Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Author Topic: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions  (Read 8437 times)

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« on: December 09, 2012, 11:21:00 AM »
I'm going to be putting in some detailed thoughts of my own - think it would be best to polish them here.  I'm trying to be realistic but at the same time there are things they can do pretty easily to simplify the network.

Routes 3 to 199 attached to this post, will post the other sections as I get through them.
Ride the G:

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2012, 12:53:49 PM »
My Comments:
29: Agree with the new route proposal, but it is possible that the 29 is still justified in Uni semesters in the PM peak.  I don't know why they added non-uni semester trips.
P88+66: Talked enough about these routes
100: Agree
105: If that doesn't travel to the Yeronga peninsular, doesn't that make the route a 108?
109: Not a big fan of extending it.  That competes directly with trains on the Roma St-Park Rd stretch which are both faster and more frequent.  Also combining it with the 66 means that the connection between Roma St and W'Gabba is only provided by the 340.
110: Not sure why this should be truncated.  I agree with the previously proposed extension to Richlands rail.
112: via Ipswich Rd, do you mean taking it off Annerley Rd which is under serviced?  Cracknell Rd is an interesting proposition.
113: Tend to agree.  This route is stupid and needing of change.
115: Decommissioning is not proposed, just should be
117: I tend to think those changes would make it pointless.  The only reason to have this route is to run straight down Beaudesert Rd.
119: Terminus is the wrong term.  Nothing wrong with using Elizabeth St in the AM.  Needs to start from QSBS A4 though, like it used to.
121: Don't see why this route is a problem within the CBD, other than non stopping one of the 116 stops in the PM?  Just say that if it's what you mean.
130: I don't think you should propose messing with this.  It hasn't been supported on the forum to move this to Hellawell Rd as it won't serve Sunnybank Hills shops and I don't think it would be supported in the wider community to have it via Captain Cook Bridge.
131: I don't think this one should be decommissioned.  It provides a reasonable service to Hellawell Rd which is otherwise only provided by the 115 and 135 services which are absurdly slow.
135: I wouldn't go all the way to Calam Rd and terminate.  If you go that far, you should serve Algester Rd between Ridgewood Rd and Ridgewood Rd.
137: Needs to leave from QSBS in the PM for this plan to work.  Doesn't need to stop at Greenslopes or Holland Park West in the PM either.
138: Inclined to agree.
140: As for 130.  Leave it be.
141: Disagree, as previously discussed.
142: Agree
145: Not sure about that.  Nathan campus is poorly served.  I want a 135 BUZ
150: Support the two services.
151: Agree
155: In two minds about this one.  It could certainly withstand to be truncated back to not serve Gowan Rd below Compton Rd at a minimum.
156/7: I suppose that makes sense, but I doubt it will happen.
160: Some of what you are proposing would make this route into a 111.  This route has value in the AM peak heading towards QSBS or Adelaide St and in the PM peak starting from the Cultural Centre.  Otherwise it's a waste of a QSBS stop which could be used for rockets.
161: Agree
162: Not so sure about this one.  I feel it has value.
170: Again, terminus is the wrong term.  How about "origin".  I don't think this route justifies full time Captain Cook Bridge.
172: Not inclined to mess with it.  Well down the priority list.
174: What would serve Creek Rd and the top of Newnham Rd?  That's a wide area left with no nearby CBD service.  The proposed routes have poor operating hours and a messing interchange involved.
175: Not inclined to mess with it.  CBD origin *may* be up for grabs though.
176: I think this route should stay.
179: Should return to leave in the PM from QSBS, I agree.
180: I'd wonder about this route continuing along Chatsworth Rd to Cavendish Rd.
181: Don't agree with removing this one.  It provides a link to Cavendish Rd between Chatsworth Rd and Holland Rd from the CBD.
184: Agree 100%.
185: I'd say run direct down Ham Rd.  That way it hardly shares any of its route with the 180.
189: I'd add PM trips which would facilitate consolidation of the 179/181
192: This is part of a bigger issue re:pre-paid.  I assume once this issue is removed, the 192 won't go to the CBD.
195: This was the perfect route until they mucked it up.  Even so, with the 1 street deviation in New Farm, it's still nearly perfect.  Don't support messing with this at all.  I'd hate this to follow the 196 in New Farm.
199: Agree.

