BCC propose a progressive bus review & a public transport alliance model

[#Metro]

Some thoughts:

Establish a unique public transport alliance model, rather than a standard commercial contract model;

Not sure what that means, probably a good idea to run in past the Queensland Productivity Commission. In some ways it could further blur the line between purchaser-provider (i.e. TransLink - BCC), roles and responsibilities.

Scope here to convert BT into a council-controlled company, similar to Auckland Transport. With an independent board, it would be less subject to administrative whims. 

A progressive review of the Brisbane bus network, involving staged and systematic localised reviews;

Sounds good. Every bus stop location in Brisbane and its spacing should also be reviewed for coverage and speed.

Route simplification and re-branding of routes to improve network legibility for passengers;

Developing a clear strategy for the use of High Capacity Buses on the bus network;

Good. BCC can definitely get behind this one, especially if changes to design rules are involved.

Encouraging patronage growth and multi-modal trips through sharing of future fare box revenue growth across all modes (rail, bus, and ferry);

Not sure what "sharing" means here. Need more detail. It should not be a franchise where growth = $$ because operators have very little control over patronage influencers (speed, frequency, fares, density), and because cross-subsidisation is central to the provision of non-profitable coverage services.

If they want sharing, this could be done by having BT as a company and BCC/State Government both being non-dividend shareholding stakeholders. Actually, if they want QR integration, it would make sense for QR to take a stake in this as well.

A commitment to retaining a high-quality Brisbane Transport workforce through the maintenance of above industry standard salary and employment conditions;

Development of demand-responsive transport options to complement the existing TransLink network;
Introduction of a loyalty program (frequent traveller program) for go card users;

Could be a role for taxi, uber to do this. All requests in an hour pooled together and then go at the top or bottom of the hour perhaps.

Initiating monthly operator meetings between TransLink, Brisbane Transport, Queensland Rail and private transport operators to deliver better network co-ordination; and

Sounds good. But selected bus routes need to change to feed QR stations. Could work again if Brisbane Transport were a company with BCC, QR, State Government as stakeholders.

Developing a clear Park and Ride strategy to encourage mode shift from private motor vehicles to public transport.

Park and ride is very inefficient and expensive - $40 000 per car park. This should be billed to Brisbane City Council if they want that in the inner city areas. There is little need for park and ride in areas that have a decent basic bus network running buses outside their door.

A better approach is what Jonno advocates for - TOD developments. This gives car uses the option to live above or near the station rather than take their car to it. That could actually generate money rather than be an expense, but would require BCC to make some form of general TOD zoning that allows buildings of a certain density and height within 800 m of a rail or busway station to be code assessable.

[Stillwater]

Well, well.  It always was going to be a case of who blinked first.  It is not a case of starting a review from scratch -- a lot of work has been done by TransLink in its failed review attempt (scuttled by BCC), and also by enthusiastic RailBOT members.  Those involved deserve a pat on the back.  Room to move for all, and everyone to get a slice of the kudos.  Park and rides sound interesting -- more frequent suburban buses feeding P and R on high-frequency routes.

[#Metro]

Park and rides sound interesting -- more frequent suburban buses feeding P and R on high-frequency routes.

Where in Brisbane would you put P and R? It would displace land for TOD at many sites. Am with Jonno on this one.

[Golliwog]

LD, the point about "Encouraging patronage growth and multi-modal trips through sharing of future fare box revenue growth across all modes (rail, bus, and ferry)" is to me BCC wanting to get a cut of the pie if they go to feeding rail - good that they seem to be willing to get away from the bus vs rail mentality and into seeing the PT network as a whole, they just want to make sure they don't lose out on $$ because patronage that was previously 100% bus, if looked at on a distance traveled basis may now only be 30% bus as the main route to the CBD would be on a train.

As for "alliance" typically this is about sharing the risk between both parties - so BCC is not just concerned about performance against what they are being paid to supply in the contract. You see them in the bigger infrastructure projects - the idea is to try and foster everyone working together as a team as generally speaking you should be able to achieve less waste if everyone is trying to get the same outcome.

As for the point about monthly meetings between operator and Translink, surprised these don't happen already.

