The future of Brisbane Transport (BT)

[#Metro]

Should the Queensland Government take over BT from the Brisbane City Council?
This poll will be open for 7 days. Results can be viewed after you have voted and votes can be changed until the poll expires.

[#Metro]

I'm seeing a clear result here!

[#Metro]

Any suggestions about why, pro's, con's?

[ozbob]

The Lord Mayor recently called for a State Government take over himself.  BCC has done a great job as a council running a major public transport system, tram and bus over the years.  Brisbane trams were brilliant people carriers, and the bus system is in parts world class today. The river ferries and CityCats are also a great service. When BCC was a clearly defined area surrounded by market gardens/farm lands/bush there were no problems with demarcation issues at the outer limits.  Public transport does not stop at council boundaries.  I think it is time that a true integrated model was explored.  The rail system is a good conceptual model.  It is not council boundary focussed, neither should be the bus/ferry systems?

Opinion here is certainly one way.

[tronixstuff]

Yes, have the State Government take it. This removes all council boundary issues; financial burdens from BCC; (hopefully) better integration with rail and ferry, as the 'competition' between bus and rail should vanish, etc.

[#Metro]

I think it is unanimous! The clearest poll result ever.  

Edit: there is now a single dissenter!

[Golliwog]

I think it just shouldn't be council run. They keep having arguments about (exactly as bob pointed out) how the other councils aren't paying for it and Brisbane ratepayers are so the buses should mostly be for Brisbane residents. To me whether its state run or just a private company (like the other bus companies) is irrelevant. Although perhaps private company to stop it being used for political reasons, although Translink would still be involved so I suppose that could still be done via convenient timing of funding around election time.

[#Metro]

There are arguments even over individual routes (like the arguments over the CityGlider).

[ozbob]

Media Release 16 July 2010

SEQ: Public takeover of Brisbane Transport buses and ferries

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has called for a public sector takeover of all of Brisbane Transport Bus and Ferry operations. Brisbane City Council has done a great job; historically running the tram and bus system over the years and developing the river ferry network and moving forward with bus rapid transit.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The Queensland Government already owns Brisbane City Council's buses and ferries through the Queensland Treasury Corporation. It regulates them through TransLink and subsidises them. RAIL Back on Track calls on the Queensland Government to take the final step and formally take control over Brisbane's buses and ferries from the Brisbane City Council.

"Doing so will make running and funding services to destinations outside Brisbane City Council's boundaries less contentious and give Translink the flexibility to plan and quickly adjust routes around South-East Queensland's broader needs. The removal of an extra layer of government, improved accountability and transparency will also be welcomed by the community.

"RAIL Back on Track members believe services should be planned around community transport needs not arbitrary local government boundaries, and that the state government, through TransLink, is now best positioned to do this. There will also be more opportunities to integrate Brisbane Transport buses with rail stations under this scheme, and allow private operators to use bus stops in King George Square and the Queen Street bus station.

"Precedents for state ownership and operation exist, both in Australia and abroad, such as the Toronto Transit Commission in Canada, which operates the bus, subway and tram system or Western Australia's TransPerth which operates trains. Services could also be contracted out if this is demonstrated to be better than public operation. Amendments to the Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008 would allow integrated public ownership and operation to happen.

"Brisbane has grown beyond the boundaries it had during the time of trams, trolley buses and steam trains. Lord Mayor Campbell Newman's offer to allow the state to run Brisbane's buses and ferries is one that should be taken up and considered seriously (1)."

Reference:

1. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/campbell-newman-wants-state-government-to-run-buses/story-e6freoof-1225839337936

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[#Metro]

It's strange how the State practically owns, regulates, controls and pays for the entire operation and yet the BCC gets all the credit for it (like the 500 buses which are state-funded) as does The Lord Mayor during election campaigns. What is the QLD Gov thinking?

