Article: Free ride is over, mayor tells councils

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Free ride is over, mayor tells councils

Free ride is over, mayor tells councils
TONY MOORE
July 12, 2010 - 9:30AM

Lord Mayor Campbell Newman has demanded other south-east Queensland councils shoulder a greater share of Brisbane's bus burden.

Almost 5 million more people caught a council bus in the past year than in the previous 12 months, according to new figures.

Cr Newman said the record 77.2 million commuters was proof public transport was growing in popularity.

In 2004, about 48 million people used council buses.

Now, according to Cr Newman, it is time for other councils to dig into their pockets.

"We're the only council in south-east Queensland pulling our weight," he said.

"Council's buses have become so popular that they're now consistently carrying more passengers than the entire south-east Queensland CityTrain network."

Cr Newman said Brisbane subsidised public transport at a cost of about $384 per rateable property last year.

Gold Coast ratepayers pay just $79 per rateable property for their bus fleet.

Cr Newman first asked other councils in March to pay a greater share of the public transport cost.

He argued people from "outside" Brisbane used council's buses, but their councils did not contribute an equal financial share.

"We need to see other councils putting money on the table, or we need to see greater assistance for Brisbane ratepayers," he said in March.

He won support for the idea in March from Transport Minister Rachel Nolan.

"I completely agree with the Lord Mayor's point that local governments in south-east Queensland are now big enough and sustainable enough to start making a contribution to public transport," Ms Nolan said.

[#Metro]

It seems the penny is yet to drop!

Actually it is seems to be Brisbane City Council's own fault that this is happening.
No council in SEQ is going to increase their rates by $384 to support PT.

This is what happens when you try to use buses to carry loads that railways should be carrying.
This is what happens when the bus network is not organized in an integrated way with rail.

The council has unnecessarily burdened itself with an impossible and expensive job and is sending the city broke by running legions of buses, each individually to the city with 1 driver per 65 passengers.

The solution: Mass re-organisation of the bus transport network to feed the railway system.

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/parkride.shtml

[ozbob]

Media Release 12 July 2010

SEQ: Network planning and co-ordination - the second and third silver bullets to a world class 'metro-style' rail system Brisbane

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has called for rail to become the back bone and mass transit spine for South East Queensland.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The rail and bus system in Brisbane needs proper integration to take advantage of the best features of both modes of transport and fight increasing car congestion. Currently buses are wastefully competing with rail for both passengers and capital funding. This is unaffordable, highly inefficient and it's unnecessary to run services this way.

"The fact that buses carry more passengers than trains should be a cause for serious concern, not celebration. A properly integrated network competes against the car, not itself.

"A properly integrated and coordinated network has buses collect dispersed passengers and concentrate them. Then they terminate at the nearest rail station to allow passengers to connect to trains in a coordinated manner.

"This keeps bus running costs down, improves cross-suburban travel and supports rail patronage. It is not good enough for the bus merely to pass the station on the way.

"Why is this 'Collect, Terminate and Transfer' philosophy is not happening in Brisbane? (1) Bus passengers are unnecessarily languishing in peak hour traffic on the Captain Cook Bridge, Coronation Drive and other congested roads in Brisbane.

"The interaction with mixed road traffic also damages bus service reliability, which will only worsen with time. Buses are also woefully overcrowded because they simply don't have the capacity. Integration is especially important for the Western suburbs, as it has no busway and no bus priority lanes on Coronation Drive.

"The solution is to get commuters off the road and on to rail."

The rail network provides:

* The highest level of safety
* The highest level of passenger comfort
* The highest level of reliability
* The highest level of speed
* The highest level of traffic priority
* The highest level of capacity (even more with the new Cross River Rail tunnel)
* The highest level of cost efficiency when fed by buses, rather than competing with buses
* The highest level of labour productivity, with 2 staff per 800 passengers
* The highest environmental benefits, and zero local exhaust fumes
* The greatest reach and coverage spanning all of South East Queensland, from Varsity lakes to Gympie North.

"The benefits of rail go far beyond that ever achievable with just buses on roads, even at high frequency.

"Many trains are brand new or recently refurbished. This safe, high-comfort, high speed and car traffic-free service has been starved of patronage due to wasteful bus competition. It is underutilised during  off-peak because of low service frequency, indeed rail frequencies off-peak are the worst in Australia!

