SEQ Bus Network Review

[HappyTrainGuy]

Also, HTG, I keep forgetting, but what is the Northside route that has like 6 different variations that you hate? What have they said on that one?

My beloved local 338 Strathpine to Chermside depending on the time via Bald Hills, Brendale, Albany Creek, Craigslea, that school, that other school, whoop whoop. They haven't said much other than fixing the run through Aspley to Chermside. Very descriptive information they have provided. Might ditch the Craigslea dogleg bit or run it full time.

"338: Changes to where this route travels are being considered in the Aspley area to provide better access to Chermside."

Would have been better to see something addressing the running patterns/how it runs in conjunction with the 357/359 through Albany Creek and beyond to the North and more early morning services for those that work in Strathpine etc but hey, what can you do.

[triplethree]

I see truncating some western suburbs bus routes at Indooroopilly is likely. In my case I need to get from Chapel Hill to the Valley, and not too keen on bus - bus - train.

Since the weekend and off-peak rail frequency (Darra - CBD - Northgate) has been improved to 15 mins, it would be great if a solution to terminate at Indooroopilly rail could be found. Is there a way to do this without the buses having travel over the rail corridor? Presumably would need to create a layover zone for buses.

That would be my optimal solution too. Seems pointless to terminate buses at Indro interchange and force everyone to walk 10 minutes to the station where they'll get a faster and more efficient trip to the city than being stuck in Coro Drive traffic on a 444. Perhaps there should be an anti-clockwise balloon loop, Station Rd - Coonan St - Westminster Rd with the terminus / layover on Westminster Rd?

My general thoughts on the proposed changes ...

There's much that is welcome. Truncating various 4xx expresses at Indro, the 322 at Toombul, etc. The renumbering (finally!) of all the old-format route numbers on the Gold Coast. Proposed service increases (BUZ?) to Eatons Hill, Bulimba, etc. Quite a few duplicate routes in for the chop or at the very least an army-style buzzcut. TransLink deserves credit for all of this.

But they didn't go far enough.

If all these proposed changes were to be put in effect lock, stock, and barrel, Brisbane would still be burdened with a breathlessly complex bus network with unfathomable stopping patterns which even Alan Turing would have found impossible to decipher, a plethora of peak-only and weekday-only routes which make the system even more illegible, routes like the 232 and the 415 which meander around like a garden slug that's pulled a few too many cones, ridiculous stop locations in the city where commuters are forced to take a lucky dip between four departure locations each evening, and a ludicrously inefficient and inequitable CBD-centric network schema which ignores the fact that 80% of people don't work in the city and that people need to get across town from one suburb to another.

I'm disappointed about the proposed cuts to the 369 and the 77. Surely we should be putting MORE of these sorts of services in which facilitate cross-town travel and relieve the pressure on CBD bus congestion rather than cutting them back?

I'm also disappointed with the attitude towards underperforming suburban feeder routes. "Oh, this cruddy feeder out in Moreton Bay or Redlands which operates once an hour only while the sun is up isn't attracting passengers or revenue? Why, let's make it even cruddier! That'll learn 'em!" You only have to go to Sydney or Melbourne where many outer-suburban feeders run every 30, 15 or even every 10 minutes - and often get decent patronage - to see how outer-suburban transport ought to work.

I hope TransLink bring out the scissors and the steam iron during the corridor study phase of the network review. They're going to need them.

[Gazza]

That would be my optimal solution too. Seems pointless to terminate buses at Indro interchange and force everyone to walk 10 minutes to the station where they'll get a faster and more efficient trip to the city than being stuck in Coro Drive traffic on a 444. Perhaps there should be an anti-clockwise balloon loop, Station Rd - Coonan St - Westminster Rd with the terminus / layover on Westminster Rd?

I've thought of the Balloon loop too, admittedly never thought to have it on Westminster Rd (Kept thinking to myself it would be clockwise with stops on Coonan St lol)
...But it makes total sense, you can just take out the street car parking...I'd just hope that there is enough space for all these terminating buses to finish!
That whole block is very constrained and congested though.

Might have to layover buses around the corner or something.

[#Metro]

I don't have much to say for now, other than I am generally pleased with what TL proposes.
TL has however failed to add indicators for FREQUENCY and SPAN which they should add to the website PRONTO.
Why? Look at route 108 - has a grand total of around 3 services or so in the am peak and pm peak - judging purely by value for money and patronage you would think this is some kind of god-send route. However, the purpose of PT is to provide MOBILITY and thus on this metric (which isn't indicated) 108 is useless. It has neither Frequency NOR span and doesn't exist for most of the day - useless for travel for anywhere other than to and from work in the CBD.

