SEQ Bus Network Review

[Gazza]

If the buses on Coro drive run every 10 minutes or so and the 412 runs every 10 minutes or so, average wait is 5 mins. Not the end of the world.

But wont those Coro Drive buses already be full by the time they hit Toowong, due to all the other people who have been feederised into them further upstream.

It's cost recovery would be even higher if it were a feeder, and probably patronage too as it would also be able to be run more frequently now that it is shorter.

Not really, because the amount of f%cking around you'd have to do for a one stop transfer would be a disincentive to patronage. As I've said, the 412 draws the bulk of it's pax as locals along the Coro drive/Sir Fred schonell corridor

There's not really a linear relationship between upping frequency, and patronage.
Route 29 is hyper frequent, every 5 minutes, and connects with a heap of busway services, rail services, and all the routes that pass through Wooloongabba. Does well, but it's not teeming with pax all the time because people are magically attracted to it's super frequency.

My heart bleeds. It doesn't have to be a metro.

But you kinda do need a frequent spine of some sort if you want people to transfer onto rail...It's what you propose for the SEB, what they have in vancouver, toronto etc....Then short hops are less burdenous?

Do you use the 402/Rail combo on a regular basis? I do. It's more or less pot luck if you get a connection with a train. Now, it normally isn't too bad, but it'd be just painful waiting 10 minutes for a train to Auchenflower or Milton, and then ride one stop...Im heading further afield, so the wait consitutes a smaller bit of my journey.
But I think it's a bit hardcore and inefficient to start imposing that sort of transfer on the current rail network.

And I can use those saved route-km elsewhere on the network to make more people happy.

But hang on a sec, you just said you'd double the 412 frequency....which one are you planning on doing?

But i think its a bit of a net loss. The Coro drive leg of the 412 is not very long, so its not going to do much elsewhere in the network.

You'd lose a whole bunch of 412 pax due to the impositon of the short transfer, for what, so some marginal low density route can be buzzed, and hopefully win back a few there?

[#Metro]

As I've said, the 412 draws the bulk of it's pax as locals along the Coro drive/Sir Fred schonell corridor

Proof re Coronation Drive? On my journeys most people bailed at Toowong.

There's also a direct ferry and when the new ferry terminal goes in at Milton/Auchenflower or wherever there will be less of a case to have a direct bus.

Anyway, I'm not negotiating. In my plan I'm cutting it off at Toowong. People can draw whatever plans they like, my one has it as a feeder.

[#Metro]

Milton Ferry Terminal ---> http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/downloads/traffic_transport/public_transport/milton_ferry_terminal_sept_2012.pdf

[Gazza]

As I've said, the 412 draws the bulk of it's pax as locals along the Coro drive/Sir Fred schonell corridor

Proof re Coronation Drive? On my journeys most people bailed at Toowong.

You study/have studied at UQ?

Really depends on if a 402 was just ahead and the subsequent ratio of people heading for the rail network (Also, Toowong is a strong destination in itself) ...you can have 412s very full as they arrive at Toowong heading O/B.

For me, i'd say 40-50% might bail at Toowong at most, but it's really quite variable.

My view on this is that if we are trying to increase efficiency, and improve usability of the network, the 412 is the last place you'd need to worry about....It's hardly a route I look at and think "ugh waste" or see it as a "lost opportunity".

[Gazza]

Anyway, I'm not negotiating.

Always a good approach when it comes to arriving at a solution for a cities PT network 
"lalalala im not listening"

In my plan I'm cutting it off at Toowong. People can draw whatever plans they like, my one has it as a feeder.

Meh, its some aspie type idea, never gonna happen anyway.

[STB]

Anyway, I'm not negotiating.

Always a good approach when it comes to arriving at a solution for a cities PT network 
"lalalala im not listening"

In my plan I'm cutting it off at Toowong. People can draw whatever plans they like, my one has it as a feeder.

Meh, its some aspie type idea, never gonna happen anyway.

Thank goodness we have TransLink with proper Planners and Engineers doing this work to moderate this foaming stuff. 

[techblitz]

Anyway, I'm not negotiating.

