Brisbane - bus network proposal

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

26th January 2015

Re: Brisbane Bus Reform: Brisbane City Council's Bus Network - What Went Wrong?

Greetings,

It matters little who is Government after next week, they are going to have to address the failed bus network for Brisbane.  TransLink attempted to do the right thing in 2013, non-cooperation by BCC basically torpedoed their efforts.  We don't think BCC will be able to get away with intransigence again - putting political self interest ahead of the broader community interest.  Weak leadership at the state level was also a factor.

Our members have worked for the past year in putting together detailed maps of the current and a proposed bus network for Brisbane.  It has cost Queensland nothing but many hours of dedicated committment by our members.

A series of media releases has been made available  and these are grouped together here
--> Bus reform - our proposal media releases grouped   http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11099.0

New Bus Network Proposal > http://tiny.cc/newnetwork
New Bus Network Proposal Survey > http://tiny.cc/busreform
Current BCC Bus Network > http://tiny.cc/checkyourbus

We do not claim that our proposed network is THE solution, it is a solution.  No doubt private bus operators everywhere have taken close note though as they prepare for competitive tendering.

Public transport in Queensland needs reform generally. Queensland: Call for an Inquiry into Public Transport -->   http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11184.0

The political party that addresses the critical issues of fare and network reform in detail as part of their policy platform, will probably be the party that determines the make-up of the  new state Government.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Media release 6th January 2015

Brisbane Bus Reform: Brisbane City Council's Bus Network - What Went Wrong?

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 today releases a summary report into issues with BCC's bus network and calls all parties contesting the 2015 Queensland Election to support bus reform.

As part of our New Bus Network Proposal for Brisbane, we release an additional summary report detailing what went wrong with the BCC bus network. The Lord Mayor is on record stating that the BCC bus network is 'not broken'. We disagree. Now, anybody can download our report and see why fares escalated.

Download Report Here > Frequency is Freedom  PDF 4.8MB

We show:

    * Who gets frequent bus service in Brisbane, and the suburbs that are public transport black holes under BCC's 'no transfer' philosophy (pages 5 - 8 ).

    * How bus reforms rejected by BCC are being implemented in Brisbane's sister city of Auckland, New Zealand (page 10).  A package of improvements in Auckland has seen train patronage grow 17% (2014) and bus patronage grow 7% (2014). In contrast, Brisbane bus patronage fell by 1 million and traffic congestion increased by 3%.

    * The cost escalation mechanism. Upgrading the bus network while insisting all buses drive direct to the CBD and not adjusting the surrounding legacy network leads to escalating costs which implies increased fares. (pages 11 - 12)

    * How BCCs bus network and anti-interchange philosophy places buses exactly where they are least required, wasting resources and congesting the Brisbane CBD. As an example we analyse the Moggill Rd/Coronation Drive corridor showing that this also leads to too few buses in the suburbs, causing long waits for BCC's own residents. (Pages 14 -16)

    * How BCCs bus network philosophy leads to a bus network that leaves entire suburbs without decent bus service (e.g. Yeronga, Bulimba, Centenary, Albany Creek) (Page 17 - 18)

    * How BCCs bus network philosophy leads to an enormously complicated, fragmented, expensive-to-run, low frequency network in the suburbs. (i.e. 15 different bus routes to the Centenary suburbs, where none frequent). Despite BCC's in-house 2013 review, examples still exist of where service does not properly match the distribution of residents and straightening is required (Page 20).

Our analysis suggests Brisbane City Council was a key driving force behind the escalating 15% fare increases. While BCC does not set fares, it does set bus supplier costs, and obviously, higher costs equals higher fares. Private bus operators bidding for contracts within the Brisbane area should offer to do what BCC refuses to do - offer to run a simple, frequent and connected-style bus network.

The sooner Brisbane gets new bus operators that are willing and able to undertake the difficult task of bus network reform, the sooner fares can come down and patronage falls reversed.

Contact:

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

References:

City's public transport will never improve while run by opposing sides Couriermail 11th April 2012 pages 18-19
http://backontrack.org/docs/cm/cm_11apr12_p18.jpg
http://backontrack.org/docs/cm/cm_11apr12_p19.jpg

Coronation Drive Analysis (Diagram)



http://s998.photobucket.com/user/tramtrain/media/BR_wasteogram_zps01c22678.png.html

Brizcommuter
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/brisbane-city-council-bus-network.html
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/brisbane-city-council.html
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/more-of-brisbane-city-councils-not.html

New Year, New Bus Operators?
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11164.0

2014 – A Year in Review Part 1 – PT, Auckland Transport Blog
http://transportblog.co.nz/2014/12/29/2014-a-year-in-review-part-1-pt/

Brisbane Buses: Call for CityGlider in Centenary Suburbs
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-buses-call-for-cityglider-in-centenary-suburbs-20141104-11gxl3.html

New Bus Network Proposal > http://tiny.cc/newnetwork
New Bus Network Proposal Survey > http://tiny.cc/busreform
Current BCC Bus Network > http://tiny.cc/checkyourbus

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

26th January 2015

Bulimba Electorate: Di Farmer and Aaron Dillaway - Do You Support Bus Reforms or Not?

