City Glider

[longboi]

Probably because thats where the numbers are (Look at route 199 patronage).

Are you refering to the post 1am on Sat/Sun morning services, or the CityGlider as a whole?

Cityglider as a whole but that doesn't mean it should be scaled back. It will eventually be better utilised so why delay the inevitable.
Quite frankly its obscene that these people who live within walking distance of the CBD of Australia's third largest City are complaining about 'noise'.

[somebody]

Cityglider as a whole but that doesn't mean it should be scaled back. It will eventually be better utilised so why delay the inevitable.

I think it does mean that it should be scaled back.  There are far better uses of the available cash than runing this service every 15 minutes 1am-5am on Sat/Sun morning.  If patronage rises in the future, and there is a better coverage of other services, then that would be one thing, but giving these people, who are already "haves" in Brisbane's PT world is quite outrageous actually.  Maybe that's one thing that I agree with TL on.  Must be a marginal electorate involved.

It would also be far better to improve frequency on the N199 than this service which runs near to the River shore on the West End side and is also more useful on the New Farm side.  Perhaps if the N199 ran at a reasonable frequency, a few more people would use it.

[STB]

I would suggest that the 24 hour aspect of the CityGlider is a waste of money.  Nightlink defines a serviced area as a stop within 4km and yet there's still a lot of unserved area.  Why run this bus on the next street from the N199?  Even the Newstead part isn't far from other services.  Those funds would be far better spent on an N444 or N150 service.

I would suggest that is only because it is in its infancy and a lot of the catchment area is still as yet undeveloped (Montague Rd precinct, Newstead).

Even so, why should this area get a far superior service to the rest of Brisbane??  It's not fair!

I have definitely noticed "haves" and "have nots" in Brisbane's public transport system.  I would be one of the "haves", and I'm still frustrated by Translink incompetence.

Why should the "haves" get their service upgraded before the "have nots"??  And even if Montague Rd & Newstead where developed, there would be far more worthy places to spend Nightlink $.

I should just mention that the CityGlider service was in fact kept away from TL's eyes for the majority of the time.  The CityGlider I would probably say is more a politically based service than any other service around.  BCC slapping TL and trying to Newman look like he's not just road focused.  

As far as I'm aware, TL didn't put any funding towards this service and probably would've not of allowed BCC to implement if they did have a power over them in regards to this service, funded mostly by BCC themselves.

[somebody]

The CityGlider I would probably say is more a politically based service than any other service around.  

That's a good point.

[ResGroup]

The CityGlider I would probably say is more a politically based service than any other service around. 

That's a good point.

I agree that this is political.

We, as residents in this area can see that we have too much public transport here. The buses are fighting for passengers. I've said it before in this forum and I'll say it again, we are PRO PUBLIC TRANSPORT. This is simply the wrong place for this terminus.

Nikko, having empathy for people in difficult situations shows true strength of a person's character. Amazingly, you are not the only one with a brain or an opinion, and as I'm the expert on what my family and I are facing on a minute by minute framework outside our home, I'd hope that you would please keep the dramatics low key.

[#Metro]

Just thinking:

If 199 + CityGlider were merged to form a 2-way loop service, there would be no 'terminus' at West End, just a bus stop.
However, this would require an additional stop in Orleigh St to be paired with the current one. The effect of this would be to bring a new bus stop located on the same side as residents' houses (as the stops need to be on opposite sides of the street), but possibly reduce the number of buses at any one time.

The terminus would simply be at Teneriffe. The bus driver might be a bit hungry though, and the route would be lengthy.
Reliability may be affected but a turning circle would probably not be required either.

[ButFli]

Tramtrain you are massaging the problem to fit the solution you have been touting since before the problem was known. The loop you talk about doesn't make sense at the best of times. All it does here is move half the buses closer to the effected residents. How is that a solution?

Maybe I am overly negative but I have never understood this group's fascination with loops.

[Golliwog]

The main positive I can see with loops is that there is no wasted turn around time at one end. However, there would still need to be a point in West End somewhere where the bus can sometimes stop and wait to make up time so it is not arriving to stops early. Not such a big deal if the bus is running at a 5 minute frequency of course, but late in the evenings, when noise is the problem, this would have to occur.

