27 Apr 2013: Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses

[ozbob]

Media release 27th April 2013



Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses

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 the separation of Brisbane Transport (BT) from Brisbane City Council (BCC) and bus contracts to be thrown open to competition.

The Lord Mayor can no longer be trusted to run Brisbane Transport. With too many competing public interests, political interests and commercial interests, ratepayers, taxpayers and passengers aren't getting a good deal. The BCC Bus Review does not address any of the major systemic issues with the BT bus network.

WHY

* Some of the world's highest fares: While BCC doesn't set fares, it does set costs, and obviously, higher costs equals higher fares. Transport costs in Brisbane have increased Brisbane by a whopping 35.5% over three years with only a gain of 2.9% in passengers. This is pushing up fares.

* We're paying too much: From one end of Adelaide Street to the other is $4.80 on a paper ticket. This is rising at least 7.5%, possibly higher. Enough is enough!

* The BCC Bus Tax: BCC residents pay ~ $400 dollars from rates to subsidise empty buses driving around Brisbane, waste and duplication. And 50% of the network is air!

*  Low frequency 'spaghetti' routes. Ten different bus route numbers go to the Centenary Suburbs; None are frequent or useful.

* Air first, passengers last: The BUZ network only makes up 8% of bus routes. The other 92% of routes can't be used all day or are slow, infrequent and indirect. We want routes that are fast, frequent, direct and are useful so we can get on with our lives, go to restaurants, shops, work, socialise rather than worry about bus timetables.

* Less politics: A politically independent Brisbane Transport would end high-cost vanity/political routes such Maroon CityGlider. This service cost $9 million and was funded ahead of Bulimba, the Centenary Suburbs (Jindalee, Jamboree, Mt Ommaney, Riverhills) the Northwestern Suburbs (McDowall, Albany Creek) and Yeronga, suburbs with mediocre bus services.

* Bus routes across council boundaries: Private companies are happy to run buses wherever passengers want them to go. Not Brisbane City Council!

* An independent Brisbane Transport won't play political games, and simply focus on passengers, not the next mayoral and council election or getting the local councillor's face in the local newspaper.

There is no reason why BCC could not continue to pay TransLink if it wants more service, like other councils already do and like BCC already does with its already franchised CityCat operations.

HOW

* We call on Scott Emerson, Transport Minister to throw open bus contract regions for open competition. Transit Australia Group, Grenda's and Perth's Swan Transit should all be approached.

* Management and employee buy out of Brisbane Transport is another option so that it is owned and run by it's employees, not the BCC.

* Delete all BCC's public transport functions through amending The City of Brisbane Act 2010.

Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses. After a decade of games, it's time to dump Brisbane City Council and separate Brisbane Transport.

Contact:

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

References:

1. Brisbane City Council's "not broken" bus network http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/brisbane-city-council.html

2. 26 Oct 2010: SEQ: Brisbane Transport buses and ferries ripe for state takeover http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4715.0

3. City's public transport will never improve while run by opposing sides From the Couriermail 11th April 2012 pages 18-19 http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4715.msg94499#msg94499

4. Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9756.0

5. Employee Buy Outs http://employeeownership.com.au/employee-ownership/employee-buy-outs/

6. 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?site=brisbane&program=612_morning

7. Transdev Melbourne: A BETTER WAY WITH BUSES IN MELBOURNE http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9894.0

[ozbob]

Discussion thread --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9754.msg125092#msg125092

[Andrew]

 

[ozbob]

 :bi

[Andrew]

All a vitriolic media release like this does is make this group and members look like a bunch of twats. It also means when we have something decent to say in the future, there is now every chance we won't get listened to or even worse left out in the cold and won't even get a look in by those who make the decisions. I feel all the hard work put in by you Ozbob and other members over the past few years building up this group and its reputation is being slowly undone by this toxicity and anti BCC axe grinding of late.

You might think it's just a case of me needing to  :bi but it really is becoming a case of great concern that this group is alienating itself.

[ozbob]

Disagree,  there are major problems with the bus network.  TransLink was asked to sort it, but the vacillation occurred.  Who is right?  TransLink and the planning consultants or politicians acting on hysteria?

Sometimes it is necessary to speak up and call the truth.  It is not a 'vitriolic' media release.  It states the real issues clearly.  Majority here want BT to be independent of Council.

No one else has the guts or is allowed to speak up.  What has been said to me privately in-confidence is enough to make one very worried.

Right is might ...

Being honest actually enhances an image.  Speaking sideways and slinking around is not what I am about.

[ozbob]

Well worth reading, lurkers and all ...

