Citizens Public Transport Forum 2010

[#Metro]

This is why I think a service upgrade to Rail (TUZ- Train Upgrade Zone) will allow for spectacular growth in train patronage, and why it can be handled.

If you look at the Mass Transit Report 2007, page 30 there is a table (Table 6-1) showing PT patronage in Brisbane from FY 1999/2000 to FY 2005/2006.

Let's compare the figures: I have rounded up for simplicity. Numbers are '000 per annum.

1999-2000 Rail (42 000) Bus (44 700)

2000-2001 Rail (44 600) Bus (43 000)

2001-2002 Rail (45 400) Bus (45 000) <--- SE Busway Opens

2002-2003 Rail (46 000) Bus (47 000)

2003-2004 Rail (48 000) Bus (48 000) <--- BUZ services begin (130 in Jan 04, 385 in Mar 04, 150 in Nov 04)

2004-2005 Rail (47 800) Bus (53 000) <--- Transink begins, fares integrated. <---BUZ services begin (200 in April 05)

2005-2006 Rail (51 500) Bus (59 000) <---BUZ services begin (199 in Feb 06, 345 in Feb 06, 444 in Oct 06)

There are a number of interesting things.
1. The SE Busway opening does not (itself) appear to have made major increase in Bus patronage (But upgrades to BUZ did)
2. Integrated ticketing (allowing transfer) makes a increases both train and bus patronage
3. BUZ service introduction and improvements make huge patronage increases, and allow bus to overtake trains in passengers carried.

[#Metro]

During this period there was no similar upgrade of trains (TUZ). I am not surprised that for this year, train trips will be about 54 million (projected), (effectively dawdling) and bus trips will be far in excess of that (121.6, projected) . And remember, a lot of that BUZ growth occurred outside peak periods, and that Sunday patronage now outstrips prior peak hour patronage on weekdays. I also know that a very large portion of bus trips in Brisbane are carried on the BUZ.

This is why I think that using higher bus patronge figures isn't a good guide to capacity. As you can see, in the past patronage between rail and bus was more or less similar. Rail patronage will explode once services are upgraded. As Ozbob said in another thread, Perth has 1/2 the rail system we have but is carrying more passengers.

Could that be the reason why they are so hesitant to upgrade the rail system?

None of those feeder buses in the list are BUZ buses. The BUZ routes should continue, be extended and there should be more of them. However, the lower frequency routes and feeders identified should feed rail.

[ozbob]

Media Release 5 September 2010

SEQ: Citizens' Public Transport Forum Saturday 4th September 2010 a great success!

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 has thanked the various speakers at the inaugural Citizens' Public Transport Forum held in Brisbane on the 4th September 2010 (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"South east Queensland is on the threshold of a major change in preferred transport options.  Momentum for change is increasing, the release of the draft Integrated Regional Transport Plan, Connecting SEQ 2031 (2) was fortunately very timely for our forum."

"The Growth Management Summit held earlier this year again highlighted the need for increasing sustainable public and active transport share (1)."

"As a community, there is much to gain by increasing the share of transport journeys to at least 50% for active and public transport combined. Congestion is reduced, environmental impacts lessened, people are healthier and there is a significant reduction in the extreme costs of road trauma to the health sector (4)."

"The Citizens' Public Transport Forum highlighted the considerable progress made with public and active transport initiatives in south-east Queensland and afforded delegates the opportunity to discuss future opportunities and directions with key personnel."

"We would like to thank and acknowledge the support of the Minister for Transport Hon Rachel Nolan MP, Mr Peter Strachan CEO TransLink, Mr Paul Scurrah CEO Queensland Rail, Mr Alan Warren Divisional Manager Brisbane Transport, Mr Luke Franzmann Cross River Rail Project Director, Dr John Nightingale Economist and Active Transport supporter, and Mr Chris Hale University of Queensland researcher in sustainable transport strategy, Transit Oriented Development, mass transit planning, and the urban economy, for their contributions to the forum."

References:

1. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3361.msg33191#msg33191

2. Draft Connecting SEQ 2031 http://www.connectingseq.qld.gov.au/

3. http://growthsummit.premiers.qld.gov.au/

4. Road trauma is breaking the nation http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?action=articles;sa=view;article=3

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[STB]

Was indeed a good and interesting day.  Sorry for missing Chris's presentation, as I had to get home before the folks headed out.

[Sunbus610]

Sorry Mr Scurrah (CEO ~ Queensland Rail) but a question I raised with you at the CPT Forum on Saturday was that of sending non-toilet trains to Nambour (or on other interurban services) and using trains with toilets on shorter suburban services of which you presumed and informed us had been addressed and fixed......well sorry but it happened again this afternoon, the 5:48pm Shorncliffe train from Roma Street, of which I caught, was operated by IMU's 168 and 162 on a journey of only 16kms (a bit of a waste again!!)

[mufreight]

perhaps "Sunbus" should consider the fact that to gain the utilization of train sets they have to be positioned for the services they operate.
The alternative is that if these fill in services and positioning moves were not made there would be a need for additional train sets beyond those currently in service and an increase in the numbers of "dead" empty services that would take up more train paths and require more train crews who as more trains become available are being fed into the system as additional services.
Unfortunate as it may seem you have a choice not operate a number of services that are presently operated with IMU sets in the suburban system or wait until the numbers of IMU sets currently being delivered are in service which should ensure that the longer services are all operated by toilet equipped IMU sets and which would also see an increase in the numbers of suburban services operated by IMU sets due to the utilisation of the train sets and rosters for crews.
Yes there is no doubt that the current rostering of train sets could possibly be improved and no doubt Mr Scurrah will ensure that occurs with those staff allocating train sets to the roster being instructed to be more attentive to the needs of commuters but it is inevitable that there will be failures which will continue to see non toilet equipped  train sets used on longer services from time to time rather than the cancellation of services.

[Derwan]

it happened again this afternoon, the 5:48pm Shorncliffe train from Roma Street, of which I caught, was operated by IMU's 168 and 162 on a journey of only 16kms (a bit of a waste again!!)

I wondered if they'd addressed this service.  This service is always an IMU set.  (I think it comes from or goes to Redbank.)  I have no knowledge about operations, but I'm assuming it has come from a longer line (e.g. Gold Coast) earlier in the day - and that the shorter trips are merely to finish off the day - or something like that.  I've always thought it was odd though.  We really don't need a toilet on the Shorncliffe Line.

[somebody]

it happened again this afternoon, the 5:48pm Shorncliffe train from Roma Street, of which I caught, was operated by IMU's 168 and 162 on a journey of only 16kms (a bit of a waste again!!)

I wondered if they'd addressed this service.  This service is always an IMU set.  (I think it comes from or goes to Redbank.)  I have no knowledge about operations, but I'm assuming it has come from a longer line (e.g. Gold Coast) earlier in the day - and that the shorter trips are merely to finish off the day - or something like that.  I've always thought it was odd though.  We really don't need a toilet on the Shorncliffe Line.

If it comes from Redbank, then it is probably the weird Airport - Redbank service.

Not sure when QR said that IMUs wouldn't be used on short runs though.

EDIT: Indeed, checking the timetable confirms this.

[Sunbus610]

Please don't grill me gang but it actually happened again this afternoon (IMU 100's on an all stops Shorncliffe service) !! Oh well, a disappointing resource waste again

[somebody]

Please don't grill me gang but it actually happened again this afternoon (IMU 100's on an all stops Shorncliffe service) !! Oh well, a disappointing resource waste again

Did you read my previous post?  It will happen every day unless the timetable is changed.

[mufreight]

Please don't grill me gang but it actually happened again this afternoon (IMU 100's on an all stops Shorncliffe service) !! Oh well, a disappointing resource waste again

Obviously a total waste of time ascertaining facts and the operational reasons for such rostering of train sets if it is beyond the comprehension of persons fixated on complaining, this form of set allocation will over time actually increase as more IMU's come into service and additional services are operated with a corresponding drop in the number of longer distance trains operated by EMU/SMU sets.

[somebody]

Not sure why they should timetable services in this way, and I can see some quite obvious reasons why they shouldn't.  For a start, accessing Bowen Hills #3 is a conflicting move from the airport.  So, I'm confused by your suggestion that this should increase.