I think your 130+140 comments will do little but undermine how seriously your comments are taken.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2012, 01:19:47 PM »
Good work Surfrail, been looking foward to this. Do you intend to submit formally.

Quote
Also combining it with the 66 means that the connection between Roma St and W'Gabba is only provided by the 340.
I've been meaning to actually ask members this....but, what's at Wooloongabba anyway :P


Quote
110: Not sure why this should be truncated.  I agree with the previously proposed extension to Richlands rail.
The 110 and 115 form a big inverted T shape remember: http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/120220-110,115.pdf
The bottom of the T would be replaced with the proposed Wacol to Springwood crosstown, and because it follows Progress rd it would naturally pick up Richlands station too.
Once you get to Acacia Ridge you change and travel east or west depending on where you want to go.

Quote
160: Some of what you are proposing would make this route into a 111
I want to go one step further and say no CCB routing for the 160...cut it entirely and have 111s only.





STB

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2012, 01:31:30 PM »
It's simply a turnaround for route 66, nothing particular at Woolloongabba, although I can see it becoming a little more important of a location once CRR kicks in (eventually).

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2012, 01:41:44 PM »
There's a few things at W'Gabba.  Lands centre is one, Go Print, a number of small business, Chalk hotel.  I wouldn't say that nothing was there.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2012, 02:00:12 PM »
It's simply a turnaround for route 66, nothing particular at Woolloongabba, although I can see it becoming a little more important of a location once CRR kicks in (eventually).
Coincidentally, when that happens we get our Roma St-Woooloongabba connection  :)

I mean, I get the place is inner city, but a bit printery and stadium are not that intensive land uses outside of gameday.
Places like Milton are more intensive.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2012, 02:23:34 PM »
Response to Simon's observations (by route number rather than quoting, to save space).

