Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Author Topic: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions  (Read 8438 times)

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #40 on: December 13, 2012, 03:36:52 PM »
You can argue the point until you are blue in the face (as is your want), but I found it so.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #41 on: December 13, 2012, 06:33:27 PM »


Quote
It is suggested that this route be decommissioned as it unnecessarily complicates the network and is wasteful, regardless of any patronage gains.  Passengers are already within a reasonable walking distance of up to 3 different BUZ routes and numerous peak routes while other parts of the network are starved for resources.  This route involves a significant opportunity cost.

Way to go Surfrail! I like reading your feedback suggestions and while I've got a good idea of the CFN all day network, I do recongise that the rocket/P/express/whatever they call it now - so complicated! needs an overhaul in and of itself.

Opportunity costs are often overlooked, glad you picked it up here.

Quote
I think the idea is to get rid of the 174 and just have the 175.

I agree with amalgamation for Logan Road and BUZification. It would only be necessary to add a few extra services to get to BUZ status. Very cheaply done!
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #42 on: December 13, 2012, 06:37:49 PM »
Quote
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.

Terminate them at PA or perhaps even the Stones Corner Busway turnaround (more connections @ Buranda).
Trains are not frequent and are linear (i.e. City <----> Beenleigh) wheras Stones Corner termination or even Park Road termination/PA termination will allow onward connections in *all* directions.

I don't like PA termination simply because the bus arrives on the lower level where it is completely hidden from customer view. I'd rather have it turn around at Stones Corner. You'd also get HUGE richness of connection at Buranda! The A frames help but people nowadays don't read anything on any sign ever (can't even see a boom gate down with flashing light and huge ear-piercing alarms either) so the bus needs to be on the UPPER level.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #43 on: December 13, 2012, 06:48:25 PM »
Quote
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.

UQ should be included as a stop. Watch the patronage go through the roof.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2012, 02:20:39 AM »
I'm going to preface this comment by saying I don't know much about either of those routes, and while I agree about the multitude of connections at Buranda, I don't know about running it there when there are already capacity issues. Instead why doesn't it use the ramps and go to the lower PAH busway stop, then run along O'Keefe St and stop above Buranda. That way the connection is provided and you're not cluttering up the busway.

That said though, transferring for the city should be done at Park Rd. 4tph to FG, plus 2tph to Airport plus and 2tph to Shorncliffe (or wherever the ex-Cleveland trains go these days).
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.

Offline nathandavid88

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2012, 09:15:57 AM »
Buses transferring with trains? Hush your mouth Golliwog!   ;)

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #46 on: December 15, 2012, 05:07:41 PM »
My thoughts on 300-399.
Ride the G:

Offline Andrew

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 207
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #47 on: December 15, 2012, 09:04:56 PM »
Do you work in or studying accounting by any chance SurfRail?
Schrödinger's Bus:
Early, On-time and Late simultaneously, until you see it...

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #48 on: December 15, 2012, 10:39:34 PM »
Do you work in or studying accounting by any chance SurfRail?

Law.  It probably shows in my style.
Ride the G:

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #49 on: December 15, 2012, 10:49:30 PM »
400-499 now attached.
Ride the G:

Offline techblitz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #50 on: December 15, 2012, 11:12:19 PM »
good suggestion regarding the feeder loop service into enoggera station and then deletion of 390 however im awaiting to see the planned route to see how well it services the left side of samford rd :-c

Offline Andrew

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 207
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #51 on: December 15, 2012, 11:56:19 PM »
I am very disappointed about you wanting to remove most rocket services. I can't understand it. Why you want to remove them? The western rockets aren't that complex. 426 is for the 425, 431 is for the 433, 446 is for the 430. I don't see how removing all those rockets is a network improvement.
Schrödinger's Bus:
Early, On-time and Late simultaneously, until you see it...

Offline Golliwog

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5042
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #52 on: December 16, 2012, 12:54:27 AM »
My thoughts on 300-399.

I too like the 360/361 loop idea. Much better than just running each separately. I also agree with your other comments on the Ferny Grove railway routes. I'm not too familiar with many of the other routes, but I also think the 380/381 BUZ idea is a good one.
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.

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4899
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #53 on: December 16, 2012, 01:40:19 AM »
Agree with the 338/359/357 comments but I'm biased :P As much as I'd like to see it (338) every 30 minutes the most important thing to me is to fix up the route in regards to its running path. Get the route fixed up, sort out the mess with the 357/359 during peak hour, address the running hours and peak direction (people do work in Strathpine), make it so it either goes past that school every time of bypass it all together. Once that's sorted address a 30 min frequency.

Albany Creek road mods should be possible. Get rid of bay A and make that the area which activates the lights. It would still leave 3 bays available to share between what is a handfull of routes (the 2 hourly 336/337, hourly 338 and the hourly 346 are hardly screaming capacity issues when 3 of those routes don't even run on Sundays). THe stop on Albany Creek road can be removed and used as a waiting bay for new peak hour services (Already the case). Possible issues could be traffic light cycles/spacing and the servo entrance.

