SEQ Bus Network Review

[#Metro]

A hospital will be built at Springfield in time, take pressure off the PA.
http://www.qt.com.au/news/springfield-hospital-unveiled-hospital-to-service-/1881991/

[James]

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.

I never said anything about canning the 100, nor do I believe that the trips would take 20-25 minutes longer in peak. There is actually a time saving in peak. If you could drive the bus right on to the train, there'd be no time lost. You are assuming we keep the frequency of the feeders as is, and that is a very poor assumption. I am talking about following Route 100 routings to the Oxley Bunnings, then instead of proceeding along the motorway, proceeding to Oxley station.

It is a good solution for the customers it serves, but so are all other rockets-to-people's-doorsteps (161, 444, 330 etc.) The route wastes money, and resources saved from the feeder could be better used elsewhere. As I mentioned, resources could merely be saved by toning down frequency and reducing the frequency of counter-peak services.

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.

Canning the 100 totally is a bad idea. Reduced frequency with BUZ feeder frequency is the best practice. This allows for services elsewhere to be improved. The 100 BUZ wastes money and cannot be left in its current form.

Finally - on the note of the PAH - I never said can the route entirely, and this is one reason why. 100 still should remain in reduced frequency for now due to the need to connect Inala/Forest Lake to the Southside. Without it, passengers must connect via either the 122 or the CBD (or a double change). Neither are attractive.

[#Metro]

I don't know what the big fuss is. BUZ 100 has only been a BUZ for about 2 years, and indeed we asked for it to be BUZzed. The apocalypse will not happen if it goes back to what it originally was. Granted, we had not yet had the review and there was no feeder proposal at that time either.

See --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4873.0

[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!!

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).

After 9/10pm residents in inala and forest lake currently have piece of mind that they can get to the PAH hospital quick smart...as opposed to fartassing around via Oxley,roma st,southbank then back out to the hospital. Which is most likely what they were facing if the TL proposals were passed with only the secondary route to rely on direct to the hospital. I believe inala is a suburb which needs better access to medical facilities than other suburbs due to the demographic issues it faces. Low median incomes,an unemployment level well over 10 percent and 19 percent of residents who are without a vehicle.

[ozbob]

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).

After 9/10pm residents in inala and forest lake currently have piece of mind that they can get to the PAH hospital quick smart...as opposed to fartassing around via Oxley,roma st,southbank then back out to the hospital. Which is most likely what they were facing if the TL proposals were passed with only the secondary route to rely on direct to the hospital. I believe inala is a suburb which needs better access to medical facilities than other suburbs due to the demographic issues it faces. Low median incomes,an unemployment level well over 10 percent and 19 percent of residents who are without a vehicle.

What about Goodna, what about Logan?  Hardly justification to run an empty BUZ at night.  The 100 bus would still be in place, a lot better option than most of middle and outer Brisbane ..  anyone who needs urgent transport to hospital can get it at that time of night. 

[James]

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).

After 9/10pm residents in inala and forest lake currently have piece of mind that they can get to the PAH hospital quick smart...as opposed to fartassing around via Oxley,roma st,southbank then back out to the hospital. Which is most likely what they were facing if the TL proposals were passed with only the secondary route to rely on direct to the hospital. I believe inala is a suburb which needs better access to medical facilities than other suburbs due to the demographic issues it faces. Low median incomes,an unemployment level well over 10 percent and 19 percent of residents who are without a vehicle.

Aside from in an emergency (in which case PT isn't an emergency vehicle, I would be unnerved if someone in a medical emergency was told to go to hospital in a bus), there is no need for an inbound bus to the PA running at 15 minute frequency from Inala/Forest Lake. There are numerous suburbs which are in a similar situation to Inala - should we give them a BUZ to the PA too?

Yes, that link is necessary, but it doesn't need to operate on 15 minute frequency to the PA at 9/10pm at night. If there was the demand for such services, I think we'd see that the bus wouldn't be losing as much money as it does.

[STB]

At a semi-educated guess, I'd say that the main patronage at that time of night would be along the Ipswich Rd corridor itself rather than Inala/Forest Lake.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, I don't actually mind seeing BUZ style/marketed routes along major corridors like Ipswich Road (up until around Moorooka into the City) as at least it gives that main corridor a service that people will recognize straight away as reliable.  I think the bigger problem is having all these secondary routes placed on top of the primary route (route 100) along Ipswich Road heading into the city which confuses the network.

Does the 100 need to head all the way to Inala/Forest Lake after 9pm/10pm?  I think the local routes to the Richlands and Darra stations at that time is sufficient, and route 110 operating hourly is enough, which gets more coverage (and potential patronage) via Acacia Ridge IMHO.  I'd definately keep route 100 operating at least every 30mins at night to Moorooka though, so that medium/high density corridor is serviced (along with the PA Hospital and Annerley).

