will free up spaces in the said car park.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Sorry, i don't intend on offending anyone but the network has been a real mess up this way and it annoys me seeing someone using the worst designed routes routes again and again rather than looking at why it performs so badly. Yes, the 329 is a terrible route but why is it a terrible route. Its all fine and well reading .pdf reports, timetables and maps on a computer screen but if you don't know anything about the local and surrounding areas, see the problems first hand like the 330/333/340/370, 335/370/375/379, 325/336/335, 327/Geebung Trains, 328/329 etc (I give you kudos all the times you head out this way and see the network for what it really is) or assume that because you travel along one pt corridor that would be the same as another just isn't seeing the full picture.

Oh and LP I'm uploading so info and will continue to upload info about other certain areas where housing is booming which can relate to the Translink review so if someone wants to do their own review they'll have a bit more understanding of some areas. It will also feed into my own little CFN map.

[somebody]

Oh for f**k sake Simon!

FFS?  When have you ever argued for an improvement which would carry a substantial number of passengers?

Ever been on a Nerang/Helensvale rail feeder bus simon?

Yes, a few times at Helensvale, Robina and Varsity Lakes.  Not Nerang though.  Not sure of the relevance?

[James]

Umm, of course there will always be some all stops services.

By 'all-stops', I mean using current stop spacing. Under my plan, all services are "all-stops", but stop spacing is essentially like express services.

Unlikely to happen.  But even if we put that aside, the end result would necessarily be most services stopping more frequently than the existing services.

Yes, if we added a few more stops a bus might take one or two more minutes to get to the CBD. Boo hoo, those two minutes are really precious aren't they? If two minutes genuinely mattered, at Chancellors Place you'd probably see 411/428 users getting off at the Upland Road stop, because going around that turnaround takes 1-2 minutes in peak.

Not sure how you're imagining S99 would serve both RCH and RBWH without double backing on itself.

If we're looking for coverage - after coming up Bowen Bridge Road, going on to the busway and stopping at RBWH, before going down the turnaround back on to Bowen Bridge Road, then down along Garrick and Bramston Terrace, before back on to Herston Road.
If we're looking for speed - after coming up Bowen Bridge Road, turn into Gilchrist Avenue then on to Herston Road, stopping outside RCH Busway station and just before the turn into Gilchrist Ave.

Once again, the people who are not able bodied enough to walk 500m to the hospital are not the targets of services seeking patronage.

What is needed after improving the logic of the setup is maps around the city similar to the maps of QSBS bus routes, only they need to cover all routes, not just the QSBS ones!

KGSBS also has quite a good layout. Adelaide Street doesn't have it solely because so many routes go from there it is chaos.

Which is the sort of thing the review did.

As for the 400 series routes, only the 444 appears in the Cultural Centre in the AM peak, and in the PM peak it's the only route on the outbound platform.

444 is still operating at 6bph. That's six buses per hour that don't have to be there. And congestion is actually now spanning beyond just peak hour - you will have random bus queues in the middle of the day. Services terminating at Cultural Centre are also for the most part carrying air, as most have already gotten off. People can either walk across the bridge, or catch a bus if they want to get to the CBD. 300 series is a big culprit though - far too many services starting/terminating there.

Who says there isn't demand?  The review stated "High value for money, Very High average patronage" for the 131.

I have faith that TransLink's planners looked long and hard at where people get off along this route - and it's very likely in their analysis they saw a lot of passengers were getting on this peak-only route either along Mains Road or along the section of the route which parallels/runs close to the 130. This is also a peak-only rocket - demand is limited to commuters. And as we know from a lot of routes in Brisbane, put on a fast, high-frequency peak-only rocket and most of the time you will watch patronage soar.

Not the only choice.  What you outline is why you have two frequent routes, one via Western Freeway to the CBD and one via Indro to UQ.  Allow interchange at Jindalee.  One frequent route cannot cover the area adequately without being a yawn as the 450 is.

Two frequent routes. This is the issue. Interchange at Jindalee is not an attractive option. Centenary suburbs do not deserve two frequent routes, especially while on the other side of the highway residents are getting nothing, and users of the ex-BUZ 444 and other western suburbs routes are stuck with half-hourly or hourly urban safari.

After much thought, I believe F26 hit the nail on the head when it came to a frequent route. Now I don't like what they did to Jindalee, but looking at F26 by itself, it is just what was needed. The way the 453 (and 450 on weekends) twists and turns in Jindalee is awful and needs to stop. I never said I supported that - I just believe a secondary route should go down Arrabri Avenue to cover the other side of Jindalee, most likely on half-hour frequency. If residents don't like that, too bad, walk to the F26.

