SEQ Bus Network Review

[techblitz]

Htg if your referring to the 330/340
You know my stance on the 340....i know its a crap performer before and after chermside.
Matters little however if those 2 routes are getting above average loads inbetween rbwh and cultural center.....
Looking forward to the next report on the 340 when it comes.....then we will get the real picture.....for now though.... High vfm and very high capacity util......unless your calling TL fibbers   

[James]

Im not a fan of HF unless it can at least show some decent numbers at certain times of the day counter-peak. Virtually all current buz routes fit this criteria. <<<not expecting anyone to agree with this mentalitly but I honestly don't give a hoot 

100, 140, 200 past Carindale, 330, 340, 385 past Paddington, 444 past Indooroopilly. Along with future BUZes along Wynnum Rd and Centenary suburbs. Counter-peak, in my opinion, is not super important when considering demand. Overall demand is more important.

Htg if your referring to the 330/340
You know my stance on the 340....i know its a cr%p performer before and after chermside.
Matters little however if those 2 routes are getting above average loads inbetween rbwh and cultural center.....
Looking forward to the next report on the 340 when it comes.....then we will get the real picture.....for now though.... High vfm and very high capacity util......unless your calling TL fibbers   

Once again, that rating is deceiving. 340 would easily get a standing load in peak, just because the route is not that bad. There's your VH capacity rating. High VFM is easy to achieve. The 417 gets that, and it is an awful route.

If the route gets good loads between Chermside and RBWH, put on more 333s. If the route gets good loads between RBWH and Cultural Centre, put on more 66s. It is not that difficult.

[HappyTrainGuy]

340 standing load? Yes. During peak hour. It's what you expect. Come off peak its just a massive waste of money. IMHO I'd love to see the Translink network be rolled out for the northside just because of how everything feed into a railway line or interchange for a transfer ie feeders but since that's never going to happen I'd like to see the 341 replace the 340 during peak hour with the 340 now becoming a Carseldine-Chermside route. Something similar can be said for the 330/331. Higher capacity buses can then be put on the 333 route but more importantly higher capacity buses on the 345 as you can have standing loads on the outbound service to Alderley at 1 in the arvo. If you get more local feeders terminating at Chermside/Aspley the CFN/BUZ such as the 333/345 can have its frequency ramped up to every 10 mins or so during the day.

[somebody]

*coughcough*northsidehfroutes*coughcough*

You should get that cough looked to, could be BCCitas, pretty nasty stuff.

Yep.

Exacerbated by a number of other conditions, of which my particular favourite is improvingPTbyreducingservicekms

[HappyTrainGuy]

I love school holidays. No traffic jams what so ever Just goes to show how congestion can be removed with an effective and efficient public transport. Anyway another 340 update. Heading through Chermside-Aspley I overtook the outbound 340 with what looked like about 4 people onboard. Heading through Aspley I passed the inbound 340 which was approaching standing loads with 6 people onboard. And this is on a Buz service at around 8.15-8.20am..... I've seen higher loadings on the 337 local feeder loop.

[somebody]

I think someone has just found the tiger warding rock from the bear patrol episode of the simpsons.

Sent from my GT-S6102 using Tapatalk 2

[HappyTrainGuy]

[minbrisbane]

[somebody]

Lisa picks up a rock and says that because there are no tigers around when the rock is here, the rock must be keeping them away.

Similar reasoning to:

I love school holidays. No traffic jams what so ever Just goes to show how congestion can be removed with an effective and efficient public transport.

[James]

Been over at Carindale this evening, and saw two quite empty 200s pass by at around 6pm just after Carindale. By empty, I mean <5 pax.

Yes, it's school holidays but I've seen this many times before. I think there needs to be a significant rationalisation of the P-rockets serving Carindale. Right now it is just simply an illegible mess. 200, P201, P205 and P208 all serve the same area west of Carindale. At least two of those could be chopped off at Carindale Shops or removed completely.

[Set in train]

Been over at Carindale this evening, and saw two quite empty 200s pass by at around 6pm just after Carindale. By empty, I mean <5 pax.

Yes, it's school holidays but I've seen this many times before. I think there needs to be a significant rationalisation of the P-rockets serving Carindale. Right now it is just simply an illegible mess. 200, P201, P205 and P208 all serve the same area west of Carindale. At least two of those could be chopped off at Carindale Shops or removed completely.

If the 222 and 200 had been combined as per the Translink review and the Maroon thing re-routed to service the 200 stops before Old Cleveland Rd, it would've been a good solution.

[techblitz]

Been over at Carindale this evening, and saw two quite empty 200s pass by at around 6pm just after Carindale. By empty, I mean <5 pax.

