Article: Free ride is over, mayor tells councils

[stephenk]

I did read your reply.

This choice is unavoidable in a good public transport system, and is in fact an attractive feature of a good public transport system. Using your reverse logic we should get rid of the Great Circle Line, because it stops someone travelling from Mitchelton to Toowong/Indro by train?

Nonsense. The Great Circle line needs a boost, it is an important suburban-suburban service. There is no parallel circular railway there.
Yes, for a person who wanted to go from Michelton to Toowong via GCL does have a competing choice between GCL and Train, ideally they would take the GCL, however, the GCL service is so poor and the train frequency is so poor that they are more likely to have

a) the trip would not be made at all
b) the trip would be made by car (Competing option!)

The numbers of passengers wanting to do such a trip compared to that going to the CBD would also be so small in the whole scheme of things the GCL is hardly a threat the the rail system. Unlike your line which now has cuts which will put train passengers in cars, and the captives on the bus. It is nothing like the competition on your CBD-radial line haul routes.

Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

And I know that this is exactly what is happening- people jumping in cars, and the captive catching the bus.
Another quote by yourself:

Should alarm bells be ringing at QR and TransLink that on the Ferny Grove Line, whilst am patronage has increased, pm patronage has decreased? Due to the abysmal pm peak timetable for stations not served by expresses, and vastly improved INB services, I'm personally using the FG Line around 20% less than in the pm peak than this time last year. My neighbours went back to driving to/from work after the March 2008 timetable!

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3972.msg28499#msg28499

Furthermore, because the GCL passes through suburbs away from the rail system and few people want to do the entire circle, it has a potential to act as a feeder service; which is why I propose to overhaul it to high quality BRT and synchronise it with Indooroopilly station, along with a clock-face timetable, and regular, frequent departures.

Incidentally, the fact cars and road building causes more capacity on the road system and allows more people drive, takes away patronage from trains and buses because it is a competing system, causes a drop in service, which makes more people shift... and it is this shift to the car (yes, that other competing system) is the reason for the financial collapse of many self-supporting public transport systems from the 1960s onwards and why subsidies must now be used to prop the system up.

So Tramtrain, what is your solution to taking away competition between Bus and Ferny Grove Line without inconveniencing people who require the P343, 345, and 390, but do not start/end their journeys near a rail stations?

[#Metro]

So Tramtrain, what is your solution to taking away competition between Bus and Ferny Grove Line without inconveniencing people who require the P343, 345, and 390, but do not start/end their journeys near a rail stations?

A proper external review, of all the bus & train routes should be done, may I suggest by RMIT academic Dr Paul Mees, is required. That is my answer.

I note that your neighbours have gone back to driving cars because of the effect this is having on the rail network. So many routes in Brisbane do not need to go to the CBD.

Perhaps you could e-mail this person and have a chat to them about something called transfer based networks.
I'm sure they would be more than happy to discuss transfer based networks: paul [dot] mees [at] rmit [dot] edu dot au [ignore this tag] ignore these words. I invite anyone else to ask them, indeed it would be an excellent thing if an invitation for them to come on to this forum and have a Q & A session with us could happen. We might learn something we didn't know!

http://rmit.net.au/browse;ID=m6y24xgvy6as

Let me demonstrate a principle here:

Terminal Points (destinations) to travel to......... Number of direct bus routes required
2 points ...... 1 bus routes
3 points ...... 3 bus routes
4 points ...... 6 bus routes
5 points ...... 10 bus routes

As you increase the numbers of direct destinations, it seems like the numbers of buses required must increase massively.
I guess, tongue in cheek, that the amount of cash wasted must also increase exponentially too.
This is why I think providing direct routes to everywhere is an impossible task that will ultimately bankrupt the city and the city council!
Even freeways do not do this, cars must transfer to the freeway using local streets and arterials and then transfer off the freeway back on to arterials and then local streets again because it is not possible, practical or financially prudent to give everyone a freeway directly to their front door, for example.

