RAIL - Back On Track Forum

https://x.com/humantransit/status/1717647401501237398?s=20

QuoteThe Division FX project consisted of the following changes, probably in roughly declining order of importance.

• Wider spacing of stops (up to 1/2 mile in some places) with no underlying local-stop service alongside it.
• A 12-minute frequency, instead of the usual 15 for Frequent Service Network lines.
• Signal priority at signals along the line.
• Improvements to sidewalks and pedestrian crossings in the outer segment.
• A short stretch of bus lane in the area that had room for one.
• Articulated buses (60 feet long, with a hinge).
• Nicer shelters with signage identifying the location and a realtime information display.
• A special green paint scheme.

Simples.

https://x.com/cycling_embassy/status/1726525864790147465?s=46&t=EDszjTErsxTIqAna7yuP-w

Quote from: Jonno on November 20, 2023, 15:44:23 PMJust Step 1. Redesign network using existing fleet (irrespective of Council boundaries) with transit/bus lanes (just paint them already) and rationalised bus stops/bike parking facilities.

Very political as Council subsidises their bus operations and would require other councils to pay or the state government to pay for cross by boundary operations. Saying that we may get the 222 being able to run to Chandler as an exception.

Quote from: verbatim9 on November 20, 2023, 19:36:25 PM

Quote from: Jonno on November 20, 2023, 15:44:23 PMJust Step 1. Redesign network using existing fleet (irrespective of Council boundaries) with transit/bus lanes (just paint them already) and rationalised bus stops/bike parking facilities.

Very political as Council subsidises their bus operations and would require other councils to pay or the state government to pay for cross by boundary operations. Saying that we may get the 222 being able to run to Chandler as an exception.

Hence why Council funding is not a good model if we want a well connected network.

Council subsidizes public transport and is contracted to provide bus services to Translink!! It is up to Translink to determine how the council subsidy is used or attributed to services that travel through the Council boundaries.

There should be no decision making powers/influence associated with the subsidy!

Quote from: RowBro on November 20, 2023, 19:37:36 PM

Quote from: verbatim9 on November 20, 2023, 19:36:25 PM

Quote from: Jonno on November 20, 2023, 15:44:23 PMJust Step 1. Redesign network using existing fleet (irrespective of Council boundaries) with transit/bus lanes (just paint them already) and rationalised bus stops/bike parking facilities.

Very political as Council subsidises their bus operations and would require other councils to pay or the state government to pay for cross by boundary operations. Saying that we may get the 222 being able to run to Chandler as an exception.

Hence why Council funding is not a good model if we want a well connected network.

Quote from: Jonno on November 20, 2023, 19:52:54 PMCouncil subsidizes public transport and is contracted to provide bus services to Translink!! It is up to Translink to determine how the council subsidy is used or attributed to services that travel through the Council boundaries.

There should be no decision making powers/influence associated with the subsidy!

They won't be changing the funding model anytime soon. Let's just push for the 222 to run to Chandler in the next year or two, as this just makes sense.

That will be up to the elected  administration!!

Quote from: verbatim9 on November 20, 2023, 19:36:25 PM

Quote from: Jonno on November 20, 2023, 15:44:23 PMJust Step 1. Redesign network using existing fleet (irrespective of Council boundaries) with transit/bus lanes (just paint them already) and rationalised bus stops/bike parking facilities.

Very political as Council subsidises their bus operations and would require other councils to pay or the state government to pay for cross by boundary operations. Saying that we may get the 222 being able to run to Chandler as an exception.

TfB already operates cross-boundary services such as 140, 150, 357 & 359. It's not a new thing.

What is the point of running the 222 to Chandler?  It's not exactly bustling outbound of Capalaba, and I'd rather see better services on the 250 and 270 first - it would be much better use of the resources to get both of them to half-hourly 7 days a week.

(There should also be bus stops at Carindale for the Redlands expresses.)

https://x.com/travis_robert/status/1730632498936184967?s=46&t=EDszjTErsxTIqAna7yuP-w

Greens roll out ambitious bus policy in bid for City Hall

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/greens-roll-out-ambitious-bus-policy-in-bid-for-city-hall-20231209-p5eq9q.html

QuoteThe Greens' bid for City Hall has stepped up a gear, with mayoral candidate Jonathan Sriranganathan to promise 15 new high-frequency bus routes.

