What do you want for buses in Brisbane

[#Metro]

Hello,

Wanted to gauge what people want from buses in Brisbane, whether that be a new or public operator.


Some thoughts:

* 100 % Commitment to TransLink Livery; buses should look the same across the TransLink network
* 100% Commitment to new, clean, airconditioned buses
* More BUZ services - to Bulimba, Centenary, Northwest and Yeronga
* Support a simpler network
* Support a more frequent network
* Less overlap
* Treats staff well - must have a good track record of this - and has proper staff recreational facilities

I'm sure people will come up with others

[HappyTrainGuy]

I couldn't give two hoots but as long as they have a good feeder and support network (into interchanges/frequent corridor routes/railway lines) with established frequent corridors and less duplication (other bus routes/railway lines) then I'd be happy. That can be done under privistation but it could also be done with BT still in public hands.

[ozbob]

I couldn't give two hoots but as long as they have a good feeder and support network (into interchanges/frequent corridor routes/railway lines) with established frequent corridors and less duplication (other bus routes/railway lines) then I'd be happy. That can be done under privistation but it could also be done with BT still in public hands.

+1

with adequate coverage routes.   

[longboi]

Aside from what has already been mentioned:

- Consistent stop signage and branding - with directional signage for transfer opportunities
- Investment in bus priority measures (Lanes, queue jumps)
- Network wide real-time system roll out
- CBD stop overhaul

[SurfRail]

Articulated buses with 3 or more doors and prioritisation for standing passengers.  This is going to be a must in future if the busway is going to work properly.  14.5m rigids do not offer the same kind of throughput (eg 100 passengers between 2 doors at crush load vs 110 between 3 doors at crush load for an artic), and the main reason I understand they were bought was because they were cheaper.  False economy.

They need to look at fully low-floor chassis with vertically mounted engines which permit 3 doors on a 12.5m rigid.  I honestly can't see why we are still building buses with under-floor engines (ie raised section at the back).  I know Scania offered such a product in the last tender (the N280UB) but it probably wouldn't have been built to accommodate anything other than the usual 2-door set-up.  There is a very recent example in Adelaide like this which was built to State Transit specs but did not end up being delivered to Sydney.

At absolute minimum, they need to start delivering buses with European spec dual glideaway doors for the centre door (same as Perth and State Transit) instead of the single-leaf doors used now.  Same for Surfside and Sunbus with their current deliveries.

I would prefer full dot matrix or LED destination signs at the front, side and rear of all buses to be a contractual requirement.  I would be happy with full signs at the front and side and a route number box at the rear.  Currently only Surfside and Sunbus meet this minimum spec with their last few deliveries - some other operators have isolated examples which were built to NSW spec because they are ex-demonstrators, and Veolia was delivering buses with this set-up until recently (no rear box on their most recent 10-15 deliveries for some reason).

[somebody]

I think my posting history on this site more or less answers the OP's question.

SurfRail:
3 door rigids?  Whoa!

Got to agree with the 2 door artic hate.

Not sure what the big deal about the door type actually is?

I couldn't give two hoots but as long as they have a good feeder and support network (into interchanges/frequent corridor routes/railway lines) with established frequent corridors and less duplication (other bus routes/railway lines) then I'd be happy. That can be done under privistation but it could also be done with BT still in public hands.

+1

with adequate coverage routes.   

to both of you.

Buses actually carry the bulk of the passenger boardings and the majority of the passenger-km for PT in SEQ.  Isn't it nice that you are perfectly happy to sacrifice most of it. 

[ozbob]

Of course bus has the greatest share because it has the greatest route coverage.  It is time that rail was better supported.

The present high cost direct service model everywhere is not sustainable for ever.

You are getting very tedious Simon.

[SurfRail]

SurfRail:
3 door rigids?  Whoa!

Got to agree with the 2 door artic hate.

Not sure what the big deal about the door type actually is?

3 door rigids are pretty common in Europe and other parts.  The Heritage Bus Association even has a 3-door AEC Regal VI from Adelaide (so fairly old).  All Melbourne trams from Z3s onwards have at least 3 doors per side and the Zs and As are basically just electirc buses on rails.

