New Western Region Services

[somebody]

Yes, I'm not sure how constructive it is going to be to call the figures spin.  "Of questionable accuracy" may be better.

Completely abolishing the 505 should never have been done.  I could see cutting it back to a peak service, with Flexilink at other times.  There is no other service anywhere near, unlike the 510 and 523.

[ozbob]

Yes,  I am fighting a rear guard action for the 505 ...

[ozbob]

From the Queensland Times click here!

Group offers solutions to bus woes

Group offers solutions to bus woes

23rd December 2010

A COMMUTER advocacy group for public transport users has proposed a modified 505 bus route be reinstated in Ipswich in the wake of the service's recent axing.

Three Ipswich bus routes were scrapped on December 13 – the 505, 510 and 523 – a move which has sparked a number of community meetings and protests.

Rail Back On Track spokesman Robert Dow said public feedback had shown the axing of the 505 bus route had the most impact.

"The FlexiLink replacement service is operating but it is not the best solution for all," he said.

Mr Dow said TransLink could reinstitute a modified 505 bus route devised by his group, which can be seen in full detail at the website, http://backontrack.org, to ease the ongoing concerns.

The suggested route would depart Bell Street, take in Riverlink and cover most of the area of the old 505 route.

"The new 505 route could be a low floor midi bus, 33-seater, as a dedicated bus," he said.

"Many elderly citizens have mobility access issues with FlexiLink taxis.

"Another alternate is new 515 services could be rerouted along the old 505 route from the intersection of Pine Mountain Road and Waterworks Road with the university services running through to Tivoli and the Brassall services linking to the Yamanto services.

"We welcome TransLink's commitment to further improve the FlexiLink services, but in the case of the 505 bus we request a rethink and restoration of a bus service, albeit modified."

[ozbob]

Media Release 23 December 2010

SEQ:  A modified 505 Bus route?

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 suggested that there is an opportunity to put on a modified 505 bus route in Ipswich.  The withdrawal of the 505 bus route has had the most impact as indicated by public feedback.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The withdrawal of the bus routes at Ipswich, namely the 505, 510 and 523 (1) has not been without a lot of public concern, angst and debate.  The FlexiLink replacement service is operating but it is not the best solution for all."

"The loss of the 505 bus route seems to the major issue.  We think there is an opportunity to reinstitute a modified 505 bus route based on the following proposed route.  This route is only a suggestion and could be further modified as needed.

Depart Bell St – left into Brisbane St – left into East St – continue into Pine St – left into Lowry St – left into Riverlink – left into Downs St – right into Lowry St – left into Pine St – left into Wyndham street –

Right into Cyprus St – left into Kay St – right into Connors St – left into Roberts St – right into Holdsworth Rd – right into Francis St – right into Mt Crosby Rd – continue into Moores Pocket Rd then return up

Moores Pocket Rd continue into Mt Crosby Rd – right into Junction Rd – continue into Arthur Summervilles Rd – right into Elaine St left into Oxley St – right into Philip Cres  - right into Junction Rd – left into Mt Crosby Rd – continue into Moores Pocket Rd – return up Moores Pocket Rd into Mt Crosby Rd – left into Francis St – left into Holdsworth Rd – left into Roberts St – right into Connors St – left into Kay St – right into Cyprus St – left into Wyndham St –right into Pine St – left into Lowry St – continue into Riverlink – right into The Terrace – right into Pine Street – left into Olga St – left into King Edward Parade – left into Bell St.

"This covers most of the area of the old 505 with the extension of the service into Karalee, it does leave a service gap along Waterworks Rd and Holdsworth Rd and also Hill Street."

"The new 505 route could be low floor midi bus 33 seater as a dedicated bus.  Many elderly citizens have mobility access issues with FlexiLink taxis."

"Another alternative is that the alternate new 515 services could be rerouted along the old 505 route from the intersection of Pine Mountain Rd and Waterworks Rd with the University services running through to Tivoli and the Brassall services linking to the Yamanto services."

"We welcome TransLink's committment to further improve the FlexiLink services, but in the case of the 505 bus we request a rethink and restoration of a bus service, albeit modified."

Reference:

1. http://www.translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/bulletin/1291788886

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[somebody]

Interesting idea taking in Karralee with the 505.  Worth a shot.

[STB]

I know that this idea is not new .  It's actually has been looked at by those in the know and power since 2007!

