SEQ Bus Network Review

[ozbob]

Depressing, the clowns at City Hall now want to place a 50 year Legacy Way concession around the necks of our great children  ... to bail themselves of gross financial blunder ...

can't do buses, can't do tunnels ... 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Just saw a 337 with about 25 people onboard overtake the 345 with about 6 people onboard going along maundrell terrace.... Does anyone else understand the Brisbane bus network yet?

[ozbob]

Ozbob <--------------raises hand  " I do ... "

[HappyTrainGuy]

This section of Robinson Road sure has alot of bus racing.... hang on... but only routes 337/338 use this bit of road... and they both come off Gympie Road... and the 338 only just went past... and no bus routes actually cross Gympie Road heading along Robinson Road... and what's that I see approaching in the distance...



What the hell is going on with this bus network 

[techblitz]

Just saw a 337 with about 25 people onboard overtake the 345 with about 6 people onboard going along maundrell terrace.... Does anyone else understand the Brisbane bus network yet?

hmmm..i understand that this network is broken/overserviced in some areas and working bloody brilliant in others    The 3pm 345 I was on yesterday on the outbound was chocked to the front with standees and they weren't going to QUT either...most of them were heading to Stafford and beyond. Used the first outbound 3.30pm p546 of the day today and bus was perfectly full with me the only standee

[HappyTrainGuy]

And that's just the interesting thing about the network. Its all over the place Some routes are great and others.... well, there's a lot of work to do.

Driving along Maundrell terrace in the mornings going home its interesting to see the different loadings between each bus. The 345 corridor is one that would benefit from higher capacity buses all day rather than just during peak hour as it holds up better than most routes due to lack of duplication/competing routes/poor timetabling.

Regarding the 336/337 they are popular as the first and last services but every other service is just transported air (personally I'd like to see the 336/337 run earlier, later and more frequently during peak hour with the off peak services getting the chop as a result).

[taskerish]

I regularly catch the bus at Coorparoo Junction. I won't complain about the level of service  as I regularly make trips into the city and to UQ (and the occasional trip to Carindale) I can choose from the 184, 185, 222, 209, 200, 203, 204.

When I'm headed home from UQ I take the 169, 139 or 209 (whichever comes first) and if I'm on a non-209 bus I get off at Buranda and wait for the 222 or 209. It can save me up to 20 minutes. Going to UQ I catch the 209 because even if the 222 comes first the 209 is never more than 2 minutes behind.

When I'm headed into the city I take whichever bus comes first (with the exception of the 204 because it takes forever). Coming home from the city I'll take any bus headed down the busway or to Gabba and make the appropriate transfer somewhere along the way if necessary although I usually try to transfer at South Bank because it's less chaotic than Cultural Centre but it's still served by all of the buses that I could possibly want. 

There are a few things that jump out at me and the issues are all related -

- the 200, 209 and 222 serve all of the same stops between Carindale and Langlands Park.

- most riders don't seem to realise that Buranda is a transfer point between university bonud buses and city bound buses

- rather than having a bus in the corridor every 5 minutes the buses depart Carindale at more or less the same time and arrive at Langlands within a minute of each other. The 203 and 204 are also scheduled to show up when all of the other buses roll through. If you miss this gaggle of buses you have to wait 12 minutes for the next set.

My anecdotal observation:

70% of pax are headed to the cultural center or CBD. 20% to UQ (or other stops on that section of busway). 10% to the 'gabba. Unless riders are headed to Roma St. or the Valley no one seems to care much and will get on whichever bus comes first.

My suggestion:

The only purpose for the 200 is to serve the two stops on Deshon St. that hardly anyone uses outside of peak periods
Just reroute the MGLD off of Logan Rd (where no one ever boards anyway). Have it turn down Deshon/Main then get on the busway to serve Langlands and Stones Corner and get rid of the 200 entirely.

Redeploy some of those route 200 buses to Routes 222 and 204. Continue to run the 209 on 15 minute headways and make it clear to riders that there is a "same platform transfer" to city-bound buses at Buranda. Integrate the 209 and 222 schedules so that service in the corridor is every 5 minutes or less for most of the day.

*apologies in advance if someone already touched on this and I missed it

[HappyTrainGuy]

This is where things got messy as I lost all track of what buses were what. All the photos at the aspley interchange were taken over an 11 minute timeframe. Okay. Here. We. Go.

When I first arrived all bays were being utilised with a 345 just arriving (still on Albany Creek Road). 350, 345 inbound and 345 outbound (previous service - returning to depot) were all departing the existing bays with a new 345 ready to form the next bay. The current outbound 345 then arrived. No photos.

