Major issues with the Bus Network Review

[Andrew]

Thought I'd put my thoughts as a seperate thread so it didn't get lost among the 20+ pages of the thread

Before I begin I'd like to say I think there are definate improvements in the report such as a full time service to Sumners Rd at Riverhills and many areas receiving a high frequency bus service for the first time.  I would be also interested to see how the superstops idea would play out in reality.

1. Network proposal leaves public transport "black holes" where services have been removed
The most notable ones I've seen are Highgate Hill and Algester/Calamvale.  Highgate Hill has been gutted like chicken.  There are no services proposed between the 199 on Hardgrave Rd and the 196 on Gladstone Rd.  The area is quite hilly and access to any service will most likely involve a lengthy walk.  There is also alot of elderly people who use the 198 service to access shops and health services who will suffer greatly with the removal of this service.

The other area that suffers from this is Algester/Calamvale.  The only services will traverse the full length of Ridgewood Rd leaving all parts of Nottingham Rd, Benhiam St, Formby St, Endiandra St and part of Algester Rd with no service at all.  The 138 was only a recently introduced service and now they want to remove the service from them.  I can't understand it.  Hellawell Rd is also another.  It will disadvantage people from Cazna Gardens and Autism QLD who utilise the buses along with many commuters.

2. Service removal doesn't take into account hilly terrain to access alternative services
This is particularly evident in suburbs like Tarragindi, Coorparoo, Highgate Hill and Paddington.  Removal of some of the more local services which patronage wise, don't perform well, will severely disadvantage the less able bodied who are the ones who use them the most.

3. Some proposed routes miss vital nodal points
The Inner Loop is a classic example of this.  It links everywhere to everywhere but a lot of places to nowhere.  It misses QUT Kelvin Grove, RBWH Station and it skirts around the side of the main Valley precinct. It does manage to take in the Gabba and the shops at West End though.  The 172 replacement as we all know was destined to miss Greenslopes Hospital.  Rocklea Markets, Gateway TAFE, Australian Catholic University and Moorooka Shops are other examples I've also found.  The bigges one by far though has to be routing the South East Busway spine service via Captain Cook Bridge.  If their's one route that needs to go via Southbank, that's it!

4. Vital links within areas or between adjoining areas or suburbs have been removed
Jindalee, Corinda, Moorooka, Toowong and Annerley are all examples of this.  The most of the replacements for the 116 don't link the route to Moorooka Shops or Annerley Junction.  There is no direct connection between Acacia Ridge/Archerfield to Moorooka or the Ipswich Rd corridor -  a trip which heaps of people make.  The replacement routes through Acacia Ridge don't even connect with the high frequency route replacement for the 125.  The Newnham Rd corridor will lose it's direct links with Mt Gravatt Central.

5. Elderly and the Disadvantaged are heavily affected by some of the proposed service changes
It appears replacement routes may be omitting Sinnamon Village.  Fison Ave at Pinkenba is destined to be cut which services "sheltered workshops" for the disabled with one service in each peak.  Cazna Gardens and Autism QLD on Hellawell Rd along with the Caravan Park across the road from them will lose service.  Parts of Sunnybank cut out of the 123 have some less able people (my ex GF's grandmother is one of them).  The new services also will remove direct links to important health facilities like the QEII or PA Hospitals

6. Bus services feed into rail services that are already heavily patronised
The main stations of concern here are Darra, Indooroopilly and Mitchelton.  The main advantage of changing to a train is a potentially quicker journey.  This is negated however if passengers can't get on the express train at Indooroopilly or Darra.  I'm worried that if the buses actively feed more people into these statons the trains will struggle to cope.  This issue will give more weight to services like a rocket to Moggil via the Western Freeway because any advantage is then lost.

7. Removal of peak hour "rocket" services in favour of a High Frequency service will create capacity issues on some corridors.
The biggest one I'm concerned about here is Mains Rd.  The only rocket remaining on that corridor is the P129.  Assuming it keeps its existing stopping pattern, there are gonna be a lot of extra buses required to cater for the demand.  The existing 130's and 140's would struggle severely without the sweeper services.  I can't see them coping without having a bus from Sunnybank Hills at least every 2 mins to the city with them all being HCV's.  Warrigal Rd is a bit of a concern too.  They're removing the 151, P157 and the 153. 