[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).

After 9/10pm residents in inala and forest lake currently have piece of mind that they can get to the PAH hospital quick smart...as opposed to fartassing around via Oxley,roma st,southbank then back out to the hospital. Which is most likely what they were facing if the TL proposals were passed with only the secondary route to rely on direct to the hospital. I believe inala is a suburb which needs better access to medical facilities than other suburbs due to the demographic issues it faces. Low median incomes,an unemployment level well over 10 percent and 19 percent of residents who are without a vehicle.

Not entirely sure why Inala should receive special treatment over other suburbs with high rates of unemployment etc.

If someone is sick to the point they can't wait to visit the GP in the morning and don't have the means to get to a hospital themselves, they are entitled to call an ambulance. That's why they exist.

Besides, vast swathes of SEQ is serviced by what would be classed as "secondary routes" in terms of frequency and span. How do the other hundreds of thousands of people who live in these areas survive? Inala isn't the only socially and economically depressed area in Brisbane.

And "Fartarsing around" really shows the level of thought you have put into. Aside from some sort of self-interest.

[Golliwog]

On an unrelated note, I got bored and so poked around in the RTI disclosure log on the TMR website (it appears since Translink shifted to be part of TMR they no longer publish their own RTI log on their website) and found a few things that would be of interest

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Right-to-Information/Disclosure-log.aspx

3 April 2013    135/01772    
All correspondence between the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Director–General of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Translink, Brisbane Transport, Brisbane City Council and the Lord Mayor's Office relating to the recent bus review.    
Currently being processed

Not available yet, but watch that space. There was also an RTI request put in on the 20th June regarding plans for the extension of the GC light rail, but it too is not yet completed.

[hU0N]

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

• LEAVE IT AS IT IS. Same cost for same benefit
  
• SIMPLY CANCEL (edit: or scale back) 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 (edit: or scale back) 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 (edit: or scale back) 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.

Canning the 100 totally is a bad idea. Reduced frequency with BUZ feeder frequency is the best practice. This allows for services elsewhere to be improved. The 100 BUZ wastes money and cannot be left in its current form.

Fair enough.  But scaling back the 100 BUZ to half hourly is similar to straight out cancelling in that it would save money, but add an equivalent 8min delay, which would send a fair number of passengers back to their cars (as would any change that removed the fastest available PT option). Without significant additional spending on feeder services, the BUZ is far and away the fastest PT option in Inala.

The point is, you either spend the money in Forest Lake/Inala (whether on BUZ, feeders, trains doesn't really matter), or you encourage people to drive just as surely as if you built them a spanking new tunnel.

[SurfRail]

Speed is nowhere near the most important consideration - I'm convinced frequency and availability of service is much, much more important.

On the 100 corridor, the only stop which would not have had high-frequency levels of service was the stop at Moorooka station.  Every stop south of there was covered by a feeder to Oxley and Darra, and every stop north of there was covered by another high-frequency service.  There is every chance 15 minute frequency may be achievable for the inner Beenleigh line in the next review which would also solve Moorooka.

If keeping a direct link to the PAH is the only significant reason to keep the service going, that makes it a welfare obligation and not important enough for high-frequency at late night (or indeed at all).  Spend the money on providing somebody else with a high-frequency service during daylight hours.

[James]

Fair enough.  But scaling back the 100 BUZ to half hourly is similar to straight out cancelling in that it would save money, but add an equivalent 8min delay, which would send a fair number of passengers back to their cars (as would any change that removed the fastest available PT option). Without significant additional spending on feeder services, the BUZ is far and away the fastest PT option in Inala.

The point is, you either spend the money in Forest Lake/Inala (whether on BUZ, feeders, trains doesn't really matter), or you encourage people to drive just as surely as if you built them a spanking new tunnel.

Of course the 100 is the fastest option to the CBD (off-peak, in peak a feeder is slightly faster if done at same frequency) - this is because it uses a fast corridor (including a motorway) and direct routing. The issue is BUZ 100 wastes money - money which can be better spent on getting people out of cars in Bulimba, Yeronga and the Centenary suburbs. Money which could be put towards rail frequency increases.

Your suggestion that half-hourly 100 frequency is equal to outright cancelling the route is a very false judgement. My local city route (the 411) is half-hourly off-peak, and cancelling it would make a huge difference. The 100 should remain at reduced frequency to serve a welfare and access purpose. By decreasing frequency, resources are used better, while still catering for the current demand. People living in Inala/Forest Lake do not deserve an express bus to the CBD - it is unsustainable and a poor use of resources. The F25 was a better way of doing things.

