SEQ Bus Network Review

[James]

This probably has to be my favourite part of the message advising customers of the changes:

Wesley Hospital
- Do you normally use the P88 to travel to the Wesley Hospital? You've still got plenty of travel options with routes 411, 415, 417, 425, 430, 433, 445, 453, 454 and 460 and high frequency routes 412 and 444.
- The Wesley Hospital is also a short walk from Auchenflower train station, on the Ipswich line.

They forgot to mention the 416 (weekdays, peak only), the 435 (on weekdays), the 450 (on weekends) and the CityCat for those who like walking.  Not even Translink can remember all the routes that go down Coronation Drive, yet alone its customers! Illegible mess.

[ozbob]

They forgot to mention the 416 (weekdays, peak only), the 435 (on weekdays), the 450 (on weekends) and the CityCat for those who like walking.  Not even Translink can remember all the routes that go down Coronation Drive, yet alone its customers! Illegible mess.

  <--- mind map of the ' network ' in many brains ...

[SurfRail]

Rainbow spaghetti.

[STB]

Fairly busy at the moment so have only taken a quick glance at the timetables, but I did spot, which I think is rather cheeky, the 460/461 timetable (minus the 461), still has the same number of trips and same running pattern at similar departure times, all they've done is converted a 461 into a 460, although it still is a defacto 461 in the peak.  In a nutshell, same timetable, same route, just a slight adjustment to the desto screen's route number.

In other words, a non change made to look like a change.  BCC you really are bonkers.   

[STB]

Well, they did do one thing with the 460, and cut off the Inala part...not that it means much.

Also noted that they left out the rail connection times (does BCC think rail doesn't exist?).

By the way, we still have this mess, here's your Rainbow Spahgetti -> http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/121008-450,453,454,P455,P456,P457,P458,P459.pdf

[#Metro]

In other words, a non change made to look like a change.  BCC you really are bonkers.

OMG! The sooner Brisbane Transport is put on the auction block and hit with FULL FORCE PRIVATISATION the better!

[kazzac]

In other words, a non change made to look like a change.  BCC you really are bonkers.

OMG! The sooner Brisbane Transport is put on the auction block and hit with FULL FORCE PRIVATISATION the better!

I agree!>

[techblitz]

the rbwh platform is of sufficient size to warrant some terminating inbound services (transfer onto 66,Hf valley route) Take your pick which ones to terminate lol
with plenty of parking down the road at Normanby!

[HappyTrainGuy]

It would be interesting to know if the 66 could be run as a city/busway loop service ie service RBWH, loop around and head to the valley, through downtown, over to Woolloongabba and then follow the busway back to the RBWH. It would cover off the removal of the 334, 335, 346, 353, 360, 370, 375, 379 RBWH-Valley from the Northside busway etc (chuck in the 330/331/332/333/340/341/370 into a merged route/pattern). Other routes could then also terminate at Woolloongabba. City stops/routes can be modified accordingly.

[James]

Fairly busy at the moment so have only taken a quick glance at the timetables, but I did spot, which I think is rather cheeky, the 460/461 timetable (minus the 461), still has the same number of trips and same running pattern at similar departure times, all they've done is converted a 461 into a 460, although it still is a defacto 461 in the peak.  In a nutshell, same timetable, same route, just a slight adjustment to the desto screen's route number.

In other words, a non change made to look like a change.  BCC you really are bonkers.   

SOP for BCC. One thing I do like about the 460 is now it goes to Heathwood instead of up to Inala. Inala already has the 100 to access Forest Lake and the City, and Heathwood now gets a superior service. On another note, disappointed in the frequency reductions of the 468. Regardless of the whether they were high patronage or not, cutting their frequency was NOT the answer. This is only going to cause more people to drive to the station. I think a lot of the changes in the Inala area were warranted, but it is far from a step forward in most cases.

Also noted that they left out the rail connection times (does BCC think rail doesn't exist?).

By the way, we still have this mess, here's your Rainbow Spahgetti -> http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/121008-450,453,454,P455,P456,P457,P458,P459.pdf

In short, yes. Trains still connect though.