"This situation must be fixed by boosting rail frequency to every 20 minutes off peak on all major lines, with the aim of making this every 15 minutes.  The immediate wholesale and systematic re-organisation of bus routes to feed, and critically, terminate at railway stations with effective coordination and timing of buses to make transfers effortless as possible is required."

Reference:

1.  http://www3.ttc.ca/Routes/Buses.jsp

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[Golliwog]

As long as the State gov't doesn't reduce its funding to Translink by whatever amount local gov't gives, I'm happy. But I disagree with Newman's assertion that local councils should have to contribute funding. Yes it'd be nice and help but it shouldn't be something they must do, Translnik is after all a State body.

[#Metro]

In 2004, about 48 million people used council buses.

Now, according to Cr Newman, it is time for other councils to dig into their pockets.

"We're the only council in south-east Queensland pulling our weight," he said.

"Council's buses have become so popular that they're now consistently carrying more passengers than the entire south-east Queensland CityTrain network."

Cr Newman said Brisbane subsidised public transport at a cost of about $384 per rateable property last year.

This is actually a DISASTER IMHO, not something to be proudly parading around as some kind of achievement!
$384 per property is huge! If those buses were feeding the rail system, you wouldn't need so many buses or so much subsidy!
Neither would the train network need to be so heavily subsidised! And the trains would also run more frequently.

What are these "experts" doing!!!!  

[somebody]

I think you need to calm down TT.  It's not bad news that the buses carry so many pax, the bad news is that the trains carry so few.  Technically, we are still ahead of Perth, but they will pass us soon, and probably even if 15 minute off peak frequency is implemented on all major suburban lines.  Transfers are despised by pax and inflicting them unnecessarily will reduce patronage.  Transfers can help if the frequency is improved to compensate.

[#Metro]

I think you need to calm down TT.  It's not bad news that the buses carry so many pax, the bad news is that the trains carry so few.  Technically, we are still ahead of Perth, but they will pass us soon, and probably even if 15 minute off peak frequency is implemented on all major suburban lines.  Transfers are despised by pax and inflicting them unnecessarily will reduce patronage.  Transfers can help if the frequency is improved to compensate.

I have to disagree here. I used to believe this, but I don't anymore. We are building an integrated public transport network, we have to look at it this in a "whole of system" way. At the moment we are looking at the individual route level or "bus network" and "rail network". This is wrong.

The reason why trains carry so few is because the bus network is not feeding them. Buses pass rail stations and take the passengers with them. The train network is being deliberately starved of patronage in favour of buses. The frequency on trains will only ever improve if there are more passengers and those passengers must come from feeder buses. The extra funds freed up can also boost rail and bus feeder frequency, something we know increases patronage.

Transfers are essential to building public transport networks. There are ways to reduce the transfer penalties, including interchange design and also proper timing with the trains. Rail has the best service characteristics by far, we must make better use of it.

[curator49]

I agree with TramTrain. I think the buses are being used inefficiently because there is no interchange with the rail network. That means more buses are needed because they have to travel all the way into the city and back out again. Buses could be used on more cross-country services feeding into rail/transport hubs. In London people interchange with other lines on the tube and also with buses as part of their daily commute. These interchanges may occur several times on one journey.
People in Brisbane have become used to not having to change but this bogs down the whole system.

[somebody]

TT, have you ever used a feeder bus service?  They suck.  Even the 765 (Robina-Cooloongatta) doesn't meet every train, and it may be the best feeder bus in the country.  Usually they have crappier operating hours than the train service also.

The reason train patronage is so bad is because the service quality is poor, and especially off peak.

[#Metro]

TT, have you ever used a feeder bus service?  They suck.  Even the 765 (Robina-Cooloongatta) doesn't meet every train, and it may be the best feeder bus in the country.  Usually they have crappier operating hours than the train service also.

The reason train patronage is so bad is because the service quality is poor, and especially off peak.

I have. Many times. The money saved from running legions of buses to the city can be used to boost the frequency on both the rail and feeder bus services. Rail frequency is not going to improve unless it gets more patronage- that patronage being brought in from the lower density areas by the feeder buses. They must work together, not against each other.

Timing is also essential. The bus must meet the train.