James take a 140 or 130 or 150 near the end of thier routes and you will see the same 
Virtually all buz routes suffer this problem.....120 being an exception as its picks up more passengers from n.campus on the back end towards g.city.

@set in train

It will be intersting to see what the next target will be next year and onwards....will it be the chermside routes or carindale routes....forget bulimba or centenary......i have a hunch they will work on the last leg of the m.glider first and try to get the numbers up on that final section between gabba and stones corner. Could well include some of what translink suggested.

[James]

James take a 140 or 130 or 150 near the end of thier routes and you will see the same 
Virtually all buz routes suffer this problem.....120 being an exception as its picks up more passengers from n.campus on the back end towards g.city.

Yes, but this is peak hour, and I am looking at the buses immediately after they leave Carindale.

Now on board an I/B 200 which has just left Carindale... 6 pax on board. p206 left just prior to when we did... 2 pax on board. A lot of this air could be removed simply by cutting the number of rockets being sent east of Carindale and along OCL.

[Set in train]

Been over at Carindale this evening, and saw two quite empty 200s pass by at around 6pm just after Carindale. By empty, I mean <5 pax.

James take a 140 or 130 or 150 near the end of thier routes and you will see the same 
Virtually all buz routes suffer this problem.....120 being an exception as its picks up more passengers from n.campus on the back end towards g.city.

@set in train

It will be intersting to see what the next target will be next year and onwards....will it be the chermside routes or carindale routes....forget bulimba or centenary......i have a hunch they will work on the last leg of the m.glider first and try to get the numbers up on that final section between gabba and stones corner. Could well include some of what translink suggested.

I hope so, it would be a smart move.

[James]

A few observations I made aboard the 200:

1. Pax picked up at Carindale is very low - I suspect it was because pax was dispersed across three buses leaving almost at the exact same time (200, P206, 222).

2. There were a lot of pax at express stops which simply did not hail the 200. I think this is a good example of why we need to stop having so many rockets being fired all over the place. Had all the pax at express stops boarded the 200, the bus would have easily had standing loads towards the end of the route.

3. There were a surprising number of passengers waiting at the yellow stops. The 204 actually has some quite reasonable frequency and passenger loads, and the fact that passengers did not gravitate towards the express stops like they do on the Moggill Rd/Coro Drive corridor surprised me.

4. Too many rockets are just generally being fired all over the place generally with their own little pointless variation. To be honest, the routes from Carindale via OCL should look like this.
200 - make it follow the 222's route Carindale - City and keep on current frequency.
P201 - make it follow the P205 routing to Carindale, aside from possibly around Bridgnorth street. After Carindale (going to CBD), follow current P201 stopping pattern/route.
202/203 - I know there are coverage issues in here, so to avoid ruffling feathers, unless undertaking a TL-style review, I would keep as is, but send 203 via Deshon Street.
204 - Keep as is, knowing BCC's policy.
P205 - Cut completely. Waste route, air parcel with little purpose.
P206 - All stops rockets <3 <3 <3 Route should be looked at more carefully, and if demand is not high enough, cut completely.
P207 - I'm sorry, but this route is the epitome of stupidity. CUT CUT CUT!!!
P208 - Use resources from P205 removal to put on to this route. Make this a non-pathetic rocket route and steam-iron it down Chatsworth Road. Investigate possibility of making this service limited stops so it does not stop every 200m. I acknowledge the area is hilly, but surely it is not worth making PT insanely slow for that reason.
P217 - with so many services being cut, this one may actually now be necessary to retain.
222 - cut. With all these changes, no need to retain.

The reductions in frequency by BCC on practically all the Carindale - City rockets really do indicate a lot of these services carry air. But instead of cutting one and keeping the rest, or reallocating resources all are receiving frequency cuts, bar the 200/204.

I suspect next BCC review we will see express running of the 209/222 through the Eastern Busway to falsely increase patronage of MaroonGlider, just like what has occurred west of Roma Street. Really, I think doing such things just to boost patronage on another service is criminal.

[Derwan]

Just be aware that loads for last week and this week won't be "normal" due to school holidays.  Many parents take leave for at least one of the weeks.  And we obviously won't have the "school" trips - but will probably have some kids travelling at different times throughout the day.

[James]

Just be aware that loads for last week and this week won't be "normal" due to school holidays.  Many parents take leave for at least one of the weeks.  And we obviously won't have the "school" trips - but will probably have some kids travelling at different times throughout the day.

I can accept that, but this bus was practically empty. My own 411 service was not even that bad. I also have similar anecdotal evidence from previous trips that there is a lot of air in the P-rocket network.

[techblitz]

Just be aware that loads for last week and this week won't be "normal" due to school holidays.  Many parents take leave for at least one of the weeks.  And we obviously won't have the "school" trips - but will probably have some kids travelling at different times throughout the day.

