Will Qld soon be a PT backwater again?

[somebody]

This is some interesting info:

I think the year is wrong.  It's actually 2010/11 for the Auckland figure based on info I can reproduce (patronage = 65763655, pop = 1482950 est).

If they continue their current rate of growth, they'll reach 60 trips/head in 3-4 years, and it may well accelerate with electrification as it has been for most of the last decade.

Brisbane has never reached Wellington's level!  Perth has passed Brisbane.  Adelaide will likely overtake Brisbane with electrification if they haven't already.  Melbourne and Sydney leave all in their dust, well in Oz/NZ.

BTW, I get the following for SEQ:
Year               Patronage      Population         Trips/head
2007/8            162.5         2.8793645926      56.4
2008/9            175.7         2.9390634185      59.8
2009/10            176.5         3                  58.8
2010/11            174.6         3.0622            57.0

Cols 2&3 in millions.

[#Metro]

Well I think that we are assuming a business as usual scenario,  and this is not the case.

The CFN will be introduced to the Ferny Grove train route sometime later this year. CFN hopefully can be completed on the buses - I think the best thing is paired BUZ services, that is 2 x BUZ for Bulimba (BUZ 235/230), 2 x BUZ for Centenary (BUZ 400 via Coro/450 via Legacy way), 2 x BUZ for Northwest (350/359) followed by a Wynnum Road BUZ (220 or 227) and cutting the GCL into sections and boosting each individual section.

Remember also, GC will be having a major review also with CFN being rolled out on the LRT as well in the future and all other major train routes being brought up to CFN Line standard.

NB: I have described a service which is not CFN as a 'route' regardless of mode, and a service that IS CFN standard, a line, in line with the Human Transit Blog.

[somebody]

Only the first of your upgrades has any official support.

Fair enough that is likely to help, although I think without weekends and evenings it will only help a little.  What is clearly constraining growth is the high fares, which are planned to get higher.  I guess for commuters the 9/week cap but the 2x 7.5% increases will counter it.

[#Metro]

The fares are high, but the subsidy is high too. The service is also much to be desired on rail and on bus in particular areas. How can we be spending so much money and getting so little service for it? Where is all the cash going?

We need more BUZ services, pronto. Waste needs to be cut as well.

[Jonno]

We are a backwater now and will be for a long time to come. All levels of Govt are only fiddling at the edges even with some of the projects announced recently.  PT mode share is either stagnant or decreasing!

[somebody]

We are a backwater now and will be for a long time to come. All levels of Govt are only fiddling at the edges even with some of the projects announced recently.  PT mode share is either stagnant or decreasing!

It is decreasing, no doubt.

Where is all the cash going?

- Running rockets which aren't used enough in the PM.
- Many routes only used in one direction, e.g. 4xx express, 160
- Other routes created or increased because of above problems
- Guards
- Otherwise poorly performing rail network
- Concrete with mediocre services
- Ferries which are expensive and deliver mediocre outcomes
- Lack of bus lanes meaning more buses and drivers are needed
- routes carrying a lot of air which no one wants to fix

A lot of the above has always applied and the waste is getting worse, so there must be some other stuff.

[#Metro]

Simon, I like this list. It's a first step. Can't get rid of waste without identifying it.

I'd add:

Network Inefficiencies - split stops, split routes (i.e. 174/175, P88 etc)

[somebody]

I don't see how you can be against 174/175.  What would serve Logan Rd between Broadwater Rd and Garden City if the 175 goes?  And what would serve Creek/Newham if the 174 goes?

[O_128]

Isn't QLD already a PT backwater 

And also why do I always see try axle 174s ? is this a heavily loaded bus?

[#Metro]

I don't see how you can be against 174/175.  What would serve Logan Rd between Broadwater Rd and Garden City if the 175 goes?  And what would serve Creek/Newham if the 174 goes?

Spectrum of Authorities:

"Don't cut 174/175!"  -------> My Feelings/Our Feelings

"A network composed of fewer, consolidated lines is simpler and more frequent"  -------> Geometry

The 174 should be abolished and services amalgamated into the 175 service. With a bit of extra cash, this service can be assigned
BUZ status with very little extra money and also be very legible because everyone will know it as "the bus that goes straight down
Logan Road". If you want to go anywhere on Logan Road you need 175 - it becomes part of the street almost.

