23 Mar 2013: Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed ...

[ozbob]

Media release 23 March 2013



Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers calls for legislation amending The City of Brisbane Act to remove Brisbane City Council's public transport functions.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Brisbane City Council's Bus review has as much credibility as a cigarette manufacturer calling for a review into the effects of its own cigarettes. The Lord Mayor is effectively the head of Queensland's largest bus company."

"Money that would have been spent on high frequency all day service or improvements to Bulimba, The Centenary Suburbs, The Northwest and Yeronga for example,  will now be spent on running buses full of air all the way from the suburbs, into to the CBD, continuing to worsen bus congestion and reliability."

"Yeronga and the Centenary suburbs are amongst the worst affected by the scrapping of the high frequency bus plan."

"Will the Lord Mayor announce a Centenary BUZ, Yeronga BUZ, BulimbaGlider and Albany Creek BUZ as part of the Brisbane City Council Review to make up for the loss of planned high frequency services to these areas?"

"Will Brisbane City Council cut any bus routes and if so which ones and where?"

"Will Brisbane City Council continue to ignore other operators and run an independent network without due regard to optimise all modes such as rail and other bus operators? Will they still focus on council boundary border 'hissy-fits' complaining that non BCC residents are on Brisbane Transport buses?  South East Queensland is bigger than Brisbane Council and needs an integrated public transport network, not Brisbane Transport and the rest."

"The fact that Brisbane Transport did not cooperate with TransLink and the real bus review, highlights the self serving, selfish and anti-public transport stance of Brisbane City Council. All other operators did.  Had Brisbane Transport taken part in the TransLink review there is a little doubt a much better overall outcome would have been achieved, and consequently an improved network."

"TransLink has been used as an ATM, now a shell agency and a lapdog for the Brisbane City Council. Brisbane Transport, the bus operator that TransLink is supposed to be regulating and contracting has captured full control of the agency, TransLink via the BCC. No other bus operator has been able to do this. Brisbane Transport can do as it pleases, invent and foist services upon the agency at will such as the Maroon WasteGlider."

"Now planning a multi-billion dollar bus tunnel, also outside its jurisdiction, it will no doubt want the State Government to pitch in 100% of the cash for that it so it can continue to operate its high-waste direct service to the CBD bus network."

"Where does it end? When does the Minister put his foot down and say enough is enough?"

"The whole idea of TransLink doing the route and network planning is to keep costs down for passengers. By keeping the network simple and efficient, fares can be low and stay low while connecting everyone with decent service. Now with the agency captured, the Minister powerless and groveling, and the operator, Brisbane Transport at the controls drawing up the routes, there will be extraordinary upward pressure on fares and taxpayer subsidies to rise. The next fare rise is a planned whopping 7.5%, and potentially 20% or higher."

"We believe that Brisbane Transport and Brisbane City Council must be broken apart and special state legislation altering The City of Brisbane Act 2010 must be introduced to require Brisbane City Council to divest itself of bus operations. Only by doing this will south-east Queensland's public transport network be significantly improved, transformed into a connective network and put on an economically sustainable model without the huge fare increases as we have seen since 2010."

References:

1. Bus review gets passed to Brisbane City Council http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/03/bue-review-gets-passed-to-brisbane-city-council.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Discussion thread --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9754.msg122643#msg122643

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

23rd March 2013

Re: Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council

Greetings,

Interesting article from the Couriermail below.  Nearly a year old but right on the mark don't you think?

Couriermail 11th April 2012 pages 18-19


http://backontrack.org/docs/cm/cm_11apr12_p18.jpg


http://backontrack.org/docs/cm/cm_11apr12_p19.jpg

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Media release 23 March 2013



Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers calls for legislation amending The City of Brisbane Act to remove Brisbane City Council's public transport functions.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Brisbane City Council's Bus review has as much credibility as a cigarette manufacturer calling for a review into the effects of its own cigarettes. The Lord Mayor is effectively the head of Queensland's largest bus company."

"Money that would have been spent on high frequency all day service or improvements to Bulimba, The Centenary Suburbs, The Northwest and Yeronga for example,  will now be spent on running buses full of air all the way from the suburbs, into to the CBD, continuing to worsen bus congestion and reliability."