^

Greens propose 15 new high-frequency bus routes
Buses would run every 10-15 minutes between 6am and 11:30pm.

Route   
B1   West End to Bulimba
B2   Annerley to Hamilton
B3   Milton to Teneriffe
B4   Yeronga to Coorparoo
B5   Fig Tree Pocket - Indooroopilly - Long Pocket
B6   Enoggera to Indooroopilly
B7   Enoggera to Hendra/DFO
B8   Bulimba to Corinda
B9   The Gap to Northgate
B10   Chapel Hill to Capalaba
B11   Indooroopilly to Pallara
B12   Hamilton to Upper Mt Gravatt (Garden City)
B13   Riverhills to Upper Mt Gravatt (Garden City)
B14   Eatons Hill to Banyo
B15   Wacol to Springwood

They are proposing a mix of upgrades and new cross-town bus routes. They are running with a proposal similar to member Jonno's route numbering with a B prefix.

Source for the policy documentation:

https://www.jonathansri.com/busboost

QuoteBus Boost to Revolutionise Public Transport
Doubling high frequency buses & connecting suburbs directly.
Part of the Greens' Public and Active Transport platform for the March 2024 Brisbane City Council election.

Getting around most of Brisbane without a car is slow, frustrating and sometimes impossible. If you don't live near a train station or a decent bus route, public transport means long wait times, and buses that arrive late or never at all. Even high frequency services routinely get stuck in peak hour traffic.

Right now public transport isn't a real option for so many people. It's no wonder so many Brisbane residents still choose to drive.

In the last 10 years, the LNP Council has created just one new frequent bus service (in the Gabba Ward), and only because of Greens pressure. Over their 20 years in power, they've wasted billions on road widening and toll road projects that only make traffic worse.

The LNP and Labor don't have a serious vision for fixing public transport anytime soon.

The Greens want every Brisbane resident to have a frequent, reliable bus. We want a bus network that gives everyone the freedom to leave their cars at home.

Better public transport helps everyone. It takes cars off the road and makes our streets quieter and safer. It cuts climate pollution and revitalises local shopping strips.

A Greens-led Brisbane City Council would:
- Create 15 new high frequency bus routes, doubling the number of high frequency services to link suburbs directly without needing to go through the CBD.
- Upgrade 10 existing bus routes with frequency upgrades or extensions.
- Let buses skip traffic jams by creating 13 bus priority corridors on key arterial roads which already carry frequent buses.

Sent to all outlets:

Greens Policy - Brisbane: Doubling high frequency buses & connecting suburbs directly

11th December 2023

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web-based community group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has welcomed The Greens latest policy announcement to essentially double the high frequency buses and connect suburbs directly (1,2).

The Brisbane City Council Bus network is broken.

RAIL Back On Track has been lobbying Translink and Brisbane City Council for 10 years to prioritise BUZ bus frequency upgrades for existing bus routes. In 2014, our members put together a detailed proposal for redesigning Brisbane's Bus Network, which we sent to Brisbane City Council and the Queensland Government (3).

We would like to see known public transport blackspots such as Bulimba, Centenary, Yeronga and Albany Creek fixed before the 2032 Olympics. More BUZ routes to these suburbs would be ideal.

Bus reform is the fastest and cheapest way to improve public transport and increase patronage. It requires virtually no new infrastructure, can be delivered within one term of office, and at a fraction of the cost of infrastructure projects. Brisbane City Council's own data shows just how incredibly effective the high-frequency BUZ routes are, with 100% or more increases in patronage reported (4).

We think that Translink and Brisbane City Council can come to a co-funding agreement to fund new high-frequency BUZ bus routes ahead of the 2032 Olympics.

Under such an agreement, Translink and the Queensland Government could release funds for one new BUZ route in exchange for BCC removing two old bus routes from the BCC bus network. This could be up to a pre-set limit of say 15 new BUZ routes, with funding released progressively as BCC updates its bus network.

RAIL Back On Track looks forward to Lord Mayoral candidates Adrian Schrinner (LNP) and Tracey Price (Labor), among other candidates, announcing their policies on public transport.