[mufreight]

I know that this idea is not new .  It's actually has been looked at by those in the know and power since 2007!

Would think that if that were the case it would have been considered as an option when promises and undertakings were being handed round in October/November 2007 but personaly I have no recolection of the Translink people spoken to at that time in regard to the 504 and 505 services making any comment when the prospect of a rerouted 505 and extension into Karalee was raised other than to S**tcan the idea, but I was only speaking at that time to their Senior Transport planner.
One would have to question if "LOOKED AT in Translink speak has the same meaning as considered or investigated.

[#Metro]

Could we see a map? I cannot see word descriptions of routes, it never works for me.

Would think that if that were the case it would have been considered as an option when promises and undertakings were being handed round in October/November 2007 but personaly I have no recolection of the Translink people spoken to at that time in regard to the 504 and 505 services making any comment when the prospect of a rerouted 505 and extension into Karalee was raised other than to S**tcan the idea, but I was only speaking at that time to their Senior Transport planner.
One would have to question if "LOOKED AT in Translink speak has the same meaning as considered or investigated.

The more I think about it, the more I think a standard guide on how to introduce, vett and cut services would be useful. A proposal like the above could be proposed, analysed and then results published on it. It would guarantee consideration. Idea developing...

[Stillwater]

PUBLIC SERVICE SPEAK 101

'That is an interesting idea'  =  Get me out of here - another crackpot suggestion
'We always appreciate helpful suggestions' = The view you have expressed are not helpful
'Yes, people are passionate about this' = I wish these people would go away
'Put it in writing' = you get this matter off your chest and I can file your letter in the round filing receptical
Hotline = I get to file my nails while you rabbit on about whatever
'Your comments will be taken into account during the evaluation phase' = (if expressed verbally) someone said something about that, but I can't remember or (if expressed in writing) put on file, never to be viewed again
'We will look at that at the appropriate time' = never
'We may have to have another look at that' = never
'Your comments were received after the public consultation phase closed' = tough
'This is just a preliminary idea, for public discussion' = The final report is aready written and, barring any major intervention, we propose to release it as it is
'There will be an evaluation phase in two years' = Hopefully I will tranfer out of this section before then

Gospel, this is a true story.  I travelled two hours by train to Brisbane to discuss with a government agency a matter that I felt was too complex to handle over the phone.  I got to the address advertised on the web page only to discover the department had moved around the corner.  I went there and found the reception desk.  Here is the coversation with the receptionist.
Receptionist:  Can I help you?
Me:  Can I speak with someone about [such and such a matter]
Receptionist:  We normally deal with those sorts of things through our call centre.
Me:  Where is the call centre?
Receptionst: (pointing to next room)  In there.
Me:  Do you think someone from the call centre can come out here and discuss this with me.
Receptionist:  I am not sure, I will check (disappears momentarily)
Receptionist:  No, they are all busy, as I say, you can always call.
Me:  So, I can ring the call centre now on my mobile and speak with one of your call centre staff with only the wall separating us?
Receptionist:  Yes, I suppose you could do that.
Me: (Totally defeated)  Don't bother, I will spend two hours going home and will ring in on my home phone.
Receptionist:  Okay then.  Next!

[#Metro]

PUBLIC SERVICE SPEAK 101

'That is an interesting idea'  =  Get me out of here - another crackpot suggestion
'We always appreciate helpful suggestions' = The view you have expressed are not helpful
'Yes, people are passionate about this' = I wish these people would go away
'Put it in writing' = you get this matter off your chest and I can file your letter in the round filing receptical
Hotline = I get to file my nails while you rabbit on about whatever
'Your comments will be taken into account during the evaluation phase' = (if expressed verbally) someone said something about that, but I can't remember or (if expressed in writing) put on file, never to be viewed again
'We will look at that at the appropriate time' = never
'We may have to have another look at that' = never
'Your comments were received after the public consultation phase closed' = tough
'This is just a preliminary idea, for public discussion' = The final report is aready written and, barring any major intervention, we propose to release it as it is
'There will be an evaluation phase in two years' = Hopefully I will tranfer out of this section before then

Gospel, this is a true story.  I travelled two hours by train to Brisbane to discuss with a government agency a matter that I felt was too complex to handle over the phone.  I got to the address advertised on the web page only to discover the department had moved around the corner.  I went there and found the reception desk.  Here is the coversation with the receptionist.
Receptionist:  Can I help you?
Me:  Can I speak with someone about [such and such a matter]
Receptionist:  We normally deal with those sorts of things through our call centre.
Me:  Where is the call centre?
Receptionst: (pointing to next room)  In there.
Me:  Do you think someone from the call centre can come out here and discuss this with me.
Receptionist:  I am not sure, I will check (disappears momentarily)
Receptionist:  No, they are all busy, as I say, you can always call.
Me:  So, I can ring the call centre now on my mobile and speak with one of your call centre staff with only the wall separating us?
Receptionist:  Yes, I suppose you could do that.
Me: (Totally defeated)  Don't bother, I will spend two hours going home and will ring in on my home phone.
Receptionist:  Okay then.  Next!