Sure transfers are not liked. But something can be done about that. We also know from the BUZ paper that increasing the frequency also increases patronage by 100% minimum to up to 300%, which in itself may be more than enough to defeat the transfer penalty. Co-ordinated timing will reduce this even further, as will nice interchanges and a simpler more marketable system. We can do this because we don't run legions of buses into the CBD, we reduce the number of vehicle-km travelled, and therfore the amount of cash TransLink must fork out.

There still might be space for some buses (such as rockets or express) during peak hour and down main arterial, but again, I refer to my comment above. To be done by a pro.

[somebody]

Because train services are set according to demand

Actually I do not think this is true at all.

So Tramtrain, what is your solution to taking away competition between Bus and Ferny Grove Line without inconveniencing people who require the P343, 345, and 390, but do not start/end their journeys near a rail stations?

I would not support messing too much with the 345/P343, but I see the 390 as a bit of a waste at present.  If combined with the 397/398 as discussed in another thread that would make a route which mostly competes with other routes far more useful.  A 15 minute frequency on the FG line would take patronage from the 390.

[cartoonbirdhaus]

Let me demonstrate a principle here:

Terminal Points (destinations) to travel to......... Number of direct bus routes required
2 points ...... 1 bus routes
3 points ...... 3 bus routes
4 points ...... 6 bus routes
5 points ...... 10 bus routes

As you increase the numbers of direct destinations, it seems like the numbers of buses required must increase massively.

Exactly. And it makes the system unnecessarily complicated. Figure 10 in the PDF version of this University of Sydney publication demonstrates the principle quite well.

[stephenk]

So Tramtrain, what is your solution to taking away competition between Bus and Ferny Grove Line without inconveniencing people who require the P343, 345, and 390, but do not start/end their journeys near a rail stations?

A proper external review, of all the bus & train routes should be done, may I suggest by RMIT academic Dr Paul Mees, is required. That is my answer.

I note that your neighbours have gone back to driving cars because of the effect this is having on the rail network. So many routes in Brisbane do not need to go to the CBD.

Perhaps you could e-mail this person and have a chat to them about something called transfer based networks.
I'm sure they would be more than happy to discuss transfer based networks: paul [dot] mees [at] rmit [dot] edu dot au [ignore this tag] ignore these words. I invite anyone else to ask them, indeed it would be an excellent thing if an invitation for them to come on to this forum and have a Q & A session with us could happen. We might learn something we didn't know!

http://rmit.net.au/browse;ID=m6y24xgvy6as

Let me demonstrate a principle here:

Terminal Points (destinations) to travel to......... Number of direct bus routes required
2 points ...... 1 bus routes
3 points ...... 3 bus routes
4 points ...... 6 bus routes
5 points ...... 10 bus routes

As you increase the numbers of direct destinations, it seems like the numbers of buses required must increase massively.
I guess, tongue in cheek, that the amount of cash wasted must also increase exponentially too.
This is why I think providing direct routes to everywhere is an impossible task that will ultimately bankrupt the city and the city council!
Even freeways do not do this, cars must transfer to the freeway using local streets and arterials and then transfer off the freeway back on to arterials and then local streets again because it is not possible, practical or financially prudent to give everyone a freeway directly to their front door, for example.

Sure transfers are not liked. But something can be done about that. We also know from the BUZ paper that increasing the frequency also increases patronage by 100% minimum to up to 300%, which in itself may be more than enough to defeat the transfer penalty. Co-ordinated timing will reduce this even further, as will nice interchanges and a simpler more marketable system. We can do this because we don't run legions of buses into the CBD, we reduce the number of vehicle-km travelled, and therfore the amount of cash TransLink must fork out.

There still might be space for some buses (such as rockets or express) during peak hour and down main arterial, but again, I refer to my comment above. To be done by a pro.

Expecting passengers who currently have a reasonably frequent one-seat bus journey to have to make a two or more-seat journey by bus and train will just drive these passengers away from public transport. Journey examples being Bank Street to Brookside, or Enoggera to Kelvin Grove on the 390.

Going by your opinions on funnelling passengers onto rail - can you please explain how someone would travel from QUT KG to Aspley by bus, then train, then bus, faster than just getting a one-seat bus as at present on the P343,345? Again funnelling these passengers via rail would reduce the attractiveness of public transport.