--> City's public transport will never improve while run by opposing sides From the Couriermail 11th April 2012 pages 18-19 http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4715.msg94499#msg94499

Great minds think alike ...

[Andrew]

There are major problems with the bus network.  TransLink was asked to sort it, but the vacillation occurred.  Who is right?  TransLink and the planning consultants or politicians acting on hysteria?

Personally, I agree, there are some major problems in some areas of the bus network.  The current problem is largely a direct result of what this very group was started with intention of highlighting and lobbying for change for - a lack of investment in rail services and infrastructure!  They put in the 130 BUZ, 140 BUZ and 150 BUZ.  Then they put more services on those routes.  And still the Beenleigh Line languishes with a 30 min frequency!  No wonder people catch the bus! Fix the trains and you will have a much stronger case to re-arrange the buses.

I have to say that whoever Translink had consulting them about the buses appear to have no grasp of Brisbane, it's topography and peoples travel patterns.  Why would they propose removing a direct link between Acacia Ridge and Moorooka and the Ipswich Rd corridor (a link that has existed since the tram days)? Why would they gut a hilly suburb like Highgate Hill of all it's buses? Why did the back street service through Moorooka not link it up with the shops at Moorvale?  Why would Greenslopes Private Hospital not be serviced?

It's those reasons why people got upset. And you think all this could possibly be just hysteria? It's not precious people who don't want to walk, it's the fact that some of the ideas were totally absurd and very much a regressive step.  Emerson et al. realised this very quickly once the review went public and that's why they reacted the way they did.  It seems that this group wanted the review pushed through and "then fix the problems" - a course of action that would have had dire consequences, especially for those accountable to the people of Brisbane (both local and state) at the ballot box.  I know if I lived in Highgate Hill, I would not be voting LNP if the review had gone ahead as proposed.

Some of the ideas proposed were good and some areas would have greatly benefited - these good ideas from the review should still be lobbied for.  My personal opinion can be summarised as follows: The way forward is somewhere in between.  The Translink review went too far and was too problematic as a whole to really succeed.  The BCC review doesn't go far enough.  Improvements like more frequent Albany Creek services that feed into the train at Mitchelton or Enoggera come to mind.

Sometimes it is necessary to speak up and call the truth.  It is not a 'vitriolic' media release.  It states the real issues clearly.  Majority here want BT to be independent of Council.

I know that's the position of quite a few members here.  Lapdog in particular appears to have a privatisation agenda for whatever his real motives may be.  But I put forward the following quotes as what I consider vitriolic:

The Lord Mayor can no longer be trusted to run Brisbane Transport.

...ratepayers, taxpayers and passengers aren't getting a good deal.

Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses.

After a decade of games, it's time to dump Brisbane City Council and separate Brisbane Transport.

I suspect many of the residents of Brisbane may disagree with you on those too.

No one else has the guts or is allowed to speak up.  What has been said to me privately in-confidence is enough to make one very worried.

Right is might ...

Being honest actually enhances an image.  Speaking sideways and slinking around is not what I am about.

But how are you going to effect change if you don't have public support for your ideas?  Alienating yourselves can make you impotent as an organisation.  By all means, advocate for improvements but not by constant criticism and negativity.

[#Metro]

State takeover was supported as our prior position, and I supported that. Now that there is no money, there is only one avenue left. And you know well what that avenue is. Of course I have an agenda, it's called 'better public transport all over the city'. Not bad eh?

SEQ: Brisbane Transport buses and ferries ripe for state takeover

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 calls for a public sector takeover of all of Brisbane Transport Bus and Ferry operations.

See --- >http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4715.msg37490#msg37490

We tried and it didn't work. Time to try something else more productive.

Oh, and it was Campbell Newman, LNP who suggested state takeover himself... offer was rejected by none other than the ALP... the party of privatisation of state assets. They corporatised QR, cut it in half and sold it off. Don't you remember that? Thatcher-style public share sell off it was.

[ozbob]

I think there is massive public support for our ideas.  The fact is the TransLink review was not promoted.  The review Director, the Assistant Minister for Public Transport appeared to be have been gagged as were TransLink.

I handled a lot of queries from the public.  I explained what was actually proposed in terms of their route changes and the broader rationale and in nearly every case they could then understand that they were actually better off.  In some cases not, and I was confident that the feedback phase would have made some changes to what was initially proposed.

Andrew, agree that the optimum position is a combination of both reviews.  Note, that is what we have been pushing in other correspondence.  Some times it is necessary to make a call to get a result.