"Yeronga and the Centenary suburbs are amongst the worst affected by the scrapping of the high frequency bus plan."

"Will the Lord Mayor announce a Centenary BUZ, Yeronga BUZ, BulimbaGlider and Albany Creek BUZ as part of the Brisbane City Council Review to make up for the loss of planned high frequency services to these areas?"

"Will Brisbane City Council cut any bus routes and if so which ones and where?"

"Will Brisbane City Council continue to ignore other operators and run an independent network without due regard to optimise all modes such as rail and other bus operators? Will they still focus on council boundary border 'hissy-fits' complaining that non BCC residents are on Brisbane Transport buses?  South East Queensland is bigger than Brisbane Council and needs an integrated public transport network, not Brisbane Transport and the rest."

"The fact that Brisbane Transport did not cooperate with TransLink and the real bus review, highlights the self serving, selfish and anti-public transport stance of Brisbane City Council. All other operators did.  Had Brisbane Transport taken part in the TransLink review there is a little doubt a much better overall outcome would have been achieved, and consequently an improved network."

"TransLink has been used as an ATM, now a shell agency and a lapdog for the Brisbane City Council. Brisbane Transport, the bus operator that TransLink is supposed to be regulating and contracting has captured full control of the agency, TransLink via the BCC. No other bus operator has been able to do this. Brisbane Transport can do as it pleases, invent and foist services upon the agency at will such as the Maroon WasteGlider."

"Now planning a multi-billion dollar bus tunnel, also outside its jurisdiction, it will no doubt want the State Government to pitch in 100% of the cash for that it so it can continue to operate its high-waste direct service to the CBD bus network."

"Where does it end? When does the Minister put his foot down and say enough is enough?"

"The whole idea of TransLink doing the route and network planning is to keep costs down for passengers. By keeping the network simple and efficient, fares can be low and stay low while connecting everyone with decent service. Now with the agency captured, the Minister powerless and groveling, and the operator, Brisbane Transport at the controls drawing up the routes, there will be extraordinary upward pressure on fares and taxpayer subsidies to rise. The next fare rise is a planned whopping 7.5%, and potentially 20% or higher."

"We believe that Brisbane Transport and Brisbane City Council must be broken apart and special state legislation altering The City of Brisbane Act 2010 must be introduced to require Brisbane City Council to divest itself of bus operations. Only by doing this will south-east Queensland's public transport network be significantly improved, transformed into a connective network and put on an economically sustainable model without the huge fare increases as we have seen since 2010."

References:

1. Bus review gets passed to Brisbane City Council http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/03/bue-review-gets-passed-to-brisbane-city-council.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

24th March 2013

Re: Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council

Greetings,

The minutes of the BCC meeting where the bus review was discussed is here --> http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council/governance-strategy/committees-meetings-minutes/meeting-minutes/index.htm

It is alarming to say the least. Many Councillors have denied their constituents bus improvements.  Personal opinions by the Lord Mayor and others goes against all the public transport research available in the literature, and the real experiences of networks elsewhere in Australian and globally.  Connected networks are the only way our system can improve.  Over 50% of the buses are simply not carrying sustainable loads in the present system.  More frequency, better connections will transform the network, this is the global experience.  Brisbane is not a special case, it is however a good example of poorly designed, under performing network, with some of the worlds highest fares for a very mediocre outcome.

Some of the Councillors do have some things correct. For example Cr King highlighting the relentless fare increases.  Others are in fairy land.

The failure of the Minister for Transport to get Brisbane Transport to cooperate with the review is the basic cause of the problem.  Where operators had cooperated with TransLink for the review the outcomes were excellent.  For example stage 3 for Ipswich, only 10 pieces of feedback.

An interesting discussion on the bizarre BCC minutes can be followed from here -->   http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9045.msg122712#msg122712

Take the time to read the discussion, you will no doubt be alarmed that the LNP Government has deserted the citizens of south-east Queensland for politics.

The way TransLink has been treated by the Minister for Transport is disgusting.  A call for his resignation has been overwhelming supported by our members ( see http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9749.0  )

The future of public transport in SEQ is now very grim.