TransLink is paid to do this, so they should do it!
http://www.translink.com.au/whatwedo.php

TransLink operates within South East Queensland - from Gympie on the Sunshine Coast to Coolangatta on the Gold Coast and west to Helidon.

Our role is to:

    * provide a single point of contact for customer information that is easy to access and understand
    * coordinate and integrate public transport services
    * deliver and manage infrastructure such as train station upgrades and busways
    * introduce new technology such as real time passenger information.

[somebody]

The money saved from running legions of buses to the city can be used to boost the frequency on both the rail and feeder bus services.

The operative word in your sentence is "can".  Note that it is not "will".  If they won't upgrade the frequency on the Ipswich and Caboolture lines which are very busy off peak, won't fill in the 38 minute peak gap on the Shorncliffe line, won't implement good operating patterns, I think it is a fantasy to suggest that any money saved from running less buses would be put in to more trains.

Rail frequency is not going to improve unless it gets more patronage- that patronage being brought in from the lower density areas by the feeder buses. They must work together, not against each other.

The patronage brought in from the bus system is unlikely to help rail patronage that much.  You wouldn't seriously suggest that the 345 should terminate at Alderley, 350/359 at Enoggera, 330 at Zillmere, 130/140 at Altandi, 150 at Fruitgrove etc, now would you?

[#Metro]

The operative word in your sentence is "can".  Note that it is not "will".  If they won't upgrade the frequency on the Ipswich and Caboolture lines which are very busy off peak, won't fill in the 38 minute peak gap on the Shorncliffe line, won't implement good operating patterns, I think it is a fantasy to suggest that any money saved from running less buses would be put in to more trains.

You can't spend money if it is locked up by something else!
The government needs to have commuter groups look at what it is doing, as we have seen with the counting of seats etc.

I'm going to change my position on BT buses. I think the BCC should not run BT. A state government takeover would be one option.

[#Metro]

The patronage brought in from the bus system is unlikely to help rail patronage that much.  You wouldn't seriously suggest that the 345 should terminate at Alderley, 350/359 at Enoggera, 330 at Zillmere, 130/140 at Altandi, 150 at Fruitgrove etc, now would you?

The planners should go through all the bus routes, root and branch and assess them one by one, case by case.
They can get external advice if they need to. And maybe they should.

The planners should go through all the stations on the train network, root and branch and assess them, one by one, case by case as well.
It is TransLink's stated objective to co-ordinate and integrate the network.

[somebody]

The only sensible place I can think of in all of the BCC area for a bus/rail interchange is Indooroopilly.  I challenge you to come up with another location that it could work out well.

[#Metro]

The only sensible place I can think of in all of the BCC area for a bus/rail interchange is Indooroopilly.  I challenge you to come up with another location that it could work out well.

1. Enoggera?

[somebody]

The only sensible place I can think of in all of the BCC area for a bus/rail interchange is Indooroopilly.  I challenge you to come up with another location that it could work out well.

1. Enoggera?

That would be better if it wasn't for the indirect nature of the Ferny Grove line.  Besides, you are really only talking about the 350, 359, 360 that could use that one.

[#Metro]

But it is an answer that meets your challenge.

[somebody]

But it is an answer that meets your challenge.

Yes, but marginally.  I did say "work out well".

The point is though, that these are quite isolated instances.  If we stopped the 130/140 at Altandi, there would still need to be a service on the Mains Rd corridor, and it would increase the journey time noticeably, at least while the trains are using the Merivale bridge.  These reasons would also reduce patronage noticeably.  Even the relatively well aligned Caboolture line wouldn't really help the 330 with an interchange at Zillmere.

The 462 (or is it 463) Darra interchange service doesn't really compare with 118 freeway bus for Forest Lake either.

You can't spend money if it is locked up by something else!

The stupid part is spending so much money on providing a few parking spaces.

[Golliwog]

Just a thought, but council says its funding $384 per household to public transport. It doesn't say it's giving it to Translink, just that it's going to PT. Therefore it would be a safe bet to assume this just means its going to Brisbane Transport and into buses. And given how fare box revenue is shared out, it is in BT's interests to keep it this way. IMO, Translink needs to toughen up and stop letting BT run the show, and do the things that TT has pointed out they say they aim to do.