[Andrew]

Of course I have an agenda, it's called 'better public transport all over the city'. Not bad eh?

It's funny you say that Lapdog because that's my agenda too! I would love to see a more integrated network with 15 min train frequencies on all lines.  I just don't think BT needs to be privatised to do it.  I think that the problem is not BT per se as an operator.  As a company I think it runs the buses well.  They are, generally speaking, clean & well presented.  We now have a 100% airconditioned fleet of over 1000 buses which within 5 years or so should also be wheelchair accessable.  CCTV cameras are also fitted to many of the buses. Personally I too get frustrated with the political interferance.  While the Maroon Glider is not going to be the useless dud you all hoped it would be, I completely agree the money could have been better spent to upgrade other areas.

So come on Lapdog, be a sport and tell us: What are your real motives then?   

(For the record, I am a long term Brisbane resident who has had a passionate interest in public transport since childhood.  I have now been doing my dream job of driving buses for Brisbane City Council for almost 5 years.  I also am an RTBU member.  All opinions expressed here and on other forums are my own personal views, formed and formulated over many years)

[#Metro]

I just don't think BT needs to be privatised to do it.

And I didn't think so either - obviously a position that has changed.

See --- >http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4715.msg37490#msg37490

Did you read the link? Did you notice the word STATE takeover?

My real motives are: better public transport across the city. It is what it says.

[#Metro]

And not only my view, but view of Alan Davies of The Urbanist

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

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.

and that of Brizcommuter

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/maroon-sillyglider-to-be-introduced.html

With such wasteful politically driven decisions, it is time that Brisbane Transport is privatised and Brisbane City Council's remaining public transport control is handed over the State Government and TransLink. Once again, the CityGlider logo (in photo) is wearing a crash helmet, as it is surely banging it's head against a brick wall!

and even of writers in the Courier Mail

From the Couriermail 11th April 2012 pages 18-19

City's public transport will never improve while run by opposing sides

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4715.msg94499;topicseen#msg94499

They've had a decade to demonstrate co-operation and it has utterly failed. There really isn't much more to say, I'm afraid. There are 15 other operators in SEQ, all private and not council owned. Transit Australia Group also builds their own buses through BusTech and they are also very good. Identical buses to BT are operated by Grenda's and Ventura in Melbourne as well.

[#Metro]

And then there's nonsense like this 

Public Transport
Brisbane City Council as recently as last Tuesday publicly challenged Translink to take over the running of buses, the same way it runs the state's trains.

It has happened before. However it is unlikely to eventuate because council receives good publicity and has done well in promoting the bus fleet to make it more responsive to commuters. In reality, most decisions have to be made between council and Translink, but many of the route initiatives - like the popular CityGlider - come from council.

The funds for the new buses are shared between state and local councils - and despite some grumbling the state is paying an increasing share.
Brisbane wants neighbouring councils to contribute more to its bus fleet because people from outside the city use the service, but it is Brisbane ratepayers who subsidise it. There is also an $8.2 million argument about who - the council or government - should pay to bring the Queen Street Bus Station up to scratch.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/heavyweight-showdown-why-bligh-and-newman-are-locking-horns-20101029-177dw.html#ixzz2RcpDzYqw

[#Metro]

And this threat to leave the integrated TL network on it's own unilateral accord. If it didn't get it's way, it would have it's own swipe card and fares!!
Clearly they have no issue with privatisation, but only so long as they're the ones doing it...and they have already done so to the ferry system.

Cr Jane Prentice, Chairperson for Public and Active Transport Committee, admitted that Council will explore a tender process for a private contractor to run the first mass transit service in Brisbane.

The larger, distinctly painted buses will have its own 'swipe card' for users if the Lord Mayor gets his way with negotiations with the State Government.

"Different look, designated route and separate fare structure would indicate that the new service is designed to be privatised' said Cr Abrahams

[ozbob]

Rail frequency is poor I agree Andrew.  But one of the major routes proposed by TransLink was the HF 25 (Mount Ommaney - Oxley - Darra - Inala - Forest Lake).  This is actually connecting into 15 minute off peak rail and better at peak of course.  Would have been a wonderful public transport patronage builder and give a wide range of residential areas access to shopping,  frequent public transport and the like.  It was a Smart Bus proposal in essence. Instead the area under BCC gets  route cuts, reduced frequency with only one extra service into Darra.

I have just been at Mount Ommaney, it is a traffic nightmare today Saturday.