[hU0N]

Of course the 100 is the fastest option to the CBD (off-peak, in peak a feeder is slightly faster if done at same frequency) - this is because it uses a fast corridor (including a motorway) and direct routing. The issue is BUZ 100 wastes money - money which can be better spent on getting people out of cars in Bulimba, Yeronga and the Centenary suburbs. Money which could be put towards rail frequency increases.

Your suggestion that half-hourly 100 frequency is equal to outright cancelling the route is a very false judgement. My local city route (the 411) is half-hourly off-peak, and cancelling it would make a huge difference. The 100 should remain at reduced frequency to serve a welfare and access purpose. By decreasing frequency, resources are used better, while still catering for the current demand. People living in Inala/Forest Lake do not deserve an express bus to the CBD - it is unsustainable and a poor use of resources. The F25 was a better way of doing things.

I think we are arguing the same side of the maths regarding journey times.  Out of peak, the 100 beats a theoretical frequent feeder hands down.  In peak, it's about line ball (no more than 1-2 minutes either way, depending on the bus stop).  But the feeder ISN'T a frequent service.  So the 100 is ALWAYS faster than the existing feeders, in peak or out.

I think that we also both agree that any scaling back of the 100 needs to go hand in hand with ramping up of the feeder services, or else you leave the people of Forest Lake with a less attractive PT option than they currently have, which simply encourages car dependency.

Where we disagree is on the economic implications of this change.  You are saying that if the 100 was cut back, you could use the money saved to ramp up the feeder services, then also use the money saved to improve services in other areas, such as Bulimba, Centenary etc.  I disagree on this point because in real world situations where this kind of feederization has occurred, there is precious little money left over to direct to services elsewhere.  (Perth for example, which has reported that the vkm per boarding on feeder services is similar to the vkm per boarding on the direct buses they replaced).

The current peak hour situation is 6x100 BUZ + 3x462/465 + 2x466 every hour.  To provide an equivalent peak hour service to most BUZ 100 passengers, you would need the combined 462/465 to run at 10min freq (double the current 20min freq), and make a 3km route deviation; and the 466 to run at 10min freq (triple the current), and make a 2km route deviation.  In other words, you could provide the same (or better) level of service with 2x100 + 6x462/465 + 6x466.

The current situation amounts to 116 vkm (all stops mode) + 84 vkm (trunk mode) every hour.  You could replace this with 142 vkm (all stops mode) + 28 vkm (trunk mode) every hour.  I agree that the feeders offer a lower overall vkm, but not by much.  And when you take into account that an all stops bus costs more per kilometre to run (lower speed, more stops, more manoeuvring), you can see that, even with very approximate maths, the difference in cost between providing the current level of service with many direct buses is similar to the cost of providing the same level of service with feeders instead.  Which leaves very little money left over for running services in other areas.

All this is what I was getting at originally.  If you want to provide a quality PT service between the city and a distant suburb like Forest Lake / Inala, it's going to be expensive.  You can't rejig it in a way that is going to maintain the quality of service AND save money that can be redeployed to other areas.  You simply can't.

[techblitz]

The only way efficient change will come is if BT lose control over inala/forest lake and another operator comes in like hornibrook.
While I have nothing against this happening...I do know  we will  once again see large petitions signed if they ever try to cancel the frequent peak services to and from the city. repeating myself here but TLinks proposals would have seen us back to the days of `sorry bus full` on the secondary route (to which we didn't know the frequency).
Inala/forest lake residents have been using buses for years to get to the city. A lot of them are still in their old ways when it comes to connecting to rail. Convincing them otherwise looks like it needs more of a concerted effort by advocates. Because we know local councellors wont be doing it.

[James]

repeating myself here but TLinks proposals would have seen us back to the days of `sorry bus full` on the secondary route (to which we didn't know the frequency).
Inala/forest lake residents have been using buses for years to get to the city. A lot of them are still in their old ways when it comes to connecting to rail. Convincing them otherwise looks like it needs more of a concerted effort by advocates. Because we know local councellors wont be doing it.

Bolded - and if this is occurring in peak, fine, chuck a few extra services on then. But by removing the BUZ standard, you can remove money-wasting counter-peak and late night services. Hopefully after a while a lot of them will realise the feeder is faster and switch to the feeder. Counter-peak, BUZ 100 will never do well counter-peak past about Chardons Corner. There is simply not the demand there. The fact is, the route wastes money. In peak I suspect it does well, but outside of peak the route definitely loses money.