840*, 815*, 831* were the next lot of buses to show up (I can't recall if 840 was from the first set as I had to take some stuff to the car).


Then the 346 (766*) arrived and was  unable to use any stops what so ever so it did a slow drive by and then left the interchange.


345 (840*) and 346 (766*) waiting at the lights.


336 (813*) says hello to his brothers.


838* also says hello to his brothers.


The outbound 338 goes past. As does a westbound out of service bus and an eastbound out of service bus. No photos due to the camera app taking its time to load/other vehicles in the way.

Another brother about to say hello to his family.


Oh look the 340.... and there's a bus on the other side of the road too.


Which isn't even in service. But hang on is that a 680 infront of me?


No no its the 330.


Oh wait! There's the 680...


And here's another 330 and some other bus.


A bus spotters paradise.


Oh look! Over there! Its another one of those rare BT buses! (340 inbound with a 330 and 333 waiting at the lights).

[James]

346 likely was carrying no passengers. That route has an inherent tendency to carry air.

I regularly catch the bus at Coorparoo Junction. I won't complain about the level of service  as I regularly make trips into the city and to UQ (and the occasional trip to Carindale) I can choose from the 184, 185, 222, 209, 200, 203, 204.

...

My suggestion:

The only purpose for the 200 is to serve the two stops on Deshon St. that hardly anyone uses outside of peak periods
Just reroute the MGLD off of Logan Rd (where no one ever boards anyway). Have it turn down Deshon/Main then get on the busway to serve Langlands and Stones Corner and get rid of the 200 entirely.

Redeploy some of those route 200 buses to Routes 222 and 204. Continue to run the 209 on 15 minute headways and make it clear to riders that there is a "same platform transfer" to city-bound buses at Buranda. Integrate the 209 and 222 schedules so that service in the corridor is every 5 minutes or less for most of the day.

*apologies in advance if someone already touched on this and I missed it

You are one of the ones fortunate enough to live on one of the corridors overserviced due to BCC's mantra of sending almost all bus routes to the CBD. I believe this has probably been brought up somewhere - but I completely agree with your statements about sending the 200 via the 222 route between Langlands Park and Mater Hill. 222 can then be axed (maybe renumber the new 200 '222'). 204 could then be routed via Deshon Street - no stops already served by other routes would be missed.

What MaroonGlider does now, while I personally detest it going past Wooloongabba in its current form, is a reasonably good routing (aside from that silly busway thing it does). I don't think routing it via Deshon Street is a good idea.

The 203 is an awful air parcel urban safari service which was to be replaced by a Carindale - UQ frequent in the bus review. This is something that would have been good in theory, bad in practice. UQ demand is inherently peaky - 412 being the exception (it will always have naturally high demand due to the sheer population density and nature of the population in the area). Ideally if you boosted UniGlider frequency you could just get rid of the 209 on weekends/Uni breaks and let remaining pax use that and change at Mater Hill. Chatsworth Road does deserve far better frequency than what it currently gets - possibly a BUZ - but sending pax to UQ (a destination where commuters risk being stranded due to full buses and having a timetable which varies with Uni semesters) is not a good idea.

Chatsworth Road is not a Uni student hotspot - it is more likely to pick up passengers bound for the City, and forcing interchange at Buranda would be a backwards step. There does need to be some form of duplication down the main corridors - but it should be minimised. The big ticket is 200+222 and removing MaroonGlider from the inner sections of the busway. Personally, I think that 95% of services would not see overcrowding issues if you canned the 222 (and its associated P-rocket) tomorrow. There is a LOT of air in the network.

Timetabling can generally solve the business of all buses coming at once, provided service frequency is reduced and legibility increased.

[kazzac]

there is way too many buses travelling along OC RD in the arvo between 3.30 and 4pm ,I notice when I'M driving along there in my way home,too many I/b 200 and 222 "air parcels"   not to mention the Maroon"Silyglider" :fp:what a waste,and meanwhile Bulimba is still waiting for a BUZ service ,there is more development occurring in this area all the time now,new townhouses being built everywhere, so more and more people moving to this area,Balmoral/Bulimba/Morningside and Cannon Hill also,the Translink review would have meant high frequency services for Bulimba and more services for Wynnum Rd ,227 isn't frequent enough except in peak hour,and 232 should be canned!

[HappyTrainGuy]

Indeed the 346 didn't have a single passenger onboard.... 