Having lived in London for 9 years, travelled to 30 other major cities on every continent (except for Antarctica), and seeing how public transport works well (or not well in some cases), I really do not need an academic to tell me how public transport works. Whilst not aimed at the academic in question, are you aware Tramtrain that academics are not always right? Often academic views are based upon theory and not reality. Even peer reviewed papers can be distorted, biased, and often conflicting. I'm sure that many of QR and TransLink's planners are very well educated and know what they are doing, they are just severely restricted by financial and political constraints.   

[#Metro]

Expecting passengers who currently have a reasonably frequent one-seat bus journey to have to make a two or more-seat journey by bus and train will just drive these passengers away from public transport. Journey examples being Bank Street to Brookside, or Enoggera to Kelvin Grove on the 390.

But I've shown how when people switch, the loadings on the train decrease, so when the train service gets cut, many people are going to be driven away from transport. Just like your neighbours next door! And I've also shown previously that increasing the frequency and timing could more than likely make up for the transfer. And what's more your own journey involved a bus-bus transfer.

Going by your opinions on funnelling passengers onto rail - can you please explain how someone would travel from QUT KG to Aspley by bus, then train, then bus, faster than just getting a one-seat bus as at present on the P343,345? Again funnelling these passengers via rail would reduce the attractiveness of public transport.

This is just a baited question. As I have said, no decision has been made, and that should be left up to the reviewers. I am not advocating for the wipeout of all CBD bound bus routes! Obviously some would remain.

Transfers are essential. You wouldn't run a bus from Enoggera to UQ or to Coolangatta just for the sake of a direct trip!

Having lived in London for 9 years, travelled to 30 other major cities on every continent (except for Antarctica), and seeing how public transport works well (or not well in some cases), I really do not need an academic to tell me how public transport works. Whilst not aimed at the academic in question, are you aware Tramtrain that academics are not always right? Often academic views are based upon theory and not reality. Even peer reviewed papers can be distorted, biased, and often conflicting. I'm sure that many of QR and TransLink's planners are very well educated and know what they are doing, they are just severely restricted by financial and political constraints.  

Of course they are restricted by financial constraints! All the more reason NOT to be running things so inefficiently!
Your solution seems to be increase the rates from the already punishing $384 which Brisbane ratepayers pay.

And you are using the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. I'm sure many politicians and rock stars have enjoyed travelling around the world on
all sorts of public transport, it does not make them experts, and like you say yourself, if experts can also be wrong, then perhaps there is
a chance that you are wrong too!

[somebody]

I don't know that anyone would can the 345.  What is dubious is the 390.  Yes, I know it's all stops vs the 345's limited stops, but I find the notion that part of it runs along the FG line and the other part along the 345 route a bit poor.  If the train had a better service there would be much less people on the 390, but I wouldn't can the 390, I'd just extend it to give people who now lack a single seat connection to the city said connection.

[#Metro]

Let's go to one consultant's professional blog, (McConkin Rankin Cagney*, but the blog is a personal author's views):


Why transfers are good for you by Jarret Walker
http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

To complete your trip in a world-class transit system, you may have to make a connection, or "transfer" as Americans say.  
That is, you may have to get off one transit vehicle and onto another.  

You probably don't like doing this, but if you demand no-transfer service, as many people do, you may be demanding a mediocre network for your city.

There are several reasons for this, but let's start with the most selfish one: your travel time.

The diagrams on this site are also excellent as a demonstration of the principle.
*  The same engineering and consulting people that proposed Brisbane's Busway System in the first place.

[stephenk]

I don't know that anyone would can the 345.  What is dubious is the 390.  Yes, I know it's all stops vs the 345's limited stops, but I find the notion that part of it runs along the FG line and the other part along the 345 route a bit poor.  If the train had a better service there would be much less people on the 390, but I wouldn't can the 390, I'd just extend it to give people who now lack a single seat connection to the city said connection.

Glad to see some common sense in this thread!

This is just a baited question. As I have said, no decision has been made, and that should be left up to the reviewers. I am not advocating for the wipeout of all CBD bound bus routes! Obviously some would remain.

I'm quite impressed by your ability to still not answer my questions. If you make a statement against "wasteful competition", please suggest an alternative, not ask me to read an article or talk to a academic.