29 – noted.
P88+66 – indeed.
100 – noted.
105 – it would be a 108 but terminating at the PAH.
109 – there will be less demand for the Gabba than UQ.  Transferring is simple.  The whole point of this is to reduce the number of buses required in the inner city.  (I would suggest a 111+333 if the busway worked properly on the northside, but it doesn’t and won’t until they put in bus lanes and fix the Kedron exit.)
110 – bus operators I have spoken to view extending this route very dimly, and report that it usually carries air past Acacia Ridge.
112 – to clarify, 112-113-116 would be the same from the city to Cracknell Rd – via Annerley Rd.  (Poorly worded.)
113 – noted.
115 – nothing I say is binding, so I prefer “propose” or “suggest” – but take your point.
117 – to clarify, my thinking was it should have the same route as it does now as far as Mortimer Rd, then turn onto Mortimer, then follow the 110 route.  On further review I think it should (a) go literally all the way down Beaudesert Rd without deviating (except the bit between Kerry & Boundary Rds) and finish at the Acacia Ridge shops; and (b) only stop at the express stops inbound from Rocklea, as there are other all-stopping routes along the way.
119 – I prefer simplicity, and the fact the QSBS routes are busier than the rockets indicates to me that most other people do as well.  If the 119 goes to Eagle St then fine – the 120 can as well, full time.  Why not?  Plenty of room there.
121 – if it goes to basically the same place, it should (to the extent possible) take the same route in the CBD so you don’t have to muck around picking the right stop.
130 – it’s my view, not anybody else’s, and if it isn’t raised by me at least for consideration then nobody will bring it up.  My view is that expresses should be fast and direct.  If rockets are faster via the CCB, then why not just run the full-time route that way and dispense with the complexity?
131 – not necessary if the 135 runs more frequently, and via the CCB.
135 – Algester Rd is spitting distance from Ridgewood Rd, I wouldn’t think it needs a bus service on top of the 130.
137 – AM/PM distinctions make the network harder to use, so no.  Just pick the best pattern and run with it.  Not fussed where it leaves from, as long as it leaves from the same place as the 130.  (I think the QSBS should basically be for the 120-150 series routes for the southside.)
138 – noted.
140 – as per 130.
141 – noted, but disagree as per above.  I don’t expect TransLink will agree, but somebody needs to push simplification strongly.  Having used the 141, it takes [if]forever[/i] if you happen to miss a 142.
142 – noted.
145 – noted.  135 BUZ will be easier to implement this way.
150 – noted.
151 – noted.
155 – noted.
156/7 – noted.
160 – it wouldn’t use the QSBS at all.  It’s just a 111 not via South Bank to speed things up.
161 – noted.
162 – disagree, waste of money.  People can get off at the all-day stop which would go in at the southern end of the CBD.
170 – I’m not strongly for sending it via CCB, will consider this, but it does make the network simpler.
172 – I certainly don’t want to see it scrapped, but it can work better.
174 – if you are that desperate for a bus to the city without a transfer you can walk to Broadwater Road (170), Wecker Rd (180/185), Logan Road (175) etc.  The furthest point on Creek Rd from one of these services is around 800m, the furthest point on Newnham Rd is around 650m, and both roads still have a bus service down them.
175 – as per 174.
176 – unnecessarily duplicates a number of routes.
179 – the only difference between this and a 180 is the CCB, so I’d just make the 180 go down the CCB permanently.
180 – actually, I quite agree with this, as long as the 175 is BUZed.
181 – with the 180 no longer using Holland Rd this wouldn’t be needed, and in practice it probably isn't as much a "link" as we would like to think seeing its peak hour only.
184 – noted.
185 – agree.
189 – I’m not sure why this route is even needed, inbound or outbound.
192 – noted and I suspect you are right.
195 – appears to me to be a waste of time as-is, because you can consolidate the frequency this way and take the guessing out of which “type” of 196 you need to look for.
199 – noted.
Ride the G:

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2012, 02:35:13 PM »
Good work Surfrail, been looking foward to this. Do you intend to submit formally.

In the next week or so - I might email it directly to them or give it to one of my contacts.

I've been meaning to actually ask members this....but, what's at Wooloongabba anyway :P

Woolloongabba is a convenient terminating location, but there isn't a huge amount there at present.  Plus there will be a railway there in a few years when it does really start densifying.

I want to go one step further and say no CCB routing for the 160...cut it entirely and have 111s only.

Either or.  For operational reasons, it probably is OK to have the 160 because the bus then just drives straight into the depot rather than backtracking from 8MP - the issue is more the separate stop locations in town.

555 could be consolidated with them as well, but it really is for a different market notwithstanding the common stops with the 111 (especially in peak where people can get on a 555, 566, 569, 571 or 581 but not a 111).
Ride the G:

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2012, 03:03:19 PM »
110 - the only time I've used this route to the terminus (got on in Acacia Ridge) it was carrying anything but air on a Sat afternoon.
119 etc - I re-iterate that saying "terminus" doesn't make it clear what you are arguing for.
121 - the only missed stop on that route is Adelaide St stop 39.  I agree it should serve that stop, but why don't you just say that?
174 - A reasonable argument.  I can certainly see that 170+174 is a bit weird.  My thinking is to keep the 174 via Cornwall St to replace the 180 on that part of Logan Rd.  Taking the 170 out of Wellers Hill is a pretty dramatic hit at that location.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2012, 03:47:19 PM »
110 - the only time I've used this route to the terminus (got on in Acacia Ridge) it was carrying anything but air on a Sat afternoon.
119 etc - I re-iterate that saying "terminus" doesn't make it clear what you are arguing for.
121 - the only missed stop on that route is Adelaide St stop 39.  I agree it should serve that stop, but why don't you just say that?
174 - A reasonable argument.  I can certainly see that 170+174 is a bit weird.  My thinking is to keep the 174 via Cornwall St to replace the 180 on that part of Logan Rd.  Taking the 170 out of Wellers Hill is a pretty dramatic hit at that location.