References:

(1) Greens roll out ambitious bus policy in bid for City Hall
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/greens-roll-out-ambitious-bus-policy-in-bid-for-city-hall-20231209-p5eq9q.html

(2) Jonathan Sriranganathan: Bus Boost to Revolutionise Public Transport
Doubling high frequency buses & connecting suburbs directly
https://www.jonathansri.com/busboost

(3) Brisbane buses: Call for CityGlider in Centenary suburbs
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-buses-call-for-cityglider-in-centenary-suburbs-20141105-11gxl3.html

(4) BUZ Routes, Frequency + Reliability - the winning formula
https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/6058

(5) 15 Aug 2022: BCC Must Expand BUZ and Brisbane Metro to Solve Northside Traffic
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14787.0

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

Facebook ...

What a great start!!

Note:

QuoteBeyond the joint funding agreement with the State government, Council would consider how to further consolidate any existing services which might be duplicated or redundant as a result of the 15 new and 10 upgraded high frequency routes. Consolidating services would make best use of the available drivers, vehicles and funding.

No offence but it's a pretty sh%t proposal for the Northside. Just slap some lines on a map and you have a HF Network doesn't work. It might help get some votes from those oblivious voters but it's an empty deal. I am a MBCC resident so don't say I'm biased. Some of those HF routes are just downright stupid and just scream "look how much money we can also waste" all because it ticks some boxes. Why catch a HF bus a couple stops to Northgate/nundah/virginia/banyo when you will get slugged extra due to the network fare zone? That's part of the current issue why bus patronage is so low in the area, why fare evasion is so high Northgate-Nudgee and Northgate-Geebung but more importantly why people prefer to drive a short distance. $300-$500 a year is a good incentive not to use buses or fare evade. God forbid should you look into Milton fare evasion and how rife that is. Yes that's a state problem but if you start proposing hf routes and playing public transport planner you need to address the existing problems otherwise you are still part of the problem. I'll keep harping until the cows come home. There were a few issues with the proposed translink network from more than a decade ago but it was the best network the Northside had from a design point, actual use case but more very more importantly from a redundancy standpoint should there be an issue with the train/bus/road network. Yes yes yes I know it's a start blah blah blah but that's not the fundamental problem with the Northside network.

HTG wouldn't that issue with the extra fares have occurred with the 2013 bus network review?

Also, what about bus to bus transfers? Having more east west routes makes this possible, and they are not subject to a fare penalty.

Overall, its a pretty decent proposal. It shows how much there is to do in terms of improving the network and should hopefully get locals agitating for improvements.


Main sore point for me is the 369 / Old Northern Rd getting overlooked again lol.
B12 going to Northshore seems odd.

Very clever policy, and a reflection of members' advocacy in making proposals and HF network maps over the last decade for Translink and BCC.

The policy is very clever as essentially every ward gets a new or upgraded bus route. And broad support from every ward is helpful if you're running for Lord Mayor as it isn't tied to any ward in particular, but the whole city in general.

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on December 11, 2023, 08:25:01 AMNo offence but it's a pretty sh%t proposal for the Northside.

At a quick glance, it's a pretty basic copy of bus network reform happening in most jurisdictions taking this stuff seriously. The basic formula for modern bus network design is to abandon the 'all routes to a central point' model and push for a mesh of high-frequency services running a consistent all-day timetable.

The Greens proposal is extremely basic in that sense, I would doubt the level of consideration and expert analysis that went into it is adequate for actual implementation. It would be akin to me having a go in my spare time, using only publically available resources and public consultation that stretches only so far as my own direct contacts.

However the broader concept is fine, the idea that this is what we could be working towards is perfectly reasonable, and if nothing else it is highlighting the sort of work the current powers at be should be doing.

So yeah, full points for getting the convo happening and bringing some awareness to what we could have, but it's still just a council election promise being thrown around with little thought for actual implementation.

One thing I would critic though is the quality of the presentation. Does no one in the greens have access to Illustrator, or know how to use GIS software? With PowerPoint alone you could me a very fancy-looking route diagram of all this stuff... QGis, a free open-source GIS program, could let them swap out that Google Maps sketch for a proper map. As silly as it may be, that kind of stuff can make a real difference between the public perception being legitimate, professional proposal and random university student's bus fantasy map.

