The Translink site is now updated. Brisbane’s New Bus Network is coming
Just looking through the New Bus Network changes on the BCC website (seeing as all the Translink webpage does is send you there), and I discovered that all “P” routes will be losing their “P”. Did we know previously that they were going to do this?
1 Like
As far as I’m aware buses no longer accept cash, so I imagine the designation is kind of useless now since all routes are P routes
2 Likes
Yeah, it should have been done well before this, as it is absolutely redundant now. I just don’t recall it being previously mentioned.
1 Like
That was a request in the last briefing from RBOT members at the time regarding the anomaly, although they themselves could have been aware.
Can they be collapsed back into their regular route? Now that their original purpose is lost, we can reincorporate them.
1 Like
They often still act as express versions of the existing route.
1 Like
Would be a tradeoff though.
We have so many express variations, view should be to simplify the network.
If an express variant does not save say more than say 10 minutes of time, then it should be looked at for folding back into the main original route.
Do any members know how many minutes these variants save versus the original route?
2 Likes
Looking at the 333: it looks like the line was extended to Woolloongabba station.
I was expecting it to terminate at RBWH and have people change to the Metro? I thought that was the point?
I would appreciate anyone providing clarity to my confusion <3
I’m speculating, but I believe the thinking with the 333 being extended to Woolloongabba is that this would be the future BRT route (““metro””) to Chermside, so by extending it down to Woolloongabba, that brings that station into the “Metro” network
1 Like
I worked with the Consultant on the ‘P’ routes in my TL days. Essentially it was desginated to peak hour routes that were overlaid with all days routes to speed up boarding on the peak hour only express routes, if you didn’t have a Go Card and needed to buy a ticket on board, then you wouldn’t be allowed to purchase on the ‘P’ routes and be directed to an all day route on the same corridor instead.
Post COVID though, all routes are now prepaid, so the designation is moot and I’ve long said that the ‘P’ needs to be removed as it is no longer relevant.
3 Likes
The “P” routes weren’t created to serve as pre-pay versions of other routes, they were just rebadged peak hour routes - in most cases the P was just added. There has been some welcome consolidation already (eg P129 into the 130). The reality though is given the inherently low capacity of the busway even with Brisbane Metro, expresses via the Captain Cook Bridge are going to be required because they won’t fit elsewhere. The only thing going away is the “P” designation because it is totally redundant in a no-cash environment.
The South East Busway might nominally carry 18,000 pphpd (except it isn’t really “pd” because this is only possible in one direction at a time given fleet strength and other constraints). However, this is only because half or more of the buses don’t stop at some or all stations, and because in peak hour a significant number run via the Captain Cook Bridge - some don’t even stop at any busway stations to begin with and only touch the Gabba junctions. This is going to continue to be 100% essential to the busway working at all in the absence of a much higher capacity mode that can stop at all stations and vacuum up the bus patronage. The only 2 technically feasible versions of that I can see (short of running a lot more Brisbane Metro services) are decades away - these are:
-
Some sort of Calgary style “light” rail, with all busway platforms raised up and extended to at least 75 metres, with trainsets capable of carrying about 750 or so at crush load and probably about 2/3rds standing. This could be able to reuse substantial lengths of the busway but would need work in the inner city to cross the river, access the tunnels etc.
-
A full blown metro.
4 Likes
And if we were going to do a full metro, id rather not rip up the existing. At that point may as well build a relief line on a slightly different alignment. The Logan Road corridor is prime for this. Basically very similar approach to what Sydney Metro did
2 Likes
While not strictly part of Brisbane’s New Bus Network, TMR/Translink have released their consultation report for Logan routes that duplicate the M1 service, and their intended changes.
Given these changes were being considered as a result of the M1, I think it’s suitable for inclusion in this thread as well (and probably not extensive enough to be worthy of its own thread).
In short, the changes are as such:
545 - rerouted off Logan Road to Rochedale Station, route extended to Griffith University Station
554 - route extended from Upper Mt Gravatt to Griffith University Station
565/566 - all 566 routes converted to 565 (Windaroo - Loganholme), 10 additional weekday services added
P569 - 13 additional weekday trips added, frequency of 15 minutes or better during peak
570/571 - all 571 routes converted to 570 (Cornubia to Loganholme Loop), 5 additional weekday services, 10 additional trips on Weekends and Public Holidays
576/577 & 578/579 were originally planned to be combined like the 565/566 and 570/571, but “following community feedback”, Translink has decided against merging these two. However, I suggest that these expresses have been retained as they provide Rochedale additional peak options the same way that the 573 & 575 do this for Springwood.
Maybe this consolidation will lead to fewer P569s being cancelled, feels like they used to be cancelled every day, unsure if they are these days though.
It is as bad as ever, if not worse! I feel like the number of missing peak services at Loganholme are actually worse than what is listed on Clarks’ morning Facebook updates.
This morning, the line for Brisbane services when I got there was over 3/4 the length of the entire station - from the Express Stop D all the way back to the Stop A sign. It was so bad, Dad and I jumped on a 575 - as per my comment in the On The Network thread, this is not something I intend to repeat anytime soon.
I thought that they were going to rebrand the ‘P’ prefix and standardise it to indicate peak-hour only services. For an example, the 382, 383, and 384 service would simply be P382, P383, and P384 removing garbage descriptors such as ‘Rocket’, ‘City Precincts’, and ‘xpress’.
That’s part of the Brisbane’s New Bus Network plan, which these Clarks services are not covered by. It would makes sense for Translink to just ditch any remaining P prefixes while they’re at it, but they haven’t advised that they will do this yet.
Believe that was only an option. There are more than enough unique 2 and 3 digit route numbers available without having meaningless signifiers added. 196 vs 314 are basically indistinguishable in terms of passenger expectation for each service except for where it operates, routes like the 306 have trips that mostly don’t run the “full” length and there is no logical numbering for school bus routes, so I don’t know why designating a bus route specifically as a peak hour route matters.
The NightLink “N” routes can have quite different routes from the nearest equivalent daytime routes and similar numbering is used in other parts of Australia and NZ so including the N probably makes sense. The TX7 is a gimmick number with a specific purpose. Beyond these I don’t think we need alphanumeric numbers.
1 Like