Remember, this route has a moderate value for money. That is, per service, even hourly air-parcels like the 417 and 'epitome of waste' routes like the 161 lose less money on average per service compared to the 100. And remember, there are five hundred 100 journeys each week in both directions. Money-wise, there is no other BUZ route which loses so much money.

I think we are arguing the same side of the maths regarding journey times.  Out of peak, the 100 beats a theoretical frequent feeder hands down.  In peak, it's about line ball (no more than 1-2 minutes either way, depending on the bus stop).  But the feeder ISN'T a frequent service.  So the 100 is ALWAYS faster than the existing feeders, in peak or out.

I think that we also both agree that any scaling back of the 100 needs to go hand in hand with ramping up of the feeder services, or else you leave the people of Forest Lake with a less attractive PT option than they currently have, which simply encourages car dependency.

Where we disagree is on the economic implications of this change.  You are saying that if the 100 was cut back, you could use the money saved to ramp up the feeder services, then also use the money saved to improve services in other areas, such as Bulimba, Centenary etc.  I disagree on this point because in real world situations where this kind of feederization has occurred, there is precious little money left over to direct to services elsewhere.  (Perth for example, which has reported that the vkm per boarding on feeder services is similar to the vkm per boarding on the direct buses they replaced).

The current peak hour situation is 6x100 BUZ + 3x462/465 + 2x466 every hour.  To provide an equivalent peak hour service to most BUZ 100 passengers, you would need the combined 462/465 to run at 10min freq (double the current 20min freq), and make a 3km route deviation; and the 466 to run at 10min freq (triple the current), and make a 2km route deviation.  In other words, you could provide the same (or better) level of service with 2x100 + 6x462/465 + 6x466.

The current situation amounts to 116 vkm (all stops mode) + 84 vkm (trunk mode) every hour.  You could replace this with 142 vkm (all stops mode) + 28 vkm (trunk mode) every hour.  I agree that the feeders offer a lower overall vkm, but not by much.  And when you take into account that an all stops bus costs more per kilometre to run (lower speed, more stops, more manoeuvring), you can see that, even with very approximate maths, the difference in cost between providing the current level of service with many direct buses is similar to the cost of providing the same level of service with feeders instead.  Which leaves very little money left over for running services in other areas.

All this is what I was getting at originally.  If you want to provide a quality PT service between the city and a distant suburb like Forest Lake / Inala, it's going to be expensive.  You can't rejig it in a way that is going to maintain the quality of service AND save money that can be redeployed to other areas.  You simply can't.

Of course we are, feeder buses are almost never faster than direct trip buses on trip time alone, and feeder frequency would increase with the de-BUZing of the 100. For me to argue to contrary would defy logic.

In regards to the economic impacts, lets look at the vehicle km per service:
100 BUZ: 27.1 km
BUZ feeder to Oxley (i.e. minimum required) following 100 BUZ route from Bunnings Oxley to terminus: 14.4 km
Feeder km as a percentage of 100 BUZ km: 53.1%
Thus, if you feederised 100 BUZ, you could almost double service frequency for no additional cost. Probably a bit more on that given that dead running has been reduced. Or in other words, by halving 100 BUZ frequency, you can provide a feeder at BUZ standard.

This then allows for the removal of the other useless feeders, long dead-running and appropriate changes to service - enough to fund routes elsewhere. Thinking that feeders should currently be routed the way they are now is dumb. The 102, 462, 465, 466 and to a lesser extent, the 101 and 103, are all very poor feeder routes. The existence of the 465 is very dumb. 460 should just be extended to Heathwood. 462 is in a similar boat, but is made even worse by that dumb Centenary Village deviation - cut cut cut! If you want to live in a little pocket of suburbia which is hard to access, don't expect a bus service nearby. 466 just gets too much competition from all the other feeders and hardly serves a good cross-town function. The 101, 102 and 103 are all hourly. Totally useless.

There is a way to rejig the service and still provide a service which saves resources. Keep in mind past Bunnings Oxley, the 100 is all-stops anyway. Stop spacing is not an issue in this case - or any case - just decrease the amount of stops the feeder makes!

[HappyTrainGuy]

Following up on what James is saying. Even the buz network on the northside suffers the same fate as the 100 but the wasted $$$ is even higher. Its just stupid that at night the 330/333/340 are all running at 15 minute frequencies when all those passengers can fit on to one bus. Counter peak 330/340 at night just doesn't have the trip generator factor for those inbound and some outbound services to warrant that type of frequency. Even getting the 330/340 to terminate at Chermside so passengers can interchange onto a 333 is still a small step at reducing costs (330/340 should really terminate at Chermside and run 30 mins Bracken Ridge/Carseldine to and from Chermside with passengers transfering onto a 333). There's always thursday night shopping but outside that they really struggle to attract patronage.

