On the Buses

[achiruel]

Interesting to note the Maroon CityGlider, introduced with great fanfare and political influence, doesn't make the Top 10 bus routes in Brisbane. Wonder why that is? Network duplication perhaps?

Although, the 199 and Blue CityGlider cover a fair bit of the same catchment at either end, and both are doing very well.

RBoT actually did an MR on this a few years ago. At the time, the 385 BUZ was in the Top 10 best performing routes. Cannibalisation from the MaroonGlider, which is timed to come through a few minutes before the 385 on the La Trobe/Given Tce corridor, caused the 385 to be pushed out of the Top 10. It also resulted in the reduction in frequency of the services along Waterworks Rd.

The MaroonGlider really was an act of political bastardry. Thankfully BCC has improved a lot in its mindset recently. Perhaps one day the route will be re-adjusted to make it more useful.

I don't see why it needs to exist at all, to be honest.

[techblitz]

^ it exists purely for 'turn up and go' factor...which is what its actually achieving.
On the other side of roma st the route is actually doing decently in tandem with the 385.The main issue on the other side is figuring out how to mesh it with the Coorparoo central/langlands routes such as 222/200/209...various Carindale rockets and various buses passing through stones corner 174/175/203/204. There needs to be a major review for the entire area......probably as important as the cenentary review.

[SurfRail]

I don't see why there need to be 3 separate buses along Latrobe Tce each running every 15 minutes and each with a different stopping pattern.  Or Old Cleveland Road for that matter.

Gympie Rd is a bit more defensible given it is also a thoroughfare for non-stopping buses from much further out, but there is still too much bloody complexity in the network.  Simplify FFS!

[techblitz]

385 bus drivers must get tired of being asked 'does this bus stop @ Paddington?'

[achiruel]

I don't see why there need to be 3 separate buses along Latrobe Tce each running every 15 minutes and each with a different stopping pattern.  Or Old Cleveland Road for that matter.

Gympie Rd is a bit more defensible given it is also a thoroughfare for non-stopping buses from much further out, but there is still too much bloody complexity in the network.  Simplify FFS!

Agreed. Regarding Old Cleveland Rd, rather than have the buses all take OCR, they could have a route through Seven Hills (Stanley Rd/Macrossan Ave), and another through Carina Heights (Samuel St/Chatsworth Rd) using roughly the same resources as are currently put into 200/202/203/204/222. And have a much more legible network that benefits many more pax!

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't see why there need to be 3 separate buses along Latrobe Tce each running every 15 minutes and each with a different stopping pattern.  Or Old Cleveland Road for that matter.

Gympie Rd is a bit more defensible given it is also a thoroughfare for non-stopping buses from much further out, but there is still too much bloody complexity in the network.  Simplify FFS!

But even so on Gympie Road the existing buz bypass busway stops and other key stops but instead relying on a 77, 370, 375, 379 to pick up the slack. So some stops have a totally over kill of services while others essentially have 1 service as they are frequently going past at exactly the same time. So many services yet everything goes past at the same time or it doesn't stop at all. Its even crazier when you get to RBWH-Valley-RBHW and RBHW-city-RBWH.

[Cazza]

Re. 385 and MGLD:

The 61 between Ashgrove and the city does reasonably well patronage wise. Between the city and Stones Corner is generally empty. You generally find the 61 doing better outbound from city to Ashgrove because it leaves KGS 5 mins before 385. On inbound, 385 leaves Bardon 3 mins before 61 (both weekends).

IMO, the 385 should run all the way down Waterworks Rd to the city and 61 keep same route between Ashgrove and city. Extend terminus from Ashgrove to Enoggera Interchange and from Langlands Park to Carindale (via Buranda, replace 222).

[Mr X]

I don't see why there need to be 3 separate buses along Latrobe Tce each running every 15 minutes and each with a different stopping pattern.  Or Old Cleveland Road for that matter.

Gympie Rd is a bit more defensible given it is also a thoroughfare for non-stopping buses from much further out, but there is still too much bloody complexity in the network.  Simplify FFS!

Agreed. The 200 should be canned in favour of more 222s, which should be extended to cover the Carindale Heights part of the 200.

Also I don't see why we need the 111/160/555 on the SE Busway, coming at very similar times (111s come 2mins before the 555s usually), stopping all the same stops Cultural -> Garden City but going to different places in the CBD.

[STB]

https://translink.com.au/service-updates/131121

Route 238 trial to end

Route 238 Cannon Hill to Morningside will not operate after Friday 23 June 2017.

