Brisbane: Bus Electric Rapid Transit (' Brisbane Metro ')

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1517154594765549568

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

Brisbane ' Metro'  Pilot electric bi-articulated bus is here!

22nd April 2022

RAIL Back On Track supports the improvement of the Brisbane bus network.  The move to electric bi-articulated buses on the core busway routes will allow for proper long overdue Brisbane bus network reform, and is welcomed and strongly supported.

The 'Brisbane Metro' is not what is generally accepted to be a true metro system, which is a heavy railway with exclusive rights of way.  The Brisbane Metro is in fact a Bus Rapid Transit system.  The so called ' metro vehicles ' are electric bi-articulated (bi-artic) buses (double-articulated buses).  This is the first time bi-articulated buses will be used in Australia, although bi-articulated buses are in service globally in around 14 countries at present.

The Lord Mayor has made a point of mentioning the wide tinted panoramic windows on the bi-articulated buses. We do hope that advertising wraps are not applied over the windows!  Windows on public transport vehicles are to provide vision into and out of the vehicles, they should NOT be used as a platform for advertising wraps.

Reference:

BCC: The metro

https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/public-transport/brisbane-metro/the-metro#pilot-testing

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

====

Facebook ...

[ozbob]

[STB]

$300 million for what's simply a slightly longer articulated bus - could've put that $300 million on something a bit more future proofed  .

By the way, apparently even if with these buses (and I refuse to call it a Metro - that's just political marketing guff) - there will obviously still be buses clogging up Cultural Centre station and the inner city section.

I got the vibe that the union  for TfB's drivers in the news report seem to have some cynicism whether it will meet Australian standards for the drivers.  Interesting times ahead.

[ozbob]

[HappyTrainGuy]

Are we going to see the same current problem of 2-3 blue busses in a conga line but now with these buses instead??? Surely they could announce the buses they won't be servicing the cultural centre to ease congestion - congestion that's been created by a lack of a proper integrated network with everything going to the city?

[#Metro]

I think bi-artic buses are great. I just don't understand why they don't build doors on both sides. That would allow median running in the middle of arterial roads.

Every other mode - trains, trams, ferries, plane, even car allows you doors on both sides.

Once this is up and running BCC will probably not make the necessary changes to the bus network in terms of interchange. It can't. It needs a crisis to force its hand.

Shame really for a Council that used to be an extensive tram operator!

[SurfRail]

Why is median running needed?  These aren't ever going to leave the busway and nor should they.

All these will achieve is replacing the route numbers of the 66 and 111 and upping the capacity of both.  Having experienced Buranda a lot more during peak hour in the last few months, I also suspect there could easily be a drop in overall capacity since buses queuing to access the platform even delays through non-stopping services.

Network reform if any will be irrelevant and window-dressing, like in 2014.

I've stopped caring.  I'm moving next week and as long as I continue to have a BUZ route within walking distance, that'll do me.

[verbatim9]

It's been highlighted on another forum that the metro vehicles will not be level with the platforms on the bus way. Hence the need for auto ramps. The Lord Mayor also mentioned auto ramps. It didn't click at the time but now it's evident that the new vehicles will not be level.

Furthermore, whats happening at King George Square. Will there be major modification to the screen doors there to cater for easy boarding and disembarking?

[Jonno]

Why is median running needed?  These aren't ever going to leave the busway and nor should they.

All these will achieve is replacing the route numbers of the 66 and 111 and upping the capacity of both.  Having experienced Buranda a lot more during peak hour in the last few months, I also suspect there could easily be a drop in overall capacity since buses queuing to access the platform even delays through non-stopping services.

Network reform if any will be irrelevant and window-dressing, like in 2014.

I've stopped caring.  I'm moving next week and as long as I continue to have a BUZ route within walking distance, that'll do me.

Assuming we get/force the Network Redesign and that means we move to trunk routes with wider stop spacing, why would we not want centre BRT running?  Noting that you don't need doors on either side necessarily to achieve this. 



Can run in a few ways to be fair.




Note the street car parking is not needed in these.

Thanks to NACTO for the images.

Actually this get me thinking. What we call the network redesign to get it away form arguing about old and new routes (unavoidable but we need to get a mindset change) is we call it a BRT Network Implementation.