Agree with Marshal. Some of the routes look Ok, some of them look very "back of the napkin". Needs a more thorough investigation but it's an excellent proposal in principal

HTG: You often bring up this issue with fare evasion at these key stations like it's a major roadblock to route/infrastructure upgrades. I fail to see how these problems couldn't be fixed by moving these stations into a different zone. Or make them two zone interchanges like the old zone system had. You could change the zone boundaries overnight

Quote from: Gazza on December 11, 2023, 09:20:09 AMHTG wouldn't that issue with the extra fares have occurred with the 2013 bus network review?

Also, what about bus to bus transfers? Having more east west routes makes this possible, and they are not subject to a fare penalty.

Overall, its a pretty decent proposal. It shows how much there is to do in terms of improving the network and should hopefully get locals agitating for improvements.


Main sore point for me is the 369 / Old Northern Rd getting overlooked again lol.
B12 going to Northshore seems odd.

Yes and no. Fare evasion yes was always going to happen but also at the same time translink were also trying to push for 4tph on the Kippa Ring-Springfield line to maximise the use of all the new rail-bus interchanges and routes. It was a new network effectively as opposed to the political hype of adding a few new routes going east-west. Which is why it worked for the Northside. The new routes provided north and south but also your east-west.

Quote from: Marshal on December 11, 2023, 09:35:03 AM

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on December 11, 2023, 08:25:01 AMNo offence but it's a pretty sh%t proposal for the Northside.

At a quick glance, it's a pretty basic copy of bus network reform happening in most jurisdictions taking this stuff seriously. The basic formula for modern bus network design is to abandon the 'all routes to a central point' model and push for a mesh of high-frequency services running a consistent all-day timetable.

The Greens proposal is extremely basic in that sense, I would doubt the level of consideration and expert analysis that went into it is adequate for actual implementation. It would be akin to me having a go in my spare time, using only publically available resources and public consultation that stretches only so far as my own direct contacts.

However the broader concept is fine, the idea that this is what we could be working towards is perfectly reasonable, and if nothing else it is highlighting the sort of work the current powers at be should be doing.

So yeah, full points for getting the convo happening and bringing some awareness to what we could have, but it's still just a council election promise being thrown around with little thought for actual implementation.

One thing I would critic though is the quality of the presentation. Does no one in the greens have access to Illustrator, or know how to use GIS software? With PowerPoint alone you could me a very fancy-looking route diagram of all this stuff... QGis, a free open-source GIS program, could let them swap out that Google Maps sketch for a proper map. As silly as it may be, that kind of stuff can make a real difference between the public perception being legitimate, professional proposal and random university student's bus fantasy map.

Not sure how much you know about the old translink review but basically for the Northside it was a complete rewrite. No route was safe including the 340 buz which was cut as part of the review. The Chermside-Carseldine section of the 340 made up the west side of a loop route that included Aspley bus interchange, carseldine rail interchange, Taigum bus interchange, boondal rail interchange, Geebung rail interchange and Chermside bus interchange in the one route. There were more Chermside-Strathpine routes but these were also your east-west-north-south hf feeder routes. Eg if you lived on beams road near the roundabout you could catch the loop route to Chermside, you could catch the loop route to carseldine, Taigum or Aspley interchanges for a rail or hf bus connection (in the case of Taigum you could catch the 330 buz on handford road or the 325 hf route at the interchange - they had new numbering aswell which I can't remember what they were). Same with the other feeders you could simply catch it to a hf corridor and interchange. You also had your east/west corridors such as the 369 and new ones such as the northern loop along beams road and a new Bracken ridge to Deagon/sandgate. Still hands down the best network proposal for Brisbanes Northside and on all 6 occasions bcc told Brisbane transport not to attend network planning meetings with translink. The only operator from the border to Gympie that did not attend or provide any feedback. Instead political interference from bcc and the state wrecked everything. State then gave council responsibility to redesign the network. All the Northside then got out of the extensive bcc review was a slower timetable on Webster road routes as they couldn't meet otp due to traffic congestion and the inbound 335 now using the taigum interchange as a stop instead of the inbound stop on beams road

^ A rewrite is probably the only way to fix the northside, but let's be real, the Greens were never going to propose that either. They don't really believe in service rationalisation for example.

I'd hope it's a given in this forum that transport planners, not political staffers, should be designing the network. But this is BCC we're talking about, all three parties over-politicise PT. Within the current reality, the Greens policy is good in that it generates a lot of awareness and makes clear some easy improvements.