Wow, that is truly breathtaking! Please, send it off to the Courier Mail or Brisbane Times!

[justanotheruser]

Hey stillwater I agree with those statements and what they mean.  I have said before when the government consults with the community the yare only doing so for show. The decision has been made.


However I would like to put my experience with bus drivers of westside across.
Example 1
Me: Excuse me can you please activate the card reader so I can touch on
Driver: Don't worry about it I get paid no matter what

Driver (at later date): I don't know where translink get their figures from. We know more passengers than that catch the bus.

Do these drivers ever consider they are contributing to inaccurate figures? probably not


Example 2
Me: I would like to get off in limestone st please
Driver: This bus doesn't go via limestone st
Me: (surprised) Really I thought it did
Driver: Nope
Me: Can you check because the signs at the bus stops say you do plus the timetables say you do and so does translink
Driver: Nope my run sheet says I don't stop there
Me: Can I see the run sheet so I can say to translink they have given incorrect run sheets to you
Driver: Nope

The worse thing is if these drivers don't go along limestone st then they end up stopping on the wrong side of bell st which is not helpful to passengers waiting for the bus there. The driver probably figures some other bus will pick the person up and take them to riverlink.
My conclusion is that the drivers just couldn't be bothered. It has been said by many CEO's of companies the only way to change the culture of a company is to get a new workforce. I think westside need a new workforce. There seems to only be a couple of good drivers in the entire company.  We can sit here and bag out translink all we like but it is about time we assigned blame to the drivers who contribute so much to the problem by not completing runs or by skipping part of the run and not allowing people to swipe their go cards or telling the machine that a person got on with a paper ticket. This is not saying translink is innocent in the matter but many seem to think it is entirely their fault and if only translink changed everything would be fixed. This could not be further from the truth.

[mufreight]

The drivers run sheets are approved by Translink, it is another example of the shortcomings of that agency in that there are many instances of where the printed timetables, the posted timetables, the information provided by the call centre and the actual drivers run sheets differ.
This continuing lack of co-ordination of information is an ongoing cause for concern by commuters. 
Definately not conducive for good PR.

[STB]

Negative Mufreight!  That is incorrect, TransLink DO NOT approve run sheets!  I've been through many service changes to know this!

[mufreight]

Negative Mufreight!  That is incorrect, TransLink DO NOT approve run sheets!  I've been through many service changes to know this!

As the managing authority it must be the responsibility of Translink to ensure that the contracted services are provided by the operator, this would be or should be part of the operators performance audit which would require a cross check the operators drivers run sheets if such a performance audit is to have any validity, if this is not done and my understanding that it is, then why not? and if not it then partialy explains the number of discrepencies and inconsistencies that occour and obviously since these discrepencies also carry through to the timetabling, bus stop signage and call centre information is another case of the right hand not communicating with the left.

[justanotheruser]

The drivers run sheets are approved by Translink, it is another example of the shortcomings of that agency in that there are many instances of where the printed timetables, the posted timetables, the information provided by the call centre and the actual drivers run sheets differ.
This continuing lack of co-ordination of information is an ongoing cause for concern by commuters.  
Definately not conducive for good PR.

I gotta say I find this explanation lacking. The reason for this is because westside bus drivers have been caught out before lying through their teeth.  if they are right simply showing the passenger the run sheet would be proof of this. A further argument against the drivers is that some drivers actually do go the way the signs say they should. If the run sheet said they don't go that way why would some drivers go that way. Especially the driver whose partner caused some trouble (whistleblowing) and as a result is watched carefully always goes that way. This makes me highly sceptiocal that the bus drivers are telling the truth. So it most likely is not a case of the bus company being provided incorrect run sheets but rather them anting to go the way they want to rather than the way they should.



according to translink the run sheets are created from the same database of information the timetables are printed from and the bus stop signs are made from. Is there any evidence from anybody one way or the other about this being true or not?