Always a good approach when it comes to arriving at a solution for a cities PT network 
"lalalala im not listening"

In my plan I'm cutting it off at Toowong. People can draw whatever plans they like, my one has it as a feeder.

Meh, its some aspie type idea, never gonna happen anyway.

Thank goodness we have TransLink with proper Planners and Engineers doing this work to moderate this foaming stuff. 

well someone has to keep us entertained here on the forum from time to time 

[MaxHeadway]

Meanwhile, Auckland looks set to reduce 26 bus routes to just five, on the western part of the isthmus.

http://transportblog.co.nz/2013/10/19/titirangi-and-greenbay-bus-network-changes/ 

But Brizzie peepol R speshull, ay?

[James]

The changing of the 411 to be a CFN standard feeder linking Indooroopilly, West Taringa/Toowong, Toowong station, St Lucia and UQ is something I support. What I don't support is terminating the 412 at Toowong. Yes, there are huge amounts of passengers getting off at Toowong - not all transfer to rail (a lot go and do the shopping, walk to residences in West Toowong, so on and so forth). But 412 still needs to continue down Coronation Drive.

The reason this does not fuss me is because in peak, a 412 comes every 5-10 minutes. Unlike for the 411, no-showing 412s are a non-issue. the 412 being terminated at Toowong means that under Lapdog's network, Coronation Drive gets only 4bph off-peak. Yes, the buses avoid congestion, but this does not provide this corridor with adequate service. 412 + Centenary BUZ provides Coro Drive with 8bph 6am - 11pm both directions. Provided it is timetabled well, this gives a max wait of 7.5 minutes. You will actually wait longer on a Sunday due to service bunching.

402, however, I believe needs to have its span of hours trimmed seriously. It should be peak-only, and the moment 412s are not at crush load, they should be canned. The fact the 402 leaves 3 minutes after the 412 doesn't help its cause either.

[techblitz]

From TL

Despite the proximity of the frequent rail line at Indooroopilly, Coronation Drive still generates high bus demands. It was considered important to maintain frequency and local access between Indooroopilly, UQ St Lucia, and the Brisbane CBD.

Increase rail / bus connectivity to UQ from Indooroopilly

Concentrating secondary services between Indooroopilly and UQ will provide more direct service to UQ for passengers travelling on the Ipswich rail line. It also splits rail/bus transfers more evenly between Indooroopilly and Toowong stations, while removing load from the rail network just before its peak load point.

maintaining a balance between nodes. Any good transport planner takes this into account instead of taking a 'one eyed view'  and just shove everyone onto rail `just because it carry's more passengers than a bus`

[James]

From TL

Despite the proximity of the frequent rail line at Indooroopilly, Coronation Drive still generates high bus demands. It was considered important to maintain frequency and local access between Indooroopilly, UQ St Lucia, and the Brisbane CBD.

Increase rail / bus connectivity to UQ from Indooroopilly

Concentrating secondary services between Indooroopilly and UQ will provide more direct service to UQ for passengers travelling on the Ipswich rail line. It also splits rail/bus transfers more evenly between Indooroopilly and Toowong stations, while removing load from the rail network just before its peak load point.

maintaining a balance between nodes. Any good transport planner takes this into account instead of taking a 'one eyed view'  and just shove everyone onto rail `just because it carry's more passengers than a bus`

I'm going to tell you this now techblitz, because it's obvious you don't know.

In getting to rail, 428 is an awful route, especially inbound. It deviates slightly to serve a railway station (justified), then it goes down Central Avenue, which is far from a decent arterial road, and then it screws around in York Street. The trip takes 16 minutes all up, not to mention that the traffic around the Indooroopilly schools just makes things worse. By comparison, the 412 takes 7 minutes. Combined with the better 412 frequency, a lot of pax simply opt to take the 412. Admittedly though, the 428 does now co-ordinate with outbound trains (I think it is more pure luck than anything), but the 428 is known for being slow and especially on the inbound, unreliable.

If you built a bus-rail interchange at Indooroopilly station though, and made the 428 slightly faster/gave it BUZ standard (may I suggest traffic lights at the corner of Clarence and Swann + routing straight down Clarence Road), I suspect the 428 would start winning every time.