[STB]

I should mention that apparently no private operators are allowed to stop in Adelaide St and that in the old days (not sure if it still happens) but TransLink had to get permission and get BCC to put in new bus stops within the city and BCC government area.  And on the odd occassion BCC rejected TransLink's request.

Should BT be taken off BCC completely and given to the State (TransLink)?  Absoultely!

I must say though that even if this happens, the cultural aspect that would run within the organisation itself as anti-TransLink, could last for years that would impede progress.

[#Metro]

I should mention that apparently no private operators are allowed to stop in Adelaide St and that in the old days (not sure if it still happens) but TransLink had to get permission and get BCC to put in new bus stops within the city and BCC government area.  And on the odd occassion BCC rejected TransLink's request.

Unbelieveable!

[somebody]

I should mention that apparently no private operators are allowed to stop in Adelaide St and that in the old days (not sure if it still happens) but TransLink had to get permission and get BCC to put in new bus stops within the city and BCC government area.  And on the odd occassion BCC rejected TransLink's request.

Umm, if you know this, then why, just a few days ago would you say this about routes 250/270:

Just with Point 60: The Veolia Transport routes are designed to reduce walking distance throughout the city, although you do end up with a longer bus journey in return. 

[STB]

Because that's what they are designed to do (insider info).  Elizabeth St (Central), Creek St (Northern), Ann St (West), Ann/Roma St (South West).

[longboi]

Should BT be taken off BCC completely and given to the State (TransLink)?  Absoultely!

I must say though that even if this happens, the cultural aspect that would run within the organisation itself as anti-TransLink, could last for years that would impede progress.

I don't think the state - or any Government for that matter - would want to take on a bus fleet and all associated operations.

The BT region could be split into smaller regions and given to private companies. Then TL would truly be able to focus on their primary role of co-ordination and planning.

[#Metro]

I don't think the state - or any Government for that matter - would want to take on a bus fleet and all associated operations.

The BT region could be split into smaller regions and given to private companies. Then TL would truly be able to focus on their primary role of co-ordination and planning.

But the State government effectively already does. It owns the buses, it regulates them, it funds them, it (in theory) does the routes.

I don't like the idea of carving up of Brisbane and then private operator.
It would further work against integration, operators are paid by the route-km IIRC. I suspect that this might be in their financial interest to run the longest bus routes, avoiding connections with rail stations and going direct to the city because this maximises route-km. This might be good for the operator but bad for the network and passengers. Once a contract is signed (are these publicly viewable?) how easy will it be to make major changes to routes?

BT is acting a bit like a private operator IMHO with bus routes that go beyond BCC boundaries a flash point.
Is it really a co-incidence that the most ancient buses always seem to be used on 14X routes that serve these outer areas?

[longboi]

I don't think the state - or any Government for that matter - would want to take on a bus fleet and all associated operations.

The BT region could be split into smaller regions and given to private companies. Then TL would truly be able to focus on their primary role of co-ordination and planning.

But the State government effectively already does. It owns the buses, it regulates them, it funds them, it (in theory) does the routes.

But they don't actually operate them, service them and employ drivers, managers etc. Alll the sort of things I would imagine the Gov't would be keen to avoid.

I don't like the idea of carving up of Brisbane and then private operator.
It would further work against integration, operators are paid by the route-km IIRC. I suspect that this might be in their financial interest to run the longest bus routes, avoiding connections with rail stations and going direct to the city because this maximises route-km. This might be good for the operator but bad for the network and passengers. Once a contract is signed (are these publicly viewable?) how easy will it be to make major changes to routes?

Umm, TL are the ones who dictate the routes and timetables - Operators operate the buses and thats it.

[#Metro]

Umm, TL are the ones who dictate the routes and timetables - Operators operate the buses and thats it.

In theory that is what is supposed to happen.
But if a private operator or BT gets many of their routes cut (for example, to turn into feeders) then it's difficult to see how they would just accept that, because they are run on commercial lines and that might mean far less money for them.  