A downside to loops however is that to be fully useful, you need to have loops in both directions, which is difficult and makes paired stops difficult when you have one way streets: see the free city loop. If you didn't have loops going both ways then you could have someone who was say 5 minutes by bus going to the city, but coming home was more like 15-20 because they would have to take the bus right around the loop. This would encourage walking though

[skippy]

Probably because thats where the numbers are (Look at route 199 patronage).

Are you refering to the post 1am on Sat/Sun morning services, or the CityGlider as a whole?

Cityglider as a whole but that doesn't mean it should be scaled back. It will eventually be better utilised so why delay the inevitable.

My main issue is the double standard in service frequency compared to rail. I would rather the City Glider peak frequency reduced from (the breathtaking) 5 minutes to (a perfectly acceptable) 10 minutes, at least until the developments and patronage demand can fill 6 buses an hour. The money saved could be used to fund a few extra rail services, such as eliminating the 40min gap in the pm peak on the Shorncliffe line for starters. 

[somebody]

No argument with that point, skippy.  Seems to date back to before TL and BCC were far more pro-bus than the state was pro-rail.

[ButFli]

My main issue is the double standard in service frequency compared to rail. I would rather the City Glider peak frequency reduced from (the breathtaking) 5 minutes to (a perfectly acceptable) 10 minutes, at least until the developments and patronage demand can fill 6 buses an hour. The money saved could be used to fund a few extra rail services, such as eliminating the 40min gap in the pm peak on the Shorncliffe line for starters. 

I've no idea about the CityGlider but experience tells me that the 199 inbound from Teneriffe Ferry in morning peak (during a "breathtaking" 5 minute frequency) is often too full to accept more passengers before it reaches the Valley. The 199 needs more capacity in these times, not less, but this is only realistically going to be achieved by bigger buses that probably won't fit on the route anyway. Reducing frequency to 10 minutes would mean more passengers are left behind than are carried on the bus. This in turn would lead to less money for other transport options because the 199 takes more money in fares than it costs to run - it makes a profit.

I know you are talking about CityGlider but I can only assume that ridership will be even better on that than the 199 which makes my point even more valid.

[#Metro]

Tramtrain you are massaging the problem to fit the solution you have been touting since before the problem was known. The loop you talk about doesn't make sense at the best of times. All it does here is move half the buses closer to the effected residents. How is that a solution?

No not at all. I'm just exploring a "what if" scenario in search of an answer.
Removal of the terminus and replacement with an ordinary stop would likely make noise far worse, than better, as it would bring the buses even closer to the residents than it is now with the terminus in place.

Please, I'm only stating what could be, not necessarily what should be.

[#Metro]

This in turn would lead to less money for other transport options because the 199 takes more money in fares than it costs to run - it makes a profit.

Its quite unbelieveable but I think its true. I think 199 is actually making profits.
Even more reason to convert it to light rail IMHO.

[cartoonbirdhaus]

No argument with that point, skippy.  Seems to date back to before TL and BCC were far more pro-bus than the state was pro-rail.

Or is a matter of capacity? After all, the current rail system's constrained (hence the proposed cross-river rail tunnel), whilst there's no shortage of road lanes everywhere! (Never mind that a lot of 4- and 6-lane roads could have the outer lanes converted to bus lanes, but that's another story.)

[ButFli]

This in turn would lead to less money for other transport options because the 199 takes more money in fares than it costs to run - it makes a profit.

Its quite unbelieveable but I think its true. I think 199 is actually making profits.
Even more reason to convert it to light rail IMHO.

I figure it like this:

CityGlider has an annual budget of $5million for a route of similar distance and equal or better frequency to the 199. So the 199 won't cost more than $5million per annum to run. We know that a few years ago the 199 carried 3.4million passengers in a year and I assume it is only growing. If we assume that there is a 50-50 split of concession and full fare passengers, even if every passenger pays the minimum possible fare (one zone off-peak go card) there is still almost $5.3million collected in fares every year. These are very conservative estimates so I'm sure the actual revenue is much higher.

I'm sure Translink take a cut of this so BCC itself might not make a profit. Still, cutting peak frequency of the 199 means less money available for other routes and services, not more.

[somebody]

No argument with that point, skippy.  Seems to date back to before TL and BCC were far more pro-bus than the state was pro-rail.

Or is a matter of capacity? After all, the current rail system's constrained (hence the proposed cross-river rail tunnel), whilst there's no shortage of road lanes everywhere! (Never mind that a lot of 4- and 6-lane roads could have the outer lanes converted to bus lanes, but that's another story.)