If they end up buzzing the 357/359 it should be extended to Strathpine to provide a link to the railway line (soon to be connection to Redcliffe via MBRL and eventually the NWTC in 100 years time :P), other bus connections and the local shops in the Strathpine area (the outdated Westfield :P business along Gympie Road) and a connection to the Eatons Hill Tavern. I know some people here have laughed in the past but god damn that place can draw some large crowds on a weeknight/weekend (When there are concerts/gigs on its not uncommon to see a few hundred cars parked there).

The 325/335 running hours were only recently introduced with the timetable mods for the northern busway so it seems that the smoke is dissapearing leaving only the mirrors. What would you think about sending the 335 via Kirby/Ellison/Murphy Roads (services more people, removes duplication with the 338/680/341 and what everelse runs along there but the only downside would be the traffic from the roundabout-Gympie Road. It duplicates the 330 for that section but it would only share one outbound stop just before to the south of the roundabout/Inbound stop is to the north). I don't disagree with the 335 taking over the 325 duties through Taigum but I disagree with the 325 going to Sandgate.

The original 328 ( http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/110606-328.pdf ) used to be an extension of the the 325/335/P339. From the off set it was easy to see that it was going to fail when a 340 extension to Boondal Station inconjunction with rerouting the 325/335 routes accordingly would have been a waaaaaaay better payoff without the duplication of a brand new and seperate route.

326/327 seems like a good idea. What about sending it left onto Rogan Road, Right onto Church Road, left onto Beams Road, Taigum Interchange and then resuming the route with a right onto Muller Road. 325/335 can then mix it up through Taigum or even going as far as making them loop routes ie Once at Geebung Station it terminates/heads back to Sandgate/Taigum (as an option if nothing can be rerouted to the south).

I don't agree that the 336/337 should be modified route wise if that's what you were getting at in the 327 section but I agree in the general sense with the 336/337. Earlier peak hour and later peak hour services will do wonders for locals transfering to/from interchanges. The arvo peak hour services finish before peak hour starts but they already get good loadings. In the interm it should also be retimed to provide better running times for the 335 along Kirby Road and 325 along Newman Road instead of running 5 minutes before - at the same time as those services with nothing for the next 60 minutes - in the case of Newman Road only heading to Chermside with the half hour services to Toombul in the form of the 326/327).

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #54 on: December 16, 2012, 06:56:24 AM »
I am very disappointed about you wanting to remove most rocket services. I can't understand it. Why you want to remove them? The western rockets aren't that complex. 426 is for the 425, 431 is for the 433, 446 is for the 430. I don't see how removing all those rockets is a network improvement.

The data in the review indicates that they are underperforming and they are likely to reduce them.  If so, why even bother having them at all? If you can only justify having 2 buses in the morning and 2 in the afternoon (for probably 100 people or so), you really should just be looking to simplify the network and get people onto the train or 444 to town.

I don't have an emotional attachment to a single seat journey to the city - I think in most cases it is counterproductive.  If its good enough for the 161, the 215, the 322 etc, its good enough for the west as well.

The only reasons to have rockets at all in my mind are:
- Actual capacity issues which require a shortworking (eg the 133/137 combo which I support)
- Specific cases where you want to get people somewhere without having to backtrack (eg 331/332/341 to Spring Hill).
- Where interchanging would just see you swapping a full load of pax with the full-time route (eg why I don't support the Veolia or Clarks routes being converted to local services only unless the 555 or 250 ran every 5 minutes with artics or similar, given the distances involved).

Anything else doesn't cut the mustard with me.  Most systems in the world don't have these kind of variations at all and they survive.
Ride the G:

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #55 on: December 16, 2012, 07:24:17 AM »
For HTG:

338/359/357 – noted.  The main thing for me is the sheer number of variations – it’s almost as bad as the old Gold Coast route 7 (Broadbeach to Tweed via everywhere), which was a lot longer and more complicated but had 13 variations.  If the 338 was as long it would probably have around 40…

I have included a comment about suggesting a Strathpine extension for the 359 and maybe truncating the 338 to Albany Creek/Eatonvale if that happens, as it would save resources.

350/351 mods - noted.  The current loop struck me as a really silly arrangement when I was up there.

325/335 – I’d say the 335 looks OK – sending via the other side of Marchant Park would mean reduced access to the Markets shops.  My justification for swapping the Sandgate/Boondall legs was simply the running time – I would say the 335 is too inconvenient for a direct connection to Chermside, which can be a challenge to get to from the Shorncliffe line and surrounds.

328/340 – not really in favour of extending the 340 past Carseldine Station, its probably long enough as it is.  I’ve just suggested formalising the already de facto extension along the 328 that happens from Boondall/Taigum.

326/327 – the route via Carselgrove is intended to allow them to replace the 328 extension.  I think Church and Handford are already well-serviced as I did look at just using Church Rd.  What I would like to see is the access to Toombul rationalised (ie so the 322 just runs Hamilton/Sandgate, another route just runs Chermside/Rode/Sandgate, and the 326 picks up some of the slack and goes in via maybe Newman/Main/Bilsen/Edinburgh Castle/Shaw/Buckland.

