New poll reveals Australia's most liveable city

[ozbob]

New poll reveals Australia's most liveable city  -  Property Council of Australia

http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?p=16&id=3969


Dedicated web site  --> http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Advocacy/Policy.aspx?p=69&id=53

[#Metro]

Oh no, groan...

Oh wow, I love this graph! The values are so close together that I highly suspect that the rankings are artefacts of statistical noise.
The difference between 60 and 63 is so small, that I would say this puts most cities in Australia about the same (within uncertainty/error).

Adelaide is NOT livable (for me at least!). They must have THE WORST RAIL SYSTEM in the entire nation. At least electricity came to Brisbane's rail system in the 1980s...


http://www.propertyoz.com.au/library/city_rankings_australia.jpg

Surprising to see Sydney at the bottom, right at the bottom...

[#Metro]

p19 is interesting- Sydney is dirty, poorly maintained and polluted! 
p25- Brisbane is second last. Sydney is the most congested it seems.
p26 - Perth and Brisbane have good PT
p30 is interesting:

Residents were more likely to support, rather than oppose, a series of housing developments to support population growth. The highest level of support was for: new neighbourhoods of freestanding houses built on the outskirts of the city close to jobs

Presumably everyone who was interviewed had a house and didn't want others living near them. lol.

[#Metro]

The property council has some other interesting things
http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Advocacy/Platform.aspx?p=70&id=5

I wonder if public transport could feature in the Sustainability Declarations?

[Stillwater]

It seems we all must take these things with a grain of salt.  What is measured?  So, Adelaide is Australia's most liveable city.  It wasn't all that long ago we were being told that Darwin in Australia's most sustainable city.  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/15/2926835.htm

Interestingly, the Sunshine Coast, which came second in the sustainability stakes, wants the number one spot.  That's the fundamental objective of the SCRC's new strategic plan.

[Stillwater]

Despite being Australia's most sustainable city, Darwin is eight times worse than what would be considered the 'most ideal' sustainable city.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4727/is_3_38/ai_n54562121/

Here's the ACF statement:

http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2954

And, in realms of statistics and damn lies, here is a critique of liveability and sustainability measures:

http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/is-darwin-really-australias-most-sustainable-city/

[ozbob]

The public transport results are fascinating, all mediocre with Brisbane the best of the worst ...  hope the rest of it has a bit more validity ...

Page 26 http://www.propertyoz.com.au/library/110122_Auspoll_My%20City%20The%20Peoples%20Verdict_FINAL.pdf

[somebody]

I think that just goes to show that Brisbanites are prepared to accept mediocrity.  <ducks>  (Am I allowed to say that!)

[Gazza]

Adelaide is NOT livable (for me at least!). They must have THE WORST RAIL SYSTEM in the entire nation. At least electricity came to Brisbane's rail system in the 1980s...

But at the same time, their buses are pretty good (Eg they have 37 high frequency bus corridors)
The rail network is a bit 'ignored' by the populace I guess (Save for the Glenelg tramway)...Most of the city would therefore have contact with the buses as their main way to travel, and if these are good, then I guess people would be happy.
That said, come 2012 when the electrification is done, and provided they feed them properly, Adelaide could have a very nice network indeed.

PS, just on Adelaides Buses, how beautifully drawn are their maps, eg: http://timetables.adelaidemetro.com.au/timetables/routemaps/110-111-113_270909_routemap.pdf
Wish TL would do ones as nice and easy to read as Adelaides.

[Stillwater]

Well, don't forget that Translink is about to release a new network timetable in 2011.  It would seem that now is the time to consider how the printed timetables and website would look like.  I would like to see an interactive map (without the need to enter origin and destination in a search engine), so an intending traveller could click on a point and see a window(s) open up with details of buses and trains serving that location.

It would seem that RailBOT members would be perfectly placed to uncover examples of good timetables from Australia and elsewhere, then vote on the best elements, with the results being made known to Translink.

[#Metro]

I don't think it is due to "populace ignoring" the rail system.
Rail in Adelaide has been neglected, plain and simple. Frequency is terrible, trains are still diesel.

[Stillwater]

Organisations that release data suggesting this Australian city is doing better than another city sometimes use non-acceptable methodologies, or compare apples with oranges.

Those who like a weighty tome, but one that deals with the issues in a consistent way may care to read this document:

http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/files/MCU_SOAC.pdf

Chapter 6 deals with liveability.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbane mX 31st January 2011 page 5

Tops in all ride places

[Fares_Fair]

the headline should have read ...
"Only 45% of Brisbane residents are happy with their PT services!"

or the more correct ...
"55% of Brisbane residents are unhappy with their PT services!"