And then there's the South East Busway. Although I agree having one route will make life simpler, it could also create large capacity issues when you combine in a 30 min period: 6x111's, 3x160's, 3xP88 and 2x555's (all of which can get sizable loads).  The other huge one is the Northern Busway to Chermside.  I joked to a northside driver that we might give half the artics to Virginia to cope.  He replied they'd need more than artics, they'd need Citytrains! Even UQ to Toowong looks like it could get interesting.

8. Lack of detail on stopping patterns creates uncertainty as to the exact impact of the changes
The ones of interest are Old Cleveland Rd, Sandgate Rd (315) and Ipswich Rd.  What are the stopping patterns of the routes going to be?  I think that will heavily influence the outcome in some of these areas.

[SurfRail]

My comments:

1. Network proposal leaves public transport "black holes" where services have been removed

I agree about Dornoch Tce, this is too much of a gap.  There will be ways around this which don't involve perpetuating the 198 though.  Extend the CityGlider or the 199 to UQ Lakes, or part of the way there for instance.

Algester and Stretton could be serviced by extending the 2 secondary routes which are proposed to terminate at Calam Road, which actually creates a better arrangement because Algester is full of services which only run in peak and not during the day except for the BUZ routes and the services following them (132, 135).

I wasn't anticipating zero service for Hellawell Rd.  Long term I'd like to see a cross-town route here from Springwood towards Inala, but possibly send the 130 this way instead of via Calamvale?  The current proposal offers interchange between the 130, 140 and 150 replacements at Calam Rd though.

2. Service removal doesn't take into account hilly terrain to access alternative services

Unfortunately they have form here in other regions (eg diversion of the hillier bits of the 622 around Coolum, routes in Ozbob's area like the old 523 etc).  Some of this is going to result in extra Council Cabs I think...

3. Some proposed routes miss vital nodal points

The inner loop needs to be reworked.  The concept is good, and I suggested something very similar as a replacement for the 363 and 364 in my own submission.

The 172 replacement is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it will still go to Greenslopes, and several of us picked this up before it got real media traction.  (It's basically the same route anyway).  Perhaps it should just go to the PA rather than swinging via Deshon St, although I am not sure what you would run up Deshon.

I think the idea of having a single route for Loganholme to the city is actually flawed.  I'd keep the 111 as is, and run the 555 via the CCB but into Roma Street and KGS so they at least depart and arrive the same spot.  (I think separate route numbers for short-workings is much clearer anyway.)

4. Vital links within areas or between adjoining areas or suburbs have been removed

I am not a huge fan of the Acacia Ridge arrangements either.  Seems there is too much focus on directing people to Garden City, which is not something which appears to have been replicated on the northside and hobbing into Chermside to quite the same extent.

5. Elderly and the Disadvantaged are heavily affected by some of the proposed service changes

A lot of this could be fixed and distress avoided if they were less nebulous about the "demand responsive" options and actually worked out a strategy up-front to do it.  Clearly there is a role for this kind of service, but it needs to be implemented considerably better than what happened at Ipswich.

6. Bus services feed into rail services that are already heavily patronised

There is plenty of room in the timetable for more services and there is still plenty of capacity on the existing ones.  However, they need to get serious about high frequency rail and stop pussyfooting around.  Be bold and say the FG trial will be permanent and we will be redesigning the Sector II timetables for a late 2013 implementation to better support the bus changes.  Set a timeframe for converting the inner network to 15 minute operation and set about blasted well doing it.

7. Removal of peak hour "rocket" services in favour of a High Frequency service will create capacity issues on some corridors.

I think the biggest problem with this is how the CBD is set up for bus access, so hopefully the superstops work out.  There's no reason why you can't run the same bus route every 2 minutes if you have the right facilities in place.

8. Lack of detail on stopping patterns creates uncertainty as to the exact impact of the changes

Agree with this, they need to be more explicit about what is happening.  I fully expect the old CityXpress system is gone based on what we have seen.

Keep up with the feedback.  We definitely need to be informed by people on all parts of the coalface.

[#Metro]

There is plenty of room in the timetable for more services and there is still plenty of capacity on the existing ones.  However, they need to get serious about high frequency rail and stop pussyfooting around.  Be bold and say the FG trial will be permanent and we will be redesigning the Sector II timetables for a late 2013 implementation to better support the bus changes.  Set a timeframe for converting the inner network to 15 minute operation and set about blasted well doing it.

Last timetable review added a lot of extra capacity (can't remember if it was 3000 pphd or 5000 pphd) to the peak hour on the ipswich line, which was a result of rationalising the express patterns to just one. So there's room!!