In fairness to the greens, they do say:

QuoteBeyond the joint funding agreement with the State government, Council would consider how to further consolidate any existing services which might be duplicated or redundant as a result of the 15 new and 10 upgraded high frequency routes. Consolidating services would make best use of the available drivers, vehicles and funding.

Im being pragmatic here, yeah a full redesign would be good, but at the same time, the routes they are proposing do look like the sorts of routes you'd do in a ground up network anyway. Get these in place and perhaps patronage will fall enough on the useless routes that you can start truncating and pruning.

For the northside, I'd want to boost the 325 and the 359 and then you'd have a fairly complete network. Yeah you could chuck in that 2013 review northside loop too and suck the 340 into that, but if the northside had this, plus rail frequency upgrades off peak I could live with this:

You don't go to election promising to redesign.

You do that when you have time to educate, collaborate, communicate and get it right! It's the concept and ideas that matter here. 

Agree with Jonno.

Bus reform is now one party's election platform. This is an excellent advocacy outcome in itself.

Let's see if other parties adopt it. Comments in social media and reddit are very supportive.

Couriermail --> Greens propose 15 new bus routes, 10 upgrades, 13 added corridors to boost Brisbane transport network $

QuoteAn ambitious plan to overhaul Brisbane's bus network so school students can catch a bus rather than parents and carers being "unpaid taxi drivers" ha been proposed by the Greens.

The Greens have announced an ambitious plan to add 15 new bus routes to Brisbane's transport network to save commuters from travelling through the city centre.

Under the plan, 13 priority lanes would be created to allow buses to skip through traffic and 10 existing routes would be upgraded or expanded to bring them to "high-frequency" capacity.

The 15 new proposed routes and 10 upgraded routes would cover 395km, while the number of high-frequency routes would increase from 21 to 43, which the Greens claim would "allow residents to get nearly anywhere by bus". ...

====

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1734225552251474282?s=20

It's a good conversation piece, so kudos to them for pushing this.

Sent to all outlets:

Revisited: 10 years of RBOT campaigning on BUZ upgrades and bus reform

12th December 2023

RAIL Back On Track (https://backontrack.org) a web-based community group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has welcomed the Green's latest policy announcement to double the Brisbane City Council BUZ network (1).

About 10 years ago, and after a series of failed Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council bus reviews, our own members put together a bus reform proposal for Brisbane.

Among other things, we proposed a massive boost to the BUZ high-frequency bus network. Our work was published by Tony Moore at the Brisbane Times and is still available online (2). Brisbane City Council and the Queensland Government were made aware of the proposals, which they were asked to comment on:

"Fairfax Media asked both council and the Queensland government for their views on Rail: Back on Track's suggestions in detailed questions."

"Neither replied, nor did the then Assistant Minister for Public Transport Steve Minnikin."

"Queensland Transport did not respond to Fairfax Media's questions."

"Council did not answer the questions, but sent a two-paragraph response ..."

Our point is, both Brisbane City Council and the Queensland Government have been well aware of the issues with the Brisbane City Council Bus Network for over a decade. We have good reason to believe that in the future, the Brisbane City Council LGA will be flooded with potentially 1 million new car trips per day (3). What is their response?

Rather than expand high-frequency BUZ bus service to ordinary residents in Brisbane's suburbs, Brisbane City Council and the Queensland Government have chosen to chase 'Car Rapid Transport' proposals and facilitate toll road tunnels instead.

It is not too late to make a different choice.

There is a reason why incumbent parties are slowly losing seats to Greens and independent candidates at all levels of government. It is about time they reflected on what that reason might be, and come up with sensible policy alternatives for the community.

We look forward to other political parties and candidates contesting the 2024 Brisbane City Council Elections announcing their policies on public transport.

References

(1) Greens Policy - Brisbane: Doubling high frequency buses & connecting suburbs directly
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg278053#msg278053

(2) Brisbane buses: Call for CityGlider in Centenary suburbs
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-buses-call-for-cityglider-in-centenary-suburbs-20141105-11gxl3.html

(3) Are 1 million new car trips per day set to flood the Brisbane LGA?
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=13410.msg273375#msg273375

(4) Greens propose 15 new bus routes, 10 upgrades, 13 added corridors to boost Brisbane transport network https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/greens-propose-15-new-bus-routes-10-upgrades-13-added-corridors-to-boost-brisbane-transport-network/news-story/3f28a9859d3990625130a4947e6c5907

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

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on December 11, 2023, 08:25:01 AMSome of those HF routes are just downright stupid and just scream "look how much money we can also waste" all because it ticks some boxes.