Well Hawken Dr from UQ is perfectly adequately served by the 411 as you point out.  Around Swann Rd you can either wait for a less frequently operating 428, walk to the Gailey Rd 5 ways or walk to Taringa rail and interchange at Toowong.  I think it is a good trade and reasonably fair.  Death to the 427 though.

You do not understand. At UQ, if you are going to Ironside State School, you can choose the 411 or 428. The issue is, these two buses leave at the same time in the off-peak. In fact, one of my favourite games to play when coming from the University is bus lotto - always a fun game after a long day. Pick a bus, any bus - every player gets home eventually! In fact, with the 414 being re-routed, I'm going to have another bus route added to the lotto draw. Five bus routes which I can choose for a 5-minute trip down the road!

Yes, there is the 432 at the Fiveways - but wouldn't it be easier to just reduce the amount of waste in the network by getting the 411 to leave 15 minutes later or all-stopping the 432, thus forming even 15 minute frequencies? The former is the most preferable and most painless - all BCC has to do is move the bus timetable forward 15 minutes in the off-peak. Simple. Co-ordination on the weekends would be nice too.

It's more for people from Indro or beyond, I agree with that point.

Not sure what you mean by "non-stop expresses only when they are warranted" the rest of your comments infer that you don't really think there should be such a route.

Gah!  I would agree to disagree with you then.

I don't believe in non-stop expresses generally, but demand may indicate that there could be a limited market in peak for such buses. Right now 427s run express at 10-11am in the morning when they are not needed (in fact, along Swann Road/Hawken Drive they run at the same time as the 411 - waste!), and 432s run express (outbound) at 8am and 8pm. At neither time is express running warranted.

However, if this kind of express was warranted (using the 432 alignment, but NO STOPS from the station to UQ), it would need to be timetabled to leave 2 minutes before a 428 arrives. Peak sweeper concept. Right now, the timetable, quite frankly, is a non-clockface mess which provides nobody with good service, empty express services and a timetable with random gaps.

Similar thing with the 402. Peak sweeper concept, although there it could be applied practically all the time (buses can go out full even in the afternoons). Although I object to this with the 402 more because the route is already quite fast and doesn't have many stops (that is, if you make the 402 into a 412 short-running and do away with the all-stops service).

Queenslander!  When am I getting my redundancy?

Best provided by rockets and short workings.  So ner.

Rockets should only be provided in the following circumstances:
a) When a bus route does not continue to the CBD in the off-peak/weekends (this doesn't happen because every bus goes to the CBD in Brisbane - but under the bus review, P426/P443 were going to do this)
b) When a bus route uses an inferior routing in the off-peak/weekends (think the western suburbs rockets)
c) For capacity reasons (South East Busway, essentially)

Rockets add network complexity and should be avoided. Naturally, the southern suburbs are the home of the peak hour rockets thanks to the inaction of a series of governments to do anything about rail infrastructure. The less routes which duplicate each other, the better!

I think not.

Elaborate. A lot of your points seem to mostly be concerned around grannies who can't walk more than 200m.

This **** again.  Have a look at the loadings of the 329 in the TL report, or any other rail feeder of your choice BTW.  There needs to be a stick to get people to use feeder buses in peak hour - paid parking, now!

Lets go and look at the 329 then, shall we?
Frequency: Half-hourly
Span: Peak-only route (5:30am - 9am inbound, 3:30pm - 7:30pm outbound)

The first stop is within walking distance of the frequent 330 BUZ, and the next four routes stop in the middle of nowhere/low density suburbia! The route is also far too short to gain any meaningful patronage. No wonder the route does badly.

Lets go and look at another one. The 467:
Frequency: Half-hourly
Span: Peak-only route (5:30am - 8:30am inbound, 4pm - 6:30pm outbound)

The first half of the route duplicates an area which already has the pre-existing core bus route (453) and about two or three other rockets. The second half of the route passes through an area which could draw reasonable patronage, but the 468 drops back to hourly frequency and goes on useless urban safari once the 467 stops operating. With reasonable parking at both Oxley and Darra, why would you catch the bus?

Paid parking is not necessary until at the very least, there are meaningful feeder buses in place. Right now most feeder buses are pathetic and compete with bus routes which go direct to the CBD.

HTG, I'm currently constructing my own western suburbs network based on what I know about the area. At this point I've left Inala/Forest Lake out, but could include it. (I've left it out because I am not terribly familiar with the area and my network is less of an abrupt change compared to the bus review).

[HappyTrainGuy]

When have you ever argued for an improvement which would carry a substantial number of passengers?

