TransLink: New Farm changes - information session

[#Metro]

I've never unnderstood doglegging, when you dogleg it brings the bus closer to some people, but it means it avoids others, so it's a no win to me

Yes and it degrades the service to become illegible and infuriatingly slow which turns people away making it an air parcel service.
Take a ride on route 105 through Yeronga during peak hour.

The solution is to split the services in to two separate services- patronage and welfare so that each can do their service specifically.
The hybrid model where you add dog legs to general bus routes is bad because everybody has to suffer on every single service at all hours.

Welfare services:
Door to door where possible (minimised walking distances)
On demand (more convenient this way
probably requires booking (15 minute turn around time in the inner city, 30 minutes to one hour outside--- these waiting times are comparable to the bus)
Services a wide roaming area

Patronage services
Fixed route
High frequency and reliable
Turn up and go

Welfare and Patronage are two needs that compete with eachother. If you get more patronage, you get less welfare. If you turn up the welfare, you get less patronage.
The solution is to split the services and then overlay them so that flexilink operates in the same area as the patronage services but they serve different markets.
At the moment FlexiLink is used to substitute for (poorly performing) patronage services. This is NOT what I am advocating.

I have not yet seen an example where patronage services are overlaid on top of the
same area as FlexiLink. This is why I think references to Ipswich etc are invalid for this purpose.

Each mode should be matched to their best purpose. A 65 seat bus picking up 7 people twice a day for a welfare run is not always the best and highest use of a bus IMHO.
There are many parts of the network that need capacity, even off peak. And the people who depend on PT still get a service. So everybody gets what they want.

[#Metro]

http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/10377/Jarrett_Walker_presentation.pdf <-- There is a slide in here that explains the problem with patronage vs coverage.

[dwb]

I understand what you are saying Tramtrain and I agree in principal that excessive doglegging should be avoided.

However, in practice we have a street layout that isn't always great for those direct high speed routes.

Further, I'd argue, in the case of the 197 (soon to be 195) will be like the image below, not really wasteful or delaying as it actually serves the catchment at the END of the route, then is direct to the main destination.



This IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from say, the 301 which has mid-route wasteful and frustrating doglegging that occurs AFTER collecting passengers but BEFORE the main destination and hence suppresses passenger demand for the route)



Further, in TL's proposal, the 196 is BUZed along Oxlade Dr, so this area is not really losing out, especially given its catchment is limited to a single row of houses on the southern side by the river



In contrast the 197 (currently) or the proposed 195 has/will have a more even catchment in the centre of the peninsular, despite not using the most direct street which appears to be Oxlade St, and because this occurs at the end of the route, it doesn't really delay people's ride on the bus

[somebody]

I understand what you are saying, but having the 196 on one street and the 195 on a different street undermines network legibility.  I can't see that serving grannies either, given it is a peak hour service.  You could argue that the 197 should have been BUZed and the 196 canned but the 196 is the faster route.  I'd rather have that.

[Golliwog]

...because grannies don't travel in peak hour?

[somebody]

...because grannies don't travel in peak hour?

That is what I am saying.

Are you saying that you think they do?

[#Metro]

I will have a response later this afternoon.

I am not happy at being subjected to welfare routing all the time. Buses sticking to main roads and travelling in straight lines is a good way of increasing legibility.
I am not convinced that the road layouts preclude simple network line structure.

[dwb]

I will have a response later this afternoon.

I am not happy at being subjected to welfare routing all the time. Buses sticking to main roads and travelling in straight lines is a good way of increasing legibility.
I am not convinced that the road layouts preclude simple network line structure.

What about my assertion that there are differences in welfare routing on the middle of a route (between catchment and destination) and slightly non direct routing at the end of a route?

[dwb]

By the way I'm pretty sure there is a service standard in the earlier (real) network plan that outlines frequency, distance and coverage goals.

[#Metro]

Sick and tired of welfare routing. Welfare goals can be met in other ways. Public transport can be provided by other vehicles than a bus.
By specialising services as either welfare OR patronage (not some chimera hybrid), both types of goals can be better served.

I have not included 193 as I think that should be abolished and replaced with a dedicated welfare service (FlexiLink) covering the entire suburb of New Farm, accessed door too door
and from re-branded bus stops and be available for most hours of the day with 30 minutes (or even 15 minutes) notice, which is an order of magnitude better than the two buses per day
in a limited area.