I missed what direction it was heading in but it was amusing to see it stop behind the bus in its bay before slowly creeping forward dipping its nose inbetween the empty/now boarding 345 and the empty bus waiting in its bay before finally blasting out of the interchange.

[#Metro]

Went past Wooloongabba - FULL 230 then TWO empty maroon wastegliders. Just before 6pm.

In Graham Quirk's latest August 'living in Brisbane' BCC newsletter, Bulimba Ferry terminal will be out of action and 'alternative transport arranged'. Perhaps now is the time to push for BUZ of the 230??

[kazzac]

Went past Wooloongabba - FULL 230 then TWO empty maroon wastegliders. Just before 6pm.

In Graham Quirk's latest August 'living in Brisbane' BCC newsletter, Bulimba Ferry terminal will be out of action and 'alternative transport arranged'. Perhaps now is the time to push for BUZ of the 230??

I can believe that ,o/b 230-235 services are ALWAYS full peak hour every arvo,if there was a 230 BUZ it would never be empty  ::)maybe Carina should be using the new B12s on 230/235 peak?

[James]

there is way too many buses travelling along OC RD in the arvo between 3.30 and 4pm ,I notice when I'M driving along there in my way home,too many I/b 200 and 222 "air parcels"   not to mention the Maroon"Silyglider" :fp:what a waste,and meanwhile Bulimba is still waiting for a BUZ service ,there is more development occurring in this area all the time now,new townhouses being built everywhere, so more and more people moving to this area,Balmoral/Bulimba/Morningside and Cannon Hill also,the Translink review would have meant high frequency services for Bulimba and more services for Wynnum Rd ,227 isn't frequent enough except in peak hour,and 232 should be canned!

I think thanks to the well-documented Cr Shayne Sutton effect that we are never going to see a Bulimba BUZ until the ALP controls both State and local government - which given the wipeout the ALP suffered at the 2012 election, it would not surprise me if that doesn't happen for another decade. It's pathetic, petty polyticks, but that is the way things go.

I'm undecided as to whether we should have a Wynnum Road BUZ. The Cleveland Line should get 15 minute frequency to Manly sooner rather than later, and this would cover a lot of the inner Wynnum Road catchment, with a Bulimba BUZ covering remaining areas. From both patronage data and anecdotal evidence, there is quite decent demand along this corridor. Past Cannon Hill, the built-up areas get very patchy and walk-up patronage is reduced. I think it would have to be carefully analysed before we possibly entrench another money-wasting BUZ route like the 100.

If Wynnum/Manly were a blank canvas ideally the railway line would cut right through the middle of the area and be served by feeder buses - long term that idea may still be relevant (stick it in a tunnel ECRL-style), but in the short-medium term both BUZes and feeders should be looked at.

[#Metro]

I think BUZ 100 is a sound BUZ route. The changes proposed by TL would have just taken services in that area to the next level of improvement.
Wynnum Road should get a BUZ IMHO, but other areas should be BUZzed first. Wynnum Road is a nice fast arterial and beyond Cannon Hill is not served by the Cleveland line at all. Patchiness there is a bit but this just means don't put bus stops there - get the bus to zoom past those areas and serve Tingalpa, Manly West etc.

[ozbob]

Media release 7th August 2013



Brisbane: Bulimba CityCat shutdown

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers calls for BUZification of the Bulimba 230 bus during the Bulimba CityCat Terminal shutdown.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The Bulimba CityCat terminal will be shut down for at least six months in coming months. Brisbane City Council's plan to bus passengers to Hawthorne and then get them to change to a CityCat is an inferior proposal (1). The Lord Mayor himself doesn't like public transport transfers, so we think that for these six months, the 230 bus service should be upgraded to full BUZ standard rather than this second rate, inferior proposal."

From the BCC website:

"For safety reasons, it will be necessary to close the Bulimba ferry terminal completely when construction starts. CityCat and CityFerry services at this terminal will cease for up to six months.

During the closure, Council will provide additional bus services between Bulimba and Hawthorne to provide passengers with the option of connecting with regular CityCat services at the Hawthorne ferry terminal."

"An alternative would be to divert Maroon CityGliders into Bulimba during this period. Our observations suggest that the southern part of the Maroon CityGlider isn't performing well, as we predicted."

"It concerns us that Bulimba does not have a BUZ despite comparable inner city suburbs of New Farm, Paddington, West end and Milton having access to BUZ services. We suspect that the sole reason why a BUZ service has not been introduced is because the local councillor is of the wrong political stripe. We also note in the BCC bus review that service cuts largely fell in ALP and Independent wards."

