This week, I had done the 1532 580 to Logan Hospital and 1602 580 to Springwood.
Monday I had a couple people, Tuesday I had about 9 in total (4 being from Pacific Hwy at Moss St to Springwood), Wednesday I had about 3 people and Friday I only had 2 people. Basically carried air on the 580s I had done.
Only really had people going to/from Slacks Creek and Springwood, had a couple from the hospital to Springwood, but nothing extraordinary.
I caught a 580 from Meadowbrook to Springwood today. Two people most of the way; a third boarded at Moss St.
I know itās not a very long walk from Moss St to Springwood, but itās quite pedestrian-unfriendly, from experience, so Iām not surprised people take the bus instead.
I was more looking at this just in terms of how a route could best pass all these locations, rather than in a wider network sense. I was just looking for a way to tackle the issue with the current network that access to Holmview Central is available to the new areas of Holmview (567 - also services Bethania shopping precinct) and now Bahrs Scrub as well (563), but the older part of Holmview and Edens Landing have no direct access to either without backtracking halfway to Beenleigh.
Looking at it in a network perspective, I donāt think I would go with a local loop as you proposed - while access to the shops would likely generate use, I think the route still needs to at least be bookended by major trip generators. My thoughts would be to simply rework the 562 to include the Holmview shops. I know the trip down Ridgevale Blvd and Tallagandra Rd duplicates part of the 567, but there are only limited ways to navigate that area, and the alternative of using Wuraga Road would part duplicate the new Bahrs Scrub extension of the 563.
Having had a closer look at the Bethania Shops, Iām starting to agree with you that servicing the current stop location on Glasson Road isnāt actually such a good idea, given the distance and the hike up the relatively steep hill that it entails (Aldi doesnāt really have direct pedestrian access from down the hill IIRC). Residents might actually be better off using the last stop on Castile Cresent before turning onto Ivanhoe Drive - I donāt think it is that much longer of a walk, and the hills wouldnāt be as bad as the hike up Fletcher Road to access Aldi. Skipping this part of my route would allow the 3 pairs of stops on Ivanhoe Drive and King Arthur Blvd to continue getting serviced.
My only concerns would be that the additional trip length this causes may necesitate the route being cut back to Loganlea. If we could get a frequency bump on the 560, that may not be so terribleā¦
Okay. My view is our current network focuses too much on widespread trips and not enough on local trips. Back when local trips were expensive, people might have been less likely to take a bus to a local destination, but with 50c fares I think people are more likely to consider it.
I donāt think everything has to go to Beenleigh, and High Road is not a big enough trip generator to serve as a bookend. To me the whole point of providing access to these destinations is people wonāt have to have to go to Beenleigh as often if they can access their local supermarket and post office (at Holmview Central), hardware store (at Fletcher Road) and railway station (at Edens Landing). Though for the station to be attractive as a transfer point, it needs a quicker journey to Brisbane CBD.
As Iāve said above, there is no need to use Ridgevale or Tallagandra to get between Holmview Central and Edens Landing. The same is true of Wuraga Road. Compared to using Logan River Road directly, itās a lot of additional kilometres for little benefit, since the stops along Ridgevale and Tallagandra can only be served in a one way direction.
I also think making the 562 more circuitous is counterproductive. To me, the point of it is to bring the local communities to their nearest train station, or to give them a one-seat journey (albeit long) to Loganholme or Beenleigh. I think Holmview Central is a bit too out of the way to fit in.
I donāt think we can afford to be investing in just local shopping runs in these areas - this is Logan, not BCC. These services equally need to accommodate workers as well, be they people commuting into Brisbane via the local train station, or those who work in local hubs like Beenleigh or the growing Meadowbrook healthcare precinct.
The introduction of longer span of hours and half hourly peak frequency on the 563 I feel has been the major win for that route, because it allows it to be much more than just a shopping run. Some of these upgrades really need to be considered for both the 562 and 567 IMO.
I thought that providing access to local shopping centres was the rationale behind your idea above. If the point was actually to get more services to Beenleigh, then both Edens Landing and Holmview already have connections to Beenleigh, through the 562, 567 and train line. I agree with you that the frequency of these services should be increased. If thereās a desire to do more than that and introduce another route, then Iād want it to do more than duplicating the functions of the existing ones.
Also, why would people bother catching a bus to a local shopping centre if they could stay longer on the same bus and get to a major retail centre like Beenleigh or the Hyperdome? I think these functions should be separated, and the shorter local trips run more often.
The idea I proposed does cater to workers, as it goes to Edens Landing station. Some would say itās not an attractive destination for transfers right now, and Iād agree, but Iād also ask, what sort of network do we want? An efficient one where local buses connect to local train stations for further travel, or a less efficient one where everyone expects either a one-seat journey to their destination or to catch express trains?