RED: Current 199
BLUE: Cleaned up "Steam ironed" 196
Black: 195 Express

Full Blast Steam Iron Please TransLink!!!

[#Metro]

I'm starting to think that an all day 195 service could also be provided simply if it shuttled to the interchange point/Merthyr shops with 199.
During peak hour when there is more demand, this could be extended all the way to the CBD?

[#Metro]

And the current route 470 needs to be ironed out too.
Travel straight down James Street and terminate at the Brisbane powerhouse. Passengers for Bulimba Ferry can interchange to route 199 which is very frequent.
There is a roundabout and area which with minor works could accommodate a bus stop.

[#Metro]

This is what I mean when I say everybody is better off when we specialise services.
In this scenario I have abolished route 193 and replaced it with an on demand FlexiLink service.

LIGHT BLUE: Re-routed 470
GREEN: FLEXILINK SHOPPER

(Note: I could not be bothered drawing the 199 all the way to the Ferry stop, but it does and should continue to go there)

Patronage services are fixed route, direct, frequent and fast. Welfare services are on demand, stop at your front door (no fixed route)
and are available within 30 minutes, which is far less time  people will be waiting than if they used 193 which has a paltry 2 services per day in a limited area. The taxi driver will
even help you with your shopping!

Importantly 100% coverage of New Farm is achieved with PT in this way. So every single household
in this suburb will  have access to PT of some form. If people think they can design a bus route without flexilink that achieves 100% coverage, I would like to see that.

All other implementations of FlexiLink have been substituted for bus routes. I have not seen yet a proposal where the both bus routes and flexilink are co-operating within the
same area but serving different markets as shown below.

My challenge to RAIL Back on track is to design a system that is better than what I have proposed, because I think this meets
both patonage and welfare goals far far better than what the current approach of adding dog legs to bus services does.

[ozbob]

The problem is FlexiLink.  It doesn't work well at all.  The major issue is lateness, and the problem of the return journey, hard to book if you don't know the time.  We have proposed a solution, but so far rejected. That solution is for those entitled to FlexiLink be given a registered card, which authorises them to use any taxi for the return journey.  There is a major issue also with lateness and shared rides.  Many folks out west have missed very important appointments, some medical. In one case a person missed major surgery as a consequence.  

There is also some anectdoctal evidence of certain cabs refusing to respond to FlexiLink calls as well.  Additionally cabs are often not available for the return journey on the ranks either.

The other issue is the fare penalty.  The folks lose the 'continuation of journey' benefit that is normal transfer with go card.  This can be a serious cost impact for many.  

No, people need to be properly supported with buses for the reasons mentioned above.  Clearly TransLink and the Government realised that in the case of Ipswich.

[somebody]

 

Main limitation is the signficant downgrade in the peak service along Oxlade Dr.  Maybe keep the existing 195 as well as the black route, which I am presuming will use Ivory St.  I'm presuming that the black route is peak only.

With the 470, do we really need that service?  Serving James St is a nice idea though, and may justify its continued existence.

The problem is FlexiLink.  It doesn't work well at all.  The major issue is lateness, and the problem of the return journey, hard to book if you don't know the time.  We have proposed a solution, but so far rejected. That solution is for those entitled to FlexiLink be given a registered card, which authorises them to use any taxi for the return journey.  There is a major issue also with lateness and shared rides.  Many folks out west have missed very important appointments, some medical. In one case a person missed major surgery as a consequence. 

There is also some anectdoctal evidence of certain cabs refusing to respond to FlexiLink calls as well.  Additionally cabs are often not available for the return journey on the ranks either.

The other issue is the fare penalty.  The folks lose the 'continuation of journey' benefit that is normal transfer with go card.  This can be a serious cost impact for many. 

No, people need to be properly supported with buses for the reasons mentioned above.  Clearly TransLink and the Government realised that in the case of Ipswich.

Out in Ipswich, I think the solution may be the midi buses stephenk was spruiking.  Reduce costs and still provide the service.