The route profiles (hat tip to TL, never would have thought we'd see this EVER) for all the bus routes show a pattern:

The ones that make money and have good patronage are rockets (however with the above frequency and span metrics, provide EXTREMELY POOR MOBILITY because they are not all day and thus only useful for home <---> work trips and BUZ services part of the CFN.

Route 369 should not be touched - a bus route should have 12 months to settle down before making any judgments about it. The Northern busway routes have just opened and the FG line upgraded which should have impact. Cutting the frequency of the Northern Crosstown would totally defeat the purpose of the route - a transfer service - and make it completely useless and *worse*.

If they do want to make cuts, make the cuts to the span not the frequency - cut the early morning services so that the first service starts at 7 am or thereabouts. I don't really see the need to start at 5 am ish.

Maroon CityGlider still seems to be on the cards *COUGH* as well as route 198 *COUGH COUGH*

Route 77 should be scrapped or harshly cut back to peak hour only. It doesn't have decent patronage because in the tunnel there are no demand generators AND the bus is only useful to those who go from before buranda TO chermside - in other words it doesn't combine markets and thus limited market = low patronage.

I will post a detailed list of thoughts later, in bus routes reviewed thread.

[Golliwog]

But what I'm saying is, if the route exists around the concept being something you interchange onto to save a bit of time thats ok, but it actually has to have routes it can interchange with.
And having the 333 alone isn't enough at the northern end. In the future I can see Chermside being a termination point for many feeder routes, so what Bridges the gap from Chermside to Windsor Rail? Do you double change for a short distance to a 333, and then the 77?

If and when that happens at Chermside, maybe. At this point though, that's not really how they're operating the system. If they're really looking at doing a proper trunk and feeder though, it shouldn't matter if theres a double change. The 333 (or whatever it is) will be frequent enough that when you get off whatever your feeder route is at Chermside, it'll be there soon.

It doesn't worry me too much that the bus misses stops by using Airport Link, because those are more "local stops", and its no worse than an Ipswich express skipping Taringa or Auchenflower.

But the thing with the Ipswich expresses is those at Taringa or Auchenflower who want it just have to catch a local service (in the same direction) a few stops to/from Indooroopilly. For those that are anywhere along the new extension of the Northern busway, there is no such option. They would be either forced to go all the way through the city (from a friend who does it, but the time he's changing at CC, the 77 would already have him on one of the UQ bound buses) or back track to whatever the first BUZ stop north of the Airport link entrance. Why are people at Chermside deserving of what is effectively an express to UQ bus? If the overall network patronage grows, then maybe it could be justified, but I don't think at this point you can just cut off anyone inbound of Stafford Road from being able to access the 77 easily.

Should be 4bph UQ-Chermside. Simple.

Via Buranda.

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/seq-bus-network-review-stage-2.html
BrizCommuter's comments on the review.

Good to see some common sense, but the network review needs to be more radical rather than just tinkering. Step in the right direction though.

BTW - Cut the 77. Too many frequent alternatives (requiring change)  330, 333, 340, 29, 109.

Maroon CityGlider still going ahead - FFS! 

[ozbob]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/seq-bus-network-review-stage-2.html
BrizCommuter's comments on the review.

Good to see some common sense, but the network review needs to be more radical rather than just tinkering. Step in the right direction though.

BTW - Cut the 77. Too many frequent alternatives (requiring change)  330, 333, 340, 29, 109.

Maroon CityGlider still going ahead - FFS! 

A post at ATDB has indicated the route for the MGlider is now Langlands/Ashgrove ....  probably trying to make it a bit more useful and defer flack.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

5th December 2012

Maroon CityGlider

Greetings,

At a time when middle to outer suburbia looks like loosing bus routes and bus frequency, the flawed proposal for the Maroon City Glider appears to be going ahead.

Sources have suggested that route for the Maroon City Glider has now been varied to run from Langlands Park to Ashgrove and is to be introduced February 2013. An improvement on the original proposal, but still one that duplicates already high frequency bus services on busways. 

Many areas of middle and outer Brisbane are looking at service reductions as flagged in stage 2 of the bus review.

The planned implementation of the Maroon City Glider is an excellent demonstration of why public transport planning needs to be removed from BCC and Brisbane Transport.  Political stunts are political stunts --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7575.msg99120#msg99120

The Maroon City Glider is a waste of valuable funds, funds much better directed to bus services that would enable people to get to and from railway and bus stations away from the public transport rich inner Brisbane core.