Making 428 the route pax choose for rail - UQ transfers will definitely mean some form of signage or announcements. May I suggest in the interim, an announcement aboard inbound trains of "The next station is Indooroopilly... customers for buses to UQ, this is your station". Similar things are done across the world, and in fact I have heard train drivers regularly making announcements for this at stations right along the Gold Coast Line.

[#Metro]

Meanwhile, Auckland looks set to reduce 26 bus routes to just five, on the western part of the isthmus.

http://transportblog.co.nz/2013/10/19/titirangi-and-greenbay-bus-network-changes/ 

But Brizzie peepol R speshull, ay?

You nailed it.

maintaining a balance between nodes. Any good transport planner takes this into account instead of taking a 'one eyed view'  and just shove everyone onto rail `just because it carry's more passengers than a bus`

I can make self-interested arguments for hi-waste bus routing and dress it up as good planning. Easy!

Let's see. My personal home rocket 161 is an important PUBLIC SERVICE (this gives me the entitlement to waste as much money as humanly possible in running a service to my front door). I don't like to walk, in fact the bus stop MUST be directly outside my front door or 161 will lose important patronage. I am claustrophobic (not really) and so it is essential for health and safety reasons that the bus carry as much air as possible, forcing an interchange would FORCE me to into confined spaces with the great unwashed and thus 161 would catastrophically lose patronage.

The Hilton Hotel in the CBD and Queen Street Mall is an important patronage generator, and the 161 is very fast. Making me change at Upper Mt Gravatt would inflict intolerable and untold mental distress upon me from forced transferring. And anyway, forcing me to transfer oh so close to my house to another bus is just such a waste of time to me that, you know, it would be better if the bus ran express all the way to the CBD otherwise, you guessed it, it would CATASTROPHICALLY lose patronage. And forcing me to transfer would be unthinkable as I could have a wait of up to ONE HOUR for the next service.

Clearly my bus is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL, not only for me but VIPs to the Hilton Hotel in the CBD, would inflict UNACCEPTABLE transfer penalties (up to one hour!) on me, cause me major mental distress (I have a good lawyer!), cause catastrophic patronage decline, inflict pain and suffering on the vulnerable including elderly and children (heartless!), decimating the network, be a direct threat to my health and safety due to claustrophobia.

No, clearly not enough money has been spent on public services and what is really needed is an upgrade of 161 to BUZ status.

[Gazza]

I can make self-interested arguments for hi-waste bus routing and dress it up as good planning. Easy!

Except the 412 isn't high waste, and is very different to the 161.

Plus the 412 doesn't require sarcastic arguments to defend it like the 161.

[#Metro]

Except the 412 isn't high waste, and is very different to the 161.

Plus the 412 doesn't require sarcastic arguments to defend it like the 161.

Nonsense Clearly there would be HUGE demand from Wishart if it were upgraded to BUZ status. 

The people on Coronation Drive aren't losing service, they're losing DIRECT BUS service. By the time a new network rolls around there will be a FERRY TERMINAL in front of Pk Road where they can get a direct trip to UQ (if they are that fragile at walking between two vehicles). If they have the mental and physical fortitude of Bear Grylls, they can transfer (shock horror!) to a UQ service at Toowong.

There is little difference between arguing that people can't transfer to another service because the transfer point is close to their house and me arguing that my 161 shouldn't continue to the CBD because the transfer point (in theory - let's hope this proposal never sees the light of day!) is close to my house as well.

And consider this. Where are the most savings going to come from? From hourly "community service obligation" routes or from high frequency routes. If it is true that doubling the service doubles the cost, shouldn't that also imply that truncating it would also double the savings too, no??

[Gazza]

What are your thoughts on truncating the 199 to Fortitude Valley station?

[#Metro]

What are your thoughts on truncating the 199 to Fortitude Valley station?

Is there a CBD between UQ St Lucia and Toowong?

With a Subway (or perhaps with current setup- I think Somebody suggested this a while ago) you could get the service to run to RBWH, past the train station front door. This would leave only the 196 between CBD and Valley to pick up street passengers, but at that point you'd be running decent LRT BRT style service.