It isn't a good statistic at all and it isn't clear exactly what the questions were to get such a result.
I find it's results and apparent pleasure at such "success" to be spurious at best. 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

the headline should have read ...
"Only 45% of Brisbane residents are happy with their PT services!"

or the more correct ...
"55% of Brisbane residents are unhappy with their PT services!"

It isn't a good statistic at all and it isn't clear exactly what the questions were to get such a result.
I find it's results and apparent pleasure at such "success" to be spurious at best. 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Most people complain about PT.  It is really surprising that 45% of Brisbane would be happy with their PT.  There are the bits on the city-Northgate corridor and the Mains Rd corridor which are well served, and I guess Old Cleveland Rd as far as Carindale isn't too bad either.  But most of Brissie is mediocre at best.

[ozbob]

Darra rail is not looking too bad at this point in time ... 

[#Metro]

Most people complain about PT.  It is really surprising that 45% of Brisbane would be happy with their PT.  There are the bits on the city-Northgate corridor and the Mains Rd corridor which are well served, and I guess Old Cleveland Rd as far as Carindale isn't too bad either.  But most of Brissie is mediocre at best.

It would be interesting to know what they were complaining about. My guess would be:

- overcrowding
- rail frequency
- no high frequency service nearby
- scope of hours

The core frequent network and frequent corridors will help this, but the elephant in the room really is Rail Frequency.

[somebody]

Normal people complain about: inability to get a seat/leaving early/running late/having to transfer/bad operating hours/inconvenient stop locations which require a long walk at one end/inability to park

Gunzels add: slow timetables/bad frequency

Upon further reflection I wonder how many of the 45% who are happy with PT in Brissie actually use it?

[#Metro]

Inability to get a seat

Increase capacity- get bigger buses or LRT, feed buses to these trunk core frequent routes.

leaving early/running late

For the cost of a can of paint and road signs, T2 lanes can be painted on main arterial roads, and these can operate only for 2 hours per day
to keep the motorist happy. (Ask for more hours, likely hood would be it wont fly unfortunately). Also, don't BCC buses carry transponders
and so traffic light priority can be set up?

having to transfer

"Sexing up" the road intersections with branding, signage and legibility improvements as well as increasing core frequency
will partly solve this. Everywhere an intersection where a frequent corridor or a BUZ crosses another frequent corridor or BUZ
route is a potential interchange opportunity.

bad operating hours

I strongly believe that bad operating hours are a direct result of fixating on radial-only services in peak hour that only offer a direct trip.
Such services can only hope to operate for 2 hours per day- the peak hour, and at all other times, no service or low service is provided.

Instead of doing this, feederising some of these routes to terminate at hubs and then transfer to higher capacity vehicles such as superbuses,
LRT or trains will allow the service to be run for more hours in the day (because you don't have to pay for the bus to go all the way into the
CBD) and grow off peak patronage. Although a transfer is involved, I would suggest that the benefit that you get in exchange- the potential
for a frequent service all day, not just during peak hour, will outweigh the interchange penalty for many routes. Of course, this requires
a bit of care as STB pointed out, but IMHO should be possible to do nonetheless.

inconvenient stop locations which require a long walk at one end

Having less bus routes entering the CBD might allow bus stop consolidation. Certainly, there is only one place you need to go
to catch a train- Central Station. It's all under one roof, in the one building. Extending this principle, with less bus routes entering the CBD,
I think that space could be freed up to move them closer together.

inability to park

park and ride will have selective application. Its expensive, but I feel that some parking in necessary simply because there needs to be some options
for everyone.

[ozbob]

I had an interesting conversation with an acquaintance yesterday. He was explaining the difficulty of his partner to use public transport after  work because coming from the northside, the train that the she needs to catch to the southside departs the same time as the train arrives from the Northside. This is after the PM peak.  The next train is 30 minutes.  I think the aversion to transferring per se is related to the long standing poor frequency which complicates and lengthens the journey times for rail - rail, rail - bus etc.

I think that Darra for example, with its soon to be 15 minute out of peak frequency and very good peak frequency will be a good location to feed with bus.  Transfers will not be subjected to the same time penalties as of now, particularly out of peak.  This is the key I think.

[#Metro]

I had an interesting conversation with an acquaintance yesterday. He was explaining the difficulty of his partner to use public transport after  work because coming from the northside, the train that the she needs to catch to the southside departs the same time as the train arrives from the Northside. This is after the PM peak.  The next train is 30 minutes.  I think the aversion to transferring per se is related to the long standing poor frequency which complicates and lengthens the journey times for rail - rail, rail - bus etc.

I would agree, but would add the poor provision of information, maps and legibility as well as the complicated mass of information that is presented as the rail timetable hanging in almost all rail stations adds to the problem.