The buses also are a hot feature come around election time. No private operator would ever get involved in that. 500 buses printed in big letters on the back of the bus and glossy leaflets in buses showing financials would never be seen in a Clark's Logan City bus or on STA transit for example.

How is the CityGlider explained? That was going in regardless of TransLink or no TransLink. And the timetable- was decided by BCC along with the bus wrap, which is also different to TL's green livery. All of BCC's buses are a different livery to the rest of the network. And the BCC does planning - the mass transit report was planning for that. Even the how the busway could operate in the future was looked at all it seems without TL. Bridges and a metro also feature in there.

Aren't those things jobs for TL, not BCC, to do?

[longboi]

Umm, TL are the ones who dictate the routes and timetables - Operators operate the buses and thats it.

In theory that is what is supposed to happen.
But if a private operator or BT gets many of their routes cut (for example, to turn into feeders) then it's difficult to see how they would just accept that, because they are run on commercial lines and that might mean far less money for them.  

The buses also are a hot feature come around election time. No private operator would ever get involved in that. 500 buses printed in big letters on the back of the bus and glossy leaflets in buses showing financials would never be seen in a Clark's Logan City bus or on STA transit for example.

How is the CityGlider explained? That was going in regardless of TransLink or no TransLink. And the timetable- was decided by BCC along with the bus wrap, which is also different to TL's green livery. All of BCC's buses are a different livery to the rest of the network. And the BCC does planning - the mass transit report was planning for that. Even the how the busway could operate in the future was looked at all it seems without TL. Bridges and a metro also feature in there.

Aren't those things jobs for TL, not BCC, to do?

After a severe facepalm I've managed to gather some composure to reply.

Yes BT did introduce CityGlider of its own volition but it still services the routes it was contracted to service by TL. And yes, BT do their own timetabling (to a degree...TL can override them) and some planning but that is exactly the type of duplication that would be eliminated by a state or private takeover.

As for the colour of the buses, BT can pretty much do what they want because they paint them 

The "500 buses etc." and pictures of buses on BCC marketing are obviously to tout Can-Do's PT achievements. If the buses were taken out of BCC's hands they wouldn't be doing it anymore.

[somebody]

Because that's what they are designed to do (insider info).  Elizabeth St (Central), Creek St (Northern), Ann St (West), Ann/Roma St (South West).

Are you saying that if they had the option of using Adelaide St or QSBS they would stick to their current routing??

[STB]

Because that's what they are designed to do (insider info).  Elizabeth St (Central), Creek St (Northern), Ann St (West), Ann/Roma St (South West).

Are you saying that if they had the option of using Adelaide St or QSBS they would stick to their current routing??

Back in the days when the original plan was put in, Adelaide St was looked at, however, BCC had the exclusive rights over it's use as BCC owns the street and the signage and the buses, so private operators were blocked from using it and stopping at one of the bus stops in Adelaide St (TransLink in it's early days did try - I was there when the planning was underway and have seen the prelim. reports that were done well before TL went to the public).

Using Ann St as current allows a slightly shorter walk for those who are coming from the Roma St end of the City to access those Veolia services, if Veolia services were re-directed.  Technically, the walk from your office to the bus stop is classed as part of your actual journey from a transport planner's view and I know of debates that have occurred if passengers prefer a shorter walk distance to access a longer bus trip or a longer walk distance to access a shorter bus trip.  To walk from Roma St over to Adelaide St during peak hour used to take me about 15mins, to get to Ann St, about 5-10mins.  It varies from person to person, some prefer to walk a short distance to access the bus, others don't mind the longer walk distance.  Even though you could probably do the short walk onto longer bus trip in the same time it takes to do a longer walk for a shorter bus trip.  Having more stops also allows for a better spread of passengers accross the city, although it's a personal choice if you choose to get off a stop earlier of course if one feels that it may be quicker (even if it turns out that it's not).

