FREE travel on all TransLink services

[ozbob]

http://www.translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/fares/free-travel-jan-2011

FREE travel on all TransLink services

The State Government will provide free public transport for a week to help with the initial flood recovery in South East Queensland.

Many people don't have cars, and many others have lost them in the floods. Making the network free for a week will keep unnecessary cars off the road, help people do some shopping and get around to help others if needed.

What is free?

The free travel applies to all bus, train and Ipswich FlexiLink services on the TransLink network (ferry services are not operating until further notice). Services will be free from the first service on Friday 14 January to last service on Friday 21 January.

There will also be free travel of Airtrain services to Brisbane's Airports.

Do I need my go card?

No, the ticketing equipment won't be operating for the week. Customers simply need to board their mode of public transport.

Will I be able to top up my go card?

Normal ticketing equipment on buses won't be operating, however you can top up your go card at ticket machines on train station and busway station, at retailers displaying the top-up symbol, online or over the phone.

What is happening to the fare change scheduled for 17 January?

The fare change will be take place from the first service on Saturday 22 January. This change includes:

    * Paper ticket and go card fare will increase by 15 per cent.
    * go card off-peak discounts will increase from 10 to 15 per cent for travel during off-peak periods (9am to 3.30pm and after 7pm.
    * Daily capping will be added for Senior, Pensioner and Gold Repatriation go card users.
    * Daily, off-peak daily, weekly and monthly paper tickets will no longer be available from January 17, however single trips tickets will be retained.
    * These changes will allow TransLink to add 305,000 additional weekly seats to the network this year.
    * The go card frequent user discount will continue (50 per cent discount after ten trips in a Monday-Sunday period).

[somebody]

There will also be free travel of Airtrain services to Brisbane's Airports.

That's a surprise.  I wonder who is paying?

[STB]

I noticed yesterday had quite a dramatic drop in patronage compared to the week it was free.  However, too early to call if the free fares was the cause, due to the closeness to Australia Day, where it's possible some had decided to make it an extra long weekend.

[ButFli]

I honestly don't think the free public transport made any effect on passenger numbers. That's just from my own observations. I think any effect would take longer than a week to sink in.

As well as Australia day I think a possible explanation for reduced passenger numbers this week is that city carparks are starting to reopen. I assume many people would have been forced onto public transport by the flood because there was nowhere for them to park in the city. Those people are now returning to their cars although hopefully at least some of them are comfortable to continue catching the bus or train now that they've had a taste.

[somebody]

Funny thing was that in the free week I didn't notice any increase at all.  I also thought that there was less traffic on the streets though, so I just guessed that there were less trips being made.

[STB]

So, does free PT = no increase of patronage?  Would free PT only be pandering to a minority?  Would you need to make PT free longer to get better data? Based on the free week of PT, keeping note of the flood cleanup situation, which obviously impacted on the usual trips people make.

[Golliwog]

There is also a number of buildings in the CBD that still haven't opened back up yet. The lower patronage could simply be due to a large number of people working from home or from an office outside the CBD?

[ozbob]

There is light patronage this week.

Last Tuesday Richlands car park virtually full.  Yesterday 5/8.

Also parking at Darra was noticeably light yesterday, always a good barometer.  Last week was a lot heavier. Ditto Oxley.

Good thing with the hiccups with the go ... GO!

[somebody]

So, does free PT = no increase of patronage?  Would free PT only be pandering to a minority?  Would you need to make PT free longer to get better data? Based on the free week of PT, keeping note of the flood cleanup situation, which obviously impacted on the usual trips people make.

I'd say there was some increase in market share.

[#Metro]

I didn't see a massive increase, certainly not anywhere those who promote free PT as THE solution to get rid of congestion etc.
ALL buses and trains were free, even on the northside where there was little or no flood damage. People still drove cars,
there were still traffic jams etc etc. And PT was inconvenient as ever for me.

Also, IMHO free PT is a losing game. Sustainability encompasses three separate things: environmental, social and financial.