Park and Ride strategy is interesting. Hopefully BCC incorporates it with landuse changes. EG: the existing small park n ride at The Gap at the intersection of Waterworks and Settlement (not the one right at the end of the 385) would be perfect to turn into something like a 2 or 3 floor underground car park with a couple of floors of retail or residential on top. The park n ride would be used during the day by commuters and in the evenings it would be used as visitor parking by residents or those going to the retail.

[techblitz]

LD, the point about "Encouraging patronage growth and multi-modal trips through sharing of future fare box revenue growth across all modes (rail, bus, and ferry)" is to me BCC wanting to get a cut of the pie if they go to feeding rail - good that they seem to be willing to get away from the bus vs rail mentality and into seeing the PT network as a whole, they just want to make sure they don't lose out on $$ because patronage that was previously 100% bus, if looked at on a distance traveled basis may now only be 30% bus as the main route to the CBD would be on a train.

yep that's precisely how I'm interpreting that statement as well. Why else would BCC/BT be anti-rail if its not about revenue which pays for the bus leases?

[#Metro]

LD, the point about "Encouraging patronage growth and multi-modal trips through sharing of future fare box revenue growth across all modes (rail, bus, and ferry)" is to me BCC wanting to get a cut of the pie if they go to feeding rail - good that they seem to be willing to get away from the bus vs rail mentality and into seeing the PT network as a whole, they just want to make sure they don't lose out on $$ because patronage that was previously 100% bus, if looked at on a distance traveled basis may now only be 30% bus as the main route to the CBD would be on a train.

Bizzare BCC position. Route km = route length x km travelled.

If the route is shortened in length, then the frequency can be increased exactly offsetting it. There should be no loss of funds because the total volume of km travelled should be the same.

[Otto]

Route km = route length x km travelled.

If the route is shortened in length, then the frequency can be increased exactly offsetting it. There should be no loss of funds because the total volume of km traveled should be the same.

Exactly .. 

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

7th September 2016

Bus Reform is GO at Brisbane City Council

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 welcomes Brisbane City Council's bus reform sea change.

RAIL Back on Track has met with Deputy Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner. We are pleased that bus reform is now on the table.

Our members are looking over Brisbane City Council's announced "ten point plan". We will let our members form their own opinions on the merits of each point over the coming weeks. Much of the groundwork is already in place. Our members spent 12 months reviewing Brisbane City Council's bus network. As a result, we have our own New Bus Network Proposal which is here http://tiny.cc/newnetwork.

Potential changes could include:

- Plugging 'black holes' in the bus network such as Yeronga, Bulimba, and the Centenary Suburbs.
- Improved cross-town bus services,  such as new services from Enoggera, Ashgrove and Bardon to UQ St. Lucia
- Hi-speed "light rail like" bus stop spacing to speed up buses across Brisbane
- Hi-capacity buses carrying 150 persons or more to increase productivity
- Better connections to rail at selected key interchange points such as Indooroopilly

Business as usual for Brisbane City Council is not an option. The spiralling costs from delays, patronage loss and congestion will see to that.

Council opposition leader Cr. Peter Cumming has questioned where the money will come from.

Bus reform can be a cost neutral process. Bus reform is not a cost cutting exercise. It is an exercise in patronage maximisation and guaranteeing basic coverage. As such there will be no cost savings. We expect that a new network will cost the same to run as the old network but there is no doubt the fare box will increase significantly as more people travel on all modes of the better connected and more frequent public transport network.

Bus reform is though the fastest, cheapest and most effective way to upgrade Brisbane's public transport network. Requiring no new major infrastructure we believe that can be complete within 12 - 18 months.

We look forward to broad public engagement and  hands-on, active co-operation with Brisbane City Council and TransLink.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

Reference;

Brisbane buses: Call for CityGlider in the Centenary Suburbs

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-buses-call-for-cityglider-in-centenary-suburbs-20141105-11gxl3.html

[ Attached:  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12433.msg179354#msg179354 ]

[ozbob]

Latest: ' Bus Reform is GO at Brisbane City Council '
> https://t.co/e564dRkxhD#qldpol@StirlHinchliffe @Schrinner pic.twitter.com/ospZ2zneN0

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) September 6, 2016

[Stillwater]

As Golly pointed out, the renewed focus on park and ride (at railway stations or elsewhere) makes for a more dynamic and more liveable city.  Park and rides could be fantastic little service nodes where a drycleaners etc could be located, or where supermarkets and Australia Post could establish parcel pick-up and grocery pick-up facilities.  Remember that Woolies wants to locate pick-up lockers at Roma Street station.