[somebody]

You didn't really answer the question there, but I'll add that to get from the Roma St end of town is a ridiculously easy interchange boarding at Roma St Station and changing at the Cultural Centre.

[STB]

Yes, and the Veolia rockets/expresses, exit out at Buranda and in the case of route 243 out of Woolloongabba.  Feedback at the intial consultations in 2005 was that a one bus journey was preferred with Elizabeth St Stop 85 to be maintained.

I did answer that question: The private operators cannot (as effective from last year from my knowledge and experience) use the Adelaide St stops.  If this has changed, I would not support a change to Adelaide St.  And this is the general feedback you would get from Veolia commuters (if you asked them).

[somebody]

Yes, and the Veolia rockets/expresses, exit out at Buranda and in the case of route 243 out of Woolloongabba.  Feedback at the intial consultations in 2005 was that a one bus journey was preferred with Elizabeth St Stop 85 to be maintained.

I did answer that question: The private operators cannot (as effective from last year from my knowledge and experience) use the Adelaide St stops.  If this has changed, I would not support a change to Adelaide St.  And this is the general feedback you would get from Veolia commuters (if you asked them).

That wasn't so hard was it?

It could surely be changed to allow private operators onto Adelaide St with state legislation, although there may be easier ways to do it.

To be honest, I still question whether the commuters on these buses should be given what they are asking for with these services.  Ultimately, it is at the taxpayers cost.  Put up their ticket prices for asking for a wierd service and they might change their tune pretty quickly.  Besides, the interchange options are so reasonable for a large proportion of the users that I don't see how it makes sense to cave in to what they are asking for.

[#Metro]

I did answer that question: The private operators cannot (as effective from last year from my knowledge and experience) use the Adelaide St stops.  If this has changed, I would not support a change to Adelaide St.  And this is the general feedback you would get from Veolia commuters (if you asked them).

It should not matter who the bus operator is. Private operators allegedly not being able to use Adelaide st because 'they are private' (what other streets can't they use?) is silly. Bus stops should be organised along the needs of commuters- routes going to similar places should be grouped together. 555 and 111 would ideally leave from identical or close stops, for example.

The 'BUZ' branding is also property of BCC.

[AnonymouslyBad]

I don't like the idea of carving up of Brisbane and then private operator.
It would further work against integration, operators are paid by the route-km IIRC. I suspect that this might be in their financial interest to run the longest bus routes, avoiding connections with rail stations and going direct to the city because this maximises route-km. This might be good for the operator but bad for the network and passengers. Once a contract is signed (are these publicly viewable?) how easy will it be to make major changes to routes?

The private operators are paid to run the routes TransLink wants them to run. So far TransLink has come in and done their thing (major route restructures) in almost every region outside of BCC, and while I'm sure they get input the operators don't seem to have a problem with TL doing the planning, at least not to the extent BT does.

I'm sure you're right that operators would prefer whatever option makes them the most money, but routes like the 250 and 555 run to the city because there's not really any viable alternative. Even if it were perfectly co-ordinated, a rail connection would make for a much longer trip in these areas. In other areas, feeder buses are the best option and that's what they have.

It should not matter who the bus operator is. Private operators allegedly not being able to use Adelaide st because 'they are private' (what other streets can't they use?) is silly. Bus stops should be organised along the needs of commuters- routes going to similar places should be grouped together. 555 and 111 would ideally leave from identical or close stops, for example.

I agree. This is the biggest problem with Council also being a bus operator, they can and do use their planning powers to favour BT over others.

I would support a takeover by private operators of BT's operations, but there's a big problem with this - the Council funding may well dry up if the buses are taken away from them, and (unless TransLink starts getting more generous) BT needs that funding to maintain the level of service they have.

[Golliwog]

Given how much recently though that Newman has been spruiking the fact that BCC funds PT and hardly any other councils do, I think it would be political suicide if he cancelled BCC's funding if Translink took away the buses.