I am always suspicious of arguments in the form of  "What would serve X Rd between Destination A and Destination B if bus route XYZ goes?" because it can be generalised into / implies broader argument that suggests that all routes are untouchable, networks should never be reviewed, and we should only ever add services and never remove them -- precisely the actions that have got us 220 routes with only 9% of them being Core Frequent.

To answer the question, 598 services would be amalgamated into 590 services, and as the 590 service already travels down Newham road, that road would be covered by 590 services.

CUT!!  

If you are against cuts, you are also against a simple, legible, efficient, frequent network.

[Gazza]

I am always suspicious of arguments in the form of  "What would serve X Rd between Destination A and Destination B if bus route XYZ goes?" because it can be generalised into / implies broader argument that suggests that all routes are untouchable, networks should never be reviewed, and we should only ever add services and never remove them -- precisely the actions that have got us 220 routes with only 9% of them being Core Frequent.

Don't worry TT, we're not allowed to change any routes in the western suburbs either because of a couple of bus stops around Taringa. 

[somebody]

CUT!!  

If you are against cuts, you are also against a simple, legible, efficient, frequent network.

Not in favour of this one.

Both routes should be increased.

[somebody]

Isn't QLD already a PT backwater 

Touche!

But falling behind Adelaide, Auckland and Perth would be rather disgraceful.

[#Metro]

Not in favour of this one.

Both routes should be increased.

And that's exactly the problem. You want BOTH routes increased which means TWICE the cost - easily $6-$12 million dollars just so we can "save" all the bus routes by putting them into the "life raft".

That's $6-$12 million we could be spending elsewhere, like in Bulimba or Centenary or wherever. That's the hidden side to this, when you do stuff like that, you divert cash and pump it into propping up legacy routing / welfare routing long past it's use-by date and you entrench an awful, illegible network.

Amalgamate these routes, spend some cash on upgrading the service to BUZ level, spend the rest of the saved cash on Centenary and Bulimba. If TransLink bit the bullet and cut P88 into half, it could use the western end and amalgamate that with all the other routes in centenary to create the BUZ 400 for very little extra cost.

Why support waste!?!  



If you are against cuts, you are also against a simple, legible, efficient, frequent network.

[somebody]

Why support waste!?!  

It's not waste for reasons already discussed!

[SurfRail]

The Mt Gravatt, Wishart, Mansfield and Holland Park area is a mess.

Focus on getting:
- A Logan Rd BUZ
- A Capalaba Rd/Ham Rd/Wecker Rd/Cavendish Rd BUZ
- A Newnham Rd/Creek Rd BUZ (upgrade 590)

Then fill in the missing bits as required.

[somebody]

The Mt Gravatt, Wishart, Mansfield and Holland Park area is a mess.

Focus on getting:
- A Logan Rd BUZ
- A Capalaba Rd/Ham Rd/Wecker Rd/Cavendish Rd BUZ
- A Newnham Rd/Creek Rd BUZ (upgrade 590)

Then fill in the missing bits as required.

Absolutely!

Your middle BUZ sounds like the 180 but using Cavendish Rd between Holland Rd and Chatsworth Rd.

I'd send the 174 via Cornwall/Juliette Sts & Buranda in that world.

[#Metro]

It's not waste for reasons already discussed!

It is waste! Those areas are already covered by other services.

[somebody]

It's not waste for reasons already discussed!

It is waste! Those areas are already covered by other services.

What service covers Creek Rd between Cavendish Rd and Logan Rd?  I guess the 184 does, but IMO the 184 should go, not the 174.

Similarly what covers Newnham Rd between Broadwater Rd and Wecker Rd?  590?  That's a pretty indirect trip you are asking people to take there.

[#Metro]

Yes, but this is quite a case of split frequency isn't it?

[somebody]

Yes, but this is quite a case of split frequency isn't it?

That may be, but you haven't answered the question!

[#Metro]

Readjustments of 185 and 184
BUZ 180 already does near Broadwater and Wecker Rd.

