RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Quote from: #Metro on May 31, 2024, 20:14:02 PMWe all know what needs to be done. Just run more services during off-peak and weekends. Simpler network, BUZ down main arterials and BRT metro on the main axes and busways.

PT is provided for about 20 hours per day. Peak hours are only about 4 hours of those, or about 20%.

The majority of trips, both car and PT are happening *outside* of peak and so that growth needs to come from off-peak, evenings and weekends where there isn't a congestion-based case.

That's where you're going to get mode shift.

Looking at the congestion choking our city during peak and now off peak is not Just off peak and weekends.  It those but it is also peak. It's kids being driven to schools It's trips to local shops. It's all these things. It's a paradigm/cultural shift. 

QuoteLooking at the congestion choking our city during peak and now off peak is not Just off peak and weekends.  It those but it is also peak. It's kids being driven to schools It's trips to local shops. It's all these things. It's a paradigm/cultural shift.

We are actually in agreement (I think). My basic point is that you don't necessarily need a congestion basis to justify service upgrades to PT.

You'll get the growth anyway in uncongested conditions if you put decent service on. This is what we see with the BUZ data. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/6058

Quote from: Warren (2007)Sunday patronage now higher than previous weekday patronage on most routes

Correct Cr Murphy Buses 

I've seen one (or possibly multiple) Metro vehicles going up and down the busway during morning peak over the past couple of weeks

Quote from: #Metro on May 31, 2024, 20:14:02 PMThe majority of trips, both car and PT are happening *outside* of peak and so that growth needs to come from off-peak, evenings and weekends where there isn't a congestion-based case.

That's where you're going to get mode shift.

I think you are spot on. That's where the potential is.

If you look at journey to work data for jobs located in areas that are well served by peak hour, peak direction PT (such as CBD and major suburban employment centres like Toowong, Herston, or Mount Gravatt), the PT mode share is shockingly high.  Like 20-25% PT, 10-15% active.  And for everywhere else, the journey to work mode share for cars is in the high 90% range, with everything else amounting to just a few percent.

What I take away from this is that routes that offer a fast, frequent and fuss free service are already performing very well. Improvements to these services are, however, quite difficult or expensive (the metro being the platonic ideal of this). Off peak or counter peak services, by comparison, do not offer good service and any journey that involves one of these routes is automatically not worth the cost (either time, money or inconvenience) for most people. Making meaningful improvements to these off peak and counter peak services is, however, really very achievable.

Improvements to the 111 requires a new tunnel, extended platforms, an extra depot and a fleet of super-long buses.  Improvements to an off peak or counter peak bus might only require a couple of extra services every hour, or a bigger off peak fare discount. For a given amount of money, I think a lot more could be done outside of the peak hours.

They have opened up the areas of the platforms that they were working on at KGS last Monday. Platform screen doors are operational as well as the new PIDs. Although they have temporarily suspended all door boarding from that station, yet people can still alight from the rear doors.

Part two

I thought I had posted this previously but maybe I never hit saved. 

With the routes being replaced by the M1 and M2 buses all using the same stop in KGS (maybe others) why not change the current buses numbers to be M1 and M2 to get people used to the change? 

A change in bus number isn't something you need to get "used to" ?

Quote from: Gazza on June 17, 2024, 09:17:23 AMA change in bus number isn't something you need to get "used to" ?

so just implement it now then.  Sure the new buses are not ready by why not just get going with it?

Why though?

Why not?

Because there is no point in changing things for the sake of it.
None.

If it was up to me they would still be called the 111 and the 66 even after the project is complete.

Quote from: SurfRail on June 17, 2024, 16:06:54 PMIf it was up to me they would still be called the 111 and the 66 even after the project is complete.

I think this might be Jonno's point. I agree, though - change route identifiers when the service is measurably changed or possibly to make things clearer.

M1 and M2 break the logic of the current route numbering system by introducing chronological numbering when the current system is based on area geographies.

The citygliders also depart from this. M2 ideally should be going to Carindale, M3 to Chermside, M4 passing though Indooroopilly etc.

Can see where you are coming from, but if Brisbane ever gets train line numbering then that's gonna break the geographical pattern anyhow.

And I think in the past members have advocated (and I have agreed) for even simplifying numbers for the frequent network. Eg use numbers like B10 B11, B12

Quote from: Gazza on June 18, 2024, 08:37:41 AMCan see where you are coming from, but if Brisbane ever gets train line numbering then that's gonna break the geographical pattern anyhow.

And I think in the past members have advocated (and I have agreed) for even simplifying numbers for the frequent network. Eg use numbers like B10 B11, B12

I guess if we go to two digit numbers for the frequent network we're basically saying that we can only have so many frequent radial routes though :p

Also the only vaguely sensible way to do it is to have two-digit numbers that align with the first two digits of the existing three-digit number, but we have a heap of clashes (340 vs 345 is the most obvious, but also does the 380 or 385 have the claim on "38"?). And clearly the 60 and 61 belong to the Sunshine Coast, etc etc

Quote from: aldonius link=msg=284885I guess if we go to two digit numbers for the frequent network we're basically saying that we can only have so many frequent radial routes though :p

That's when you whip out the Hexadecimal numbering!

Route FF has a good ring to it! A special deviation could even append an S to the route.

Just to let everyone know that they have moved away from letters in Adelaide in terms of bus route numbering. The Metro thing they are doing here in Brisbane is different to help differentiate from buses.

Quote from: aldonius on June 18, 2024, 08:48:04 AM

Quote from: Gazza on June 18, 2024, 08:37:41 AMCan see where you are coming from, but if Brisbane ever gets train line numbering then that's gonna break the geographical pattern anyhow.

And I think in the past members have advocated (and I have agreed) for even simplifying numbers for the frequent network. Eg use numbers like B10 B11, B12

I guess if we go to two digit numbers for the frequent network we're basically saying that we can only have so many frequent radial routes though :p

Also the only vaguely sensible way to do it is to have two-digit numbers that align with the first two digits of the existing three-digit number, but we have a heap of clashes (340 vs 345 is the most obvious, but also does the 380 or 385 have the claim on "38"?). And clearly the 60 and 61 belong to the Sunshine Coast, etc etc

why? These numbers are interesting that they geographical but ultimately people just need to relate the route number to the actual route.  I catch a bus because I know it's route not because I have magically worked it out from the number combination!

Quote from: Jonno on June 18, 2024, 10:46:54 AMwhy? These numbers are interesting that they geographical but ultimately people just need to relate the route number to the actual route.  I catch a bus because I know it's route not because I have magically worked it out from the number combination!

The way I see it:

(1) For some people (maybe most!) the route number is just an identifier with no further meaning.
(2) But for others the number can have a meaning (e.g. today's numbers encode geography to an extent).

But giving the route numbers a meaning doesn't harm group 1 and benefits group 2, so we should do it! And if it's worth doing it's worth doing properly, etc.

Its funny, I have read threads on reddit and very few people realise 300 = northside, 100 = southside etc.

Even fewer probably realize that a route ending in 0 or 5 (Eg 175, 340) are the "main ones", but only a small subset of those are HF.
Eg 750 is HF, great! But 735 you might expect to be, but its not.

I do reckon something like B1 - B99 would be quite recognizable for a main route, and to be honest, if we had a proper frequent network, many of those routes will be crossing regions, or even cross city, so perhaps less important.
You can of course encode the region if you need to.
The northside only has 4 HF routes, so you could easily fit ten routes (30, 31.....39)
Western suburbs are even worse, with only 2 HF routes...You could probably donate some numbers to Ipswich or the Gap area logically.
Eg Moggil 40, St Lucia 41, Gap 48.

Of anywhere, the GC is the most constrained, there's already 9 HF routes and that  could easily increase....

Pre-Translink route numbering was a total mess and wildly inconsistent across regions.

I think Toronto, Canada has a relevant system. Rail lines get the lowest numbers along with trams, then buses.

If applied to trains we probably need to distinguish between lines (physical infrastructure) and routes (actual path of the specific service) as a service does not always run the entire length of a line.

I don't think we need to add a letter to signify the mode, this adds very little to the customer's experience and should be set aside for indicating service modifications (e.g. express, rail replacement etc).

The problem with BCC is they exercise a dual transit agency role and seem to always want "differentiate" everything... the result is over-branding in the end.

The metro services should simply be numbered as the other buses in the network. After all, they are buses.

Quote from: Gazza on June 18, 2024, 10:58:51 AMIts funny, I have read threads on reddit and very few people realise 300 = northside, 100 = southside etc.

Even fewer probably realize that a route ending in 0 or 5 (Eg 175, 340) are the "main ones", but only a small subset of those are HF.
Eg 750 is HF, great! But 735 you might expect to be, but its not.

This is something I've spoken about time and time again. The average person has no idea about how this stuff works. For example, I had no idea BUZ meant anything except for some stupid attempt at a "trendy" way of spelling "bus" until I joined this forum.

I'm in favour of route numbering the "Metro" services differently, as they are supposed to be a higher order of transit beyond the regular bus services (a sort of premium BRT service if you will).

But I agree with what Metro said that it makes more sense for the 66 replacement to be called M3, as that keeps it consistent with our current (albeit pretty meaningless from a user perspective) geographical numbering system. Eastern busway metro service would then logically be M2.

It does make routes like the 169 which are HF busway only routes confusing though. Ultimately it would be nice to put bi-artics on that route too if there was spare capacity for it one day. Dunno how you'd route number it though

For the most part, I don't think all that many people will pay much attention to the route number of the Metro - they'll simply be looking out for the distinctive Metro vehicles and checking that the location on the desto display matches where they want to go (Eight Mile Plains-Roma Street vs UQ-RBWH).

As mentioned, I doubt many people pay attention to the route numbers of the Blue or Maroon City Gliders (Routes 60 & 61 respectively) or the Spring Hill, City or South Brisbane Loops (Routes 30, 40, 50 & 86), they predominantly look for the distinctive vehicles used on these routes.

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1810014568078602558

https://x.com/bne_lordmayor/status/1810041900294103510?t=zluDHbcqxNjWpEcXZNHZow&s=19

Yooooo the article in Courier Mail lists some big news!

October start date for services
Bi-artics used on the 169
Northside bus review to come on the heels of Brisbane Metro launching

As many members have pointed out, Northside is well overdue for a bus review so this is excellent news

I'm also very curious about the use of bi-artics on the 169. It is an extremely popular route so I think this is a great idea. But I wonder about bus availability?
Correct me if I'm wrong but both 111 and 66 (M1 and M2) will be going to 20bph in peak. Route 169 is currently 12 bph in peak. So assuming they have 60 bendi boiz, 52 metro buses will be in-service in peak at any given time right?
Is that enough or do you need more padding in case of emergencies etc?

What route numbering would the 169 get? M1.5? M3?

Well done BCC.

What BCC wants, BCC gets. I wonder what they ultimately concluded in the contract? Revenue sharing or something else?

 

Quote from: timh on July 08, 2024, 07:11:28 AMWhat route numbering would the 169 get? M1.5? M3?

I mean, the obvious one is M9.

Will have my popcorn ready!!  If Translink are funding 75% then the BCC logos and colour need to go! 

Couriermail --> On-demand buses: Brisbane Metro funding stoush finally resolved $

QuoteBrisbane Metro will be running by October under a significant deal struck between the state government and Brisbane City Council to end a public stoush over transport funding.

Premier Steven Miles will provide an extra $75m to Brisbane City Council for its bus network and an ongoing 75:25 funding split.

It ends weeks of public criticism from the council about the state's lack of investment in buses and ensures services will be ready for the 50c fare trial from August 5. ...

... Under the deal, the northside bus network will be reviewed following the introduction of Brisbane Metro and the council and state will meet annually to consider adding capacity into the network.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Bart Mellish said the government aimed to make Brisbane's public transport network "the best in the world". ...

Quote from: aldonius on July 08, 2024, 07:54:19 AM

Quote from: timh on July 08, 2024, 07:11:28 AMWhat route numbering would the 169 get? M1.5? M3?

I mean, the obvious one is M9.

M69

Nice.

Is this servicing of the 169 going to be a permanent thing, or is it an initial use of the fleet prior to full scale operations/a form of in-revenue testing prior to the full Metro routes starting.

Will BCC have all the Metro vehicles in time for a full October launch?

Quote from: Jonno on July 08, 2024, 07:55:26 AMWill have my popcorn ready!!  If Translink are funding 75% then the BCC logos and colour need to go! 

Hasn't stopped BCC using their blue and yellow corporate colours across their fleet to date.

Quote from: nathandavid88 on July 08, 2024, 09:42:14 AM

Quote from: Jonno on July 08, 2024, 07:55:26 AMWill have my popcorn ready!!  If Translink are funding 75% then the BCC logos and colour need to go! 

Hasn't stopped BCC using their blue and yellow corporate colours across their fleet to date.

but it should. 

Quote from: #Metro on July 08, 2024, 07:23:39 AMWell done BCC.

What BCC wants, BCC gets. I wonder what they ultimately concluded in the contract? Revenue sharing or something else?

 

Revenue sharing going by the little piece in the Brisbane Times Live News Blog:

QuoteState to share bus fare revenue with council in landmark funding deal

By Tony Moore

The state government will share the revenue it receives from bus fares for the first time with Brisbane City Council under a "landmark" deal to be announced by Premier Steven Miles and Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner today.

The council has been pressing the state government for two months for extra money from fares as it injects funds into the city's bus network with the $1.4 billion Brisbane Metro service.

Schrinner has previously said an extra $800 million would be generated from extra fares once Brisbane Metro started.

To date, all fare revenue has been collected by the state government. ...

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-news-live-missing-children-found-school-attendance-rates-below-pre-pandemic-level-fire-rips-through-multiple-homes-20240705-p5jrfa.html?post=p578s5#p578s5

BCC is becoming more and more of a de facto transit agency.

Revenue sharing, does any other operator do this?

I think it will incentivise patronage routes, but also potentially disincentivise connecting routes to trains (keeping passengers on buses means $).

Quote from: Jonno on July 08, 2024, 09:55:40 AM

Quote from: nathandavid88 on July 08, 2024, 09:42:14 AM

Quote from: Jonno on July 08, 2024, 07:55:26 AMWill have my popcorn ready!!  If Translink are funding 75% then the BCC logos and colour need to go! 

Hasn't stopped BCC using their blue and yellow corporate colours across their fleet to date.

but it should.

No longer 100% BCC funded. It's now Translink's new toys to do what they want with them. Good, now its treated as a bus and must no longer be called a 'metro', 'metro-bus', 'trackless-tram', and other nonsensical jargon or pollie BS to describe a bus.

Start with removing the the BCC logos, the 'turn up and go' misnomer written on the sides, and the wheel covers too. It must have Translink's branding and QLD Gov logos on it. The naming convention should remain as '66' and '111', with no "M" prefix needed.

As for the colour scheme, can anyone design a better one?

Quote from: GonzoFonzie on July 08, 2024, 10:22:23 AMStart with removing the the BCC logos, the 'turn up and go' misnomer written on the sides, and the wheel covers too. It must have Translink's branding and QLD Gov logos on it. The naming convention should remain as '66' and '111', with no "M" prefix needed.

Other bus operators contracted by Translink operate buses baring their their own corporate logos and colour schemes, and they are 100% Translink funded. Clarks have their standard white and grey buses with prominant Clarks/LCBS branding, Kinetic have their old Surfside yellow and white ones down the coast (and they covered over one of their Translink-branded double deckers to create their Pride Bus last year), and their blue and white Sunbus ones up the coast.

Hell, Translink themselves are inconsistent with the their previous green and white buses, and their new, fairly infrequently seen light blue and white version that was being used by Park Ridge Transit, greening the fleet ones for most electric buses, and also the quite attractive, maroon Aboriginal artwork version Clarks are running as well.