[Gazza]

No but what I'm saying is, truncating the 412 at Toowong, and using another train/bus to the CBD is equivalent to running the 199/196 from New Farm to the Valley, with people transferring to a Cityglider/Train from Fortitude Valley to reach the CBD.

(We'll assume the West End of the 199 is dealt with some other way for the time being)

So, what I'm asking is, would you support running the 199/196 only between New Farm and the Valley?

[#Metro]

It's already like that in my plan, 196 goes to the CBD as I've somehow managed to get ONLY A SINGLE BUS between the Valley and the CBD, cut down from the current 50 or so... 

I hope you and anyone else have heart medication ready

[longboi]

It's already like that in my plan, 196 goes to the CBD as I've somehow managed to get ONLY A SINGLE BUS between the Valley and the CBD, cut down from the current 50 or so... 

I hope you and anyone else have heart medication ready

A few questions...

1) Where will the terminus be located?

2) Will there be any new infrastructure to facilitate this proposal? Think bus stops, pedestrian infrastructure and provisions for bus layover and/or turnaround.

3) How will this be dealt with during peak (especially during PM peak) where each train or will need to accommodate at least 40-50 additional pax.? Will you just end up with more buses on the 196? What impact does this have on Central and Roma Street stations in terms of passenger flow?

4) It looks like you're taking about removing all of the current Valley terminating bus services (e.g. 184, 204). How will these services be treated? I imagine you would be looking at transferring at Woolloongabba.

I think this would be a very hard one to sell in reality. I think it's much more productive to be looking at least 5km outside the CBD for opportunites to truncate routes and provide transfers.

[James]

It's already like that in my plan, 196 goes to the CBD as I've somehow managed to get ONLY A SINGLE BUS between the Valley and the CBD, cut down from the current 50 or so... 

I hope you and anyone else have heart medication ready

Are you really sure this is wise - chucking everybody going between the CBD and the Valley on to one bus route? By all means, remove buses like the 184/185, 124/125, 210/P211/212 from the City-Valley routings. But reducing it to one route?

There is transferring, and then there is overdoing it to create stupid messes that inconvenience people and provide no significant frequency increases. I see nothing wrong with having up to 10 (in total) City-Valley services, including peak-only services. Yes, the current network is broken, but Lapdog's ideology seems to be 'bucketloads of transfers everywhere for everyone'.

If I applied your approach to my own network, the 432 (Indro to Heathwood via Jindalee and Forest Lake), 435 (Indoooroopilly to Inala via 17MR and Oxley) would both terminate at Jindalee Park n Ride, the bus out to Brookfield would terminate at Kenmore Village (with pax forced to double change), there wouldn't be a single bus down Coronation Drive, and the 411 CFN being terminated at Gailey Fiveways, with pax being fored to transfer to the 420 CFN, or walk, due to the 2.6km trip down Swann Road and Hawken Drive being duplicative.

This ^^^ is what you sound like. There are transfers for the greater good of the network, and there are transfers which are simply just pains in the arse being inflicted for some ideological cause.

And I second Nikko's concerns.

[techblitz]

It's already like that in my plan, 196 goes to the CBD as I've somehow managed to get ONLY A SINGLE BUS between the Valley and the CBD, cut down from the current 50 or so... 

I hope you and anyone else have heart medication ready

Are you really sure this is wise - chucking everybody going between the CBD and the Valley on to one bus route? By all means, remove buses like the 184/185, 124/125, 210/P211/212 from the City-Valley routings. But reducing it to one route?

There is transferring, and then there is overdoing it to create stupid messes that inconvenience people and provide no significant frequency increases. I see nothing wrong with having up to 10 (in total) City-Valley services, including peak-only services. Yes, the current network is broken, but Lapdog's ideology seems to be 'bucketloads of transfers everywhere for everyone'.

If I applied your approach to my own network, the 432 (Indro to Heathwood via Jindalee and Forest Lake), 435 (Indoooroopilly to Inala via 17MR and Oxley) would both terminate at Jindalee Park n Ride, the bus out to Brookfield would terminate at Kenmore Village (with pax forced to double change), there wouldn't be a single bus down Coronation Drive, and the 411 CFN being terminated at Gailey Fiveways, with pax being fored to transfer to the 420 CFN, or walk, due to the 2.6km trip down Swann Road and Hawken Drive being duplicative.