[#Metro]

BT has shafted Bulimba, Centenary Suburbs, Yeronga, Northwest with the bus review. Heaps of cuts have fallen in Independent and ALP wards... but the benefit isn't there in NEW services. What goes around comes around. Crs Dick and Johnstone were only too happy to make confetti out of the TL Bus review, rip up bus timetables in council etc. Now they are worst affected by the BCC bus cuts. Can't feel too sorry for them...

I have to say that whoever Translink had consulting them about the buses appear to have no grasp of Brisbane, it's topography and peoples travel patterns.  Why would they propose removing a direct link between Acacia Ridge and Moorooka and the Ipswich Rd corridor (a link that has existed since the tram days)?

Well it must have been BT, because BT has done exactly what you criticised TL for doing, and cut the Acacia Ridge 117 to terminate at Wooloongabba with forced transfer. How do you explain that?

Route change - 117 Acacia Ridge
This service is proposed to not travel beyond Woolloongabba. Passengers would need to transfer onto one of the numerous alternative services from Woolloongabba.

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/buses/bus-network-review/route-117/index.htm

[ozbob]

If BT had actually cooperated with the TransLink bus review, a lot better outcome would have been achieved.  They are not a team player, only really interested in the status quo and not network improvements for all.

The BCC bus review is essentially minor changes that didn't need a major review to do at all.  Con job and selling it as the ' major bus review ' is just bull ...  and we all know it ...

[ozbob]

Interesting discussion hey lurkers?  You can always register and join in.

Register --> here!

[Andrew]

I have to say that whoever Translink had consulting them about the buses appear to have no grasp of Brisbane, it's topography and peoples travel patterns.  Why would they propose removing a direct link between Acacia Ridge and Moorooka and the Ipswich Rd corridor (a link that has existed since the tram days)?

Well it must have been BT, because BT has done exactly what you criticised TL for doing, and cut the Acacia Ridge 117 to terminate at Wooloongabba with forced transfer. How do you explain that?

I'm aware of the proposed change to the 117. Allow me to explain to make my position more clear.  In the tram days, my understanding is Sunnybank Bus Service ran a bus from Acacia Ridge to Moorooka Shops to connect with the 71/61/51 tram to the City.  Over time the trams were removed and BCC took over running the buses to Acacia Ridge.  The point I'm trying to make is that there has always been a link between Acacia Ridge and Moorooka shops.  This would have been removed underneath the Translink bus review.  To get to Moorooka Shops would have required a bus to Coopers Plains, a train one stop to Salisbury and then another bus to Moorooka and the Ipswich Rd corridor.  I'm not against having to interchange per se at some point.  A 117 being truncated at Woolloongabba still connects the Acacia Ridge area directly to Moorooka, Annerley and the PA Hospital.  Their proposal didn't even make it to Moorooka!

But one of the major routes proposed by TransLink was the HF 25 (Mount Ommaney - Oxley - Darra - Inala - Forest Lake).  This is actually connecting into 15 minute off peak rail and better at peak of course.  Would have been a wonderful public transport patronage builder and give a wide range of residential areas access to shopping,  frequent public transport and the like.  It was a Smart Bus proposal in essence. Instead the area under BCC gets  route cuts, reduced frequency with only one extra service into Darra.

I have just been at Mount Ommaney, it is a traffic nightmare today Saturday.

I agree with you.  And as I said, there are some good parts to the review which I think should be lobbied for and that is definately one of them.

The other major thing that I have an issue with is that the previous phase of consultation and proposed changes were vastly different to what came out in the final product.  it's no wonder people got upset.

[#Metro]

A 117 being truncated at Woolloongabba still connects the Acacia Ridge area directly to Moorooka, Annerley and the PA Hospital.  Their proposal didn't even make it to Moorooka!

And BT's proposal's don't make it (i.e. HF routes) to Bulimba, Centenary, Yeronga, Northwest....

[techblitz]

i like the reassurance translink gave nathan campus students by simply telling them they got 3 flash new bus routes with one of them losing high frequency at 9pm then not disclosing the finish times for the other routes

[somebody]

The other major thing that I have an issue with is that the previous phase of consultation and proposed changes were vastly different to what came out in the final product.  it's no wonder people got upset.

This was particularly annoying.  In the second phase round they wanted to run the 125 into Griffith Uni busway but in the third phase they went back to having go to Garden City as frequent route 23, to allow for the de-BUZing of the 120.  Another example was adding stops to the 137 at HPW & GreenS.  Why was all that work done on phases 1 & 2 to be thrown out with phase 3?