Personally I like the buz standard operating hours but the buz frequency after 9pm is what really needs to be addressed across the whole network.

[techblitz]

agreed htg

much bigger fish to fry than the 100,bulimba and centenary anyways
the 2 highest priorities are fixing the 330/340/333 duplication and maroon glider/222/200
Im tipping this will be the next major focus for BT in the coming 12-24 months

[James]

I think trimming of the 400 series at Indro is a bigger priority. Not because it's my own area, but because it is so simple to do. Simply terminate all but a few routes (lets say 430, 444 and 454 only continue to the City) at Indro and there, done. So many resources saved - people don't even need to change to rail if BCC doesn't want them to! This could be done tomorrow with near zero impact on the current timetables, and the route km saved could probably be enough to pay for increases in frequency in the Centenary suburbs.

HTG - You have a good point. 333/370 should be canned immediately, 330 I would keep as a BUZ, 340 I would consider keeping as a BUZ but trimming the span and frequency in order to avoid under-supplying the Gympie Rd corridor and making too many people grumpy.

BUZes that run from a major hub to a regional activity centre (i.e. Carindale/Chermside) should only exist in the case that there are capacity issues along these major corridors. In all cases, there are no capacity issues, hence the 160/222/333 should be canned. I disagree with the 209 being considered "duplication". As I've mentioned before, I generally disagree with routes serving UQ as a main trip generator being BUZed or similar due to the peaky nature of services. I was on a 209 last Tuesday and I was one of only two passengers aboard. In Uni holidays, most Uni-bound routes can take a big haircut. Routes like BUZ 412 don't count due to the high density and demographic of the area of St Lucia it passes through prior to going to UQ.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I've seen the 333/370 canning and 330 merging before.... oh that's right. In the translink review

For peak hour by all means retain the 332/333 in some sort to limit over crowding City-Chermside (varying bus capacity limits vs other regions/stop locations for example) but the 330 can easily swallow the 333/370 duties Chermside-RBWH off peak with the 346/353/334/335/360/375/379 taking over the RBWH-Valley/City leg and 66 for the inner city leg (heck, run more 66's on a city loop with a gabba terminus and go to town with the cutting axe ). Some people might get p%ssed  off that the 330 would now be an all stops but if they want an express service board the 331 rocket during peak hour.

Its just small waste like that which is all over the Brisbane network. There doesn't have to be massive reforms (I'd rather see the massive reforms for a better PT network ) but fixing these changes is a small step in the right direction to save some money or reinvest that same money into new areas or increasing the frequency of other routes.

[James]

I've seen the 333/370 canning and 330 merging before.... oh that's right. In the translink review

For peak hour by all means retain the 332/333 in some sort to limit over crowding City-Chermside (varying bus capacity limits vs other regions/stop locations for example) but the 330 can easily swallow the 333/370 duties Chermside-RBWH off peak with the 346/353/334/335/360/375/379 taking over the RBWH-Valley/City leg and 66 for the inner city leg (heck, run more 66's on a city loop with a gabba terminus and go to town with the cutting axe ). Some people might get p%ssed  off that the 330 would now be an all stops but if they want an express service board the 331 rocket during peak hour.

Its just small waste like that which is all over the Brisbane network. There doesn't have to be massive reforms (I'd rather see the massive reforms for a better PT network ) but fixing these changes is a small step in the right direction to save some money or reinvest that same money into new areas or increasing the frequency of other routes.

I disagree with doing anything with the 66 aside from combining it with the 109. Especially under a TransLink bus review, UniGlider is absolutely necessary in order to connect people along the busway corridor and provide inner city capacity. I believe the current City/Valley routes do this well, although with too much duplication. Maybe just keep the 375 or something, and cut the rest. I don't think the demand RBWH - Valley is strong enough to support a very high frequency service. Keeping it on the busway also guarantees its reliability to a large extent.

330 should go via the busway and stop a la 333/340, the routing really isn't that bad (aside from the fact the busway was built with the middle missing). If the 330 was kept as-is, at the very least can P331 - it is the exact same route aside from city stop locations. What could work though would be making 330s non-stop Chermside - RBWH in peak. Timetable them so they leave just before a P332 (from the same stop). Why 333 remains a BUZ while the 330/340 are BUZ routes defies logic, especially while the 370 continues to operate effectively like a BUZ. There is no possible logical case to keep the 333. It follows the 340 to the book aside from going to the Cultural Centre. 111/160 and 200/222 are the same. To save money on this corridor is so easy.