The trial of 238 was jointly funded by the Queensland Government and Transport for Brisbane. We continually monitor demand across our network and work with our delivery partners to introduce and trial new services. We engaged the community in October 2016 to better understand why this service wasn't being well used. Feedback indicated that customers felt route 238 was not as fast as other services and transferring to a train or ferry to get to the city, was unpopular.

There are other bus services you can catch to get to the city, for example:

If you are traveling from the Bulimba area, alternative routes include the 230 or 231.
If you are traveling from the Cannon Hill area, alternative routes include the 232.

A bit of a concern that it appears that people just simply don't want to transfer and want a 1 bus or a 1 train journey to the city from their house.  Route 238 to end because of that. 

[SurfRail]

The problem Brisbane has always had with these trials is that they have never had the guts to remove the one-seat trip to the city.  The original version of the current 369 could have been merged with the 375 to create a high-frequency cross-town service that didn't compete with a direct-to-the-CBD route but they have never had the guts.

This route struck me as being a curious one though, almost like it was set up to fail deliberately.

[techblitz]

A bit of a concern that it appears that people just simply don't want to transfer and want a 1 bus or a 1 train journey to the city from their house.

given the current state of QR/translink......replace [concern] with [not surprised]
the 238 had everything working against it....increasing road congestion in its service area....and loss of trust in any bus-rail connections along the cleveland line.

238 would have done much better allocated as a backup rocket servicing UQ,boggo rd,PA hospital,Buranda then express to morningside via okeefe,old Cleveland,bennets rd,waminda....stopping at coorparoo shops(gives a connection between there and morningside station)

edit: to service more stations it could divert down Cavendish servicing both Coorparoo and norman park stations then onto morningside station.

[James]

If you take a look at Route 238, it was set up to fail.

It only ran in the one direction (to Morningside station), so it was useless if you wanted to travel to Cannon Hill. It did some funny doglegs in and around Hawthorne station, and half the time it ran to areas within 800m of a train/ferry terminal, so why would you bother catching the bus unless it was right there? There were only 5-6 services each way, which only operated in the AM & PM peak. If you missed the last one and were catching the ferry, you then need to walk to the 235, or to the train, and then walk some more, depending on your final destination. While the frequency during operating hours was fine (every 15-20 mins), that it only ran for 3 hours on weekdays only did it no favours.

The only part of the route unserved by existing services was Lytton Rd around the industrial estate & parkland. This area isn't a particularly good trip generator, and the rest of the area already had more direct services on identical frequency on various modes (bus, train, ferry). With no compelling case to use the service, why would people change their habits?

Rail fail would have been the final nail in the coffin for this one. Another example of a feeder bus not being well supported by the network around it. Looks like the bus resources for this one have been shuffled across into the new Route 304. Time will tell if this one works.

[techblitz]

^ and we still have tradecoast unserviced.....304 would be a perfect candidate for a feeder from there to Doomben via northshore/portside.....other option is walkway between it and Doomben station(around 1km)......council need to make all appropriate provisions to get something happening.....setting up major industrial developments and no access to public transport seems to be a popular model these days 

[#Metro]

Route 304 will be a flop. https://jp.translink.com.au/plan-your-journey/timetables/bus/t/304

- Route is too short
- Route is infrequent
- Route feeds into the Doomben line, which has very poor service frequency
- It's probably faster to walk
- Service is a short shuttle that does not combine multiple origins and destinations (fails to combine markets). Only really useful if you are going only to Hamilton Portside

If this were a university and a rail station (i.e. Toowong 402) then it might work. But Portside isn't a strong enough destination IMO and the area isn't built up enough.

The road layout of Portside is a cul-de-sac, which means PT must be bent into an unattractive, circuitous route.

It is not easy to design a service in this area. The New Bus Network Proposal has a coverage route 901 to do this area (though it does not get

deep into the development so as to avoid time wasting), and a modified peak hour 302 Pinkenba service.


BCC just need to bite the bullet and reform the bus network wholesale. It has been long enough and well overdue.

[verbatim9]

^^What markets are you referring too? Eat Street Markets Hamilton Northshore (Near the Ferry Terminal) or the relocated Eagle Farm Markets now at Doomben Racecourse?

[#Metro]

^ Origin-Destination pairs and major activity centres.

Bus will be empty, probably already is.

Trouble with these trials is that they seem to be tinkering around the edges so as not to offend people.

You want a trial? Merge the 590 and 598/599 between Garden City and Toombul. That would be a trial.

Or maybe extend the 369 to Ferny Grove. Another useful trial.

TransLink and BCC are not getting at the guts of the problem.