Imagine ordering your groceries on-line from work, to be deposited at the pick-up place at the P and R, catching the bus there after work, collecting the drycleaning and opening the grocery hatch using a code sent to your smart phone, taking out the ingredients for that night's meal and driving the short distance home.

Integrating PT more closely into our daily lives is a way of building patronage and BCC is in the box seat for doing that.  It is good to see the council recognising that the situation should no longer be 'them and us' (rail and bus), but rather 'together, forward'.

[BrizCommuter]

Looking forward to the 390BUZ, which under the new numbering system will be the route B*!

[STB]

LD, the point about "Encouraging patronage growth and multi-modal trips through sharing of future fare box revenue growth across all modes (rail, bus, and ferry)" is to me BCC wanting to get a cut of the pie if they go to feeding rail - good that they seem to be willing to get away from the bus vs rail mentality and into seeing the PT network as a whole, they just want to make sure they don't lose out on $$ because patronage that was previously 100% bus, if looked at on a distance traveled basis may now only be 30% bus as the main route to the CBD would be on a train.

Bizzare BCC position. Route km = route length x km travelled.

If the route is shortened in length, then the frequency can be increased exactly offsetting it. There should be no loss of funds because the total volume of km travelled should be the same.

For the record (as I used to work with this stuff everyday for nearly 4 years in my position as Network Planner at TL - NB: not sure if it's still in use, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was), the formula is  - number of trips x number of km x number of days x number of weeks x cost per km - you use that formula for inbound Monday to Friday; outbound Monday to Friday; inbound Saturday; outbound Saturday; inbound Sunday (public holidays excluded); outbound Sunday (pubilc holiday excluded); inbound public holidays and outbound public holidays - add that all up and you reach the cost per year to run the route.

Cost per km is negotiated between TransLink and the contracted bus company and takes in their operational costs to run the route and timetable that TransLink sets out (Brisbane Transport excluded - although there can be a little bit of argy bargy - as they decide the routes and timetables for themselves with a tick and flick by the TL Planner for Brisbane Transport).

[techblitz]

As Golly pointed out, the renewed focus on park and ride (at railway stations or elsewhere) makes for a more dynamic and more liveable city.

Park and rides can work great but they can also fail miserably.

Greenbank rsl and slacks creek(which have 'direct to cbd' rockets/bullet services)...are going great guns...usually maxed out every morning.....depending on their distance from a rail line...park and rides can be beneficial.
However..

Park and rides @ train stations poach patronage off feeder buses.....they also do nothing to curb congestion around the station...further delaying the feeder buses.

Under a reformed BT 5 zone cbd bound route truncated 3 zones out.....to get the same loadings the BT route will need to increase its patronage 150% when the feeder route`s frequency is upgraded. Extending/building rail park and rides wont help that patronage increase one iota....will just make it harder to achieve.
The goal here is to make the bus more attractive than the car....

[STB]

As much as I hate to say there can be needs for park and rides, especially for people who have no choice but to drive to the station, for example, it's due to family commitments prior to catching the train (eg: dropping kids off at school or daycare before heading to work), or they live in an area that doesn't have a bus nearby to take them to the station (eg: someone who lives out in the sticks out west)

Buses to the station is a better solution, but it would discourage a certain amount who have no choice but to rely on their car to at least get them to a station to then get them to where they want to go once they are on the train.

[verbatim9]

Just regarding the proposed  reward system for Go card users.  As stated in the Fare review and limitations to the Go Card system we have to wait until an Account Open Payment system before the rewards system is implemented. Unless they bring the Open payment system forward, it's still 2 years away?

