Split discussion from ... Re: Ipswich and western region

[STB]

I figured I might pipe up, as I've just been sitting back watching this unfold.

I think the problem with you Lapdog is that you skip over the psychological part of planning, the human part, and instead tend to have a strong ideological focus on a hub and spoke model, which isn't always the best way of doing things.  Generally a mix of a hub and spoke and a direct CBD focused network is ideal, but is highly dependent on many different factors, and I don't think you are thinking through all of these before you post.

Admin: edited post

[ozbob]

Some posts edited removed in this thread.   

[James]

It is not either or. It's both. If I have two identical routes, one frequent and one not frequent, and on each service we save $100 from feederisation.

All else equal:

Frequent one: 4 services per hour x 18 hours span x $100 = $7200       
Not frequent one : 1 service per hour x 18 hours span x 100 = $1800

More savings are gained by feederising the frequent route than from feederising the non-frequent route, all else equal. You'd have to feederise four times as many non-frequent routes to get the same level of savings from just feederising the frequent bus route.

If you don't agree with my calculation, post your own calculation, and all assumptions and working.

Your initial calculations are fine. What you don't account for is the subsidy.

Lets work on the rule that for ever increase in service, the number of people goes up exponentially, with the first service having 7 people (i.e. all services per hour at 2bph has 14 people, 3bph has 21 people, and all services at 4bph have 28 people).

All pax pay $3 fares. Now, by this:
Cost of running a bus at 1bph: $100 - $3 x 7 = $79
Cost of running a bus at 4bph: ($100 - $3 x 28) x 4 = $64

Now remember, the 1bph bus is less attractive option by far, hence why it costs more to run per hour. Cutting the frequent service also generates more community outrage than cutting the infrequent one (did you hear anybody complaining about cuts to the 414? I don't think so).

I agree with you. I just think it is possible to agree with this AND agree that some BUZ routes could also be feederised (e.g. 412, 330 etc) and for both statements to be true at the same time.

Sure, but if I have the chance to make more savings, why not? Again I think this really is just a case of "I am for feeder services in general but not on my specific bus route".

As I said, go for the low-hanging fruit first. And 411 is my local service, and I'm aware LD's network will probably give both it and the 428 improved services, meaning my days of walking from Toowong, Indooroopilly and the St Lucia West stop are over.

You have a point but there is an issue. Some places it does not make much sense to add more services because the line might already be frequent and acceptable for connections. Or there might not be the demand for such a service. For example, would we turn the 417 into a BUZ just because we had enough excess route length to do so? I doubt it.

Also, there may already be lots of high frequency on duplicating routes. For example, if the Maroon CityGlider were to be removed from the CBD-Stones corner section, you would see a decrease in frequency. But so what, there are heaps of other alternatives to choose from. The same also goes for busway services.

The network is changing and new services will be added over time as well. So your argument is on loose ground because it is based on the assumption that the service level we have today will be the service level we will have tomorrow. The mohring effect says that an additional user induces another service to be put on which then induces more passengers to use the service and so on and so on. When we start feeding trains this is what we are doing - getting patronage on trains up, so that we will over time build a case for more services as well as patronage grows. In the specific case of Toowong, I think the current frequency is good enough to feed into. If it is good enough to feed the 411 into and good enough to feed the 402 into and good enough to feed the 417 into, then 412 is a good candidate for feeding as well.

I expect service upgrades to Springfield (4tph) and Ipswich (4tph) and QR should look at the possibility of getting services to also stop at Toowong once paths are freed up as CRR et al comes on line in the next few years.

The point about the 417 was an example. I'd like it to go to 2bph and turn into an Indro feeder tacked on to the end of an Indro-terminating route.

Yes, the more services added, the more people get on board, but as you increase service more, you eventually reach a limit, at which very few more pax will travel. Lets say 412 was at 30bph, none of which were full. Boosting it to 40bph would make little difference. 6bph to 12bph is decent, but it provides no tangible benefit over a co-ordinated 6bph frequency, aside from extra capacity (which can be provided with artics). I believe that at this point, the 412 is at the critical point that you really can't boost frequency much further on the route (especially in Uni peaks) without spending more money.

Sure. But if they're headed for Coronation Drive they can use the 444. If they are headed to St Lucia they can catch the CityCat for direct services. There is space on that. They have already completed one transfer, which indicates that they are not personally opposed to transfer, and the connection at Toowong will be frequent (buses run every 10 minutes during large parts of the day already on the 412, and every 5 mins in peak) so any inconvenience will be miniscule (2.5 minute wait extra during the busiest period on average even if we assume no frequency boost).

Depends on whether there are that many people displaced. 66 itself is an amalgamation of 66 + 109 and despite this the service seems to cope with the combined load of the two former routes well. There's space and there's the ferry as back up as well.

Yes, and then more capacity has to be provided on Route 66. I'm fighting nikko's battle here for him, but the point he is making is that the route km saved on the 412 ends up being poured into the 66. And just because I am not "personally opposed to transfer" does not mean I will necessarily enjoy being forced to transfer where I previously had a direct trip without due frequency compensation.

66/109 were well demand matched anyway. From what I can gather, 109 just sucked up inner busway loads in the inbound direction in AM peak and outbound direction in PM peak, and didn't do too well otherwise. 66 was a little better, but still had quite ordinary loadings south of the Cultural Centre. The combination of the two was very much a no-brainer.

Let me see. If my personal taxi Route 161 is terminated at Garden City, I will have to change buses after just less than a 3km trip!! Oh goodness me!! I must start lobbying hard for direct trip to the Hilton Hotel in the CBD because If I don't get my way, I'm going to have a big dummy spit and I'M GOING TO JUMP IN MY CAR!! Did you hear that TransLink, a CAR!! Vroom Vroom!!

The argument you make is based on cultural and political grounds. These grounds can be challenged because they are not objective constants like geometry. When you shorten a service by feederising it, you get money left over to use elsewhere. That's a product of geometry. Anyone can prove this with a piece of string and scissors at home. The City of Brisbane is changing, and so what used to work might not work so well now just in the same way that a child grows out of its shoes and the shoes become too small. And so you get a new and larger pair that are different. And that's what's going on here.

If people want to hold the general public at large at ransom because they want to protect their concentrated benefits at the expense of others, then I don't agree with that. If people want to have a dummy spit and threaten to withdraw their patronage because the network has to change from a direct network to a connected network (simply because the city is getting bigger) then let them leave the network. Let them buy a car. The space people like that leave behind will soon be filled by other people who never ever had decent services in their area and by others who appreciate the simplicity, extra frequency and superior connectedness that a connective network brings.

Public transport is not some lifeboat where we must save everybody from the car. That's not possible.
If I were a taxi service planner, I would agree and give a direct service. But this is not a personal taxi service. This is a public service where everyone must be considered as well. It's PUBLIC transport not PUBLICLY FUNDED PRIVATE TAXI.

This might go down like a lead balloon, but if the passengers of the 161 cry foul when their 'Rocket to their Doorstep' gets axed, I say let them. All of them hopping into cars would have practically no effect on the SE Freeway and the resources could be better used to putting a proper feeder through the surrounding areas that was actually useful for somebody.

The current issue with the direct service network is not its lack of connectivity, it is its lack of frequency. I always have wonderful experiences with lack of frequency, having walked from either Toowong station or the 412 so many times I don't bother to count any more.

The best way to serve everyone in a public transport network is direct services everywhere on BUZ standard. Unfortunately, there is not the money available to BUZ every route in Brisbane, so instead, we have to move towards a connective network, where buses feed trains and other buses, in order to pool resources. Resources should be pooled in the infrequent network first, in order to start boosting patronage. Do things too quickly, and people will reject them on a huge scale.

I agree with you on this point. It is disappointing that the 15 minute frequency does not extend to weekends - it should. It is not like we run BUZ routes at half the frequency on the weekends is it? I agree with the BUZification too - one of the things that really got up my nose with BT is that they BUZzed the 120 and 180 without reforming the network first - so now there is a whole heap of people that are vested in the route who will scream blue murder if any reform is put through, making the whole task so much more difficult to do politically.

Exactly. 120 I think is a big one which shouldn't have been BUZed. I just can't see how it really performs well, especially out of peak, aside from the fact Griffith Uni is tacked on the end (which 125 has anyway).

I took a trip on the 115 - and almost 10 pax got on at Moorooka Shops! No, this doesn't mean BUZ 115 - I suggest BUZ 125, a la TransLink review. It covers Ipswich Road nicely and goes to GU.

That is an assertion that is a statement which has not been backed up yet with any hard evidence or examples. This assertion sets the value of benefits (such as patronage/frequency increases) to others who are able to get an upgrade elsewhere on the network due to feederisation of 412 at ZERO, which I disagree with. If you are going to talk about costs and benefits then you need to consider not just the people on the bus but the people who are not on the bus as well. Like people on other bus routes, people with rubbish service outside their house who would benefit directly though an upgrade paid for by funds released through feederisation etc.

It takes 17 minutes to go from UQ Chancellors Place to Regatta Toowong (400m walk)
It takes 11 minutes to go from UQ Ferry Terminal to Regatta Toowong.

So I don't agree. The ferry is also far more reliable as it is not subject to random congestion on one of Brisbane's worst roads.

But this is where we need to look at the benefit of feederising the 412. Will the 18km/hour saved be enough to fund additional services? You could achieve that same change by removing one 340 service every hour, more or less. As I've said, there are easier fish to fry.

Ignoring the 411 there, which provides a direct trip to the Regatta Terminal. Takes just as long as the ferry.

[longboi]

Sure. But if they're headed for Coronation Drive they can use the 444. If they are headed to St Lucia they can catch the CityCat for direct services. There is space on that. They have already completed one transfer, which indicates that they are not personally opposed to transfer, and the connection at Toowong will be frequent (buses run every 10 minutes during large parts of the day already on the 412, and every 5 mins in peak) so any inconvenience will be miniscule (2.5 minute wait extra during the busiest period on average even if we assume no frequency boost).

Coro Dr, not a problem. However UQ is a much greater trip generator so I'll focus on that.

First of all, the CityCat is an unattractive option. It's an additional 5 minutes at least from the current 412 stop on Adelaide St and the UQ ferry terminal is another additional 5-10 minutes from the 'hub' of UQ. Travel time on the CityCat from North Quay to UQ at 9:00am is 22min, the 412 is 18 min. Overall it's an additional 15 minutes to take the CityCat option.

Secondly, I don't feel that making one transfer is any sort of indicator that a person is happy to make an exponential number of transfers.
Further out it's unavoidable and more accepted but for short journeys within inner Brisbane, it's just not attractive to do on a daily basis.

[#Metro]

I will come back to your calculations later as I have to run off to work.

Cutting the frequent service also generates more community outrage than cutting the infrequent one (did you hear anybody complaining about cuts to the 414? I don't think so).

I know. But that's not a geometric constant. That's "I'm too scared to follow through with the changes". Auckland is doing a mass revision of their network just like we would have done. Direct services are the politically easy solution. But they also are the costliest.

[#Metro]

The point about the 417 was an example. I'd like it to go to 2bph and turn into an Indro feeder tacked on to the end of an Indro-terminating route.

Agree.

Yes, the more services added, the more people get on board, but as you increase service more, you eventually reach a limit, at which very few more pax will travel. Lets say 412 was at 30bph, none of which were full. Boosting it to 40bph would make little difference. 6bph to 12bph is decent, but it provides no tangible benefit over a co-ordinated 6bph frequency, aside from extra capacity (which can be provided with artics). I believe that at this point, the 412 is at the critical point that you really can't boost frequency much further on the route (especially in Uni peaks) without spending more money.

This is true. There is little need to buy arctics when you can just use the current buses and turn them back at Toowong station though. The excess buses can be sent elsewhere on other routes to improve others' journeys.

[#Metro]

This might go down like a lead balloon, but if the passengers of the 161 cry foul when their 'Rocket to their Doorstep' gets axed, I say let them. All of them hopping into cars would have practically no effect on the SE Freeway and the resources could be better used to putting a proper feeder through the surrounding areas that was actually useful for somebody.

It always pains me to see feeder and transfer networks placed exactly where they have the least success. It's like "we're happy with feeder services so long as they don't work and nobody uses them". The best feeder services are where you have good loaded route and good frequency feeding another service which also has good frequency. You have to remember that on the return journey home a person would get a busway service to Garden city and then could be faced with a half hour or hourly wait in the middle of their journey. The resources saved would be few because few resources went into creating the route in the first place.

The current issue with the direct service network is not its lack of connectivity, it is its lack of frequency. I always have wonderful experiences with lack of frequency, having walked from either Toowong station or the 412 so many times I don't bother to count any more.

No, it is both. For example, Indooroopilly. Lots of buses go to the bus station but avoid the train station. This is despite the facts that services have been radically boosted at that station, there are express trains etc.

The best way to serve everyone in a public transport network is direct services everywhere on BUZ standard. Unfortunately, there is not the money available to BUZ every route in Brisbane,

Ferraris are better than ordinary cars in every respect except price.

so instead, we have to move towards a connective network, where buses feed trains and other buses, in order to pool resources. Resources should be pooled in the infrequent network first, in order to start boosting patronage. Do things too quickly, and people will reject them on a huge scale.

Agree. But I don't think anyone said "do it all at once" did they?