[mufreight]

The drivers run sheets are approved by Translink, it is another example of the shortcomings of that agency in that there are many instances of where the printed timetables, the posted timetables, the information provided by the call centre and the actual drivers run sheets differ.
This continuing lack of co-ordination of information is an ongoing cause for concern by commuters.  
Definately not conducive for good PR.

I gotta say I find this explanation lacking. The reason for this is because westside bus drivers have been caught out before lying through their teeth.  if they are right simply showing the passenger the run sheet would be proof of this. A further argument against the drivers is that some drivers actually do go the way the signs say they should. If the run sheet said they don't go that way why would some drivers go that way. Especially the driver whose partner caused some trouble (whistleblowing) and as a result is watched carefully always goes that way. This makes me highly sceptiocal that the bus drivers are telling the truth. So it most likely is not a case of the bus company being provided incorrect run sheets but rather them anting to go the way they want to rather than the way they should.

Yes Westside, both the operators and the drivers have been caught out a number of times but from personal experience Translink has been considerably less than truthful even more times so I give more credibility to Westside
With the recent changes to the Ipswich timetables Translink had according from their bus stop signage 515 services to Brassall departing from one side of Bell Street when in fact the Translink route provided to Westside and the drivers run sheets had them departing from the opposite side of the street, something that Transkink denied for two days then changed this is then something that if one believes Translink that the timetables and routes and drivers run sheets are all created off the one data base should not and could have happened and also that the call centre could not provide incorrect t imetable information yet it has done so on a number of occasions.
It would appear that any information from Translink is more about Translink covering their butt than resolving commuters problems. 

[AnonymouslyBad]

according to translink the run sheets are created from the same database of information the timetables are printed from and the bus stop signs are made from. Is there any evidence from anybody one way or the other about this being true or not?

I don't know, but I doubt all the information on a run sheet is even included in said database. My understanding is that run sheets are tied to a bus (or a driver), not a route. When it comes to scheduling which bus will do which route at which time with which driver - that's the operator's responsibility as far as I know?

[STB]

Alright, here's a bit of education from the start to the end of a typical service change...

Firstly, the changes are identified through a mix of feedback (public, internal, operator specific etc), ticketing data, among many other things.
The DRAFT routes are then drawn up.
The DRAFT routes are then driven by the Planners to check to see if buses can indeed run along those routes ie: there is minimal traffic calming devices etc.
The DRAFT routes are revised.
The DRAFT routes get costed based on the budget given for that specifc region via an earlier application to Treasury.
If the DRAFT routes cost too much, cost cutting is identified and any priorities are identified and kept, a case of needs and wants.
Once that's done, the DRAFT routes are reconfigured and sent to the operator for feedback.
This process goes on several times as the operator identifies anything the planner/s missed.
The new REVISED routes are then re-costed.
The REVISED routes are cut, added, whatever, depends how under budget or over budget it is.
The number of trips is worked out during this time as well, again, depends on the budget, some ideal trips may stay, others may get the cut.
The REVISED routes are then sent to the operator for timings for the timetable.
The operator will then dispatch a bus along those routes and time those routes.
The timings are sent to the Planner/s and the timetables are then constructed based on the agreed number of trips and routes between TL and the operator, which is then budgeted and a business case gets constructed.
Once the business case is approved, and the timetables and routes are finalised, the timetables and routes get sent to the operator so they can create the driver run sheets and optimise the timetable.
During this time, the marketing team kicks in and prepares what the public will see.  They meet with the Planner/s and sometimes the operator (not always) and prepare the marketing plan and documents for the public viewing.
The operator finalises the driver run sheets and then trains the drivers in the new services (really dependant on the drivers taking notes).
TL then sends the entire package to be signed by Management and the Minister's office, a press release is created and sent off to be signed off by Management and the Minister's Office.
If it's all signed off and all dandy, the website is updated with the service change and we the public become aware of it.

The entire above process generally takes about 6-8 months from the start and generally kicks in a month after the previous service change for that operator has begun, this is to allow for time for things to settle (drivers and passengers to get used to the changes etc) and for valid data to start flowing to both the operator, Minister's office and the TL planner/s.

I hope this clears things up.

And this is as blunt and honest I'll be about this, I'm not spinning, I'm not lying, the above is the process I've seen and been through for years.  It's a pity TL can't be as honest as this, it'd settle a lot of angst with the public if they knew the basic process.