Dumber than dumb I am afraid.

Best wishes
Robert

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

[nathandavid88]

I'm really concerned that they're considering cutting some of these routes, particularly 550, 553 & 560.

I'm wondering if 553 is simply too long.  Would it be stupid to suggest merging the southern end of 553 with 565 (obviously with the result that 565 would no longer run express via M1) and having 553 run only from Logan Central to Hyperdome?  Is there really a need for 553 to continue to Trinder Park?

I'm hoping that I'm overestimating the extent of the cuts to these services, particular the 560 and 550 as I personally use them to commute to work, and the 572, 574 and 552 as I live along those routes and use them pretty often as well, so any major changes to these could be a real pain. Some of the exact TL comments are as follows:

*550 – "Reductions to the Sunday hours of operation and frequency of this route are being considered to reduce duplication on the network. Changes to the timetable are also being considered to provide more realistic travel times due to traffic."

The 550 runs hourly on Sundays, with the first inbound (to Springwood) service a truncated one leaving from Kingston Station at 8:08am, and the first full route leaving Browns Plains (BP) at 8:30am, and the last full service leaving BP at 4:30pm, with a truncated one leaving BP at 5:30pm that goes only to Kingston Station. Outbound there's a truncated service starting at Kingston Station that leaves at 7:48am, with the first full service leaving Springwood at 8:30am and the last leaving at 5:30pm. I wouldn't mind if the truncated services are cut. Servicing a small part of a larger route annoys me personally. I don't want to see the frequency dropped though, it'd be hard enough going from a half hourly weekday service to hourly on weekends!

*560 – "Reductions to the weekday morning and Sunday evening hours of operation and frequency of this route are being considered to reduce duplication on the network. Changes to the timetable are also being considered to provide more realistic travel times due to traffic."

The first three weekday 560 services leave from BP and Loganholme at 6am, 6:30am and 7am, so I'm guessing that the 6am and 6:30am ones might be cut. I catch it at 7am and think that the patronage on that service is enough to warrant keeping it. You get a good half a dozen people (at least) getting on at Loganlea station along, and a further dozen–18 students getting on and off along the route. As for Sunday evenings, final service from BP leaves at 5:30pm, but is truncated and doesn't go further than Monash Rd & Haig Rd, while the final service leaves Loganholme at 5:00pm, but is a full service. I think the former will go, maybe the latter too, maybe not. I don't know what the patronage on that one is like. Again, frequency is hourly and I don't want to see it reduced beyond that!

*553 – "Reductions to the weekday morning and Sunday morning and evening hours of operation and frequency of this route are being considered to reduce duplication on the network. Changes to the timetable are also being considered to provide more realistic travel times due to traffic."

Again, the first weekday 553 service from Beenleigh is truncated, only going as far as Loganholme and leaving at 5:30am, the first full service leaves at 6:10am, while the first service from Trinder Park leaves at 7:05am. I'm guessing both the truncated service and the 6:10am Beenleigh one would be the ones to go, leaving both directions with a first service of 7:05am (from TP) and 7:10am (from BL) respectively. That makes sense. On Sundays, first service for each direction is at 7:50am (from TP) and 7:55am (from BL), while the last full services leave at 3:50 (from TP) and 3:55pm (BL), but there are a further 3 truncated Loganholme to Beenleigh services at 5:25, 6:25 and 7:25pm (but no reciprocal Beenleigh to Loganholme service). I'm guessing the truncated services could be cut, and maybe the first Sunday services, having first services leave at 8:50am / 8:55am.  With regards to cutting them, I don't think that is really necessary – Translink rates the 553 as High Value and Moderate Patronage, and it's not that much longer than a 555 or a 560, maybe 10 mins longer if that. What I would rather see is the 565 bumped up to half hourly.

*565 – "Reductions to the weekday morning and evening hours of operation and frequency of this route are being considered to reduce duplication on the network. Extension of Sunday route to service section not covered by loop replacing routes 563 and 562 is proposed."

I don't want to see the first weekend services (8:15am from Windaroo, 8:45am) pushed back any further, although the truncated Beenleigh to Loganholme services that run only on Saturdays hourly from 6:45pm – 9:45pm might be alright to cut back. The extension of the Sunday route is an interesting concept, but I want to see what is proposed exactly first before I say yay or nay to it.