Which ones in particular?

QuoteWhy catch a HF bus a couple stops to Northgate/nundah/virginia/banyo when you will get slugged extra due to the network fare zone? That's part of the current issue why bus patronage is so low in the area, why fare evasion is so high Northgate-Nudgee and Northgate-Geebung but more importantly why people prefer to drive a short distance.

Isn't this going to be a problem wherever a system has fares based on zones? No matter where the zone boundary is drawn, the people just outside it will try to avoid the extra cost. It seems to me the only way to eliminate this problem is to eliminate zones and have flat fares. But even then, fare evasion will always exist, until the day there are no longer any fares, or every single railway station and bus has ticket inspectors.

QuoteYes that's a state problem but if you start proposing hf routes and playing public transport planner you need to address the existing problems otherwise you are still part of the problem.

The plan on Jonathan Sri's website said they wanted free public transport because of climate action, cost of living relief and congestion. Reading between the lines, I don't think they really care about the issue of fare evasion. Climate action and reduced congestion simply involve people not driving, regardless of whether they're paying for the bus or not, and people could be evading fares because of how much they're struggling with the cost of living.

Quote from: Cygnus on December 12, 2023, 11:22:09 AMIsn't this going to be a problem wherever a system has fares based on zones? No matter where the zone boundary is drawn, the people just outside it will try to avoid the extra cost. It seems to me the only way to eliminate this problem is to eliminate zones and have flat fares. But even then, fare evasion will always exist, until the day there are no longer any fares, or every single railway station and bus has ticket inspectors.

I think the issue (and one that is fixable) is to get rid of all remaining wrinkles where an adjacent bus stop and train station are in separate fare zones for travel in the same direction.  I'd have to look but understand there are still a number of them.

For the really lineball ones, we could just have more of them set up so it is a soft rather than hard boundary (ie you get charged for zone 1 inbound but zone 2 outbound, for anything leaving that station and whether it is on rails or not).

Quote from: Cygnus on December 12, 2023, 11:22:09 AM

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on December 11, 2023, 08:25:01 AMSome of those HF routes are just downright stupid and just scream "look how much money we can also waste" all because it ticks some boxes.

Which ones in particular?

QuoteWhy catch a HF bus a couple stops to Northgate/nundah/virginia/banyo when you will get slugged extra due to the network fare zone? That's part of the current issue why bus patronage is so low in the area, why fare evasion is so high Northgate-Nudgee and Northgate-Geebung but more importantly why people prefer to drive a short distance.

Isn't this going to be a problem wherever a system has fares based on zones? No matter where the zone boundary is drawn, the people just outside it will try to avoid the extra cost. It seems to me the only way to eliminate this problem is to eliminate zones and have flat fares. But even then, fare evasion will always exist, until the day there are no longer any fares, or every single railway station and bus has ticket inspectors.

QuoteYes that's a state problem but if you start proposing hf routes and playing public transport planner you need to address the existing problems otherwise you are still part of the problem.

The plan on Jonathan Sri's website said they wanted free public transport because of climate action, cost of living relief and congestion. Reading between the lines, I don't think they really care about the issue of fare evasion. Climate action and reduced congestion simply involve people not driving, regardless of whether they're paying for the bus or not, and people could be evading fares because of how much they're struggling with the cost of living.

Toombul, Nundah and Northgate railway stations are zone 1. Toombul bus station is the zone change for the bus network. Kedron Brook is the boundary change line. 3 train stops difference is quite a gap. If you live east of the railway station and use the 307 feeder a trip to the city costs the same as someone from Warner catching the bus + train or in Brighton catching the 310 to Sandgate and catching the train to the city. Same applies for residents at Nundah and Northgate. The bus stop outside Northgate station is zone 2. Any bus/train transfer from Toombul-Northgate is a 2 zone trip. It's a bug in the fare zone but no one wants to address it as it becomes political. Yes it's those north but it's also those locally next to the line that avoid it.

In a nutshell. Move the zone change to a stop not on the express line. That prevents the nudgee/Geebung ones that touch on at Northgate for the zone change. Brings the bus network into the same zone as the trains. It also changes the mindset of those simply driving from banyo/Geebung to Northgate now having to drive to Toombul etc. it's not a difficult fix. And as SR mentions there's full of similar bugs across the seq network.