Your in it. The Translink review for the northern region. Forget about the southside, Milton, Toowong, Victoria Point etc. I don't care about them at the moment. Just the northside. It was set for a vast improvement. Some areas it wasn't to good such as Nudgee but that was still 2 years away from being brought in and it was still early in the review process without the help of BT or the BCC. It addressed the issues with the obscene amount of buses following each other. It addressed heavy duplication along the Gympie Road corridor. It gave areas a bus for the very first time ever. It addressed the low patronage on the current buz network. Areas had a high frequency route for the first time. It reverted back to original running patterns eg the 328 used to be a mix of 325, 335 and P339 services that used to run the college green leg after or before they did their city-burb-city legs. It cut and reformed nearly every single route north of Chermside into a easier to use and understandable network. Rail feeders at Narangba and Burpengary had their request only routes made full time (if no one got on at the stations it ran out of service to the depot).

The original timeline compared to the current fast tracked no modification rollout. Road infrastructure projects and railway corridor projects (MBRL) were obviously taken into account for the northern routes.

Yes, a few times at Helensvale, Robina and Varsity Lakes.  Not Nerang though.  Not sure of the relevance?

Relevance is that its a rail feeder bus. 745 Nerang Railway Station to Surfers Paradise. http://jp.translink.com.au/travel-information/network-information/buses/745

[#Metro]

(I give you kudos all the times you head out this way and see the network for what it really is)

Yes, I was out there yesterday.
Worthwhile looking at the TTC. Some areas of the city would have no PT at all under this scenario. Page 7 is the most interesting http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/service_improvements_2008.pdf

Service frequency standards
The frequency of service on any TTC route is determined
by customers' travel needs, according to the TTC's
standards of service capacity. The service standards give
minimum service levels and maximum acceptable levels of
crowding on buses and streetcars.

Minimum levels of service are set to ensure that a
reasonable, attractive level of transit service is available on
all routes. Service levels below these limits are generally
unacceptable from the customers' perspective, and are
not attractive enough to develop a consistent base of
ridership. The basic minimum level of service for bus and
streetcar routes is a 30-minute service.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I apologize if these are too small for some.

Today I photographed some of the development surrounding the areas of Carseldine Railway station. If I get time during the week I'll grab a few photos of the development out at Nudgee.

Directly north west of the station more houses have been resumed for redevelopment. Land clearing and removal of the existing houses/sheds only just started. You can also see its proximity to the Caboolture and future Kippa Ring line. It will back onto the other town houses that were built here.


http://goo.gl/maps/YDtQF


http://goo.gl/maps/JTSNu


http://goo.gl/maps/RNPRp


http://goo.gl/maps/CMxte

The remaining houses/properties were bought out and work has already been completed on some of the new houses.

http://goo.gl/maps/YLm6f

Over on the north east side houses are already built with people living there, are being built and land is being cleared.

Just outside Carseldine Railway station.


Further down the road with the multistory apartments. The train line can be seen in the middle.

http://goo.gl/maps/CY3iW

Across the road showing how close the railway line is.

http://goo.gl/maps/m3glX

Just past one of the 328/341 stops. In the distance you can see the railway line.

http://goo.gl/maps/N0wHH

On Roghan outside some of the original land to be sold.

http://goo.gl/maps/1WQXv

The original and now very outdated signage from 2011.

http://goo.gl/maps/1WQXv

The next stage of land to be sold. Off the top of my head this area is reserved for future mixed retail/commercial or something.

http://goo.gl/maps/CuK8p

On the corner of Norris Road and Roghan Road. Right is the current Roghan road. Left is the new part of Norris Road. Straight ahead would be a road into the recently cleared land and behind is current cleared land ready to build houses on.

http://goo.gl/maps/O3EvY

On Norris Road (Carseldine side) looking towards Bracken Ridge. The road will kink to the right and then a straight 200m to link up with Telegraph Road at the shopping centre. This would be a prime road for a frequent Bracken Ridge-Carseldine Railway station feeder bus - ideally a reconfigured 330 route. You can also see the land that has been cleared for new housing.

http://goo.gl/maps/S3Isg

Looking at the powerlines that go to Norris Road with the powerlines for the trains just above the houses/below the treeline

http://goo.gl/maps/RvaeE

Further making the point of the closeness to the railway line.

http://goo.gl/maps/18lPB


http://goo.gl/maps/PlT2v

The powerline clearance to Norris Road. Only about 200-300m to link the two roads together.

http://goo.gl/maps/SGqSJ

Out on Lacey road where the 329 runs is more development going on. Behind the wooden fence and along the temporary road are these town houses.

http://goo.gl/maps/5sQX5

And finally at Bald Hills these empty blocks of land were resumed and now there are townhouses everywhere.
(will update when I get a pic)
http://goo.gl/maps/7Rqk5

[HappyTrainGuy]

Part of my review for the north east. Not all the routes but a rough idea. Its pretty much identical as the Translink review but I've made slight changes to reduce slight duplication on Webster road and future road changes like the Geebung and Telegraph road overpasses.