[ozbob]

Once Darra is a junction station with regular express services to and from the CDB, the potential for more feeder buses into Darra is significant.

Expect more in 2011.

[Golliwog]

The only sensible place I can think of in all of the BCC area for a bus/rail interchange is Indooroopilly.  I challenge you to come up with another location that it could work out well.

1. Enoggera?

That would be better if it wasn't for the indirect nature of the Ferny Grove line.  Besides, you are really only talking about the 350, 359, 360 that could use that one.

The FG line isn't that bad, plus especially with traffic the train is faster. I think Enogerra would make a great transfer station. Someone at one stage also thought so too as they built that massive interchange there. As a side point, the only place on the FG line where I've been able to beat a train is when I've just missed my train at Ferny, I can usually manage to drive to Gaythorne (at 7am anyway), park the car and get across the overbridge before the train arrives. Past there though and the train is faster, or so similar that it doesn't matter.

[#Metro]

I challenge you to come up with another location that it could work out well.

But it does meet the challenge, squarely. It's a potential. So yes, it could work out well. Just being friendly that's all.  

[somebody]

The FG line isn't that bad, plus especially with traffic the train is faster. I think Enogerra would make a great transfer station.

Off peak the bus roughly matches it between Enoggera and Roma St, not counting the 350.

But it does meet the challenge, squarely. It's a potential. So yes, it could work out well. Just being friendly that's all. 

Ok.  I'll grant that one.

[Golliwog]

So if the bus matches it, whats the problem with terminating said bus at Enogerra (asides from providing one for those who aren't covered by the train line)?

[somebody]

So if the bus matches it, whats the problem with terminating said bus at Enogerra (asides from providing one for those who aren't covered by the train line)?

Could it be the transfer time and inconvenience?  There is likely to be still a need for the inner part of the bus, especially in the case of the 350 although it is possible that the 345 adequately covers Kelvin Grove Rd.

[#Metro]

Many times I have used Enoggera Station, I had to walk out to the road/cross busy road to catch 350.
Its just not co-ordinated, very poor interchange and a dangerous walk.

[david]

The 462 (or is it 463) Darra interchange service doesn't really compare with 118 freeway bus for Forest Lake either.

I agree. By the time the 462 gets to Darra, Forest Lake commuters could've been halfway to the City. The time savings for commuters catching a 462 and changing at Darra as opposed to the 118 or 461 rockets are miniscule (apart from the journey where the 462 connects with the 7:32am Darra-Roma St express). Translink needs to make these feeder services more attractive by properly coordinating the bus and train services so that there are REAL time savings when catching the feeder services.

Despite this, I think the current feeder services into Darra are a great example of how buses and trains can be coordinated together. The three main routes (451, 452, 462) were all established before Translink was created. Translink should take a good look at these routes and replicate it systemwide. There are some things about these routes that need to be altered slightly (such as massive 30 minute gaps between buses during peak, reliability issues and timetabled waits of up to 15 minutes for connecting services, but if done correctly, the benefits could be enormous. 

[somebody]

The journey planner completely ignores the 462 for trips to the city.  Even for trips to Auchenflower or Toowong which require a change and a backtrack from the 461 or the 460, the 462 is pretty much ignored by the journey planner.  Perhaps a high frequency express service to Darra in peak may change things, although I am yet to be convinced of this.

Really, once Richlands station opens so long as the 100 extends there I do not see the need for the 460, 461 or 462.  I cannot see why such a dismal failure should be replicated.

<Dons flameproof suit>

[#Metro]

There is a case for some express services/trunk routes to the CBD. More so for peak hour.
The reason why it needs to be reviewed route by route, station by station is because while transfers may be inconvenient (the level of inconvenience is directly related to:
* walking time at transfer
* waiting time for the transfer (un-co-ordinated/unsynchronised transfers are the most inconvenient)
* the station environment (covered, un-covered? very important, very significant)

But this has to be balanced against:
* Streamlining the route to save time
* Increased frequency (less average waiting time) on the feeder route from cash now freed up by not running the bus to the CBD
* The added comfort of the rail trip
* Any congestion on the bus route that may hold the bus up/make it unreliable
* Any speed advantages of the train
* Any capacity constraints (if the bus is full and it whizzes past, that has the same effect as a canceled service)

I think that one reason why there are such long routes is that operators get paid by the kilometre (or is it passenger kilometre?), so it might pay to have many, very long bus routes.

