SEQ Bus Network Review

[ozbob]

The lack of any real public support for the proposed changes by Government or TransLink further erodes confidence ...  Minister just used the Greenslopes issue to pour crap on TransLink ...

No proper analysis in terms of bus numbers, service kilometres, decent network maps and the like.  No wonder very few can grasp what is going on ..

Very onesided media to boot,  I think the whole exercise is becoming rather futile.  I think I will concentrate on getting light rail up Queen St Goodna, probably more success there .. lol

[MaxHeadway]

Why is the 150 planned to stay as one, too long route, famous for unreliability?  I do like the connection to Sunnybank Hills shops though, that will allow interchange to the 130/140 services.

Perhaps a better way to handle it would be to swap the 130-equivalent with the 150-equivalent at their outer ends, with the interchange point at the corner of Calam and Compton Roads?

[ozbob]

This is your future life Brisbane ....

[bagbuffy]

Is there a reason why the Blue Glider couldn't travel up and down James Street to Teneriffe eliminating the 470?

[achiruel]

Additionally, considering the Blue Glider operates 24 hrs Fri/Sat nights (although I'm not sure if that is to continue) wouldn't it make more sense to have the 199 running 24 hrs instead? At least on the West End end because it goes past the areas on Boundary St where people actually are rather than through a dead industrial estate down Montague Rd.

I do like the idea of a James St service though.

[SurfRail]

Additionally, considering the Blue Glider operates 24 hrs Fri/Sat nights (although I'm not sure if that is to continue) wouldn't it make more sense to have the 199 running 24 hrs instead? At least on the West End end because it goes past the areas on Boundary St where people actually are rather than through a dead industrial estate down Montague Rd.

I do like the idea of a James St service though.

In practice they both do, except the 199 headed to the West End goes via the NightLink route through Eagle St and George St.

[yogiew]

Hello All,

I have been reading very ones comments and most of them are vaild except when it comes to the 100, which I catch every day.

I have caught the bus to Oxley or Darra Station in the morning peak and also afternoon peak and off peak as well.

I want to say that I do not want to go by train to the city in peak hour, unless they double train services, they are over loaded now and by Darra on the express are Standing room only.

Even the first trains of the morning are chockers, I do not want to be dropped of at the station and be on a packed train.

As for reliabilty well nearly every second or third weekend, there will be track work and back on buses, everyone will be.

Now when it comes to connection times, how early will the bus get to the station and if you miss the train that is a 15mins wait for the next, therefore longer to anywhere and city then the 100.

Scenario to the City by 8:00am.

100 at 7:08am arrives in at Queen Street at 7:57am. 49 Mins

102 and Oxley Station Combo, Leaves Inala Plaza at 6:55am and Arrives at Central at 7:50am. 55mins (6 Mins Longer)

103 and Darra Station Combo, Leaves Inala Plaza at 6:55am and Arrives at Central at 7:35am. 40 Mins (9Mins Quicker, however connects to a pack train and can be up to 15mins late, so it takes longer to get to town).

Also for people who want to shop in the mall it is a fair walk from Central Station and my Parents, use it all the time to the hospital and for a day out to Queen Street Mall.

They can keep there hands of the 100 and stop with high fequency buses to the station, they are not used now and will not be used then.

Coming home form the city, I sometime catch the last 103 and I am the only one on the bus.

Keep the 100 and for that matter the buz network and a base line cityxpress network.

They should be streamlining and combine busway routes and all the citybus network and rockets.

As these bus are used the most.

Bye
Damien

[kazzac]

Have to say it was disappointing but not entirely unpredictable to see BCC councillors having a go at the changes, ripping up timetables in session etc.  Just adds more reason why BCC really is more a hindrance to decent PT than a help 

It would be nice to see residents of Centenary, Northwest and Bulimba converge on city hall ripping up timetables etc with the level of service they get and the petitions they have lodged for improvements over the year

http://urbanist.typepad.com/files/abundant-access-diagram-1.pdf

BCC should just butt out and let Translink do their job of improving the bus network.I don"t think the 230/235 bus timetables have  changed in the 7 years I have been living in this area M"side/Balmoral.My neighbours here in my unit complex whom don't drive[most of them]will be happy to have more bus services at long last.

[somebody]

Ok Damien, but did you notice in the report that the 100 is the most subsidised bus in the entire network, by more than $1mil p.a.  What do you suggest they do about that?  Charge a "100 surcharge fee"?

From Darra you are not obliged to use an express service, you can use an all stopper which will give you a seat every time.

[Gazza]

I want to say that I do not want to go by train to the city in peak hour, unless they double train services, they are over loaded now and by Darra on the express are Standing room only.

Have you used the line since Richlands opened? You can always get a seat, even as far inbound as Toowong. Remember, by the time it reaches Oxley, it only has two stations worth of people in it.

And the thing is, its a chicken and egg situation. To boost peak rail services there needs to be more people catching them, and we do this by funneling in people by bus.
Why do you think Perth has the highest peak frequency in the country? Because so many people get a bus to the station!
The timetable is designed to have services slotted in, so ultimately it will be every 6 mins through all of peak.

And what is easier to relieve crowding. Adding buses which need a driver per 60 pax, or a train which needs 2 staff per 600 pax.