110 - if justified it could still go to Inala, but I would definitely want the 115 gone because nothing anchors it at the other end.  Cross town route will replace that.

119 - I've rephrased this.

121 -  I think it should originate at Wickham Tce (and that all 116s should start there) and take the same set of stops, then continue to the CCB.  112 and 113 as well.
Ride the G:

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2012, 06:05:47 PM »
Thoughts on the eastern suburbs now attached.
Ride the G:

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2012, 06:51:33 PM »
My interest drops precipitously beyond the BCC borders, but in answer to your comments on 200-239:

200: One of several options here.  Another is run via Eastern Busway, moving the 204 to QSBS A2 (214/215/220 need to be given street stops) and remove the 222.
201: Disagree that this should be removed on the available info.
202: Yes
203: I guess, but a lower priority.  W'Gabba is also a valid terminus.  A possible service to remain on Old Cleveland Rd alongside the busway.
204: Why not do it properly and send it via the Eastern Busway?  Agree about terminating at Carindale.  Stanley Rd services should cover the Carindale-Clem Jones Centre section.
205: Only service on Scrubb Rd south of the 200/201.  It should be given more time to succeed.  I say 201/205 should swap between Carindale and Scrubb Rd for a faster 201.
206: I can see chopping off Fortitude Valley so long as a valley-Carindale via Story Bridge route is instituted, but disagree with the rest of your comments.
207: In the AM this is almost the perfect route except for non stopping Bennetts Rd.  PM it should leave from a stop near the remainder of 200/222
208: Not inclined to remove this one, but it can probably integrate with the 205 better
210: Agree
211: I'd extend it to Meadowlands/Belmont Rds instead of Cannon Hill.  Disagree with putting it into W'Gabba - it's a deviation in the PM and in the AM it adds to congestion approaching Allen St.
212: Agree, but it should go further to Metroplex
214/215: As previously discussed
216: Agree
217: Agree
220/1: Agree.  Needs to serve selected stops along Wynnum Rd
23x: Agree generally.

STB

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2012, 06:58:09 PM »
Thoughts on the eastern suburbs now attached.

I've just gone through your suggestions...

240 - Disagree - most of the patronage is along Manly Rd and Caladium St who are heading both to Capalaba and Manly.  It's been a long standing route and when TransLink tried to straighten the route out back in 2005, it backfired badly with residents.  So I'd keep it as it is.

242 - I don't have a problem with that, can link up with route 253.

243 - Gets heavy loads already, with again most people coming from that Wakerley area (Caladium St).  I've caught the 243 a number of times and you usually get about 1/3 getting off at the Park and Ride at Chandler and the rest off along the rest of the route, with the majority in that Wakerley area.  I'm not sure if forcing those passengers onto already crowded BT services would be the answer.

250 - I actually think it should be running every 15mins every day to Carindale at the very least.  In general route 250 carries a bigger load to Carindale than to the city itself, and for quite a while now, it's not unknown for route 250 to carry sardine standing loads all the way to Alexandra Hills and Thornlands.

253 - The 253 is a bit of a tricky thing, due to the nature of the road layout and general geography in the Birkdale/Thorneside area.  I've already suggested to TransLink to switch the 254 Wellington Pt section onto the 253 Birkdale South section, and the 253 Thorneside section onto the 254 Birkdale South section (the TAFE part), with both routes going into Birkdale station.