The Centenary Rockets are really quite the mess. P457/P458/P459 all should get the axe, they are no better than routes like the 431 and 446. Low patronage, add network complexity and only run a few services every day. Might as well just make those services into P455/P456. At least the rockets don't carry as much air as the Coro Drive routes do.

On the note of close termination - unless routes are genuinely proven to carry air (in which case they should be cut altogether, but I digress), I disagree with termination close to the CBD. It doesn't save much on route kms and transfer penalties close to one's destination generally aren't attractive. If turning around the service at Normanby, there's only a few km left before you can simply terminate it at Roma Street/KGSBS. In peak it may be warranted due to congestion in the core section of the network. But measures like this are just like BCC's bus review - soft changes with minimal consequences. The bus network in Brisbane needed to be torn up and re-done.

[Golliwog]

Fairly busy at the moment so have only taken a quick glance at the timetables, but I did spot, which I think is rather cheeky, the 460/461 timetable (minus the 461), still has the same number of trips and same running pattern at similar departure times, all they've done is converted a 461 into a 460, although it still is a defacto 461 in the peak.  In a nutshell, same timetable, same route, just a slight adjustment to the desto screen's route number.

In other words, a non change made to look like a change.  BCC you really are bonkers.   

SOP for BCC. One thing I do like about the 460 is now it goes to Heathwood instead of up to Inala. Inala already has the 100 to access Forest Lake and the City, and Heathwood now gets a superior service. On another note, disappointed in the frequency reductions of the 468. Regardless of the whether they were high patronage or not, cutting their frequency was NOT the answer. This is only going to cause more people to drive to the station. I think a lot of the changes in the Inala area were warranted, but it is far from a step forward in most cases.

Hey, my favorite frequency cut out of the BCC review is still the 367. When the FG line ran half hourly in the off-peak it pretty much met every train. FG went to every 15 minutes so the bus only met every second service. The change is now to run the bus every hour, though they have at least plugged the gap that existed in the morning, and fixed the horrible one way loop it did in the off-peak.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Currently onboard the 8.25am 345 this morning. With 7 people onboard it overtook the previous 345 (i'm guessing the 8.15 service) at stafford....

[techblitz]

Hey, my favorite frequency cut out of the BCC review is still the 367. When the FG line ran half hourly in the off-peak it pretty much met every train. FG went to every 15 minutes so the bus only met every second service. The change is now to run the bus every hour, though they have at least plugged the gap that existed in the morning, and fixed the horrible one way loop it did in the off-peak.

Golli with regards to the GW shops and Keperra....what was your opinion on translink cutting services completely from cobalt/mungarie st sections in their review?

[Golliwog]

Hey, my favorite frequency cut out of the BCC review is still the 367. When the FG line ran half hourly in the off-peak it pretty much met every train. FG went to every 15 minutes so the bus only met every second service. The change is now to run the bus every hour, though they have at least plugged the gap that existed in the morning, and fixed the horrible one way loop it did in the off-peak.

Golli with regards to the GW shops and Keperra....what was your opinion on translink cutting services completely from cobalt/mungarie st sections in their review?

From memory they weren't? Pretty sure the new Mitchelton-Ferny Grove route still went via Cobalt/Mungarie (if you can find the image wherever it ended up I'm happy to be wrong).

Even if it had, a large part of that can still fairly easily walk out to Samford Rd via Cobalt St or via the bike path that follows the creek through Kindilan Park (though that would need improved lighting at night). Same for walking out from Mungarie to Settlement Rd (though crossing Settlement would be near impossible in peak) but the nations biggest Bunnings that's planned for the site opposite Mungarie St is meant to put traffic lights at that intersection if/when it goes ahead.

There's obviously going to be the losers who are up around Cobalt/Balvenie/Duntreath/Mungarie intersections who have to walk further and also up a hill in one direction, and I think the walk to there is a bit far. Balancing out winners vs. losers I'd probably go with keeping the route on Samford Rd so long as it meant better frequency and span. If you got it to generate enough patronage you might be able to have a coverage route still serving Cobalt for those who can't walk, though at the end of the day if you could get the patronage up and keep the frequency and span, I don't think many would mind if their route took some minor detours on the way to the train station.