I can accept that, but this bus was practically empty. My own 411 service was not even that bad. I also have similar anecdotal evidence from previous trips that there is a lot of air in the P-rocket network.

Anecdotal means jack...
TL admits that the peak rockets are being used efficiently. Your looking at the odd bus over a span of 4 hours or so of the rocket operating...before you criticise certain routes i suggest you stay at a certain spot and monitor every service over those 4 hours. Every now and then i will comment how full routes are....but at least i can admit that it means jack if i am not witnessing all of the services for that day. TL stats are the only real evidence to go by. Would you like me to post them for the carindale routes & rockets? I can if you want...somehow i am thinking you wont like the results

[James]

Anecdotal means jack...
TL admits that the peak rockets are being used efficiently. Your looking at the odd bus over a span of 4 hours or so of the rocket operating...before you criticise certain routes i suggest you stay at a certain spot and monitor every service over those 4 hours. Every now and then i will comment how full routes are....but at least i can admit that it means jack if i am not witnessing all of the services for that day. TL stats are the only real evidence to go by. Would you like me to post them for the carindale routes & rockets? I can if you want...somehow i am thinking you wont like the results

Just because the route has VH Patronage/H Value for Money doesn't mean we should put it up on a golden pedestal, nor does it mean we should be firing rockets everywhere a la Carindale/Centenary suburbs. As you can see through routes like the 411 and 417, it is very easy to get 'High' value for money. Add one standing load trip to the 417 and you'd suddenly get a route in the same ranking as the P-rockets.

If we want a P-rocket system, it should be consolidated so there is ONE rocket for the 200, ONE rocket for the 222 and ONE rocket along Chatsworth Road. Not this current mess.

[#Metro]

Just because the route has VH Patronage/H Value for Money doesn't mean we should put it up on a golden pedestal, nor does it mean we should be firing rockets everywhere a la Carindale/Centenary suburbs. As you can see through routes like the 411 and 417, it is very easy to get 'High' value for money. Add one standing load trip to the 417 and you'd suddenly get a route in the same ranking as the P-rockets.

If we want a P-rocket system, it should be consolidated so there is ONE rocket for the 200, ONE rocket for the 222 and ONE rocket along Chatsworth Road. Not this current mess.

I agree! There are lots of rockets that could be simplified. We have the P system because we don't have pre-paid buses in general like Melbourne. Also agree with the subjectivity of "high patronage" and "high value for money". Almost all Brisbane's buses would carry average loads and recover costs far below those seen in Toronto...

[longboi]

Just because the route has VH Patronage/H Value for Money doesn't mean we should put it up on a golden pedestal, nor does it mean we should be firing rockets everywhere a la Carindale/Centenary suburbs. As you can see through routes like the 411 and 417, it is very easy to get 'High' value for money. Add one standing load trip to the 417 and you'd suddenly get a route in the same ranking as the P-rockets.

If we want a P-rocket system, it should be consolidated so there is ONE rocket for the 200, ONE rocket for the 222 and ONE rocket along Chatsworth Road. Not this current mess.

I agree! There are lots of rockets that could be simplified. We have the P system because we don't have pre-paid buses in general like Melbourne. Also agree with the subjectivity of "high patronage" and "high value for money". Almost all Brisbane's buses would carry average loads and recover costs far below those seen in Toronto...

There are so many variables that it's impossible to make assumptions based on those patronage and VFM figures.

Not to mention the fact that other changes to services would have a flow on effect to other services so really those stats are a little meaningless when completely overhauling the network.

[achiruel]

If we want a P-rocket system, it should be consolidated so there is ONE rocket for the 200, ONE rocket for the 222 and ONE rocket along Chatsworth Road. Not this current mess.

If we were to have a sensible bus network the 200 and 222 shouldn't even exist as separate routes.  They should either be merged into one route or one sent via somewhere other than Old Cleveland Rd (Seven Hills or Chatsworth Rd).

[ozbob]

There are so many variables that it's impossible to make assumptions based on those patronage and VFM figures.

Not to mention the fact that other changes to services would have a flow on effect to other services so really those stats are a little meaningless when completely overhauling the network.

^ spot on ...  thanks ...

[HappyTrainGuy]

Saw a near empty P332 yesterday. Also saw 2x330 and 1x 331 almost bumper to bumper waiting to turn off Gympie Road.

[James]

If we want a P-rocket system, it should be consolidated so there is ONE rocket for the 200, ONE rocket for the 222 and ONE rocket along Chatsworth Road. Not this current mess.

If we were to have a sensible bus network the 200 and 222 shouldn't even exist as separate routes.  They should either be merged into one route or one sent via somewhere other than Old Cleveland Rd (Seven Hills or Chatsworth Rd).