[#Metro]

I agree, thanks for this STB.
It would go a long way to public acceptance IMHO.

Is there a compulsory follow up procedure? i.e. after 6 months is the service reviewed, patronage looked at and costs checked?

[ozbob]

What is the flaw in the process (as outlined by STB)?  And is the basic cause of grief out at Ipswich ..


_ _     _ _ _ _ _ _      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

[#Metro]

_ _     _ _ _ _ _ _      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Can I buy the letter E   

[ozbob]

   but I will give you a  N, a P and a C ....

[#Metro]

I know!

NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Coming to think of it, none for route 88 either...

[STB]

The entire region is reviewed once valid data is in in terms of patronage, operator specific feedback which can come from the drivers, from the public approaching the operator rather than the TL or the Minister's office. There is sometimes a mix of local government review as well, where the local government will approach TL internally, and lets them know of their plans for the region.  This will then get factored in into any future service changes.  

Other things that get factored in include any development applications (more longer term than short term) and development of new estates, ie: is there opportunities to send a bus into a new estate.  Is there an appropriate road network that allows for effective Public Transport access and what sort of PT access should there be?  Flexilink type services or a full mass transit service (eg: Bus).

All this happens constantly, but like I said above the actual process of when a Planner gets to that region is generally about a month after a service change in that area, but you also have to keep in mind that the Planner/s will also be working on other regions that they have been given by Management in TL. When neither is happening, the Planner/s will also be looking at 4 year and 10 year network plans, this consists of looking at development applications, liasing with local and state government agencies and other internal stakeholders, it's also a time when the Planner/s may take the opportunity and insert those ideal but couldn't be afforded service changes so that when those medium term plans are sent to Tresury for funding, hopefuly the funding will become available and those ideal changes can happen.

And finally, the brunt of the service change process doesn't kick in until a few months after, just the outline of the next service change a month after the previous service change in that area (I hope I worded that without confusing anyone).

As you can see, the Planner/s are working full time all the time and they DO catch Public Transport themselves, and they DO factor in their own observations where possible.  They are NOT stupid and they do actually care about what they want to do and are aware of community various sensitivies.  And in the case of Westside, as far as I'm aware, they DID involve the Senior Drivers and with other companies, the Drivers do give feedback (patronage loads, timings - is a route constantly running late, running early) to the Management of that Operator which is then sent on to the TL Planner/s.  That is factored in as well.

The reason I'm saying the above, is that I'm getting tired of the ill information that occassionally pops it's head up in this forum, and I figured as a Christmas present, I'd give some hard truths about how it works.  

Call it spin, call it me supporting TL.  I'm doing neither.  I'm simply giving you an inside background into a general service change (not one particular service change as obviously there can be variations on the previously posted basic process, depending on the circumstances at the time).

Queensland Rail has been incredibly open about how the draft timetables come together, what you heard from those community consultations and from others involved is exactly what has occurred.  There is NO spin in that.  All we need now is for TransLink to start being just as open and involved with the community.  TransLink based CRGs would be a start and would ease a lot of angst and ill information spreading around if the basic proceesses and rational behind various service changes is given.  At the moment, TransLink are acting nothing more than a childish version of the Secret Service.  This must stop IMO, call it a 2011 resolution for TL.

I might get into trouble for this by those in the know, but there was one particular person who managed to persuade TL management years ago to stop doing public consultations, as the justification was that the public will just simply disagree with it anyway.  There were Planners and others who were a bit dumbfounded by this, and it's probably compounded the secretivness of TL.

[mufreight]

Flaws
1  Translink failure to consult with the commuters actual or potential.
2  The convoluted process that Translink uses rather than to base their timetabling/routes and frequencies on people with actual coal face experience, the academic approach is frequently sadly flawed by decisions more about bureaucrats justifing their existence rather than producing a workable result.
3  Translink works to the Treasury requirements influenced by political considerations rather than community need.

While there is a need for a co-ordinating authority for public transport there is no justification for the hydra like bureaucracy that Translink has become.  It soaks up funds that could be far better expended on services by attempting to micro manage operators who should be allowed to respond to community demand.
       

[ozbob]

I know!

NO PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Coming to think of it, none for route 88 either...

Bingo, another piece of Christmas cake for you TT!   



And thanks for this insight STB, explains a lot ..