Bulimba is the most marginal electorate in Queensland for this election.



Image: The BulimbaGlider route, funded by bus reforms. http://backontrack.org/docs/bus/reform/route230.png

Over the past week we have seen a bus scare campaign. The bottom line is that under Brisbane City Council's 2013 bus review, proposed bus service upgrades to the Bulimba Electorate were cancelled. Why? Brisbane City Council insisted on running every bus to the Brisbane CBD, and thus no funds were left over to upgrade bus services in Bulimba, Yeronga, the entire Centenary Suburbs and Albany Creek. This is a mathematically inevitable outcome of that policy choice.

In addition, fares were then increased by 7.5%!

Bulimba Electorate voters should be very careful of supporting scare campaigns that claim to be 'saving' their buses. They may be unwittingly signing away bus service upgrades for their own area, and signing on to fare increases, possibly up to 20%!

How do we know this?

Firstly, Brisbane City Council publicly rejected RAIL Back on Track's the BulimbaGlider Bus Upgrade concept in 2012.

Secondly, Brisbane City Council cancelled proposed bus upgrades to Bulimba in 2013 (TransLink Bus Review).

Thirdly, Lord Mayor Graham Quirk is on public record saying that he would 'NEVER EVER' support bus reforms, and is anti-connections.

Fourthly, Brisbane Transport was directed to block meetings with TransLink planners on Six occasions.

Fifthly, our own research shows Brisbane City Council's bus network planning is contributing to higher costs, and thus higher fares.

Sixthly, it was revealed on ABC Radio that the Lord Mayor had asked for more than the 4% funding provision, possibly up to 21% more. If passed on to passengers, this means higher fares. Fares increased 20% in 2010 for go card, 40% for paper tickets setting a precedent.

Far from 'cuts, cuts, cuts' - bus network reform is absolutely essential for giving Brisbane the best bus network in Australia. Failure to complete network reforms means no new high frequency bus services, escalating fares, and retention of bus service 'Black Holes', which includes Bulimba. The bus network reforms that have been refused by Brisbane City Council have been accepted in Brisbane's sister city - Auckland, New Zealand, and now Christchurch and Wellington.

As a high-density inner city area with popular restaurants and cinema, the voters of Bulimba Electorate deserve a BulimbaGlider bus upgrade. Under bus reform, this upgrade would be entirely affordable, funded by recycling existing waste and inefficiency in the bus network.

Di Farmer and Aaron Dillaway, do you support bus reforms or not? Come out and say whether you support the bus reforms that will give Bulimba Electorate hi-frequency BulimbaGlider services, every 15 minutes all day or better, with 24-hour bus service on Friday and Saturday nights; the same BulimbaGlider that Brisbane City Council rejected to the Bulimba area.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

Calls for Bulimba glider rejected
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/calls-for-bulimba-glider-rejected-20120201-1qtbt.html

18 Jan 2015: Queensland Election: Public Transport Privatisation: Fact Check
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11214.0

Brisbane Bus Reform: Brisbane City Council's Bus Network - What Went Wrong?
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11175.0

Brisbane Bus Reform: BulimbaGlider - More Buses, More Often, for Bulimba Electorate
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11089.0

QLD Election 2015: Will the punters be hit with 20% plus fare increases after the show?
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11195.0

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

28th January 2015

Bulimba Electorate: BulimbaGlider set to soar? ALP responds

Greetings,

Bulimba electorate is the most marginal seat in Queensland and is currently being contested by Aaron Dillaway (LNP), Di Farmer (ALP) and David Hale (Greens).

RAIL Back on Track has received correspondence from the ALP Deputy Leader of the Opposition Tim Mulherin MP regarding our New Bus Network Proposal and a BulimbaGlider service.


http://backontrack.org/docs/bus/reform/route230.png

Our BulimbaGlider is formed from the amalgamation of low frequency bus routes 230, 231, 235, 236, into a single high frequency service coming every 15 minutes or better, all day, with 24-hour service on Friday and Saturday nights. BulimbaGlider implementation is low cost, and could be completed within the first 100 days of winning office.