[verbatim9]

When the Hamilton Glyder is confirmed be good to see that extended out to the new cruise terminal or terminating/Turnaround at DFO Skygate. Can then connect with the T bus to the terminals and act as a direct service from the city to Skygate for visitors and residents. Servicing Key locations Valley - Newstead -  Cnr Racecourse/Kingsford Smith Drive-Portside-Hamilton Northshore then up too Skygate serving some stops in Airport Park before arriving at Skygate.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The problem Brisbane has always had with these trials is that they have never had the guts to remove the one-seat trip to the city.  The original version of the current 369 could have been merged with the 375 to create a high-frequency cross-town service that didn't compete with a direct-to-the-CBD route but they have never had the guts.

This route struck me as being a curious one though, almost like it was set up to fail deliberately.

From what I recall 369 was and still is translink/state government funded as part of the whole northern busway opening. It had a 15 min frequency and ran out to DFO but no one was using it due to duplication. Now it terminates at Toombull and is half hourly with 40-60 minute gaps depending on the time of day.

I have to say that the 336/337 are Brisbanes only proper suburb feeder routes. They both get good loadings on the first and last services but the whole way its managed. Its about a 6 minute trip from the Aspley Hypermarket Interchange to Geebung Railway station interchange to connect to trains that run more frequent than the buz standard in peak hour yet its run every 2 hours only between peaks. Remember its faster Geebung-City on a train than a scenic tour of the various traffic jams that the 325/335 do.

[ozbob]

For interest ..

https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/882257171991339009

[Golliwog]

Not sure if this has been noted before but:

New service for Holmview to Beenleigh Station - Route 567
https://translink.com.au/service-updates/133081

Going to be using the first mid sized bus on the Translink network - space for 18 passengers and 1 wheelchair.

Clock-face hourly service from 6:30am to 6:30pm M-F, 7:30am-5:30pm Sat, nil on Sun

[techblitz]

bus pic (from TL twitter feed)

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/897318257484374016

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/899901583680446464

https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/899902323433984001

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Security cars to follow Brisbane buses as part of safety boost

Brisbane buses will soon be twice as likely to be tailed by a security car as Brisbane City Council boosts its investment in bus driver safety.

The safety of the city's bus drivers has been topical following the death of council bus driver Manmeet Sharma in October, 2016.

Following this death the council conducted a $100,000 independent review into Mr Sharma's death, which prompted a safety overhaul across the fleet.

Since that report, which was released in April, council buses have undergone changes including increased signage about CCTV and emergency exists and the installation of additional emergency exists at the rear or some buses. .

Public transport chairman Adrian Schrinner said the council would be taking further action to improve the safety of both bus drivers and passengers.

Council has committed an extra $363,000 this year for rapid response vehicles, of which council currently has a minimum of three in operation at any time.

This extra funding will boost the capability to a minimum of six on the road.

Security workers travel in these vehicles and drive behind buses on routes that have attracted concern from both bus drivers and passengers.

The cars are used, as opposed to an officer travelling on the bus, so they can divert to any urgent jobs if necessary. 

The extra security cars will be rolled out by early September.

Cr Schrinner said an extra $137,000 had also been allocated to deal with issues as they arose.

"That will be targeted security guards out there on the network in areas where we get feedback that there are problems, or could be problems," Cr Schrinner said on Tuesday.

Starting August 28, all Brisbane bus drivers will be given the chance to have their say on the installation of protective barriers on buses.

Cr Schrinner said bus drives would be shown a bus equipped with a partial barrier and a bus with a full barrier to help them make their decision.

"Drivers can see what they look like, they can sit in the chair and  experience what it would be like in the driver seat of a bus with these barriers in place," he said.

"So we will be supporting that opportunity for bus drives to have their say on this important issue."

Shadow transport spokesman Jared Cassidy said opposition asked for the safety improvements six months ago.

"It's something that we've been calling for for months now, both in council publicly and in committee meetings," Cr Cassidy said.

"What he [Cr Schrinner] said today is he's going to go out to depots to talk to drivers, we asked them to do that over six months ago and he didn't think it was waranted at the time."

Cr Cassidy said the extra security was needed, and agreed bus drives should have their say about protective barriers.

Cr Schrinner said council was stepping up to deliver safety improvements for bus drivers and passengers as the state government's bus safety review had not yet been released.

"The state government review was meant to be a six-month review, announced in September last year, due to be finished by the end of March," he said.

"It's now 11 months on and there is still no sign of that review. So council has bitten the bullet here and decided to take further action over and above the recommendations of our own review to improve safety and security for bus drivers and passengers."