Routes included:
F08 Eatons Hill to Mitchelton
F09 Aspley to Brisbane City
F10 Taigum to Brisbane City via Toombul/Hamilton
F11 Bracken Ridge to Brisbane City
F12 Chermside to Brisbane City
S200 Mitchelton to Toombul via Grange
S201 Mitchelton to Pinkenba via Stafford/Toombul
S202 Mitchelton to Toombul via Kedron
S203 Mitchelton to Airport Village
S205 Keppera to Banyo via Chermside
S209 Strathpine to Chermside via Albany Creek
S211 Strathpine to Chermside via Bracken Ridge
S212 Chermside North Loop via Boondall/Geebung/Aspley/Carseldine/Taigum
S213 Strathpine to Shorncliffe
S214 Mitchelton to Chermside
S215 Chermside to City via Eagle Junction
S216 Brighton to Chermside
S305 Toombul to Garden City
315 Redcliffe to Brisbane City
680 Redcliffe to Chermside via Strathpine
690 Redcliffe to Sandgate

The green circles are areas where there might be a need to have a better look at. Bald Hills has no chance of getting a bus service due to its difficulty. Shorncliffe has the 311, 312, 313, 314 replaced by the Strathpine-Shorncliffe route and I don't reckon it should head any further so ignore those (unless someone has input). Not too sure about the west side of the lagoon at Sandgate so I circled it for input. Bracken Ridge and Taigum/Carseldine needs a seriously good look at. I personally think the whole area can be blown wide open for great PT if the Norris Road extension is fast tracked (yellow line for reference) - having a busway along the train line away from the main road where all the houses are is just a stupid idea. Nudgee needs a really good look at. Ideally send the send the S200 Mitchelton to Northgate along Nudgee Road towards Nudgee and somehow connect with the S205 Keppera to Banyo. Ascot/Doomben is another area that is lacking PT resources.



You can also see how the Aspley frequent route can be extended to Carseldine station once that whole area picks up at the old QUT campus there/Over to Trouts Road/to Bald Hills via Bridgeman Road. The Taigum route could also be easily set along Church Road to Roghan road and then onto the interchange at Carseldine. If anyone wants I can upload single routes.

[somebody]

By 'all-stops', I mean using current stop spacing. Under my plan, all services are "all-stops", but stop spacing is essentially like express services.

Please explain to me how this is not intellectually bankrupt.  I will expand on this below.

Yes, if we added a few more stops a bus might take one or two more minutes to get to the CBD. Boo hoo, those two minutes are really precious aren't they? If two minutes genuinely mattered, at Chancellors Place you'd probably see 411/428 users getting off at the Upland Road stop, because going around that turnaround takes 1-2 minutes in peak.

Much like having service late at night, I feel it is necessary to have that additional standard of service to minimise wait times. 10 minutes is 33% shorter than 15 minutes - removing that standard will mean that additional capacity (if it is required) needs to be put on somehow.

A 10 minute frequency has an average wait only 2.5 minutes better than 15 minute frequency.  Please explain how that is necessary to be included in the standard rather than letting it be based on loads, but it is not necessary to speed up buses by 2 minutes per trip, saving operating cost? (Rhetorical question.)

Not sure how you're imagining S99 would serve both RCH and RBWH without double backing on itself.

If we're looking for coverage - after coming up Bowen Bridge Road, going on to the busway and stopping at RBWH, before going down the turnaround back on to Bowen Bridge Road, then down along Garrick and Bramston Terrace, before back on to Herston Road.
If we're looking for speed - after coming up Bowen Bridge Road, turn into Gilchrist Avenue then on to Herston Road, stopping outside RCH Busway station and just before the turn into Gilchrist Ave.

Ok, sounds like you concede my point.  S99 diversion is not viable for service to RB&WH, without making that part of the service hideously useless for other trips.

Once again, the people who are not able bodied enough to walk 500m to the hospital are not the targets of services seeking patronage.

It's more than 500m from RB&WH to either Bowen Hills or Fortitude Valley.

What is needed after improving the logic of the setup is maps around the city similar to the maps of QSBS bus routes, only they need to cover all routes, not just the QSBS ones!

