Website | Forum | Gallery | Fleet Wiki
ACT Bus Forum

TC 'Network Desire' according to me - incorporating Light Rail stage 1

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Busfanatic101

  • *
  • 651
  • Gender: Male
  • Your typical Canberra Bus Enthusiast
Not yet polished but ready for feedback.


Designed with an emphasis on bus transfers to free up as many bus kilometres without compromising coverage or having to go too far on long routes. Most routes are not designed to be rode on the entire way, but to the nearest transfer point. I realise a transfer-centric bus network can only be effective with frequent services or well-timed connections and willing passengers, but if planned correctly have great potential. Frequencies indicated are a conservative guess on what this network could manage with the current fleet. There is an increase in loops in this network but whereever possible with connection points so only part is ridden, and if timed staggered can provide double frequency for the majority of passengers along the route who which to go to major hubs at the end of the loop or to transfer points available either side of their residence. There is also a significant reduction in the number of routes.


Click on routes or lines for details. Purple bus stops show some transfer points from local to a more direct service.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l_GVTD0HQzSkqvW_VHGr5hSsgiM&usp=sharing


And if anyone has way too much time on their hands and would like to see if it is feasible to try scheduling, feel free to go ahead :)
« Last Edit: December 20, 2017, 10:27:25 PM by Busfanatic101 »

Offline Bus 400

  • ***
  • 4676
  • Gender: Male
Re: TC 'Network Desire' according to me - incorporating Light Rail stage 1
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2017, 06:28:39 PM »
One massive point, unless a roundabout is installed at Sulwood Dr. It's just on impossible for a car to turn right from Manheim St & Sulwood Dr in Kambah. Also the stop just south of Manheim St is for the Village Creek Health Centre (mobility aid hire & repair & main reason the 62 gets priority for low floor buses) & a retirement place.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


Offline King of Buses

  • ***
  • 1378
  • Gender: Male
  • Gallifrey Falls No More!
    • My Flickr Account
Re: TC 'Network Desire' according to me - incorporating Light Rail stage 1
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2017, 09:12:05 PM »
And if anyone has way too much time on their hands and would like to see if it is feasible to try scheduling, feel free to go ahead :)

I'm good, thanks.  ;)

Some interesting ideas though. Will have to have a more in depth look when I get the chance.

Offline Sylvan Loves Buses

  • *
  • 962
  • Gender: Male
  • Not really sure if that's 'suit'able
Re: TC 'Network Desire' according to me - incorporating Light Rail stage 1
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2017, 12:17:21 AM »
Certainly very different from how I would imagine it.
I like what you've proposed for route 3 and 102.

Route 6 I feel is too long. Belconnen to City via Weston, Woden and Fyshwick, that's at least a 2 hour journey from one end to the other there, much longer during peak + road accidents/works. The same with the 70 and 11/12.

A few areas I feel have been left out, areas with actual high patronage numbers (this is something to look out for when designing a real/hypothetical bus network. One such area is Shakespeare, Fraser West - when I was doing my drawing there, even I was surprised by the number of people who were boarding and leaving from that terminus. Little things like that.

Offline Northside

  • *
  • 27
  • Gender: Male
  • Newbie
Re: TC 'Network Desire' according to me - incorporating Light Rail stage 1
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2017, 03:58:18 PM »
Yeah wow. That's quite a big change from the current network! The main problem I have is that you claim to support transferring from local routes to rapid routes. But where are all the rapid routes? You've made the 300 and 301 ridiculously long to serve suburban areas that would be best served by local routes. Some good principles, but more bus routes going in reverse is what I take from this network.

My thoughts are, will the majority of patrons be better or worse off with the changes? Ie, will their travel time (accounting for wait times, etc) increase or decrease?

But a good work to start throwing some ideas out there.

Offline Stan butler

  • *
  • 39
  • Newbie
Re: TC 'Network Desire' according to me - incorporating Light Rail stage 1
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2017, 09:24:15 PM »

Route 6 I feel is too long. Belconnen to City via Weston, Woden and Fyshwick, that's at least a 2 hour journey from one end to the other there, much longer during peak + road accidents/works. The same with the 70 and 11/12.