A key question will be how a BulimbaGlider service will be achieved given that the operator, Brisbane City Council, has already publicly rejected bus reform, rejected the BulimbaGlider concept and rejected connections. BulimbaGlider service would require all three issues above to be fixed. How will Aaron Dillaway, Di Farmer and David Hale deal with the problems Brisbane City Council presents?

RAIL Back on Track thanks ALP Deputy Leader of the Opposition Tim Mulherin for his written response, and calls on all other contesting parties and independents to outline their position on bus reform in the Bulimba Electorate and Brisbane more generally.

Best wishes
Robert

Contact:

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

References:

Letter from Tim Mulherin 20th January 2015
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11178.msg151987#msg151987

The contracting of urban bus services - Recent Australian developments; Research in Transportation Economics 48 (2014) 48-61
http://www.worldtransitresearch.info/research/5426/

Brisbane Bus Reform: BulimbaGlider - More Buses, More Often, for Bulimba Electorate
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11089.0

Calls for Bulimba glider rejected
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/calls-for-bulimba-glider-rejected-20120201-1qtbt.html

New Bus Network Proposal > http://tiny.cc/newnetwork
New Bus Network Proposal Survey > http://tiny.cc/busreform
Current BCC Bus Network > http://tiny.cc/checkyourbus

Brisbane Buses: Call for CityGlider in Centenary Suburbs
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-buses-call-for-cityglider-in-centenary-suburbs-20141104-11gxl3.html

Brisbane Bus Reform: Brisbane City Council's Bus Network - What Went Wrong?
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11175.0

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

29th January 2015

Support Bus Reform: Win Queensland State Election?

Image: Ashgrove Electorate Bus Reform. More buses, more often and new direct and frequent buses to UQ.


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 calls all parties contesting the 2015 Queensland Election to unconditionally support bus reform.

The Queensland 2015 election is on a knife edge, and could result in a hung parliament. With the result so close, every electorate and vote counts. No other policy is so advantageous to a political party than adopting bus reform across the entire City of Brisbane. Why?

* Bus Reform is the only policy that gives local improvements to almost all Brisbane Electorates, including marginal electorates such as Brisbane Central, Ashgrove and Bulimba.

* Bus Reform affects 26 electorates out of the 89 electorates represented in the Queensland Parliament.

* Bus Reform is an exceptionally low-cost policy, already mostly funded by recycling waste and inefficiencies within the existing Brisbane City Council Bus Network. It is fully affordable.

* Bus Reform can be rapidly implemented as it requires no new major infrastructure, no new rail lines,  no new busways and no grovelling for funds from Canberra.

* New high quality, high frequency bus services to Yeronga (Hi 196), Bulimba (Hi 230 BulimbaGlider), The Centenary Suburbs (Hi 400 CentenaryGlider) and Albany Creek (Hi 359).

* New, 900 Series CityConnector bus services allowing freedom of movement and liberty for multi-destinational passengers.

* Increases patronage, increases environmental benefits and reduces subsidy required over time, ultimately saving money.

* 'Off the shelf' network plan - fully prepared network maps comparing the current Brisbane City Council bus network to our New Bus Network Proposal. Our proposals are provided publicly and free of charge on the internet for download or viewing from anybody's home computer.

With an election this close, any political party would be mad not to support bus reform. It is not too late to support Bus Reform and announce new bus services across all of Brisbane in a single, citywide, massive upgrade. The political party that offers genuine reform of rail and bus networks, together with fare reform, is the political party able to guarantee low cost and abundant public transport for all.

Don't miss the bus!

Best wishes
Robert

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


References:

New Bus Network Proposal > http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

New Bus Network Proposal Survey > http://tiny.cc/busreform

Current BCC Bus Network > http://tiny.cc/checkyourbus

Brisbane Bus Reform: Brisbane City Council's Bus Network - What Went Wrong?
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11175.0

Brisbane Bus Reform: Even More Buses For Ashgrove Electorate
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11127.0

Brisbane Bus Reform: More Buses, More Often For Ashgrove Electorate
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11072.0

[#Metro]

Bus Reform

http://s998.photobucket.com/user/tramtrain/media/Bus_Reform_Logo_zpsczg4h7yz_1.png.html

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow now

Support Bus Reform: Win Queensland State Election? > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=11047.msg152053#msg152053 ... #qldvotes #qldpol who has missed the bus?

[OzGamer]

Sorry to join this late, but was consideration ever given to having the Bulimba glider just be the eastern leg of the existing MaroonGlider? ie reroute it as the Stones Corner section of the MaroonGlider is kind of useless anyway.