[#Metro]

Hello everyone,

Comments #1

There has been a lot of comments on here and to TL, I think that is a good thing as there obviously has to be some refinements. I think the first two consultation periods most people slept through, but this last one, which proposes a lot of change, has really engaged people. In the short term I suppose there will be quite a lot of parochialism (don't cut any service to my area for any reason no matter what even if it means I get a frequent service) but I think in the long run it will raise the profile of PT and the public will know more about it.

Going from a direct service network to a connected city is a big change that obviously needs to have a big debate to go with it. The good news is that cities overseas (Portland, Oregon and Auckland for examples) have gone through this. It is understandable that there is opposition to connections, given that bus-bus and bus-rail integration hasn't really been offered in Brisbane, but if anyone has any doubt, just go to Cultural Centre and stand on the overbridge and watch people change buses - it takes just seconds to do and heaps of people do it. Go to Park Road/Boggo road and watch the buses to UQ fill up with changing passengers from trains. Perth has got connections down to an art form.

There are a number of genuine concerns and it is important to recognise that separately from certain Brisbane City Councillors just opposing something so that they get some media airtime. Things like route 411 removal I don't support - frequency can be doubled by making the buses feed trains at Toowong; that's an acceptable solution. Things like 416, again, feeding Toowong it is important and yada yada yada.

Finer details and problems aside, I think the changes proposed are worthwhile. You have to remember that there is little or no room now to increase subsidies - as they are already among world's highest and the state gov has a debt situation to repair so there is little cash in the kitty there. There is also little or no room to increase fares - they have already gone up 70% or so in steps of 20% and 15% per year, the next fare rise of 7.5% isn't going to be accepted well at all. If BCC wants to 'save' routes, it should be given the option to do so - but it should consider shouldering some of the expense because they'd finally see how much money it really costs to shield people from escalating fare rises of 15% and higher by running a direct service network.

Even if the money can be found (by some miracle, from some non-protesting source) you still have a geometric problem where the city is a certain size, and the buses are a certain size and one will not go into the other. There's also the congestion and reliability issues and the waste and air issues that would of course still remain regardless (meaning no money for frequency to Yeronga, Centenary, Northwest, Bulimba etc), because they are inherent in a direct service network.

[Gazza]

I guess there's no reason to keep my comments off the forum.  Here they are, starting with the negative:

I really dislike the unstated idea of removing the distinction between all stops services and express services which seems to be implicit in the review.  This is sure to result in significant slow downs in the services overall, making them a less attractive alternative to driving and also increasing the operating cost.  The current system sees the majority of people walking to the express stops rather than just using the nearest stop.  The speeds up services while still providing for the less mobile.
Why not just run the all stops hourly to discourage anyone else using them? Or do as Surfrail suggests and keep it to 600m strictly. On the 333, adding Truro, Federation and a couple of others wont kill it.
The thing is, with even stop spacing, you wont have to serve all of them because they wont all generate pax on all trips. Eg Truro St will probably rarely see any pax.

It seems that the service between Fortitude Valley and Royal Brisbane Hospital is being removed, as well as the 393 which connects Bowen Hills to Royal Brisbane.  This combination is a terrible feature.  The connection to Fortitude Valley is well used and the S99 proposal will go near Royal Childrens Hospital but not Royal Brisbane.  What should happen is that the 393 should be returned to running to Roma St similar to what it did until 2008 and be increased in frequency.  There is probably no particular reason why one needs to go via Fortitude Valley instead of Bowen Hills but needing to loop around via Roma St will be very annoying and a needless deterrent to public transport use.
Make the proposed Taigum BUZ go via the Valley IMO.

And keep the 393.

Similarly there appears to be a significant downgrade in capacity northwards from Roma St on the Northern Busway in the morning peak.  Even the bus review document states that this is at 79.9% capacity leaving Normanby station, including services bound for Kelvin Grove Rd which no doubt account for a significant portion of the 20.1% unused capacity.  It seems that a reduction of about 16.7% is likely - you don't see the 333 operating more than every 15 minutes counter peak and I expect that will also apply to "frequent route 11".  This is a further reason why the 393 should be returned to servicing Roma St.
I think they'll just make the uni glider go mental. The good thing is you need the services both way anyway. In the AM It runs from RS to RBWH packed, turns around, runs fairly empty on the return trip, gets packed out from RS through CC to UQ, empties, returns fairly quickly, and then starts getting packed once it hits CC again. UQ and QUT have the same semesters, so you just add or take away buses over the year, and both demands are met efficiently, rather than having to worry about resourcing the 109 and 66 separatley.

I don't like the idea of converting King George Square to a lead stop configuration.  Firstly, I'm not aware of somewhere in the world which has an underground bus station with passengers waiting areas in the vehicle exhaust.
Seattle

.  Secondly, a lead stop configuration for something that is more than 50% longer than the Cultural Centre would be a very unpleasant passenger experience.  Far nicer to be at the place where the bus is going to stop rather than having to predict where it might and move to where it actually goes.  The lead stop configuration also adds to dwell times and reduces productivity.  It's a necessary evil at the Cultural Centre.
Again, Seattle is where to look. Dual lead stops. The underground stops have two or 3 flags, with routes using a certain section of the platform. Eg have all RBWH routes use one end, and all Ashgrove/Gap services use the other end.