*572 – "Reductions to Sunday hours of operation and the frequency of this route are being considered to reduce duplication on the network."

The first sunday services leave at 6am from the Loganholme!!! I didn't know there was a 6am on a Sunday! The first Sunday service from Springwood only leaves at 7:30am, so probably good to even them up. As for Sunday evenings, the late night running of the route is as a result of the 555 "terminating" at Springwood and transforming to a 572 to Loganholme. The last normal Sunday 572 leaves Loganholme at 6pm, the last Springwood one at 7pm. Maybe we'll see the end of the 555 transformer, at least late night on Sundays?

*574 – "Reductions to the weekday evening hours of operation, frequency of this route and removal of all weekend services are being considered to reduce duplication on the network."

So anyone living along the Springwood Road alignment will lose all weekend services? Not exactly a good outcome.

*552 – "Reductions to weekday evening hours of operation and frequency of this route are being considered with often less than seven people using each service. Changes to the timetable are being considered to provide more realistic travel times due to traffic."

Currently, the last weekday service leaves Kingston Station at 6pm, and the last from the Hyperdome at 7pm. Not overly late I would have thought, but if the patronage isn't there...

They are the main ones I know reasonably well. I can't really comment on the others.

[SurfRail]

People should be contacting their local councils and demanding why if its good enough for GCCC and SCRC, why their councils are not contributing to save some of these services and develop new ones.

[achiruel]

People should be contacting their local councils and demanding why if its good enough for GCCC and SCRC, why their councils are not contributing to save some of these services and develop new ones.

Perhaps it's because GCCC and SCRC have far greater revenue per resident than e.g. Logan. Ipswich or Moreton due to the amount of very high value land around their tourist strips which brings in $$$ of rates.  BCC has the CBD and city fringe which also have high density high rate value properties.  The outer suburban councils have nothing like that.

[SurfRail]

Perhaps it's because GCCC and SCRC have far greater revenue per resident than e.g. Logan. Ipswich or Moreton due to the amount of very high value land around their tourist strips which brings in $$$ of rates.  BCC has the CBD and city fringe which also have high density high rate value properties.  The outer suburban councils have nothing like that.

It doesn't come out of general rates - it comes out of a separate levy.  $20.00 per account per year for the Sunshine Coast (specifically for public transport), $111.00 for the Gold Coast (which also includes roads and some other things).

$20.00 per year to help keep some services going is, in the scheme of things, farely insignificant.

[Golliwog]

Route 399 has now been put up as well. Unfortunately they have nothing on it for Value for Money or Patronage 
Comments are: There are no changes proposed at this time. This route provides an important local connection for Samford to Ferny Grove rail station.

[Gazza]

I've yet to hear an explanation as to how you determine what areas get a city precincts variant, and what ones don't.

I'm not going to be roped in to making up some rules about this.

Service planning is an art, not a science!

Service planning is an art, not a science.

LOL well if that's your best respone I can safely say I've won this argument.

What a cop out!

[somebody]

Say what you want.  It really doesn't matter to me.

[Gazza]

Well, it does bug me a bit that you were happy to criticise based on nothing.

[triplethree]

And I've just noticed that it looks like they're merging the 476 into the 475. Woohoo, about time!  My pet theory for why the 476 even exists in the first place ... perhaps a long-dead influential councillor or campaign donor in the 1960s lived on Warburton Street? 

I'm surprised that the 470 is VFM High and Patronage Low. How did they figure that? The 470 is no 199, but it's not just shipping air around either. I'd love to know the methodology they use to calculate the patronage metric. The blurb says "TransLink calculates this as the average number of people on board the service divided by the maximum capacity of the vehicle. For example, in the case of a standard bus that carries around 10 passengers on average, but has capacity for 50, the 'average patronage' indicator would be calculated as 10/50 = 20 per cent."

So is that averaged over the entire length of the route? Average at the midpoint? Average at each end? Average at zone boundaries? Total passenger boardings irrespective of where people get off? I find it difficult to believe that there are less than 7 boardings all the way from Toowong to Teneriffe.

[triplethree]

Also, just a quick question ... did anyone make a suggestion during the public consultation which appears on the list of proposed changes?

[somebody]

Also, just a quick question ... did anyone make a suggestion during the public consultation which appears on the list of proposed changes?

Yes.  E.g. 199 via Ivory St.  Yet they don't have the balls to say it in so many words.  AARRGGHH!!

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail 6th December 2012 page 6

Changes to bus routes set for 2013

[somebody]

My sources at TransLink say they are dead serious about drastic changes this time.