[aldonius]

I think things would just get a little unwieldy.

The other thing is that Lapdog has designed this to mitigate loss aversion.

[OzGamer]

Fair enough. It does just seem a bit expensive, however, with Glider frequencies all evening etc. I wonder if it would be worth considering running this routing, but matching the frequency and span to the Cleveland line, so having a bus leaving Morningside 5 minutes after the outbound train, and an outbound bus meeting the inbound train at Morningside, so it acts as a feeder as well as a line haul bus. This would mean only half hourly at nights and weekends, but is still a better overall level of services than exists now while being much cheaper to run.

[#Metro]

Sorry to join this late, but was consideration ever given to having the Bulimba glider just be the eastern leg of the existing MaroonGlider? ie reroute it as the Stones Corner section of the MaroonGlider is kind of useless anyway.

Hello. The problem is a problem of parts. Each suggested local change looks rational, but when added up overall gives a completely irrational result and a mess.

A network cannot be approached route-by-route in isolation, a whole-of-network approach is the way to go, a key flaw with the TL review. Individual route appraisals are necessary, but the focus needs to be on the network as a whole at the end of the day.

Given the failure of the TransLink proposal, I took a view that practical reality would take a higher value than theoretical perfection. A perfect network is useless because it simply will not be implemented. Ultimately practical real-world outcome is the gold standard to judge success by, not the degree of compliance to the book. So there will be some imperfection.

MaroonGlider
The MaroonGlider is problematic, but this has been solved by making the MaroonGlider the sole service along Logan Road and re-routing the service to Park Road interchange. People can change at Buranda to SE Busway services to Garden City etc. 175 services will exit at Buranda and head down Logan Road for speed.

See more of the proposal here ---> tiny.cc/newnetwork

[#Metro]

Fair enough. It does just seem a bit expensive, however, with Glider frequencies all evening etc. I wonder if it would be worth considering running this routing, but matching the frequency and span to the Cleveland line, so having a bus leaving Morningside 5 minutes after the outbound train, and an outbound bus meeting the inbound train at Morningside, so it acts as a feeder as well as a line haul bus. This would mean only half hourly at nights and weekends, but is still a better overall level of services than exists now while being much cheaper to run.

Trains are expensive to run due to the requirement of two staff per train and high labour costs. Hence trains not run so often in the evenings or weekends. There should be co-ordination but the bus service should not be scaled back when the train scales back 'just to match'. Bulimba is an inner city suburb with good patronage fundamentals and density.

It is higher cost, but just like West End 199 etc, it is also very high benefit and services in the inner areas that do have good quality service to offer almost all recover their costs or nearly do. Most of the cost is already paid for because existing bus routes are being recycled and only modest amount is required for the extension to Morningside.

Given the increased patronage expected from this new service, I would not be surprised if the extension paid for itself.

[Fattious]

I seem to find making feedback requests to Translink and every time need to convince the operator that Translink can provide feedback when they receive a response from the operator.

Just boarded a P216 that was delayed 15 minutes and driver didn't get his 4 minute regulated break. Turns out the bus operated a school run that terminated at Garden City late and only left 4 minutes to relocate itself to Elizabeth Street for the outgoing.

If council want revenue from school routes they should at least ensure they can transport their parents in a timely manner and not oversee schedules that see drivers breaching the Queensland Transport heavy driver regulated breaks.

[Fattious]

Fair enough. It does just seem a bit expensive, however, with Glider frequencies all evening etc. I wonder if it would be worth considering running this routing, but matching the frequency and span to the Cleveland line, so having a bus leaving Morningside 5 minutes after the outbound train, and an outbound bus meeting the inbound train at Morningside, so it acts as a feeder as well as a line haul bus. This would mean only half hourly at nights and weekends, but is still a better overall level of services than exists now while being much cheaper to run.

Ozgamer has some validity with Morningside rail feeding as Wynnum Road is not ideal in peak, 3 laning will help, but passengers can transfer if the far end of the route terminates at Morningside rail, then transfer again for CBD services.

[#Metro]

This would mean only half hourly at nights and weekends, but is still a better overall level of services than exists now while being much cheaper to run.

To clarify: yes to timing co-ordination, no to half hourly service at night.

[pandmaster]

Wynnum Road is not ideal in peak, 3 laning will help

Will it? It may create induced demand and gobble up the new capacity.

[Fattious]

I think overall the additional lane will improve flow, as became apparent when the Clem7 tunnel came into operation. The outbound additional lane should be a transit lane but I doubt that will eventuate. Either way I avoid Wynnum Road in Peak in favour of Rail or 214/215/220 services although they are impacted by Stanley St (which also needs a transit lane).