260 - This is interesting as the TransLink proposed changes conflict with what is actually happening on that bus route.  The significant amount of Gainsborough Park and Capalaba passengers are actually changing at Wishart to transfer onto route 180 to access the TAFE and Mansfield.  I'd probably suggest that it could terminate at Griffith Uni Nathan full time, rather than continuing to QE II hospital (can use route 120).  I would certainly not suggest removing route 260 though from Griffith Uni, I did that for a year, catching route 260 to get to Griffith Uni and it gets PACKED of students going to Griffith Uni, mostly getting on along Mt Gravatt Capalaba Rd and Griffith University busway station, even with the upgrades.

261 - Depends on the consequences of how loadings go on route 111 at Eight Mile Plains, I don't think people would want to take such a short trip and transfer, they will most likely end up driving instead.  Loadings on route 261 are moderate.

262 - Just needs to be upgraded to a full time route and terminate it at Griffith Uni Nathan.

273 - Nope, gets solid loads already, with passengers coming from the Redland Bay Rd corridor.  Not sure if other routes could take the loads.

276/279/281 - Disagree strongly with that one, standing loads and fully seated loads are common along all those routes, all the way to Victoria Point, particuarly during the crunch times in the PM peak (around 4pm to 5pm).  IIRC, the 4pmish 279 carried a fully seated load by the time it reached Creek St, and standing squishy load out of Buranda and Garden City, with the passengers getting off at the unofficial park and ride in Henderson Rd and Victoria Point station.




Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2012, 07:22:30 PM »
^ One of the reasons I wanted to float this area in particular is because I know you have worked on it before.

My observations of the Veolia peak services are generally that they are woefully underloaded leaving town, both from watching them and catching a few.  Perhaps that is improving.
Ride the G:

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2012, 07:54:17 PM »
For Simon:

200 – noted, and agree on the 214/215/220 and their successor routes.
201 – I’ve no issue leaving this in.  I had always assumed it ran the way it does because of congestion around Stones Corner, which the busway has negated.  Leaving it as is makes this the “fast” Chatsworth Rd route, so there could be a stop or 2 en route (eg Samuel St shops)
202 – noted
203 – noted, but I think the PAH would be better because that’s one of the principal reasons this route goes the way it does instead of via Logan Rd.
204 – noted.  I think Deshon St can still use a bus route and the alternative of maybe sending the 203 this way is a bit of a downgrade.  (Compare my opinion on the 174, where they still have reasonably good bus routes on Newnham/Creek but just not to town.)
205 – On balance I think keep too.  I have suggested the 201 not go via the interchange.
206/207 – I don’t think either is necessary.  The precious darlings can walk, like everybody else. You would have noticed I have a pathological hatred of special-case routes like this.  Running more buses more simply and all-day long solves real capacity issues, not running huge variations on a theme so some salarymen (like me) can get a bus from the front door of their building to their house at 5pm.
208 – if we keep the 201, 205, this and the new express we’re talking 4 bus routes for a single road.  Unnecessary.  The 205 is only in because there is nothing else short of doing something way crazy (like diverting the 185 via Pine Mountain, Scrub and Wecker Roads before rejoining Ham Rd, or something equally unlikely).
210 – noted
211 – I was considering this very move and am happy to implement.  Noted re the Gabba.
212 – agreed
214/215 – noted
216 – noted
217 – noted
220/1 – agreed, express stops would need to be designated.
23x – noted.
Ride the G:

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2012, 08:13:14 PM »
For STB:

240 – I thought there might be a reason for this, so agreed.
242 - noted.
243 – happy to leave.
250 – I’ve tried to keep frequency as a secondary issue for now because generally speaking it’s easier to fix that than entrenched design problems, although with the Redlands what really stands out is how infrequent some of the locals are, especially on weekends (if they even run).  I think it could easily be a 15 minute headway, but baby steps – Sunday still cuts out way too early and hourly is just wretched.
253 - noted.
260 – I think it’s largely unjustified to continue running this to Nathan when the 125 is proposed to connect to the busway and now the local uni shuttle is so frequent.  Plenty of people have to change to get over to Nathan (eg from Logan or the upper part of Mains Road), so they can deal with it.  If it means they can afford to run a bit earlier and later then all the better. (I would suggest that maybe this could stay as it is and the 262 can run via Gardner Road.)
261 – there’s plenty of other services at 8MP.  No conceptually different in my mind to the 161 or plenty of other services which terminate at the busway (eg somebody catching a 123 from Macgregor).
262 – as above.
273 – noted, it just looks off to me (travelling out of the way to get to Capalaba).  Happy to take your word for it.
276/279/281 – noted, however is this something that could be solved by running more frequently as opposed to running without a transfer?  Running all these services to town and back to Capalaba empty out of service must cost a packet – it would be a lot cheaper to pay BT to run extra services to 8MP seeing the depot is just up the road.  Not running to the CBD = twice the services from Victoria Point to Redland Bay to 8MP.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2012, 08:46:43 PM by SurfRail »
Ride the G:

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2012, 08:34:22 PM »
There's a few things at W'Gabba.  Lands centre is one, Go Print, a number of small business, Chalk hotel.  I wouldn't say that nothing was there.
I have a few mates who live around there, and there's a little micro brewery (The Brews Brothers I think?) around near there as well which is pretty good, not to mention the German Club. But that said, not sure why the Gabba-Roma St connection is so important?

Walking to Central from where most other buses stop in the CBD isn't that hard, or they can change to one of the multitude of routes at Cultural Center. Not exactly ideal, but I don't see why there'd be such a high demand for such trips.

On the other hand, how far is it to walk from Gabba busway to Mater Hill busway?
There is no silver bullet… but there is silver buckshot.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2012, 09:59:44 PM »
I'd say about 15 mins to walk from Gabba to Mater Hill.  Perhaps slightly less.  I think it's about 20+ from Gabba to South Bank Rail.

Perhaps routes which are suggested to terminate at PAH busway could run through to the Gabba to terminate.  It's a better terminus IMO.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2012, 12:10:33 PM »
Quote
204 – noted.  I think Deshon St can still use a bus route and the alternative of maybe sending the 203 this way is a bit of a downgrade.
Wasn't the CityGlider going to use Deshon St...or was it Logan Rd?

Agree with the 204 using Deshon St though...If you catch an all stops bus in preference to a BUZ on the same route you obviously don't care about speed versus other factors.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2012, 12:20:03 PM »
Wasn't the CityGlider going to use Deshon St...or was it Logan Rd?
No.  It was going to go to Stone's Corner.

Quote
204 – noted.  I think Deshon St can still use a bus route and the alternative of maybe sending the 203 this way is a bit of a downgrade.
My plan for this was run RBH-Story Bridge-Deshon St-Carindale.  Those on Deshon St can interchange at the Gabba.

But shouted down.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2012, 10:50:47 AM »
135 – Algester Rd is spitting distance from Ridgewood Rd, I wouldn’t think it needs a bus service on top of the 130.
The bulk of it is 500m or so away from Ridgewood Rd.  If the 130 is to run via Hellawell Rd and there isn't a need to serve this part of Algester Rd, you might as well terminate the 135 at Sunnybank.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2012, 11:42:22 AM »
135 – Algester Rd is spitting distance from Ridgewood Rd, I wouldn’t think it needs a bus service on top of the 130.
The bulk of it is 500m or so away from Ridgewood Rd.  If the 130 is to run via Hellawell Rd and there isn't a need to serve this part of Algester Rd, you might as well terminate the 135 at Sunnybank.

Indeed.
Ride the G:

Offline nathandavid88

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2012, 12:58:41 PM »
Either or.  For operational reasons, it probably is OK to have the 160 because the bus then just drives straight into the depot rather than backtracking from 8MP - the issue is more the separate stop locations in town.