[HappyTrainGuy]

And yet some of the routes on the northside that have been around before Translink and even this forum was created are still around today. But hey great job on the amount of 30 minute bus frequencies up this way. Thanks to whoever thought it was a fantastic idea to make the 326 or the 327 arrive at Geebung the very exact same time that both trains arrived. No matter what if you transfered from the bus to the train you missed the train connection. If you transfered from the train to the bus you missed the bus connection. Who would have thought that prior to the northern busway that the 328 deserved to be its own route when the Boondall/Nudgee Green area were serviced by 325/335/339 buses (at the time) on the way to forming their run or after they had finished their run. Great progress for change right there! That 327 still bypassing Bracken Ridge-Strathpine in peak hour is still alive and well. A very big and huge thank you to whoever for the 338/357/359 mess. I just love trying to figure out what bus I have to get home from the shops at Albany Creek because the normal bus route that would goes and terminates elsewhere. Oh and those 1hr timetable gaps. OH OH OH AND THOSE F***ING 90-120 MINUTE FREQUENCIES/NO SUNDAY SERVICES. ARGHHHH!!!! Kudos BT. Kudos on giving us such a fantastic network!

HTG OUT!  *throws microphone*

[Andrew]

 :bi

[Golliwog]

What stumps me is they always talk of the BUZ and Cityglider routes being popular, and the key standout of these types of routes is most importantly, the minimum frequency, and secondly the span. The constant frequency is what makes them most popular I feel. Yet when it comes to routes outside of the BUZ/Cityglider network, they talk about reducing frequency because the lower frequency will be able to cope with the existing demand. What about convenience? What about connections. It really stuns me that the proposal for the 367 is that due to low off-peak patronage (which couldn't have anything to do with it being a 1 way loop...) instead of continuing to meet every second train at FG (used to be every train before the off peak timetable upgrade) and playing with how the service runs (i.e. NOT a loop!) to make it something useful, they've decided to drop it back to hourly because that's what the demand warrants. So now, if I wanted to catch a bus from Ferny Grove to Upper Kedron, not only do I have to waste time and go via Keperra, I also have to wait up to an hour for the 'privilege.'

[ozbob]

When 44% of all passengers are on 8% of all routes, there is a fundamental flaw in the network design ... and 84% of the pax are on those services between 7am and 7pm.

The TL review proposed to improve that spread by having more high frequency routes accessible to more of the Brisbane population.

Alas, now just more of the same flawed network ...

I only hope that the Brisbane failure does not overtly impact on the other regions, that is service cuts to prop up the failing Brisbane bus network ...

CBD congestion remains, CBD stop confusion remains, all that is really happening with the BT review is just cuts without any real improvements.  TransLink review was using the same resources redeployed for a much more functional network.

LM Quirk has said no drivers will lose jobs, that was the case with the TL review.  The TL review used the same resources but savings were due to more efficiency and pax gains.  BT bus network will not gain pax in the same way.  Savings with the BT review are just direct cuts, and those cuts are political in part as well.  Very poor outcome.  Emerson has failed if he accepts that outcome IMHO.

[#Metro]

Buy a deckchair and watch the titanic sink.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

28th April 2013

Re: Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses

Greetings,

The BCC Bus Review is just service cuts with no real improvements.  Many of the service cuts appear to be concentrated in ALP and  Independent wards, eg Inala / Darra bus route cuts.

There are no new services in the same way  as proposed in the TransLink Bus Review to  offset the cuts.  In Brisbane 44% of all bus passengers are on 8% of all bus routes, there is a fundamental flaw in the network design, and 84% of the passengers are on those services between 7am and 7pm.

The TransLink bus review proposed to improve that spread by having more high frequency routes accessible to more of the Brisbane population.

Can the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Mr Scott Emerson actually guarantee that bus regions outside Brisbane will not suffer cuts in service - route, frequency and span of hours,  in order to prop up the failing Brisbane Transport bus network?

Can the Minister guarantee that the fare review process presently underway will not be adversely affected by the bus review failure?

Again, the Minister needs to show some courage and stop this bus farce.  Direct Brisbane Transport to actually cooperate with TransLink and together work towards putting in place a network that combines the best features of both network plans.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Media release 27th April 2013



Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses

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 the separation of Brisbane Transport (BT) from Brisbane City Council (BCC) and bus contracts to be thrown open to competition.

The Lord Mayor can no longer be trusted to run Brisbane Transport. With too many competing public interests, political interests and commercial interests, ratepayers, taxpayers and passengers aren't getting a good deal. The BCC Bus Review does not address any of the major systemic issues with the BT bus network.