Not cheered at all.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Sent to all outlets:

23rd March 2013

Re: Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council

Greetings,

Interesting article from the Couriermail below.  Nearly a year old but right on the mark don't you think?

Couriermail 11th April 2012 pages 18-19


http://backontrack.org/docs/cm/cm_11apr12_p18.jpg


http://backontrack.org/docs/cm/cm_11apr12_p19.jpg

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

Media release 23 March 2013



Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers calls for legislation amending The City of Brisbane Act to remove Brisbane City Council's public transport functions.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Brisbane City Council's Bus review has as much credibility as a cigarette manufacturer calling for a review into the effects of its own cigarettes. The Lord Mayor is effectively the head of Queensland's largest bus company."

"Money that would have been spent on high frequency all day service or improvements to Bulimba, The Centenary Suburbs, The Northwest and Yeronga for example,  will now be spent on running buses full of air all the way from the suburbs, into to the CBD, continuing to worsen bus congestion and reliability."

"Yeronga and the Centenary suburbs are amongst the worst affected by the scrapping of the high frequency bus plan."

"Will the Lord Mayor announce a Centenary BUZ, Yeronga BUZ, BulimbaGlider and Albany Creek BUZ as part of the Brisbane City Council Review to make up for the loss of planned high frequency services to these areas?"

"Will Brisbane City Council cut any bus routes and if so which ones and where?"

"Will Brisbane City Council continue to ignore other operators and run an independent network without due regard to optimise all modes such as rail and other bus operators? Will they still focus on council boundary border 'hissy-fits' complaining that non BCC residents are on Brisbane Transport buses?  South East Queensland is bigger than Brisbane Council and needs an integrated public transport network, not Brisbane Transport and the rest."

"The fact that Brisbane Transport did not cooperate with TransLink and the real bus review, highlights the self serving, selfish and anti-public transport stance of Brisbane City Council. All other operators did.  Had Brisbane Transport taken part in the TransLink review there is a little doubt a much better overall outcome would have been achieved, and consequently an improved network."

"TransLink has been used as an ATM, now a shell agency and a lapdog for the Brisbane City Council. Brisbane Transport, the bus operator that TransLink is supposed to be regulating and contracting has captured full control of the agency, TransLink via the BCC. No other bus operator has been able to do this. Brisbane Transport can do as it pleases, invent and foist services upon the agency at will such as the Maroon WasteGlider."

"Now planning a multi-billion dollar bus tunnel, also outside its jurisdiction, it will no doubt want the State Government to pitch in 100% of the cash for that it so it can continue to operate its high-waste direct service to the CBD bus network."

"Where does it end? When does the Minister put his foot down and say enough is enough?"

"The whole idea of TransLink doing the route and network planning is to keep costs down for passengers. By keeping the network simple and efficient, fares can be low and stay low while connecting everyone with decent service. Now with the agency captured, the Minister powerless and groveling, and the operator, Brisbane Transport at the controls drawing up the routes, there will be extraordinary upward pressure on fares and taxpayer subsidies to rise. The next fare rise is a planned whopping 7.5%, and potentially 20% or higher."

"We believe that Brisbane Transport and Brisbane City Council must be broken apart and special state legislation altering The City of Brisbane Act 2010 must be introduced to require Brisbane City Council to divest itself of bus operations. Only by doing this will south-east Queensland's public transport network be significantly improved, transformed into a connective network and put on an economically sustainable model without the huge fare increases as we have seen since 2010."

References:

1. Bus review gets passed to Brisbane City Council http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/03/bue-review-gets-passed-to-brisbane-city-council.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

25th March 2013

Brisbane: Proudly achieving with a 1970s public transport network

Greetings,

The obvious shortcomings with the bus review were the poor community engagement and actually explaining the details.

There was little positive press, just mainly hysterical yarns about disappearing bus routes, which on closer analysis and explanation there were alternative new routes, and in some cases not.  However the feedback process was designed to sort out the issues and further inform the proposed changes. That will not happen now.