[hU0N]

MaroonGlider
The MaroonGlider is problematic, but this has been solved by making the MaroonGlider the sole service along Logan Road and re-routing the service to Park Road interchange. People can change at Buranda to SE Busway services to Garden City etc. 175 services will exit at Buranda and head down Logan Road for speed.

Honestly, and with the greatest respect, the Kennedy Terrace / Simpsons Road Maroon Glider routing deserves to die a slow and horrible death.  It is a predictably low ridership routing that serves no obvious purpose.

For anyone living in the Ashgrove / Bardon / Red Hill area (and full disclosure, I am one of them), there are precisely four reasons to get on a bus:
1) To go to the city.
2) To go to Ashgrove Marketplace
3) To go to Paddington Central
4) To go to UQ/Indooroopilly (maybe Toowong)

Nobody in their right mind wants to go to Bardon Village itself.  Moreover, most of the Kennedy Terrace / Arthur Terrace area is within 400m walk of either Latrobe Tce or Waterworks Rd which means that walking to a direct bus on one of those roads is guaranteed to be an average of 20min quicker than taking a transfer through Bardon for virtually everyone.

There are only two journeys that this routing serves better than NO BUS AT ALL; peak hour journeys to work and transit dependant riders living along Simpsons Rd.  In short, you could achieve the same coverage for less money by routing the P386 along Kennedy Terrace and converting the 374 Maroon Glider to a Carwoola St to Bardon Village shuttle.  Or if it is important that the 374 Maroon Glider connect to the City, then route the P386 along Kennedy Terrace, route the 374 Maroon Glider along Latrobe and convert the 385 into a Bardon-The Gap shuttle.

Whatever way, any routing though Bardon/Red Hill/Ashgrove that doesn't call at Ashgrove Marketplace or Bardon Central is going to be transporting nothing but air, and at the frequency that glider services operate, that's an expensive way to move air around.

[#Metro]

You are welcome to make your views known, however the proposal has been consulted on widely and is a solution, not 'THE' solution. The feedback forms are still open.

Ultimately TransLink will decide what goes forward, as RBOT is not the planning agency.

Inner city suburbs do get high ridership (see 199 vs 196 in New Farm for an an example similar to this), and the area is terraced/hilly. It may look easy from a map but on the ground a different story. 377 would need to be reinstated along that area if the proposed MG was rerouted back.

Quite a significant service gap will open up in that area; I do not think cost issues are a concern at all, the whole thing is near cost-neutral.

[techblitz]

Good to see ozGamer isnt phased by 30/30 evenings weekends.....i concur 

I just dont buy the whole...if you delete a bus service off 15 minute frequency late evening passengers will be lost......late evenings there just arent enough passengers to lose..
If a train line is at 30 mins then the bus should be at thirty and there is absolutely no need to have it at 15 minutes....just make sure you have your connection gaps right and all should be ok...gold coast seems to be doing just fine with 30/30 late evenings...

[#Metro]

For the BulimbaGlider alignment, no to 30 min service on evenings. The place is a restaurant and cinema area, evening service is important. If anything, it is the train line that should be upgraded to have 15 min frequency in evenings.

[SurfRail]

If a train line is at 30 mins then the bus should be at thirty and there is absolutely no need to have it at 15 minutes....just make sure you have your connection gaps right and all should be ok...gold coast seems to be doing just fine with 30/30 late evenings...

Assuming you don't need the 704, 760 or 765 anyway.  If you hop off at Nerang and want to go anywhere east you're pretty much set any time of the day with 3 routes running until midnight.

[James]

The reason LDT has kept the MaroonGlider is loss aversion and the politics behind it. BCC will call us the anti-christ (I think it is the only thing Quirk/Matic haven't called us yet) if we bring up any suggestion of culling the MaroonGlider and will probably use it as a point to destroy our proposed network. Similar concessions fall into the same boat (e.g. retention of 100 BUZ to CBD). At least the suggested routing opens up service to a new area (Kennedy Tce) while also covering the back area of Bardon 375, allowing the 375 between the City and Bardon to be culled.

If James could redraw the bus network and tell grannies to go transfer, personally I would happily tear up the MaroonGlider and re-allocate the resources to a more deserving part of Brisbane. I somewhat like the routing City - Bardon and could probably just give that to a half-hourly route. Cut City - Park Road via Logan Rd. No need for a service along Logan Road - use the nearby stations/other routes. But we can't have perfection without running into serious hurdles.

If there is an issue with Glider branding, maybe just turn the 385 into the Glider and the proposed Glider into the 385 - the 385, given the loads it gets, would probably be a worthy substitute.