If we donāt change things for stations like Edens Landing to make them more attractive to use, then theyāll always remain the way they are, slowing down Beenleigh line trains for relatively little usage. That starts with feeding the local population into the station more frequently, and connecting it to local shopping facilities. And then making the trains there more frequent, and perhaps quicker. And then, when the foot traffic has increased, maybe some developer will think itās attractive enough to put a bigger commercial development there than the current minor shopping strip.
The rationale behind my idea was to provide access to the local shopping centres, but also how to do so by modifying existing routes, rather than having to introduce bespoke new routes. This was present in my original maps, with end points that represented the routes continuing to the east and west.
New routes require more additional funding from Translink, and more resources from Clarks to operate, and so a new service here would almost certainly be provided at the expense of increasing the frequency of routes like the 562 and 567, where modifications to the 562 would achieve the same goal. Little different to creating the 580 out of the 582 - taking an existing route and making it more useful and (hopefully) attractive.
The Hyperdome does provide a superior retail centre (Beenleigh less so), but it is a 45 minute trip to get there. Yes, some people will have reason to stay on board to go there to shop, but if youāre just buying some groceries youāre not going to go for a 45 minute trip past multiple supermarkets to do so.
But why devote a whole bus route and the resources required to run it just to shuttle people to Edens Landing? Why not have that one bus continue to do the things that the 562 does? Take people into Beenleigh while picking up/dropping off people who live or work on the way, or also provide a service for the people living off Loganlea Road to get to Loganlea Station, or take them up to the hospital, TAFE, or bus connections to the uni?
Translink has a limited bag of money, and Clarks still has to cancel services due to staffing issues, and has limited remaining space at their depot I understand. We all need to live within our means, and to me that means wringing as much benefit out of existing bus routes as possible. Just like the 563 was rerouted to service Bahrs Scrub, why not reroute the 562 to service the local shopping centre and provide a new interchange location with the 563 and 567 in the process?
Earlier, you were discussing a hypothetical route that is similar to current routes but seems to do part of the 562 and part of the 567. You didnāt seem sure where it would travel to after Holmview Central, suggesting maybe Loganlea station. I took that to mean it wasnāt any existing route, because we know where those go next. The route on the map also didnāt go up Station Road or down Goodooga Drive in Bethania like the 562 does. This added to my impression that that it was supposed to be a new route.
Anyway, for the modified existing route, will all the existing stops on it be serviced? How much time will the extension add to journeys for current users?
The 562 is already 70 minutes long. How much longer can it get before it needs to be split into two routes?
Iād argue a long length is a hindrance for increasing the frequency of a route, because each part of it has to be increased at once. If only part of the route was getting enough passengers to justify higher frequencies, it would be cheaper and easier to add frequency to a smaller route covering that area rather than the whole thing.
While they could introduce a variant that only did part of the route, this is something Translink just moved away from with the 562 by making it complete a full route run each time, instead of terminating at Logan Hospital or bypassing Bethania on some runs. Itād be a bit odd to go back to that instead of splitting it into two routes.
Beenleigh has many more shops than Holmview does. And long before getting to the Hyperdome, Meadowbrook does too.
Because thatās an extremely long route already. This calls back to my earlier question, asking what the rationale of the proposal was. If the aim was to get people from Edens Landing to Holmview Central and Fletcher Road at a decent frequency, that would add a significant amount of doubling back and extra time to the 562, which already just made several of its runs longer by adding Bethania to them. I agree with you that Fletcher Road and Glasson Drive are too inconvenient to add to the 562, and the westernmost Castile Crescent stops would have to suffice.
I think thereās a lot of merit to increasing the frequency of the 562, but fundamentally itās a route set up to serve multiple suburbs, not just Edens Landing. Itād have to go several kilometres out of its way to get to Holmview Central and back to Castile Crescent, especially if going via Ridgevale and Tallagandra. And even then it only adds access for the people living along its current route, but nothing for the people along Overland Drive. Trying to get one route to do everything increases its travel time and disadvantages everyone currently taking the route by increasing their travel time.
For train lines, I think we need to start moving towards a system of having at least one local feeder route into every minor station, to make them easier for use without needing giant park and rides everywhere. This is one such possible route.
Iām not making a proposal to Translink. I was expressing an idea for how we can take a horribly car-centric suburb and increase its accessibility to local facilities through a local route. Iām free to do that regardless of what money Translink has or however much space Clarks has. Speaking of which, how much will increasing the frequency of the 562 and 567 impact those things?
Moving the 563 didnāt disadvantage other users because it was one end of the route that was changed and Bethania ended up with extra 562 trips to make up for it. That goes down a lot better than someoneās existing journey getting longer because a new section is added to the middle of the trip.
On top of this, Holmview is a difficult place to serve as an interchange, having room for only one bus at a time. You had said earlier that an additional indented bus bay would be created there, but will this be simple to walk between? I hope so.
I was down on OāKeefe St last night and noticed a 100OB using the Harrogate tunnel and portal rather than exiting the busway at the Gabba.
Seems that they have formally rerouted the outbound as the Translink website and GTFS path are changed.