BCC is just interested in their own bus system.  They stood back from the bus review and in fact are the main reason why it fell over.  This fact was revealed on radio by Mr Emerson.  http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/03/bue-review-gets-passed-to-brisbane-city-council.html

The other regions where there was a much better relationship between the operators and TransLink informed the proposed changes and a good outcome achieved.  Ipswich generated 10 pieces of stage 3 feedback, shows what can be achieved.

I doubt if many people have actually read the review in full. http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review  There is a wealth of data and analysis that clearly shows Brisbane's bus system is broken and needs a lot of work.

Brisbane and SEQ cannot continue to not use all public transport assets properly.

If you haven't read this you really need to.  http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

All citizens should be alarmed that Brisbane particularly is being transported back to the 1970s.  One of the worlds worst performing public transport networks is about to get worse if that is possible.

Enjoy your commute!

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

25th March 2013

Rally for worse services, slower services and higher fares

Greetings

The amount of hysteria and misinformation that was circulating about the bus review makes the Salem witch trials look like a tea party.

On Saturday for example,  around 200 people or so gathered at the Inala Bus Interchange with Cr. Milton Dick and State Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk to rally against routes being axed and to seek guarantees from the Lord Mayor for the continuation of routes 122, 100 and 460 in particular.

700 people signed the petition.

We went to the TransLink website and what did we find?:

The 122 (S410) is being retained, and it is actually more, not less, direct, and therefore will be much faster under the connected network plan.

The 100 is being retained with almost no change, but it will have some services transferred to enable another high frequency route in the Inala/Richlands area to run.

Route 460 is being replaced by a number of routes, and is redundant because a brand new multi billion dollar train line, actually built at the direction of the current state member, and promoted early by her father, for that area and has now been built.

In the Tennyson ward, the local councillor blocked the introduction of high frequency services to her own area that would save Yeronga residents 45 minutes in waiting time and have buses every 15 minutes all day every day in preference to an hourly bus route that has a 10 minute indirect time wasting deviation on it. We just don't understand this logic.

Facts are that within the BCC area, the equivalent of almost $400 is taken from rates from each ratepayer across the city to pay for a bus network that is carrying 50% air. Air! If the connective network were in place, all of this air would be expelled at main interchanges - Garden City, Carindale, Indooroopilly, by pooling passengers which would allow only buses with good loads to enter the CBD, and buses to return to the suburbs to do another run.

The next fare rise of 7.5% is now locked in, as was the  number of huge rises of 20%, 15% and 7.5% that is making catching a bus unaffordable and fares the highest in the world. To travel one zone - basically from one end of Adelaide St to the other on a paper ticket already costs $4.80.

How much more will it have to rise to deliver the Lord Mayor's Bus Plan? 20%? 30%? There is a real risk that the plan BCC comes up with will have even less high frequency services than the one proposed by TransLink and actually be even worse!

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

References:

Road to nowhere http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/road-to-nowhere-20130323-2gn0c.html

Route 100 http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-100.png

Route 122 http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-122.png

Route 460 http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-460.png

Sent to all outlets:

25th March 2013

Brisbane: Proudly achieving with a 1970s public transport network

Greetings,

The obvious shortcomings with the bus review were the poor community engagement and actually explaining the details.

There was little positive press, just mainly hysterical yarns about disappearing bus routes, which on closer analysis and explanation there were alternative new routes, and in some cases not.  However the feedback process was designed to sort out the issues and further inform the proposed changes. That will not happen now.

BCC is just interested in their own bus system.  They stood back from the bus review and in fact are the main reason why it fell over.  This fact was revealed on radio by Mr Emerson.  http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/03/bue-review-gets-passed-to-brisbane-city-council.html

The other regions where there was a much better relationship between the operators and TransLink informed the proposed changes and a good outcome achieved.  Ipswich generated 10 pieces of stage 3 feedback, shows what can be achieved.

I doubt if many people have actually read the review in full. http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review  There is a wealth of data and analysis that clearly shows Brisbane's bus system is broken and needs a lot of work.

Brisbane and SEQ cannot continue to not use all public transport assets properly.

If you haven't read this you really need to.  http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

All citizens should be alarmed that Brisbane particularly is being transported back to the 1970s.  One of the worlds worst performing public transport networks is about to get worse if that is possible.

Enjoy your commute!