WHY

* Some of the world's highest fares: While BCC doesn't set fares, it does set costs, and obviously, higher costs equals higher fares. Transport costs in Brisbane have increased Brisbane by a whopping 35.5% over three years with only a gain of 2.9% in passengers. This is pushing up fares.

* We're paying too much: From one end of Adelaide Street to the other is $4.80 on a paper ticket. This is rising at least 7.5%, possibly higher. Enough is enough!

* The BCC Bus Tax: BCC residents pay ~ $400 dollars from rates to subsidise empty buses driving around Brisbane, waste and duplication. And 50% of the network is air!

*  Low frequency 'spaghetti' routes. Ten different bus route numbers go to the Centenary Suburbs; None are frequent or useful.

* Air first, passengers last: The BUZ network only makes up 8% of bus routes. The other 92% of routes can't be used all day or are slow, infrequent and indirect. We want routes that are fast, frequent, direct and are useful so we can get on with our lives, go to restaurants, shops, work, socialise rather than worry about bus timetables.

* Less politics: A politically independent Brisbane Transport would end high-cost vanity/political routes such Maroon CityGlider. This service cost $9 million and was funded ahead of Bulimba, the Centenary Suburbs (Jindalee, Jamboree, Mt Ommaney, Riverhills) the Northwestern Suburbs (McDowall, Albany Creek) and Yeronga, suburbs with mediocre bus services.

* Bus routes across council boundaries: Private companies are happy to run buses wherever passengers want them to go. Not Brisbane City Council!

* An independent Brisbane Transport won't play political games, and simply focus on passengers, not the next mayoral and council election or getting the local councillor's face in the local newspaper.

There is no reason why BCC could not continue to pay TransLink if it wants more service, like other councils already do and like BCC already does with its already franchised CityCat operations.

HOW

* We call on Scott Emerson, Transport Minister to throw open bus contract regions for open competition. Transit Australia Group, Grenda's and Perth's Swan Transit should all be approached.

* Management and employee buy out of Brisbane Transport is another option so that it is owned and run by it's employees, not the BCC.

* Delete all BCC's public transport functions through amending The City of Brisbane Act 2010.

Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses. After a decade of games, it's time to dump Brisbane City Council and separate Brisbane Transport.

Contact:

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

References:

1. Brisbane City Council's "not broken" bus network http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/brisbane-city-council.html

2. 26 Oct 2010: SEQ: Brisbane Transport buses and ferries ripe for state takeover http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4715.0

3. City's public transport will never improve while run by opposing sides From the Couriermail 11th April 2012 pages 18-19 http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4715.msg94499#msg94499

4. Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9756.0

5. Employee Buy Outs http://employeeownership.com.au/employee-ownership/employee-buy-outs/

6. 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?site=brisbane&program=612_morning

7. Transdev Melbourne: A BETTER WAY WITH BUSES IN MELBOURNE http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9894.0

[techblitz]

What stumps me is they always talk of the BUZ and Cityglider routes being popular, and the key standout of these types of routes is most importantly, the minimum frequency, and secondly the span. The constant frequency is what makes them most popular I feel. Yet when it comes to routes outside of the BUZ/Cityglider network, they talk about reducing frequency because the lower frequency will be able to cope with the existing demand. What about convenience? What about connections. It really stuns me that the proposal for the 367 is that due to low off-peak patronage (which couldn't have anything to do with it being a 1 way loop...) instead of continuing to meet every second train at FG (used to be every train before the off peak timetable upgrade) and playing with how the service runs (i.e. NOT a loop!) to make it something useful, they've decided to drop it back to hourly because that's what the demand warrants. So now, if I wanted to catch a bus from Ferny Grove to Upper Kedron, not only do I have to waste time and go via Keperra, I also have to wait up to an hour for the 'privilege.'

if you take a look at other loop services, these at some point during the day are also cut back from 1/2 hourly to hourly eg: 697/698 ,224/223
The 367 would need some drastic changes for it to be worthy of higher frequency in the off-peak and a bi-directional loop.
The above mentioned wynnum& peninsula loops can carry as much as 15 pax during a given section in the offpeak. 367 ive outlined before...2/3 max.
Also note that most of the other loops take a minimum 37mins to complete a rotation, serving a higher population and passing through more shopping precints,tourist areas etc.
max trip on the 367 is only 17 mins.
A superloop for this region is probably the only logical choice...servicing keperra,upper kedron,arana hills,mitchelton all at once and unifying the 367,398,397,396.