KGSBS also has quite a good layout. Adelaide Street doesn't have it solely because so many routes go from there it is chaos.

You miss my point.  I was referring to the lack of maps.

444 is still operating at 6bph. That's six buses per hour that don't have to be there.

Only 4bph in the peak direction for southside routes.  Hardly the end of the world.

300 series is a big culprit though - far too many services starting/terminating there.

Toombul routes maybe, but I think the 333, 330, 345, 385 should be in there.  I'd also add the 340.

Who says there isn't demand?  The review stated "High value for money, Very High average patronage" for the 131.

I have faith that TransLink's planners looked long and hard at where people get off along this route

You crack me up.  Even if that is so, give me a reason why they should be ignored in favour of people along Calam Rd who should have the 137 and 141, not to mention the 130 and 140 routes to use.  There isn't one I say.

And as we know from a lot of routes in Brisbane, put on a fast, high-frequency peak-only rocket and most of the time you will watch patronage soar.

I'm sure you must be trying to say something else here, otherwise you are countering your own argument.

Two frequent routes. This is the issue. Interchange at Jindalee is not an attractive option. Centenary suburbs do not deserve two frequent routes, especially while on the other side of the highway residents are getting nothing,

Yes, 2 frequent routes.  The synergies of that justify the investment.  The other side of the Centenary Hwy can get something too but that is hardly relevant to the discussion.  I don't care for your argument that because the east side of the hwy might be crap so should the west side of the hwy.

You do not understand. At UQ, if you are going to Ironside State School, you can choose the 411 or 428. The issue is, these two buses leave at the same time in the off-peak.

I understood perfectly.  I just didn't see the big deal.  411 runs 3/hr, 428 runs far more often than it should.  Ideally it would be in the middle of some 411 trips but if not, it's not a perfect world.  It won't be reducing longest waits unless it operates as often as the 411 does.

I don't believe in non-stop expresses generally, but demand may indicate that there could be a limited market in peak for such buses. Right now 427s run express at 10-11am in the morning when they are not needed (in fact, along Swann Road/Hawken Drive they run at the same time as the 411 - waste!), and 432s run express (outbound) at 8am and 8pm. At neither time is express running warranted.

Last I checked, the 427 didn't serve ANY of the same stops as the 411 after UQ.  Another irrelevance.

Rockets add network complexity and should be avoided.

No, they should not be avoided.

Elaborate. A lot of your points seem to mostly be concerned around grannies who can't walk more than 200m.

I cannot take this comment seriously.  It does not deserve a response.

This **** again.  Have a look at the loadings of the 329 in the TL report, or any other rail feeder of your choice BTW.  There needs to be a stick to get people to use feeder buses in peak hour - paid parking, now!

Lets go and look at the 329 then, shall we?
Frequency: Half-hourly
Span: Peak-only route (5:30am - 9am inbound, 3:30pm - 7:30pm outbound)

The first stop is within walking distance of the frequent 330 BUZ, and the next four routes stop in the middle of nowhere/low density suburbia! The route is also far too short to gain any meaningful patronage. No wonder the route does badly.

Perhaps so but almost everyone in the catchment, which is non zero, ignores it because its easier to park at the station.

Lets go and look at another one. The 467:
Frequency: Half-hourly
Span: Peak-only route (5:30am - 8:30am inbound, 4pm - 6:30pm outbound)

The first half of the route duplicates an area which already has the pre-existing core bus route (453) and about two or three other rockets. The second half of the route passes through an area which could draw reasonable patronage, but the 468 drops back to hourly frequency and goes on useless urban safari once the 467 stops operating. With reasonable parking at both Oxley and Darra, why would you catch the bus?

The 467 actually didn't used to do that.  It used to only run Sinnamon-Oxley.

Paid parking is not necessary until at the very least, there are meaningful feeder buses in place. Right now most feeder buses are pathetic and compete with bus routes which go direct to the CBD.

Oh it's very necessary.  Without paid parking no one will use a feeder bus when they have a car in the garage.  They'd much rather compete with other travellers for parking space.

[somebody]

When have you ever argued for an improvement which would carry a substantial number of passengers?

Your in it. The Translink review for the northern region.

I admire your ability to model transport outcomes perfectly with a minimum of effort.

I don't believe you were being sarcastic when you called the 329 a good route when it was first announced.

The defining moments of your entire posting on this board are when you argued against increased counter peak trains at Milton and against increased frequency on the Caboolture line out of peak.  You probably also argued against trimming fat from the timetables.

I cannot consider you an advocate for better PT services.  So there.