[Mr X]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">3. Simplification & re-branding of all bus routes to make it easier for passengers (replacing the 100, 200, 300, 400 route numbering series)</p>— Cr Adrian Schrinner (@Schrinner) <a href="https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/773024242615013376">September 6, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I have a problem with this. What will they replace it with? Two numbers (too many routes in Bris), Four numbers, Letters and numbers? Coloured numbers? Fancy names? Or a combination of all the above? Cityexpress Red route L92.3 sounds...legible 

There is nothing wrong with the current numbering setup per se, and most people will be very familiar with the routes to their suburb etc. so changing all the numbers in Brisbane is completely unnecessary. You might see a repeat of the mass confusion from last time, too.

[verbatim9]

As much as I hate to say there can be needs for park and rides, especially for people who have no choice but to drive to the station, for example, it's due to family commitments prior to catching the train (eg: dropping kids off at school or daycare before heading to work), or they live in an area that doesn't have a bus nearby to take them to the station (eg: someone who lives out in the sticks out west)

Buses to the station is a better solution, but it would discourage a certain amount who have no choice but to rely on their car to at least get them to a station to then get them to where they want to go once they are on the train.

Just also regarding pushing for a feeder model wouldn't you need all train lines to run 15mins or less to at least 11pm 7 days. No one wants to hang around at a station for 28 mins when it becomes dark or during the day for that matter.

[ozbob]

Agree that some park and ride is needed.  The question really is getting the balance between ability to park and the option to use either bus and/or active transport.  Simply providing unlimited parking is very costly and in the end just means a lot more road congestion to and from and locally.  Park and ride acts like flowers for bees, it attracts more and more with the end result of full car parks at ever earlier times each day. More parking rage, illegal parking and beat ups in the media.

Recent discussion here > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=532.msg179007#msg179007 might be of interest.

[ozbob]

Out west a lot of the so called ' feeder buses ' are 30 minutes at peak!  Often with spans that also limit the ability of people to use them rather than drive.

Off peak buses are often one hourly, and as we have noted sometimes cancelled!  Which makes it all a lot more diabolical of course.

It seems clear to me that most of SEQ is going to have to put up with generally mediocre bus options for a while yet.

But digressing a bit from the main thrust here.  Most of Brisbane is better placed for frequent bus (just a function of population, route overlap etc.).   Park and ride within inner Brisbane is largely a waste, some limited here and there.  As you move out, and even in outer Brisbane itself park and ride becomes a lot more significant.  Bus options drop off though in general terms (some exceptions).

[bcasey]

Agree that some park and ride is needed.  The question really is getting the balance between ability to park and the option to use either bus and/or active transport.  Simply providing unlimited parking is very costly and in the end just means a lot more road congestion to and from and locally.  Park and ride acts like flowers for bees, it attracts more and more with the end result of full car parks at ever earlier times each day. More parking rage, illegal parking and beat ups in the media.

Recent discussion here > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=532.msg179007#msg179007 might be of interest.

I think they should consider introducing paid parking at Park'n'Rides, where you can swipe with your go-card, and if you then get on public transport within a certain period of time (say 1 hour or so), either you get the money refunded, or the PT journey is discounted to offset the price of parking. This would discourage people who are using the park'n'ride spots for anything else other than park'n'ride. The real-time data from a counter at the entry/exit barriers would also be useful as open data, apps could use it to help people determine whether there are parks available.

But I agree, they need to get the balance right between park'n'ride spots and feeder buses/bicycles/walking.

[cartoonbirdhaus]

Simplification & re-branding of all bus routes to make it easier for passengers (replacing the 100, 200, 300, 400 route numbering series)

Perhaps assign two-digit numbers to the "high frequency" routes (using the first digit to denote region), whilst keeping the 100/200/300/400 series for the lesser routes? Maybe single-digit numbers for inner-city routes such as the current 66, 199 etc. Extended numbering capacity, plus an instantly-recognisable way to distinguish the Core Frequent Network from the "coverage" routes. Fewer digits to remember in order to navigate the most important part of the system!

[verbatim9]

Have to mention at least BCC are pushing for new High Capacity Articulated buses. Gold Coast, Ipswich and Sunshine Coast Councils need to ride the Articulated wave too.