[hU0N]

There is a way to rejig the service and still provide a service which saves resources. Keep in mind past Bunnings Oxley, the 100 is all-stops anyway. Stop spacing is not an issue in this case - or any case - just decrease the amount of stops the feeder makes!

I agree that there is a way to save resources and still provide some kind of service.  I just dispute the idea that you can save resources without degrading the service to some extent.  I mean, feederization necessarily implies lopping off the part of the route that is most express and most cost efficient.  So you save 50% of the time, but maybe only 40% of the running costs.

But that's neither here nor there.  The real point is that network design is often considered in isolation from network promotion, which is just dumb.  Whenever someone starts talking about making our PT network more efficient, they seem to make the assumption that provided there is still some kind of service, people will suck it up, learn to accept the changes and just catch the new bus route, even if they have to walk further, or make more transfers or whatever.  As if you have a realistic hope of capturing the same patronage with a less attractive service.

Then when someone starts talking about patronage, it's all about how to do marketing better, and never about the inherent attractiveness of the service and how this might be controlled.

This is dumb because network design is one of the biggest levers in Translink's arsenal when it comes to attracting patronage.  Every individual journey you make better will attract more passengers.  Every individual journey you make worse will scare them away.  Because cars.  Because roads.  Because people.  And maybe this isn't a bad thing.  Maybe the benefit of getting a particular person out of their car and onto PT isn't worth the cost.  Maybe the network would actually be better if that person opted to drive to work, and stopped being Translink's problem.  Maybe we should be happy with designating some suburbs (Centenary Village) as car suburbs and give them their fair share of transport spending in the form of roads.  I don't know.

What I do know is that planning a network as if cars don't exist, and pretending that well designed roads have no place in a well designed transport system is simply disingenuous.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Patronage is just going gangbusters on the 340. Saw 1 person unless someone else was hiding onboard the 8.30 inboound service going through Aspley (imagine the patronage on a Tuesday or Wednesday night!). Money well spent 

How the hell was this route even buz worthy for starters! I still say it was a smoke and mirrors move by the Bligh Government to make the northern busway seem more appealing/value for money otherwise it was only going to have a few buses actually using it. So much god damn waste in this network. Urgh.

[techblitz]

Patronage is just going gangbusters on the 340. Saw 1 person unless someone else was hiding onboard the 8.30 inboound service going through Aspley (imagine the patronage on a Tuesday or Wednesday night!). Money well spent 

How the hell was this route even buz worthy for starters! I still say it was a smoke and mirrors move by the Bligh Government to make the northern busway seem more appealing/value for money otherwise it was only going to have a few buses actually using it. So much god damn waste in this network. Urgh.

the 340 after Aspley goes through areas of high vehicle usage...rendering it almost useless.Especially around ridley rd.Theres a large portion of cul-de sacs in between gympie rd and ridley rd that don't have easy walk-up access to the ridley rd stops,making it less attractive to residents. Why would they walk around in virtual circles just to get to the closest 340.They will just drive to save them the hassle. This reason alone is enough to warrant it a non-buz route.It was buzed probably due to its previous overcrowding through kelvin grove campus etc. Classic example that high frequency means NOTHING if residents don't have easier access to the stops!!

[James]

Realistically, it would probably actually be better for the 340 to run down Gympie Road. The preserved Trouts Road corridor beside Ridley Road, combined with undeveloped land, makes it very difficult to capture patronage in that area, and towards the end the route just ends up approaching Carseldine station. Ideally though, it should just be a feeder to Chermside/Aspley. I wonder where that idea came up - that's right, the bus review. 

If frequency was still warranted on the 340, it should be right-sized. The 330/340 are good examples of places where the BUZ standard is not necessary at 11pm at night, or counter-peak at 7am in the morning. Nobody on this forum can say that Chermside needs 5 minute frequency inbound at 10pm on a Sunday night. This is a good example of BUZ routes needing a haircut.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Chermside doesn't have a 5 minute frequency. Its supposed to be in reality they all arrive at the same time then nothing for the next 13 minutes

I don't think the 340 should be sent along Gympie Road as it doesn't have any good patronage becuase of the busy road/walking distances involved (Chermside-Chermside Markets and Zupps-Beams Road). 335, 338, 341, 680 are already prime examples of the limited amounts of people getting on along Gympie Road. If  they won't bring in the translink review I'd really like to see the 335 booted off Gympie Road and sent down Kirby Road-Ellison Road-Murphy Road-Kittyhawke Drive and then continue along Hamilton road as its normal route. It now opens up an area previously cut off from PT and it gets rid of that dog leg to get back to Hamilton Road heading inbound. PCH can be accessed easier as the 325/335 would share the same stops. Delete/merge the 333 and 370 into the 330 and send it along Kittyhawke Drive aswell with the 331 rockets keeping the existing route during peak hour (another translink review idea). For that to really pay off the ped crossing on the southside of the Gympie/Hamilton Road intersection needs to be fenced off.