I'm confused about what is proposed for Adelaide St.  I really don't see a reason for major changes there - the current system works quite well.  The part which doesn't work well is having some routes bound for Woolloongabba for example on Adelaide St, some on Ann St, some in Queen St bus station and some in King George Square bus station.  Some consolidation could be helpful, but a very long lead stop configuration would be annoying and reduce productivity, similarly to the above.
See above.

Pretty disappointing that the easily achievable traffic arrangments at the Cultural Centre, sending West End bound buses into the general traffic lanes and removing phases from the traffic light cycles aren't going to be proceeded with.
Do they know about this suggestion?

I don't know why "rocket" routes like the P119, P137 etc would be removed.  That will certainly necessitate increased buses through the Cultural Centre in spite of the Cultural Centre still experiencing congestion with the changes.
Arent all southside routes using CCB anyway.  I think the 130 isnt..That needs to change.

It seems that the mediocre patronage at Griffith University, Nathan campus is to be sacrificed with the removal of the 134, 135, 145 and 155 services.  Universities should have high patronage due to a large portion of captive users but poor services appear to constrain it.  It is disappointing that this is to be made even worse.

Nathan has that new BUZ though right?

I also dislike frequent 17 for the same reason.  It should be either via the entire length of Logan Rd for coverage, via Cornwall/Juliette Sts or two routes for speed, one doing either thing.
100% agree. The Maroon Glider is messing this up.

I don't agree with the rationale for moving the current 385 to Waterworks Rd rather than Coopers Camp Rd.  The rationale being that people cannot remember 3 route numbers 379, 380 and 381 to reach the inner part of Waterworks Rd.  I completely disagree with this line of thought; people can remember three consecutive numbers. 
Sorta agree. The Go Network branding should extend to showing common coridoors on the network map and having those special bus poles...Much like the Adelaide Go Zones and the Red and Blue line in Canberra.

I really disagree with the 375/S111 Bardon service being excluded from King George Square.  That is the sort of mediocrity that this review should have fixed, then the Caxton St services will have a common stop at King George Square.  It will also prevent the slow route via Herschel St on the inbound.
How accurate are the drawings. There appear to be some errors, hopefully it will.

There is no reason to keep the 470's Teneriffe Ferry service that I can see with the Blue Glider.  Running down Lamington St to the Powerhouse should be investigated, and this could be tagged on to S101 just as easily as the S111.  This should be combined with frequent route 5 running direct along Brunswick St and frequent route 4 running along the riverbank.  An RBH-Valley-New Farm service would be logical along the current 199 route through New Farm in my opinion.
Agreed. Have said this.

Removing the 135 and 131 will mean that Hellawell Rd is unserviced.  The comment states people will have to walk 600m.  I make it 900m from Hellawell/Jackon Rds along Jackson Rd and 1400m along Hellawell Rd   This is pretty disappointing.

I would question whether frequent route 26 Mt Ommaney via Indooroopilly can be attractive relative to a car.  Going via Indooroopilly as compared to the Western Freeway is heaps slower and I feel that a route via the Western Freeway is needed, except for people who are actually going to Indooroopilly of course.
There is a peak route via Freeway, but they have stuffed up and sent into Sinnamon Park. It should mirror the Frequent 26. Will be in my feedback.

Jindalee feeder service requires a long trip at a 90 degree angle to the direction to the city to reach rail line and then the city.  This will not be attractive either.
No worse than present situation, well better acutally cos they got rid of the 467/468 distinction.  My route actually.

I don't like frequent route 16 much - it will be too slow going via the Stanley Bridge.  I think people on Cavendish Rd between Chatsworth Rd and Holland Rd should have been able to expect a via Cornwall/Juliette Sts service out of this upgrade. 
I think the 16 is more legible though, and spaced apart better from other BUZes.

I like the Moggill to UQ service, #500, but this should follow the current 432 route and stopping pattern between Indooroopilly and UQ.  Also, there should not be a downgrade in the frequency through Kenmore in particular.
Id compromise with 4bph till 8pm, or kenmore shortworkings to boost frequency, but not all the way to Moggil.

Why is the 344 to remain?  That's a poor performing peak only route while profitable routes like the 374 are being removed.

And it duplicates the taigum BUZ in parts too. Agree.
Why aren't we selling go cards on buses and pulling paper with this review?
Thats more a fare review thing isnt it?

Why is the 120 to be removed from the frequent network?  For nearly it's entire route it's the only viable service and performs quite well.
Agreed

Why isn't there a UQ-Toowong non stop service, as with Melbourne's 601 to Monash and Sydney's 891/895 to UNSW?
They have said the 412 will just run short workings to replace this.
I'm inclined to say that the 402 needs to stop en route, because 412s fill up before Toowong, Toowong pax take the last few seats, so people at Gailey Rd, St Lucia West, St Lucia Ferry cant get on. It would make me mad if I was on Sir Fred Schonell and saw a "401" with spare seats fly by, and then a 412 fly by too,

118 is to be made even less useful, why keep it running then?
Blatant attempt to supplement the 142 lol. Just kill it FFS. The rail feeder will be way better.