Fair enough. It does just seem a bit expensive, however, with Glider frequencies all evening etc. I wonder if it would be worth considering running this routing, but matching the frequency and span to the Cleveland line, so having a bus leaving Morningside 5 minutes after the outbound train, and an outbound bus meeting the inbound train at Morningside, so it acts as a feeder as well as a line haul bus. This would mean only half hourly at nights and weekends, but is still a better overall level of services than exists now while being much cheaper to run.

Bulimba is a significant dining hub, I believe a BUZ into this area will see patronage figures in the 199/412 range, it certainly should run every 15 minutes to last service.

You don't need to match the frequency of the train if the train station (Morningside) is only a minor anchor. For example, the Gold Coast - neither the 709, 740 or 750 meet every single train, but that is because the train is not a major anchor. Sure, it is a trip generator in itself (for onward connections), but not a major anchor.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Good to see ozGamer isnt phased by 30/30 evenings weekends.....i concur 

I just dont buy the whole...if you delete a bus service off 15 minute frequency late evening passengers will be lost......late evenings there just arent enough passengers to lose..
If a train line is at 30 mins then the bus should be at thirty and there is absolutely no need to have it at 15 minutes....just make sure you have your connection gaps right and all should be ok...gold coast seems to be doing just fine with 30/30 late evenings...

Brisbane's Northside can't even get 15/30, 30/30 or 30/60 right. Case in point Geebung. Nothing like having the 327 turn up when both trains going inbound and outbound are on the platform. No one can transfer from the train to bus and no one can transfer from the bus to the train. Who the hell plans this network??

[Gazza]

In think in the inner city 412, 199, Blu3 Glider, 66, to be high frequency till last service.

But really, I don't think HF is warranted beyond 9pm on most of the network.
Sure, allowing some people along these routes to live without a car till 11pm is a noble goal, but not when the HF network isn't even complete yet.

[hU0N]

It may look easy from a map but on the ground a different story.

That is exactly my point.  You see these buses are MY buses. I live off Arthur terrace an equal distance from the 377 and the 378. The 380 group is an easy 4 minute walk (which I do every day) and the 61, 598 and 599 are less than five minutes away. And I have slogged it out on foot all the way to Bardon many times to catch a bus to or from the Paddo. When I go shopping, I usually walk to Ashgrove or Paddington (because even with the 61 nearby) it's usually quicker,  but I catch the bus home cause of the groceries. The point is, I am well aware of conditions on the ground.

And as a local, with local knowledge, I can tell you with absolute 100% certainty that as much as it might look good to a map jockey, a Kennedy Terrace glider looks to a local much more ridiculous than an express bus from Bardon to the moon.

You compare it to the 199, a very popular inner city route, but to a Bardon local, your proposed Kennedy terrace glider looks like a 199 that ran express through West End, Southbank, the CBD and the valley, stopping only in hill end and newfarm. It might work for some people, but for most it simply doesn't give them the option to get on and of where they actually want to go.

To be clear, I'm not advocating making no change to the 61. It is an awkward route that runs too close a timetable to the 385 to be truly successfull. But routing it around Paddington and Ashgrove removes the few reedeeming features that the route has, and will cut the guts out of its already unspectacular ridership, especially outside peak times. This is most certainly not cost neutral.

Compared to the (currently 2 hourly) 377, a Kennedy Tce Glider features a massively increased cost with little additional benefit, and compared to the 61, it has a significantly decreased benefit at much the same cost.  Either way, you've gone backward.

[#Metro]

Exaggerations aside, the proposal was open for consultation and following the closing of that, it is now publicly released already (and already sent to TL, BCC and printed in the Brisbanetimes). A number of people have reviewed it, including external review.

Once a proposal is formulated and publicly released, comments/criticisms can be appended to the proposal and forwarded, but the proposal itself will stay the same.

Suggestions are welcome within the form, and the form does permit one to change their responses, even after submission, until closing, which I expect will be in February. The form can be found here --- http://tiny.cc/busreform

Suggestions will be publicly released and forwarded to TL, and possibly BCC.

The network isn't perfect, and that's because it's not trying to be.

[#Metro]

The reason LDT has kept the MaroonGlider is loss aversion and the politics behind it. BCC will call us the anti-christ (I think it is the only thing Quirk/Matic haven't called us yet) if we bring up any suggestion of culling the MaroonGlider and will probably use it as a point to destroy our proposed network. Similar concessions fall into the same boat (e.g. retention of 100 BUZ to CBD). At least the suggested routing opens up service to a new area (Kennedy Tce) while also covering the back area of Bardon 375, allowing the 375 between the City and Bardon to be culled.