Which did not apply off peak to the Ferny Grove line, weekend Corinda frequency, Petrie, Shorncliffe or Manly.  The politicians should have rammed through objections of "making it too hard for freight", especially to those locations.  Also, there is plenty of rail capacity with the exception of the Merivale Bridge.

ButFli, just because the 199 shouldn't be scaled back doesn't mean that the CityGlider shouldn't!

[#Metro]

I'm sure Translink take a cut of this so BCC itself might not make a profit. Still, cutting peak frequency of the 199 means less money available for other routes and services, not more.

This is great, but why is the most busy route 199? Think about it, it connects 2 inner city suburbs. No big shopping centres, universities or sports stadiums or hospitals. Why 199?

Could other cross town routes take off, say Paddington to Stones Corner?

[ButFli]

ButFli, just because the 199 shouldn't be scaled back doesn't mean that the CityGlider shouldn't!

Yes, indeed. I made the assumption that CityGlider patronage will be similar to the 199 and hence similar calculations will apply.

[skippy]

The suggestion was a 10 min peak frequency (5 min average wait) should be sufficiently attractive to determine the demand. No problem adding extra buses when needed to avoid pax behind left behind or even people consistently having to stand. For the City Glider, this could be in six months time or six years time. Until then why not
- take 12 peak hour buses / hour off the Victoria bridge and out of Cultural Centre bus station
- spend the $$$ on some extra rail services (daytime off peak if no available peak capacity)
until the 10 min service starts to get overcrowded.

[ButFli]

If the service isn't there people can't use it. The better suggestion would be to run the 5 minute services for 6 months or 6 years and reduce frequency at that stage if it is justified. Money saved on CityGlider will not be spent on extra rail services. CityGlider is funded by BCC while CityTrain is funded by the State Government.

I'm going to be a real bastard and suggest that if people want service frequencies improved the could start paying fares that cover the actual cost of providing it. 

[ozbob]

Public transport use saves money.  The direct subsidy is only part of the story, the savings in terms of reduced congestion, reduced environmental impacts and reduced health care costs far out weigh the cost.  Why is there a  determined effort to encourage public transport use by Government?  (Even if their strategy is a bit suspect at the moment).  Frequency improvements will in turn encourage patronage.  Sometimes the authorities have to bite the bullet.  

Road transport pays nothing like the real costs.  It too is heavily subsidised despite rego, fuel tax and so forth.  So is health and education for that matter, so is sewerage and electricity.  The reason we have society and government is to perhaps support our community in a manner that most things are achievable for the majority.  Public transport is an essential service, like many things.

[somebody]

Not to mention, improved off peak rail frequency reduces the cost of providing the service on a per seat and probably a per journey basis.  This is due to the effect of the fixed costs.

[#Metro]

The subsidy is required for now, charges on the car apparently they don't cover the full costs
Subsidy is only a second-best solution.
The first-best solution is to charge road users the full cost of supplying free roads and cars
(car manufacturers receive subsidy for "research" purposes). Unfortunately the value of losing car votes get in the way.

History shows, pre-car era, buses and trams in Brisbane didn't need an operating subsidy.
They made money- lots of it. In cities where the population density is so high that it is not
practical to get around with a car, public transport makes money or breaks even too.
There are examples of Buses, Metro, and Light Rail doing this.

If the service is good enough, it might not need subsidy. 199 is one of these;
I suspect that some of the busway rocket services also fall into this category.
Increase the frequency and save money!

We will have to watch what the Ken Henry Tax Review says and what action is taken about road user charges.

[#Metro]

People will pay more for improved service.
Recent fare increases reveal that for every 1% increase in fares patronage drops by 0.1% which is a vanishingly small amount.
This number is also consistent with overseas studies.

Increasing the frequency will more than make up for this loss. A 50% concession will keep the service equitable.
As 199 shows, if frequency is increased and local support is good, you might not even need subsidy (despite all the cards stacked against PT) and the bus actually starts making money while retaining all the benefits of social, environmental, congestion and health benefits. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3443.0

(Brisbane) car users also seem sensitive to charges, which is even more evidence of this "uneven playing field".
The Clem 7 tunnel is a good example. Full of cars when free, then the fares went up to $2.95 (not much more than a TL ticket), almost all the the car users stopped using it. Even a peak hour traffic jam and pileup wasn't enough to coax people to use it.