Why is the 150 planned to stay as one, too long route, famous for unreliability?  I do like the connection to Sunnybank Hills shops though, that will allow interchange to the 130/140 services.  This may mitigate the previous point to some degree.

Cause they love single seat journeys, and the Beenleigh line isnt good enough out there.

I don't like frequent route 8 much - 15 minute weekend frequency feeding 30 weekend train services seems daft. It's also something of a deviation.  I would have thought that the goal of serving the Brookside shopping centre would be left to a secondary route.
Would people accept cutting back the 390 frequency to fund FGY evening and weekend services?
I think Brookside is worthy of serving.

Frequent route 7 doubles up the 390 along Samford Rd west of Wardell St.  Seems to be overkill also along a train line.
Send to Indro instead along Metroad 5.

I don't like the removal of the 411.  It's a major deviation to go via Taringa (with a walk), Indooroopilly or UQ.
100% agree. Eithe retain, or double frequency and cut to Toowong, could even be a defacto 402 supplement counter peak if that were done.

Frequent route 11 seems to take in the 330, 333, 370 and part of the 340.  Not sure how this will cover the stops involved without being insanely slow.
Resequence them, or just run more 330s to get the waits down?

I do like the frequent service 23 and feeders for Inala/Forest Lake, as against a BUZ 100.  The inner part of Beaudesert Rd is underserved and high patronage, which could be grown.
Me too. Are QR prepared 

I also like frequent route 10.  Picks up the 325, 379 and part of the 335 services.

Frequent routes 12 and 15 are also an improvement and needed.

I support the removal of the 10 minute peak frequency standard from the "frequent service" standard.  That will remove confusion and increase operational practicalities regarding turn around times, particularly at Queen St bus station.  This will allow such things as the 119 and 120 to leave from the same stop in Queen St bus station as they used to.  This is actually one of the best aspects of the review.

--end--
Agree with me or not, that is what I think.
I think a lot of the same things. Type it up, and our submissions would have the same messages.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't like the idea of converting King George Square to a lead stop configuration.  Firstly, I'm not aware of somewhere in the world which has an underground bus station with passengers waiting areas in the vehicle exhaust.
Seattle

Ipswich.

[#Metro]

Comments #2

Okay, how to get down to action.

1. TransLink needs to start talking and engaging. Pronto. They need to get people who know what they are talking about out on to the street and at bus stops to explain the whole purpose of the review and what they wanted to achieve. They need to have meetings like they did in other reviews past. They need to stress that it is a proposal (which it is) and that there is leeway for changes (which there are).

2. TransLink needs to identify genuine concerns about coverage versus 'noise' Coverage goals and patronage goals conflict - I think there are genuine concerns with respect to the 411 (should go to Toowong for trains), 104 (need some service on Brisbane Corso in peak plus schools) and 416 (should go to Toowong).

3. Services that should be introduced first are the ones that are needed most - I am thinking Centenary would be particularly good. There are 10 bus routes (add 460 to the list) that go to the Centenary Suburbs, all are infrequent and illegible.  Rolling out the Centenary BUZ would let people vote with their feet, use the new service, and then the changes can be made. Same with Yeronga - extend the bus, passengers will vote with their feet, make the changes.

[somebody]

I don't like the idea of converting King George Square to a lead stop configuration.  Firstly, I'm not aware of somewhere in the world which has an underground bus station with passengers waiting areas in the vehicle exhaust.
Seattle

Ipswich.

What are you talking about?  This is Bell St, Ipswich: https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=bell+st,ipswich&ll=-27.612421,152.760408&spn=0.017436,0.024762&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&hnear=Bell+St,+Ipswich+Queensland+4305&gl=au&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=-27.612525,152.760366&panoid=_ZkSN-zfpRQvF-k2g8OUgA&cbp=12,194.68,,0,21.45

Why not just run the all stops hourly to discourage anyone else using them?

That is what I am saying, although I'm not specifying a particular frequency, just less frequent.

Make the proposed Taigum BUZ go via the Valley IMO.

I think they have it right running via KGSBS.  Adds frequency to Lutwyche.  Only other reasonable alternative IMO is running via Kelvin Grove Rd.

I think they'll just make the uni glider go mental. The good thing is you need the services both way anyway. In the AM It runs from RS to RBWH packed, turns around, runs fairly empty on the return trip, gets packed out from RS through CC to UQ, empties, returns fairly quickly, and then starts getting packed once it hits CC again. UQ and QUT have the same semesters, so you just add or take away buses over the year, and both demands are met efficiently, rather than having to worry about resourcing the 109 and 66 separatley.

Well that would be massive overkill on the UQ side.  109 is less used than the 169 or 139.

Seattle

That had only trolleybuses for a long time, now has special buses which only burn fuel above 24km/h: http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/vehicles/bustech.html

Again, Seattle is where to look. Dual lead stops. The underground stops have two or 3 flags, with routes using a certain section of the platform. Eg have all RBWH routes use one end, and all Ashgrove/Gap services use the other end.

Pretty sure this has been tried at the Cultural Centre and they didn't like it.  It's probably more the scale of what they are outlining which I tend to object to. 