"The sooner Brisbane City Council is stripped of all public transport functions and the bus operations removed from BCC, the better. Only then will a decent integrated public transport network will be rolled out for Brisbane (2). TransLink had done the right thing with bus review but weak political leadership has left public transport in Brisbane floundering, as recent pictures of 'air' buses demonstrate (3)."

References:

1.  Bulimba ferry terminal upgrade http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/citycat-ferry-services/bulimba-ferry-terminal-upgrade/index.htm

2.  Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9895.0

3.  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9045.msg129858#msg129858

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[James]

I think BUZ 100 is a sound BUZ route. The changes proposed by TL would have just taken services in that area to the next level of improvement.
Wynnum Road should get a BUZ IMHO, but other areas should be BUZzed first. Wynnum Road is a nice fast arterial and beyond Cannon Hill is not served by the Cleveland line at all. Patchiness there is a bit but this just means don't put bus stops there - get the bus to zoom past those areas and serve Tingalpa, Manly West etc.

In my opinion, BUZ 100 was sound in theory. That was why under the TransLink review, all stops aside from the Moorooka station stop (which likely would have gotten BUZ frequency if Ferny Grove trains were extended to Coopers Plains in Sector II) were to be serviced by new frequent routes. However, in practice the route wasted money. This was mostly due to the fact the inner Ipswich Road corridor and Inala/Forest Lake are not well demand-matched. One has high density dwellings and is a major corridor, the other serves suburbia which is not overly PT-friendly, a long way from the Brisbane CBD and has quite 'peaky' demand.

Patchiness (i.e. areas without patronage) is where BUZ routes can suffer. It is why 444 doesn't do well. Yes, there is very strong demand for travel out of Moggill to the CBD, but between Bellbowrie and Kenmore Park n Ride, there is a whole lot of nothing. This is area where outside peak hour, the amount of patronage collected is almost nil. A Wynnum Road BUZ would not have that problem so much, but I still feel that issue could exist.

[#Metro]

In my opinion, BUZ 100 was sound in theory. That was why under the TransLink review, all stops aside from the Moorooka station stop (which likely would have gotten BUZ frequency if Ferny Grove trains were extended to Coopers Plains in Sector II) were to be serviced by new frequent routes. However, in practice the route wasted money. This was mostly due to the fact the inner Ipswich Road corridor and Inala/Forest Lake are not well demand-matched. One has high density dwellings and is a major corridor, the other serves suburbia which is not overly PT-friendly, a long way from the Brisbane CBD and has quite 'peaky' demand.

Browns Plains is pretty far and has no stops between Mater Hill and Griffith University ('patchiness') yet it is #2 below only the 199 in terms of patronage. 130 Parkinson services have the same characteristics and no terminal hub shopping centre interchange like Inala does. It is low density suburbia. This bus route also does exceedingly well. On these grounds I think BUZ 100 is sound, even if there is a bit more drop off at night. Like I said, the TL review would have simply taken services there to the next level of improvement.

Patchiness (i.e. areas without patronage) is where BUZ routes can suffer. It is why 444 doesn't do well. Yes, there is very strong demand for travel out of Moggill to the CBD, but between Bellbowrie and Kenmore Park n Ride, there is a whole lot of nothing. This is area where outside peak hour, the amount of patronage collected is almost nil. A Wynnum Road BUZ would not have that problem so much, but I still feel that issue could exist.

A sense of perspective and proportion is important. The wynnum road corridor is very poorly serviced and does not have the amount of rural that 444 does. There is a decent urban catchment east of Tingalpa. The best approach is to model it and perhaps do a trial. I don't think it is a strong priority as for instance Centenary Suburbs, but worth to have a look at nonetheless.

[James]

Browns Plains is pretty far and has no stops between Mater Hill and Griffith University ('patchiness') yet it is #2 below only the 199 in terms of patronage. 130 Parkinson services have the same characteristics and no terminal hub shopping centre interchange like Inala does. It is low density suburbia. This bus route also does exceedingly well. On these grounds I think BUZ 100 is sound, even if there is a bit more drop off at night. Like I said, the TL review would have simply taken services there to the next level of improvement.

Different kettle of fish. That is express running to save time and prevent over-crowding. It passes down the very-well used extremely-high patronage Mains Road corridor, which has several shopping centres along it and attracts significant patronage. There are a variety of other reasons why that area sees such high patronage.

