Article: Brisbane's bus growth outstrips rail

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Brisbane's bus growth outstrips rail

Brisbane's bus growth outstrips rail
Daniel Hurst
May 4, 2011 - 3:00AM

Southeast Queensland bus patronage has surged by 65 per cent over the past six years, more than triple the growth in rail usage.

As the state government yesterday hailed the 10th anniversary of the first full busway opening in Brisbane, new figures showed how much the region had embraced that mode of travel.

Bus patronage rose by 65 per cent since 2003/04 to 71,659,535 trips last financial year as more busways and buses were rolled out, according to figures provided by TransLink.

By contrast, the number of train trips rose by 20 per cent over the same period to 57,620,000 last year.

Public transport advocates said they were unsurprised to see commuters opt for the bus as significant investments had been made in that mode of travel, but authorities were now beginning to focus more on rail.

TransLink figures show the number of people travelling on the South East Busway has risen sharply over the past decade as services and routes expanded.

The busway, linking the Brisbane CBD to Eight Mile Plains on the southside, was fully opened at the end of April 2001. In its first year, passengers made 17.7 million trips on the busway's core services.

TransLink said 72 million trips had been taken on services that included the South East Busway last year.

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the city's bus network had undergone a major transformation during the past 10 years, with three major busways completed and two more under construction.

"There are now 24 kilometres of busway, 19 busway stations, seven interchanges, five park 'n' ride facilities and almost 600 CCTV cameras monitored 24 hours a day on the busway network," Ms Palaszczuk said in a statement.

brisbanetimes.com.au yesterday sought figures showing how bus and rail usage habits had changed over the past decade, given the 10-year busway anniversary.

But TransLink was unable to provide patronage figures from earlier than its establishment in 2003/04.

Patronage growth rates have not necessarily been consistent over this time. TransLink's latest quarterly report shows bus patronage in October, November and December was 2.1 per cent higher than 12 months earlier, but rail recorded higher growth with a six per cent usage jump.

Robert Dow, from commuter lobby group Rail Back on Track, said he was unsurprised to see the investment in bus services had sparked large patronage growth.

"There was a concerted effort to boost bus during that period and TransLink had a very bus-centric focus when they formed up to now," he said.

"However, the South East Busway is approaching capacity; that's the elephant in the room."

Mr Dow said the region was entering a rail growth phase, as extensions were in the works from Richlands to Springfield and from Petrie to Kippa-Ring while other improvements were planned.

"I predict in 10 years rail will be carrying more than bus," he said.

"The big growth has been in bus and that's good but it can't be sustained."

According to the state government's draft Connecting SEQ 2031 blueprint, released last year, boosting bus patronage will be crucial if the government is to have any hope of doubling public transport usage to 14 per cent of all trips within two decades.

Over the next two decades, the Eastern Busway will be extended to Capalaba while the Northern Busway will reach Bracken Ridge. However, specific timeframes and funding plans remain unclear.

Other major bus plans include rolling out high-frequency 'turn up and go' UrbanLink bus services at least every 15 minutes off-peak and at least every 10 minutes during peak times. These services would be introduced "with priority on strategic corridors".

But the Connecting SEQ blueprint puts rail at its centre, including the now-stalled $8 billion cross river rail project.

"It's a rail-centric plan because that's where the growth needs to be to deal with capacity now," Mr Dow said.

"What they've done [with the busways] to some extent is they've used buses in a train-like way, but there's a limit to what you can do with that.

"[Bus] capacity is starting to be a major problem."

Mr Dow said it was possible that some busways could be converted to light rail in the future.

He added that there would be difficulties on the rail network over the coming decade as the delayed cross-river rail project was desperately needed to address capacity bottlenecks.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbanes-bus-growth-outstrips-rail-20110503-1e6mm.html#ixzz1LJHge7xS

[ozbob]

See here as well --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5884.msg54416#msg54416

[Cam]

How many more customers would use Brisbane's railway stations if train frequency was even half that of the bus frequency at busway stations? I used to catch a bus from Garden City (Upper Mt Gravatt) along the SE Busway to the city. The frequency of services & speed of travel to the city was good ie. lengthy distances between stops & 100km/h speed limit between stops along the Pacific Motorway corridor. I moved to use a railway station along the Beenleigh Line & the frequency & speed of services available plummeted. Why does living near a railway station in Brisbane mean you receive a third class service compared to living near a busway station? I then moved to near a major railway station along the Ipswich line west of Darra & there was little improvement in the service.

Many people in Ipswich suburbs drive to Brisbane & many more will once the Ipswich Motorway upgrade is completed because of the slow & infrequent rail services. Imagine a speed of 100km/h between stops on express rail services from Ipswich (& other lines) with a distance between stops like the SE Busway in the inner suburbs & greater distances further out?

[ozbob]

During the recent bus expansion (last 10 years) rail has been left to languish essentially.  Basic frequency no different to what it was years ago.

Richlands has meant a reasonable frequency between Darra and CBD now, and I have noticed a lot more pax, despite the best efforts of TransLink and QR to keep it a secret.