[SurfRail]

^ Doubtful.  There are no bus services on the Gold Coast affected by overcrowding that can't be fixed with slighter better frequency, and the other regions would be even less affected.

The 700 is already overserviced.

[verbatim9]

^ Doubtful.  There are no bus services on the Gold Coast affected by overcrowding that can't be fixed with slighter better frequency, and the other regions would be even less affected.

The 700 is already overserviced.

The 700 could be a rebranded High Frequency Articulated service. (Especially since the tram is years away). What I am saying is that doesn't matter where you go from Noosa to Coolangatta the bus system is easy to understand and catch with a modern low emission bus fleet, that meets community expectations. "Not really a big ask."

[SurfRail]

Why does whether the bus is articulated or not matter?

Artics are not only more expensive to buy, but they are more expensive to run because drivers generally get an additional loading for driving a vehicle that requires a HR licence.  If you don't need the capacity of an artic, all you are doing is buying 2 buses for the cost of 3.

[verbatim9]

Even though they are more expensive to buy and require special training the long term benefits out way the costs. Instead of a bus every 5 mins you only need on every 10 mins requiring less drivers less fuel etc.... Plus more doors for fast boarding and disembarking times.

[Arnz]

Artics everywhere is starting to become a bit foamy here.

Sure Artics are nice, but it's not necessary on all trunk routes taking into consideration some road infrastructure restrictions on some routes.

[City Designer]

I like the idea of two digit numbers to denote high frequency priority services, however, that does limit the Brisbane Transport network to 10 per region and just four in the eastern region.

For example the equivalent of the 130 could be the 13, the 330 could be the 33, however, the busway services should probably retain the 111, 222, 333 numbering.

[#Metro]

I don't understand the numbering obsession.
Three digits work. Leave it at that.

If it is not broken, don't fix it.

Many people had panic attack in the TransLink 2013 bus review when they log on to the TL website and say that their bus route was replaced by some internal code (eg. 411 is now #239). It gave people the wrong impression that everything was being cut.

I think it is very important that changes are kept to only those that are necessary. This is the approach taken with the New Bus Network Proposal - wherever possible the original number is retained.

Just also regarding pushing for a feeder model wouldn't you need all train lines to run 15mins or less to at least 11pm 7 days. No one wants to hang around at a station for 28 mins when it becomes dark or during the day for that matter.

Believe it or not, most bus routes in the New Bus Network Proposal do enter the Brisbane CBD. http://tiny.cc/newnetwork

Most of the interchange is concentrated in the Western Suburbs (Indooroopilly). This is due to geographical factors, such as a pinch point at Indooroopilly ( only 2 main roads out of Indooroopilly - Legacy way and Moggill Rd) and the positioning at UQ in St Lucia.

Trains at Indooroopilly are frequent, even until late.

At most other points, there is a frequent bus alternative. For example, buses that are terminated at Chermside can connect with the RBOT 333 Chermside Interchange superbus.

There will be places where the frequency between trains and buses is a mismatch, for example, an upgrade of the 359 Albany Creek bus means that a 15-minute BUZ feeding a 30 minute train line at Mitchelton is created in the evenings. But even that is an improvement on the current situation, and 2 of the 4 services per hour can be timed to connect with trains.

In other cases, 30 min buses feeding 30 min trains can be co-ordinated so that the bus drops pax just before the train arrives/departs. Bus/Train co-ordination is done everywhere else on the network, it is just Brisbane that seems to not really have it.

[James]

Even though they are more expensive to buy and require special training the long term benefits out way the costs. Instead of a bus every 5 mins you only need on every 10 mins requiring less drivers less fuel etc.... Plus more doors for fast boarding and disembarking times.

A moot point as the only corridor which really requires capacity over frequency on the GC is the current GCLRT route. 700s are far from overflowing, particularly south of Burleigh.

Spend the money on Artics/HCVs in the southern suburbs - 130, 330, 412 BUZes all come to mind.

[#Metro]

I am reading BrisTimes comments.

I don't know who this user 'fatty' is, but they nail the mark:

Fatty Sep 7 2016 at 12:25pm
1. Establish a unique public transport alliance

Already have one, it's called Translink.