Pitty the Translink review isn't going to be implimented for the northside. The whole area was just blown wide open. That Chermside North loop route really steam ironed about 15 city/local bound routes from Aspley to Boondall into a single feeder route going to 6 interchanges (Chermside, Geebung, Boondall, Taigum, Carseldine, Aspley) connecting to 3 HF routes (Aspley, Chermside and Taigum) and trains more frequent than the buz standard during morning peak (7 mins vs 10 mins. Trains arriving at Bowen Hills in the middle of morning peak hour still have free seats available because of the timetable rejigs). It wasn't perfect and had a few kinks that had to be ironed out but its truly a 50 year set back in PT on Brisbane's Northside.

[James]

P88 is dead in the water, but the Moggill Road conga line still lives.


425, 444 and 430 all following each other to the CBD - after a gap of about 10 minutes with no bus at all.


Outbound 412, 425 and soon to be followed by a 411. The 411 then proceeded to overtake the 412 as the 412 filled at Toowong.


Split stop locations always cause problems. And this is the result:


City-bound 433 leaving while 10 passengers board an 8MP-bound P88. Why? Because people don't understand where each route goes. Several passengers got off the P88 at stops served by the 433 anyway. This problem doesn't even need a damn bus review. Just introduce a common stop location. Bam, solved.

Repeat after me. The bus network is not broken. The bus network is not broken.   

@HTG - measures could be considered to make access more pedestrian friendly.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Traffic lights just for peds along Gympie Road aren't ideal or the most practical for traffic flows and route design. There's always tunnels under them but the elevation difference, limited spacing and lack of stops/patronage doesn't help. The Chermside Markets-Chermside section has a ~300-400m walk through the sports grounds just to get to the stops on Gympie Road which is why I think it would be better to send the 335 down Kirby Road-Ellison Road-Murphy Road to cover off those residents as its quite hilly and only has the 336/337 as a PT service . Other services such as the 338/680 and P341 during peak hour can cover off that bit of Gympie Road. Beams Road-Graham Road can just be covered off by the 680. Or were you thinking of something different? If anything I'd chuck more stops onto the 340 along Gympie Road between Graham Road and Wester Road - add a stop outside Grand Prix Mazda, delete the Harvey Norman stop, merge the two stops opposite KFC heading inbound, merge the two existing stops outside the Aspley Hotel (only the 680 uses both of them - 338 bypasses them IIRC) and the existing stop before moving right and onto Webster Road. I could go further and throw the 340 to Boondall, do this to the 335, that to the 326/327, get the 325 over there but then that becomes Translink review territory and before you know it Sandgate/shorncliffe-Chermside-Bracken Ridge-Strathpine-Bridgeman Downs has had a network review

TBH, delete every route on the Northside and just do a redo. That's how bad it has become. And people wonder why PT usage is so low.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Saw 20-21 people on the early morning peak 337 into the Aspley hypermarket this morning....

[HappyTrainGuy]

Was waiting at the intersection at chermside. Passed a 330 with about 6-7 people onboard. 340 was right up its ass with another 8 people onboard. Across the road going inbound at Chermside was a 335 with 6 onboard. Obviously no problem with the network.

[MaxHeadway]

Just rode the 183 limo from QSBS, as the sole passenger until Mt Thompson, when a second passenger hopped on (only to disembark at Mt Gravatt Central).

Waste? What waste?

[#Metro]

I always encourage photos where possible, it helps. 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Buz that route right now. Sounds like patronage is going gangbusters! 

I try my best to post photos but alot of the time my observations are made while driving...

The 333 departed 5 minutes before the 330 at CCBS.


Going into KGSBS there weren't that many people onboard the 330.


The 340 caught up to the 330 in KGSBS. Because the 330 was blocking the 340 from using the stop everyone kept boarding the 330 while the 340 sat behind doing nothing waiting for the 330 to go. People were still running along the platform to get on and boarding (ticket purchases didn't help the cause) but the driver had enough and closed the doors until the final ticket purchase was made. About 50-55 people were onboard the 330 when it departed. There were only about 7-8 left on the platform when it left. 6 got on the 330 at RSBS vs 4 on the 340. ~20 were left onboard after the tafe stop. 340 shadowed the 330 all the way to the RBWHBS. 3 people got on the 330 at RBWHBS compared to no one boarding the 340.