[SurfRail]

^ Because you can just run ordinary rigid buses in bus lanes for on-road applications, or use articulated buses if you need more capacity.  The next step above that is putting more frequent service on surrounding corridors to better absorb the loadings.  After that, it's time for rail.

If the roads are wide enough for this sort of infrastructure to sit in the median then you can use light rail instead quite easily.  Frankly, we can do it even if the roads aren't that wide.

Vehicles like these fill a particular niche role which is only useful to us because we have busways to begin with.  It would be a hell of a lot more useful if we had say double the number being procured, and if the stations were all substantially bigger so you can actually have 2 of these things on a platform at once without fouling the passing lane, but that's not happening.

Also, I find it curious the passenger capacity is only meant to be around 150 when articulated buses in Perth are already rated to carry 130.  It's all a bit silly in my view.

[Jonno]

Totally agree.  I am indeed more focused on the level of service than the vehicle involved.  I do see the BRT being converted to light rail eventually (as $ wasted on freeways and road widenings are funneled into active/public transport) but lets get the network working and passenger numbers through the roof with what ever buses are available.

[#Metro]

Assuming we get/force the Network Redesign and that means we move to trunk routes with wider stop spacing, why would we not want centre BRT running?  Noting that you don't need doors on either side necessarily to achieve this.

Median running is useful, because buses can get stuck behind vehicles making left turns etc. Also, on a few corridors, we have a median such as Mains Road, Sunnybank.

Totally agree.  I am indeed more focused on the level of service than the vehicle involved.  I do see the BRT being converted to light rail eventually

Service level is important, but at higher pax LRT is more cost efficient at carrying passengers (as evidenced by C-Train Calgary) and rail has a positive spillover effect in allowing bus networks to be designed in ways that would not be possible or more challenging to implement using a bus-only network.

The current busway does a very good job of getting people from suburbs to the city, and a terrible job of doing suburb to suburb. If buses were turned back at rail stations (either current rail stations or converted busway stations), a huge volume of route-km would be released for re-use in the suburbs and cross-town route redesign.

This access to different network forms is probably what is behind the "rail effect" where light rail seems to attract more passengers on the corridor even when it is slightly worse service characteristics than the bus services it replaced.

[ozbob]

We are seeing an absolute farce unfold.   BCC is running silly once more.  A bi-articulated bus being called a ' metro '.  Bus rapid transit being referred to as a metro system.  They are very delusional when all is said and done.

The introduction of the bi-artics will free up some route buses and hopefully some much needed reform.

The State Government is incompetent.  They should have followed up on the CRU recommendations and introduced Public Transport Queensland.  The only shining light is the new DDG of TransLink does understand bus reform and the need very well, being involved with the 2013 network reform (which failed in the end due to the silos of mediocrity which still exist).

Yes, it does get very tedious in the end.  The bi-artics will not be the ' solution ' that BCC seem to think they will, unless there is some very significant and directed bus network reform.

Onwards to the Olympics !!   

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> 'First of its kind': Brisbane Metro makes its debut $

The Brisbane Metro is set to "revolutionise public transport", with a test vehicle about to be seen around the southeast.

The future of Brisbane's public transport is making its debut ahead of the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, with the pilot vehicle boasting a 150-passenger capacity and innovative accessibility features for all passengers.

The Brisbane Metro, a part of the South East Queensland City Deal, will emphasise comfort, with panoramic windows, high-performing airconditioning, Wi-Fi and USB charging as well as accessibility with large wheelchair bays, priority seating, hearing loops and more.

Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner inspected the vehicle yesterday alongside council transport chair Ryan Murphy, saying the vehicle would revolutionise public transport. ...

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1517509031640076288

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1517510168715853825

[#Metro]

Former Lord Mayor Graham Quirk would love this!

No, bi-artic buses are not a Revolution but an Evolution. That's what Quirk et al. wanted. The 'Do minimum' option that offends the fewest people even if that isn't enough to get the core job to be done. And a strong emphasis on cosmetics...

We need something closer to 200 pax... C-train style LRT would have 900 pax vehicles. Perfect for the busway.

And before someone comes out with the 'Brisbane has a compact CBD and low density suburbs so it's too tidal' argument...so does Calgary!