Unfortunately the reality says otherwise.  Still with the 88 in particular.

[Jonno]

From the Couriermail 6th December 2012 page 6

Changes to bus routes set for 2013

Breaking News Patronage dropped due to

1. Billions being spent on PT direct competitor The Road
2. No bus lanes
3. Increase in fares
4. No political backbone across our major parties!

[Gazza]

My sources at TransLink say they are dead serious about drastic changes this time.

Unfortunately the reality says otherwise.  Still with the 88 in particular.

If it gets cut on weekends thats a good start...cuts a fair chunk of running costs.
Still hoping it gets axed eventually.

Would that ever happen under the previous government?

The western corridor review should hopefully throw up a lot of changes (And TT, I'm happy to accept seeing the 470 and 411 now...have come around to the idea)

[#Metro]

The western corridor review should hopefully throw up a lot of changes (And TT, I'm happy to accept seeing the 470 and 411 now...have come around to the idea)

Glad to hear it. The intersection might be a tight turn, that's just the one issue there with that. I believe 411 should have more trips added, and I also believe the section running down Coronation Drive on the 411 is PURE WASTE.

[#Metro]

From the Couriermail 6th December 2012 page 6

Changes to bus routes set for 2013

Actually Jackie Trad, the ALP had AEONS to do the bus reviews and they never did them!! EVER!! No just threw more money into the waste pool and running air parcels everywhere. Totally failed to upgrade trains to decent frequency! Actually hid frequency improvements on the Ipswich Line by publishing two separate timetables and ignoring any attempt to brand the services or market them. Same thing with CityCycle and a Tourist card for SEQ!

[#Metro]

I'm surprised that the 470 is VFM High and Patronage Low. How did they figure that? The 470 is no 199, but it's not just shipping air around either. I'd love to know the methodology they use to calculate the patronage metric.

I think 470 is a "sleepy" route. It is probably cheap because it is (a) short and (b) not far from the depot and (c) through-routing which means balanced loads on either side. Perhaps game days make the VFM figure what it is?

I think 470 should be overhauled. Lose the Coronation Drive section of the 411, and stick the 411 to the 470. Make it terminate in the city/valley (or continue to Brisbane powerhouse). There is a lot of student demand pent up in Toowong, Milton, Auchenflower and 470 doesn't really service that (pity) while the 411 is pure waste/duplication down Coronation Drive.

[#Metro]

77?

It doesn't worry me too much that the bus misses stops by using Airport Link, because those are more "local stops", and its no worse than an Ipswich express skipping Taringa or Auchenflower.

Should be 4bph UQ-Chermside. Simple.

I'm willing to give Route 77 one final chance as a connection to the Northside if 77 is re-routed to UQ Lakes. One.Last.Chance.

[HappyTrainGuy]

There's nothing preventing it from running futher north aswell ie Geebung Railway Station.

[longboi]

There's nothing preventing it from running futher north aswell ie Geebung Railway Station.

lol.

[ozbob]

Media release 7 December 2012

SEQ: Bus review rolling along nicely

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 has welcomed the next stage of the Bus Review (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"TransLink has embarked on a major review of the bus network. It is a complex task, and perhaps major reviews should be conducted more regularly, at least every 6 to 8 years. Some of our members however have suggested the review and changes suggested for stage 2 are too timid.  The keys to an improved network are frequency and simplicity and changes need to be aggressive to properly recast the network."

"A few patterns are evident from the review website: Services that have high value for money and high patronage are either (a) peak hour express services or (b) all day BUZ routes. Of the two, the BUZ routes provide the greatest freedom and mobility as they exist all day, whereas the peak hour expresses are not useful for most of the day. This is where the focus needs to be - on an inter-meshing network of BUZ routes, what we have come to call 'The Bus Grid'."

"Other very interesting patterns are revealed also - the following bus routes have high patronage and value for money despite poor frequency and span. Bulimba (230, 235) and The Northwest (350, 357, 359). Moderate routes include Wynnum Road (220 and 227) and The Centenary Suburbs (450 etc). We have been calling for BUZ routes to Bulimba, Centenary and The Northwest for some time now. Residents in these areas have lodged petitions also. RAIL Back On Track has long argued that the fastest, cheapest way to boost public transport is to introduce frequent and rapid services along main arterial road corridors, and increase rail and ferry services in existing corridors, and TransLink's own data appears to bear this out."