555 could be consolidated with them as well, but it really is for a different market notwithstanding the common stops with the 111 (especially in peak where people can get on a 555, 566, 569, 571 or 581 but not a 111).

While I agree with having the 111 and 160 sharing stops (why they don't I really don't understand – and personally I'd have both of them run to Roma Street to free up space in the QSBS), but I really don't like the idea of adding the 555 (and associated peak services) to the mix. I think the reason they are kept separate is to discourage people from using it to travel just along the busway, as it adds considerably to overcrowding on the service. I would even advocate the 555 running express on the busway between as far as Buranda, stopping only at Garden City (and maybe Griffith). Keep the LCBS services for people who are travelling to Logan and therefore at stop 82 (and annexing stop 83 I think would be a good idea) – the stop for all services to Logan. For people wanting stops along the busway within Brisbane's boundaries, they should be encouraged to use the 111 and 160.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2012, 02:02:00 PM »
Yeah having the 555 separate doesn't bother me...Logan pax actually have to be able to board buses without them being clogged up by short haul pax.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2012, 05:16:21 PM »
It bothers me having the 555 serving the stops at Buranda, Greenslopes and Holland Park West but not having a common stop location with the 111/P88.  Either it should not serve those stops or be moved into a common stop.  P88 could be extended to Springwood which would alleviate most overcrowding complaints.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2012, 05:28:06 PM »
Quote
It bothers me having the 555 serving the stops at Buranda, Greenslopes and Holland Park West
But I think it just stops there so someone from Logan can get off at those places, if need be....Eg a Logan resident who works at Greenslopes Hospital.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2012, 05:42:01 PM »
Quote
It bothers me having the 555 serving the stops at Buranda, Greenslopes and Holland Park West
But I think it just stops there so someone from Logan can get off at those places, if need be....Eg a Logan resident who works at Greenslopes Hospital.
Ever been to Greenslopes?  Can't imagine too many hospital workers making that walk.

Buranda has merit in that it has higher frequency to UQ from the 209, although that is at the cost of increased congestion there.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2012, 08:55:53 PM »
Quote
Buranda has merit in that it has higher frequency to UQ from the 209, although that is at the cost of increased congestion there.
And all the other interchange opportunites to the eastern routes.

So once Buranda is in, you're only skipping 2 stops, saving what? Why complicate things for users by expressing the other ones. If someone wants to get off at Holland Park West or Greenslopes, let them.

Also, its about a 850m walk from Greenslopes to the Private Hospital. Might be too long for lazy people, but I'm sure some do the walk.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2012, 06:02:36 PM »
Quote
Buranda has merit in that it has higher frequency to UQ from the 209, although that is at the cost of increased congestion there.
And all the other interchange opportunites to the eastern routes.

So once Buranda is in, you're only skipping 2 stops, saving what? Why complicate things for users by expressing the other ones. If someone wants to get off at Holland Park West or Greenslopes, let them.

Also, its about a 850m walk from Greenslopes to the Private Hospital. Might be too long for lazy people, but I'm sure some do the walk.
I didn't say that Buranda should be in, just that it has merit.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2012, 12:42:39 PM »
105 – it would be a 108 but terminating at the PAH.
I don't think this one makes much sense.  If the 104 and 105 (108?) both terminate at PAH then we would just have two hardly used routes on the same corridor.  Might as well knock one of them back to Yeerongpilly.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2012, 01:04:57 PM »
With the 170 to 180 region, why isn't a route structure like this adopted?


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Surfrail suggests decomissioning the 181, but is there some other route that currently serves the zigzaggy bit of Cavendish rd?

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2012, 01:12:23 PM »
Surfrail suggests decomissioning the 181, but is there some other route that currently serves the zigzaggy bit of Cavendish rd?
Yes, 184 and 185.