The rail timetables hanging in many stations do list the bus routes. But they list every bus route, there is no distinction between a bus that is high frequency and one that is limited service, there is no presentation or map about where these buses actually are (and there may be multiple potential bus stops nearby each at varying distances and visibility) and there is no way to see where it goes.

A passenger is simply told the station and a laundry list of numbers, which means nothing to the passenger:

"Transfers at Fortitude Valley":

117, 121, 124, 125, 170, 171, 174, 175, 178, 183, 184, 185, 195, 196 , 197, 200, 203, 204, 206, 207, 210, 211, 212, 222, 227,230, 232, 235, 300, 301, 302, 305, 306, 310, 315, 320, 322, 334, 335, 356, 360, 361, 364, 370, 375, 379, 381,339, 346, 353,  470, 475, 476

Um, do you see what to do next or where to go next or what route goes where? Me neither!

What's needed is the BUZ network map/frequent corridors map plus a single map with all the buses that exit the station or pass nearby. The legibility of bus stops near rail stations could also be improved by making the stops bigger and maybe calling them and branding them "rail bus stops" if the expenditure on a big pull-in interchange is deemed not required. The cost to do this would be the cost of paint and stickers and signs and maybe a shelter and lighting for the larger ones. It needn't be expensive.

[somebody]

I had an interesting conversation with an acquaintance yesterday. He was explaining the difficulty of his partner to use public transport after  work because coming from the northside, the train that the she needs to catch to the southside departs the same time as the train arrives from the Northside. This is after the PM peak.  The next train is 30 minutes.  I think the aversion to transferring per se is related to the long standing poor frequency which complicates and lengthens the journey times for rail - rail, rail - bus etc.

I think that Darra for example, with its soon to be 15 minute out of peak frequency and very good peak frequency will be a good location to feed with bus.  Transfers will not be subjected to the same time penalties as of now, particularly out of peak.  This is the key I think.

Darra already isn't too bad.  It's just the bit from 7-8pm inbound which drops back to half hourly.  I suppose the service isn't so good after 11pm, but I can live with that.

I think long waits and paying an additional fare when the system wasn't integrated were part of the problem, but not all of it.  Transferring has never been convenient, but it is sometimes necessary to get where you are going.

bad operating hours

I strongly believe that bad operating hours are a direct result of fixating on radial-only services in peak hour that only offer a direct trip.
Such services can only hope to operate for 2 hours per day- the peak hour, and at all other times, no service or low service is provided.

I disagree with this.  Feeders rarely get good patronage, although I do remember a few route 91 trips being quite busy in peak times, in spite of un-integrated fares.  The fact is that feeders contribute little revenue to the system.  Any bean counter would love to cut such routes, and especially outside of peak times, where they maybe, possibly, be OK.

[#Metro]

disagree with this.  Feeders rarely get good patronage, although I do remember a few route 91 trips being quite busy in peak times, in spite of un-integrated fares.  The fact is that feeders contribute little revenue to the system.  Any bean counter would love to cut such routes, and especially outside of peak times, where they maybe, possibly, be OK.

I disagree. To add 1 extra bus to the peak hour (direct service), you have to buy an entirely new bus at the cost of $750 000 and you only run it for 2 hours per day carrying just 65 people and not on the weekends. The legibility in the minds of people is also low, and the opportunity for them to catch and patronise the service is highly restricted.

Certainly, there are entire transport systems built around interchange as the basic building block of the system, and these systems actually grew patronage despite introducing a "forced" transfer where none previously existed. Many light rail systems overseas replaced direct express bus systems, patronage continues to grow on those, our own Perth put trains down the Kwinana Freeway from Mandurah, also replacing an express bus system with AIUI , patronage grew on that, even Bogota, the poster city for BRT has green buses that go to the busway station and set people down, and Hong Kong has their public light bus system.

It is much cheaper to run services in the off peak. You do not need to spend $750 000 for buying a new bus, you just use the idle buses sitting in the depot to do it and the employees surplus from peak hour. You can increase the frequency because the route is much shorter and therefore you can get better bus utilisation. Importantly, you can get patronage and therefore fare revenue in the off peak as well as peak hour, which means more money. The BUZ paper proves, beyond all doubt in my mind at least, that people will catch public transport
in the off peak and weekends if they are given the frequency and opportunity to do it.

Some routes should never be feederised- certainly not any of the existing BUZ routes. However, it is impossible to provide everyone in the city of Brisbane the direct trip to the CBD simply by BUZzing all, or even most, of the direct bus routes. If it were that easy to do, it would have already been done by now; The reality I feel is that it is just financially impossible to do that, if it were possible, it would have been done by now- the result is a high-cost, low quality, low scope of hours, direct-only system that can only give the service people want during the peak hour.

And then TransLink raises the fares 15% to pay for these improvements, in part, due to the situation brought about by the above!  

