Logan region - bus

[#Metro]

Forest Lake, particularly the early parts, were right next to Inala. Really not comparable to Yarrabilba, which is a good 15 minute drive (15km) from the nearest areas of residential density.

I agree with James. It is in an anti-patronage location where high levels of funds are required to service it, which draws money from other places.

One way around this is to require local contributions from council rates to the transit agency. So, for example, if they want more service, or service over and above TL guidelines, they can be taxed more to pay for it.

[City Designer]

The rates argument does not work because Yarrabilba was declared an urban development area by the Queensland Government in 2009. Logan City Council had nothing to do with it.

Arguments about affordability of service delivery are redundant anyway because neo-liberal economics is modeled around false assumptions.

Challenges with public transport provisions are a symptom of the current federal government not providing state governments with sufficient funding for service delivery.

[#Metro]

The rates argument does not work because Yarrabilba was declared an urban development area by the Queensland Government in 2009. Logan City Council had nothing to do with it.

My understanding is that legislation has been repealed. In any case, the money can be collected from landowners in that area whether that be through the council or whatever authority has power over that land (that may be the Queensland Government or developer itself).

Arguments about affordability of service delivery are redundant anyway because neo-liberal economics is modeled around false assumptions.

Just dropping the word 'neoliberal' does not an argument make.

When a bus route is twice as long, it costs twice as much to operate.
When a bus route is twice as frequent, it costs twice as much to operate.
When a bus route is put through an area that has twice the density, it will have twice (or more) passengers and thus twice the revenue.

Under a fixed budget, there will be trade-offs. My value is around 80% patronage 20% coverage. Others will be different. There are many places closer in that don't have great service (i.e. Centenary). Having to extend resources out that far is spreading resources thinly.

It goes back to another argument put forward by Gazza about whether it is worthwhile for Gympie to have a subway installed.
I am not saying that some incremental improvements to service over time in that area should not go ahead. What I am saying is that it is not going to be anywhere near decent given the geographical location, at least for a very long time. Buyer beware.

Challenges with public transport provisions are a symptom of the current federal government not providing state governments with sufficient funding for service delivery.

Operating costs are a state (and to an extent) local council responsibility. Both local and state governments have more than enough taxing powers to make up the funds they need if they felt their voters would allow them to.

Challenges with public transport provisions are a symptom of the current federal government not providing state governments with sufficient funding for service delivery.

Is the fact that people have moved to an area 40 km from the CBD where there are basically few services or infrastructure the Federal Government's fault / responsibility? How so?

If people want more than a basic level of services, don't live in sprawl.

[City Designer]

State and local governments are revenue dependent in the same way that private entities are.

Large infrastructure projects and the like are only really deliverable with federal funding. This frees up the revenue dependent state and local governments to provide more services as a proportion of expenditure.

I do not accept the argument that fringe areas are completely undeserving of public transport.

[#Metro]

State and local governments are revenue dependent in the same way that private entities are.

Large infrastructure projects and the like are only really deliverable with federal funding. This frees up the revenue dependent state and local governments to provide more services as a proportion of expenditure.

I do not accept the argument that fringe areas are completely undeserving of public transport.

(emphasis added by me)

This kind of debate crops up often - so often that I just cut and paste other people's responses from an independent external blog on here. In fact, it was this week's topic on the said blog. So it's nothing personal, if we replaced me and yourself, it is very likely other people would say similar things (as below)

Core vs. Edge Debates in Public Transit
http://humantransit.org/2016/06/basics-building-your-core.html

Mike June 8, 2016 at 3:55 pm #
I am sorry if this comment comes across smug, and I do not mean for it to. However, Jarrett, your whole planning philosophy with the ridership verses coverage debate is often about pitting outer areas against the inner core of a region. By telling outer areas they cannot or do not deserve a quality transit service.

Does telling whole areas of a region they do not deserve good transit not further lead to the divisions you talk about above?

We saw this in Edmonton, where you told Edmonton Council they should cut a semi-attractive level of service in outer Edmonton to a bare minimum service to support more service in the inner core (instead of just calling for increased funding, which is what is really required). The result was that outer suburban areas were very upset, and some even showed how buses you wanted to cut were standing room only

So it seems that this debate is not just about big projects, but also the basics, such as bus service.
We should be striving to offer quality transit to everyone in a urban region. Doing so, will not only bring the best outcomes, but also the most support for transit across across a region.

Eric June 9, 2016 at 1:36 am #
It's not about what an area "deserves", it's about what an area is willing to pay and what they will get. You seem to be asking for Edmonton to commit 100% of funding to "coverage" and 0% to "ridership", to use Jarrett's terms. He's not criticizing that decision. He's just informing you of the facts – that as a result, you'll have a lot fewer people using transit overall.