As the 330 was using the flyover into the airport link you could already see the 340 had merged onto Lutyche Road and was waiting at the lights on Newmarket Road. After exiting the tunnel a bus was spotted in the distance. 333 was the number on the back being displayed. The 330 caught the 333 at the lights on Kitchener Road. 330 followed right up the ass of the 333 all the way to the Chermside interchange. 370 was charging in the distance behind the 330 but missed the light cycle. As I was leaving the parking lot the 340 missed the same light cycle as the 370 so it had to wait. From what I saw it didn't have many onboard. Driving back along Gympie road I passed a inbound 340 at the lights with 0 people onboard. Pulled over outside officeworks to see how many would be onboard the same 340 that was following the 330 in the city. Went by a couple minutes later with 3 people onboard (that I could visually see - stupid side adverts ).


Edit:: Also chucked in the Aspley-Chermside 500 post

Welcome to the BT Northside 500. This is the 6th round of the 2013 championship and todays race will be starting at Chermside Interchange and finishing at the Aspley Interchange.

All the buses are lined up on the grid waiting for the lights to go out.


And they're off!!!!


And they are in the pits. What's this? It looks like #330 accidently pitted at the wrong time. It has to wait in the fast lane until his team mate #335 leaves the teams pitbox. He's now blocking the pitlane. This is not going according to schedule and #330 is just losing tons of time. This is also effecting #598 who just sits idle in his pitbox until the #330 clears the fast lane.


Vrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhsssssssss! #336 overtakes #340 going across Gympie Road but wait... what this... #340 is making a move for the lead!


And he's past!!! oh hang on #336 is making a comeback and yes.... yes its pulling off a fantastic pass just 150m down the road.


This is great racing! And now my phone is out of battery.




cr%p!

[HappyTrainGuy]

330, 335, 338, 340, 3somethingsomething and 3goddamnnotanotherbus...


Wasn't there a bus review done by BT recently? 

[minbrisbane]

Wow.  Just wow.

[#Metro]

Keep photos of The Waste coming! 

[HappyTrainGuy]

My bus will be coming along soon...



Any minute now.... Any minute now...

*stretches* Arrrrrrrrr---hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Any minute now.

*Looks at watch* Still just a few minutes away. I wonder how many buses are going along Gympie Road??

[Old Northern Road]

If you guys want to see some really empty buses you need to check out the Thompson buses up here. I drove past 4 Thompson buses at around 4pm today (basically peak) and there was not a single person on any of them apart from the driver.

[HappyTrainGuy]

What do you really expect when their whole network is hourly, cuts out at sunset and can still be a bit of a pain to use

The whole area (Strathpine-Petrie) could be a good support network but the major backers of patronage being frequency and span of hours is really missing. It's also something that is reflected all across the northern network outside of the BCC area. Petrie-North Lakes is another prime example of where this is let down. Even Narangba and Burpengary has its flaws (its good to see that the final request services have and or will be removed and promoted to a schedulled run as part of the review). Petrie-Redcliffe will fare better once the railway line goes through and some of the roads through North Lakes are built to enable better routing but Strathpine-Petrie and out to Warner is always going to suffer unless frequency and operating hours are stepped up.

I still think Thompsons is organised prodominatly as a charter bus service rather than a PT service. This is where I see the advantage in Translink owning the buses/depots/mtce facilities/the same generic fleet and parts across the entire network and then subbing out the drivers/routes/mtce ops such as refueling/cleaning etc to operators for the respective area (Thompsons might manage the Translink Strathpine depot but Hornibrook crews can use the Strathpine facility to refuel their Strathpine-Redcliffe buses, BT crews can use it to refuel their Strathpine-Bracken Ridge buses, crew swaps etc).

[techblitz]

came accross this last Friday on my crosstown journeys....
James and LD will like that one lol
cnr wondall & preston rd Wynnum west Route 220,p221 inbound stop

[James]

came accross this last Friday on my crosstown journeys....
James and LD will like that one lol
cnr wondall & preston rd Wynnum west Route 220,p221 inbound stop

"We won't change!"
"Save our hourly air parcel to the CBD!"
"We won't walk to a train station 1.5km away with better frequency!"
"Changing the number of bus routes destroy communities!"

If you believed all this hysteria you'd think that bus cuts are like Dennis Ferguson moving in next door.

This is a classic example of bus review miscommunication over secondary routes. I bet if you told residents the feeder to Cannon Hill was going to be at double frequency there'd be a lot less complaining. And this is what needs to happen. I think aside from those strange peak rockets out there, Wynnum was set for some good changes (S307 should touch the rail line though IMO). But no, the grannies cannot walk more than 10m, and everybody wants to go to the CBD.