Wynnum Road BUZ would be covered by a Bulimba BUZ on the inner section and Cleveland Line Morningside - Cannon Hill, after which it passes through some bushland before reaching Wynnum/Manly. I do not believe F25 was an improvement for residents of Inala/Forest Lake bound for the CBD - but it was necessary in order to free up funding and make a more efficient network. I'm not against a Wynnum Road BUZ, I just want to see it carefully analysed so we don't end up with a 444-like disaster where we can do nothing but just keep the route as is, or else end up downgrading PT services (very unpopular).

A sense of perspective and proportion is important. The wynnum road corridor is very poorly serviced and does not have the amount of rural that 444 does. There is a decent urban catchment east of Tingalpa. The best approach is to model it and perhaps do a trial. I don't think it is a strong priority as for instance Centenary Suburbs, but worth to have a look at nonetheless.

I do agree there needs to be better transit options in that area, and there is not as much rural area between Cannon Hill and where suburbia starts again around Manly West. I would carefully look at routing before putting a BUZ through there, and end the route where the 227 ends - don't send it further as it would overlap with the rail catchment.

[#Metro]

Different kettle of fish. That is express running to save time and prevent over-crowding. It passes down the very-well used extremely-high patronage Mains Road corridor, which has several shopping centres along it and attracts significant patronage. There are a variety of other reasons why that area sees such high patronage.

Sure, but I don't see much difference between a 150 bus running express past bushland behind Greenslopes and Griffith University to be much that different to traversing short sections of floodplain past Cannon Hill. Cannon Hill is a busy shopping centre too. You have a corporate office park/industrial estate there as well. I don't want to spend too much time arguing this point because it would be splitting hairs and rather secondary to the main point which is I think a BUZ on Wynnum Road all the way to Wynnum would be supported with decent patronage.

Wynnum Road BUZ would be covered by a Bulimba BUZ on the inner section and Cleveland Line Morningside - Cannon Hill, after which it passes through some bushland before reaching Wynnum/Manly. I do not believe F25 was an improvement for residents of Inala/Forest Lake bound for the CBD - but it was necessary in order to free up funding and make a more efficient network. I'm not against a Wynnum Road BUZ, I just want to see it carefully analysed so we don't end up with a 444-like disaster where we can do nothing but just keep the route as is, or else end up downgrading PT services (very unpopular).

Sure, but you have to remember that there wasn't really an objective analysis done when BUZ was introduced. 15 minute frequencies on Sunday? Up to 11.30 pm at night on Sunday? Even outside peak hours? To Cannon Hill would be a low risk option that would allow more information to be gained about whether extending it further would be worthwhile.

[bagbuffy]

Buzzing all of Wynnum Rd is a no Brainer,

Let's ditch the 29, instead the Students  can catch the Maroon Glider From Woolloongabba to Buranda then interchange with either 139,169 or 209 most these services run Volvo B12's or Scania's K310's. so there's plenty of room.

While we're at it lets pull back on the 111 services as well,  how many empty Atrics does the BCC want roaring past the Buranda Bus Station???

Every morning I usually see 2-3 100's talegating each other, yes the first Bus is full but the 2nd/3rd usually has bugger all pax in them!!!

Presto I have found Some extra buses and drivers for the New Buz 227 .

Don't get me started on the New Farm and Northside services!!!! Then again I could easily find some extra Buses/Drivers for a 230buz as well!!!!

[STB]

Buzzing all of Wynnum Rd is a no Brainer,

Let's ditch the 29, instead the Students  can catch the Maroon Glider From Woolloongabba to Buranda then interchange with either 139,169 or 209 most these services run Volvo B12's or Scania's K310's. so there's plenty of room.

While we're at it lets pull back on the 111 services as well,  how many empty Atrics does the BCC want roaring past the Buranda Bus Station???

Every morning I usually see 2-3 100's talegating each other, yes the first Bus is full but the 2nd/3rd usually has bugger all pax in them!!!

Presto I have found Some extra buses and drivers for the New Buz 227 .

Don't get me started on the New Farm and Northside services!!!! Then again I could easily find some extra Buses/Drivers for a 230buz as well!!!!

I think you've missed the point that route 29 is more of a crowd management distribution route for those travelling between UQ Lakes and Park Road station, where other services would be heavily loaded.  Route 66 is an example of that for the inner city.

[bagbuffy]

Buzzing all of Wynnum Rd is a no Brainer,

Let's ditch the 29, instead the Students  can catch the Maroon Glider From Woolloongabba to Buranda then interchange with either 139,169 or 209 most these services run Volvo B12's or Scania's K310's. so there's plenty of room.