If James could redraw the bus network and tell grannies to go transfer, personally I would happily tear up the MaroonGlider and re-allocate the resources to a more deserving part of Brisbane. I somewhat like the routing City - Bardon and could probably just give that to a half-hourly route. Cut City - Park Road via Logan Rd. No need for a service along Logan Road - use the nearby stations/other routes. But we can't have perfection without running into serious hurdles.

If there is an issue with Glider branding, maybe just turn the 385 into the Glider and the proposed Glider into the 385 - the 385, given the loads it gets, would probably be a worthy substitute.

The failure of the TL review in the real world suggests some pragmatism/compromise is required. There were a number of services where one could try to improve on what was there current rather than remove the service. The Logan Road corridor is one such corridor, the proposal there is to make the MG the main bus route and alter the other routes (merge 174/175 together and send via busway so pax on that will actually gain).

A similar situation with the 120, this is rather weak case to be BUZ, but now that it is BUZ, an improvement on it is getting it to service Coopers Plains as an interchange shuttle between Rail-QEII Hospital-Griffith Uni.

Same with 100 BUZ, can't remove it, but can change it to be better, i.e. make the 125 the cross town and keep the 100 as BUZ while adding Moorooka to it to boost patronage in the evening and generally.

Ultimately, things need to move  forward, the current model is horrible, this is a practical way to do that.

[hU0N]

Exaggerations aside, the proposal was open for consultation

Indeed. And I submitted feedback at the time. But obviously the usefulness of proposed bus routes is sometimes a secondary consideration..

[hU0N]

The reason LDT has kept the MaroonGlider is loss aversion and the politics behind it.. At least the suggested routing opens up service to a new area (Kennedy Tce) while also covering the back area of Bardon 375, allowing the 375 between the City and Bardon to be culled.

I somewhat like the routing City - Bardon and could probably just give that to a half-hourly route..

If there is an issue with Glider branding, maybe just turn the 385 into the Glider and the proposed Glider into the 385 - the 385, given the loads it gets, would probably be a worthy substitute.

I agree with this, mostly. A bus down Kennedy Terrace really isn't a terrible idea, it just needs to be recognised for what it is, namely a rocket service for a few hundred houses that are between 200m & 600m walk from the nearest high frequency bus. As such it should do quite tidily in peak, but outside peak the demand really doesn't justify anything more than half hourly service. I would however make a small change to the route, that being running it down Warmington Street to permit a stop at Paddington Central, which would open up the route's out of peak potential.

I like your idea of absorbing the 61 Maroon Glider into the 385. I think that makes sense because it keeps the politically imperative Maroon Glider branding, while addressing the almost blow for blow duplication between these routes. It would be necessary to add a stop at Gilday street, as without the 61 and 375 there would be no stops in this area. Also, if the Kennedy Terrace bus didn't run on Warmington Street, then it would probably be desirable to add the Jubilee Tce (Effie St) stop to the 385 route, returning to a slightly relocated Coopers Camp Road stop via Leslie St and Fletcher Parade.

They aren't massive tweaks to LDT's scheme (that is generally very good), but I think they are important otherwise the northern end of Bardon would end up with a bucket load of capacity that would only be used at peak and no transit options at all for the most common out of peak journeys.

PS pardon my editing of your post in quote.

[#Metro]

A little respect goes a long way. The proposal took 12 months to put together and countless hours researching, consulting and reviewing.
It's not perfect; It's not trying to be.

I have searched your forum post history and could not find said feedback (other than todays). If you have submitted form feedback it will be captured and made public.

As the proposal has already been publicly published, comments or suggestions can appended to the proposal but the proposal itself will not be changed.

Both Warmington Street and Morris St was considered; Morris St was considered but rejected due to split road, narrowness and multiple anti-public transport devices (APTDs) leading to extreme slow speed. Warmington St was also rejected as there are 5 APTDs installed on the road meaning the max speed is just 20 km/hour.

I hope this clarifies things. Ultimately TL will take the proposal and the subsequent comments and work out what it wants to do.

[techblitz]

As such it should do quite tidily in peak, but outside peak the demand really doesn't justify anything more than half hourly service.

your recoomendations woild ge the best course because you are a regular passenger in this area with perhaps many local route observations!

In think in the inner city 412, 199, Blu3 Glider, 66, to be high frequency till last service.

But really, I don't think HF is warranted beyond 9pm on most of the network.
Sure, allowing some people along these routes to live without a car till 11pm is a noble goal, but not when the HF network isn't even complete yet.