336/337 – I know this is a particular bugbear of yours too.  I was wondering about certain bits of this eg does it really need to go all the way from Aspley to Hamilton Rd?  Isn’t the 345 enough?   Maybe it could go directly from Aspley to Geebung via the entire length of Robinson Rd instead of deviating up to Zillmere  Rd.  Can it save a bit of time by not doing a loop of Halsmere St?  I’ve also suggested that maybe the 353 could be extended to Geebung which might enable it to run a bit more directly and cover some of these bits.

As an aside, I forgot to mention my suggestion of getting rid of the 341 extension that was added earlier this year, because I can’t see how this was ever a good idea.  People can just walk to Carseldine station, or catch the rerouted 326/327 service via Carselgrove.
Ride the G:

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20302
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #56 on: December 16, 2012, 08:31:36 AM »
Route 320

Should be terminated at Albion Station to allow people to connect with high frequency rail services at Eagle Junction and at Albion. This bus route is a duplication of the inner city rail line between Eagle Junction and the CBD -  it runs parallell to these stations, see map ---> http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/110606-320.pdf

Spring hill is already served by the Spring Hill loop.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #57 on: December 16, 2012, 08:49:23 AM »
Route 320

Should be terminated at Albion Station to allow people to connect with high frequency rail services at Eagle Junction and at Albion. This bus route is a duplication of the inner city rail line between Eagle Junction and the CBD -  it runs parallell to these stations, see map ---> http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/timetables/110606-320.pdf

Spring hill is already served by the Spring Hill loop.

I did consider playing with the 320 but because it covers St Paul's Terrace it's probably just as easy to link it to the bit north of Albion.  There's plenty of more egregious duplication which I've suggested be wiped out in that area.  All I think is necessary is to tinker with it around Kalinga to improve the service footprint with the 321 being canned.

The issue with the Spring Hill loop is that it requires a fair bit of backtracking if you are coming from the north, plus it doesn't run on weekends which means you would need to lay on additional resources (and that service is free, so no cost recovery either).  Spring Hill isn't that walkable because of the grades involved.  A service coming off Waterworks Rd like the updated 359 BUZ and the local 372/373/377/378 plus redesigned 393 would fix it.
Ride the G:

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #58 on: December 16, 2012, 08:53:21 AM »
Routes 500-599 attached.

Also attached is the complete list from 3-599 so far with revisions to date.

Only the 600s and 700s plus little incidental ones left to do.
Ride the G:

Offline Arnz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #59 on: December 16, 2012, 09:15:41 AM »
Looking forward to the 600 series for comparison to my notes.  :-t
Rgds,
Arnz

Unless stated otherwise, Opinions stated in my posts are those of my own view only.

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #60 on: December 16, 2012, 10:09:29 AM »
300/305:  Good suggestions.  I'd challenge the need for the 300 to run to the Cultural Centre.  Use the North Quay island and/or stop 16 to layover.
310: Not a fan of this route being shortened.  It already runs to Sandgate.
315: Agree
321: I don't agree with the 393 going into Spring Hill.  Inclined to agree with decommissioning the route though
325: Not sure why you are inclined to swap the railway stations with the 335
333/332: Happy to go along with the Rode Rd stop
331/332/341: I think these need to, in the PM, serve stop 84 on Elizabeth St (outside Embassy Hotel) and turn left at the end of Creek St.  Then they can generate a bit of extra patronage compared to current.  Running via Adelaide St is also a valid alternative to get out of Elizabeth St traffic.  In the AM, the attractiveness of the stops served could be improved - Charlotte St stop 90 is high on my list for investigation, although it needs the parking restrictions changed.
335: Must be taken out of RBH IMO.  Should be truncated back at Chermside, otherwise a common inner corridor with the 325.
338: Agree
340: I don't like deviations, and tend to think the current set up is probably preferable.
343: Stopping at George St 116 in the PM and extending along Albany Creek Rd to the Pinaroo Lawn Cemetary are my comments
344: Fully support decommissioning
350: Removing the loop at Aspley probably doesn't pay.  I don't like this part of the route anyway.  It denies the route the opportunity to serve somewhere where it would be more direct.
351: This route shouldn't run along the eastern part of Albany Creek Rd but rather extend to Brendale to stop the 357 deviating there.  I don't think that starting across the road at Aspley is a problem for this route though.
356: Agree with decommissioning
357: Agree that the deviation should be removed, but I think this route should run to/from Eatons Hill.
359: Why via Wardell St?  Kelvin Grove Rd is faster and more direct and the Ashgrove shops aren't anything special.
360/361/364: I tend to think this area should be served by a via Wardell St route.
369: Radical suggestions.
370: Running via Northern Busway is supported.  As with 375/9.
374: I think this one should only be retained in the AM and removed from North Quay to run via Nth Busway
375: Bardon side of this should be removed from this route to be tacked on to the 475.  If the Stafford side remains
376: Why remove a profitable route?  Probably could be made more profitable by picking up George St 116
379-Ashgrove: I say make it peak only
380/381: Suggest a way be found to remove from North Quay
382/383: I propose additional trips.  In the PM consideration should be given to using Adelaide St
384: Differ
390: Differ
393: Just should go back to Roma St or beyond
397-9: Agree