The following IPART report gives information about the 'other' benefits of PT.
The biggest cost saving is from time and congestion savings.
LEGC IPART Report in to Externialities for Sydney buses

Public Transport being an "essential service" is not necessarily an argument for or against a subsidy.
Food, telephones and the internet are essential and there is no subsidy for those. Roof insulation isn't essential and there was a subsidy for that. The benefits from PT, the fact that cars cause problems (congestion), and the uneven playing field are sound enough to warrant a subsidy. Any fare increases must go hand-in-hand with frequency increases. My criticism about the most recent round of fare increases was the delay. The fare increase came along but the new services didn'tand still haven't been fully rolled out yet and we are still waiting. Hopefully TL will fix this for next time.

[#Metro]

Money saved on CityGlider will not be spent on extra rail services.
CityGlider is funded by BCC while CityTrain is funded by the State Government.

Organisational boundaries and turf wars can cause problems.
In some overseas places, the authority has taxing and levy powers.
I think TLs model is a bit complicated, but the move to get contributions from local councils should go some way
to fixing that.

[ozbob]

The Federal budget due to be handed down on the May 11, will be informed in part by the so called Henry tax review, a review that is expected to recommend congestion charging of roads.  This will no doubt put at risk some of the 'tunnel/funnel' projects in place and under way.  

The chronic under-funding of public transport has cost plenty as funds were directed to the car cult, and will cost to rectify.  The Federal Government is at last taking the view that 'Howard Handouts' are not going to be forthcoming, and infrastructure investment must be the priority.  

The gun operator of an immaculate rail system in Hong Kong has met head on with the problems of public transport infrastructure neglect in Melbourne.  See http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3755.0.  The franchise con is just an excuse for operators to make a quick buck and Governments to forget about the future.  Brisbane I would suggest, is not the sad case that Melbourne is, but nonetheless catch up is needed.  The bizarre safety policies are also complicating matters here as well.  What used to take minutes to fix minor issues, is now often taking hours as paper work and other requirements are first meet.

Yes, there is much to do ..

[dwb]

@tramtrain: I agree whole heartedly with this post but not so much the others.

The subsidy is required for now, charges on the car apparently they don't cover the full costs
Subsidy is only a second-best solution.
The first-best solution is to charge road users the full cost of supplying free roads and cars
(car manufacturers receive subsidy for "research" purposes). Unfortunately the value of losing car votes get in the way.

History shows, pre-car era, buses and trams in Brisbane didn't need an operating subsidy.
They made money- lots of it. In cities where the population density is so high that it is not
practical to get around with a car, public transport makes money or breaks even too.
There are examples of Buses, Metro, and Light Rail doing this.

If the service is good enough, it might not need subsidy. 199 is one of these;
I suspect that some of the busway rocket services also fall into this category.
Increase the frequency and save money!

We will have to watch what the Ken Henry Tax Review says and what action is taken about road user charges.

In regards to subsidy, well yes of course the government's current policy is actually to try to achieve more through REGULATION than subsidy, hence restricted competition.  I'm all for reducing the rate of subsidy (ie more reasonable fares in relationship to operational budget, but NOT in regards to infrastructure construction, unless it is simply the amortization cost, however I doubt their budgeting is sufficiently complex enough to account for this), I'm also keen for actual costs to be better reflected in car use.

I strongly support the idea for Council contribution to be taken out of the hands of Councils, so that it is not opt in - it should be determined on something much like the ambulance levy - a smaller more equitable broader based tax that raises significantly more money in total for the funding of PT.

That way Brisbane would be able to charge their residents less, not have to pay for PT, and everyone would know that everyone is contributing.

[#Metro]

@tramtrain: I agree whole heartedly with this post but not so much the others.

That's fine
Everyone having their own opinion is a good thing.
Group-think is always a bad...

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

A million passengers glide through city

A million passengers glide through city
Tony Moore
December 1, 2010 - 6:02AM

One million commuters have used the Brisbane's high frequency, 24-hour bus service since it was introduced in April.

The CityGlider, which ran between West End and Newstead, clocked up its one millionth passenger on November 22, seven months after it started.

At the same time, the existing 199 Bus Upgrade Zone route between New Farm and West End also increased its numbers.

The CityGlider ran 24 hours a day on Friday and Saturday and 18 hours a day from Sunday through to Thursday.

While more people, 41,313 each week, used CityGlider buses when they was free for the first month, patronage has grown to almost 35,000 each week since the fares have been imposed.