This ^^^ is what you sound like. There are transfers for the greater good of the network, and there are transfers which are simply just pains in the arse being inflicted for some ideological cause.

And I second Nikko's concerns.

at least someone is showing some sense!
Lets just wait for his grand plan on the valley....im sure everyone is eager to see it....and counter it. If they aren't doing that already...

[STB]

It's already like that in my plan, 196 goes to the CBD as I've somehow managed to get ONLY A SINGLE BUS between the Valley and the CBD, cut down from the current 50 or so... 

I hope you and anyone else have heart medication ready

  Spot the foam! 

Oh Lapdog, you're like the Moon Moon of RBOT (google it if you don't know who Moon  Moon is).

[Arnz]

Let me guess, all artic or "super-artic" buses on the 196? 

[ozbob]

Media release 20th October 2013



SEQ: BCC bus cost explosion to engulf ratepayers?

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport believes that the Brisbane City Council bus review is a failure. It is concerning to read that BCC is now borrowing increasing amounts of debt to run council operations (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"We think it is time to split the bus operations from BCC. This would help pay back the debt load that the council is taking, in part due to the failed gamble of 770 million dollars on the hi-waste Clem 7 tunnel project, a tunnel that has a market value of $618 million dollars. This is money that could have gone into public transport for the entire city. BCC has also been unable to find the funds to deliver 2000 daily express buses down Legacy Way, as promised, or fund high frequency bus services to Albany Creek, Yeronga, Morningside, or the Centenary Suburbs."

"BCC's government bus monopoly must be dissolved, it has led to gross waste, inefficiency, poor services and network design, a cost explosion, escalating fares and taxpayer and rate payer subsidies."

"Now it seems that BCC is having financial problems and may need to resort to escalating rates. Can Lord Mayor Graham Quirk rule out increasing the BCC bus tax of $400 levied on all ratepayers in Brisbane annually to run air all around the city to cover the cost explosion at Brisbane Transport? Or will rates have to rise to pay for BCC's hi-waste bus operations?"

"What is not financially sustainable shall not be sustained!"

"The State Government must do something and not sit idly by as workers, families and ratepayers are are taken to the proverbial cleaners. It must pass legislation altering the City of Brisbane Act 2010 to strip BCC of all public transport functions. The failure to back TransLink with the necessary bus network connective changes for Brisbane has set back public transport years in Brisbane."

"The Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run Brisbane's buses. After a decade of games, it's time to dump Brisbane City Council and separate Brisbane Transport."

References:

1. Brisbane City Council borrows to overcome rates shortfall http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-city-council-borrows-to-overcome-rates-shortfall-20131017-2vpnk.html

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. Bus boom causes council staff crunch http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bus-boom-causes-council-staff-crunch-20100914-15atl.html

4. Turning $3b into $618m: Brisbane's failed Clem7 tunnel sold off http://www.smh.com.au/business/turning-3b-into-618m-brisbanes-failed-clem7-tunnel-sold-off -20130927-2uihw.html

Contact:

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

[#Metro]

We hate it but we love it 


See more on Know Your Meme

[bagbuffy]

No but what I'm saying is, truncating the 412 at Toowong, and using another train/bus to the CBD is equivalent to running the 199/196 from New Farm to the Valley, with people transferring to a Cityglider/Train from Fortitude Valley to reach the CBD.

(We'll assume the West End of the 199 is dealt with some other way for the time being)

So, what I'm asking is, would you support running the 199/196 only between New Farm and the Valley?

The BCC should can both 196 and 199 in favour of a New Farm Loop service, Departing and Terminating at Teneriffe. PAX can travel to New Farm via Multiple services such as the Blue Glider,470, 393 and City Cats. Interchanging to The New Farm loop. The High Frequency Loop service would run every 10min and  would service Macquarie Rd, Merthyr Rd, Moray St, Brunswick St  back on to Merthyr & Macquarie Rds

PAX who live with in a radius of 5-10Min walk of New Farm Park/Merthyr will have access to the City Cat and the New Farm High Frequency Loop.