Pretty disappointing that the easily achievable traffic arrangments at the Cultural Centre, sending West End bound buses into the general traffic lanes and removing phases from the traffic light cycles aren't going to be proceeded with.
Do they know about this suggestion?

I believe so.  We have put out media releases on it.

Arent all southside routes using CCB anyway.  I think the 130 isnt..That needs to change.

Not all.  It would certainly make it difficult to reach south bank in that event!

If the 130 went via CCB how would you then get to South Bank?  Interchange at Griffith Uni for a current 111, then at Buranda for a current 120/180/Carindale route, perhaps a handful of others.

Nathan has that new BUZ though right?

The 23?  That only connects to Garden City - you might as well walk between the campus and the busway station rather than use that.  Besides, the 120 and 125 do that now.

I really disagree with the 375/S111 Bardon service being excluded from King George Square.  That is the sort of mediocrity that this review should have fixed, then the Caxton St services will have a common stop at King George Square.  It will also prevent the slow route via Herschel St on the inbound.
How accurate are the drawings. There appear to be some errors, hopefully it will.

Sounds like a high risk strategy to assume it's wrong.  No one has seemed particularly interested in fixing this problem, and it's always been a problem, needing to be fixed!

There is a peak route via Freeway, but they have stuffed up and sent into Sinnamon Park. It should mirror the Frequent 26. Will be in my feedback.

I think speed off peak is even more critical.

No worse than present situation, well better acutally cos they got rid of the 467/468 distinction.  My route actually.

A fair bit worse west of the freeway.  I guess you could walk to the 26, but it's a pretty significant walk for some.

[Fares_Fair]

TT, did I read this as one of your suggestions here somewhere? ... see twitter picture/article.

Jeff Addison‏@Jeffrey_Addison

Hope for Hinterland Connect bus service variant. Nambour Weekly, p6 pic.twitter.com/Oswvm5c3Vr

[somebody]

That link seems to be a dud.

[Fares_Fair]

That link seems to be a dud.

Cheers, sorted! 

[#Metro]

TT, did I read this as one of your suggestions here somewhere? ... see twitter picture/article.

Jeff Addison‏@Jeffrey_Addison

Hope for Hinterland Connect bus service variant. Nambour Weekly, p6 pic.twitter.com/Oswvm5c3Vr

Thanks, I don't think it's quite close enough to my suggestion for commuter-driver service. Look, it is so far away that you're not going to get great PT out there, it is just so far. They (council) would be better off scoping out if there are tourist buses that go there and giving vouchers/subsidy there for a seat to people on those tourist services.

Sunshine Coast council seems to focus a lot on coverage services, I think it needs to be made clear to them that coverage services will ALWAYS ALWAYS have UBER LOW patronage and are lifeline measures.

[BrizCommuter]

It seems that the service between Fortitude Valley and Royal Brisbane Hospital is being removed, as well as the 393 which connects Bowen Hills to Royal Brisbane.  This combination is a terrible feature.  The connection to Fortitude Valley is well used and the S99 proposal will go near Royal Childrens Hospital but not Royal Brisbane.  What should happen is that the 393 should be returned to running to Roma St similar to what it did until 2008 and be increased in frequency.  There is probably no particular reason why one needs to go via Fortitude Valley instead of Bowen Hills but needing to loop around via Roma St will be very annoying and a needless deterrent to public transport use.
Make the proposed Taigum BUZ go via the Valley IMO.

The S99 will not cut the mustard. The 370/375/379 are very popular with RBWH staff and patients commuting from Northern Suburbs by train, with up to 5 outbound services per 30mins in the am peak. A frequent solution is required!

Travelling via Roma Street will increase journey times, and deter use of public transport.

Similarly there appears to be a significant downgrade in capacity northwards from Roma St on the Northern Busway in the morning peak.  Even the bus review document states that this is at 79.9% capacity leaving Normanby station, including services bound for Kelvin Grove Rd which no doubt account for a significant portion of the 20.1% unused capacity.  It seems that a reduction of about 16.7% is likely - you don't see the 333 operating more than every 15 minutes counter peak and I expect that will also apply to "frequent route 11".  This is a further reason why the 393 should be returned to servicing Roma St.
I think they'll just make the uni glider go mental. The good thing is you need the services both way anyway. In the AM It runs from RS to RBWH packed, turns around, runs fairly empty on the return trip, gets packed out from RS through CC to UQ, empties, returns fairly quickly, and then starts getting packed once it hits CC again. UQ and QUT have the same semesters, so you just add or take away buses over the year, and both demands are met efficiently, rather than having to worry about resourcing the 109 and 66 separatley.

There needs to be a capacity increase on the INB. It's full bus mayhem at the moment in both peaks. Can TransLink run a bus more often than every 5 mins?

I don't like frequent route 8 much - 15 minute weekend frequency feeding 30 weekend train services seems daft. It's also something of a deviation.  I would have thought that the goal of serving the Brookside shopping centre would be left to a secondary route.
Would people accept cutting back the 390 frequency to fund FGY evening and weekend services?
I think Brookside is worthy of serving.