402: Agree, but an alternate solution is just converting the semester trips to a "401" running non stop.
411: Differ.
412: That removes it from the centre of the CBD.  I don't like that idea.
414/415: Agree, I think.  Only one route needs to cover that area.  An alternative is to extend the 470 to cover these routes' area.
416: Makes sense if there is to be a bus lane on Coro.
427: Agree in the sense that there is too much variation between UQ and Indro.  Don't agree with removing this service, but perhaps it should follow the 432 through the area.  The other option would be to move the bus stop up to Westminster Rd and turn left into Clarence Rd, bypassing the current station stop.  A few details to sort out with that one though.
430 comments: I tend to agree west of Indro.  427/432 loops are weird for no apparent reason.
433: I don't want more white/express stops.
426/431/446: I'd be reluctant to decommission these routes.  With the full time routes (maybe) being stunted, a through running peak route could improve its performance.
435: This is the first route which should be truncated at Indro.
436: I agree.
443: I think this should have stops added at Indooroopilly school and Milton.  But remove the left turn at Cribb St in the PM and continue on Milton Rd until Croydon St, assuming the 444 is to remain in KGSBS of course.
450: Yes, but more can be done.
451: Yes.
457-9: Agree.  But in the AM, the Margaret St service can be tagged on to other routes.  I suppose people can also be asked to interchange with 382,383,343,376 to reach those areas.
460/1: Agree
462, sort of.  So long as coordination revolves around Richlands.
465: This one needs to stay.
475: Be nice to not have to go via Jurgens St though!  See 375.
476: Agree - no brainer.

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: Off peak
« Reply #61 on: December 16, 2012, 11:16:56 AM »
333 - Should serve federation and truro st stops to provide direct connections to Northern / INB busway stops.

402 - Would be cautious about non stopping it, since pax are regularly left behind at all Sir Fred Schonell drive stops. But it would increase speeds.

411 - Supported

412 - Would it have a CBD Street stop near the bus mall?

414 - Carmody Rd is 400m from the 412, so probably could, but it is a steep hill.  "Demand responsive options" ;)

416 - Removal supported

417 - I kinda wanted to just make it a feeder from Indro to Long Pocket, but extending to Indro shops.
Support it as 417+415 amalgamation, with truncation at Toowong.

425 - Supported, Incorporate anticlockwise balloon loop around Station Rd, Coonan St and Westminster Rd for rail access.

426 - If the daytime route runs throughout, I dont mind if a peak hour rocket goes all the way to the CBD, provided the bus is full.

427/428 ...The 428 is the 'better' route, plumb resources into that one.

430 - Supported for routes in the area, with increase in frequency.

433 - Agree. Offpeak, when you ride them, Coro Drive is actually pretty fast and free flowing, and feels like the fastest part of the routes. Extra white stops are not going to make a huge difference. For starters, the existing white stops only ever have 1 or 2 people boarding at a time. Secondly adding extra stops to a bus is nowhere near the impact of say stopping an express train. Coro Drive is 3.5km...far too short for two tiers of service to be worthwhile.
Anything that allows the removal of duplicative "all stops" routes, improves legibility, for only a minimal impact on journey times is to be applauded.

446 - Keep in peak if bus is full, to avoid transferring a full bus to another bus.

450 series - Agreed, though i would like to see one route connect back to Darra

460 - At the very least there should be a connection between Forest Lake and Mt Ommaney that doesn't involve a welfare routing...It's why I hate the 468 so much.

465 - I thought it just a depot route that would otherwise be dead running?

467/468 - I know what I want in this respect. Redesign of the 103/106 is needed in the area.

470 - Would support James St routing so the line sits in the middle of the 199 and the Cityglider

471 - Supported. Should be the only route serving the Botanic Gardens too (No more 599/598 deviation)

475 - Good solution to the GCL in the area!

476 - Supported.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #62 on: December 16, 2012, 11:32:45 AM »
For Simon:

300/305:  Noted
310: The reasoning here is that the service north of Sandgate would justify a different profile to the service south of Sandgate (local route possibly running less frequently vs arterial corridor route).
315: Noted
321: Spring Hill is the only reason to keep the 321 – given the 393 already terminates at RBWH I thought it would be a logical extension.
325: Because it creates a faster and more direct journey between Sandgate and Chermside than going via Carseldine.
333/332: Noted.
331/332/341: Noted.  I haven’t paid a huge amount of attention to the CBD arrangements, although the preference would be to simplify it as much as possible.
335: I am actually inclined to agree with chopping off beyond Chermside now I look at it again. I would probably run it as far as the PCH though.
338: Noted
340: Nor do I.  The station is just really badly placed.  Not something I would insist on  - maybe the 345 could loop around Gympie Rd, it would be minimal added expense.
343: Noted.
344: Noted.
350: You may have to clarify this for me.
351: I think this is workable.  351 does Brendale to Pinaroo, 343 does Pinaroo to Aspley.
356: Noted.
357: Noted.
359: Because that area doesn’t have a BUZ route.  It means 2 down Waterworks Rd, but there is nothing stopping the 345 running more frequently (especially with no 390).
360/361/364: None of these would really have anything to do with Wardell St.  The 361 currently does Banks St but that would be dealt with by the 37# routes.
369: They are indeed.
370: Noted and agreed with the sentiment that nothing should run on the surface through Lutwyche.  379 can’t really run via the busway, and 375 wouldn’t exist under my proposal.
374: Running via the busway seems to be a big diversion.
375: My plan for the 475 would be for it to take up the 598/599 route through here via Stuartholme.  I think the 375 works fine on this side of town.
376: Because the resources can be used elsewhere to greater effect.  What does this service do that isn’t covered by anything else?
379-Ashgrove: I say delete it altogether, why bother with it?
380/381: Run via the INB.
382/383: Why?  People can walk.  Too many people have rubbish service levels during peak to make things easier for people who under this system would have 2 BUZ routes.  There isn't a faster route than the INB, which the 380 BUZ would be using anyway.
384: As above.  The 359 would run via Spring Hill and connect people to Ashgrove where they could change for a 380.
390: Run more 345s if necessary.  Rest of it is really not necessary, or covered by the 360/361 local route.
393: Just run more frequent services on the current busway routes, that would be justified anyway.
397-9: Noted.