[#Metro]

The problem is FlexiLink.  It doesn't work well at all.  The major issue is lateness, and the problem of the return journey, hard to book if you don't know the time.  We have proposed a solution, but so far rejected. That solution is for those entitled to FlexiLink be given a registered card, which authorises them to use any taxi for the return journey.  There is a major issue also with lateness and shared rides.  Many folks out west have missed very important appointments, some medical. In one case a person missed major surgery as a consequence. 

There is also some anectdoctal evidence of certain cabs refusing to respond to FlexiLink calls as well.  Additionally cabs are often not available for the return journey on the ranks either.

The other issue is the fare penalty.  The folks lose the 'continuation of journey' benefit that is normal transfer with go card.  This can be a serious cost impact for many. 

No, people need to be properly supported with buses for the reasons mentioned above.  Clearly TransLink and the Government realised that in the case of Ipswich.

Yes. But the government cannot put a bus route down everyone's street. This is an argument for better FlexiLink services and improvements to that rather than bus routes only. What is the alternative??? High frequency welfare bus routes carrying air down every street in New Farm?

[#Metro]

Main limitation is the signficant downgrade in the peak service along Oxlade Dr.  Maybe keep the existing 195 as well as the black route, which I am presuming will use Ivory St.  I'm presuming that the black route is peak only.

Oxalade drive will have a high frequency 196 service all day (blue route). There is no downgrade for this road.
195  is the black route.

[ozbob]

Out in Ipswich, I think the solution may be the midi buses stephenk was spruiking.  Reduce costs and still provide the service.

Have raised it a number of times, for a number of years now. So far rejected.  Will raise it again (and again) as opportunity allows.

One of the 'reasons' stated for non use has been cost and the limited functionality .  I think they have the blinkers on, the midi's could have an extensive role as station buses as well ...  there are midi buses that are wheelchair capable as well, low floor and are a better option for some than cabs.  Some people who lost their buses, and the service replaced with FlexiLink have lost a lot of mobility (then cannot use a normal taxi, but can get on a bus).  They have attempted to provide them with a taxi suitable (maxi taxi) but it has been very inconsistent.  Such that some folks have been grounded.

[#Metro]

Paratransit services overseas work. There must be a look into why we have teething problems over here.

[#Metro]

The problem is FlexiLink.  It doesn't work well at all.  The major issue is lateness, and the problem of the return journey, hard to book if you don't know the time.  We have proposed a solution, but so far rejected. That solution is for those entitled to FlexiLink be given a registered card, which authorises them to use any taxi for the return journey.  There is a major issue also with lateness and shared rides.  Many folks out west have missed very important appointments, some medical. In one case a person missed major surgery as a consequence. 

part of this problem is the failure to integrate taxi with the GoCard. There are smart cards you can use with taxis now, I have seen them!

[somebody]

Main limitation is the signficant downgrade in the peak service along Oxlade Dr.  Maybe keep the existing 195 as well as the black route, which I am presuming will use Ivory St.  I'm presuming that the black route is peak only.

Oxalade drive will have a high frequency 196 service all day (blue route). There is no downgrade for this road.

It is in peak hour as compared to the current service and also the planned service.  At least the planned service has a short walk to the new 195.

[#Metro]

The 196 is being BUZzed, services will run upgraded to every 10 minutes, plus you have two ferry stops that run every 12-13 minutes in peak hour.
That's quite attractive frequency.

[somebody]

The 196 is being BUZzed, services will run upgraded to every 10 minutes, plus you have two ferry stops that run every 12-13 minutes in peak hour.
That's quite attractive frequency.

A poor route compared to the current 195 route.  Going via Valley is a pain in the bum.

[#Metro]

Could you please draw up and post your proposal?

[somebody]

Could you please draw up and post your proposal?

Not easily.  I'm on the move until mid next week.

I do wonder if my route 19 should go somewhere besides Tenerriffe Ferry?  Running down Lamington St may be an option.  Or perhaps implement your plans, but overlay them with a route 19 from Sydney St ferry along Oxlade Dr then Brunswick St and on to RBH.

[#Metro]

I have extreme difficulty "seeing" word descriptions of bus routings :-)
I guess you can post it when you can. This thread won't be disappearing anytime soon  :-)

[somebody]

I have extreme difficulty "seeing" word descriptions of bus routings :-)

Do you read the descriptions while looking at a map??