I have mentioned that earlier that 222 should be cut - I think a P-rocket from Carindale will be necessary in peak though, as the 200 (and its rocket) will probably not be able to absorb the capacity, especially given how many people Park n Ride around the Bridgnorth St and lower Scrub Rd stops.

I think Chatsworth Road warrants a full-time 6am - 9pm CFN kind of route. The bus services in that area right now are, well, shocking, especially outside of peak. It is typical of a lot of areas in Brisbane - BCC floods the area with rockets in peak and then leaves it with an inferior service (or no service at all) for the other 18-20 hours of the day.

I agree! There are lots of rockets that could be simplified. We have the P system because we don't have pre-paid buses in general like Melbourne. Also agree with the subjectivity of "high patronage" and "high value for money". Almost all Brisbane's buses would carry average loads and recover costs far below those seen in Toronto...

I'm not going to hate on the P-rocket network because I don't think having pre-paid rockets is a bad idea. What I do not like is the excess of pre-paid rockets.

I made a good post regarding this earlier - there are three reasons why a pre-paid rocket should exist:
1. Where the secondary route only feeds to a local shopping centre and doesn't have capacity (does not apply to most bus routes as BCC does not have routes which require interchange in peak)
2. Where there is a faster routing, but the full-time route cannot use this routing for accessibility reasons (think 454+P455/453+P456).
3. Where capacity issues require a bus to take a different routing (think P-rockets avoiding the Cultural Centre).

If none of these reasons are fulfilled, or the frequency of the rocket is too low to justify running the service (less than 15 minute frequency), there should not be a rocket. The main issue with the P-network is that the routes carry air due to all of them leaving from different locations on quite poor frequency - I believe post-BCC review, no bus serving Carindale East will have greater than 10 minute frequency - in fact, this could probably be applied to all the routes. This is what happens when you have rockets firing all over the CBD - frequency is split significantly.

Simply by merging and cutting some routes, you could have buses leaving from two or three places in the CBD (Adelaide St, KGSBS and Riverside) rather than the current mess where buses leave from about five locations. (Ideologically I'd want them all leaving from the one place, but that won't happen on BCC's watch). Sure, Scrub Road may have a reduction in frequency from a bus every 3 minutes to every 5 minutes - but that is a minor reduction. And lets be realistic - does Scrub Road need a bus every 3 minutes in peak?

[techblitz]

Yes nikko those VFM/P figures come 14th October will start becoming useless.
Just remember however that it was those same values that were used in parliament by certain councellors to argue their case for keeping specific routes.
Putting forward sub-standard analysis of each route translates to a monumental stuff-up by TL would it not?
Anyways I have taken a look at translinks capacity utilisation chart (specifically peak 7.30-8.30am)

Somehow I don't call this a stuff-up as it seems pretty accurate to me.I suspect this is the chart that BT will be using quite a bit for reviews over the next 2 years.
If were going to talk about anecdotal evidence 
I sit at Buranda @ peak almost everyday pm peak and what translink have stated matches up to my observations.

Heres a rundown of brisbanes best performing busway stops at morning peak by how full buses are:

Top10:

1.Stones Corner 94%
2.Langlands Park 93%
3.Buranda 82% and 118 routes  <<<< CAUTION: Beware of those supposedly useless Firing Rockets! (james theres your reason why they never fully deleted the Carindale rockets  )
4.Boggo Road 75%
5.Greenslopes 72%
6. Lutwyche 69%
7. Normanby 68%
8. RCH Herston 64%
9. Holland Park West 61%
10.Griffith Uni 61%

At 82 percent and the amount of routes...clearly Buranda is handling things well and is poised to handle the future growth of garden city ,coorparoo, eight mile plains, calamvale etc.... its clearly where the most action is happening. With p88 deletion and the rocket reductions this will improve.
Stones Corner and Langlands park are real positives and the eastern busway extension cant come quick enough..

Northside busway stations are averaging 58 percent peak capacity so going by the TL chart its safe to assume that its the priority after CC. Dont worry HTG perhaps we will see a restructure of some inner routes once the tradecoast depot is in full swing......
Translink should have done a better in-depth study and included indro on that chart to give a better picture of how full the buses at that bus station.

[James]

Yes nikko those VFM/P figures come 14th October will start becoming useless.
Just remember however that it was those same values that were used in parliament by certain councellors to argue their case for keeping specific routes.
Putting forward sub-standard analysis of each route translates to a monumental stuff-up by TL would it not?
Anyways I have taken a look at translinks capacity utilisation chart (specifically peak 7.30-8.30am)

Somehow I don't call this a stuff-up as it seems pretty accurate to me.I suspect this is the chart that BT will be using quite a bit for reviews over the next 2 years.
If were going to talk about anecdotal evidence 
I sit at Buranda @ peak almost everyday pm peak and what translink have stated matches up to my observations.