During October, 33,973 used the CityGlider each week and in the final week of that month, 34,779 people used the service.

Public Transport chair Margaret de Wit said the new CityGlider had been successful without affecting the older 199 BUZ route.

"The pressure to get more CityGlider-type services on our streets is growing and if we can get more services where they are so frequent you do not need a timetable that is a very good thing," she said.

Fares were pre-paid and people were able to board the bus from both the front and back doors.

Labor's opposition public transport spokeswoman Victoria Newton agreed the CityGlider service had not affected the existing 199 West End BUZ route.

"Prior to the CityGlider coming on the 199 service carried about 300,000 passengers a month and in October this year the 199 continued to carry 306,000 passengers," she said.

"So there has been no dent in the growth of passengers on the 199. The CityGlider, by comparison, carried 168,000 passengers."

The state government funded CityGlider services on a 50/50 basis with Brisbane City Council, although revenue from fares goes to Translink.

A new bus stop was to be built at West End near the ferry terminal to cater for the bus route.

[Jonno]

More proof that our PT problems are supply ones not demand ones.  Build frequent and direct services and people actually prefer these to driving.  Where is the RACQ quote in this article?

[#Metro]

The next move -->   
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4997.msg41366#msg41366

[ozbob]

One year down the track ...

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3441.msg24680#msg24680

[ozbob]

Media release 11th April 2011

SEQ: Happy Birthday CityGlider Bus service!

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 highlights the CityGlider's first 'birthday' and rider-ship numbers.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The Brisbane CityGlider is now one year old (1). Just one year ago, hardly anybody was catching a bus down Montague Road West End, which had extremely poor patronage due to an infrequent and slow all stops 192 bus service. While it would have been tempting to blame density,  car-loving or more industrial land uses in the area for low patronage of bus services in the area prior to the arrival of the CityGlider, the success of the Brisbane CityGlider in what was previously a public transport waste land highlights how effective a fundamental decent frequency, legibility, connectivity and speed are in attracting riders."

"In particular, the speed and the frequency are absolutely critical. These are lessons that we would like to see applied to the train network and other bus routes that travel on arterial roads."

"RAIL Back on Track would like to see similar changes made to the BUZ 199 which is Brisbane's busiest bus route. There is an urgent need for higher capacity vehicles, an extension of peak hour frequency further into the off-peak (possibly every 10 minutes all day), a faster journey time and possibly all door boarding on this route. People are being left behind in peak hour and the journey time could be faster if there wasn't so many stops or if there were priority treatments along the route."

"We commend the Brisbane City Council and TransLink for the CityGlider service. The patronage on the service is very good indeed. It goes to show that if you provide a decent quality 'transit product' you'll get more customers and they will be happy to pay for the service."

"Happy Birthday CityGlider!"

"As RAIL Back on Track has always said, services must be frequent. Bottom line!"

Reference:

1.  http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3441.msg24680#msg24680

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Transport and Multicultural Affairs
The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk
11/04/2011

CityGlider turns one

CityGlider, the West End-Teneriffe bus link, has marked its first birthday after carrying more than 1.5 million passengers in its first year.

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said CityGlider had carried an average of more than 31,000 passengers each week.

"This 24-hour service has been popular among inner city residents helping them get home after a night out in West End, the Valley or the City," Ms Palaszczuk said.

"CityGlider is Brisbane's 12th high-frequency bus route and it also links commuters with river and train services.

"The Bligh Government will be rolling out more of these high-frequency services as part of our commitment to add an extra 305,000 weekly seats across the TransLink network this year.

"CityGlider is yet another way this Government is tackling Brisbane's inner city traffic congestion by taking more cars off the roads.

"We're commited to delivering more frequent and reliable public transport to make travel easier in Brisbane's suburbs.

"With go card use at record levels, customers can also expect faster and more reliable bus trips due to less boarding time."

Ms Palaszczuk said CityGlider was introduced last April to provide high frequency buses every five minutes in peak and every 10-15 minutes in off-peak.

CityGlider runs from the West End ferry terminal via Montague Road, Mollison Road and Melbourne Street, crossing the Brisbane River over the Victoria Bridge and travelling through the CBD and Fortitude Valley along Wickham and Ann streets to the Teneriffe ferry terminal.

CityGlider is a $5 million a year service jointly funded by the State Government and Brisbane City Council.