My view on the network in general is that a main rd like Samford Rd should have a decent service running down it that should take you to the local activity centers (so out this way Ferny Station/schools, Brookside/Blackwood St/GW). Once you're at said activity center there should be some decent interchange options to get to a number of other places.

[James]

WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL BT BUS CORONATION DRIVE CONGA PARTY - RUNNING ALL DAY EVERY DAY!





You don't win friends with salad We're going to the Ci-ty, We're going to the Ci-ty, We're going to the Ci-ty

AND NOW THE OTHER WAY!





We're going to Indooroopil-ly! We're going to Indooroopil-ly! We're going to Indooroopil-ly!

Graham Quirk's version of the legible, frequent network. Sit back and relax in comfort as you watch up to sixty air parcels per hour barrel down Coronation Drive. Half-empty P457s, 444s and completely empty P88s run past.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Hahaha. The BT conga line in all its glory! 

[hU0N]

Won't really know until a HF 25 was put in place ...   Ipswich Highway will be getting much worse ...

Put on a HF 25 Smart Bus, promote and see what happens.  That will do a lot for folks going to Springfield etc. as well.

BUZ 100 carries air a lot of time.  The high patronage really reflects the inner parts of  the routes that would have been well covered. 

The 100 was to remain anyway.  TransLink have the real data and that informed the initial review.  You know more?

I recall Simon posting once that the 100 BUZ is the most cost inefficient of all the BUZ routes ...

Anyway, what I see is what I see ...  I do not like your assertions of otherwise either.  I have been travelling counterpeak PM on the Ipswich Highway daily for the last two months for reasons I do not wish disclose.  I have yet to see a well loaded 100 bus (on the highway between Rocklea/Oxley).  Sure there will be some but the distinct impression I get it is not the most efficient BUZ on the network by a long shot.

I think I might have already put this on the forum, but for the last few months I have been needing to get to/from the Blunder Road area every few weeks. In this instance I have been coming from UQ. Every time I have used BUZ 100, it has been because of the FREQUENCY of the route. The fact I would have had a double transfer going via the 428/Ipswich Line/101 didn't weigh in to my considerations when thinking of 100 vs. 101. The 101 is HOURLY, and conveniently timed so it arrives just after a 100 BUZ along Blunder Road, which is running every 15 minutes.

It reminds me of 215/225. What would you rather catch if going to the CBD - an hourly feeder bus or an hourly bus to the CBD? The bus to the CBD wins every time, and with 100 (to the CBD) running every 15 minutes, no wonder it does well. The feeder needs to be more attractive and it needs to be shown to the people of Inala/Forest Lake that their journey times will be similar.

I have found that the 100 can get very good loads in the peak direction, but counter peak the route does awfully. In my opinion, BUZ 100 should have been turned into a feeder. I believe out of principle, buses should not be going from zones 5 and 6 directly into the CBD (130/140/150 are exceptions as they are more symbols of how Queensland has totally failed to effectively expand the capacity of the rail network). Buses are not efficient modes of transit for travelling long distances in cities. Unfortunately we've already gone down that path, so the 100 would need to be kept - I think 15 minute peak frequency + 30 minute off-peak frequency would be enough.

I think HF25 was a very good new route - the only issue I had was sending HF25 down to Riverhills afterwards. I don't think that was a good idea and it gave the tail of the route 7.5 minute frequency at 9pm on a Sunday night. Much better just to trim the route at Mt Ommaney.

This, except the bit about showing the locals that the journey time is similar.  All the research and all the experience in the world indicates that you can educate until the cows come home, but unless your message is "*** THE FEEDER BUS IS 10 MINUTES FASTER! ***" then it makes squat all difference.

People want to be compensated for the hassle of transferring, and for most people the amount of compensation they want is a 10 minute time saving.

[ozbob]

Hahaha. The BT conga line in all its glory! 

Yes all rather sad ...

By rationalising the duplications, improving connections, this frees up valuable service dollars for improvements and new services.  Selfish people cannot move past their own self interest.  My own view is that the community need overall is far more important.

< --- BCC meeting ...