Pax who live with in a Radius of 5-10Min Walk  of Brunswick St will have access to the High Frequency New Farm Loop Service,470 multiple of bus services from Ann St. 

[#Metro]

See more on Know Your Meme

[achiruel]

470 (northern end at least) shouldn't even exist, too closely duplicates CityGlider.

[James]

470 (northern end at least) shouldn't even exist, too closely duplicates CityGlider.

Disagree. The northern end of the 470 performs an important little coverage role. It should be tacked on to a similarly appalling coverage route on poor frequency, though.

I think the 470's poor patronage/cost recovery comes from the fact nobody uses it on Milton Road, not to mention a non-clockface timetable and the one-in-every-three service diversions down Duke Street which are just plain annoying.

at least someone is showing some sense!
Lets just wait for his grand plan on the valley....im sure everyone is eager to see it....and counter it. If they aren't doing that already...

Lapdog, techblitz and I are agreeing over something, I think it is a sign your plan does go too far.

[#Metro]

I'm always happy to hear new ideas for route proposals, whoever they come from and whatever they suggest.

With regards to route 470, there are issues with it as discussed - irritating diversions in Toowong, rubbish frequency and so forth. James Street is an activated street and there is major high rise office and residential development happening there and it was slated for Light Rail in some of the old planning documents.

The solution here is a Powerhouse BUZ IMHO, with details to be worked out later.

[achiruel]

I've heard this idea before somewhere of the Powerhouse BUZ and I like it.  But even a 15 peak/30 minute off service would be more useful than the current 470.

It's just a pity it can't connect with the CityCat at the Powerhouse end.  I think it might get a few commuters though, given the absolute crapload of aparments down the river end of Lamington St.

[#Metro]

The 234 Kangaroo Pt has excellent load, was on it today in the off peak, about 20 pax on board!!  Plenty of latent capacity in that area the ferry is not servicing.

[Set in train]

The black humour of the KGS closure is the media release suggesting transferring at Cultural Centre to an Adelaide St service. Wonder how commuters feel about it? Might be a shock to the BCC that transferring is not a big problem.

[Fattious]

The 234 Kangaroo Pt has excellent load, was on it today in the off peak, about 20 pax on board!!  Plenty of latent capacity in that area the ferry is not servicing.

It only has a 1 hour frequency - which isn't too popular according to this article.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/pensioner-protest-over-bus-route-changes-20131030-2whig.html

Not sure how 1 hour frequency plus a transfer to a 29 which runs every 10 minutes for a 4 minute trip can take "up to two hours".

[techblitz]

The 234 Kangaroo Pt has excellent load, was on it today in the off peak, about 20 pax on board!!  Plenty of latent capacity in that area the ferry is not servicing.

It only has a 1 hour frequency - which isn't too popular according to this article.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/pensioner-protest-over-bus-route-changes-20131030-2whig.html

Not sure how 1 hour frequency plus a transfer to a 29 which runs every 10 minutes for a 4 minute trip can take "up to two hours".

They are just a tad late with thier protest 

[STB]

The 234 Kangaroo Pt has excellent load, was on it today in the off peak, about 20 pax on board!!  Plenty of latent capacity in that area the ferry is not servicing.

It only has a 1 hour frequency - which isn't too popular according to this article.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/pensioner-protest-over-bus-route-changes-20131030-2whig.html

Not sure how 1 hour frequency plus a transfer to a 29 which runs every 10 minutes for a 4 minute trip can take "up to two hours".

I think upgrading route 234 to at least a 20min frequency might solve some of the issues they have, but I certainly don't think that the old route needs to come back given the high frequency of routes 29 and 100. 

I also don't buy their reason that it's too difficult to walk in a transfer.  It's getting off a bus and onto another, and there are lifts available.  I also find it hard to believe that walking is a problem given that old route 475 stopped at the bottom of the hill at the PA Hospital, requiring crossing 6 lanes of traffic and then a walk up a steep hill to the entrance of the hospital.

Whinging pensioners, they are always around, and nothing is ever good enough for them. 

[James]

I think upgrading route 234 to at least a 20min frequency might solve some of the issues they have, but I certainly don't think that the old route needs to come back given the high frequency of routes 29 and 100. 