I think you are seriously underestimating the pressure that forcing bus passengers onto trains would put on an already overloaded rail system. Don't forget the the SE Busway alone carries approx 12tph worth of overcrowded trains! The Ipswich/Caboolture Lines can only currently run 13tph! Funnelling passengers onto trains would significantly increase the requirements for rail infrastructure. Where is this money going to coming from?

You are also underestimating that the spread out nature of Brisbane results in huge areas not served by rail, and realistically out of the range of rail feeder buses. I'm all for local rail feeder buses, but not if it's faster and cheaper to get those passengers to where they want to go to by bus (and I'm sure it costs TransLink less for me to use the bus than train). The successful busways and Buz routes are essential to fill in the gaps between rail. Due to Brisbane's meandering railway lines and indirect roads, it will mean that some routes cross the paths of railway lines, and some places will be well served by both. This is does not mean that they are "wasteful" competition for the minority who have the choice - they are both essential parts of Brisbane's public transport network.

Tramtrain, given that you seem to doubt my world knowledge of public transport systems (which is quite amusing given some of the illogical ideas you have proposed in the past), can you please provide examples of large low population density cities, where the majority of passengers are funnelled onto rail, and bus routes into the CBD have been diverted to becoming rail feeder services?

[#Metro]

I'm quite impressed by your ability to still not answer my questions. If you make a statement against "wasteful competition", please suggest an alternative, not ask me to read an article or talk to a academic.

Feeder buses, the routes to be determined by review!

I think you are seriously underestimating the pressure that forcing bus passengers onto trains would put on an already overloaded rail system. Don't forget the the SE Busway alone carries approx 12tph worth of overcrowded trains! The Ipswich/Caboolture Lines can only currently run 13tph! Funnelling passengers onto trains would significantly increase the requirements for rail infrastructure. Where is this money going to coming from?

Cross River Rail tunnel anyone? And the fact that more services can be run in the off peak (and possibly some during the peak too)? Maybe those cut Ferny Grove Line services could return? Our rail system deserves money after decades of neglect. Our off peak frequencies are the probably the worst in the country. If the patronage is going to be so huge (bring it on!) then perhaps that metro planned for 2026 might need to come forward a bit and other projects like bigger buses or light rail.

You are also underestimating that the spread out nature of Brisbane results in huge areas not served by rail, and realistically out of the range of rail feeder buses.

This is strange. I deeply doubt that areas 5km or so from a rail station are so low density that car is the only option. We also know that frequency is the main thing. If a bus can run to the CBD, then that same area should generally be able to support a feeder bus (at higher frequency too!). Brisbane is a low density city, one of the lowest density cities in Australia. And yet with high frequency services we see results like 100% - 300% increase in patronage when frequency is boosted. We can afford to do this for more people if we save money by not running many routes to the CBD.

[#Metro]

I'm quite impressed by your ability to still not answer my questions. If you make a statement against "wasteful competition", please suggest an alternative, not ask me to read an article or talk to a academic.

FEEDER BUSES TO RAIL

I would love to see Dr Mees come on this forum...
PS: Expend some effort StephenK! It's not hard to click a link.

[#Metro]

I'm all for local rail feeder buses, but not if it's faster and cheaper to get those passengers to where they want to go to by bus (and I'm sure it costs TransLink less for me to use the bus than train).

But there is hardly any evidence of this support from your quarters Stephenk. And I have shown that TransLink must now pay for you to go to the CBD and a corresponding air parcel on the train as well. Of course, transport authorities don't like to carry air parcels, its not hard to see what happens next. You say you are for feeder buses and yet you argue against them.

The successful busways and Buz routes are essential to fill in the gaps between rail. Due to Brisbane's meandering railway lines and indirect roads, it will mean that some routes cross the paths of railway lines, and some places will be well served by both. This is does not mean that they are "wasteful" competition for the minority who have the choice - they are both essential parts of Brisbane's public transport network.

I am not talking about some minority of routes. I am not. Nor am I asking for the busway to be dismantled or closed. As I said, this is why it is important to have a case by case, line by line, route by route review of all them. I think many, but not all, bus routes in Brisbane would be better off not going to the CBD.