It fails the financial sustainability test IMHO. Not a long term solution. There are far better ways to get more patronage AND keep
revenue, and that is called boosting the frequency, connectivity and access (quality) of the system.

Discounting rotten apples is a poor patronage growth strategy IMHO.

[Mozz]

I really don't know how many inferences or conclusions can be drawn from patronage on public transport in brisbane given that it occurred directly after the biggest natural disaster in our history.

[#Metro]

It did, but that should actually be favorable for PT use- because people had their cars destroyed.
Certainly later into the week almost all buses and trains were running normally.

Even if it did increase patronage (and maybe it did), I would argue that a better and cheaper solution to
get higher patronage would be to retain charging people fares and improve the quality of the network.

[ozbob]

I really don't know how many inferences or conclusions can be drawn from patronage on public transport in brisbane given that it occurred directly after the biggest natural disaster in our history.

Yes, bit like reading tea leaves after a cup of coffee ...

[somebody]

I really don't know how many inferences or conclusions can be drawn from patronage on public transport in brisbane given that it occurred directly after the biggest natural disaster in our history.

Sorry, but the 74 flood was clearly worse.  Perhaps you meant "recent history".

I am convinced it was the biggest botch up I have ever known of.  Significantly less rain fell than in 1974, apparently.

[#Metro]

That's a worry somebody. If the rainfall was less, and yet the river level was only slightly below 1974 levels, then we really are in trouble, because that suggests an even higher river level- much higher- is possible, even with the Wivenhoe dam.

[somebody]

That's a worry somebody. If the rainfall was less, and yet the river level was only slightly below 1974 levels, then we really are in trouble, because that suggests an even higher river level- much higher- is possible, even with the Wivenhoe dam.

That is certainly a possibility.  The 1893 floods were another 2.5m+ on top of 1974, and I understand the 1841 flood was even bigger.

[ozbob]

Opposition Statement
http://www.tracydavis.com.au/media/media-releases/2790-free-public-transport-140111-210111.html

LNP welcomes public transport fare amnesty

Friday, 14 January 2011

The State Opposition today welcomed the Brisbane City Council and State Government's initiative to provide free public transport for a week to help with the initial flood recovery in South East Queensland.

Shadow Minister for Public Transport, Tracy Davis said that in this time of crisis, it was vital that public transport was provided to Queenslanders in need.

"Flood-affected victims, whose vehicles have been destroyed, would now likely depend entirely on public transport over the coming weeks and months," said Ms Davis.

"Flood-affected victims have taken a massive hit to their bank balances and they will need compassion from governments to allow them to resume their normal life and start earning money again."

[frereOP]

I really don't know how many inferences or conclusions can be drawn from patronage on public transport in brisbane given that it occurred directly after the biggest natural disaster in our history.

Sorry, but the 74 flood was clearly worse.  Perhaps you meant "recent history".

I am convinced it was the biggest botch up I have ever known of.  Significantly less rain fell than in 1974, apparently.

Who botched up what?  There are lots of armchair experts out there - including some who have made it into the media to make a name for themselves - who have absolutely NFI about what went on behind the scenes to manage all aspects of this event.  They would be better off keeping their mouths shut and separating their wild fantasies from the facts.

Here is a photo of Lake Wivenhoe at the peak of the flood.  Let's wait and see what the Commission of Enquiry says about how this event was managed before making unsubstantiated accusations about alleged botch-ups.

[STB]

I really don't know how many inferences or conclusions can be drawn from patronage on public transport in brisbane given that it occurred directly after the biggest natural disaster in our history.

Sorry, but the 74 flood was clearly worse.  Perhaps you meant "recent history".

I am convinced it was the biggest botch up I have ever known of.  Significantly less rain fell than in 1974, apparently.

You will find that the trained and more experienced of those in the severe weather area, both storm chasers and others in the industry actually feel that SEQ Water performed exceptionally well to the circumstances and prevented a bigger disaster with the dam overfilling, using the emergency backups and the dam wall failing.  Head over to the Weatherzone forums if you want to see more of what I'm saying.