402: Outside of semester I doubt there would be capacity problems on the 412.  401 is a catchy number for it.
411: I’m not wedded to the idea but I think it has some merit.  I don’t see any need for overlaid express/all-stopping routes on Coro Drive.
412: Brisbane Square isn’t really the centre of the CBD to begin with.  (It could have a pick up on Ann St at City Hall once all the restoration work is done and the closed stops reopen.)
414/415: Noted.
416: This route smells like an election bribe to me.  I can’t see any need for it at all.
427: I wouldn’t be opposed to a non-stop Indro to UQ route on top of the all-stopping 428, no matter which way it goes.  More the fact that there doesn’t seem to be any good reason for the variation from a normal 428 just after Indro station – makes the map look cluttered.
430: noted
433: On looking at this closer I don't think you'd need them.  The yellow stops can probably just come out.
426/431/446: I admit that originally I thought “yeah OK, leave them” until I noticed there are only around 2-3 of each and they are thinking about reducing even that, so we are apparently going to end up with a bunch more services like the 436.  I say take advantage of the situation to suggest just canning them and running more frequent services to Indro.  If they want to keep them, I won’t have a huge problem.
435: Definitely agree.
436: Noted.
443: Noted
450: Noted
451: Noted
457-9: People can walk to the southern end of the CBD or catch the City Loop (which, when I get to it, I will recommend be heavily upgraded to be something more like the Red CAT in Perth to offset the loss of various rockets and peak services).
460/1: Noted
462:  Noted (see below).
465: Noted.  I was proposing to just run the 462 half-hourly.  I suppose you could run every second service as a 465 and only have the Richlands to Darra bit being hourly, but I would like to try to get half-hourly all the way.
475: I suppose you could do either or here.  475 to Toowong via Stuartholme and leave 375 as is, or swap that around.  I favoured the 475 option because it is less frequent and Stuartholme probably doesn’t need a bus every 15 minutes on weekdays. 
476: Yup.  Another election bribe route no doubt.
Ride the G:

Offline techblitz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #63 on: December 16, 2012, 12:35:54 PM »
deletion of the 141 yes im in agreeance as once its leaves grand plaza there are virtually no pax on board towards greenbank rsl park and ride.

142....bit iffy on that and so would translink.....would need to jack the p546 up to at least 5 min frequency for those 30 mins of the p142 timetable and provided park ridge transit had the extra buses.Ive seen standees on p546 from ann st kgs all the way to greenbank rsl PR.
Lets not forget that 142 is a bullet service.
p142 travel time to browns plains  44 mins
140 travel time to browns plains  61 mins    (but would be less with ccb suggestion)
Add more time saving due to the fact that northern cbd workers dont have to leg it to qsbs.

p142 is more important than you think and stats prove it.
value for money high ,patronage very high...

It is hard to see what translink will do with the stop placement of the p142.It may have something to do with overcrowding on p546 and small numbers of passengers boarding on the adelaide st stop.Bottom line is people have clued on to the excellent time saving of these 2 bus routes hence why they are so successful.Deleting one would put a huge strain on the other.

Offline techblitz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #64 on: December 16, 2012, 12:43:01 PM »
Looking forward to the 600 series for comparison to my notes.  :-t

oh yes awaiting suggestions for route 680 ;D

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #65 on: December 16, 2012, 12:43:44 PM »
Deleting one would put a huge strain on the other.
Not if all the trips go over to the remaining route.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #66 on: December 16, 2012, 01:16:56 PM »
142....bit iffy on that and so would translink.....would need to jack the p546 up to at least 5 min frequency for those 30 mins of the p142 timetable and provided park ridge transit had the extra buses.Ive seen standees on p546 from ann st kgs all the way to greenbank rsl PR.

...

Deleting one would put a huge strain on the other.


If the route is paying for itself then TransLink can supply more buses to PRT to run P546s.  The point is not to delete the P142 and not replace those services, but to run them as P546s.
Ride the G:

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #67 on: December 16, 2012, 01:27:24 PM »
325/335: I can see where you are coming from with that one.
350: What I mean is similarly to the 351, it would be nicer if the 350 served the western part of Albany Creek Rd as compared to the eastern part.
36x: I want the 35x out of Wardell St so something has to serve it.  Seems a reasonable trade to me.
374: I'm confused what is indirect about running directly down the busway to QSBS/KGSBS.
376: I agree it does little that the 375 to Stafford doesn't do, but I think the 375 should be broken up.