[Golliwog]

Why would you keep the loop if it's not needed? If you simply went to a shuttle: Upper Kedron>Ferny Grove Station>Great Western>Ferny Grove>Upper Kedron, you serve the same area, people in Upper Kedron keep the direct route to and from the station that they have in peak, people along Samford Rd now gain a direct route to the station as well. The only people losing out to some degree are those that were using the route to go Upper Kedron>Great Western and return as they now have the longer route in both directions. However, there aren't many things that are at the Great Western that don't have a similar shop at the Coles shops between FG high and FG primary which is also on the 367 route.

EDIT: My main point though isn't specifically focussing on this route (I was just using it because I know the area), it's that the BCC review seems to in most cases be assuming there's nothing wrong with the routing of services and that only thing that needs to be changed is the frequency and span to match demand.

[#Metro]

Sigh. It is quite useless really. Basket case.
Very little will change. Few seem to care that network planning integration and regional planning by a single agency is only true on paper, and not true in practice, and that the operator design of networks separate from rail is still well and truly alive.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

30th April 2013

Re: Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses



Greetings,

As we have argued the bus review proposed by TransLink was the correct thing to do.

As we all suspected here at RAIL Back on Track, there has been an enormous cost explosion
at Brisbane Transport, while under the direction of the Brisbane City Council. This is placing
huge pressure on TransLink to increase fares.

The Lord Mayor, Graham Quirk, has a lot of explaining to do. The Commission of Audit was
damning in its assessment.

"Increases in the payment required to be made to operators (especially to BT) for the
provision of bus services are a significant financial risk for the State." page 2-122

"Payments increased by 61% between 2008-09 and 2011-12, and are expected to increase by a further
35% between 2011-12 and 2015-16. "

The Lord Mayor, Graham Quirk, has been revealed as the key driver for the massive fare  increases
foisted upon Brisbane commuters. This is in addition to the ~ $400 Brisbane City Council
Bus Tax component in that is collected from all ratepayers before they even step on a bus.

Best wishes
Robert

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


References:

Bus boom causes council staff crunch
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bus-boom-causes-council-staff-crunch-20100914-15atl.html

Commission of Audit
http://www.commissionofaudit.qld.gov.au/reports/coa-final-report-volume-2.pdf

Media release 27th April 2013



Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses

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 the separation of Brisbane Transport (BT) from Brisbane City Council (BCC) and bus contracts to be thrown open to competition.

The Lord Mayor can no longer be trusted to run Brisbane Transport. With too many competing public interests, political interests and commercial interests, ratepayers, taxpayers and passengers aren't getting a good deal. The BCC Bus Review does not address any of the major systemic issues with the BT bus network.

WHY

* Some of the world's highest fares: While BCC doesn't set fares, it does set costs, and obviously, higher costs equals higher fares. Transport costs in Brisbane have increased Brisbane by a whopping 35.5% over three years with only a gain of 2.9% in passengers. This is pushing up fares.

* We're paying too much: From one end of Adelaide Street to the other is $4.80 on a paper ticket. This is rising at least 7.5%, possibly higher. Enough is enough!

* The BCC Bus Tax: BCC residents pay ~ $400 dollars from rates to subsidise empty buses driving around Brisbane, waste and duplication. And 50% of the network is air!

*  Low frequency 'spaghetti' routes. Ten different bus route numbers go to the Centenary Suburbs; None are frequent or useful.

* Air first, passengers last: The BUZ network only makes up 8% of bus routes. The other 92% of routes can't be used all day or are slow, infrequent and indirect. We want routes that are fast, frequent, direct and are useful so we can get on with our lives, go to restaurants, shops, work, socialise rather than worry about bus timetables.

* Less politics: A politically independent Brisbane Transport would end high-cost vanity/political routes such Maroon CityGlider. This service cost $9 million and was funded ahead of Bulimba, the Centenary Suburbs (Jindalee, Jamboree, Mt Ommaney, Riverhills) the Northwestern Suburbs (McDowall, Albany Creek) and Yeronga, suburbs with mediocre bus services.

* Bus routes across council boundaries: Private companies are happy to run buses wherever passengers want them to go. Not Brisbane City Council!

* An independent Brisbane Transport won't play political games, and simply focus on passengers, not the next mayoral and council election or getting the local councillor's face in the local newspaper.

There is no reason why BCC could not continue to pay TransLink if it wants more service, like other councils already do and like BCC already does with its already franchised CityCat operations.

HOW

* We call on Scott Emerson, Transport Minister to throw open bus contract regions for open competition. Transit Australia Group, Grenda's and Perth's Swan Transit should all be approached.

* Management and employee buy out of Brisbane Transport is another option so that it is owned and run by it's employees, not the BCC.