Even when the Ipswich Highway upgrade is finished I don't think it will be quicker than train at peak.  The highway just dumps traffic into a road congestion quagmire.  Certainly out of peak it is generally quicker to drive, but other factors are going to come into play.  Cost of fuel will be one.

There could be around the clock tiered express services to and from Ipswich now of course (and Caboolture), simply by extending Richlands trains to Petrie and working off a twenty minute base (as discussed before).  I don't think they have enough resources or track capacity to do 15 minutes base frequency at this time. A service that runs Ipswich all stations to Darra, then express to CBD every 20 minutes out of peak, is a lot better than an all stations every 30 minutes.  The way I see it incremental improvements are better than none.

[johnnigh]

Who pays for the buses Brisbane Transport Buses, and who pays for the trains serving the same local govt area? The answer to the first is, apart from the fare box, a negotiated contribution from the BCC and the state govt. For the second, it is wholly the state govt. What requires a more substantial subsidy, bus or train? I'm ready to be corrected, but I'd say train, by a country mile. By subsidy I mean the amount of cash required to keep a service running, to supplement fare box and other direct income (advertising, special event organiser contributions etc, a very minor amount).

What does the state treasury, and its Under Treasurer, Mr Gerard Bradley, see? A river of cash escaping from Treasury is all they are transfixed by. And, as the odious Michael Costa said more than once when Treasurer of NSW, every extra passenger is $$ Treasury is losing, so lets keep the numbers down by starving these services. Which he did.

I've banged on in other postings about the cost of this sort of thinking, and I think we're all aware of them and the fallacies that this thinking represents. But knowing the fallacies hasn't stopped Treasurers and their minions from carrying on imposing enormous social costs on their economies and societies.

So why has bus taken the brunt of investment and increase of services? Simply because the Qld Treasury has been unwilling to finance more train services. They are happy to let the BCC do a bit more heavy lifting with more bus services that cost Treasury so much less per service than an extra rail service.

Is it not time, with an election less than a year away, and a change of govt almost inevitable (for better or worse), for BOT to begin to focus on the real blockage in the system? Politically, it could be dynamite. The opposition could make hay campaigning, but that hay might blow back into their faces once in power when they have to work out how to finance the level of services promised.

[Stillwater]

State Treasuries and their officers must be made to understand that the cost of extra funds to rail to move people is actually CHEAPER than providing funds for roads.

But, if only it was that simple.

All the major road arteries -- south, west and north, are funded almost entirely by the FEDERAL Government (with the state having a greater responsibility for the M1 to the Gold Coast).  The state pays a minimal amount for engineering a situation where the Ipswich Motorway, the Bruce Highway and the M1 to the Gold Coast become clogged with cars.  It shifts the cost of funding a solution to another level of government.

By not taking over Brisbane buses, the state government keeps the BCC on the hook to pay substantially for bus operations around Brisbane.

That Mr Gradley is one smart fella.  The people of SEQ are the poorer for his cleverness.

[somebody]

What does the state treasury, and its Under Treasurer, Mr Gerard Bradley, see? A river of cash escaping from Treasury is all they are transfixed by. And, as the odious Michael Costa said more than once when Treasurer of NSW, every extra passenger is $$ Treasury is losing, so lets keep the numbers down by starving these services. Which he did.

Yes, but that thinking does ignore the difference between fixed and variable costs.  London Underground breaks even roughly, and services in a number of Asian cities make a profit.

Federal Government policies which still favour cars are certainly a factor reducing the business case for PT services.

[johnnigh]

Sadly, Brissie's PT is far from covering even its variable costs, especially rail. :conf But the external benefits remain far beyond those costs, not to mention the liklihood that variable costs would be covered if PT was a far more significant part of our daily commute.

[#Metro]

The greatest gains are to be made in the OFF-PEAK .
This is counter-intuitive, but during peak hour, capacity expansion is very expensive as you need to buy new buses and buy new trains. There are only 2 hours per day that are really peak hour. What about the other 10 hours or so?

We need good off-peak frequency so that money can be made in the off-peak times...

[Gazza]

What does the state treasury, and its Under Treasurer, Mr Gerard Bradley, see? A river of cash escaping from Treasury is all they are transfixed by. And, as the odious Michael Costa said more than once when Treasurer of NSW, every extra passenger is $$ Treasury is losing, so lets keep the numbers down by starving these services. Which he did.

Yes, but that thinking does ignore the difference between fixed and variable costs.

Agreed, people who use this line are using fuzzy calculations.

Its like how people keep saying that conspiracy theory that the price rises in SEQ are designed to discourage people off PT, and less users means the govt has less passengers to subsidise, so therefore its all just a ploy to save the government money.

But this is incorrect. The services are going to run regardless, and a full train costs virtually the same amount to run as an empty one.

The per passenger subsidy is just the amount they arrive at when they divide the cost to run the system by the total riders in a given year.