I also don't buy their reason that it's too difficult to walk in a transfer.  It's getting off a bus and onto another, and there are lifts available.  I also find it hard to believe that walking is a problem given that old route 475 stopped at the bottom of the hill at the PA Hospital, requiring crossing 6 lanes of traffic and then a walk up a steep hill to the entrance of the hospital.

Whinging pensioners, they are always around, and nothing is ever good enough for them. 

I'll actually half-side with the pensioners. Previously they had the 475, which ran every half-hour during the off-peak Monday - Saturday, and hourly on Sunday. Peak frequency was around every 15 minutes.

Now they have the 234, which runs every hour off-peak (all times) and 20 minute peak frequency. The span of hours has improved slightly, but the grannies really don't give too hoots about the fact the 234 runs until 11pm at night as they're in bed by 7:30pm anyway. I agree that there's nothing wrong with transferring, but BCC has just taken the axe to the frequency of the route. What makes me most angry about the 475 changes is apparently this was justification to downgrade the 475 (west of the CBD) to hourly off-peak.

And so, the BCC Bus Cost Explosion rises up and engulfs the suburbs of Kangaroo Point, Bardon/Rainworth and Paddington.

--------------

Footnote: Off the BUZ network, the only bus with buses more frequently than ever hour in the west (excluding the Centenary suburbs) are the 425, the 428/432 east of Indooroopilly (and as I've mentioned even that is rather piecemeal) and the 411. Meanwhile, in a far off land, run by myself, there are four frequent routes just north of the river alone. A land of peace and happiness, where people along Yallambee Road don't wait 30 minutes for a bus, and people change from train to bus every day. 

EDIT: A possible idea could be to terminate on the lower level of the PAH. If patronage justifies it, I'd do it.

[#Metro]

That's odd. I've used it and pretty sure it is half hourly during the day. I like going for walks around KP so I might drop in on one of the stops when I have a coffee stop.

We can't just keep going around and increasing everyone's frequency, especially when there is a cost explosion. Brisbane Transport is a government sponsored MONOPOLY and like all monopolies, it is powerful, has vested interests that protect it (entire council, RBTU), oodles of waste and inefficiency, displays gross resistance to change and doesn't respond to customers (think of all the abandoned people in Centenary, Bulimba, Yeronga, Northwest for example) or the regulator (TransLink, which is a mere ATM and toothless lapdog).

[James]

That's odd. I've used it and pretty sure it is half hourly during the day. I like going for walks around KP so I might drop in on one of the stops when I have a coffee stop.

We can't just keep going around and increasing everyone's frequency, especially when there is a cost explosion. Brisbane Transport is a government sponsored MONOPOLY and like all monopolies, it is powerful, has vested interests that protect it (entire council, RBTU), oodles of waste and inefficiency, displays gross resistance to change and doesn't respond to customers (think of all the abandoned people in Centenary, Bulimba, Yeronga, Northwest for example) or the regulator (TransLink, which is a mere ATM and toothless lapdog).

Yes, both 234 and 475 are hourly.

The thing which is even worse is that the bus frequency of both routes has been cut. I highly doubt the frequency of either the 475 or S99 Inner Loop would have been designed so there were network cuts under TransLink's review. From personal observation, the 475 doesn't do too badly.

If we cut the 161 back to Garden City, or simply tacked the end of the 161 on to one 160 service every hour, you could probably save enough resources to boost the 234/475 back to half-hourly during the day, even if only Monday - Friday.

[Fattious]

I also don't buy their reason that it's too difficult to walk in a transfer.  It's getting off a bus and onto another, and there are lifts available.  I also find it hard to believe that walking is a problem given that old route 475 stopped at the bottom of the hill at the PA Hospital, requiring crossing 6 lanes of traffic and then a walk up a steep hill to the entrance of the hospital.

Given the outbound 100 services platform 1 (outbound) and the originating 29 services platform 2 ("inbound"), perhaps the 29 should service both platforms when departing, allowing for passengers to catch either of the the services that arrive first. To make use of this method passengers would need to swap platforms when getting off the 234, which may not be favourable. Possibly better if the arriving 234 serviced both platforms.

I do think better communications is needed - advising of alternatives, similar to the defunct Translink review maps.