[James]

This, except the bit about showing the locals that the journey time is similar.  All the research and all the experience in the world indicates that you can educate until the cows come home, but unless your message is "*** THE FEEDER BUS IS 10 MINUTES FASTER! ***" then it makes squat all difference.

People want to be compensated for the hassle of transferring, and for most people the amount of compensation they want is a 10 minute time saving.

I hate to tell you this, but in the off-peak not even one's own car is 10 minutes faster than BUZ 100. The feeder, in peak hour, will be faster by a few minutes, but off-peak it will be about 5 minutes slower (due to a transfer penalty). Unfortunately the route is already frequent so we can't market frequency increases as a reason, so in the end we'd have to market the increased connectivity of the route, better local access, improved reliability and quite possibly the hard truth that BUZ 100 wastes money. BUZ 100 is a good example of a route which should never have been BUZed in its current form or with the span of hours it has. BUZ 444 is in the same situation. Built-up areas along the inner section which warrant a BUZ (Moggill Rd to Kenmore Park n Ride has always deserved BUZ frequency), but then running through areas with few trip generators.

People living anywhere beyond zone 3 do not deserve express buses to their doorsteps, because buses were not built for that job. Obviously due to the failure of successive governments to develop the rail network, we have numerous exceptions to this rule. 130/140/150 are the main example, a Bracken Ridge BUZ and similar BUZ routes are also in the same boat.

[#Metro]

Signs are going up - P88 is being pulled and 77 is going down to hourly.
They really want to make it long drawn out. They should just put BT up for sale and auction it off and put everyone out of their misery.

[techblitz]

590 changes

[hU0N]

This, except the bit about showing the locals that the journey time is similar.  All the research and all the experience in the world indicates that you can educate until the cows come home, but unless your message is "*** THE FEEDER BUS IS 10 MINUTES FASTER! ***" then it makes squat all difference.

People want to be compensated for the hassle of transferring, and for most people the amount of compensation they want is a 10 minute time saving.

I hate to tell you this, but in the off-peak not even one's own car is 10 minutes faster than BUZ 100. The feeder, in peak hour, will be faster by a few minutes, but off-peak it will be about 5 minutes slower (due to a transfer penalty). Unfortunately the route is already frequent so we can't market frequency increases as a reason, so in the end we'd have to market the increased connectivity of the route, better local access, improved reliability and quite possibly the hard truth that BUZ 100 wastes money. BUZ 100 is a good example of a route which should never have been BUZed in its current form or with the span of hours it has. BUZ 444 is in the same situation. Built-up areas along the inner section which warrant a BUZ (Moggill Rd to Kenmore Park n Ride has always deserved BUZ frequency), but then running through areas with few trip generators.

People living anywhere beyond zone 3 do not deserve express buses to their doorsteps, because buses were not built for that job. Obviously due to the failure of successive governments to develop the rail network, we have numerous exceptions to this rule. 130/140/150 are the main example, a Bracken Ridge BUZ and similar BUZ routes are also in the same boat.

You raise an interesting point (and one I hadn't thought of before).  When you feederize a bus route, you add a disincentive to use it.  If the feederization is to be successful, it MUST MUST MUST be combined with sufficient other incentives to offset both the transfer delay AND the time value of the inconvenience (which are the two contributors to transfer penalty)*.  If these incentives aren't large enough you wind up inadvertently pushing commuters off buses and into their cars.

The best incentive is (of course) shorter journey times, which you can achieve in three ways.

• Rerouting the feeder away from slow streets
• Decreasing the average wait times (by increasing frequency)
• Increasing operating speed of the trunk

Combining all three methods, you need to save more than 10 minutes (which is rather a lot), otherwise your feederization is bound to fail.

The point you raise that interested me is that creating a BUZ route extracts maximum benefit from 1 and 2 without creating a feeder route, and in so doing makes a successful feederization much, much harder in the future, because the feederization process still needs to be combined with a minimum ten minute time saving that must now be achieved solely by increasing the operating speed of the trunk.

The implication is that creation of BUZ routes locks you into a bus centric future.

-----------------
* IIRC..