[longboi]

TT, you are missing one relatively important point and that is that the rail network can't possibly handle the burden of bus pax as well.

[#Metro]

Not sure if I agree with that.
CRR will increase capacity, and there are more than enough seats already in the off peak.
Train frequency on many lines is every 30 minutes, so more than enough space there, and from what others have said on this forum, even during the peak there may be more room for services. Signalling could be upgraded and stations as well.

If the bus system can be expanded with busways, new buses, bus priority lanes, bus priority at traffic lights and further investments, then I think it is time for the rail system to finally, after such a long time, to get some upgrades too.

[stephenk]

Being a daily user of the much mentioned Enoggera, I would like to make a few points. The rubbish peak rail timetable means that bus to Enoggera (or to Alderley and walk) is often faster than by train from Roma Street. From Central, FV, and Bowen Hills train is faster.

I usually commute to/from Herston, walking to/from Bowen Hills or FV. In the pm peak, if I know I will have to wait more than 10mins for a train at Bowen Hills or FV, I will take the 66 on the now fixed INB to Normanby, and take the bus to Alderley or Enoggera. Since the 66 has been extended, I'm definitely a train patronage decrease statistic! Buses currently have the frequency that trains don't!

There is massive feeder potential to Enoggera as it can be fed by the Old Northern Rd Corridor. However, this would only be effective if buses interchange efficiently with a frequent rail service (which currently has more holes than swiss cheese) . Otherwise it would be faster for the bus to continue into the city by road. So until the Ferny Grove Line has a metro like service, I cannot see bus feeder services taking off. Another issue is congestion on Old Northern Rd/South Pine Rd. This can move at snails pace in the am peak, and with only 2 lanes/direction it could be difficult to justify bus lanes.

[somebody]

Bus lanes on Kelvin Grove Rd/Enogerra Rd/South Pine Rd for far longer and in both directions would surely help.  One of the people who I usually have lunch with at work lives at McDowall and mentioned today and several other times that the traffic congestion up this way is quite bad.

Regarding your RBH/Enoggera commutes, I've wondered sometimes if the option to use a 333/370/375/379 to Windsor Rail and a train makes any sense?

EDIT: Glad you agree that feeder services here are a non-starter.  You are free to change at Enoggera if heading to Bowen Hills or even the Valley though.

[#Metro]

Being a daily user of the much mentioned Enoggera, I would like to make a few points. The rubbish peak rail timetable means that bus to Enoggera (or to Alderley and walk) is often faster than by train from Roma Street. From Central, FV, and Bowen Hills train is faster.

I usually commute to/from Herston, walking to/from Bowen Hills or FV. In the pm peak, if I know I will have to wait more than 10mins for a train at Bowen Hills or FV, I will take the 66 on the now fixed INB to Normanby, and take the bus to Alderley or Enoggera. Since the 66 has been extended, I'm definitely a train patronage decrease statistic! Buses currently have the frequency that trains don't!

This is a textbook example of how 2 seperate systems are built, both at high cost to operate, build or maintain, and, it steals passengers from rail to bus, which makes an overall loss to the system. This isn't integration. This is wasteful competition.

There is massive feeder potential to Enoggera as it can be fed by the Old Northern Rd Corridor. However, this would only be effective if buses interchange efficiently with a frequent rail service (which currently has more holes than swiss cheese) . Otherwise it would be faster for the bus to continue into the city by road. So until the Ferny Grove Line has a metro like service, I cannot see bus feeder services taking off. Another issue is congestion on Old Northern Rd/South Pine Rd. This can move at snails pace in the am peak, and with only 2 lanes/direction it could be difficult to justify bus lanes.

Agreed. Effective, timed and co-ordinated interchange is essential. But the boost to frequency and feeder service must happen at the same time. Now, is Translink up to that task? Now that stephenk (and possibly others) are not catching the train (and I have snubbed it on occasion too because I have no idea what the timetable is like at Enoggera when I'm on the bus, it's a big risk for me), the overcrowding train "smiley statistic" will look even better and due to a downward spiral and transfer of passengers from rail to bus, and possibly justify more service cuts?