I would also like to know why these are not slated to run on main arterial roads like Mains Road. Surely they can run off busway?

[ozbob]

Of course bi-artics can.  They do elsewhere.  Australia might have review some of the transport regulations.

Bi-Articulated Buses in Hamburg, Germany (Three-piece)! Bi-Gelenkbusse in Hamburg, Deutschland 2017

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1517559202432299008

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1517557988298747904

[ozbob]

Brisbane Metro - More Buses for the Suburbs

[ezekial]

Brisbane Metro - More Buses for the Suburbs

Is that the back of your head at the very beginning of the video, Bob?

[ozbob]

^ looks a bit like me, but I don't think it is. 
I met with the Lord Mayor at Sherwood bus depot once, but not at a bus stop as I recall.

[ozbob]

Cr Murphy commented on our Facebook post.

https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/5619798971367577?comment_id=353133066791558

Cr Ryan Murphy

The name of the vehicle is the Hess LightTram, we call them a Metro for brevity- but they are licensed and homologated as a bus. Whatever you call them isn't important. What is important is what they do, which will be to relieve bus congestion in the inner city sector and move Brisbane's network towards a sustainable trunk and feeder model. Adding metros to the busway gives us an additional 30.4M trip capacity by 2032, on a network which in a good year sees up to 88M trips taken. We are aiming for a quantum leap in passenger experience and reliability growth, two things our customers really need to leave the car at home and adopt public transport.

My reply:

RAIL - Back On Track
Cr Ryan Murphy Thanks Cr for your response. We are looking forward to the improvements in the bus network overall, as well as on the busways. We support the introduction of the bi-articulated buses. Hess may call them a ' light tram ' but a tram they are not, they are bi-articulated bus. The Brisbane busways are world class. The electric bi-artics is a great leap forward agreed. We suggested this way forward a number of years ago now. It is good it is now happening. Cheers Robert

Yes, it is a bus.  An electric biarticulated bus.

Sent to all outlets:

Brisbane ' Metro'  Pilot electric bi-articulated bus is here!

22nd April 2022

RAIL Back On Track supports the improvement of the Brisbane bus network.  The move to electric bi-articulated buses on the core busway routes will allow for proper long overdue Brisbane bus network reform, and is welcomed and strongly supported.

The 'Brisbane Metro' is not what is generally accepted to be a true metro system, which is a heavy railway with exclusive rights of way.  The Brisbane Metro is in fact a Bus Rapid Transit system.  The so called ' metro vehicles ' are electric bi-articulated (bi-artic) buses (double-articulated buses).  This is the first time bi-articulated buses will be used in Australia, although bi-articulated buses are in service globally in around 14 countries at present.

The Lord Mayor has made a point of mentioning the wide tinted panoramic windows on the bi-articulated buses. We do hope that advertising wraps are not applied over the windows!  Windows on public transport vehicles are to provide vision into and out of the vehicles, they should NOT be used as a platform for advertising wraps.

Reference:

BCC: The metro

https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-and-transport/public-transport/brisbane-metro/the-metro#pilot-testing

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

====

Facebook ...

[#Metro]

Cr Ryan Murphy

The name of the vehicle is the Hess LightTram, we call them a Metro for brevity- but they are licensed and homologated as a bus. Whatever you call them isn't important. What is important is what they do, which will be to relieve bus congestion in the inner city sector and move Brisbane's network towards a sustainable trunk and feeder model. Adding metros to the busway gives us an additional 30.4M trip capacity by 2032, on a network which in a good year sees up to 88M trips taken. We are aiming for a quantum leap in passenger experience and reliability growth, two things our customers really need to leave the car at home and adopt public transport.

BCC chose this option because it was an evolution not a revolution and now they need to wear that 'evolution' tag. They cannot now come out and say it is a revolution. Which routes are being turned into feeder services Cr Murphy?

I look forward to RBOT recommending the next quantum leap of innovation - a multi-articulated electric bus with steel wheels running on rails drawing power from an electric pantograph.

[ozbob]

Further comment from Cr Murphy

https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/5619798971367577?comment_id=5621393497874791&reply_comment_id=734954511203054

Cr Ryan Murphy
 
Abraham O'Neill We will be commencing a fulsome Network Review, in full view of the public and with extensive community consultation, towards the end of this year. We have been working on it for over 18 months now. I look forward to your participation in that at the appropriate time, as well as from all Rail BoT members who take an interest.