[HappyTrainGuy]

And then there's the South East Busway. Although I agree having one route will make life simpler, it could also create large capacity issues when you combine in a 30 min period: 6x111's, 3x160's, 3xP88 and 2x555's (all of which can get sizable loads).  The other huge one is the Northern Busway to Chermside.  I joked to a northside driver that we might give half the artics to Virginia to cope.  He replied they'd need more than artics, they'd need Citytrains! Even UQ to Toowong looks like it could get interesting.

With regards to the northside most of the frequent corridors won't be as heavily impacted (compared to other areas) due to the better design of the secondary feeder network and both frequent and secondary routes linking into the rail network along the Shorncliffe and Caboolture/MBRL line corridors (hopefully the frequency and span of hours for these routes are there which currently aren't available. What most people forget was that prior to the 340 buz (timetable changes has a longer wait after train arrivals so it says goodbye as your train is going over the level crossing) it was faster to train to Carseldine and then catch the inbound 340 service to Bridgeman Downs. Same with Brendale/Eatons Hill services. Its sometimes faster in arvo peak to train it to Strathpine and get the bus there. The fastest way to get to Taigum interchange is to train to Carseldine and bus it on the 335. To some extent the same applied to the the 325 and the 328 back in the days where it was formed by 325/335/339 services). People that have access to these routes might find it better for them to feed into the rail network compared to interchanging onto a bus that has to now makes extra stops or could be to crowded for their personal liking. Chermside and beyond the network feeds into the railway lines at several locations. The Chermside North loop feeds into Carseldine, Boondall and Geebung railway stations along with Aspley, Chermside and Taigum bus interchanges which also have frequent routes. Geebung will have a dedicated interchange for the Taigum Frequent route literally on the door step for the station so there shouldn't be issues. The Strathpine-Chermside via Bracken Ridge dumps people off at Carseldine and Zillmere railway stations along with feeding into 2 frequent routes at Chermside (taigum/bracken ridge). The Sandgate-Chermside route via Virginia also connects to the rail line. The new Strathpine-Sandgate route also feeds into train stations. There are also several roads that are being built to connect suburbs such as the Norris Road extension to Carselgrove Ave (linking Bracken Ridge directly into Carseldine railway Station). From the looks of it the network is also positioned in such a way so that when these roads, overpasses, new mixed spaces etc are available to be used routes can be modified, extended, cut or new routes can be made. Peak hour train servies are already better than the current bus network and there is still plenty of capacity on services. Overcrowding in the future won't be an issue due to Petrie starters being retained as part of the MBRL.

There will be that crap off peak connection but it won't be as bad due to the northside being one of the last to have the network modified with a late 2014 introduction with the MBRL expected to be online by early 2016 (the overpass out there is almost finished. Road surfacing is currently being undertaken with the earthworks for the corridor being done to use that dirt for the ramps for the overpass).

[somebody]

3. Some proposed routes miss vital nodal points
... If their's one route that needs to go via Southbank, that's it!

This is the main point I agree with you on.  It's as though they don't want to overrule the council and tell them that Logan rules are going to use King George Square and that's it.

[Mr X]

There has to be a main busway spine that goes through ALL stations otherwise it defeats the purpose of making a legible system and having a busway in the first place. I agree with comments that we need 2 busway spine services, 111 & 555, merging them all and sending via CCB won't work imho and will place extra pressure on other suburban via South Bank routes to pick up the slack.

Agree with the 192/198, I've bitched about this here before so I don't think I need to repeat my comments.

[nathandavid88]

There has to be a main busway spine that goes through ALL stations otherwise it defeats the purpose of making a legible system and having a busway in the first place. I agree with comments that we need 2 busway spine services, 111 & 555, merging them all and sending via CCB won't work imho and will place extra pressure on other suburban via South Bank routes to pick up the slack.

I don't see your argument here. Merging the 111, 160 & 555 is just consolidating three services that largely compete with each other into a single route.  It doesn't mean that there will be less seats available for the existing passengers of those routes (I'm sure will be given the necessary amount of buses to cover the pax), it just means that the surplus of seats that comes from having competing services (particularly off peak) will be culled. And it creates a more legible service – for the SE Busway, take Go Network 20, or whatever it will be called.

As for going via the CCB rather than Cultural Centre isn't an issue, as long as there are still enough services going via Buranda for people going to the Mater or South Bank. I think that the Maroon Glider, Frequent 15 (200+222) and Frequent 21 (130) together should handle it.

[ozbob]

Thanks for sharing your comments Andrew.