Brain dump of thoughts:

New routes

B1 – Support strongly, connects inner area. CBD access will be easy via Cross River Rail or Busway interchange.
 
B2 – An important bit of bus infrastructure would be to do something on the southern end of the Storey bridge to get a major bus stop in place, close to the new Deakin street cycle/walk link, so people on the point can easily access the B2, as well as people coming across the new footbridge from the CBD.
Consider going south through to Moorooka shops. This is an urban centre with density that currently has no frequent network access. Doing this would allow for connections with the B8.
 
B3 – Go Via Gregory Terrace to connect with Exhibition Cross River Rail station.
 
B4 – Send this one to Yeerongpilly Green in lieu of 196. This is a crosstown route, so it makes more sense to terminate it at an urban centre.
 
B5 – Perfect route, for low density areas, the focus should be on connections with other routes and rail for CBD access. Consider sending via Lone Pine Sanctuary.
 
B6 – Agree that Wardell St / Frederick St corridor needs high frequency.  As a general rule, cross town routes work better if they are anchored at  major destination with multiple connections. Enoggera doesn't have a whole lot going on around the station.
So at the north end, run through a short distance to Mitchelton and Brookside. At southern end,  perhaps run from Toowong to UQ.
 
B7 – Same comments as above, run along Gordon pde to terminate Brookside / Mitchelton instead of Enoggera. Comment: There is already a cross town route that is similar to this, 369, so perhaps this route proposal could be an upgrade of the existing route rather than a new one.
 
B8 - Great cross town link! There is a case for the B8 to go to Cannon hill Kmart bus interchange instead of Balmoral to avoid duplicating the 235. This would offer a wider range of connections (220, B12), with the added bonus of providing frequent buses along the stretch of Wynnum Rd around Morningside Central shops.

B9 -  Good cross town route.
B10- Great Route, though will need to go head to head with UQ senate to get permission to link the internal road network with Eleanor Schonell Bridge. Will need bus bollards.

B11- Great route in terms of providing coverage to under served areas of Richlands etc.
Around Mt Ommaney, the route should travel the length of Dandenong Rd and Yallambee Rd to provide more access. Staying on the Centenary highway means you miss too many people in an area already lacking access to frequent services.

B12 - Useful corridor, but bear in mind the 590 is already quite similar to this proposal. May be worth upgrading or modifying the 590 instead.

B13 - Great cross town route. Kessels road has had heaps spent on in terms of widening, but little in terms of public transport there. The demand for direct East to West travel is there, but the bus connections are not.
There may be a case to run the route along Boundary Rd & McCullough St instead. This would provide connections to Coopers Plains station, Sunnybank plaza and then enter Garden City from the south.

B14 - Good Cross town route that finally gives Eatons Hill access to frequent services.
B15 - This route is an excellent proposal i have considered myself. It is also useful because it creates a shortcut between Ipswich and Logan

Extensions / Upgrades
100 – Useful extension.

196- Should go to Yeronga Peninsular via Hyde Rd instead of B4 instead of paralleling the rail line. At this location most demand will be radial.

390 – I feel in the Ferny Grove area it is more important to get buses to people further away from the rail line as a matter of equity to maximise coverage, eg a route from Upper Kedron to Ferny Grove, then along Patricks Rd to Arana Hills Kmart, then Dawson Pde to Grovley, then Mitchelton.  Samford Rd is quite close to the rail line, so its not giving access to as many 'new people' as you could.

 
444- Not bad. Solves a common local complaint.
 
175- Excellent! Agree. As I understand it this upgrade is a bit of a fait accompli anyway as part of suburban bus changes for Brisbane Metro.
 
192 – Ehhhh, would it not be cheaper to just extend the Blue Glider to UQ along the 192 routing since the two overlap anyhow?
 
220 – Good to give better services to Wynnum for the mass of suburbia that is not in the catchment of rail. Arguably the 215 is an equal candidate for upgrades, the two would cover off the area well, and the 215 serves Wynnum plaza.
 
235 – Strongly support, and complements B1

380- Support, but when it comes to implementation, look at how the 370 and B9 interact. At least 1 route should go split to along Payne Rd to spread the love a bit and ensure the southern bits of the Gap have access to high frequency. An example solution is below.
 