2. A progressive review of the Brisbane bus network

Translink did one, BT rejected it.

3. Route simplification and re-branding of routes

Translink proposed this BT rejected it.

4. Developing a clear strategy for the use of High Capacity Buses on the bus network;

It had that too.

5. Encouraging patronage growth and multi-modal trips through sharing of future fare box revenue growth across all modes (rail, bus, and ferry);

Translink already share revenue. Quirk didn't want to encourage multi modal journals.[SIC]

6. A commitment to retaining a high quality Brisbane Transport.

One that is immune to competition.

7. Development of demand-responsive transport options to complement the existing TransLink network;

Integrate and reform, don't just compliment.

8. Introduction of a loyalty program (frequent traveller program) for go card users;

Already have one, although the one they want probably rewards when fare box revenue goes to BT directly.

9. Initiating monthly operator meetings between Translink...

So BT is willing to attend Translink meetings again, great.

10. Developing a clear Park and Ride strategy to encourage mode shift from private motor vehicles to public transport.

Because BT does not want to find facilities that cater for vehicles outside BCC local government area, nor extend their services beyond their boundaries.

and this one:

Fatty Sep 7 2016 at 12:40pm
Oh and "We're talking about large, articulated buses; extra-long buses that can carry more passengers"

They already exist, it's called RAIL. Stop wanting to run every service into the CBD and interconnect with the existing heavy rail network.

[ozbob]

We know all that.  Basically what we have been saying for years. 

At least there is now a real possibility of network reform.

[SurfRail]

A moot point as the only corridor which really requires capacity over frequency on the GC is the current GCLRT route.

Possibly the theme park routes, but at this point they might not even exist in 2 years time, and artics aren't what I would use even if they were being kept.

[verbatim9]

Colour Chart for rebranding High Frequency routes

[#Metro]

Colour Chart for rebranding High Frequency routes

Only 84 colours in that chart, we need to fit in about 110 - 120 routes at minimum. Won't work like that.
People also have difficulty distinguishing different shades of colour.

I think spending big on the colour of the buses is a "frill" and expensive. What BCC has done using the word BUZ in the desto is
effective and all that is needed really.

The guts of bus reform is the routing, connections, frequency, speed, stop spacing and span. None of these have a real physical representation which does mean it is unsexy, but effective nevertheless.

[verbatim9]

There are only a handful of genuine Buz routes to be colour coded. The normal bus routes ok

[Jonno]

Could the high frequency routes that run down the major roads actually be called  "Lines"aka the Aspley, Wynnum, Capalaba, Gap, etc. with colored buses like the rail lines the route numbers for those the create the cross-city network?

[SurfRail]

I really doubt the references to colour mean anything more than grouping a particular set of routes together a la Canberra.  It's a visual cue, not integral to working out exactly where the bus goes.

Until something solid materialises speculation is all we have.

[STB]

Don't forget the colour blind people!  Actually, I'm not sure if colour in this context meets the DDA?

[HappyTrainGuy]

As much as I hate to say there can be needs for park and rides, especially for people who have no choice but to drive to the station, for example, it's due to family commitments prior to catching the train (eg: dropping kids off at school or daycare before heading to work), or they live in an area that doesn't have a bus nearby to take them to the station (eg: someone who lives out in the sticks out west)

Buses to the station is a better solution, but it would discourage a certain amount who have no choice but to rely on their car to at least get them to a station to then get them to where they want to go once they are on the train.

Just also regarding pushing for a feeder model wouldn't you need all train lines to run 15mins or less to at least 11pm 7 days. No one wants to hang around at a station for 28 mins when it becomes dark or during the day for that matter.

Total redo. Anyway it depends on the bus route and the train line. But as I've been saying for ages the only way you can make it worthwild increasing the frequency on hte Caboolture line is to have feeder buses. And in most cases its the current buses letting everything down and not the trains. THe last inbound 335 goes past Carseldine at 7.50 or something. The 338 past strathpine has its last run at 5.15. 326/327 start their final runs at 5.30-6pm. And don't get me started on the 306, 320, 322, 334, 341, 344, 336, 337, 346, 369, 37.... well you get it