It will be interesting to see what happens with FG Line frequency.
The 390 frequency should not be cut back, as stated in the report it is a popular route at all times of day. However, most patronage is between Enoggera and CBD. Cutting it back to Enoggera interchange would make it harder to make local journeys from east of Enoggera to Brookside.

Frequent route 7 doubles up the 390 along Samford Rd west of Wardell St.  Seems to be overkill also along a train line.
Send to Indro instead along Metroad 5.

The route 7 will probably prove to be quite popular.

I do like the frequent service 23 and feeders for Inala/Forest Lake, as against a BUZ 100.  The inner part of Beaudesert Rd is underserved and high patronage, which could be grown.
Me too. Are QR prepared 

There is plenty of spare capacity on the Ipswich Line. Few trains are overcrowded (only peak of peak), and frequency can generally be increased further (especially in the pm peak). More trains may be needed though.

[Gazza]

Well that would be massive overkill on the UQ side.

Not if it let the 29 be killed

now has special buses which only burn fuel above 24km/h: http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/vehicles/bustech.html

Ah....It could work if you put in a glass curtain to 2400mm above floor level, and then boost the HVAC system to keep the platforms at positive pressure and tunnel at negative pressure.

But still, why not just leave KGS as is. I mean QSBS will do without lead stop wont it?

I believe so.  We have put out media releases on it.

I know, but it wont make or break the review IMO. It's a future "nice to have".

If the 130 went via CCB how would you then get to South Bank?

Serve Buranda? going via CCB would offset the time wasted.

A fair bit worse west of the freeway.  I guess you could walk to the 26, but it's a pretty significant walk for some.

Or change at Jindalee Park and Ride. Just give it a PID.

[somebody]

The S99 will not cut the mustard. The 370/375/379 are very popular with RBWH staff and patients commuting from Northern Suburbs by train, with up to 5 outbound services per 30mins in the am peak. A frequent solution is required!

Travelling via Roma Street will increase journey times, and deter use of public transport.

Quite.  But why does it have to be provided from Fortitude Valley?  Wouldn't a frequent 393 cut the mustard?

Frequent route 7 doubles up the 390 along Samford Rd west of Wardell St.  Seems to be overkill also along a train line.
Send to Indro instead along Metroad 5.

The route 7 will probably prove to be quite popular.

I'm not confident of that, particularly if it does a 350 and doesn't stop between Normanby and Ashgrove.

I do like the frequent service 23 and feeders for Inala/Forest Lake, as against a BUZ 100.  The inner part of Beaudesert Rd is underserved and high patronage, which could be grown.
Me too. Are QR prepared 

There is plenty of spare capacity on the Ipswich Line. Few trains are overcrowded (only peak of peak), and frequency can generally be increased further (especially in the pm peak). More trains may be needed though.

March 2012 tracker says 2 of 30 in the AM and 1 of 26 in the PM.  I'm surprised it's that high.

Ah....It could work if you put in a glass curtain to 2400mm above floor level, and then boost the HVAC system to keep the platforms at positive pressure and tunnel at negative pressure.

But still, why not just leave KGS as is. I mean QSBS will do without lead stop wont it?

What is the point of the curtain?  There would need to be holes in it to let the passengers through.

It is what I am saying that KGS should be left as it is.

I know, but it wont make or break the review IMO. It's a future "nice to have".

Seems to be an assumption in the review though.

If the 130 went via CCB how would you then get to South Bank?

Serve Buranda? going via CCB would offset the time wasted.

Maybe.  But it's still far from a high frequency service with all the cuts.

[HappyTrainGuy]

@ Simon. Just down the road a bit to the Ipswich Transit Centre.
https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=bell+st,ipswich&ll=-27.611936,152.761037&spn=0.000945,0.002064&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&hnear=Bell+St,+Ipswich+Queensland+4305&gl=au&t=h&layer=c&cbll=-27.611867,152.761077&panoid=Wcq0yq8FI2RxuZgssD6c3w&cbp=12,210.3,,0,10.94&z=20

Adding on. I don't see the Gympie Road corridor slowing down by that much. Yes it would be slower but the busway entry, exits and inbetween bunch all the services. Before the 330 went through Airport link it wasn't uncommon to be stuck behind a 333 going in and waiting to exit the 333 would be right up behind the 330. Not unheard of to see multiple 333s stopped at Windsor. Not unheard of to see 331's and 330's following each other along Murphy/Handford roads. In peak hour (both directions) it is common to the point where 330, 331, 332, 333 340 and 341s all following each other at some point with varying loadings due to close running.

How about a 333 jam at Windsor with a 330 waiting at the lights?


Might also be a reason for people to utilise their local feeder route and transfer onto a train given the better frequency and higher capacity available.

[somebody]

Well that would be massive overkill on the UQ side.

Not if it let the 29 be killed

But that isn't proposed.

@ Simon. Just down the road a bit to the Ipswich Transit Centre.
https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=bell+st,ipswich&ll=-27.611936,152.761037&spn=0.000945,0.002064&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&oe=utf-8&hnear=Bell+St,+Ipswich+Queensland+4305&gl=au&t=h&layer=c&cbll=-27.611867,152.761077&panoid=Wcq0yq8FI2RxuZgssD6c3w&cbp=12,210.3,,0,10.94&z=20

Looks like exhaust has a free escape path to me.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Ah. So the black dust must be from the coal going past.