Tramtrain, given that you seem to doubt my world knowledge of public transport systems (which is quite amusing given some of the illogical ideas you have proposed in the past), can you please provide examples of large low population density cities, where the majority of passengers are funnelled onto rail, and bus routes into the CBD have been diverted to becoming rail feeder services?

Illogical ideas? What, like combining 66+109 bus routes (being looked at seriously, credit here also goes to 'Somebody'), or a trouts road rail line which made front page news, or saving 15 minutes off rail travel on the Cleveland Line or buses over the Go Between Bridge (which is actually in operation) or boosting rail frequency rather than cut fares, or feeder buses to rail stations and network integration- something that is stated black and white in the TransLink website as one of its purposes for existence?

Whenever I answer your flamebait challenges (like the freeway's thread), later you complain about some other niggly aspect of what I have to say. Are you genuinely interested in this question or is it another flamebait? I don't doubt your knowledge, its just that the arguments that you have put forward in my mind are wrong. I think there is more than enough evidence presented to support what I have to say- Dr Mees Book, The McConkin Rankin Cagney transport consultant blog and MaxHeadway's ITS paper. Where are the publications to support your case Stephenk?

[stephenk]

I'm quite impressed by your ability to still not answer my questions. If you make a statement against "wasteful competition", please suggest an alternative, not ask me to read an article or talk to a academic.

FEEDER BUSES TO RAIL

So you would want someone currently taking a sub 15 minute journey on the P343/345 from West Stafford to QUT KG to take a feeder bus to Alderley, then take a train to Roma Street, then take a bus to QUT KG? Even with rather optimistic 5min connections that would still take 40mins. That is a bit daft when there is already a frequent direct bus route. Can you still not see the major flaw in your rant on bus routes with "wasteful competition" with rail?

[#Metro]

Does RailBOT have a fire extinguisher somewhere?
Refer to posts above.

[stephenk]

Whenever I answer your flamebait challenges (like the freeway's thread), later you complain about some other niggly aspect of what I have to say. Are you genuinely interested in this question or is it another flamebait? I don't doubt your knowledge, its just that the arguments that you have put forward in my mind are wrong. I think there is more than enough evidence presented to support what I have to say- Dr Mees Book, The McConkin Rankin Cagney transport consultant blog and MaxHeadway's ITS paper. Where are the publications to support your case Stephenk?

I am only trying to get answer from you, because you consistently post ideas that you cannot justify. If you actually justified your answers, I wouldn't bother chasing you up.

Why do I need a publication to support my case in this discussion? The fact that I have provided plenty of examples of why these different routes are all required (they serve different markets), and the negative effects of cutting them (considerably longer journey times) is not sufficient? Why do you need any more evidence other than common sense?

[#Metro]

I am only trying to get answer from you, because you consistently post ideas that you cannot justify. If you actually justified your answers, I wouldn't bother chasing you up.

Why do I need a publication to support my case in this discussion? The fact that I have provided plenty of examples of why these different routes are all required (they serve different markets), and the negative effects of cutting them (considerably longer journey times) is not sufficient? Why do you need any more evidence other than common sense?

If you genuinely want an answer, you would spend the time to look at the explanations and justifications of the planners that I and others like MaxHeadway have posted. I justify my posts carefully, even though I am not obliged to. Your claims that I do not supply justification are plainly false.

I am not asking for the cutting of all routes!

[stephenk]

I am only trying to get answer from you, because you consistently post ideas that you cannot justify. If you actually justified your answers, I wouldn't bother chasing you up.

Why do I need a publication to support my case in this discussion? The fact that I have provided plenty of examples of why these different routes are all required (they serve different markets), and the negative effects of cutting them (considerably longer journey times) is not sufficient? Why do you need any more evidence other than common sense?

If you genuinely want an answer, you would spend the time to look at the explanations and justifications of the planners that I and others like MaxHeadway have posted. I justify my posts carefully, even though I am not obliged to. Your claims that I do not supply justification are plainly false.

I am not asking for the cutting of all routes!

OK, so now you would retain the P343, and 345 with it's "wasteful competition"?

Can you please make your mind up.