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

26 March 2013

Public transport crisis

Greetings,

Time the Government, BCC, and TransLink all take deep breath.  Public transport is in crisis.

Worlds highest fares for arguably the worlds most mediocre system for our type of jurisdiction.

The TransLink bus review was a correct step to reposition the network for more frequent, efficient services and sustainable growth, use all modes more efficiently.  BCC stood off consultation so they could sabotage the review. For this intransigence Minister Emerson has now allowed BCC to create further massive dislocation and failure. BCC still sees TransLink as some sort of ALP tainted anti-Christ movement it appears.  Minister Emerson should resign and allow the Assistant Minister for Public Transport, who directed the TransLink bus review  to get on with it.

Minister Emerson has failed to outline what is really going to occur from this point.  BCC cannot plan for an integrated network because they are only concerned about themselves and scoring political points.  They run the BT bus network in competition with other modes and just do not understand the major issues they have caused.  It is a tragedy of the highest order that the LNP Government is unable to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

The Brisbane media has largely failed to look at the review in depth, responding with hysterical articles that have lacked depth, research and balance.  Some exceptions and for those we acknowledge your professionalism, the rest have just furthered the political manipulation by BCC and others.  This will be a great cost to the community.

Minister Emerson, do you really think BCC is capable of addressing these issues in a self-centred review?

    Capacity utilisation: Half of all services (50.3%) carry fewer than 7 passengers on average.
    Overlap: Two thirds of bus routes share more than 70% of their bus stops with another route.
    Frequency: Routes with high frequencies are much more attractive to patrons. Within the Brisbane City Council area, they account for 8% of all routes but 44% of all passengers.
    Utilisation: 84% of passengers on the frequent network travel between 7 am and 7 pm, but the same high level of service is provided from 6 am to 11.30 pm.
   Infrastructure constraints: Bus congestion in the CBD is acute. 600 buses per hour entered the CBD in the AM peak in 2011 (220 in Adelaide St). Under the business as usual scenario, this is expected to rise to 1,070 in eight years.
    Operating expenditure: Over the last three years, annual funding for buses increased 22.1% (from $475 million to $580 million) and in-service kms by 9%. However patronage only rose 1.6%.
    Legibility: There are 446 routes across the region and 230 in Brisbane. Navigating the network, and finding the right place to board in the CBD, is difficult for new and occasional users.


From  http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/03/25/is-the-qld-government-missing-the-bus/

This is now a crisis of the highest order.  The TransLink bus review must be brought back into play.  Direct BCC to sit down with TransLink and work through the changes.  The investment in the bus review must not be wasted.  It was the correct thing to do.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

From Crikey here!

Is the Qld government missing the bus?

Is the Qld government missing the bus?
Alan Davies | Mar 25, 2013 9:01AM

Within weeks of floating it, the Newman government has backed away at the first sign of trouble from its dramatic new vision for an efficient, high-frequency bus network in South East Queensland

South East Queensland (SEQ) has lots of buses but there're sharp differences of opinion about whether they're managed as efficiently and equitably as they could be.

An important new report by public transport agencey TransLink, SEQ Bus Network Review, was released earlier this month by the Qld Minister for Transport, Scott Emerson. It identified a range of issues with the regional bus system:

    Capacity utilisation: Half of all services (50.3%) carry fewer than 7 passengers on average.
    Overlap: Two thirds of bus routes share more than 70% of their bus stops with another route.
    Frequency: Routes with high frequencies are much more attractive to patrons. Within the Brisbane City Council area, they account for 8% of all routes but 44% of all passengers.
    Utilisation: 84% of passengers on the frequent network travel between 7 am and 7 pm, but the same high level of service is provided from 6 am to 11.30 pm.
    Infrastructure constraints: Bus congestion in the CBD is acute. 600 buses per hour entered the CBD in the AM peak in 2011 (220 in Adelaide St). Under the business as usual scenario, this is expected to rise to 1,070 in eight years.
    Operating expenditure: Over the last three years, annual funding for buses increased 22.1% (from $475 million to $580 million) and in-service kms by 9%. However patronage only rose 1.6%.
    Legibility: There are 446 routes across the region and 230 in Brisbane. Navigating the network, and finding the right place to board in the CBD, is difficult for new and occasional users.