• transfer delay = Trunk route headway / 2
• time value of inconvenience = ~10min

[Set in train]

This article mentions Translink Bus Director Lisa Parker, yet no mention of her in any role that features in annual reports since 2010/11.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/06/10/452929_gold-coast-news.html

[SurfRail]

You raise an interesting point (and one I hadn't thought of before).  When you feederize a bus route, you add a disincentive to use it.  If the feederization is to be successful, it MUST MUST MUST be combined with sufficient other incentives to offset both the transfer delay AND the time value of the inconvenience (which are the two contributors to transfer penalty)*.  If these incentives aren't large enough you wind up inadvertently pushing commuters off buses and into their cars.

The best incentive is (of course) shorter journey times, which you can achieve in three ways.

• Rerouting the feeder away from slow streets
• Decreasing the average wait times (by increasing frequency)
• Increasing operating speed of the trunk

Combining all three methods, you need to save more than 10 minutes (which is rather a lot), otherwise your feederization is bound to fail.

The point you raise that interested me is that creating a BUZ route extracts maximum benefit from 1 and 2 without creating a feeder route, and in so doing makes a successful feederization much, much harder in the future, because the feederization process still needs to be combined with a minimum ten minute time saving that must now be achieved solely by increasing the operating speed of the trunk.

The implication is that creation of BUZ routes locks you into a bus centric future.

-----------------
* IIRC..

• transfer delay = Trunk route headway / 2
• time value of inconvenience = ~10min

The very clear benefit is that they could have expanded the high-frequency network to cover about 20% more of the city.  That was what they failed to communicate more than anything else.

[ozbob]

From The Satellite 10th July 2013 page 3

Our pleas are ignored

[STB]

Milton Dick is a bit of an er...d%ck.

The P461 is still there, all BCC did was chop off the Inala to Forest Lake bit (already serviced by BUZ 100), and turn the previous P461s into 460s (even with the same stopping pattern in the peaks - for the most part - noticed there are some part 460 trips from Richlands in the evening).

465 - Route 460 duplicates it, so no loss of service (other than probably a slightly lesser frequency)

466 - Route 101 was altered to cover that area, otherwise it would've been duplicating it if they kept it.

101 - the Blunder Rd section is still covered by BUZ 100.

Milton needs to stop putting out fear and start putting out the information properly on the changes.  There's bigger fish to fry in other areas that should've got the TL treatment rather than the BCC treatment.

[James]

The point you raise that interested me is that creating a BUZ route extracts maximum benefit from 1 and 2 without creating a feeder route, and in so doing makes a successful feederization much, much harder in the future, because the feederization process still needs to be combined with a minimum ten minute time saving that must now be achieved solely by increasing the operating speed of the trunk.

The implication is that creation of BUZ routes locks you into a bus centric future.

-----------------
* IIRC..

• transfer delay = Trunk route headway / 2
• time value of inconvenience = ~10min

And in bold is the big problem. We cannot continue to have a bus-centric future. In my opinion, a transfer to a connective network needs to occur sooner rather than later. Yes, 100 BUZ users are going to lose out by around 5 minutes off-peak, but that is the only sustainable way of doing things. If they still want their unsustainable rocket to their doorstep, fine. They can go drive their cars, or sardine can on to the remaining 100 services. All of them. What's faster now they're all stuck in traffic along the Ipswich Motorway... 

Once again, it needs to be stressed BUZ 100 wasts money. At the very least, the route's frequency needs a big haircut counter-peak. The bus-centric direct service network needs to stop. We cannot continue to waste money on routes like this.

Milton Dick is a bit of an er...d%ck.

Milton the Dick is an idiot, and this resident is not much better. "I don't know where my new bus is going to go." This could be a revolutionary idea, but maybe you could well, look up the recommended changes on the website or inquire at a BCC library.

I think even if you cut a bus route which carries no passengers he'd still go on about how "heartless" the government is and how "poor old grandma can't get to bingo." There's a reason why these bus routes are being changed.

[techblitz]

Inala residents should be thankful they have the 100 retained at buz standard

[Arnz]

Good to see they're addressing the USC route timings (607/616/617/618/636), retiming them in line with the University start times. 