Yes - think of the poor bus drivers who have to drive the long routes.  Anything over 1.5 hours for one route is too long.  Even now, the 343 can take 1.45 hours or more.  The poor drivers may need to go to the toilet...

While the network may be built for transfers, and the buses can technically do it - you still need to think of the drivers.....

Offline Busfanatic101

  • *
  • 651
  • Gender: Male
  • Your typical Canberra Bus Enthusiast
Re: TC 'Network Desire' according to me - incorporating Light Rail stage 1
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2018, 11:46:38 AM »
One massive point, unless a roundabout is installed at Sulwood Dr. It's just on impossible for a car to turn right from Manheim St & Sulwood Dr in Kambah. Also the stop just south of Manheim St is for the Village Creek Health Centre (mobility aid hire & repair & main reason the 62 gets priority for low floor buses) & a retirement place.
Easy fix - it could simply go longmore-atkins-livingston-summerland and this would add a connection point at Wanniassa shops which may be an improvement. A few people living enar the Sulwood end of Kambah would miss out on a closer service.


Certainly very different from how I would imagine it.
I like what you've proposed for route 3 and 102.

Route 6 I feel is too long. Belconnen to City via Weston, Woden and Fyshwick, that's at least a 2 hour journey from one end to the other there, much longer during peak + road accidents/works. The same with the 70 and 11/12.

A few areas I feel have been left out, areas with actual high patronage numbers (this is something to look out for when designing a real/hypothetical bus network. One such area is Shakespeare, Fraser West - when I was doing my drawing there, even I was surprised by the number of people who were boarding and leaving from that terminus. Little things like that.
Route 6 Could be done in 2h easy.
11/12 I will look at - it was the last route I did and I was originally going to have multiple routes terminating at Manuka, but the look through bundah/red hill was all that ended up terminating there which would have meant lots of dead running.
70 is no longer than the current 767 Xpresso.


It would be easy enough to divert via Shakespeare, or they could just walk. Think of Macarthur or Brereton St which have never had close services...


Yes - think of the poor bus drivers who have to drive the long routes.  Anything over 1.5 hours for one route is too long.  Even now, the 343 can take 1.45 hours or more.  The poor drivers may need to go to the toilet...

While the network may be built for transfers, and the buses can technically do it - you still need to think of the drivers.....
Current routes go for 2h. At school you have 2 hours between breaks. At work some jobs you don't get a break for a few to several hours. It is not my responsibility to cut route length. If I improve services for passengers with similary long services, its still an improvement. Scheduling could include a 5-min toliet break at woden for the 6. I don't know what the policy is for leaving pasengers in a bus without a driver.




Yeah wow. That's quite a big change from the current network! The main problem I have is that you claim to support transferring from local routes to rapid routes. But where are all the rapid routes? You've made the 300 and 301 ridiculously long to serve suburban areas that would be best served by local routes. Some good principles, but more bus routes going in reverse is what I take from this network.

My thoughts are, will the majority of patrons be better or worse off with the changes? Ie, will their travel time (accounting for wait times, etc) increase or decrease?

But a good work to start throwing some ideas out there.


Perhaps frequent is a better term. The idea is that all routes have connection points (see the purple markers where they can change buses) to get to most nearby group and town centres faster than riding out the whole route. Give me some scenarios if you aren't convinced.
For example belco residents can transfer on Copland or William Slim to go to gungahlin - a 20 minute cut from going via belco bus stn.


I'm not sure what you are complaining about with the 300/301. the only real changes I have made to 300 is south of tuggeranong, to follow the old 900. The reality is that Tuggeranong Town Centre is at the SW corner of the region. The only people that catch buses through there are people who work in the Tuggeranong Town Centre itself, or those who live in Greenway, Bonython, Gordon, Conder, Banks. Any other suburb, it is faster to change buses at Woden travelling between your residence and anywhere but Tuggeranong Town Centre - the only reason you would catch the 300 since Tuggeranong residents don't catch the current 300 to get to Tuggeranong Town Centre, they would catch their local bus. Now given the proposed option of bypassing Tuggeranong, Gordon, Conder, and Banks are not disadvantaged by a longer 300, perhaps Bonython slightly but even then only by no more than 10 minutes. What is has done is elimate 6 or 7 duplicate services connecting erindale to woden, benifit several suburbs with more frequent services, and free up resources to increase frequency in other Tuggeranong suburbs. Erindale is bigger than Mawson, Lanyon, and Cooleman Court. Sorry I don't know enough northside areas for a meaningful comparison. Comparable to DIckson.