The door thing is about passenger flow.  On a bus with a narrow single leaf centre door you will only get one person through at a time (particularly with go card readers fitted).  The spec found on STA buses and Perth's current deliveries will allow 2 comfortably, and this will be come more important if we start a move to all-door boarding.

[ozbob]

[somebody]

SurfRail:
3 door rigids?  Whoa!

Got to agree with the 2 door artic hate.

Not sure what the big deal about the door type actually is?

3 door rigids are pretty common in Europe and other parts.  The Heritage Bus Association even has a 3-door AEC Regal VI from Adelaide (so fairly old).  All Melbourne trams from Z3s onwards have at least 3 doors per side and the Zs and As are basically just electirc buses on rails.

The door thing is about passenger flow.  On a bus with a narrow single leaf centre door you will only get one person through at a time (particularly with go card readers fitted).  The spec found on STA buses and Perth's current deliveries will allow 2 comfortably, and this will be come more important if we start a move to all-door boarding.

The centre doors found on the 14.5m buses allow dual flow, but not on the 2-axles.

[mufreight]

SurfRail:
3 door rigids?  Whoa!

Got to agree with the 2 door artic hate.

Not sure what the big deal about the door type actually is?

3 door rigids are pretty common in Europe and other parts.  The Heritage Bus Association even has a 3-door AEC Regal VI from Adelaide (so fairly old).  All Melbourne trams from Z3s onwards have at least 3 doors per side and the Zs and As are basically just electirc buses on rails.

The door thing is about passenger flow.  On a bus with a narrow single leaf centre door you will only get one person through at a time (particularly with go card readers fitted).  The spec found on STA buses and Perth's current deliveries will allow 2 comfortably, and this will be come more important if we start a move to all-door boarding.

The centre doors found on the 14.5m buses allow dual flow, but not on the 2-axles.

Any bus fitted with two doors can be operated dual flow provided that the card readers on the second door are programed to enable tagging on as well as tagging off.

[ozbob]

Westside have a few buses ( ? 3 buses) with centre doors, with go card readers.  Never seen them used though.

[somebody]

SurfRail:
3 door rigids?  Whoa!

Got to agree with the 2 door artic hate.

Not sure what the big deal about the door type actually is?

3 door rigids are pretty common in Europe and other parts.  The Heritage Bus Association even has a 3-door AEC Regal VI from Adelaide (so fairly old).  All Melbourne trams from Z3s onwards have at least 3 doors per side and the Zs and As are basically just electirc buses on rails.

The door thing is about passenger flow.  On a bus with a narrow single leaf centre door you will only get one person through at a time (particularly with go card readers fitted).  The spec found on STA buses and Perth's current deliveries will allow 2 comfortably, and this will be come more important if we start a move to all-door boarding.

The centre doors found on the 14.5m buses allow dual flow, but not on the 2-axles.

Any bus fitted with two doors can be operated dual flow provided that the card readers on the second door are programed to enable tagging on as well as tagging off.

You aren't with me.

[minbrisbane]

SurfRail:
3 door rigids?  Whoa!

Got to agree with the 2 door artic hate.

Not sure what the big deal about the door type actually is?

3 door rigids are pretty common in Europe and other parts.  The Heritage Bus Association even has a 3-door AEC Regal VI from Adelaide (so fairly old).  All Melbourne trams from Z3s onwards have at least 3 doors per side and the Zs and As are basically just electirc buses on rails.

The door thing is about passenger flow.  On a bus with a narrow single leaf centre door you will only get one person through at a time (particularly with go card readers fitted).  The spec found on STA buses and Perth's current deliveries will allow 2 comfortably, and this will be come more important if we start a move to all-door boarding.

The centre doors found on the 14.5m buses allow dual flow, but not on the 2-axles.

Any bus fitted with two doors can be operated dual flow provided that the card readers on the second door are programed to enable tagging on as well as tagging off.

He's basically saying the 14.5's have two leaf centre doors, to enable two 'lanes' to exit.

[mufreight]

In terms of busses the term dual flow is taken to mean both entry and exit via the same doorway.

[somebody]

In terms of busses the term dual flow is taken to mean both entry and exit via the same doorway.

Read it in context.  Others could understand.