Traffic on those roads will only get worse with time. I've had experiences myself. It's bad.

[stephenk]

Being a daily user of the much mentioned Enoggera, I would like to make a few points. The rubbish peak rail timetable means that bus to Enoggera (or to Alderley and walk) is often faster than by train from Roma Street. From Central, FV, and Bowen Hills train is faster.

I usually commute to/from Herston, walking to/from Bowen Hills or FV. In the pm peak, if I know I will have to wait more than 10mins for a train at Bowen Hills or FV, I will take the 66 on the now fixed INB to Normanby, and take the bus to Alderley or Enoggera. Since the 66 has been extended, I'm definitely a train patronage decrease statistic! Buses currently have the frequency that trains don't!

This is a textbook example of how 2 seperate systems are built, both at high cost to operate, build or maintain, and, it steals passengers from rail to bus, which makes an overall loss to the system. This isn't integration. This is wasteful competition.

I would totally disagree that it is wasteful competition. Neither of these transport alternatives take the same route, they all have their own markets, and they complement rather than compete. It just so happens that some users have more choice, which is not a bad thing.

Lets look at the examples. If I decide not to take a train, I take the 66 to Normanby, and then either the P343, 345, or 390 to Alderley or Enoggera:
- The 66 does not compete with the Ferny Grove Line, and primary carries QUT and Herston Hospital workers to Roma Street, CBD, or Cultural Centre (many of whom would connect with public transport to the Southside - so it is in effect a rail/bus feeder service). Even if Exhibition station was opened, it would be a poorer alternative to RBWH and RCH busway stations and still not serve QUT KG.
- The successful P343, 345 only competes with the Ferny Grove Line at Alderley, the rest of the route (incl. QUT KG) has no rail alternative.
- The 390 only competes with the Ferny Grove Line between Alderley(ish) and Enogerra/Mitchelton. For the rest of it's route (and a considerable % of it's passengers) it serves areas not served by rail (again incl. QUT KG), serves stops expressed by the Buz's and Rockets, and areas in-between train stations. Most buses also serve Brookside, which is more attractive than a walk from Mitchelton for some users.

It may be of interest that in London, most tubes lines have a parallel bus route. Maybe Tramtrain, you should write a letter to Transport for London telling them you think they are getting it wrong?

[#Metro]

Lets start at the start.

I would totally disagree that it is wasteful competition. Neither of these transport alternatives take the same route, they all have their own markets, and they complement rather than compete. It just so happens that some users have more choice, which is not a bad thing.

But:

I usually commute to/from Herston, walking to/from Bowen Hills or FV. In the pm peak, if I know I will have to wait more than 10mins for a train at Bowen Hills or FV, I will take the 66 on the now fixed INB to Normanby, and take the bus to Alderley or Enoggera. Since the 66 has been extended, I'm definitely a train patronage decrease statistic! Buses currently have the frequency that trains don't!

Your own previous comments show that you switch from rail to bus. This decreases rail passenger demand and increases bus passenger demand by the same amount. So now the train is running a parcel of air where you used to sit, and a bus seat must be purchased for you (along with a multi-million $$$ busway and a bus and a separate driver). What a waste, because now we have to maintain two systems, one which carries you, and the train which now carries a parcel of air where you would have sat (which still must run because some, albeit less, people still want to catch it to the city). If enough people do this, the services get cut.

Even worse, Translink has to pay 75% subsidy for both the bus and the air parcel. Wasting money this way IS a bad thing.
So the train frequency might get more service cuts, and frequency will further decay. And then more people will do the switch for the same
reasons, making it even worse.

And as for London, may I remember a previous comment from the freeway's thread: I have made a single alteration.

There are some pretty major differences between Seoul London and Brisbane, for starters - population, density, and existing public transport alternatives.

A properly integrated public transport system feeds the rail network, not starves it. Transfers are essential.
It may take a while for people to accept this idea.

[#Metro]

Neither of these transport alternatives take the same route, they all have their own markets, and they complement rather than compete. It just so happens that some users have more choice, which is not a bad thing.

This is a contradiction, that cannot possibly be true. If they are separate markets, it should be impossible for one person in one market (the train market, let's say) to choose a bus trip in the bus market, and vice versa. The fact that a choice between a bus or a train exists, to get to the same destination, is evidence that they compete! After all, it should be impossible to choose anything else in a monopoly.