Public transport advocacy group Rail Back On Track endorsed the tenor of the findings. On 9 March, it issued a media release saying:

    We believe the current bus network is......operationally unsustainable because adding more and more buses to the system is causing huge congestion and delays in the city centre.....Brisbane's failing bus network presently prioritises transporting air over transporting passengers.

The TransLink report proposes these issues should be addressed by re-balancing resources away from under-used services toward a network of high frequency "turn-up-and-go" trunk routes.

It argues the changes would be revenue-neutral. The increase in patronage induced by the higher level of service would generate sufficient revenue to pay for the changes.

For example, it's proposed the number of high frequency routes in Brisbane would be increased from 16 to 26, bringing 20% more people within 400 metres of a trunk route. The focus of the frequent service network would primarily be on 7am-7pm services, 7 days a week.

Across the region, route numbers would be reduced 30%, largely by consolidating and eliminating under-performing services.

Capacity utilisation in corridors entering the city centre would be improved by requiring some passengers to forgo single-seat trips to the CBD. Some routes would be  redesigned as feeder services to trunk routes and rail stations, requiring a transfer.

Rail Back On Track endorses the direction of the changes, arguing that "recycling waste, duplication and inefficiency in the current bus network will give the city the simplicity, frequency and span of service that we need." It goes on:

    The current bus system is anti-patronage and doesn't serve the needs of the city. We look forward to a simpler, frequent and more reliable network.

There's considerable resistance to the proposals. For example, Qld planner Linda Carroli wrote on Larvatus Prodeo on 12 March that the "proposed changes will result in negative impacts which will become disincentives for bus usage". She's particularly concerned that:

    the direct bus route which runs mostly along Gympie Road will now terminate at Chermside Bus Interchange and require commuters to transfer.

Brisbane City Council, which operates the most services in SEQ, also opposes the changes. Last week the Transport Minister walked away from the recommendations, saying "there will be no changes to bus routes in Brisbane without full support of the Brisbane City Council."

He handed responsibility for implementing the report over to Council, which promptly announced they're dead in the water. Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said:

    Brisbane's bus network isn't broken and doesn't need a radical overhaul like the one proposed by Translink, which is why I've scrapped it now that the state government has handed council control.

This argument can be conceived of in terms of the inevitable tension in transit planning between the demands for 'patronage' versus those of 'coverage'.

Nevertheless, as I've argued before, I think the idea of a network of fast, frequent services is the right choice (I'm not, however, familiar enough with contemporary Brisbane to endorse the detail of specific route changes).

An effective public transport system that can service the whole metropolitan area rather than just the CBD requires that travellers be prepared to transfer.

I'm reminded of what transit planner Jarret Walker said recently when discussing a broadly similar proposal for Auckland. In considering the proposal, he asked Aucklanders to focus on the key question:

    Are you willing to get off one vehicle and onto another, with a short wait at a civilised facility, if this is the key to vastly expanding your public transport network without raising its subsidy? 

As the severe tram congestion on Swanston Street attests, even Melbourne's vaunted tram system suffers from too many single-seat trips to the CBD and too few access points.

The report notes that 20% of all trips in SEQ already involve a transfer, up from 13% in 2008/09.

So far as eliminating under-used routes is concerned, travellers have shown they're prepared to walk further to frequent, direct services.

It already happens in cities like Melbourne that have good rail networks. As I've noted before:

    Half of Melbourne's train travellers walk more than 800 metres (to the station) and a quarter more than 1.3 kilometres.

There are better ways of dealing with the transport needs of those who can't walk to stops than running under-used bus services e.g. demand responsive transit (which I'll look at in more detail next time).

The noises coming from the Transport Minister and the Lord Mayor indicate Brisbane isn't about to follow Auckland's lead (which isn't to say the rest of SEQ will necessarily follow suit).

Partly that's because the Government handled public consultation and "selling" the changes poorly and without conviction. I also think more emphasis should've been given to cross-town movement.

But the biggest problem this debacle shows up – which I'll have to leave for another time – is running the buses should be kept out of the hands of local government.