[SurfRail]

My understanding is that legislation has been repealed. In any case, the money can be collected from landowners in that area whether that be through the council or whatever authority has power over that land (that may be the Queensland Government or developer itself).

FYI - the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007 was repealed, but replaced by the Economic Development Act 2012.  The "Urban Development Areas" under the old Act are now "Priority Development Areas" under the new Act.  Conceptually not much difference.

[Old Northern Road]

Dayboro is closer to Brisbane's CBD than Yarrabilba and it has no bus service. Their populations are pretty similar and in both cases you have to drive through around 17km of nothing to get to the nearest train station.

I strongly doubt that Yarrabilba will ever get as large as they say it will but if it does I'd imagine that due to all the extra stops it will have to make that the bus would take close to an hour to get to Loganlea (for comparison see how long it takes for the bus to travel from the northern end of Redcliffe to Sandgate - nearly an hour)

Reality is that the small number of silly people who choose to live there would never consider using public transport anyway.

[techblitz]

Yarrabilba has recently passed a landmark with the sale of its 2000th housing lot, with 50 houses being completed each month. The population is currently estimated to be around 3000 people, growing to 45,000 over the next 25 years.

interesting........looks like it going ahead better than expected....the original urban development estimates put forward back in 2011 were:

2015(600 dwellings)
2021(3100 dwellings)
2051 <<<< when LD thinks real public transport demand @ yarabilba will kick in haha >>> 20000 dwellings
This does present a worry if this development is ramped up quicker as it potentially puts further strain on the m1/ mt lyndsay highways before they are ready for it.......they will need to watch it.....

for all doubters of greater flagstone.....don't underestimate the land developers who will want to take advantage of the relatively good access to the gold coast,browns plains(23mins) & beeneigh....

[City Designer]

FYI - the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007 was repealed, but replaced by the Economic Development Act 2012.  The "Urban Development Areas" under the old Act are now "Priority Development Areas" under the new Act.  Conceptually not much difference.

Correct, they are basically the same thing. I wasn't going to go into the semantics of an urban development area versus a priority development area, they are regulated using the same mechanisms.

[nathandavid88]

In a bit of good news for Logan, Luke Smith made good on his election promise and has included a $4 million over 4 years council contribution towards public transport provision in Logan.

Logan City Council moves toward subsidising buses

Cameron Atfield June 27 2016 - 10:09AM


Logan will take its first step towards subsidising public transport as part of new mayor Luke Smith's first budget, which was handed down on Monday.

The $4 million, four-year program would see the council undertake integration studies and work with Translink to deliver more services to the city.

But that – and everything else in the council's $755.6 million 2016-17 budget – will come at a cost to ratepayers, who will experience an average rates rise of 2.9 per cent.

[SNIP]

But it was the $4 million over four years towards public transport that represented the biggest shift in the council's focus.

Cr Smith said public transport had emerged as a major priority for residents during this year's council election.

"Council has been lobbying the Queensland government to improve transport services for years – and we have had some success through the City of Choice Leadership Team helping to coordinate the additional Yarrabilba bus service for example – but we now feel that we need to take this one step further by actively planning and contributing financially to public transport services," he said.

"Through this investment we intent to secure a significant increase in the Queensland government's allocations to service providers for Logan.

"... Success will be measured by new routes and services, increased services along existing routes – including after hours and weekend services and the establishment of major transport hubs in Springwood, Logan Central and Loganholme."

Cr Smith said the council would prioritise delivering better public transport to growth areas such as Greenbank, Park Ridge, Yarrabilba, Flagstone and Jimboomba and providing better connections to services linking Logan to Brisbane and Ipswich.

"We will be looking at how planning and integrating public transport options can make it easier and quicker to reach or depart any point in Logan," he said.

"Through this investment,  our council is acting decisively to improve public transport for all residents and we expect to see a significant improvement in our public transport network as a result."

Source: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/logan-city-council-moves-toward-subsidising-buses-20160624-gprgh2.html

[techblitz]

excellent news.....

first up...frequency upgrade (either 7.5 or 10min freq  (3.30pm - 5.30pm) for the 555......to take the pressure off current crush capacities when school finishes up until start of the p/p rockets....

[SurfRail]

I would have thought getting buses running after 4pm would be a better starting point.

If buses are packed then TransLink should be funding capacity upgrades.

[nathandavid88]

^^ I agree completely! Frequency increases on the 555 are way, WAY down the list of what this money needs to be put towards.

While pretty well all of Logan's buses do run after 4pm on weekdays, a lot of the routes finish up at 6pm which is still too early to be useful feeder routes for commuters coming home from Brisbane. I would like to see these routes extended through to ~8-9pm.