[SurfRail]

SurfRail:
3 door rigids?  Whoa!

Got to agree with the 2 door artic hate.

Not sure what the big deal about the door type actually is?

3 door rigids are pretty common in Europe and other parts.  The Heritage Bus Association even has a 3-door AEC Regal VI from Adelaide (so fairly old).  All Melbourne trams from Z3s onwards have at least 3 doors per side and the Zs and As are basically just electirc buses on rails.

The door thing is about passenger flow.  On a bus with a narrow single leaf centre door you will only get one person through at a time (particularly with go card readers fitted).  The spec found on STA buses and Perth's current deliveries will allow 2 comfortably, and this will be come more important if we start a move to all-door boarding.

The centre doors found on the 14.5m buses allow dual flow, but not on the 2-axles.

Any bus fitted with two doors can be operated dual flow provided that the card readers on the second door are programed to enable tagging on as well as tagging off.

mu - that's correct, but in practical terms it will work better if you have a wider door aperture so you don't have a single file queue getting off and then one getting on.  The price for doing this is basically 2 seats lost but the potential for more efficient circulation and shorter dwells at busy stops outweighs that in my view.

[longboi]

Articulated buses with 3 or more doors and prioritisation for standing passengers.  This is going to be a must in future if the busway is going to work properly.  14.5m rigids do not offer the same kind of throughput (eg 100 passengers between 2 doors at crush load vs 110 between 3 doors at crush load for an artic), and the main reason I understand they were bought was because they were cheaper.  False economy.

They need to look at fully low-floor chassis with vertically mounted engines which permit 3 doors on a 12.5m rigid.  I honestly can't see why we are still building buses with under-floor engines (ie raised section at the back).  I know Scania offered such a product in the last tender (the N280UB) but it probably wouldn't have been built to accommodate anything other than the usual 2-door set-up.  There is a very recent example in Adelaide like this which was built to State Transit specs but did not end up being delivered to Sydney.

At absolute minimum, they need to start delivering buses with European spec dual glideaway doors for the centre door (same as Perth and State Transit) instead of the single-leaf doors used now.  Same for Surfside and Sunbus with their current deliveries.

I would prefer full dot matrix or LED destination signs at the front, side and rear of all buses to be a contractual requirement.  I would be happy with full signs at the front and side and a route number box at the rear.  Currently only Surfside and Sunbus meet this minimum spec with their last few deliveries - some other operators have isolated examples which were built to NSW spec because they are ex-demonstrators, and Veolia was delivering buses with this set-up until recently (no rear box on their most recent 10-15 deliveries for some reason).

Love it.

I think the issue of throughput is sometimes overlooked on buses and standard destination signs would be a god send.
The amount of times I have seen people run to the front of a LCBS VST only to turn away disappointed is just too many to count. While on the subject, I would also like to have it stipulated that route numbers on the front sign be located on the kerbside so they are actually visible when stopped behind another bus.

[hU0N]

Buses actually carry the bulk of the passenger boardings and the majority of the passenger-km for PT in SEQ.  Isn't it nice that you are perfectly happy to sacrifice most of it. 

Yes.  But I'd make two equivocal points.

Firstly, it depends how you set up the high frequency spines.  If you go with a structure something like the Rapid Bus in Canberra, you probably won't lose too many people compared to direct service, because you get low freq feeders, high freq/low duplication spines and single seat journeys for most passengers.  Brisbane could do this right now, especially with the Busways, but they don't because they won't.

On the other hand, you could set it up like Perth, with a transfer to enter the high frequency spine.  This would most definitely trash the patronage on the buses, but that might not be entirely bad news because..

Secondly, any trunk and branch network (however you set it up), concentrates the large majority of passengers onto relatively few spines.  This enables spines to support a much higher frequency than would otherwise be the case.  And this higher frequency attracts new walk up passengers and new park n ride passengers (unless you do something dumb like closing carparks).  Get it right and this increase can more than subsidise the cost of running buses in a less efficient way.

The way I see it, setting up high frequency spines is going to convert quite a few bus passengers into park n rides, which on it's own is bad.  But it also stands to convert quite a few drivers into park n rides as well.  And, on balance, there is every chance that we come out ahead.