Its not some fixed cost where whenever someone hops on a train that $8 or whatever magically comes out of treasury, and that rising patronage multiplies this amount.
If that were true, you'd have a packed peak hour train costing hundreds of times more to run than a late night train with 10 or so pax onboard, which is clearly not the case.

[somebody]

Sadly, Brissie's PT is far from covering even its variable costs, especially rail. :conf But the external benefits remain far beyond those costs, not to mention the liklihood that variable costs would be covered if PT was a far more significant part of our daily commute.

There's a lot of marginally useful bus services which should be consolidated.  But if you consider track maintenance, rolling stock ownership, signaling and station staff as fixed costs, are you sure rail doesn't cover its variable costs?  Not sure if I'm including everything there.

[#Metro]

Bus/Train/Ferry....This is the wrong view IMHO.

WHOLE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM

Viewing "mode by mode" might not be the right way to look at it. Its a bit like treating the wheels on a bicycle separately to the frame or the seat and concluding "the wheels do the most work, therefore get rid of the lights, handlbars, frame and put extra wheels on".

[johnnigh]

Let's get back to the big issue: penny-wise/pound-foolish govt funding of public transport. As long as the total benefits, economic and social, are ignored by funding bodies, we'll have worse than developing world public transport.

How to make the pusilanimous pollies and their bean-counting bureaucrats take notice of the real issues?

Or should I just work on getting long-term residency somewhere in Europe where I can get around easily and enjoy civilised living instead of the rat-bag world of Australia's metropolitan mega-muddling?

[#Metro]

<<< Next Train 15 Minutes  PERTH Next Train 15 Minutes  PERTH Next Train 15 Minutes  PERTH Next Train 15 Minutes  PERTH

[somebody]

Or should I just work on getting long-term residency somewhere in Europe where I can get around easily and enjoy civilised living instead of the rat-bag world of Australia's metropolitan mega-muddling?

Well, I wouldn't be very optimistic of rapid improvement in Brisbane.  So many citizens are against positive moves for public transport.  Melbourne and Sydney may have a bit more hope.  Not sure about Perth.

[O_128]

Or should I just work on getting long-term residency somewhere in Europe where I can get around easily and enjoy civilised living instead of the rat-bag world of Australia's metropolitan mega-muddling?

Well, I wouldn't be very optimistic of rapid improvement in Brisbane.  So many citizens are against positive moves for public transport.  Melbourne and Sydney may have a bit more hope.  Not sure about Perth.

\


We are very slowly getting there. The courier mail admitted today one of the biggest road problems was the removal of coro drive bus lanes... Its a start

[colinw]

I would not be so sure about there being significant public opposition to decent public transport.

Sure, there are a few noisy whingers and peak oil deniers who are vocal on Courier-Mail feedback, etc., but overall the pro public transport, and pro rail comments in recent articles have been overwhelming.  As have been the poll results.

Public attitude is starting to shift, but the pollies & bureaucrats are running well behind, with a misguided eye on short term treasury gain.

[Golliwog]

Or should I just work on getting long-term residency somewhere in Europe where I can get around easily and enjoy civilised living instead of the rat-bag world of Australia's metropolitan mega-muddling?

Well, I wouldn't be very optimistic of rapid improvement in Brisbane.  So many citizens are against positive moves for public transport.  Melbourne and Sydney may have a bit more hope.  Not sure about Perth.

\


We are very slowly getting there. The courier mail admitted today one of the biggest road problems was the removal of coro drive bus lanes... Its a start

Wow, what? I missed that one.

EDIT: Found it.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/traffic-lights-set-for-western-freeway-as-part-of-northern-link-tunnel-project/story-e6freoof-1226050732401

TOP 5 BRISBANE TRAFFIC BUNGLES

1) Coronation Drive: No right-hand-turning lane from Hale St for 18 months and the removal of bus lanes in 2007

2) Clem7 tunnel: Usage much lower than forecast, causing RiverCity Motorway to go into receivership. Not helped by high toll charges, now at $3.95

3) Airport roundabout: Has caused headaches with heavy congestion and likened to previous airport roundabout removed from the eastern end of the East-West Arterial Rd

4) Kingsford Smith Drive: Shelving of a $50.2 million upgrade to relieve peak-hour congestion

5) Hale St: One of the worst streets in the country for traffic congestion, worsened by Go Between Bridge construction in late 2009 and early 2010

Just would like to add, No.3 isn't a bungle. I assume they're talking about the new temporary roundabout at the western end of E-W Arterial Rd, which is allowing for the tunnel to be constructed under Sandgate Rd. The only other options really are to either close the intersection entirely, or resume a hell of a lot more houses and construct some monstrosity of an intersection with Left in left out only for E-W arterial Rd.

[somebody]

I would add that the first part of No 1 wasn't a bungle either.  The bungle was not closing the right hand turn permanently.  The current situation is crap: the right hand turn shouldn't be used by anyone really, except late at night.  They should have had a third lane (bus lane) inbound on Milton Rd until Cribb St.

With no 3, the bungle was not developing a policy to have a reasonable service on Airtrain IMO.