The bus network into Beenleigh and surrounding areas like Loganholme/Tanah Merah, Eagleby and Holmview/Edens Landing needs fixing. You have 4 services (553, 562, 563 and 565) that each run at hourly frequency and, with the 562 and 563, take very long, meandering routes that still completely miss newer estates (and even an entire Woolworths shopping centre). All four need to go to half hourly at least, but on top of that the 562 and 563 really both need to be broken up and rerouted. 

And proper services do need to be introduced to link Logan Village/Yarrabilba and Jimboomba/Flagstone to the rest of Logan Metro.   

[achiruel]

I'd like to see a few more services between Jimboomba and Browns Plains also.

[nathandavid88]

^^ Completely agree! I'd like to see the Route 540 go to half hourly during the week with an hour or two added to the frequency, and with a weekend service introduced (even if just an hourly one initially). I'd also like to see the current Logan Coaches route between Loganlea Station and Canungra via Logan Village & Yarrabilba become an all day, ideally half hourly Translink service, and a shuttle run introduced between Flagstone, Jimboomba, Yarrabilba and Logan Village to tie those locations, and the two trunk bus routes, together. 

[techblitz]

probably a bit of an overkill at half hourly for the 540....ive seen a few of these leave grand plaza between 4-6pm and never more than 10-15 onboard.....outside of peak they are air-carriers.....I would prioritise the 541/542 over the 540.....but to be honest they aren't doing that good either. Extended hours for as many routes as possible in the logan region....fully support it!

re:555.....translink simply doesn't have the funds to upgrade / redesign the 522 let alone a few xtra 555's...so the funds would hopefully come from council.....

[SurfRail]

^ If the 555 is actually at capacity it will be paying for itself.  If it isn't, it doesn't need the upgrades.  QED.

[nathandavid88]

I personally would be against just throwing extra buses at the 555. If there is a capacity problem on the 555 (my personal experience is that there really isn't any capacity problem most of the time, except for that small window during that end of school period) investigation of any changes should involve looking at the SEB's main trunk routes – 111, 160 and 555 – collectively, and again consider merging or at least better coordinating these routes to provide both higher frequencies and less duplication.

As for the 540 carrying air, maybe consider running it half hourly during peak and hourly offpeak? Should it remain low frequency because of its low patronage, or is the low patronage because of the route's low frequency?   

[techblitz]

yerp.....the main issue is school kids (coming from many different schools) boarding at garden city heading to springwood/logan...with reports on facebook from a regular user of students actually pushing in front of elderly passengers so they can get on the bus first...

Your suggestion for the 540 would be the best upgrade option for the 540....

4 mill is a lot of money...these personally funded upgrades look to be a sign of frustration with translink and their inability to fund extra services....amid regular complaints from frustrated passengers. I would put the top 3 most complained about routes at 555,550,545(1 today)....and then there are the routes that finish early/non sat/sun which need upgrades but translink cant fund.....oh if only the south-west had the same funding luck...aka 522
also something needs to be done on the 545...due to its length & routing....its too exposed to delays from traffic incidents/and or congestion.Split up perhaps?....

[nathandavid88]

^^ You are right about the 545's length making it susceptible to delays, although I don't think the routing affects it too much – it's almost exclusively arterial running, except for servicing Woodridge Station and the resulting North Road and Smith Road deviation. One thing that I know slows down the first service to Browns Plains, the school kids using it. I use the 545 on wet mornings (like this morning) between Marsden Park Shops and Woodridge, and on school holidays the bus is pretty well dead on time, but during the school term it is ~10 minutes late more often than not, and sometimes even later.

If the route was to be cut, I would recommend cutting it in Woodridge, with one running from Browns Plains to Woodridge Station, and the other running from Logan Central Station to Garden City (I've purposely overlapped the Logan Central to Woodridge Station stretch so that transferring passengers don't need to transfer buses to go one extra kilometre.

[achiruel]

I've caught the very first 545 i/b service on a fine (i.e. not raining) Sunday morning and was already 10-15 minutes late. It's a sorely unreliable route.

[techblitz]

there has been 3 lateness complaints on fbook for the 545 in as many days.....including a middayer that ran 15min late yesterday.
Good news is that the route is under review and changes expected.....

***** to TransLink

21 hrs

545 inbound from Celia St, Logan Rd was 15 minutes late again.
It's midday so there's no traffic, there are no weather incidents around and there appears to be nothing wrong with the bus itself.
Also, the driver seemed unsure whether they were the 12:40pm service or the 1:10pm service and had to look it up to make sure.
That worries me.

TL response

Hi ***, I am sorry for that delay. I believe that route is under review with out network planning team. You can expect some changes to be made to this route soon. Thanks, ***

[SurfRail]

In 2005 I was told that certain Gold Coast routes would be reviewed "soon".  Commonly, the word "soon" implies a wait of a bit less than 9 years.

[techblitz]

noted a 555 3.15 leaving Holland park bus station with 'sorry bus full' on the desto....