Heres a rundown of brisbanes best performing busway stops at morning peak by how full buses are:

Top10:

1.Stones Corner 94%
2.Langlands Park 93%
3.Buranda 82% and 118 routes  <<<< CAUTION: Beware of those supposedly useless Firing Rockets! (james theres your reason why they never fully deleted the Carindale rockets  )
4.Boggo Road 75%
5.Greenslopes 72%
6. Lutwyche 69%
7. Normanby 68%
8. RCH Herston 64%
9. Holland Park West 61%
10.Griffith Uni 61%

At 82 percent and the amount of routes...clearly Buranda is handling things well and is poised to handle the future growth of garden city ,coorparoo, eight mile plains, calamvale etc.... its clearly where the most action is happening. With p88 deletion and the rocket reductions this will improve.
Stones Corner and Langlands park are real positives and the eastern busway extension cant come quick enough..

Northside busway stations are averaging 58 percent peak capacity so going by the TL chart its safe to assume that its the priority after CC. Dont worry HTG perhaps we will see a restructure of some inner routes once the tradecoast depot is in full swing......
Translink should have done a better in-depth study and included indro on that chart to give a better picture of how full the buses at that bus station.

I never said that we should axe capacity massively, but there needs to be a simplification of the network and reduction in duplication. Why does Scrub Road deserve 18bph for large amounts of peak hour, while Sir Fred Schonell Drive only gets 2bph more than that (going to UQ)? SFSD has much higher frequency and the number of people using PT who live along SFSD is simply phenomenal. Is Scrub Road REALLY in this category?

Secondly, cutting rockets isn't about 'ruining the network', it is about simplifying it. Right now, if you wish to go to Scrub Road in peak, you have three locations in the CBD where you can go to - QSBS, Eagle Street or (upper) Queen Street. Under your network, pax do have the option of avoiding the horrific, terrible walk through the CBD where heaven forbid, they may have to cross a road, but they may be faced with waits of up to 15 minutes (after the bus review).

Alternatively, we could consolidate 200/P201 in QSBS, run them both on 10-minute frequency it and send P201 the way of the P205 at the very end of the route. Now while someone might have to walk for a few minutes, there is no more than a 5 minute wait for any passenger. This also improves utility significantly, and the resources saved can go towards better services for Chatsworth Road.

From anecdotal evidence (sitting at Indro Bus station waiting for hourly bus services), a lot of services come out of Indro around half to a quarter full. Some of the best performing routes are generally the 444, 454, 425 and the 460. 105/106 always go out with low pax counts, as does the 435, 414 and 415. 430 tends to not do too well either.

[HappyTrainGuy]

CUT CUT CUT REROUTE REROUTE REROUTE MERGE MERGE MERGE haha. Run the 335 down Ellison road and terminate it at Chermside. Cut the 310 at Toombul off peak. Cut the 330/340 at Chermside off peak (peak hour maintain the P331/341 for thru services). Cut the P332. Merge the 370 into the 333 route to get ride of City-RBWH and RBWH-Valley duplication. Cut the 306 at Toombul. Cut the 322 at Toombul. Introduce a Toombul CNF route. Rahhhhhh just go to town on the whole northside  

[somebody]

How lame is a review which keeps the 151? Also both 156 &157 and many others.

Sent from my GT-S6102 using Tapatalk 2

[SurfRail]

I am amazed the 476 still exists.

[James]

CUT CUT CUT REROUTE REROUTE REROUTE MERGE MERGE MERGE haha. Run the 335 down Ellison road and terminate it at Chermside. Cut the 310 at Toombul off peak. Cut the 330/340 at Chermside off peak (peak hour maintain the P331/341 for thru services). Cut the P332. Merge the 370 into the 333 route to get ride of City-RBWH and RBWH-Valley duplication. Cut the 306 at Toombul. Cut the 322 at Toombul. Introduce a Toombul CNF route. Rahhhhhh just go to town on the whole northside  

We need to avoid being too radical here.

335 is fine - maybe needs a bit of tweaking. 310 (maybe 315 too) should cease to exist, and I have to agree with 306/322 - maybe continue the 306 down Sandgate Rd for coverage purposes. There are train lines within 800m of Sandgate Road for most of the trip - no need to even think about putting a BUZ down there.

330 should remain a BUZ. It is not so much about immediate demand, but about inducing demand and giving some people 15 minute frequency. 340 is just a very poor choice of BUZ because it manages to run through blank space which isn't going to move any time soon (Trouts Rd/council parks etc.) While interchange is good, having a route which runs from Point A to Point B on BUZ frequency and then another route from Point B to the CBD on identical frequency really should not occur, and I have a feeling that would occur for the 330.