Cotton Tree businesses and residents get a reprieve due to a large amount of feedback concerning the replacement of the 600 with the less frequent 610.   Route 600 will now continue through Cotton Tree but via Memorial Avenue (instead of The Esplanade) on a more "straightened" route, and closer to residents in the area.  Plus they score a frequency increase from every 15 minutes to a 'turn-up-and-go' service.

Route 610 will now terminate at Maroochydore with passengers continuing to destinations further south to change at Sunshine Plaza (should be easier with the new station) since buses originating from the north will terminate on the Southbound platform at the new station.

The routes getting the increase are 600/605/615/630/631, all either trunk or train/link services.  IIRC, they will likely plug the current holes to ensure buses meet every daytime and early evening train services. (Late evening services (eg after 10pm) will not likely be met due to low demand).

[longboi]

This article mentions Translink Bus Director Lisa Parker, yet no mention of her in any role that features in annual reports since 2010/11.

http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2013/06/10/452929_gold-coast-news.html

She is still in that role.

[longboi]

Milton the Dick is an idiot, and this resident is not much better. "I don't know where my new bus is going to go." This could be a revolutionary idea, but maybe you could well, look up the recommended changes on the website or inquire at a BCC library.

I think even if you cut a bus route which carries no passengers he'd still go on about how "heartless" the government is and how "poor old grandma can't get to bingo." There's a reason why these bus routes are being changed.

Staff will be out to hand hold people like this and you're right...the BCC are only interested in the people that bother with Council politics (i.e. the elderly).

[ozbob]

Talking about the 100.  Last evening heading inbound along Ipswich Highway around 6.30pm there was a vehicle that blocked one of the outbound lanes (possible bingle).  Massive car park and I spotted 4 100 buses marooned along in the gridlock as I tracked in  between Oxley and Rocklea ...  buses appeared to be about 1/4  full at best.

[hU0N]

And in bold is the big problem. We cannot continue to have a bus-centric future. In my opinion, a transfer to a connective network needs to occur sooner rather than later. Yes, 100 BUZ users are going to lose out by around 5 minutes off-peak, but that is the only sustainable way of doing things. If they still want their unsustainable rocket to their doorstep, fine. They can go drive their cars, or sardine can on to the remaining 100 services. All of them. What's faster now they're all stuck in traffic along the Ipswich Motorway... 

Once again, it needs to be stressed BUZ 100 wasts money. At the very least, the route's frequency needs a big haircut counter-peak. The bus-centric direct service network needs to stop. We cannot continue to waste money on routes like this.

More than that.  Cancelling the 100 BUZ would leave passengers the equivalent of 3-8 minutes worse off during peak (depending on which feeder route was the most convenient), and the equivalent of 20-25 minutes worse off during peak.  (Assuming that no routing or frequency improvements are made to the feeders).

It doesn't change the fact that BUZ 100 is very expensive to run compared to other buses, but I think that this is largely due to the remoteness of Forest Lake itself.  As long as you are looking at the route in terms of first order effects only (that is, how the route serves it's direct customers), it's actually probably not a bad solution.  I suspect that BCC tends to look at routes in only these terms.

As SurfRail pointed out though, it's the second order effects (that is, how the route impacts customers on other routes) that are interesting.

The very clear benefit is that they could have expanded the high-frequency network to cover about 20% more of the city.  That was what they failed to communicate more than anything else.

As I see it, you have four options with BUZ 100

• LEAVE IT AS IT IS. Same cost for same benefit
  
• SIMPLY CANCEL BUZ100. This would save money, but push the great majority of the BUZ100 passengers into cars.  It would have very little effect on feeder bus or train patronage.
• CANCEL BUZ100 / IMPROVE FEEDERS.  Assuming a tripling of feeder frequency, you'd deliver customers slightly improved peak performance (of 2-7 minutes) and significantly worse off peak performance.  This would probably attract a small net number of new passengers out of cars and onto PT (with peak increases offset by off peak drop off).  But you wouldn't save any money (savings would be eaten up by the feeders, and trains cost what they cost to run regardless of how many people are on board).
  