[Andrew]

I put up a seperate thread with some of the major issues I found with the bus review so it didn't get lost in this thread.

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9726.0

[SurfRail]

I think the solution for KGS is a dynamic stand system like Perth is getting for the new Wellington Street Bus Station.  Just divide the platforms operationally into 2 each side (ie 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B).  Each of these "quarters" has a specific set of bus routes assigned to it, and the dynamic stand system directs a driver to  particular bay through signage on approach to the station.  This is mated up with really prominent electronic signage - a LOT better than the current stuff down there - to direct people to what bus leaves from where.  It would need to predict this sort of thing about a minute or so in advance, which should be achievable from what I understand.

The only changes would probably be that you reposition some of the doors.

[newbris]

A few points/questions in reaction to previous comments:

- do we know if converting KGS to lead stop would expose us to fumes? Place has a/c so assumed they would just add more doors with road markings or something. From memory the report said investigation of options would need to be done? I like the dual lead stop idea. All Caxton/Ashgrove buses from one stop and the rest from the other. Each lead stop with multiple doors.

- I thought the report mentioned the combining of the 379/380/381/385 into a frequent route was to upgrade the service to a consistent frequency, increase legibility/recognition for casual users and provide one consistent route. The 385 was moved to use the bus lanes on waterworks as well.

- I thought the countess services were turning "right" at the bottom of countess st and then right again to access the busway through Roma st - rather than turning left and accessing from turbot. The right turn off countess is usually not that congested I think.

- one of the stated goals of the F7 service is to pair with the F6 between Ashgrove and the City to match the current service levels required in this high density corridor along waterworks.

[bagbuffy]

Translink seems to be very keen on Interchanging, aswell as stopping duplication of routes. Does Translink have the right type of buses for the job?

With all these feeder services Translink is purposing, are they just moving the Bottlenecking to the Interchanges like Indooroopilly?  If so, depots like Toowong, Carina and Virgina should have Artics.

[ozbob]

Media release 14th March 2013



SEQ Bus Network Review - a cut too far for some areas?

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 applauded the recent SEQ Bus Network Redesign but has had concerns raised that some of the changes may be a cut too far.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Issues have been raised by some of our members that some of the proposed cuts impact some people too severely (1,2). This has also been mentioned in the media and by Brisbane City Council (3).   Transport Minister Scott Emerson stated on Tuesday afternoon 'I don't think necessarily Translink got everything right in this" with Translink receiving 1700 pieces of feedback in the first 24 hours (4)."

RAIL Back On Track would like to see the following outcomes:

1. Firstly we would again encourage commuters to access the TransLink website and review the proposed changes and most importantly provide feedback to assist TransLink with their review.  This will assist them when deciding what changes to make to the current network proposal.  For people without access to the internet they can call TransLink on the phone - 131230.

2. Secondly we would call on Brisbane City Council and TransLink to work together to find a solution to the issues raised by BCC in a timely manner so that the benefits of the review are not unduly delayed.

3. Thirdly we want TransLink to seriously consider all feedback received and to make changes where they are deemed necessary to provide a package that is both cost efficient but also maintains important connections.

4. The positive aspects of the proposed changes for the bus review are not being promoted well. There are real gains for the network as a whole but this is not being articulated by the authorities in a coherent manner.  Unless the 'why and how' of the changes is properly explained the review will fail.

"We need to all work together for a better outcome for Brisbane and South East Queensland."

References:

(1) http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9045.840

(2) http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9726.0

(3) http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/route-changes-throw-tourists-veterans-under-a-bus-council-20130312-2fypc.html

(4) http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/queensland/watch/dac45e18-38ff-381b-bfee-ce1e51ae1601/emerson-backflips-on-bus-service/

Contact:

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

[ozbob]

G'day YogieW,

Thanks for your comments.  I guess you have noted the 100 bus will be continuing so your folks will be fine.

I will be direct.  The Government has spent a lot of money on the track amplification, Corinda to Darra and line to Springfield Central.  There is plenty of capacity.  The timetable on the Ipswich line, peak is excellent and is probably the best effort in terms of rail timetabling done by TransLink and Queensland Rail since TransLink mark 1 was formed.

It makes a lot of economic sense to feed most pax onto the rail line, even if it is 5 minutes longer because this is where efficiency is generated, which can then be passed on to provide services to the have-nots and come up with a better fare system.  Bus congestion in the CBD has to be reduced, using rail better will assist that.

We see the proposed changes from our own immediate point of reference, naturally and I understand that.  However for the benefit of the network as a whole resources, rail bus and ferry have to be better utilised to drive improvements network wide.  Some people will have to transfer where perhaps they didn't before.  That is something that happens to all public transport networks as they grow.  The new HF bus Forest Lake to Mount Ommaney is finally starting to get somewhere.  Many people will be able to use it to access the rail corridor without parking hassles and the like.

Sometimes change is necessary for the wider community benefit.

Hello All,

I have been reading very ones comments and most of them are vaild except when it comes to the 100, which I catch every day.

I have caught the bus to Oxley or Darra Station in the morning peak and also afternoon peak and off peak as well.