While we're at it lets pull back on the 111 services as well,  how many empty Atrics does the BCC want roaring past the Buranda Bus Station???

Every morning I usually see 2-3 100's talegating each other, yes the first Bus is full but the 2nd/3rd usually has bugger all pax in them!!!

Presto I have found Some extra buses and drivers for the New Buz 227 .

Don't get me started on the New Farm and Northside services!!!! Then again I could easily find some extra Buses/Drivers for a 230buz as well!!!!

I think you've missed the point that route 29 is more of a crowd management distribution route for those travelling between UQ Lakes and Park Road station, where other services would be heavily loaded.  Route 66 is an example of that for the inner city.

Where's the 227 or 230 crowd management distribution service? 

What does the 29 do that the 139,169 or the 209 oops and even forgot the 109 can't do other the terminating at Woolloongabba?  Every 29 I see usually runs empty on a daily basis.

I get pretty tired of people wanting to scrap Hourly bus services that services Hospitals and places like  old people's homes, let them walk they say, how hard is it for 75yos to walk 1km with their shopping, yet sit here and defend a service like the 29, oh no a 21yo Uni student can't interchange!!!!

[aldonius]

The 29 is all about interchange. Unless you live walking distance from the 4 stations it serves that aren't UQ, you interchanged to get on it.

I will concede that it is somewhat inefficient in terms of loadings for its frequency, but it's so darn short it can afford to do that.

Of course, if you really want to increase 29 patronage, then stop all the other routes from doing passenger pickup at Park Road in the AM peak, and dropoff in the PM. I estimate it has most (>~75%) of the PM traffic now (to PR), but far less (>~30%) of the AM (from PR).

[#Metro]

I think the 209 is a bit wasteful. It duplicates the 200 and 222. It is good for peak load applications however. I think during low demand times (think weekends, evenings) that it would be better to just terminate it at Stones Corner turnaround and get people to change to a 222.

[STB]

Buzzing all of Wynnum Rd is a no Brainer,

Let's ditch the 29, instead the Students  can catch the Maroon Glider From Woolloongabba to Buranda then interchange with either 139,169 or 209 most these services run Volvo B12's or Scania's K310's. so there's plenty of room.

While we're at it lets pull back on the 111 services as well,  how many empty Atrics does the BCC want roaring past the Buranda Bus Station???

Every morning I usually see 2-3 100's talegating each other, yes the first Bus is full but the 2nd/3rd usually has bugger all pax in them!!!

Presto I have found Some extra buses and drivers for the New Buz 227 .

Don't get me started on the New Farm and Northside services!!!! Then again I could easily find some extra Buses/Drivers for a 230buz as well!!!!

I think you've missed the point that route 29 is more of a crowd management distribution route for those travelling between UQ Lakes and Park Road station, where other services would be heavily loaded.  Route 66 is an example of that for the inner city.

Where's the 227 or 230 crowd management distribution service? 

What does the 29 do that the 139,169 or the 209 oops and even forgot the 109 can't do other the terminating at Woolloongabba?  Every 29 I see usually runs empty on a daily basis.

I get pretty tired of people wanting to scrap Hourly bus services that services Hospitals and places like  old people's homes, let them walk they say, how hard is it for 75yos to walk 1km with their shopping, yet sit here and defend a service like the 29, oh no a 21yo Uni student can't interchange!!!!

It's meant to take the loads off routes 109, 139, 169 and 209, given that overcrowding is an issue in that area and there is obviously a level of patronage that only go as far as Park Road.  Why does it terminate at Gabba?  Because that's the only physical turnaround available after Park Rd.

227, you could say route 220 to an extent which is then given routes 230 and 235 on the inner part (and the railway).  IMO route 230/235 needs to be BUZed, not sure on route 220 though given that it really just fills the gap in the rail catchment areas.

[James]

The 29 is all about interchange. Unless you live walking distance from the 4 stations it serves that aren't UQ, you interchanged to get on it.

I will concede that it is somewhat inefficient in terms of loadings for its frequency, but it's so darn short it can afford to do that.

Of course, if you really want to increase 29 patronage, then stop all the other routes from doing passenger pickup at Park Road in the AM peak, and dropoff in the PM. I estimate it has most (>~75%) of the PM traffic now (to PR), but far less (>~30%) of the AM (from PR).

But this is to be expected. At a terminus, one will intentionally walk to the 29 because it's well known among UQ students that people who use the 139/169/209 and get off Park Road give people the sh%ts. However, in the AM, people will hail the first bus which comes along. I disagree with any axing of the 29. It does its job of capacity management very well, the only thing it may need trimmed is its frequency in the off-peak, and span of hours.