Thatās interesting. I can only assume that they must have been encountering consistent issues with congestion on Ipswich Road.
Again, I was more looking at this just in terms of how a route could best pass all these locations, rather than in a wider network sense, so I havenāt fully considered whether all existing 562/567 stops would be serviced.
One area that could be looked at, in conjunction with both the current and expectant future routes to Loganlea Station (Browns Plains to Loganlea via Park Ridge Road & Logan Village to Loganlea via Chambers Flat Road), is whether the 562 really needs to continue servicing Allora Street & Haig Road. The 550 currently services this section in full, the 560 services the northern part to Monash Road, and the 587 runs this way but only services several stops (the ones at the bottom of Allora Street nearest to Waterford Plaza, and the one at the Palms IGA on Haig Road).
Could the 562 go up Allora Street (to still service the stops nearest to Waterford Plaza), but then turn right onto Short Street, then out onto Loganlea Road? It would then go straight up and over the overpass non-stop, then turning off onto Armstrong Road (this would be a post-station relocation change). Any loss of service could be replaced by making the 587 stop at the half dozen odd stops that it runs past anyway, or maybe as part of one of the expectant new routes.
As a long time resident of the area, people looking to go shopping are MUCH more likely to choose the Hyperdome over Beenleigh itself. My late Grandmother, a 50 year resident of Beenleigh who passed last month, constantly lamented the lack of shopping variety in Beenleigh across the last 20 odd years. Meadowbrook only has marginally more variety than what is available at Holmview, and Holmviewās extension (which includes an extra supermarket, tavern, medical centre and several fast food outlets) will likely even out any imbalance.
This is the point I was making regarding funding and resources - Loganās bus network is designed around services running across multiple suburbs, and I donāt see that changing anytime soon. For example, the third of the expectant bus routes together with the two referenced above (Holmview to Beenleigh via Bahrs Scrub), ended up just being combined into a reworked 563, instead of becoming a brand new route.
Extending service to Overland Drive is a bit tricky, because it would likely have to be a separate service to the 562 (you can go via Castile Cresent or via Overland Drive, you wouldnāt do both in one route). Short of a complete clean sheet reworking of all services through the area, I would look at seeing if Overland Drive could be integrated into the 567 somehow. The bus stop issue at Holmview Central does pose the same old issue though.
Here are the plans for the proposed new on road bus stop (which is connected by a small set of stairs/a short PWD ramp into the complex. Iāve also included the full precinct plan to show the ring road. I donāt know if this will be made available to buses, but if so it could help address some issues.
Iāve been using the 100 quite regularly in counterpeak and yeah Ipswich Rd is a mess going away from the city, particularly around the PA Hospital and Annerley Junction areas.
This is a giant admission of failure. Itās also a bit of a worry for a very rapidly growing stretch of residential catchment on Ipswich Rd.
Letās remember that this is part of a section of Ipswich Rd (Woolloongabba Busway to Moorooka Train Station) that was going to get ābus priorityā treatment under SEQRTP 2021.
Sure, it might (currently) be faster to use the busway, but that means thousands of people living south of Stanley St lose the potential to get a BUZ.
That part of Ipswich Rd is huge and could easily accommodate bus lanes (excepting the bit near the Norman Hotel).
Previous discussion this stretch here, esp the Jurgens St diversion.
If they did that for the 100 do you think the 125 outbound will also get re-routed? Or they only did it for the 100 because it is a BUZ route?
The 125 has a couple of stops between the Gabba and the PA Hospital but Iād argue those could be done away with sending the outbound via Logan Rd > OāKeefe St > Ipswich Rd instead.
But all of this clearly tell us that yes, the busway reroute to the Gabba should happen no matter what, as a way to avoid these silly workarounds.
If such reroute were to happen, it could also mean that a busway extension to Margaret/Alice St via Riverside Expressway using the outer lanes of the Capt Cook Bridge would be trivial to deliver, by eliminating the chokepoint between Mater and Gabba.
Residents of the many apartment towers either side of Ipswich Rd in Woolloongabba would disagree with you!
Itās not just the ones on Ipswich Rd, thereās quite a few residents of Broadway and Qualtrough Sts that wouldnāt be happy to lose their bus stops, either.
Until a bus lane is created on that section of Ipswich Rd, it will always be a nightmare for buses to run through.
So whatās the answer for Ipswich Rd? A bus tunnel? A tunnel for general traffic isnāt really suitable, as itās a freight route, and most likely some amount of DGs traverse it.
And if weāre going to build a tunnel, why have it for buses? Better to make it a metro (proper metro, not the half-arsed BCC bus version), IMO.
Tunnel from somewhere north of the CBDāI have no clue whereāand under Ipswich Rd to Moorooka, and then turn east and underneath Robertson and MacGregor to Garden City.
The obviously best low cost answer is properly segregated bus lanes, but our politics is so car-brained we wonāt be able to achieve that.
Thereās insufficient space in the corridor. Reducing Ipswich Rd to one general purpose lane is unrealistic.