I want to say that I do not want to go by train to the city in peak hour, unless they double train services, they are over loaded now and by Darra on the express are Standing room only.

Even the first trains of the morning are chockers, I do not want to be dropped of at the station and be on a packed train.

As for reliabilty well nearly every second or third weekend, there will be track work and back on buses, everyone will be.

Now when it comes to connection times, how early will the bus get to the station and if you miss the train that is a 15mins wait for the next, therefore longer to anywhere and city then the 100.

Scenario to the City by 8:00am.

100 at 7:08am arrives in at Queen Street at 7:57am. 49 Mins

102 and Oxley Station Combo, Leaves Inala Plaza at 6:55am and Arrives at Central at 7:50am. 55mins (6 Mins Longer)

103 and Darra Station Combo, Leaves Inala Plaza at 6:55am and Arrives at Central at 7:35am. 40 Mins (9Mins Quicker, however connects to a pack train and can be up to 15mins late, so it takes longer to get to town).

Also for people who want to shop in the mall it is a fair walk from Central Station and my Parents, use it all the time to the hospital and for a day out to Queen Street Mall.

They can keep there hands of the 100 and stop with high fequency buses to the station, they are not used now and will not be used then.

Coming home form the city, I sometime catch the last 103 and I am the only one on the bus.

Keep the 100 and for that matter the buz network and a base line cityxpress network.

They should be streamlining and combine busway routes and all the citybus network and rockets.

As these bus are used the most.

Bye
Damien

[techblitz]

The lack of any real public support for the proposed changes by Government or TransLink further erodes confidence ...  Minister just used the Greenslopes issue to pour cr%p on TransLink ...

No proper analysis in terms of bus numbers, service kilometres, decent network maps and the like.  No wonder very few can grasp what is going on ..

Very onesided media to boot,  I think the whole exercise is becoming rather futile.  I think I will concentrate on getting light rail up Queen St Goodna, probably more success there .. lol

Agreed its bit of a pain the butt that walk from goodna station .......up queen st to the pub.....bus service would be 

[Gazza]

http://www.4zzzfm.org.au/news/audio/2013/mar/13/bus-review-recommends-cutting-routes-linking-services

[#Metro]

Ms muelman is missing a point, having buses and trains compete with each other means that heaps of bus labor in addition to train staff have to be to transport the same number of people, which hoggs funds that could be used to fund a centenary buz. Sure the interchange isn't fancy but I note that toowong doesnt have a interchange but that didn't prevent heaps of passengers making the change from trains to buses to UQ

[ozbob]

http://www.4zzzfm.org.au/news/audio/2013/mar/13/bus-review-recommends-cutting-routes-linking-services

Good on ya Gazza!   

Interesting supporting comments from Prof Charles as well ...

[O_128]

Ive finally gotten around to having a good look at this and for the most part the changes should have happened years ago, The super stops seem very promising. Personally routes that affect me the 19x routes seem to be fine.

[BrizCommuter]

The S99 will not cut the mustard. The 370/375/379 are very popular with RBWH staff and patients commuting from Northern Suburbs by train, with up to 5 outbound services per 30mins in the am peak. A frequent solution is required!

Travelling via Roma Street will increase journey times, and deter use of public transport.

Quite.  But why does it have to be provided from Fortitude Valley?  Wouldn't a frequent 393 cut the mustard?

Interchange is much easier at Fortitude Valley. There is also more walk-up traffic.

Frequent route 7 doubles up the 390 along Samford Rd west of Wardell St.  Seems to be overkill also along a train line.
Send to Indro instead along Metroad 5.

The route 7 will probably prove to be quite popular.

I'm not confident of that, particularly if it does a 350 and doesn't stop between Normanby and Ashgrove.

I would assume that the #7 will serve Normanby to Ashgrove.

[newbris]

http://www.4zzzfm.org.au/news/audio/2013/mar/13/bus-review-recommends-cutting-routes-linking-services

FYI, noticed this comment on their facebook page:

"The current service is quick, reliable, safe and comfortable. The comment that the trip from Indooroopilly station to the city will only take eight minutes is a nonsense. That does not take into account disembarking and walk to platform time, waiting for next train time, waiting for passengers to disembark from the train, and finding a seat time (Probably no seats either), train delays, and longer delays at each inbound station in peak time.) It took me 20 minutes from Toowong to Central yesterday, at the quietest time of day."

See: https://www.facebook.com/pages/4070-save-our-bus-service/340896916011132

[ozbob]

Ummm, it took a certain Brisbanetimes reporter one hour 42 minutes to travel by bus from Indooroopilly to CBD the other day, bus delays don't happen?  Bus delays actually occur at a higher rate than train delays, particularly on that corridor ...

This is a good example of the self centric non community focus that is only natural to a degree.  Change other routes modes etc. but not mine!

Well, folks sometimes the broader community interest is more important than yours.  Simple fact of the life.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Speaking of delays. The corner of Gympie/Hamilton Roads during peak hour. On the 77 it can take 5-10 minutes to get from Kittyhawke Drive to the terminus 150m up the road all because of pedestrians. I'd list other routes but they are hourly so you don't see them being delayed day after day like the more frequent routes would be.