The alternatives I feel are integrated networks, with transfer and interchange at the foundations.

[somebody]

If the BUZ routes shouldn't be made feeders, does that mean if the 425 to Chapel Hill became a BUZ route, it shouldn't be a feeder, but if it stays as it is then it should be?  I don't think that makes sense.

But as for your point about it being cheap to run buses in the off peak, I don't think that is true.  Wages are a large part of the equation for a bus system.  Fuel/maintenance counts too.

[#Metro]

If the BUZ routes shouldn't be made feeders, does that mean if the 425 to Chapel Hill became a BUZ route, it shouldn't be a feeder, but if it stays as it is then it should be?  I don't think that makes sense.

What it means somebody, is that we get people like Jarrett Walker and Paul Mees and others who know how to make the transition from a direct service only system to an integrated one come to Brisbane, take a look at re-organising the bus system and where there are opportunities and constraints to do so. What it means it that we get the ball rolling and community discussion happening about tradeoffs and choices. That's one reason why I did the "proof of concept" with the route 411- showing that in theory at least, it was possible to double the frequency at almost all times of the day on that route, and then I did a vote, and only 2 people disagreed with the concept. For clarity, that was just testing the water.

To answer your question, hypothetically speaking, I think the people of Chapel Hill and 425 users should be consulted about the possibility, draw up a draft timetable like I did for 411 proof-of-concept showing feeder versus direct service, letterbox the entire area with the draft timetables and information, invite them to come along to a forum to speak with the planners and get an idea of what the choices and trade offs are. I now hear that "people in Brisbane don't like to transfer", well, how do we know that people in Chapel Hill are not an exception to this? Maybe they would like it, rather than being stuck on Coronation drive for 15 minutes, 1 hour and again 15 minutes, like happened this week. They should be asked IMHO!

But as for your point about it being cheap to run buses in the off peak, I don't think that is true.  Wages are a large part of the equation for a bus system.  Fuel/maintenance counts too.

To put a direct bus on during peak hour, you have to get a new bus because all buses at that time are being used. That's $750 000 vs $0 already.

The amount of congestion on the roads is at its worst at peak hour, which mean that you need more buses to maintain the same frequency, and you are stopping and starting and wasting fuel as a result. This effect is much much lower in the off peak.

It would be very interesting to look at the farebox ratios of the BUZ routes vs the general other routes.
I would argue that the increased patronage (100% overall, 200% on weekends as per the BUZ paper) would more than offset any costs.

[somebody]

To put a direct bus on during peak hour, you have to get a new bus because all buses at that time are being used. That's $750 000 vs $0 already.

I re-iterate, this is not the main cost.  Peak hour is actually the time when people are most willing to transfer.  They know that the train will be faster in most cases.  Off peak, it is somewhat less attractive.

It would be very interesting to look at the farebox ratios of the BUZ routes vs the general other routes.
I would argue that the increased patronage (100% overall, 200% on weekends as per the BUZ paper) would more than offset any costs.

Given that the BUZ routes carry 31% of BT patronage, but a surely significantly smaller proportion of their numbers of service-kms, I'd say that it is a no brainer that these routes get the best cost recovery.  Whether it covers 100% of costs?  Not too sure.

[#Metro]

I re-iterate, this is not the main cost.  Peak hour is actually the time when people are most willing to transfer.  They know that the train will be faster in most cases.  Off peak, it is somewhat less attractive.

$750 000 / 50 000 (estimated bus driver wage for 1 year) = 15 years equivalent of driver wages

I am not arguing from a mode-specific position. The Core Frequent Network is composed of BUZ BRT routes along arterial roads, frequent corridors and frequent train services on rail lines. This is the core of the system that the feeder services can dump passengers into, in the same way that creeks feed rivers or the same way that arterial roads feed larger freeways. The Core Frequent network is there all day, every day and is frequent. It supports the running of routes connected to it that would not be otherwise run in the off-peak.

If that is true, then what is the reason why people transfer more in peak hour? Could it simply be that there are more services around then and therefore the waiting time is much lower. I would argue that the waiting time, not the time of day, is the cause here.

Off-peak it is less attractive

I disagree here. If the connecting service is Core Frequent, then that changes the game.

There are only two things that are an entire level of magnitude much worse than a "forced transfer" IMHO

1. Forced low frequency
2. Forced NO frequency

And that is exactly what a direct-only system does. 

[somebody]

$750 000 / 50 000 (estimated bus driver wage for 1 year) = 15 years equivalent of driver wages

Oops!  You are assuming that the bus runs ~37.5h/week!  If it runs 18x7 = 126h, that's more like 4.5 years wages equivalent.  And I am sure workers' comp premiums are significant for something as relatively dangerous as bus driving.