[#Metro]

Imagine if the dam wall broke and all that water went rushing towards Brisbane.
It would have easily wiped the city off the map.

Easy to blame the water/dam controllers. It's not their fault lots of rain fell.

[somebody]

Who botched up what?  There are lots of armchair experts out there

You can call me an armchair expert if you like, but it seems that it isn't just the armchair experts (including journalists) that think so: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top-stories/engineers-emails-reveal-wivenhoe-dam-releases-too-little-too-late/story-e6frg12l-1225992096634

LEAKED email communications from a Wivenhoe Dam engineering officer underline concerns that the Brisbane River flood was mostly caused by massive releases from the dam after it had held on to water too long over a crucial 72 hours before the severe rainfall that hit the region last week.
The emails, which become increasingly urgent in tone as the situation became critical as the dam's levels rise rapidly, were provided to The Australian by a source who said the stream of data had convinced him the river flood of Brisbane could have been largely avoided if the dam's operators had taken action much earlier.

A commission of inquiry will examine whether the dam's operators erred in permitting the dam's flood compartment to be severely limited for a major rainfall event because of their strategy to let the dam's levels rise over the weekend of January 8-9.

According to figures from Wivenhoe's operator, SEQWater, the dam's capacity went from 106 per cent full on the morning of Friday, January 7, to 148 per cent full on the morning of Monday, January 10, due to the limited weekend releases. Experts have said this severely compromised the dam's ability to store additional runoff.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
By Monday morning the dam was at 100 per cent capacity for its supply of water for urban use, holding 1,150,000 megalitres. In addition its flood compartment, with a capacity of 1,450,000ML, was almost half full.

The dam reached about 190 per cent capacity by Tuesday, when its operators made huge and unprecedented releases to prevent the system from collapse.

The emails from engineering officer Graham Keegan, of SEQWater, which operates the Queensland government-owned dam, were sent to notify stakeholders about dam strategies, including release rates and likely impacts.

Mr Keegan, who was receiving advice from the Flood Operations Centre at the dam, advises in an early email at 8.26pm on Saturday, January 8, that the releases of water that night were 1250 cubic metres per second (cumecs) and were to be kept to a "maximum of 1600" at mid-Brisbane River.

The same email notes awareness of the worsening weather: "Forecast for the next 4 days is for significant rainfall across SE QLD. Possible scenarios include a reduction in release rate to accommodate potential flooding in the Bremer River; however they also include larger releases from Wivenhoe Dam if heavy rainfall strikes our catchments. Releases may then extend to the week-end or later."

By 8.30pm on Sunday, Mr Keegan's email alert advises the plan is to keep releases from the dam to 1400 cumecs "for the next 24 hours if possible".

"We may reduce the release as Lockyer Creek flooding increases," he says.

"However, please note that we are experiencing major flooding in our catchments. Inflows are approx 5000 cumecs in the upper-Brisbane river and 3000 cumecs in the Stanley River system, with rainfall continuing.

"The current BoM Severe Weather Warning predicts heavy rainfall until Tuesday. If these totals eventuate in the next 12 to 24 hours, higher releases from Wivenhoe Dam will be necessary. Fernvale and Mt Crosby Weir Bridges may be affected as early as Tuesday morning."

By 3.25am on Monday, the email alert advises: "We have experienced a rapid increase in river levels and inflow rates in the upper-Brisbane River . . . Increases in Wivenhoe Dam release rates began at 0200hrs this morning. Initial target is 2600 cumecs, and potential peak rate is 3500 cumecs. The release is now expected to continue until at least Sunday 16 (Jan)."

At 9.03pm on Monday, several hours after the severe rainfall in Toowoomba and across the Lockyer Valley, the email advised that the release rate was 2400 cumecs with a possibility of 2800 as operators sought to minimise urban flooding. By 2.42am on Tuesday the release rate was 2730 cumecs and the alert advised that the Flood Operations Centre and the Bureau of Meteorology were "still investigating the Lockyer Creek flash flood".