I think the 209 is a bit wasteful. It duplicates the 200 and 222. It is good for peak load applications however. I think during low demand times (think weekends, evenings) that it would be better to just terminate it at Stones Corner turnaround and get people to change to a 222.

If the 209 can run on its own legs, fine. Else, it should not run, full stop. 169 is only two stops away at Buranda, people can change there. I think the route should be canned on weekends as part of reducing duplication on OCL. 139 doesn't operate on weekdays and people do just fine. People can interchange to UniGlider or the 169. People on this forum would be surprised at how non-existent Uni student demand can be on weekends, exam weeks excepted.

[aldonius]

From my observations, UQ demand is fairly minimal outbound until ~11am and inbound from ~2pm. Between then  it's reasonable each way.
Purely from a crowd-management perspective, some AM peak 29s should probably be explicitly timed to meet trains at Park Rd.

If 29 over-resourcing is that serious, break the constant frequency (decreases legibility, I know, I know) run:

- at 5min freq in AM/PM peak
- outbound at 5min from :50 through:10 and at 10min the rest of the hour in the rest of teaching weekdays and all exam days.
- inbound at 5min from :40 through :00 and at 10min as above.

[James]

From my observations, UQ demand is fairly minimal outbound until ~11am and inbound from ~2pm. Between then  it's reasonable each way.
Purely from a crowd-management perspective, some AM peak 29s should probably be explicitly timed to meet trains at Park Rd.

If 29 over-resourcing is that serious, break the constant frequency (decreases legibility, I know, I know) run:

- at 5min freq in AM/PM peak
- outbound at 5min from :50 through:10 and at 10min the rest of the hour in the rest of teaching weekdays and all exam days.
- inbound at 5min from :40 through :00 and at 10min as above.

When you've got a bus running every 5 minutes, timing a bus to meet trains really is a moot point - especially given the irregular nature of the timetable. In the case of high frequency (I'm talking 7.5 min frequency or less), timing to connect to services is a moot point as the wait will only be a few minutes until the next service. The idea of 5 minute frequency interests me around class start/end time though - perhaps a terminating 340 service could be used to do that?

I'd say before making a decision, bus loadings between Park Rd and UQ would need to be looked at. See if the 29 is really necessary at certain times. I know I've been on 139s/169s at Park Rd, and they go from <14 passengers to having standees just from passengers coming across from the train. Outside of peak there may be enough capacity to let the remaining routes take care of those passengers, and just have the 29 cater for peak loads.

[aldonius]

My aim is for the train pax to pile onto the 29, and (almost always) only it, in AM peak. What this actually boils down to is the 29 needs to be the first bus to show up for the start of the main stream of train pax.

[techblitz]

Hmmm...4pm @ chermside where i have just seen 2 330 buses pull in together....was a lineup of 30 pax waiting....first 330 arrived full with standees and second one about 10 onboard......all waiting pax hit the 2nd bus....meaning 2 FULL 330s leaving together......

For the record  the next 330 arrived 5 mins later full and with 15 or so waiting to board.
Point of my post is i am seeing almost 130 style load levels on this thing from chermside. Good thing it was buzzed 

Finally caught my 15 minute late 335

[HappyTrainGuy]

As I understand the 335 is always delayed as a result of going via Fortitude Valley to RBWH.

Not uncommon to see that during peak hour. The 330 also picks up quite alot of passengers from Zillmere station aswell.

[techblitz]

As I understand the 335 is always delayed as a result of going via Fortitude Valley to RBWH.

Not uncommon to see that during peak hour. The 330 also picks up quite alot of passengers from Zillmere station aswell.

Actually we now have a new route to pick on which beats even the great circle for unreliability.This afternoon between 4-6pm @ Kirby rd I noticed 2 outbound 335`s more than 20 minutes late!
Spoke to a lady (on my inbound 335) who catches it regularly and she also said it is a very unreliable route. She also says Fridays are the worst days and requested frequency upgrades on the feedback period for the TL review.

In between webster rd,gympie rd,valley....this route cannot be trusted at peak hour. Luckily this route serves its purpose as a single seat service to the city. Seems to get very good loads at peak from Chermside. Did translink propose anything new for this route? Surely must have been better than whats going on at the moment.....

[kazzac]

I think the 209 is a bit wasteful. It duplicates the 200 and 222. It is good for peak load applications however. I think during low demand times (think weekends, evenings) that it would be better to just terminate it at Stones Corner turnaround and get people to change to a 222.