384: "359 would run via Spring Hill".  I think I've missed something

412: Agree stop 16 is hardly central, but I wouldn't make the situation worse.  I've posted before on squeezing the 412 into QSBS B.
433: Perhaps you don't need the blue/yellow stops.
426/431/446: I'd keep 'em if the others are to be truncated, although I question the truncation plan.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #68 on: December 16, 2012, 01:34:24 PM »
For Gazza

333 – I think so.  340 as well.
402 – I’ve said “selected” services, so it could be like the 428 with some express and some all-stops alternating.
411 - noted
412 – Ann St at City Hall outbound (or stay on the bus).  The City Hall stop would probably be the busiest one.
414 – maybe run the 402 this way if need be?
416 - noted
417 - noted
425 - noted
426 – likewise, but the evidence seems to be that these peak hour routes are underused and probably aren’t needed.
427/428 – agreed
430 - noted
433 – agreed.
446 – as with 426 etc.
450 series -  it could be one of the 453 or 454, but it could just be an upgraded local route.
460 – agreed.  This whole area needs more thought I think, and I’m not sure I’m best placed to offer up a detailed redesign.
465 – 466 is the one you are thinking of.  The bus still effectively runs out of service when it turns off Learoyd Rd because nobody would use it to get to anywhere along there, so just get rid of it.
467/468 – agreed, and I like your thinking on these so far.
470 – noted.  I think the current service is nothing more than a hangover from the tram days when there was one down Commercial Rd.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BrisbaneTram1961North.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BrisbaneTram1961South.png and see how many routes you can recognise…)
471 – agreed.  I’ve suggested that the replacement for the GCL between Mitchelton and Toowong simply stay on Samford Road and Metroad 5.
475 - noted.
476 - noted.
Ride the G:

Offline Gazza

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5382
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #69 on: December 16, 2012, 01:42:30 PM »
As much as it pains me to have so many variants, maybe a 401 express might be the way to go. Would be nice to co-ordinate them specifically with Richlands trains, but not sure how practical that is.

Quote
414 – maybe run the 402 this way if need be?
Ffffuuuuuuu

« Last Edit: December 16, 2012, 01:49:53 PM by Gazza »

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #70 on: December 16, 2012, 01:43:33 PM »
325/335: Noted
350: Noted.  I think Aspley is probably a bigger patronage generator though and we could just run the 338 better.
36x: Noted.
374: Brainfart here sorry, I temporarily forgot about the Skew St access... Yes, that makes sense.  I'd try to get 374/375/380/385 into adjacent stands.
376: Noted.
384: I was proposing the 359 be the single BUZ route via Spring Hill, seeing that it is a relatively direct route in and still connects to Central and Adelaide/Queen/Elizabeth St services.
412: QSBS B I don't particularly like because George St is congested.  I'd like to see southern routes using "B" so they can just loop around the donut at KGS without needing to use city streets to turn around.
433: Agreed.
426/431/446: Noted.  I think the best option is probably to knock the existing ones on the head and see about creating new ones based on the redesigned Indro feeder network.  I have basically now said "look at scrapping if doable but not a requirement".
Ride the G:

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #71 on: December 16, 2012, 01:45:03 PM »
As much as it pains me to have so many variants, maybe a 401 express might be the way to go. Would be nice to co-ordinate them specifically with Richlands trains, but not sure how practical that is.

Falls within my exceptions for where route variations are suitable (ie capacity issues).
Ride the G:

Offline techblitz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2836
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #72 on: December 16, 2012, 01:46:50 PM »
142....bit iffy on that and so would translink.....would need to jack the p546 up to at least 5 min frequency for those 30 mins of the p142 timetable and provided park ridge transit had the extra buses.Ive seen standees on p546 from ann st kgs all the way to greenbank rsl PR.

...

Deleting one would put a huge strain on the other.


If the route is paying for itself then TransLink can supply more buses to PRT to run P546s.  The point is not to delete the P142 and not replace those services, but to run them as P546s.

As long as your comfortable with deleting the greenbank rsl PR to grand plaza pm peak section then go for it.
Translink on the other hand are obviously thinking otherwise.

Offline HappyTrainGuy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4899
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #73 on: December 16, 2012, 04:02:14 PM »
I hope it never has 40 different variations :-r :-r That 338/357/359 mess after Albany Creek Village annoys me as a local. It really has to be addressed in the review. The 359 terminating at Albany Creek Village, the 338 Terminating at Brendale, 357 terminating at Eatonvale, school holidays and private school holidays with Bald Hills detours arghhhh. I'm fine with the 338 terminating at Albany Creek/Eatonvale providing the whatever takes up the slack to Strathpine. THat then might be a case to study for the 338 to dive even deeper and run down Bunya Crossing Road as there are quite alot of houses down that way now. Turnback would be a real b**ch though unless it ran via the estate.