* Delete all BCC's public transport functions through amending The City of Brisbane Act 2010.

Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses. After a decade of games, it's time to dump Brisbane City Council and separate Brisbane Transport.

Contact:

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

References:

1. Brisbane City Council's "not broken" bus network http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/brisbane-city-council.html

2. 26 Oct 2010: SEQ: Brisbane Transport buses and ferries ripe for state takeover http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4715.0

3. City's public transport will never improve while run by opposing sides From the Couriermail 11th April 2012 pages 18-19 http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4715.msg94499#msg94499

4. Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9756.0

5. Employee Buy Outs http://employeeownership.com.au/employee-ownership/employee-buy-outs/

6. 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?site=brisbane&program=612_morning

7. Transdev Melbourne: A BETTER WAY WITH BUSES IN MELBOURNE http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9894.0

[#Metro]

This thread is about to break the 1000 views barrier, quite an achievement given that it's been up for less than 3 days... 
Clearly not as 'unpopular' as some made it out to be

[#Metro]

Courier Mail has already jumped to highlight rail, wonder if Brisbane Times will pick up the bus story? Goes well with the bus review.
Wonder what Quirk has to say at the prospect of losing the entire BT operation?   

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/premier-campbell-newman-outlines-government-response-to-commission-of-audit/story-e6freoof-1226632086888

[Andrew]

And of course QR had nothing to do with cost increases Lapdog. They've been flagged as highly inefficient hence why Scott Emerson changed their status from a  GOC. You cannot point all the blame at BT without taking that into account. Also the graph doesn't take into account service growth with significant expansion occuring between 2008 and 2012. This included several new BUZ routes and sections of Busway. The graph only represents the gross cost. Would you mind putting up the QR graph if their is one?

[#Metro]

And of course QR had nothing to do with cost increases Lapdog. They've been flagged as highly inefficient hence why Scott Emerson changed their status from a  GOC. You cannot point all the blame at BT without taking that into account. Also the graph doesn't take into account service growth with significant expansion occuring between 2008 and 2012. This included several new BUZ routes and sections of Busway. The graph only represents the gross cost. Would you mind putting up the QR graph if their is one?

Disagree. You are too busy looking at modes and not looking at networks. Of course if you have two networks, each separate, competing against each other, they're both going to be inefficient. And even if QR is inefficient, BT is still inefficient in it's own right. The two don't cancel, they just make it twice as worse.

The graph also doesn't show all the revenue that Brisbane Transport extracts from Brisbane residents through the $400 BCC Bus Tax using it's rate powers, something that QR does not have. So the cost is actually EVEN MORE!!

BT also canned the high frequency feeder service to rail in the Inala/Darra area and also the mayor spoke out against transfers and bus passengers transferring to trains. The Lord Mayor is on record as thinking that the Cleveland Line could be replaced by trams as an alternative solution to Cross River Rail and couldn't even price his proposal properly. No sympathy from me here.

The TransLink report pointed out that growth over 3 years was just 2.9% compared to 35.5% increase in costs. Simply putting more services on is not good enough unless there is some thought given to how they are spatially arranged on the ground as a 2D network. For example, a lot of money was spent on Maroon CityGlider, but no significant increase in mobility or new areas not already serviced by high frequency buses... and a massive increase in costs there to boot.

QR has had a lot of expense doing station upgrades, something that the bus network has escaped.

Also, are you involved with writing the postings on the 'Save our Service' facebook page?

[SurfRail]

And of course QR had nothing to do with cost increases Lapdog. They've been flagged as highly inefficient hence why Scott Emerson changed their status from a  GOC. You cannot point all the blame at BT without taking that into account. Also the graph doesn't take into account service growth with significant expansion occuring between 2008 and 2012. This included several new BUZ routes and sections of Busway. The graph only represents the gross cost. Would you mind putting up the QR graph if their is one?

We can certainly blame BT for being disinterested in doing anything about it.

[#Metro]

This included several new BUZ routes and sections of Busway. The graph only represents the gross cost.

New sections of busway should have REDUCED bus costs because higher speed = less fuel, less waiting in congestion, less labor costs, greater legibility and speed attracts passengers and thus fare revenue. BT didn't build the busway, so the graph doesn't show any costs for constructing the busway. QR has to maintain the tracks (CAPEX) as well as operate. BT doesn't have the costs of maintaining the busway which it runs on nor the cost for the cleaning and maintenance of the busway stations like QR does. Busway stations also don't have manned BT staff at them either.

[#Metro]

This thread has now broken the 1000 views mark!