"RAIL Back on Track calls for the Maroon CityGlider to be scrapped and replaced with a BulimbaGlider, where it is actually needed (3). There isn't anybody on the Maroon CityGlider route who does not already have access to a decent frequent bus services already."

"We look forward to the next stages of the review, thank you and keep up the good work."

References:

1. http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review

2. "transferring" can be good for you, and good for your city http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

3. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7575.msg99120#msg99120

Contact:

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

[somebody]

There's nothing preventing it from running futher north aswell ie Geebung Railway Station.

lol.

I agree with nikko.

[Jonas Jade]

77?

It doesn't worry me too much that the bus misses stops by using Airport Link, because those are more "local stops", and its no worse than an Ipswich express skipping Taringa or Auchenflower.

Should be 4bph UQ-Chermside. Simple.

I'm willing to give Route 77 one final chance as a connection to the Northside if 77 is re-routed to UQ Lakes. One.Last.Chance.

As it is at the moment it's too convoluted a connection for most mainstream use to be effective and it has no real "anchor" on either side to make it stand out since they're all already well served as has been pointed out. If you miss it and have to wait 30 minutes for the next one - why not jump on one of the many high frequency routes that will come along.

But, the UQ Lakes connection for 77 or "79" has real potential since it would be able to do something not many bus routes could do - really competitive travel times vs car! Even out of peak - since it can use the Busway to UQ and the tunnel - it would have a real advantage. Put it in for the beginning of semester next year with enough advertising and a decent offpeak frequency (at least match the 139/169 etc) and it should go well.

The 369 really should have more time to find its feet before being cut. As it stands the route probably had barely started for the stats they've got.

I'll second some notions that the review is a bit a weak in some areas and could go further, but it is headed mostly in the right direction so far.

[Golliwog]

I find it interesting the they propose no changes to route 393 because it was recently modified and the data is insufficient, yet the 369 which is also new can have changes proposed. I think its most likely to do with the relative cost of running each.

[Gazza]

If other people want to give feedback similar to mine, feel free, but I made sure I did a form saying the 590 needs to go all the way to Toombul.

DFO is in the middle of nowhere, dies at 6pm and is a dumb termination point.

Toombul has a bus interchange, railway, a larger shopping center with cinemas, Nundah urban village just 500m away (lol, never realised till now that Toombul and Nundah stations are only 800m apart) plus many more local residents in the flats/apartment complexes.

Check out the 590 timetable, and see how few connections there are at the DFO end compared to the Garden City end.
(That said, hasn't been updated to include the 369)


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/515/busconnections.jpg/

[SurfRail]

They should get rid of the 308 (Toombul to Chermside loop).

If Rode Rd is in such need of a service, just connect it to the 307 via Toombul.  That might free up a little layover space at Toombul to enable the 590 to be extended there.

[achiruel]

Yes, but to some extent the number of interchange routes at Upper Mt Gravatt/Garden City (and to a lesser extent Carindale) reflect how ridiculously complicated our bus network has become!

Still, Toombul would be a far more logical termination point for the 590.

[ozbob]

By viewing the source code, I have been able to generate a document with all the routes and comments.  It is not clean, there is still a lot of code but it does give a list of all the routes and their comments.

File (txt file) --> http://backontrack.org/docs/bus/busreview2notclean.txt

Here is a cleaned up PDF of the stage 2 bus review comments ..

click --> here!  PDF 0.2 MB

Tidied it up a little more ..

[nathandavid88]

Thanks for the PDF Ozbob! Very handy!

However, I've just noticed that Translink have gone and changed some of the proposed service changes on their website (like the 560, which previously said that weekday morning services could be cut, now changed to weekday evening services) and fixed a couple of errors (like for the 564: "Changes to where this route travels on Sundays and reducing the hours of operation are being considered with often less than seven people using each service." Seven people per service isn't bad for a route that hasn't been created yet! It now says that it's a new route designed to replace the 562 and 563 services on Sundays.)

I've only noticed a few so far, and a few extra flexilink and trial services have been added to the list, but I'll try and spot any others which are different.

[SurfRail]

^ The info I've extracted for my submissions is from the more recent set so should be accurate.

[Andrew]

Apart from the fact that this bus review appears to be a thinly veiled slash and burn operation by the State Government, I'm very worried about the lack of details of the proposed changes for some of the routes eg. the 196 extention to Yeronga.  Great idea but the key question is WHERE in Yeronga is it going?  And also some of the suggestions (for example) cutting 104 frequency during the day... to what? It's already an hourly service.  What are they going to make it? 2 hourly?