And if that happens it won’t be considered because I doubt BCC would let Translink/TMR do anything until their stupid Northside Bus Review is done and they inevitably delay the Capalaba Metro
I thought RCC only contributed to subsidising the SMBI ferry - not sure if they even do that anymore.
1 Like
Not in my time at TL (2005-2010), they were consulted (along with the operator), but the planning was done at TransLink internally (no idea who it is nowadays), but 2005-2010, it was myself and my supervisor, and from what I’ve heard around the traps, is still essentially the same setup. Any route design or timetabling, yours truly did the work during that time period (eg: I created the 243, 279 etc - those were my own creations), and is quite possibly still done that way today.
2 Likes
Wouldn’t the 333 be a better candidate for the artics? The 333 serves the higher-density Lutwyche, Kedron, Chermside areas while the 330 bypasses all of the high-density until Chermside.
2 Likes
333 is a future metro so why not bump frequency and make them arctics? Basically a metro without the price tag
1 Like
Who said we need or want a metro to go to Chermside?
The 333 won’t be a future metro if it is merged with either the 330 or 340, which is much less cheaper than ‘metro-fying’.
The ‘metro-fying’ option would see the 330, 340, 370 been chopped up to parts and will force transfers at Chermside for the 330 and 340, and RBWH for the 370.
Given there are ~5 million passengers annually that use the 330, 333, 340 and 370 combined I do not see ‘metro-fying’ working for the northside and wasting a half a billion dollars on fake metros for one service that cannot exceed the combined frequencies and capacities of the existing 330, 333, 340, 370 as services cost effective or feasible.
I meant not removing the 370/340 merely improve the 333 for the future instead of sitting on their hands waiting for the metros to come which I bet they inevitably will
1 Like
The BCC intend to sit on their hands until their magical report findings materialises. One to tell them where to waste more money on them ‘metros’, and the other is a cost-neutral re-arrangement of the northside bus network.
Why is acceptable to spend ~$250 million to buy foreign buses just for one line. but not acceptable to spend a cent to add more buses on routes (more than one) on the northside network?
If adding arties to the 333 is the solution, then why do we need or want a metro to go to Chermside?
5 Likes
The way I see it - a metro is just a fancy arctic with increased frequency.
3 Likes
Why have the 330 and 340 buses terminate at Chermside from the north? A large appeal for the 330 is that runs express from RBWH to Chermside via the Airport Link Tunnel.
Instead of terminating southbound 330 and 340 buses at Chermside, they should make the 340 run express from RBWH to Chermside like the 330. This would effectively double the frequency of the buses that run directly to Chermside from the city.
The betro will be serving the high-density suburbs between the City and Chermside via the Northern Busway. If you want to travel to Lutwyche or Kedron from the city, catch the betro. If you want to quickly get to Chermside or travel further north, catch the 330 or 340.
But the BCC will likely go the minimalist path and truncate routes with duplication along most of the N Busway. That means the 330, 340, 370 (the 338) are targets and the 333 would disappear, as they would extend either M1 or M2 to Chermside.
Why doesn’t the 333 and 338 use the AirportLink instead and let the 330 and 340 do the work along the N Busway? No need for metro-fication. They could always add arties on the 330/340.
1 Like
I wonder if Transurban will ‘encourage’ the BCC to run their buses through the tunnel to generate more toll revenue due to how underused the Airport Link Tunnel is.
Anyway, since the BCC classifies the 330 and 340 routes as BUZ, I doubt that they will truncate the routes to Chermside, forcing a transfer onto a betro. I’ve seen a few southside BUZ buses at Queens St Bus station, perhaps implying that they run on the SEB alongside the betro. So maybe they will do this with the 330 and 340.
Not convinced, otherwise there would be no 130, 140 or 150 to the CBD. At best you can expect the 333 to be replaced by any sort of upgrade along these lines - there isn’t enough capacity in such a set-up to get rid of anything else.
4 Likes
The Metros would not be able able to cope if BUZ routes like the 130s or 140s dumped their full load of passengers at Griffith Uni to change to the M1. Just doing the same with 555s at 8 Mile Plains would see Brisbane residents inbound of Griffith Uni encountering numerous full services.
5 Likes
I think you should look more closely at the new network. There are HEAPS of southside routes that use the SEB alongside the M1. It was never meant to replace every route.
Similarly, I don’t expect the “M3” to the north would replace every Northside route either
4 Likes
That’s exactly my point. I saw buses from the southside (130, 140, 150) at Queen St bus station, so that indicates that buses do run on the SEB alongside the betro. The same could be said if the betro route to Chermside was established, furthermore, the 340 could run express to Chermside alongside the 330 due to the demand for a quicker link between the City and Chermside.
1 Like
I find it hard to gauge how many “slots” there are on the Busway. If Bi-artics run every 2 minutes at peak in a distant future how many other buses can fit in the corridor?
Do M1 stops fit 2 bi-artics at once if one is running behind?
Northside busway stations can fit probably 3-4 standard buses without blocking the corridor. With in-traffic delays they often play leapfrog as they go.
Brisbane council erroneously claims that Betro can match full rail metro patronage but this is surely only possible with extensive platform sharing and leapfrogging.
And look at how chaotic Cultural Centre is - especially during peak. I’m not saying the busway hasn’t had benefits, but I think it has gotten to a point where the user experience has really started to be impacted.
2 Likes
I don’t think Translink buses pay tolls… unless you meant it will generate more toll revenue by showing more people how much faster travelling through the tunnel is, so they use the tunnel more on weekends and holidays when they’re driving a car?
EDIT: Reference for the claim that Translink buses are exempt from paying tolls when using the Airport Link tunnel - https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/9bb0d005-e583-442d-aa4d-26879250e105/resource/9985c1bd-0fa4-403b-ab9d-83b5c372b475/download/08.04.16-combined.pdf
Refer to Clause 2.1 on page 20: The maximum toll payable for each type of vehicle is the amount specified in clause 2.2 as modified from time to time by operation of the formula contained in clause 3, provided that no toll or User Administration Charge is payable for or in connection with the use of Airport Link by any Exempt Vehicle.
Then refer to the definition of Exempt Vehicle, which includes "(f) an Exempt Bus”
Then refer to the definition of Exempt Bus on page 24 of the PDF:
“Exempt Bus” means a Bus which is: (a) operated by the Brisbane City Council; or (b) funded by the State for the provision of scheduled passenger transport services.
4 Likes
7 News has already started calling Herston busway station as ‘Herston metro station’ in their latest reel (0:55) on the future Victoria Park stadium.
I wonder if council and more broadly, other news organisations, will call every other busway station a metro station in the near future.