I might get into trouble for this by those in the know, but there was one particular person who managed to persuade TL management years ago to stop doing public consultations, as the justification was that the public will just simply disagree with it anyway.  There were Planners and others who were a bit dumbfounded by this, and it's probably compounded the secretivness of TL.

[mufreight]

The entire region is reviewed once valid data is in in terms of patronage, operator specific feedback which can come from the drivers, from the public approaching the operator rather than the TL or the Minister's office. There is sometimes a mix of local government review as well, where the local government will approach TL internally, and lets them know of their plans for the region.  This will then get factored in into any future service changes.  

Other things that get factored in include any development applications (more longer term than short term) and development of new estates, ie: is there opportunities to send a bus into a new estate.  Is there an appropriate road network that allows for effective Public Transport access and what sort of PT access should there be?  Flexilink type services or a full mass transit service (eg: Bus).

All this happens constantly, but like I said above the actual process of when a Planner gets to that region is generally about a month after a service change in that area, but you also have to keep in mind that the Planner/s will also be working on other regions that they have been given by Management in TL. When neither is happening, the Planner/s will also be looking at 4 year and 10 year network plans, this consists of looking at development applications, liasing with local and state government agencies and other internal stakeholders, it's also a time when the Planner/s may take the opportunity and insert those ideal but couldn't be afforded service changes so that when those medium term plans are sent to Tresury for funding, hopefuly the funding will become available and those ideal changes can happen.

And finally, the brunt of the service change process doesn't kick in until a few months after, just the outline of the next service change a month after the previous service change in that area (I hope I worded that without confusing anyone).

As you can see, the Planner/s are working full time all the time and they DO catch Public Transport themselves, and they DO factor in their own observations where possible.  They are NOT stupid and they do actually care about what they want to do and are aware of community various sensitivies.  And in the case of Westside, as far as I'm aware, they DID involve the Senior Drivers and with other companies, the Drivers do give feedback (patronage loads, timings - is a route constantly running late, running early) to the Management of that Operator which is then sent on to the TL Planner/s.  That is factored in as well.

The reason I'm saying the above, is that I'm getting tired of the ill information that occassionally pops it's head up in this forum, and I figured as a Christmas present, I'd give some hard truths about how it works.  

Call it spin, call it me supporting TL.  I'm doing neither.  I'm simply giving you an inside background into a general service change (not one particular service change as obviously there can be variations on the previously posted basic process, depending on the circumstances at the time).

Queensland Rail has been incredibly open about how the draft timetables come together, what you heard from those community consultations and from others involved is exactly what has occurred.  There is NO spin in that.  All we need now is for TransLink to start being just as open and involved with the community.  TransLink based CRGs would be a start and would ease a lot of angst and ill information spreading around if the basic proceesses and rational behind various service changes is given.  At the moment, TransLink are acting nothing more than a childish version of the Secret Service.  This must stop IMO, call it a 2011 resolution for TL.

I might get into trouble for this by those in the know, but there was one particular person who managed to persuade TL management years ago to stop doing public consultations, as the justification was that the public will just simply disagree with it anyway.  There were Planners and others who were a bit dumbfounded by this, and it's probably compounded the secretivness of TL.

What are the qualification and experience base of Translinks Transport Planners.
Defending the indefensable is a waste of effort that should be left to the spin department of Translink which has been notably absent from the field in this matter.
Typical bureaucrats they have created an envelope in which they exist isolated from the realities of the world giving no explanations for their actions because in their own overinflated importance they believe they are above all the rest of us meer mortals

[STB]

Mufreight, if you re-read what I posted, I'm NOT DEFENDING TL for their failures.  If anything, I'm doing the opposite!

Some of the Planner's come from an operational background, others come from an academic background.  While I have given the above, I think it would be a bit inappropriate to give out any details about specific Planner/s I know of and have met.  If you want to know, I'd suggest you ask the Planner/s themselves when they come out in public (rare I know but lets hope this can change).

[#Metro]

Bingo, another piece of Christmas cake for you TT!  

What? Where are my QR muffins?


I have always thought that if you make things more transparent to the public, it becomes harder and harder for the public to dream up conspiracy theories,  "alternative explanations" and easier to get people to engage constructively etc.

If TL does not put justifications or have a conversation out there or take pre-emptive action before major things like this, then an environment where mis-information and ill feeling can fester and flourish. (i.e. PR disaster). I am not asking for every little change to go through the full process, it is probably not required, but a sense of proportion would say that terminating all bus services in an entire area of that size should have lit up a warning light.