Long-term, demand would be induced along that corridor and it would become more built-up and pax will start to use the service more as PT on the northside gets less awful.

I am amazed the 476 still exists.

This is what happens when you do not have bus reviews in almost 20 years - tram routes (yes, this was once a tram route) which were created over 50 years ago still remain in the form of bus routes.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The 335 in large is okay but honestly the whole network needs a proper revamp. Especially when it comes to frequency. I for one would love to see the hourly routes become half hourly but in the current state I'd campaign for no frequency improvements as it would just bleed money with poor patronage and thus more cuts to services/higher ticket pricing. There are just too many routes that are long and twisty scenic tours with poor frequencies. The Aspley/Carseldine/Taigum/Geebung/Nudgee/Boondall area can pretty much have the majority of its routes merged into a single loop feeder route because of the sheer amount of interchanges in a short area - 8 of them infact (Take the Translink review and how it cut and merged parts of the 310/325-328/326/327/335/336/337/340/346 into pretty much a single route - The Chermside North Feeder). The frequency at most of the interchanges currently isn't there off peak but during peak hour 5 of those interchanges has a service to the city every 10 minutes or better. In the case of the railway interchanges there is still plenty of capacity available to cram those heading to the city onto. In a couple years heavy rail will be 4tph off peak leaving only the Taigum interchange and the Boondall stations requiring service improvements.

One thing I would like to see the 335 adopt tomorrow would be a route modification to all services between Kirby Road and Hamilton Road. When heading inbound instead of running onto Gympie Road and then having it do the long loop to nowhere to get back onto Hamilton Road have it run down Ellison Road and Murphy Road so it can access Kittyhawke Drive behind Westfield and then merge back onto Hamilton Road to use the stops that the 325 currently does. Outbound the 335 would continue along Hamilton Road avoiding entering the interchange/westfield using the same stop as the current 325 before turning off onto Kittyhawke Drive/Murphy Road/Ellison Road and then resuming its route by turning onto Kirby Road. Reasons for this is that it will attract more potential patronage than those that would use the Gympie Road stops (still covered off by the 338, 680 and the P341 rocket during peak hour), provides the local RSL/residential apartments with a bus route for the first time via Kittyhawke Drive, gives the option of adding a stop for Westfield at the far northern end for the very first time (closer than the current 336/337 stops on Murphy Road), there is still planned development and future expansion along Kittyhawke Drive, provides those that live close to Ellison road a bus as opposed to walking through 400m of unlit parkland and then crossing busy Gympie Road to get to/from the stop locations or waiting for the 2 hourly 336/337 that only runs between peaks, removes the 335 from the same grid lock that the arvo services including the 338/340/350/680 suffer from, Chermside-PCH has a uniformed stop location, Chermside-Grange would then have 1 route for mapping when combined with the 325 leaving only Grange-City to be fixed to provide 1 merged route City-Chermside via Webster Road (at a later date also allows the Webster Road corridor to have 1 route cut with a frequency boost ie 325/335 cut at Chermside with the 325/335 under a buz/30 minute standard).

I'd also like to see the 338/357/359 have a more uniformed timetable instead of its current "Ahhhh screw this I'll drive there instead"

By all means retain the 330 as a buz but cut it at Chermside off peak (where does it say that buz services must go all the way to the city?), review its frequency eg after 8pm and get higher capacity buses that pop up on the 340 route over to the 333 route. Consider extending the 111 from RSBS to RWBHBS to cover off the demise of the 330/340 and any capacity concerns. During peak hour just maintain the thru running of the P331 services. If more routes were cut/fed into Chermside and more routes fed into the busways for interchanging ie east-west services then the 333 could go to a 10 minute frequency between something like 6am-9pm and back to the buz standard from first service-last service. Cutting the 330 at Chermside also gets rid of all this 330/P331 bunching (Yesterday I saw and not for the first time a 330 followed 2 cars behind by a P331 with a another 330 4 cars back. Chermside-Bracken Ridge you just knew that all 3 buses would just follow each other all the way to the terminus).

I like what translink had done with the 310 by terminating it at Chermside. It still had duplicated parts of the Shorncliffe railway line but the two were still completely separated in that 1 went to the city and the other was a feeder service. That was then backed up nicely by the Toombul-City CFN (pretty sure it was either 1 or 2 CFNs - 1 from Chermside and the other started at Toombul but went further east modifying all those services too).

In regards by cutting the 306 at Toombul I mean cutting the Toombul-City leg and having the 306 run Toombul-Nudgee only. You could even turn it into a giant feeder for the Nudgee area.