[somebody]

Broadwater and Wecker are parallel!  Perhaps you are saying there doesn't need to be anything in between, in which case I disagree.  1591m as the crow flies along Creek Rd between Cavendish and Logan, and 1226m along Newnham Rd between Wecker and Broadwater.  The latter I could probably live with at a pinch.

I have to admit I'd like the 174 better if it used Fairland St between Creek and Newnham.  Perhaps there is a reason it doesn't.

I think the 184 adds little to the network besides confusion.  That's the one I'd remove, and perhaps increase the 185.  If you removed the 174 but kept the 184 then Newnham Rd would still be fairly poorly served even if some back streets near it are served.

EDIT: to add to the above, the 185 serves some areas around Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Rd which otherwise aren't well served at all.  The 184 doesn't provide much useful service south of Broadwater Rd IMO.  That's why I would prioritise that.

[somebody]

Should have included this in the OP:

Clearly, if that growth continues while little is done in SEQ, Auckland will pass SEQ shortly after the next QLD election on a per capita basis.  I think that the growth will accelerate, actually.  With electrification and fare integration coming in stream reasonably soon, to be followed by a bus revamp,

Auckland's PT derided a while back, here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/aucklands-dull-heart-is-the-trouble-20100526-webu.html

[ozbob]

Media release 8th April 2012

SEQ: Public transport inefficiency needs to be sorted



RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said Brisbane is a very poor performer when it comes to comparing public transport trips per person with other states (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Public transport must be fast, direct and frequent. Public transport in south-east Queensland is hamstrung with poor bus and train frequency, a 'mish-mash' of bus routes that go on tours as much as heading for destinations, and buses that run in competition with rail. Failing bus-rail connections all compound to position us a poor public transport performer."

In 2008/2009 public transport trips per person were (1) :

Adelaide 59
Brisbane 65
Perth 77
Sydney 110
Melbourne 124

Auckland 44
Wellington 74

Vancouver 133

Brisbane - recent years (2)

Year             Patronage (trips millions)      Population (millions)        Trips/person (annual)
2007/8            162.5                                        2.88                                 56.4
2008/9            175.7                                        2.93                                 59.8
2009/10          176.5                                        3.0                                   58.8
2010/11          174.6                                        3.1                                   57.0

"Public transport in Brisbane is clearly not performing. Fare prices are also out of balance with service levels which just further demonstrates the inefficiencies in our public transport."

"It is clear, the entire structure of the public transport network in south-east Queensland needs review to transform it into an efficient network that becomes first choice for travel.  A core frequent network (bus, rail and ferry) is needed with proper cross suburban links with frequent feeder buses to rail and bus stations (3)."

References:

1. http://transportblog.co.nz

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=8075.0

3. Building a core Frequent network http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5173.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/09/04/aucklands-pt-expensive-and-poorly-used/

http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/02/improving-aucklands-pt-what-we-need-to-do/

http://urbanist.typepad.com/files/1295-final-report-150811.pdf

[somebody]

Hmm, I was thinking of drafting something like this.  The growth in PT use in Auckland and imminent rail electrification is something which we should have included IMO.

[ozbob]

Hmm, I was thinking of drafting something like this.  The growth in PT use in Auckland and imminent rail electrification is something which we should have included IMO.

Later, is good comment material ..

[somebody]

From Auckland again, not sure when it will be achieved:


So QldRail will soon be worse than Auckland.

[SurfRail]

^ I couldn't believe those headways when I was reading it the other day...

The long-term plan appears to be:

- Electrify

- Build the loop line from Britomart to the vicinity of Mt Eden with a fork in both directions and close Mt Eden station

- Service patterns as follows:

Manukau to the Western line via Britomart and the underground line (alternating between the southern and eastern lines for every second train)

Southern line to somewhere along the Western line short of the terminus (alternating between southern and eastern lines for every second train)

Onehunga Loop (current route to Newmarket, then alternating between an anti-clockwise Britomart-underground-Mt Eden-Newmarket and clockwise Mt Eden-underground-Britomart-Newmarket loop for every second train)

Outer suburban shuttles to the terminus of electrification (eg Pukekohe to Papakura and same on the end of the western line)

Seems more complicated than is necessary but it gives you 2x20 minute patterns for each of the 3 main routes, all of which go to the city.