"If necessary (or possible) the release rate will be modified to moderate effects in the mid-Brisbane River zone," the email says.

Four hours later, with the water being let out of the dam at about the same rate, the email alert advised that the Upper Brisbane River had experienced another major flood and the possibility of reducing the Wivenhoe Dam release to accommodate the Lockyer Creek increase was "no longer an option".

"If the weather situation deteriorates further we may need to increase releases from the dam and the new target flow in the lower Brisbane River will rise to 5000 cumecs," it says. "We are entering conditions where dam safety overrides other concerns although minimisation of urban flooding remains very important."

At 9.50am on Tuesday, the email described the situation as having "moved into a critical phase as the lake is approaching our next trigger level".

At 7.43pm on Tuesday, the email alert advises that the dam's operators ratcheted up the release rate drastically to 6700 cumecs at 5.30pm, and would increase to 8000 cumecs at 8.30pm.

"This will match release rate with estimated inflow rate. On its own this release exceeds the peak flow rate of approx 7500 cumecs at Savage's Crossing during the 1974 flood," it says.

"Flood levels along the mid-Brisbane River can be expected to be significantly higher than that flood. Wivenhoe Dam is expected to reach a maximum level of 75.5m provided no further significant rainfall occurs. This is 0.1m below the trigger level for (an uncontrolled discharge). If this target is achieved, we may be able to slowly reduce the release rate overnight."

SEQWater has told The Australian that the peak of the flood in the Brisbane River in the city early on Thursday, January 13, was 9000 cumecs, about 36 hours after the Wivenhoe Dam release went to a peak flow of 8000 cumecs. It takes up to 36 hours for discharges from Wivenhoe to reach the city gauge.

A senior engineer independent of Wivenhoe Dam, Michael O'Brien, whose study of SEQWater and Bureau of Meteorology data at Wivenhoe have led him to conclude that the Brisbane flood should not have happened, said the details in more than 20 emails leaked yesterday had confirmed his view.

"They were trying to keep country road crossings and low-level bridges open and may have forgotten that the big picture is the protection of Brisbane," he said.

SEQWater Grid chief executive Barry Dennien, who has praised the operators of the dam for having prevented what he said would have been a larger flood, has declined to answer The Australian's questions since Premier Anna Bligh called a commission of inquiry, tasked with investigating the dam's release strategies and if the flood was avoidable.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you look at the dam manual, the thing is that 1250m^3/s is a bizarre level of release.  5 bridges go under at a level of 550, but no more until 1900 & 2000.  Why keep it at this level through the weekend, or even part of it?  If it had been bumped to 1800m^3/s for even 24 hours over the weekend before, then there would have been 47 000 000ML less water in the dam, reducing the period which the 645 000ML/day release rate (instead of about 200 000ML/day)  was required by 2.5 hours.  I am fairly that if the 1800m^3/s release rate had applied for the full period, the highest release wouldn't have been required at all.  And Wivenhoe releases caused most of the flood waters.

Head over to the Weatherzone forums if you want to see more of what I'm saying.

I will do that.

[petey3801]

I really don't know how many inferences or conclusions can be drawn from patronage on public transport in brisbane given that it occurred directly after the biggest natural disaster in our history.

Sorry, but the 74 flood was clearly worse.  Perhaps you meant "recent history".

I am convinced it was the biggest botch up I have ever known of.  Significantly less rain fell than in 1974, apparently.

Less rainfall in BRISBANE. However, a lot more rain fell out west than in '74, which is why we were flooded. That, as well as the fact that the ground was already waterlogged from months of rain beforehand!

[frereOP]

I really don't know how many inferences or conclusions can be drawn from patronage on public transport in brisbane given that it occurred directly after the biggest natural disaster in our history.

Sorry, but the 74 flood was clearly worse.  Perhaps you meant "recent history".

I am convinced it was the biggest botch up I have ever known of.  Significantly less rain fell than in 1974, apparently.