Anyway here's a link of my now revised proposal: http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Bowen+Bridge+Road,+Herston+QLD+4029+(Royal+Brisbane+and+Womens+Hospital)&daddr=warner+Street,+Fortitude+Valley,+Queensland+to:967+Brunswick+Street,+New+Farm+QLD+4005+(New+Farm+Neighbourhood+Centre)+to:Oxlade+Drive,+New+Farm,+Queensland+to:1+Sydney+Street+,+New+Farm,+Queensland&hl=en&geocode=FWAyXf4d2gQfCSGQqSDXW6MCDw%3BFfwJXf4dlx8fCSmlMgdU8lmRazGMhyU1RtY8RA%3BFRzYXP4dilcfCSlFydjrJ1qRazEqENPb38BU3A%3BFSDIXP4dIFIfCSlj5gliJlqRazFAHmZHUtm6mQ%3BFW_HXP4djkEfCSmjX7vtI1qRazEttPCY6feg2A&mra=ls&sll=-27.459755,153.03884&sspn=0.031911,0.077677&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.460301,153.039808&spn=0.031911,0.077677&z=14

Although I am assuming that your proposed James St route and 195 along Sydney St, with 196 along the river from Barker St go ahead.  If it doesn't happen that way, a different proposal may be more appropriate.

[dwb]

The problem is FlexiLink.  It doesn't work well at all.  The major issue is lateness, and the problem of the return journey, hard to book if you don't know the time.  We have proposed a solution, but so far rejected. That solution is for those entitled to FlexiLink be given a registered card, which authorises them to use any taxi for the return journey.  There is a major issue also with lateness and shared rides.  Many folks out west have missed very important appointments, some medical. In one case a person missed major surgery as a consequence. 

part of this problem is the failure to integrate taxi with the GoCard. There are smart cards you can use with taxis now, I have seen them!

Finally someone agrees with me! When I posted on the forum and then did my survey 3 years ago, no-one seemed to think taxis should take Go card as payment! (suggestion 15. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=810.msg3510#msg3510)

And the results and analysis from the survey http://www.scribd.com/doc/8001700/Fair-Fares-Survey-Analysis below (ranked 14th out of 14):

Rank - Actions that should be considered for implementation by Translink - Averaged level of support from 1 to 5
1st Reduce the cost of travel for smart card users with further discounts for 1.480
2nd Install smart card top-up and balance machines at all busway stations and major interchanges 1.551
3rd Develop and offer for sale a larger range of fare packages on smart card 1.571
4th Explore options for free fares where the service arrives significantly late 1.612
5th Integrate Airtrain payment with Go card (either at existing cost or preferably renegotiate contracts to allow integration with the zonal system
– perhaps at zone 17 or 18) 1.649
6th Implement a daily travel cap on smart card based on the zones and journeys travelled that day 1.729
7th Maintain equitably priced paper tickets until smart card is broadly accepted by the community, functioning at the required level and offering
a suite of products that match current and future user demands) 1.732
8th Maintain paper ticket price increases close to or below CPI 1.765
9th Implement a refund and contact process via the web portal and ensure all valid refunds are processed within 15 business days 1.806
10th Improve usability of the 'value adding and ticket machines' especially for use by bus passengers 1.823
11th Allow the sale of weekly paper tickets via the 'value adding and ticket machines' 2.062
12th Expand Go card payment across all regional Qconnect public transport networks 2.031
13th Rapidly develop and implement a post-paid monthly 'cap' option (this could be based on mobile phone caps where a user selects their cap value and receives a bigger discount the bigger the value, as such this would not be zone dependant) 2.156
14th Introduce smart card (Go) payment for metered taxis in the Translink coverage area 2.505

Still, a good idea is a good idea even if its not popular, but then again I think some people may have inferred I expected customers to only be paid the zonal fee... not the metered fee to their Go card.

[dwb]

I have extreme difficulty "seeing" word descriptions of bus routings :-)

Do you read the descriptions while looking at a map??