Spot on.....translink took this approach in their review....coz one less 5% packed late night buz = 1 extra new hourly welfare service during the day for another suburb....
One of my more regular trips is the inbound 125 around 9pm....front seat always free so i get plenty of opps to see the air carrying o/b 130/140s at klummp rd......yes even these routes run erronous amounts of air.....and they are some of our busiest for overall patronage...

[#Metro]

One needs to be careful. Services that run empty at night still have value - the option value is real, even if they don't use it. 9pm is probably a good cutoff generally, but for many HF routes what is there currently might be OK.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I've seen empty i/b and o/b 330/340s running around at night. City-Chermside okay but north of Chermside........ big question mark. It still makes me wonder why the 330 was buzzed in the first place instead of just a frequency increase between set times. The 340 IMHO was only buzed so the new busway had buses running along it otherwise it would have been just a handful of services. I'd be happy to see both of them lose frequency late at night if it means other routes get services.

[#Metro]

Was it a marginal seat/ward?

[James]

Spot on.....translink took this approach in their review....coz one less 5% packed late night buz = 1 extra new hourly welfare service during the day for another suburb....
One of my more regular trips is the inbound 125 around 9pm....front seat always free so i get plenty of opps to see the air carrying o/b 130/140s at klummp rd......yes even these routes run erronous amounts of air.....and they are some of our busiest for overall patronage...

I'm happy to see routes continue into the suburbs on 15 minute frequency if they are serving a major shopping centre in the process and get good loads during the interpeak - 200, 333, 444.

The issue with the 130/140 is that as a combined BUZ, it is giving this area an 8bph service even at 6am on a Sunday or 10pm on a Tuesday night. Both could be paired back after 9pm to 2bph, giving 4bph service to the place which matters (Mains Rd) and 2bph in the suburban areas after Sunnybank Hills.

[pangwen]

Spot on.....translink took this approach in their review....coz one less 5% packed late night buz = 1 extra new hourly welfare service during the day for another suburb....
One of my more regular trips is the inbound 125 around 9pm....front seat always free so i get plenty of opps to see the air carrying o/b 130/140s at klummp rd......yes even these routes run erronous amounts of air.....and they are some of our busiest for overall patronage...

I'm happy to see routes continue into the suburbs on 15 minute frequency if they are serving a major shopping centre in the process and get good loads during the interpeak - 200, 333, 444.

The issue with the 130/140 is that as a combined BUZ, it is giving this area an 8bph service even at 6am on a Sunday or 10pm on a Tuesday night. Both could be paired back after 9pm to 2bph, giving 4bph service to the place which matters (Mains Rd) and 2bph in the suburban areas after Sunnybank Hills.

I see what your point is, but just a nitpick - there isn't an 8bph frequency on Sunday morning at 6am; the first inbound 140 reaches calam road just after 7am, and the first outbound 130/140 service departs the city at 6:55am.

I've actually tried catching a 140 from one of the Beaudesert road stops before 7am on a weekend and was surprised that services started that late.

[OzGamer]

Overall, it's great work, LD - thanks for the effort.

I wonder if a practical course would be to examine whether there would be chunks of the change that could be packaged as single reforms. While I understand routes can't be looked at individually, perhaps groups of half a dozen routes or so in a single area could be packaged as a single change? It might just be easier to sell reforms in smaller pieces that can be staged.

[#Metro]

The network is coherent, and fits together. Now that the proposal is there, you can sell individual bits or groups, or whatever you like. Already the case with others making contextual route maps for instance and targeting individual electorates, for example.

[Fattious]

A significant mind shift is going to be required, response from Bulimba / Morningside area high frequency bus services having asked for confirmation from the previous BT response indicating a forthcoming review will be performed, which Translink subsequently clarified:

As you are aware, TransLink undertook an investigation into the matters you raised. In consulting with Network Planning team we were provided with the information below:

• The majority of the Bulimba/Balmoral area is located less than approximately 3km to Morningside station
• Bulimba has access to a ferry terminal located at the end of Oxford Street
• Bulimba also has a ferry terminal located at the end of Apollo Road
• Passengers in the Bulimba area have access to routes 230 (all day local service) and P231 (peak hour rocket service)
• Passengers in Balmoral have access to routes 235 (all day local service) and P236 (peak hour rocket service)
• Currently there is no date set for a service change for these routes. TransLink will continue to work with Brisbane Transport and will consider your request for a high frequency service.

[verbatim9]

I caught the bus out to Norman Park then broke my journey then hopped on the bus again to Balmoral last Fri only 6 people on each bus. Is a High Frequency needed to Apollo Road? there is not much down there except a few warehouses etc... Not even a cafe just the ferry terminal