I'm not sure why everyone is obsessed with the chermside market stops for the 335. Its a good solid walk from the stops just to access the shops and then their is the groceries. The outbound stop doesn't even have a pathway to access the bus shelter as far as I can remember - IIRC there is a paved pathway to the rest stop but not the bus stop. Its hardly a ideal option for locals to use PT if they have access to a car for grocery shopping given the nature and elevation of the surrounding area to the North where teh 335 comes from. There is the Aspley Village on Robinson Road, Chermside Westfield and the Aspley Hypermarket all within ~1.5-2km which is accessiable by the 335/336/337 so its not like there is only one option for them. The 330 might be futher away but there are less steeper hills to access it compared to the 335. Once you get to Beams Road there is then access to the 340buz to Woolies on the corner of Gympie Road/Beams Road along with the 335 accessing the shops at Taigum shopping centre. There is still the.... guh infrequent 336/337 for those locals wishing to use it along with providing a closer stop on the otherside of Webster Road. If there is data that good amounts of people use those stops by all means keep the route heading that way but from my observations of the 335 and the 336/337 running via Ellison Road would be a bigger pay off. Like Simon I wouldn't mind seeing the 335 terminating at Chermside with the 325/335 running at 2bph. Running to PCH could also be a possible option for termination along with taking the 354 out of that section.

I'd leave the 336/337 as is. Peak hour services and running hours needs a priority as that's when local people currently utilise the service the most just as it stops running. It provides connections to 8 schools (Aspley High School and Aspley Special School on Zillmere Road are left out on the route map), 3 major bus and rail interchanges (Geebung, Chermside, Aspley), 2 major shopping complexes (Westfield/Hypermarket), a host of smaller local shopping complexes (Chermside Markets, Aspley Village, Homemaker Centre along with businesses along Gypmie Road that the 340 bypasses), points of intrest such as the Geebung and Kedron RSLs/Aspley Football Club/Chermside Pools/Library/Bowls Club. It passes 2 large carers villages (Halsmere Street and on Robinson Road), 2 caravan parks and in some cases provides the only available bus service and stops along that road/area (Ellison Road, Hamilton Road, Robinson Road, Gympie Road). It duplicates particular running corridors but at the same time doesn't duplicate large portions and is aimed and catered to a different market (eg 345 is City/corridor focused while the 336/337 divert off and serve other areas/connecting corridors). Its a local community feeder bus and that's what it does. If other corridors go through over time then the routes can be modified accordingly such as running all the way along Zillmere road right onto Murphy Road left onto Robinson Road and on to Geebung station. When that overpass goes through Geebung will be a prime area for a bus/rail interchange point instead of its current confusing mess of interchange stops. If they can't run it properly as a full time daytime off peak route i'd rather them run it as a full time peak hour route. It might anger locals that want to use it during the day but atleast it would cater to a larger amount of locals that actually want to use and access the PT network for work/school.

Another thing I will mention is the Gympie Road stops that the 680/336 use. Its about 50m... maybe less to the 340 stop. Both stops should be merged togther to form 1 stop. I'd be inclined to go with the old run down 336/680 stop as to provide a proper fully lit bus shelter, better seating arangments along with a board style type timetable for easier viewing compared to the 340 stop thats hidden and cramped up outside shops on a narrow walkway. If cost is an issue utilise the 340 stop and wack in an extra seat there. Its not specific to your review but the Chermside interchange stops should also be looked at such as swapping the current 2x 333 bays with bay E. The current 333 stop A bay should be used for terminating 332/333 and outbound 330/335/340. Inbound 332/333 would then utilise bay E. All that is to minimise the delays that are now frequently happening when 330/335/340 arrive at the same time and can block the entire interchange exit.

@Simon. What about sending the 350 to Bald Hills. The infrastructure along Beckett/Bridgeman road is already there minus the shelters and bus stop signs. Put up some signs, screw the shelters to the cemented bus stop bays and the routes a go. Increase the frequency of the 338 to 2bph to cover off Chermside/Aspley Interchanges-Albany Village along Albany Creek Road. Its cementaries, busland and horse paddocks between Beckett Road and the EXTREME Fruit Market so demand isn't exactly thriving there to the west. Those from Albany Creek/Albany Village can jump on the 357/359 to the city.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #74 on: December 16, 2012, 04:10:17 PM »
Routes 600-699 attached.

I suspect I will have to do the Gold Coast one a little differently because there is not enough context behind what they have put in there re route numbers.  I will probably go through by route number and state my assumptions about what is planned / suggestions for improvements, rather than directly extracting the tables they have put on the website.
Ride the G:

somebody

  • Guest
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #75 on: December 16, 2012, 08:19:37 PM »
@Simon. What about sending the 350 to Bald Hills. The infrastructure along Beckett/Bridgeman road is already there minus the shelters and bus stop signs. Put up some signs, screw the shelters to the cemented bus stop bays and the routes a go. Increase the frequency of the 338 to 2bph to cover off Chermside/Aspley Interchanges-Albany Village along Albany Creek Road. Its cementaries, busland and horse paddocks between Beckett Road and the EXTREME Fruit Market so demand isn't exactly thriving there to the west. Those from Albany Creek/Albany Village can jump on the 357/359 to the city.
An option.  There isn't much between Pinaroo and Bald Hills.  At least Albany Creek Rd gets a bit more dense west of Keong Rd though.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #76 on: December 16, 2012, 08:56:46 PM »
Update on Gold Coast - I'm doing this as a Google Earth KMZ, as the Word route is going to be too lengthy and difficult to follow.  Should be done a little later.  It draws on some of their comments, and improves a few things like route numbering.  A lot of it is guesswork because it's hard to work out what they are actually planning (eg for the north-east of the city, their routes "731" to "734").
Ride the G:

Offline Arnz

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #77 on: December 16, 2012, 09:02:55 PM »
600 - Whilst extra frequency may be nice, the extra buses may be better utilized elsewhere (see Route 620).  The school patronage that takes up the 600 along most of the route during the morning and afternoon peak period could be better covered via other routes on the 600 corridor (see 607, 610 and 618).
601 - Agree with removal.
602 - Agree
603 - Could be split into 2 routes - 603 - Bellvista and 604 - Little Mountain via Currimundi.  Corbould Park removed and serviced only occasionally during special events.
Proposed 604 - Observations to 603 apply to this proposed route.
605 - Agree with removal of Little Mountain diversion.  Service hours, the buses should be expanded to be connecting to and/from all trains (with the exception of the weeknight 10:55pm and 12:25am arrivals into Landsborough).
607 - Agree with the merging of the 607 and 618 (with the removal of the 618).  A merged 607 would follow the current 618 route into Kawana, then following the Route 600 alignment into Caloundra.  Service hours would be half-hourly Mon-Friday (6am-9pm) and hourly on weekends (7am-6pm).  Kawana Town Centre and Kawana Island would be serviced by the 602, whilst it is proposed that Brightwater is covered by an extended 636.
609 - Agree with the splitting of the 609 into two routes.
610 - Agree all-around.  I would also propose the upgrading of the 610 frequency from hourly to half-hourly on the weekends during daylight hours to ensure that Cotton Tree maintains a half-hourly frequency on the weekend.  A drop from 4bph to 1bph on the weekends sounds pretty harsh.
612 - Agree
613 - Agree with the removal.
614 - Keep as is.
615 - Observations for Route 605 (minus Little Mountain bit) applies to Route 615 (only the 12:25am arrival into Landsborough will not be serviced).  Would agree with a 45 min frequency during daylight hours. 
616 - Agree with the retiming.
617 - Keep as is.
618 - Observations for Route 607 applies to Route 618.  Which includes the removal of the Route 618 and replacement with the Route 607.
619 - Keep as is
620 - Agree all around, including the upgrading of frequency to every 15 minutes, 7 days a week.
622 - Agree.
626 - Should look at merging the 626 and 627 to provide a clockface 15 min frequency, including expansion of service hours to allow the removal of the Tewantin extension on Route 620.
627 - Observations on Route 626 apply to Route 627.
629 - Keep as is
630 - It is suggested that Route 630 be re-aligned as the main route connecting to train services at Nambour train station.  It is also suggested that the Wednesday/Saturday services to Eumundi be re-numbered and re-aligned as short-working limited stop Route 631 runs.
631 - It is proposed that Route 631 be re-aligned to a hourly local service servicing the local railway towns along the route.  Short working limited stop 631s to Eumundi will also be provided following the existing Route 630 route.
632 - Keep as is.
636 - It is proposed that this route be extended to serve the Brightwater Estate following the merging of Route 607 and Route 618.  Brightwater Passengers would connect at the University Bus Station for services to Sunshine Plaza (Maroochydore), Buderim, Mountain Creek and Kawana.
639 - Look at Flexilink alternatives for some areas, allowing the re-alignment of the route to increase services to Palmwoods during daylight hours.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2012, 09:07:57 PM by Arnz »
Rgds,
Arnz

Unless stated otherwise, Opinions stated in my posts are those of my own view only.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #78 on: December 16, 2012, 10:50:17 PM »
For Arnzy

600 – I think the 600 should definitely be the corridor route.  The others really only interact with it in part.
601 – noted.
602 – noted.
603 – Agree about Corbould Park, but suspect that maintaining a single route is easier for logistical purposes.
605 – noted.
607 – I think Kawana is going to be the main trip attractor in this area so I’ve suggested running both the 602 and 607 there.  Sending the 600 there would be a significant deviation which you would want to avoid.
609 – noted
610 – noted
612 – noted
613 - Agree with the removal.
614 – noted.
615 – noted
616 – noted
617 – noted
618 – noted
619 – noted
620 – noted
622 – noted
626 – noted
627 – noted
629 – noted
630 – noted
631 – noted
632 – noted
636 – I think just extend to the Kawana shops.
639 – noted
Ride the G:

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8129
Re: SEQ Bus Review - SurfRail's submissions
« Reply #79 on: December 16, 2012, 10:52:05 PM »
OK, attached are:

- Completed summary of routes and service changes and commentary on most routes - excluding all Gold Coast services; and
- KMZ showing the proposed Gold Coast network so far (not finished the 76# or TX routes yet).
Ride the G:

 

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