  The question is, would BUZ100 be a worthwhile service at 105% of it's current patronage?  If not, then why would spending the same amount of money on improved feeders be worth it, when they would likely deliver a similarly small growth in patronage?  The answer could only be yes if you think train passengers are inherently more valuable than bus passengers.  Me, I think that a person leaving the car at home is a person leaving the car at home.
• CANCEL BUZ100 / IMPROVE OTHER SERVICES ELSEWHERE.  Again, this option would not save any money.  But, if you were prepared to leave the residents of Forest Lake to spin in the wind, you could probably find routes elsewhere in SEQ where the money would deliver a much larger growth in PT patronage.  Potentially you could swap the newly created drivers from Forest Lake with newly created bus passengers from Fig Tree Pocket, and still have some money left over to attract additional bus passengers somewhere else.

[techblitz]

theres more housing estates going up around inala/richlands areas which will further add to the buz 100 patronage in the future.
Imho the 100 buz serves it best purpose shuffling forest lake/inala residents DIRECT to the P.A hospital. Cannot get a more direct path to a much needed medical facility for this region. BT well done!
Im sure there are many residents that would be thankful for this!!

[ozbob]

The question really is does the patronage really warrant a BUZ as such ...

No it doesn't.  TransLink have the data.  The original TL bus changes simply cut the frequency back on the 100, still there but wanted to make more use of the peak rail capacity particularly, and in so doing speed up trips for many at peak.  This in turn would have enabled more bus services elsewhere  ...

A more community focus is needed on ensuring all parts of Brisbane have adequate services.

[#Metro]

A more community focus is needed on ensuring all parts of Brisbane have adequate services.

Exactly. Others miss this point. A BUZ to Inala may well have been great but they would have got one to rail anyway, the 100 would still be retained, and perhaps the people of Centenary, Yeronga, Northwest would also have BUZ services in exchange for a small delay to Inala residents.

BCC councillors can't see this because they can't see beyond their ward boundaries.

[Gazza]

100 buz serves it best purpose shuffling forest lake/inala residents DIRECT to the P.A hospital. Cannot get a more direct path to a much needed medical facility for this region. BT well done!

So the 100 needs to be every 15 mins 7 days a week to the PA, but the 104 to the PA shall only be hourly, with lesser span of operations?

[techblitz]

27 minutes to get from Corinda station to P.A hospital am peak
only 5 minutes longer to get from inala plaza to P.A hospital at PEAK am inbound!

I know if I was an inala resident I would be rather peeved if I was forced to transfer to the P.A hospital via Corinda station

as for the 104....well well.....just another example of a FAILED crosstown route.

[#Metro]

as for the 104....well well.....just another example of a FAILED crosstown route.

Route 104, before its current configuration, never had many passengers on it anyway. It is a coverage route that isn't intended for high volume passengers but coverage. It's NEVER had high patronage, before OR after changes. In the olden days, it terminated on the wrong side of the PA hospital. Now it goes down Fairfield Road (good) and ends at PA Hospital at the busway station where there are facilities for disabled people to get into the hospital.

You could boost route 104 patronage overnight by simply sending it over the Eleanor Schonell Bridge to UQ Lakes before it reaches the PA Hospital. That way you could distribute passengers from UQ to Fairfield, Yeronga and Tennyson. Plenty of students live in that area, it's one of Brisbane's largest rental suburbs.

[longboi]

theres more housing estates going up around inala/richlands areas which will further add to the buz 100 patronage in the future.
Imho the 100 buz serves it best purpose shuffling forest lake/inala residents DIRECT to the P.A hospital. Cannot get a more direct path to a much needed medical facility for this region. BT well done!
Im sure there are many residents that would be thankful for this!!

But what sort of rationale is there behind a direct trip every 15 minutes between Inala/Forest Lake and the PAH? Are there really that many sick people in the area? Do you have the boarding and alighting stats for route 100?

It's not like it's a discretionary trip. When someone has an appointment they have to be there at a certain time. By scaling back the frequency the worst position that person could be in is that they have to leave home 15 minutes earlier (assuming the frequency was scaled back to 30 minutes).