TransLink carried a record 181.8 million passengers last year with 77 million passengers on Brisbane buses.

[ozbob]

Happy Birthday ..



Photograph R Dow 13th April 2011

[mufreight]

Translink and the State Government have got a hide claming credit for Cityglider when they initialy refused to fund it and it only came into being as a BCC initiative funded by the BCC.

[Golliwog]

Translink and the State Government have got a hide claming credit for Cityglider when they initialy refused to fund it and it only came into being as a BCC initiative funded by the BCC.

And Campbell Newman had an even bigger one for annoucing his plan had State Government funding the same day he gave them detailed analysis of the plan.

[Jonno]

Both have a hide for claiming their transport plans with 80% of trips by motor vehicles are Sustainable.  The rest is just playground squabbles!!!

[dwb]

Translink and the State Government have got a hide claming credit for Cityglider when they initialy refused to fund it and it only came into being as a BCC initiative funded by the BCC.

Bollocks, the entire plan was worked out between officers of both organisations then it all fell to pieces over ticketing and branding. in the end TL came through with the funds and delivered something that Campbell appears to have single handedly deliver.

Now that Campbell is out, perhaps BCC and TL will play better together over branding. I for one am sick of the indescrete yellow and blue!

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Calls for CityGlider route review after West End rape

Calls for CityGlider route review after West End rape
Dan Nancarrow and Georgia Waters
May 3, 2011 - 6:01AM

Business groups and a local politician have called for changes to the CityGlider bus route to provide safer access to patrons travelling home late from the West End nightclub precinct.

The West End Traders Association, the West End Liquor Accord and local councillor Helen Abrahams have called for the bus to travel along Boundary Street late on Friday and Saturday nights following the rape of a young woman in the suburb earlier this month.

The 20-year-old woman was raped while walking along Boundary Street and Melbourne Street late on Friday, April 15. She had just left a private function at Uber nightclub to catch a bus.

Boundary Street is one of West End's main thoroughfares, home to restaurants, bars and nightclubs.

The CityGlider currently travels along Montague Road and stops near Boundary Street on Mollison Street.

West End Liquor Accord president Isaac Zietek said they wanted Translink to change the route.

"Both the West End police and all members of the West End Liquor Accord have been heavily lobbying for the route to include Boundary Street since the Glider began but until now our requests were ignored," he said.

Peter Marinelli of the West End Traders Association said there was one bus an hour along Boundary Street on Friday and Saturday nights, but that was "too long for people to wait".

"Yet at the same time, the CityGlider buses are running along Montague Road without any passengers. This makes no sense," Mr Marinelli said.

However TransLink said it had worked with the community and local council to determine the bus route and wouldn't consider changing it.

A spokesman said the high-frequency 199 bus serviced the Boundary Street area at least every 15 minutes until 11.30pm and then hourly on Friday and Saturday nights.

''Safety of customers is TransLink's number one priority,'' he said.

''The CityGlider services a nearby area throughout Friday and Saturday night. Stops in this area are used by more than 100 customers between 11pm-5am per Friday or Saturday night.''

Cr Abrahams said council data had shown the service was being mainly used by passengers returning home in the early hours of the morning.

"Between midnight and 2am there are many young people leaving night clubs and needing to travel to the CBD to catch transport home," she said.

"The woman who was violently raped on the street was walking to catch public transport. If the CityGlider service came down Boundary Street, she would have been able to wait in a well lit, busy street with people around to provide security and public surveillance."

Cr Abrahams said the issue was one of visibility - if people saw the bus driving frequently through Boundary Street, they would know the service was available.

''They're not going to come out of a nightclub and wait for an hour but if they see buses going up and down the street all the time they know they won't have long to wait for one,'' she said.

''The nightclubs, the police, the traders, they all tell us they need it.

''It's a simple change to an existing service. There are no infrastructure changes needed.''

Cr Abrahams said she had been pushing for the route to be changed since last September, a few months after the CityGlider was launched.

''It's a fairly important issue. It was before but this major safety issue [the woman's attack] has highlighted it,'' she said.

The proposed route would see the bus travel down Vulture Street at the Montague Road intersection and then turn into Boundary Street before resuming the current route on Melbourne Street.

It would take in part of the 199 bus route where existing bus stops and infrastructure are already in place.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/calls-for-cityglider-route-review-after-west-end-rape-20110428-1dyga.html#ixzz1LELVaHhh