Your green route looks a lot like 175 but not serving W'Gabba.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2012, 01:22:01 PM »
Quote
Your green route looks a lot like 175 but not serving W'Gabba.
LOL, I knew that whatever I drew at the CBD end would get taken seriously. You'll notice i did a bit of a black blob at the CBD end to try and cover up my innacuracy (I was more interested in the corridoor versus the specifics of CBD entry)

Ta for that anyway, except the 184/185 still have circuitous southern ends.


Offline nathandavid88

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #33 on: December 13, 2012, 01:47:59 PM »
It bothers me having the 555 serving the stops at Buranda, Greenslopes and Holland Park West but not having a common stop location with the 111/P88.  Either it should not serve those stops or be moved into a common stop.  P88 could be extended to Springwood which would alleviate most overcrowding complaints.

I'd rather see the 555 run express. Give it the same stopping pattern as the 140 and 150, which skips Buranda, Greenslopes and Holland Park West.  I'm very much against splitting Logan-bound buses. It would just confuse people I feel. As for congestion, the bus review mentions adding offpeak services to the P581, and a new peak 583 service (basically a P581 minus the "P"), so that should help things a bit if it eventuates.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #34 on: December 13, 2012, 01:50:55 PM »
LOL.  The black blob is a long way from O'Keefe St.

So you feel it is important to give those in the middle of Cavendish Rd a direct path to Garden City?  Newnham Rd is already served by the 174 and 590 directly to Garden City.

I'm very much against splitting Logan-bound buses. It would just confuse people I feel.
For the record, so would I be.  However, I would say it is achievable to put ALL the Logan bound buses into KGSBS on the outbound.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #35 on: December 13, 2012, 02:08:42 PM »
Quote
LOL.  The black blob is a long way from O'Keefe St.
I don't care. I just drew it in paint roughly using a thick paintbrush to show the idea, rather than doing it properly detailed in Corel Draw as I normally would.
The routing of the 175 is fine, the split with the 174 I don't like.

Quote
Newnham Rd is already served by the 174 and 590 directly to Garden City.
I think the idea is to get rid of the 174 and just have the 175.
590 yes, but Newham Rd warrants a radial route to the CBD right?

I have a preference for the KISS principle and to have evenly spaced high frequency corridors to maximise the number of people who can access them (as drawn).
I think the routes in this general area needlessly criss cross a bit too much (Eg do part of one road, then part of another)
If you just worked around the 3 straight corridors illustrated, they mop up the lions share of the patronage, and it suddenly becomes a lot easier to do the stuff in between.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 03:02:17 PM by Gazza »

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2012, 02:19:39 PM »
You're an expert on the bus system and I should worship at your feet.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2012, 03:00:39 PM »
Excuse me, what have I said that warrants a response that rude?
You gave your thoughts on the area, I gave mine.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2012, 03:16:00 PM by Gazza »

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2012, 03:20:19 PM »
The entire trend of your posting does get on my nerves at times.  Specifically with this thread, this was irritating:
Quote
Your green route looks a lot like 175 but not serving W'Gabba.
LOL, I knew that whatever I drew at the CBD end would get taken seriously. You'll notice i did a bit of a black blob at the CBD end to try and cover up my innacuracy (I was more interested in the corridoor versus the specifics of CBD entry)

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2012, 03:27:27 PM »
The entire trend of your posting does get on my nerves at times.  Specifically with this thread, this was irritating:
Quote
Your green route looks a lot like 175 but not serving W'Gabba.
LOL, I knew that whatever I drew at the CBD end would get taken seriously. You'll notice i did a bit of a black blob at the CBD end to try and cover up my innacuracy (I was more interested in the corridoor versus the specifics of CBD entry)
Why is it irritating? If you wanted to get really techinical I think I drew one of the lines across a bunch of houses.
Think of What I drew like those Transapex maps...They don't go into the nitty gritty of how the interchanges work or where exits are, its just a thick line that shows generally where the route goes:

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan