500th bus

[#Metro]

http://www.facebook.com/councillor.schrinner

Have a look at the discussion between steven jamieson and cr shrinner.

[SurfRail]

I like the cut of his jib.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Look out, another arm chair p%ssing match

Steven Jamieson: You are playing pointless politics Adrian. TransLink is the urban transport network manager for all of SEQ, BT is a contractor for approximately 50% of the bus patronage only. I can't think of anywhere else in the world with the fractured approach to public transport network planning and service provision we have. BT has to have its own special style of bus stops, special livery, special timetable formats, failure to feed the rail network adequately, and for what? Do you honestly think I or anybody else care where the funding is coming from given that it's all public money anyway? Go to Perth or Adelaide and get yourself an education on how real integrated public transport systems work. There is no reason why BCC cannot provide the funding it does and leave the management functions to the people who are responsible for the whole network. BCC is a statutory corporation there to do a job, not a football team to barrack for, and I think you and your colleagues from both sides of the chamber lose sight of that on a regular basis.

A few nitpicks, BT doesn't say what bus stops look like, Translink does (Bus stop designs depending on its patronage size and what is required can be found here http://translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/what-we-do/infrastructure-projects/public-transport-infrastructure-manual/part2.pdf ) along with the state government being mostly responsible for the PT network in Queensland, it has implimented the standard 'J' sign poles for busier stops be it if your on the Gold Coast, Brisbane or up in Cairns.


Translink (with consultations/input from the provider for each area) are responsible for the timetable formats, routes, connections, frequencies etc not BT. Translink doesn't enforce a overall livery to private operators as they simply increase their total funding for the livery buses. However BT is not a small private operator and has substancial funding from the BCC compared to other providers (I heard that if Translink wanted their own livery on all BT buses, BCC would dramatically reduce the funding it provides from ratepayers, chartered services and advertising on the sides of the actual buses and Translink would have to step up with the additional funding required - Something that Translink doesn't want to do due to the cost).

[Golliwog]

As I understand it, qconnect just pinched the same Translink manual that you linked there. Though changed the logo for the sign obviously.

[ozbob]

Be interesting if LNP win Government.  Do you think they will relieve BCC of their public transport function?  LOL

Or will the dysfunctional model continue?

[SurfRail]

A few nitpicks, BT doesn't say what bus stops look like, Translink does (Bus stop designs depending on its patronage size and what is required can be found here http://translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/what-we-do/infrastructure-projects/public-transport-infrastructure-manual/part2.pdf ) along with the state government being mostly responsible for the PT network in Queensland, it has implimented the standard 'J' sign poles for busier stops be it if your on the Gold Coast, Brisbane or up in Cairns.

Outside the BCC area, all bus stops are a completely different design to the BCC ones, so no economies of scale.  This even happens mid-route on services like the 338.

The Qconnect ones just happen to mirror the BCC ones, but they came later.

Translink (with consultations/input from the provider for each area) are responsible for the timetable formats, routes, connections, frequencies etc not BT. Translink doesn't enforce a overall livery to private operators as they simply increase their total funding for the livery buses. However BT is not a small private operator and has substancial funding from the BCC compared to other providers (I heard that if Translink wanted their own livery on all BT buses, BCC would dramatically reduce the funding it provides from ratepayers, chartered services and advertising on the sides of the actual buses and Translink would have to step up with the additional funding required - Something that Translink doesn't want to do due to the cost).

In other words, BCC is being a pain in the arse and has to be special.  GCCC does not insist on Surfside buses being badged with a GCCC logo even though it also contributes to the provision of PT - same with SCRC.

And yes, the TTA livery is standard for everybody except BT.

[#Metro]

Turning down the bus operations offer from BT was a bit of a mistake IMHO. That said, for all the pie-throwing, the fact that BT is funded by BCC is a benefit for the State Government because if we were to be like other cities - Sydney or Melbourne, they'd have to pay for EVERYTHING.

[HappyTrainGuy]

In other words, BCC is being a pain in the arse and has to be special.  GCCC does not insist on Surfside buses being badged with a GCCC logo even though it also contributes to the provision of PT - same with SCRC.

And yes, the TTA livery is standard for everybody except BT.

GCCC doesn't own Surfside. Surfside is still a private operator with a smaller fleet that gets some spare change from the GCCC and majority of funding from the state government/its contract with Translink. BT is owned and funded by the BCC by about 40% ~70 million (The other 60% comes from the State Government/Translink/advertising) compared to the 7 million the GCCC does for surfside which is about equal to the CityGlider route IIRC. As the BCC funds a nice share Translink and the State Government doesn't have to increase its funding for BT. So it might seem like just a coat of paint is needed but there is a lot more to it than just that. I wonder how much the Logan City Council chips in for local bus operators... oh yeah, Nothing! haha  

[ozbob]

Each year, TransLink (through the state) takes on more and more directs costs for BT.  The point is now being reaching IMHO that a much better overall integration of the network would be achieved if BT was just seen as an operator only.  BCC are very petty, they kick up a fuss because notionally non-BCC ratepayers use BT buses.  Woopey do!!  BT is used as a political extension of the politics of the council eg. 'Maroon CityGlider' utter nonsense and just a political stunt.  Look at the intransigence with legacy bus routes and so forth ..

Yes, Mr Newman, it will be very interesting if you end up Premier, won't it??

[SurfRail]

So it might seem like just a coat of paint is needed but there is a lot more to it than just that.

Actually there isn't.  I see no reason why the buses cannot all be in the same livery regionwide commencing with all new deliveries right now. 

Nothing anybody has thrown up in "defence" of BCC changes that.  It is just political posturing saying "hey look, we are important too", and is just a symptom of the current dysfunctional relationship.

The best way to market and brand a network is to have consistent branding and style everywhere, across all modes.  It is no accident that places like Perth have implemented this over time.

[HappyTrainGuy]

So if you were a council shelling out 70 million dollars a year for funding bus services exclusivley in your area on top of all the other associated costs of running and maintaining the fleet/crew only to be told that your destinictive trademark colours, bus advertisment funding and PR for the Council/City about things that only they and no other council provides go out the window so you can be as bland with the other buses..... such as Logan who last time I heard still refuses to fund a cent for services in their area?  BT/BCC has done a lot for Brisbane and still does more than what other councils have done so its easy to see why they keep using their livery. The state government had their chance but they passed up on the offer. Tough titties I say

[Gazza]

only to be told that your destinictive trademark colours, bus advertisment funding and PR for the Council/City about things that only they and no other council provides go out the window so you can be as bland with the other buses....

Why does any of that matter?! They aren't selling laundry powder, where your packaging has to be different to the competitors. It's a bus service. A bus service. What is the gain from being 'distinctive'?

How many members of the public associate a yellow blue and white bus with a X% funding arrangement? Not many.

If they really want to keep playing the game, why not put a sticker inside the bus which says "This service was funded X% by Brisbane ratepayers", but at least have the standard Translink colours?

[SurfRail]

So if you were a council shelling out 70 million dollars a year for funding bus services exclusivley in your area on top of all the other associated costs of running and maintaining the fleet/crew only to be told that your destinictive trademark colours, bus advertisment funding and PR for the Council/City about things that only they and no other council provides go out the window so you can be as bland with the other buses..... such as Logan who last time I heard still refuses to fund a cent for services in their area?  BT/BCC has done a lot for Brisbane and still does more than what other councils have done so its easy to see why they keep using their livery. The state government had their chance but they passed up on the offer. Tough titties I say

Not at all relevant - as I have constantly said, its just political rubbish. 

PT is a monopoly and benefits from network effects, and BCC is a municipal corporation, not a football team or a business.  You only need goodwill if you are competing against somebody, and the very notion that their buses are competing with everybody else instead of co-operating is exactly what is wrong with their mindset.

I don't care a figgin how much BCC puts in - after all, its easy when 70% of your rates revenue comes from commercial property and 30% from residents, where in other councils its generally the other way around.  It would be better if all councils just charged a differential rate for PT the same way they do for bushfire levies (so urban areas pay more and regional or rural properties pay less or nothing).