Yes I agree,the 209 is just another air parcel service I see travelling along OC Rd every arvo.

[HappyTrainGuy]

As I understand the 335 is always delayed as a result of going via Fortitude Valley to RBWH.

Not uncommon to see that during peak hour. The 330 also picks up quite alot of passengers from Zillmere station aswell.

Actually we now have a new route to pick on which beats even the great circle for unreliability.This afternoon between 4-6pm @ Kirby rd I noticed 2 outbound 335`s more than 20 minutes late!
Spoke to a lady (on my inbound 335) who catches it regularly and she also said it is a very unreliable route. She also says Fridays are the worst days and requested frequency upgrades on the feedback period for the TL review.

In between webster rd,gympie rd,valley....this route cannot be trusted at peak hour. Luckily this route serves its purpose as a single seat service to the city. Seems to get very good loads at peak from Chermside. Did translink propose anything new for this route? Surely must have been better than whats going on at the moment.....

Merge, deletion and a new route. It formed part of a new Strathpine-Chermside Route with multiple rail interchange options. It incorporated the routes of the 326/327/329/330 (Beams Road-Murphy Road-Zillmere Road-Kirby Road-Webster Road-termination at Chermside)/335/336/337/340. The 325 became the new frequent corridor route with the 325 losing the Grange-Newmarket running with it using the 335 route to the inner northern busway and on to KGBS (IIRC the 325 also replaced the 379). With the new proposed Chermside Local route the whole northside of Brisbane past Chermside finally became a proper feeder network (minus the weird running of the 330 route setup - I presume they didn't account for future road construction ie Norris Road being extended to feed directly into Carseldine Railway station - currently only 200m of road is missing) with the total routes in that area being slashed and greater emphisis put on servicing railway stations and interchanges.

Since the translink review isn't going ahead I'd like to see it sent down Kirby Road-Ellison Road-Murphy Road as it would open up a whole new area to PT to which is currently disadvantaged by a 400m walk to Gympie Road through unlit bushland/sporting ovals and then the traffic on Gympie Road (IIRC locals stopped and refused to make the walk to the Gympie Road stops through the sports fields in low light/night after a rapist was targeting users cutting through the unlit areas in the mid/late 90's - Pretty sure it was that area and not the parks futher east). 338/340/341/680 should be enough to cover off Chermside-Aspley along Gympie Road. Not to mention it should also get the 335 out of that horrible afternoon traffic along Gympie Road.

[Golliwog]

Hey, I've been away for a bit. Not sure if this has been linked to already, but it's the result of an RTI request for the following information:

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

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/aboutus/rti/disclog/rti13501772.pdf

Of most interest are the documents that begins on pg 85 (100 worst ranked routes based on cost recovery, and what their actual cost is) and pg 77 (TMR Briefing Note).

This briefing note, among other interesting things, includes this little gem:

Brisbane Transport were invited to participate in strategic network planning sessions on the following dates to which they declined to attend under instruction;
–20 November 2012,
–21 November 2012,
–27 November 2012,
–28 November 2012,
–6 December 2012, and
–13 December 2012.

Other than that, it's full of a bunch of emails from various councillors with their comments on the changes to their areas. The one from the Lord Mayor was an interesting one.

[ozbob]

Absolutely appalling behaviour by BCC to not allow BT to participate. Fact!

More the reason why public transport network control needs to be removed from them ASAP.

[Gazza]

Pg86...Route 77 has 10% cost recovery and is $2 Mil per year to run.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Damn tolls And yet its still a route that can get you from the Northside to the Southside in under 30 minutes during peak hour. If the 77 was kept and the whole network around it modified it could be a very valuable route but they need to fix that last leg that it does by getting it to start/terminate at the interchange or use the interchange as a turn around facility.

07:00 AM    'Chermside (Hamilton Road)' Hamilton Road    07:26 AM    Griffith University Station

04:53 PM    Griffith University Station Platform 1    05:28 PM    'Chermside (Hamilton Road)' Hamilton Road (including 10 minutes lost on Hamilton Road as a result of poor traffic design)
04:58 PM    Griffith University Station    05:12 PM    Cultural Centre station platform 1   
05:13 PM    Cultural Centre station platform 1    05:46 PM    Chermside Shopping Centre - Platform A

Even better when you can potentially leapfrog onto 2 earlier 130/140 routes just because it missed the city.

[STB]

Have just begun reading this, this should be a fascinating insight into the power and influence of BCC vs the State and TransLink.  Time to make a  , and sit back for a nice long read.

I'll post later...