390 – No comments.
 
470 – At the New Farm end, run direct down the length of James St to Terminate at the Brisbane powerhouse
 

Other areas of interest
Obviously, it's not possible to upgrade everything at once, and this plan does go a long way.
However, I feel the following services and areas remain as lingering major 'gaps' in the system.
Southside
Acacia Ridge sits in a gap between the 100 to Inala and the 130 to Parkinson. Could be fixed with an upgrade to the 110 or 115, or a B16 that is a simple feeder from Acacia Ridge to Coopers Plains station, and then perhaps to QE2 Hospital and Garden City, to provide a good range of connections and useful destinations.

Northside.
The 325 is an important route to upgrade since it fills in a few gaps between the existing BUZ routes. Implementing this would mean most people are within walking distance of a frequent service, and would help the suburbs of Grange, Geebung, Taigum and Boondall.
In addition, the Old Northern Road corridor is dreadfully underserviced. Coordination should occur between MBRC and Translink. This route could terminate at Mitchelton.









Eastside.
As discussed previously, upgrading the 215 would complement the 220 and allow most people in the Wynnum and Manly area to access frequent buses.
A lingering network design issue in the east is that all frequent routes (222, 200, 209, and the proposed B10) go via Old Clevleand Rd. This is great for people on that road, but it means people beyond walking distance miss out.
A more equitable distribution would mean having some frequent routes using Stanley Rd and Meadowlands Rd, and others using Chatsworth Rd and Samuel St. This simple move would triple the number of residents within walking distance of frequent buses.

Only problem is MBRC don't really control the buses up that way. Thompsons cover that and they don't have a large fleet of compliant buses. They provide more charter services during the week than they do bus routes. It's pretty sh%t that all the routes are hourly all day including during peak hour. So you need Thompsons, bcc and translink/state government to come to the park to play ball. IIRC 338/357/359 are similar to the 326/327. BCC preferred to outsource 326/327 operations to Hornibrook for better fleet annd crew positioning and maintain the 338/357/359 routes for their own operations. From what I have been told this is why the 338/357/359 has random running patterns around Albany Creek. p%ssing off locals was a side benefit but the main reason was for better fleet positioning of routes closer to Brisbane when Ascot and Deagon were bus depots. Now not so important but legacy remains because it's not an bcc area. All the more reason to take planning and control out of council hands and have the state provide this. Bcc provide nearly a 1/3 of the funding for Brisbane bus routes but that's only because it's been used as a political tool instead of a service. Just look how routes just keep getting longer. There's a very high casual employment load combined with higher pay to ensure drivers stay there to ensure the network doesn't go to sh%t on top of a very inefficient network design. This practice has lured drivers from other operators in Ipswich and Redlands.

What are the downsides to making fares based on distance travelled as the crow flies based on your starting location? Eg. 0-20km, 21-50, 50-100, etc. I don't see how it would be difficult to implement and it achieves functionally the same thing we have now but is much fairer to those who live on zone boundaries.

Sorry, I can't see this Greens proposal getting up.

If there was demand they would increase the frequency of the 599/98 now.

This will just be brushed off as election spin.

Saying that, bus routes and frequency will be upgraded over time in line with the second consultation phase.

They likely won't implement anything new until about a year after implementing phase one of the current bus review, coinciding with the commissioning of the new metro bus lines.

Quote from: verbatim9 on December 12, 2023, 18:25:09 PMSorry, I can't see this Greens proposal getting up.

If there was demand they would increase the frequency of the 599/98 now.

This will just be brushed off as election spin.

Just because there is demand doesn't mean the government acts.
I would say there is strong demand for improvements to a lot of the network, but it hasn't been done.

To increase the frequency of the 599 is a huge commitment, and some sections are a bit silly anyway. The design of the 599 is driven by the need to be a full loop, which inherently limits you from doing longer unbroken north south or east west runs.

It would be difficult to increase frequency on both low demand and high demand sections at the same time.

They already operate the 598 in a segmented style. It's not one bus that loops around all day.

The Greens proposal is rubbish between Enoggera and Indooroopilly as it's just a carbon copy of the 598 between those two points.

The 598/599 can be improved to run 20 mins or better 7 days, hence every 10 mins in peak if need be.