[Cazza]

I'm sorry but they've been working on it "for over 18 months" but yet the sentence before says "We will be commencing a fulsome Network Review, in full view of the public and with extensive community consultation, towards the end of this year"??

Surely some sort of official announcement should be made ASAP letting people know this is the case rather than keeping us in the dark about what is going on. Up until this comment reply from Cr Ryan (on a RBOT Facebook post), it has all been a guessing game about what may happen. Then, out of no where towards the end of this year...


the complete network overhaul drops and then it will be Adelaide 2020 or Brisbane 2013 community consultation all over again. If they don't release some sort of information before any draft network is released to the public, I really wish them well and I think I will book the first ticket back to Sydney.

Given local Labor's comments regarding any mention of bus changes and route (not service) cuts, I can only imagine the scare tactics that will be used (I can see a "Save the 361" campaign coming up!!). I really hope this doesn't go down like a lead balloon again because serious reform is required and is what the City needs.

Now that the BRT vehicle is actually on the ground, I feel the marketing now needs to shift from "Brisbane Metro is coming" to "A new and improved bus network for Brisbane is coming". Get people informed and prepared.

[#Metro]

I think BCC would be well advised to make contact with us BEFORE going to public consultation.

Cazza, you might be interested in this paper:

Why busways? Styles of planning and mode-choice decision-making in Brisbane's transport network

Why did Brisbane build busways? And what does the city's experience reveal about mode-choice decision-making and transport planning in Australian cities? This paper reports on the processes and decisions taken to introduce bus rapid transit (BRT) in Brisbane in the 1990s with specific focus on the styles of planning involved.

Using theoretical frameworks provided by Innes and Gruber, Forester, and other planning theorists, different planning styles are identified. These concepts are used and tested in the case of the South East Busway, Brisbane's first and very  successful introduction of BRT. The research involved archival reviews of reports, plans and media articles showing  the development and adoption of busways in Brisbane, and interviews with politicians, state and local government bureaucrats and consultants involved in the decision as well as a key independent observer who was critical of the project and its planning.

The results suggest that Brisbane may never have adopted BRT without a clear political champion in Brisbane City Council, who intuitively adopted BRT as a 'solution' for Brisbane and who directed a   strong bureaucratic effort to co-opt and win support from others including the then state transport minister. Technical– rational analyses were used only to help support pre-determined positions, not to provide mode comparison and assessment for a later mode selection decision.

There was no real community social movement supporting the move, and negligible collaborative planning involved. The results highlight how during recent decades planners have shifted away from traditional technical/analytical roles to become facilitators of politically motivated decisions in the transport decision-making process, and the risks and benefits this provides.

Paper: Why did Brisbane build BRT?

[ozbob]

In response to a question on FB
https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/5619798971367577?comment_id=5621393497874791&reply_comment_id=720041239023885

RAIL - Back On Track
Cr Ryan Murphy we BCC or TransLink supported by BCC?
Jonno

https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/5619798971367577?comment_id=5621393497874791&reply_comment_id=560702055620902

Cr Ryan Murphy
  ·
RAIL - Back On Track BCC will be leading the Network Review, in consultation with TransLink, as with other aspects of the Metro project.

[ozbob]

BCC is going to be right up against the reality of bus reform.  They were not very supportive in 2013 at all.

I guess it is a matter of making your bed, you get to lie in it, eventually hey? ... 

[Jonno]

What a Cluster!! There is no collaboration or unified vision!  Both parties are at fault and we are paying the price!!

[ozbob]

Could well be a big cluster-fuk.  BCC might handball on to TransLink once the  ' knitting ladies for our bus stop ' and  'not my bus going ' crowds start up again.

We supported TransLink and the 2013 bus review strongly of course, as any rational people did.  Council  and most Councillors were anti us for our support for proper reform.

I can forgive, but I don't forget ...

What a Cluster!! There is no collaboration or unified vision!  Both parties are at fault and we are paying the price!!