Less rainfall in BRISBANE. However, a lot more rain fell out west than in '74, which is why we were flooded. That, as well as the fact that the ground was already waterlogged from months of rain beforehand!

Rainfall in the catchments above Lakes Somerset and Samsonvale (ie North Pine Dam) have been estimated to have been a 1 in 10,000 year event.

[somebody]

Rainfall in the catchments above Lakes Somerset and Samsonvale (ie North Pine Dam) have been estimated to have been a 1 in 10,000 year event.

I've been surprised before, but I'm afraid that I call crap here.  According to the dam manual, Somerset would be over topped by a 1 in 5000 year event, and I'm pretty sure that didn't occur, and the gates were even closed while level was above the nominal flood storage.  (A strategy mentioned in one report as "interesting" or some such.)

[Fares_Fair]

The flood level in Brisbane was approx. a 1 in 45 year event, and certainly less than a 1 in 50 year event, according to our office flood level maps produced after the 1974 flood.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[colinw]

That's a worry somebody. If the rainfall was less, and yet the river level was only slightly below 1974 levels, then we really are in trouble, because that suggests an even higher river level- much higher- is possible, even with the Wivenhoe dam.

The whole "Wivenhoe will save us" thing is, and always was a crock.  Yes, it did shave a metre or two off the peak, but if an 1893 or 1841 scale event occurred in the wrong place we could still cop a flood of 1893 proportions or larger.  All you would need is saturated ground combined with major rainfall in the Bremer or Lockyer catchment.

I also don't think comparisons of the amount of rain that fell are useful.  It all comes down to what fell when, and under what conditions.  It is clear that this year's event was just the right combination of a sudden fall after weeks of steady rain saturating the ground to cause a sudden large runoff.  Whether more or less rain fell now compared to 1893 or 1974 is irrelevant, the right amount of rain fell to cause a big flood, which would have been even bigger if the operators of Wivenhoe had not balanced things just so to prevent the fusible plugs from blowing and sending a lot more downriver.  Remember that there were truly HUGE fall upstream of Wivenhoe and Somerset for 2-3 days.  I saved the daily rainfall map off the Mt Stapylton Radar for the 3 relevant days, and certain areas upstream of Somerset around Peachester show 250ml+ falls for three successive 24 hour periods, culminating in a huge strip of 250ml+ falls from around Maleny southwest to Toowoomba on the day that all hell broke loose in the Lockyer.   Whether that constitutes the 1 in 10,000 year event as claimed by frereOP I do not know, but if the Mt Stapylton radar is at all accurate then it means part of the Wivenhoe & Somerset catchment copped 750ml or more in a 3 day period.

The next Brisbane flood - and there WILL be another Brisbane flood one day - will doubtless be different again.  The one things I am sure of is that one day the river will rise again, followed by the usual commentary from armchair experts (like my own in this post   ), politicking about water & flood mitigation, accusations of incompetence, threats of lawsuits and all the other inane crap that gets thrown around whenever something like this happens.

As to the effect of the free period on public transport patronage, I think it is very hard to draw any conclusions.  Things were just too disrupted, plus school was not back either and some people may even have still been on holidays.

I don't think free public transport is the answer anyway, and in fact would devalue the system in a lot of people's eyes .. "they give it away for nothing, it must be useless".  Better to pay a reasonable fair, for a good service in return.  Which brings us back to the perennial argument that it is a supply problem, not a demand problem, and poor frequency is what is hurting the system.

[Jonno]

I caught a number of buses that week and there was a lot if people jumping on buses asking where they went but they looked like tourists or overseas student.  Maybe they decided to use PT that week because they did not have to buy a Go Card??

[ozbob]

The free travel was really to assist the community to get around as needed in the immediate aftermath of the floods.  It was an excellent response by Government to a difficult situation.

Patronage during that time will not be representative of any real trends or meaning.

[p858snake]

Did the bus drivers still count the number of passengers that rode during the free week?