But as I said earlier the whole northside needs a drastic cut, reroute, merge applied as its just a mess of routes that try to incorporate coverage, feeder and CFN attributes into every route mixed with the design of avoiding transfers/railway stations from the railway vs bus era.

[techblitz]

James you cant be serious on the 315 lol
Delete it?
Heres a tip...take the damn route at least once ( around peak)
Even the last 6 pm inbound service counter peak pm does well.
Watch the lineup of 30or so people from queen st  at 4pmish.
Ive spoken to bus drivers on this route and they say that the majority head all the way to redcliffe and scarborough...specifically because its a timesaver.

310 i would be open to options but lets how it goes on the new run first. It does carry air on its last runs in on weeknights.

[#Metro]

I agree with James. The issue is at what cost do we do this.
We could fire rockets everywhere and give everyone a faster trip. But it would cost heaps. We'd need more buses during peak (approx. $1 million each) and more drivers too ($50 000 per year approx). And what for? To save 10 minutes? How about rationalise the stops and put in bus priority to save the 10 minute time difference between the bus and train.

Why are people catching the bus from that distance and TL is paying for it when other options already exist, like the train? Focusing on any single route is a serious mistake, we have to look at the wider network also. There are what, three 315 services, even if all are full, we are talking about 3 bus loads x 65 pax = 200 people MAX.

When you consider that 150 000 trips are made on trains and a similar amount is made on the buses that's around [200 / (150 000 - 200) x 100] that's an impact on a colossal 0.13% of people who used the TL network.

Bus from Queen Street
55 minutes travel time
3 services per hour

Train (Central to Sandgate) = 31 minutes
Assume 5 minute transfer (assume we terminate the 315 at Sandgate Stn and time it to meet the train) = 36 minutes

36 minutes for a bus

= 36 + 30 minutes = 66 minutes - 10 minutes slower (we could reduce this difference by adding bus priority measures, rationalising stop spacing, green light sequencing priority etc). They are going to get a train out that way anyway very soon.

CUT.

[James]

James you cant be serious on the 315 lol
Delete it?
Heres a tip...take the damn route at least once ( around peak)
Even the last 6 pm inbound service counter peak pm does well.
Watch the lineup of 30or so people from queen st  at 4pmish.
Ive spoken to bus drivers on this route and they say that the majority head all the way to redcliffe and scarborough...specifically because its a timesaver.

310 i would be open to options but lets how it goes on the new run first. It does carry air on its last runs in on weeknights.

Question: What makes the 30 or so passengers on board the 315 so special that they cannot simply ride the train to Sandgate (or if you were really route-km conscious, North Boondall) and change to a bus there? Why do they deserve an express bus from their doorstep to the CBD, a trip which is over 30km long?

Interchange with rail at Boondall North, while it doesn't have the best facilities, would in fact be just as fast as the current route. (Sandgate, while better connectivity-wise, is slower). The 315, now halved in length, can have its frequency doubled. Now it is both a timesaver AND no longer runs on half-hourly frequency in peak!

[HappyTrainGuy]

It would add a couple more kms but Boondall would be a way better fit. More lit up. Has DDA facilities to access both the inbound and outbound platforms. Has limited driver facilities IIRC. Station staff are there. Also has more room and better areas for positioning. Not to mention it also has the option to transfer to other services such as the 325/335 that would head westbound. If the Translink network was applied that would be brilliant due to the north feeder service using that station as a major interchange point either heading to Boondall or towards Geebung where another CFN could take you further.

[techblitz]

James you cant be serious on the 315 lol
Delete it?
Heres a tip...take the damn route at least once ( around peak)
Even the last 6 pm inbound service counter peak pm does well.
Watch the lineup of 30or so people from queen st  at 4pmish.
Ive spoken to bus drivers on this route and they say that the majority head all the way to redcliffe and scarborough...specifically because its a timesaver.

310 i would be open to options but lets how it goes on the new run first. It does carry air on its last runs in on weeknights.

Question: What makes the 30 or so passengers on board the 315 so special that they cannot simply ride the train to Sandgate (or if you were really route-km conscious, North Boondall) and change to a bus there? Why do they deserve an express bus from their doorstep to the CBD, a trip which is over 30km long?

Interchange with rail at Boondall North, while it doesn't have the best facilities, would in fact be just as fast as the current route. (Sandgate, while better connectivity-wise, is slower). The 315, now halved in length, can have its frequency doubled. Now it is both a timesaver AND no longer runs on half-hourly frequency in peak!

hmm
perhaps you should ask translink and hornibrook that question...
The 680 was looked at and truncated. The 315 HAS been looked at and kept for the reason that it gets used WELL and its a one seat trip.
I notice you countered some of lapdogs arguments in the other thread by using the one-seat argument as an example  Suddenly not a fan?? You know as well as I do why customers prefer 1 seat trips...
Your idea of deleting the 315 is absolute foam which would get rejected in an instant in any review....