[#Metro]

I think TransLink should play a support or cameo only role. There is literally NO benefit to TransLink either financial, social, or political with leading this bus review. TransLink needs to understand that BCC is not like a private bus operator holding a service contract - BCC and/or councillors are a political organisation with independent agency that also runs in elections and has significant resources to seed or run scare campaigns to its own constituents. They will also be backed by the RTBU as well running these campaigns, which may include strikes or shutdowns.

TransLink is essentially unable to exercise its mandate in the Brisbane area because of this and the operation of the unwritten policy that demands existing operators always get the TL contract no matter what. There is no word for this approach, but I would call it "Closed Club Contracting" or similar.
And the existence of this policy was proven in the 2013 scenario when the Transport Minister handed his own duties to the operator - this simply would not happen if it were any other private bus contractor.

TransLink should step right back from this one. If it fails to do so it will simply repeat the 2013 experience. All TransLink needs to do is sit and wait for the final network report proposal to land on its desk and then do its own review of that/tweaking.

Let BCC lead this review. BCC actually does have a good community relations and engagement team. RBOT can assist - we have made new network bus models before and can do so again.

BCC is very sensitive to local politics / ward politics so we can expect it will be a "Do Minimum" and "Minimise Objection" type network rather than a "Maximise Utility" style approach. But, we shall see. Most of the routes will probably be retained, which will mean lumpy loadings on buses and thus inefficiency.

BCC has a history of being hostile to interchange/transferring/feeding passengers to rail. A good example is the Mt Coot-tha car park shuttle bus that shuttled between two car parks BUT didn't connect to rail at Toowong, the logical connection. It was very poor bus route design, and failed to get enough pax and so was scrapped.

TransLink has a very easy job for this one: DO NOTHING until the final recommendation for a new network lands on its desk.

Once it lands on their desk, they can review that (might need to call in external consultants such as Jarrett) to tweak it.

[ozbob]

TransLink has been working with BCC on this for some time. 

The days of an isolated BCC area are long gone. 

BCC will be supportive of the reform this time. 

TransLink will not be enemy of the ' knitters ' it will be the Councillors ..

[Cazza]

I also think that BCC would have more resources available to them than TransLink to be able to take a network wide review, so I don't see that as a bad thing.

[ozbob]

SEQ Bus Network Review

Begins September 04, 2012

>> https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9045.0

If you weren't around for this debacle, well worth a read (warning, very long thread).

There are many lessons, and examples of dumbness.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Translink can't mandate what it used to not because of bcc but because Newman changed legislation and gutted Translink. Labour hasn't done anything to resolve these issues internally and the status quo remains.

RTBU doesn't care about BCC and isn't in their pocket. They have their own self interests for their members. At times they are quite vocal against BCC - some of which gets media attention and other times it doesn't. At times they have been in favour of network mods to increase patronage and increase the presence of passengers to help deter some anti social behaviour along with installing barriers.

The 2013 problem was all political around election time. BCC said there was nothing wrong. State government said okay we are capping funding. BCC went okay good then cried they were paying millions extra in driver overtime due to not meeting schedules. BCC then once again further subsidised how much they spend to prop up their contract. Still to this day the Translink funding contract from the state does not cover the cost of running Brisbane's bus network. So much so that the state is in trouble should bcc not want to prop up its side. Both levels are in trouble as it means back tracking or cutting services. That penny hasn't dropped yet and both levels are looking at minimising the damage with BCC going down the Metro route as it's justification.

[#Metro]

Translink can't mandate what it used to not because of bcc but because Newman changed legislation and gutted Translink. Labour hasn't done anything to resolve these issues internally and the status quo remains

Disagree. TransLink was created in 2004. Newman was elected in 2012. The practice of 'club contracting' was already in operation well before Newman was around. Some of the routes had been doing their thing largely unchanged since trams were closed in 1969. And TransLink has never replaced a bus operator. It won't.

RTBU doesn't care about BCC and isn't in their pocket. They have their own self interests for their members. At times they are quite vocal against BCC - some of which gets media attention and other times it doesn't. At times they have been in favour of network mods to increase patronage and increase the presence of passengers to help deter some anti social behaviour along with installing barriers.