[verbatim9]

We have alot of reviews that lead to new reviews in this State because of bad policy decisions.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Qldaah/status/900209911195422721

[ozbob]

23rd August 2017

Media Release
Deputy Premier, Minister for Transport and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning
The Honourable Jackie Trad

A safer future for Queensland bus drivers

The Palaszczuk Government has promised continued action on bus driver safety, releasing its interim response to the Queensland Bus Driver Safety Review today.

The independent review was initiated to better understand the risk of violence towards bus drivers and has identified 20 potential initiatives to improve bus driver safety.

Deputy Premier and Minister for Transport Jackie Trad said that the review was needed to understand the nature, extent and triggers of violence towards bus drivers.

"We have more than 2500 bus drivers across the state — who make around 127 million bus trips each year," Ms Trad said.

"A majority of customers on-board buses are courteous and respect the important service our bus drivers provide, but a small number of passengers threaten, verbally abuse or physically harm our drivers – which is completely unacceptable.

"Everyone has a right to go to work and come home each day, safe and free from abuse, and we are absolutely determined to do what we can to protect our bus drivers.

"Out of the 20 initiatives identified in the review, we are already making progress on 11, including a promising first trial of anti-shatter film on Gold Coast and Cairns buses and expanding the Bus Safety Forum."

Key initiatives from the review already in progress include:

    mandating installation of duress alarms, digital radio and CCTV
    trialling and evaluating anti-shatter film on 30 Gold Coast and 10 Cairns buses
    evaluating the effectiveness of partial driver barriers currently in use
    refreshing the existing Student Code of Conduct and creating a new Code for general bus passenger use
    developing a public awareness campaign regarding bus driver safety
    investigating statewide roll-out of de-escalation training for bus drivers
    increasing the frequency of Bus Safety Forum meetings from two to six per year, and expanding the membership to include bus drivers and Senior Network Officers.

"The Palaszczuk Government will continue to work with key stakeholders to further investigate what we can do in areas such as policing, contract terms, driver recruitment and high-risk passenger management," Ms Trad said.

"The safety of our bus drivers is an issue that affects our broader community and it is one that this government is determined to address."

The documents can be found here: https://translink.com.au/about-translink/projects-and-initiatives/bus-driver-safety-review

ENDS

[#Metro]

Queensland bus driver safety review findings show changes could cost millions

Making Queensland buses safer could cost more than $100 million over the next decade, an independent review has found.

The Queensland government ordered the statewide bus safety review in September 2016, with driver Manmeet Sharma dying in an attack at Moorooka one month later.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-bus-driver-safety-review-findings-show-changes-could-cost-millions-20170823-gy2esj.html


Maybe time to bring in dedicated transit security or authorised transit security officer like in Victoria.
These should roam around the network and be able to hold until arrest perhaps? Could be funded through contributions from all operators or the state and roam the entire network on all modes.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Queensland bus driver safety review findings show changes could cost millions

Making Queensland buses safer could cost more than $100 million over the next decade, an independent review has found.

The Queensland government ordered the statewide bus safety review in September 2016, with driver Manmeet Sharma dying in an attack at Moorooka one month later.

The report, released publicly on Wednesday, reveals Queensland bus drivers are routinely exposed to violence, with verbal abuse the most common, while violence was higher in the afternoons, nights, on Fridays and on specific routes and regions.

In 2015-16, DTMR-contracted bus operators reported 392 incidents of verbal and physical assaults and objects thrown at buses, but the reviewers said they believed incidents were significantly under-reported by drivers.

The Gold Coast and Cairns were "hot spots" for projectiles being thrown at buses.

The five triggers for violence towards drivers were fares, alcohol and drugs, passenger attitude, delays and student attitude, the report says.

Fare evasion, faulty Go Cards, large notes that could not be changed and refusal of service because of fare issues could all spark conflict.

Others became aggravated when services were late or did not arrive, directing their anger towards the driver.

High risk passengers were usually aggressive people, habitual non-payers and displayed anti-social behaviour.

A Deloitte survey showed 63 per cent of drivers felt violence had increased in 2016 compared to previous years.

The report recommended 20 initiatives to reduce the risk of violence to bus drivers, including driver barriers, more senior network officers and police, CCTV, de-escalation training, an advertising campaign, changes to fare policies and scheduling services to reduce delays.

It could cost up to $166.5 million over 10 years to implement a "high-risk" package, with extra security, police and CCTV making up most of the expense - but if measures were already in place across different operators, the cost would be less.

However, some drivers surveyed thought a protective barrier would affect the driver-passenger relationship, with many enjoying interacting with passengers, and could lead to negative outcomes.