Sending out the PR and Marketing department is probably not something thing I see as helpful. In fact, it might have the exact opposite effect, because people automatically turn off when they know it is the PR department. PR has a bad name. By all means they and the minister can be on hand, but if you have to do that, it is probably too late and you are in damage control. Planners who are responsible for that area might be better??

If anything, the draft timetable process for QR's timetables has been generating criticism, but the key difference IMHO was that had the words DRAFT all over it, whereas the flexilink decision was more like "We are doing this now" lump it and leave it.

You know, I think Flexilink might be a good idea. It needs refinement and something like this is still developing.

Queensland Rail has been incredibly open about how the draft timetables come together, what you heard from those community consultations and from others involved is exactly what has occurred.  There is NO spin in that.  All we need now is for TransLink to start being just as open and involved with the community.  TransLink based CRGs would be a start and would ease a lot of angst and ill information spreading around if the basic proceesses and rational behind various service changes is given.  

Exactly. Transparency and engagement before or during the process changes everything. After the fact, it is then too late, and you are in damage control. Some transit agencies (I think TransLink Vancouver?) meet in public with questions from the board by the people being allowed. This might be one reason why they scored so well in the PT report card.

[STB]

I think 2011 should be the year of complete overhaul in TL's Planning and Community Relations processes.  Even if this does involve in leaking information and other dirty tricks. If it improves what c**py consultation we get now, then so be it IMO.

I'd strongly suggest in keeping the B***tards honest and letting them know exactly what you want at every service change, moreso if Management or the Minister's office staff or herself known that we know exactly what TL are up to and that we, as a community want change, at least back to the early days in 2004/05 when TL actually went out there and consulted about the TNP and network overhauls for each region.  Heck, I remember those days of Meet The Planner sessions at libraries and shopping centres.  Sure people got fired up but it allowed an improvement on what TL was proposing and allowed massive patronage growth in the service.

[#Metro]

I think 2011 should be the year of complete overhaul in TL's Planning and Community Relations processes.  Even if this does involve in leaking information and other dirty tricks. If it improves what c**py consultation we get now, then so be it IMO.

I'd strongly suggest in keeping the B***tards honest and letting them know exactly what you want at every service change, moreso if Management or the Minister's office staff or herself known that we know exactly what TL are up to and that we, as a community want change, at least back to the early days in 2004/05 when TL actually went out there and consulted about the TNP and network overhauls for each region.  Heck, I remember those days of Meet The Planner sessions at libraries and shopping centres.  Sure people got fired up but it allowed an improvement on what TL was proposing and allowed massive patronage growth in the service.

As we are getting off topic, I have made a new thread ---> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5145.msg43623#msg43623

[justanotheruser]

I have always thought that if you make things more transparent to the public, it becomes harder and harder for the public to dream up conspiracy theories,  "alternative explanations" and easier to get people to engage constructively etc.

Well its a nice thought pity about reality though.  There are a number of really good government initiatives that I stumbled across that are being kept quiet because of fear over public backlash.  This fear is justified from my observations. 





And another note lets not forget that TL is not the only one capable of spin. At the risk of upsetting some people here I would like to point out there is a steam train group that is very very quick to point out they have no annual membership fee.  Sounds great untill you read the fine print and discover they have an annual administration fee! So by changing one word they try to make themselves look good when really it is the same as any other steam train organisation.  I'll take the ones being upfront and leave the trip from handmade expo to others instead.

[somebody]

Queensland Rail has been incredibly open about how the draft timetables come together

Did you see the thread I started a while back about what CityRail were doing?  Puts QR to shame.  But the latest effort is better than previous ones by far, so that is good.  The other thing that annoys me is how infrequently the timetables are (properly) revised.

[justanotheruser]

Queensland Rail has been incredibly open about how the draft timetables come together

Did you see the thread I started a while back about what CityRail were doing?  Puts QR to shame.  But the latest effort is better than previous ones by far, so that is good.  The other thing that annoys me is how infrequently the timetables are (properly) revised.

well city rail had to make up for their blunder about a decade ago when they were revising timetables and had done alot of work and it all got accidently deleted   oops thats right I'm not supposed to know about that! That was why for some time you couldn't get a timetable for love or money. The new ones should have been completed but work had to start again not quite from the beginning and the old timetables wearn't being printed anymore