View this material: https://archive.cpa.org.au/guardian/2013/1587/07-a-community-rises-up.html

Rail Bus and Tramways Union's (RTBU) Bus Division members were massively active in informing the public of the changes. Their campaign slogan is "Save Our Services – Stand Up For Brisbane". The union launched its own Facebook site and distributed leaflets and other material explaining the implications of the Newman government's plans. People were furious. It meant the loss of a vital service.

The RTBU made a request to the Brisbane City Council for David Matters to address a council session about TransLink's plans. He did this on March 19 and received unanimous support from both LNP and Labor councillors. An unprecedented round of applause greeted his speech and a reply from LNP Transport Chairman Peter Matic acknowledged the union for its work, for its members and for the community in Brisbane. He expressed a desire to "work hand-in-hand" to move forward on the issue.

These actions undermined and destroyed a lot of our own member's efforts and put back PT in Brisbane 10 years.

The 2013 problem was all political around election time. BCC said there was nothing wrong. State government said okay we are capping funding. BCC went okay good then cried they were paying millions extra in driver overtime due to not meeting schedules. BCC then once again further subsidised how much they spend to prop up their contract. Still to this day the Translink funding contract from the state does not cover the cost of running Brisbane's bus network. So much so that the state is in trouble should bcc not want to prop up its side. Both levels are in trouble as it means back tracking or cutting services. That penny hasn't dropped yet and both levels are looking at minimising the damage with BCC going down the Metro route as it's justification.

Fares had increased dramatically during this period as well as subsidy as new routes were simply piled on top of old ones and all run to the CBD (avoiding rail stations). The direct network over-serviced corridors (Coronation Drive, Old Cleveland Road) and under-serviced others because of the habit of avoiding rail stations. While Brisbane City Council does not set fares, it does set bus service supply costs, and obviously higher supplier costs mean higher fares.

The State Government had had enough and righty so. Why pay more to transport air parcels around Brisbane rather than passengers?

RBOT actually held a members conference many years ago and the then head of BT openly said they BCC was not for running buses to rail but that bus passengers would have the "option" of changing to a train but not the "obligation" to connect as the BCC buses zoomed past the QR train station.

Hence TransLink paying for 2 modes to internally compete with each other, lots of air carrying, and half the passengers. This is particularly acute on the Coronation Drive corridor. This waste was epitomised in the Route 161 Rocket bus which started in Wishart and then stopped at 1 busway station before running express to the CBD via the Captain Cook Bridge, doing this all day. If you caught it you would have easily seen it carry 1 passenger. An express limosine would have been equally cost-effective.

BrizCommuter also wrote extensively about the major issues http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/search?q=Bus+Review

[HappyTrainGuy]

Doesn't matter when Translink was formed. Newman got in and legalisation was changed which stunted what Translink was able to do. Translink was also dissolved into tmr which further stunted its ability with people taking on multiple roles along with those at Translink with knowledge being made redundant.

[#Metro]

Doesn't matter when Translink was formed. Newman got in and legalisation was changed which stunted what Translink was able to do. Translink was also dissolved into tmr which further stunted its ability with people taking on multiple roles along with those at Translink with knowledge being made redundant.

(a) 'Club contracting' was already in effect when TL was formed in 2004
(b) Brisbane City Council and Brisbane Transport/TfB will never lose their bus contract, no matter what they do as long as (a) is true
(c) The RTBU was instrumental in undermining RBOT's efforts to reform the bus network. Evidence has been presented to substantiate this point beyond reasonable doubt.

I am more skeptical than Ozbob on whether BCC is truly different this time. These behaviours and effects come about because of governance structures and institutional behaviours. Much the same people back then are still in the same positions this time around. Similar problems were encountered in Adelaide when bus reform was floated. Precisely, what is going to be different this time other than enlarged buses being added to the mix? The 2013 review also included new services (e.g. Route 66).

BCC's bus review could be an opportunity for revolutionary change. Or it might be a nasty replay of 2013 all over again because the governance and institutional relations have not progressed since then; and councillors will still be worried they will lose their ward seat if they don't support the status quo. The metro buses run along the busway - BCC councillors do not care about that - whereas the services to be turned into feeders run in the suburbs where they will have 'ward impact'.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Also the unions were mislead at the time with threats from bcc not running Translink services. It was a circle jerk where Translink had no input from bcc, state not willing to commit funding and public relations running rife after the qr/aurizon split where they were told similar lines from the state.