The report suggested a barrier could move the risks from drivers to customers or create extra heat or reflection for drivers.

It also recommended "customer service cards", which could be handed to passengers during fare disputes to defuse confrontation, with information about making a complaint to TransLink.

The report recommended eight costed initiatives be trialled, but several could be introduced immediately such as a public awareness campaign, codes of conduct, data collection and customer service cards.

Deputy Premier and Transport Minister Jackie Trad said the majority of customers on board 127 million bus trips each year were courteous.

"But a small number of passengers threaten, verbally abuse or physically harm our drivers - which is completely unacceptable," Ms Trad said.

Of the 20 initiatives, the government is making progress on 11, including a trial of anti-shatter film on Gold Coast and Cairns buses, Ms Trad said.

Installation of duress alarms, digital radio and CCTV was also mandated across Queensland, a passenger awareness campaign was in development and de-escalation training was being investigated.

Brisbane City Council Public and Active Transport chairman Councillor Adrian Schrinner said the council would review the report to determine if there were any recommendations to expand safety measures on Brisbane buses.

"Shatterproof glass has been installed on all Brisbane City Council buses for several years and council recently announced that it would be starting de-escalation training for bus drivers," Cr Schrinner said.

"Council has previously confirmed that in coming weeks it will be surveying bus drivers to determine what, if any, driver enclosure barriers are supported."

Cr Schrinner said council had announced almost $2 million of extra safety measures to improve safety on Brisbane buses.

Brisbane City Council has been locked in a bitter dispute with union members over bus driver pay, safety conditions and rostering, with industrial action costing taxpayers more than $3 million.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

24th August 2017

Bus Driver Safety Review

Good Morning,

RAIL Back On Track welcomes the public release of the Queensland Bus Driver Safety Review, and the Interim Government Response.

[ Bus Driver Safety Review --> https://translink.com.au/about-translink/projects-and-initiatives/bus-driver-safety-review ]

Our bus drivers are a lynch pin of our public transport services and their safety must be paramount.

We particularly welcome a move to cashless fares and would expect that this will be the outcome with the Next Generation Ticketing system. A move to cashless fares is possible with the go card system now as well, however the unreliability of the go card system on buses particularly needs to be taken in account into any cashless solution now.

We note that the problem of advertising wrap blocking windows has not been mentioned in the report.  Advertising wrap makes it impossible or at the least very difficult to see into public transport vehicles. This could be critical during an incident.  Blocked windows is of course also very disorientating for passengers particularly at night and wet.  For these reasons advertising wrap should be progressively removed from the windows of all public transport vehicles. Public transport vehicles are built with windows for a reason, they are not tin can 'submarines'.

Best wishes,
Robert

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

[ozbob]

Latest: Bus Driver Safety Review - comment
> https://t.co/eVwQC9GGz4#qldpol#removeadwrapfromwindows pic.twitter.com/wn2ZUyUqrn

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) August 23, 2017

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/900399533254885377

^

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/844946228043427840

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/900486590564253696

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/902341455192121344

[verbatim9]

The grills look like a jail. The partial Perspex petition looks ok but doesn't provide much protection

What about this and the driver is happy too ?

[Otto]

^^^ That's my preferred option. Also, with the driver A/C boost fan on, the driver will be cooler during the very hot days of summer instead of just having the cool air dissipate into the saloon.

[SurfRail]

I'm quite curious about why drivers would object to being largely sealed off from the public.  Doesn't seem to trouble anybody driving a tram or train.

They can still interact with boarding passengers, and (from experience) there is nothing stopping a driver having a natter with somebody in the front seat whether it is a Perth style "monkey cage" or perspex.

[Otto]

I'm quite curious about why drivers would object to being largely sealed off from the public.  Doesn't seem to trouble anybody driving a tram or train.

They can still interact with boarding passengers, and (from experience) there is nothing stopping a driver having a natter with somebody in the front seat whether it is a Perth style "monkey cage" or perspex.

I have no objection to sitting in my own compartment surrounded by an acrylic / perspex barrier, But I would object to a Monkey cage. I'm not sure why other drivers would object to the perspex barrier. I may find out on Thursday as that will be the first time I will be caught up in a stop work action . Will give me a chance to discuss it with others.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/912599104131174400

[Cazza]

Will the shuttle run to/from Toowong as well? It only said from the base of the mountain (where ever that is).

[ozbob]

Will the shuttle run to/from Toowong as well? It only said from the base of the mountain (where ever that is).

It all seems a bit vague at present.  I got the impression they expect punters to drive to the base and then use the shuttle bus.

All a bit half baked as usual ...