[James]

hmm
perhaps you should ask translink and hornibrook that question...
The 680 was looked at and truncated. The 315 HAS been looked at and kept for the reason that it gets used WELL and its a one seat trip.
I notice you countered some of lapdogs arguments in the other thread by using the one-seat argument as an example  Suddenly not a fan?? You know as well as I do why customers prefer 1 seat trips...
Your idea of deleting the 315 is absolute foam which would get rejected in an instant in any review....

Here you are, saying just because I didn't support a connection somewhere it immediately applies in every case. Wrong wrong wrong. Each case needs to be considered individually and on its own merits. Customers prefer one seat trips. Everybody prefers one seat trips. However, if we give everybody one seat trips, everybody ends up having to be on low-frequency routes.

So instead, we introduce a network with connections, so we can give people better frequency. By truncating a route halfway to its destination and getting its passengers to transfer on a service already operating (in this case, a Shorncliffe train), the frequency can either be increased or resources allocated elsewhere. By truncating the 315 at Boondall North, passengers are taken out of congestion on Sandgate Road and instead placed on a train to the CBD. This now means the resources saved allow for a doubling of the frequency, meaning passengers do not have to wait as long for a service.

The case with the 130/140/150 was they already had very high frequency, so forcing a transfer was only going to p%ss people off and not deliver a net benefit to them. Of course, there could be benefits elsewhere on the network, but people only care about their backyard. That's why for every truncation, forced transfer or similar, you need to provide a subsequent increase in frequency or ease of access. Generally, a doubling in frequency at the key times (peak, inter-peak, and weekend off-peak during the day) is enough to make pax happy.

[techblitz]

hmm
perhaps you should ask translink and hornibrook that question...
The 680 was looked at and truncated. The 315 HAS been looked at and kept for the reason that it gets used WELL and its a one seat trip.
I notice you countered some of lapdogs arguments in the other thread by using the one-seat argument as an example  Suddenly not a fan?? You know as well as I do why customers prefer 1 seat trips...
Your idea of deleting the 315 is absolute foam which would get rejected in an instant in any review....

Here you are, saying just because I didn't support a connection somewhere it immediately applies in every case. Wrong wrong wrong. Each case needs to be considered individually and on its own merits. Customers prefer one seat trips. Everybody prefers one seat trips. However, if we give everybody one seat trips, everybody ends up having to be on low-frequency routes.

So instead, we introduce a network with connections, so we can give people better frequency. By truncating a route halfway to its destination and getting its passengers to transfer on a service already operating (in this case, a Shorncliffe train), the frequency can either be increased or resources allocated elsewhere. By truncating the 315 at Boondall North, passengers are taken out of congestion on Sandgate Road and instead placed on a train to the CBD. This now means the resources saved allow for a doubling of the frequency, meaning passengers do not have to wait as long for a service.

The case with the 130/140/150 was they already had very high frequency, so forcing a transfer was only going to p%ss people off and not deliver a net benefit to them. Of course, there could be benefits elsewhere on the network, but people only care about their backyard. That's why for every truncation, forced transfer or similar, you need to provide a subsequent increase in frequency or ease of access. Generally, a doubling in frequency at the key times (peak, inter-peak, and weekend off-peak during the day) is enough to make pax happy.

your stating the obvious...and trying to make it sound as if I don't know that frequency increases/more resource allocation can be gained from truncating routes.
Your having trouble accepting that TL made the correct judgment in retaining the 315 on its current alignment and frequency. And somehow you can guarantee that people being told to transfer at N.Boondall wont get p%ssed  off? The 315 is doing so well that hornibrook are using their near brand new extended axle buses to cope with demand. Perhaps SR can chime in as he knows someone from hornibrook who could perhaps tell us why TL refused to change that route. Even though its rather obvious...

[HappyTrainGuy]

I'd keep the 315 as is until the MBRL is up and running. Then discussions can evolve around that such as deleting the 315 to Brisbane City (maybe even have the 315 replace the N310 as the Nightlink service - 310 route to Brighton but then continue along the 315 route to service Redcliffe if patronage permits), increasing the frequency on the Clontarf/Redcliffe to Brighton/Sandgate corridor (maybe make the 690 a long loop route around Redcliffe via Oxley Ave, over to the RSL interchange, pop into the Leagues Club, across to Kippa Ring station and then flying straight back to Sandgate along Elizabeth Ave - depending on how the network is configured then of course) and then further looking at improving the local feeder loops routes that are there.