Anyway here's a link of my now revised proposal: http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Bowen+Bridge+Road,+Herston+QLD+4029+(Royal+Brisbane+and+Womens+Hospital)&daddr=warner+Street,+Fortitude+Valley,+Queensland+to:967+Brunswick+Street,+New+Farm+QLD+4005+(New+Farm+Neighbourhood+Centre)+to:Oxlade+Drive,+New+Farm,+Queensland+to:1+Sydney+Street+,+New+Farm,+Queensland&hl=en&geocode=FWAyXf4d2gQfCSGQqSDXW6MCDw%3BFfwJXf4dlx8fCSmlMgdU8lmRazGMhyU1RtY8RA%3BFRzYXP4dilcfCSlFydjrJ1qRazEqENPb38BU3A%3BFSDIXP4dIFIfCSlj5gliJlqRazFAHmZHUtm6mQ%3BFW_HXP4djkEfCSmjX7vtI1qRazEttPCY6feg2A&mra=ls&sll=-27.459755,153.03884&sspn=0.031911,0.077677&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.460301,153.039808&spn=0.031911,0.077677&z=14

Although I am assuming that your proposed James St route and 195 along Sydney St, with 196 along the river from Barker St go ahead.  If it doesn't happen that way, a different proposal may be more appropriate.

Somebody, there is a google maps lab that you can activate to get a short URL such as http://goo.gl/maps/4uIJ that will save you getting nasty scroll bars on the forum (or at least, I get this nasty little scroll window within your posts when you post a long URL... but maybe that is just safari. Either way, short URLs are nice! If you don't want to/can't use the lab you can always use http://bit.ly/

[ozbob]

Digress.  Bitly is useful

here is that long link --> http://bit.ly/dF8jRQ

The scroll bars are default behaviour for most browsers when a continuous string wider than the page is encountered. It is nothing to do with the forum as such.

[dwb]

I see little benefit in re-routing just the New Farm end of the 470 given it is a hopeless mess at the Toowong end... however your other's are much more promising.

Here's my take on the situation below... BUT I STILL THINK THERE WILL BE A POLITICAL/LOCAL ISSUE WITH REMOVING A 20MIN SERVICE FROM PEOPLE ON Elystan Road, Mark Street, Mountford Road.


Available as a navigable map at http://goo.gl/maps/FXdX

[dwb]

Given that its unlikely they'll really want to touch either 199 or Glider, then here is another proposal:

- it removes some of the dogleg in New Farm
- extends peak service to West End


http://goo.gl/maps/E51c

[#Metro]

Well you have to start somewhere don't you? If the Toowong end is still full of dog legs (and it is, still goes via dean street on many occasions for no apparent reason!) that's just too bad. I just hope at some semblance of improvement can be done on the New Farm end.

Some improvement is better than no improvement at all.
Coming to think of it, the bus network really needs the broom iron through it.

Here's my take on the situation below... BUT I STILL THINK THERE WILL BE A POLITICAL/LOCAL ISSUE WITH REMOVING A 20MIN SERVICE FROM PEOPLE ON Elystan Road, Mark Street, Mountford Road, Moray Street and Sydney Street.

Moray Street is not losing service.

Why do the residents of Elystan Road need the bus to go down their street when they are so close to the 196 bus turnaround in front
of the Ferry terminal?

What is so special about these people that they must force every single service of every single day to take a dog leg, to slow everyone's journey just so that the bus goes outside their house? Why should these people be specifically exempted from walking like everyone else?

Of course they will complain. I too would like a car like service that stops right outside my front door, is direct trip and runs express from my door to my destination. Sorry, nobody thinks about all those other people who would catch that service but don't because of slow speed and illegibility. Nobody thinks of them. I caught 197 last week for a function, a completely useless dog leg, time wasting, slow and so many turns that you are dis-oriented. We had to walk from the Ferry terminus to the function at Merthyr Bowls club, people who took the car got there 15 minutes before we did.

If you don't have fast, simple and functional transport, forget it.

It is impossible to devise a situation where there are only winners and no losers. The service should be cut from these roads because it is bad network planning- buses on slow roads are slow and illegible. That's a geometric, unchangeable fact. These people can either walk to the ferry stop or the 196 on the main road Oxalade Drive, during peak hour they can walk to a 195. People will walk to a service that is frequent and fast, CityGlider proves this. They will not use illegible and slow services.

If there are people with welfare needs on these mentioned roads, these welfare and coverage goals can be met separately--- they can ring up FlexiLink and get a direct door to door trip without impacting on other passengers' time.