[stephenk]

Neither of these transport alternatives take the same route, they all have their own markets, and they complement rather than compete. It just so happens that some users have more choice, which is not a bad thing.

This is a contradiction, that cannot possibly be true. If they are separate markets, it should be impossible for one person in one market (the train market, let's say) to choose a bus trip in the bus market, and vice versa. The fact that a choice between a bus or a train exists, to get to the same destination, is evidence that they compete! After all, it should be impossible to choose anything else in a monopoly.

You obviously didn't read my post, or use any common-sense in your reply (yet again).

All of these routes serve different markets. Please, read that over and over again until you understand. If you still do not understand, please explain how someone travels from QUT KG to Aspley on the Ferny Grove Line?

It just so happens that routes serving different markets will have areas where routes or destinations are shared, allowing for a choice of routes for some (such as myself), but not all users (anyone who lives on the bus routes away from a train line). This choice is unavoidable in a good public transport system, and is in fact an attractive feature of a good public transport system. Using your reverse logic we should get rid of the Great Circle Line, because it stops someone travelling from Mitchelton to Toowong/Indro by train?

[#Metro]

I did read your reply.

This choice is unavoidable in a good public transport system, and is in fact an attractive feature of a good public transport system. Using your reverse logic we should get rid of the Great Circle Line, because it stops someone travelling from Mitchelton to Toowong/Indro by train?

Nonsense. The Great Circle line needs a boost, it is an important suburban-suburban service. There is no parallel circular railway there.
Yes, for a person who wanted to go from Michelton to Toowong via GCL does have a competing choice between GCL and Train, ideally they would take the GCL, however, the GCL service is so poor and the train frequency is so poor that they are more likely to have

a) the trip would not be made at all
b) the trip would be made by car (Competing option!)

The numbers of passengers wanting to do such a trip compared to that going to the CBD would also be so small in the whole scheme of things the GCL is hardly a threat the the rail system. Unlike your line which now has cuts which will put train passengers in cars, and the captives on the bus. It is nothing like the competition on your CBD-radial line haul routes.

Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2007 - 7tph
Evening peak service to Enoggera* 2010 - 4tph
* departures from Central between 16:30 and 17:30.

And I know that this is exactly what is happening- people jumping in cars, and the captive catching the bus.
Another quote by yourself:

Should alarm bells be ringing at QR and TransLink that on the Ferny Grove Line, whilst am patronage has increased, pm patronage has decreased? Due to the abysmal pm peak timetable for stations not served by expresses, and vastly improved INB services, I'm personally using the FG Line around 20% less than in the pm peak than this time last year. My neighbours went back to driving to/from work after the March 2008 timetable!

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3972.msg28499#msg28499

Furthermore, because the GCL passes through suburbs away from the rail system and few people want to do the entire circle, it has a potential to act as a feeder service; which is why I propose to overhaul it to high quality BRT and synchronise it with Indooroopilly station, along with a clock-face timetable, and regular, frequent departures.

Incidentally, the fact cars and road building causes more capacity on the road system and allows more people drive, takes away patronage from trains and buses because it is a competing system, causes a drop in service, which makes more people shift... and it is this shift to the car (yes, that other competing system) is the reason for the financial collapse of many self-supporting public transport systems from the 1960s onwards and why subsidies must now be used to prop the system up.

[#Metro]

I usually commute to/from Herston, walking to/from Bowen Hills or FV. In the pm peak, if I know I will have to wait more than 10mins for a train at Bowen Hills or FV, I will take the 66 on the now fixed INB to Normanby, and take the bus to Alderley or Enoggera. Since the 66 has been extended,I'm definitely a train patronage decrease statistic! Buses currently have the frequency that trains don't!

You don't deny that while the Bowen Hills or Fortitude Valley leg is a feeder service (because it goes to a rail service either by walking or bus 393), the bus leg to Alderly and Enoggera IS competing with the train. The next station down from Normanby is Roma St, where Ferny Grove trains depart. Possibly more would depart if they didn't do what you do!

Perhaps you should re-read your own comment.

I'm definitely a train patronage decrease statistic!

Because train services are set according to demand, if demand decreases, its no surprise what might follow next- a cut.