Think of 301 as an additonal supplementary service connecting the same main stops, giving the 300 connection for south Tuggeranong and servicing a few other high-use areas. For example, one of the biggest complaints TC saw with the new network is the difficulty of getting to Barton when the Xpressos were made to terminate in Civic.


Offline Sylvan Loves Buses

  • *
  • 962
  • Gender: Male
  • Not really sure if that's 'suit'able
Re: TC 'Network Desire' according to me - incorporating Light Rail stage 1
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2018, 06:36:35 PM »
Think of Macarthur or Brereton St which have never had close services...

Oh believe me, I can think of many roads that have that situation

Offline Northside

  • *
  • 27
  • Gender: Male
  • Newbie
Re: TC 'Network Desire' according to me - incorporating Light Rail stage 1
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2018, 09:53:45 AM »
OK, so don't take these as criticisms, but feel free to use them to shape your ideas. I love the idea of directing local routes to interchange with high frequency routes, but it still has to be convenient. At a number of your transfer points in purple, the most popular route (ie continuing to civic), the patrons have to cross the road at a place where no pedestrian crossings or traffic lights exist. This all helps to dissuade the public in making these transfers. They have to be seamless and provide protection for patrons when it's raining or shade when it's hot. Some of your transfer points have no more than a blade and a seat at the moment. So a lot of work would need to be done to bring the multitude of 'interchanges' up to a reasonable standard.

Secondly, have a think about your frequencies. You have some 45 min frequencies meeting up with 12 min frequencies, so the wait time for your patrons is going to vary greatly between each trip. They need to be timed more regularly so that patrons have a fixed wait time so they know their next bus is only a few minutes away. If all routes had frequency of 15 mins and under it's not so much of a problem, but anything more than that needs to be timed well in order not to frustrate passengers.

Thirdly, some of the roads you have chosen, particularly in the Gungahlin area are just not suitable for buses. Come have a look some time. Many roads are barely suitable for cars let alone a bus. In particular, your 55/56 through Amaroo and the random detour of the 50 down Wellington and Arabanoo in Ngunnawall. Also, your 38 traverses a bike path to get from Well Station to Nullarbor.

In terms of the areas that will be disadvantaged by this new network, I will mention just a couple I've noticed. Take the suburb of Ainslie and surrounds for example. Currently served and well patronised by both the 7 and 2, of which both have 30 min off-peak frequency. You've replaced that with a much longer and indirect route 2 at the same frequency. So not only have you halved the capacity of a well used service, you have also made the journey longer. I also don't understand why that route now uses Rivett St. Most of your planning has increased the walk/distance between routes (for which I'm a fan, by the way), but here you've added a detour to a road that has never had a bus service.

OK, one more as another example. Take Hawker, Weetangera residents. Their current route 17 runs every 30 mins, direct to Belconnen for an easy transfer, or they have a 717 for a direct route to civic every 20ish mins in peak. They will now have a 44 every 45 mins and have to either traverse all around Macquarie and Aranda before heading back to Radford College to cross the road and transfer to a 300. Or they get off at Redfern St transfer to a red rapid, then transfer again at Belconnen for a Blue rapid. One transfer is probably acceptable, but more than that just to get to civic is just too inconvenient.

Anyway, these are just my opinions, I think there would be a lot of unhappy patrons with a number of these changes.

Offline Sylvan Loves Buses

  • *
  • 962
  • Gender: Male
  • Not really sure if that's 'suit'able
Re: TC 'Network Desire' according to me - incorporating Light Rail stage 1
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2018, 10:42:46 PM »
...and provide protection for patrons when it's raining or shade when it's hot. Some of your transfer points have no more than a blade and a seat at the moment.

They'd better bring back the concrete shelters then am I right, cause those glass/adshels do jack shit for that.