[#Metro]

195  used to service Jane street until about 2006 I think. I think the New Farm leg has more people and thus the 195 was cut from Jane St, West End. I think with the 199 and CityGlider, or even 192, just add more peak hour services to that.

[#Metro]

Alternative--- alter 470 to travel down Sydney street. Abolish route 193, replace with Flexilink.

The issue seems to be James St access. This proposal still allows fast service. The 195 can, in peak hour, provide more direct CBD bound trips by going down Sydney Street. The infuriatingly windy slow section along Elystan Rd et al. would be abolished.

Passengers for the CBD can interchange to the faster 199 when the 470 bus crosses Brunswick St in New Farm. This on road interchange would have to be made legible with signs and paint of some form and possibly a note in the bus display.

[somebody]

Alternative--- alter 470 to travel down Sydney street.

Isn't that exactly the sort of thing you want to get rid of?

Regarding the 470, one of my other proposals is for the Milton Rd all stopping service to be moved into KGSBS and combined with the 415, therefore connecting it with Indooroopilly shops.  That would prevent it running through, but I am assuming the eastern part could become either a CBD service, or (better) connected to the 475 (and 476 if it remains).

Another point on the 470 is that I think in the towards New Farm direction it should run via Ivory St and Mclachlan St.  Westbound should stick to the present Ann St routing.  In spite of the need to do a slight dogleg along Brunswick St.  Can't remember if there is a "No Right Turn" at McLachlan St, but it can have "Buses Excepted".  Avoiding the Brookes St bit is like avoiding the Warner St bit of the 199.

dwb, I'm having trouble following your map.  One colour is covering others.  Although I think the 199 REALLY needs to avoid the Valley.

[somebody]

How about this one for a 470 upgrade:
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=200+Commercial+Road,+Newstead,+Queensland&daddr=Beeston+Street,+Newstead,+Queensland+to:50+James+Street,+New+Farm,+Queensland+to:Ann+Street,+Fortitude+Valley,+Queensland+to:410+Adelaide+St,+Brisbane+Queensland+4000+to:10+Adelaide+St,+Brisbane+Queensland+4000&hl=en&geocode=FacZXf4dmFMfCSlpVVbnkFmRazGB7n-8OWGvFg%3BFdcBXf4d0FEfCSkF-Y-2j1mRazEKjy02aWEc4A%3BFegJXf4dpzYfCSk53fpxjVmRazFXD6bSoBh4tA%3BFc8LXf4deygfCSm7xBOx9lmRazEt3TKR8H4wNg%3BFaLvXP4dqw8fCSn1EE059lmRazEnTm-IB-wzbg%3BFWrWXP4d2vAeCSnTBkdGBFqRazG1iQtiWIVYcA&mra=ls&sll=-27.46145,153.03641&sspn=0.027037,0.048194&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=15

This would remove the need for the 199 to run up Macquarie St to Teneriffe Ferry, it may be able to serve Lamington St instead.

Seems to be an all winner no loser proposition so long as the proposed route has an adequate frequency.  Not 100% sure if all the roads are passable by buses.

[#Metro]

I have proposed the alternative (i.e. second best solution) as TransLink seems to want people down on the southern pocket of Merthyr to be able to access the James Street precinct. Personally I think people should just catch 199 and walk down something like Maclachlan or get on a CityCycle bicycle and get there that way.

The alternative proposal puts 195 direct trips in peak hour down Sydney st. So that's a direct trip. It also connects the shopping centre (so there are all your shopping trips) and much higher frequency than 193. Out of peak, people can change at the intersection to 199.

However, as I said, it is second best IMHO. I'd rather see 470 travel straight to the Brisbane Powerhouse. That area is very high density, is quite a fair walk to 199 (I have made the walk a number of times) and serves a trip generator (New Farm Park, Brisbane Powerhouse) and high density area. There is a convenient roundabout at the powerhouse where buses can turn around.

About your proposed 470 routing via Beeston:

Issues:

1. Less legible because it runs on slow streets
2. Multiple traffic calming devices on the route (so even slower)
3. Very narrow sections (so even slower)

See below:

You can propose ways to get around this though...

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=200+Commercial+Road,+Newstead,+Queensland&daddr=Beeston+Street,+Newstead,+Queensland+to:50+James+Street,+New+Farm,+Queensland+to:Ann+Street,+Fortitude+Valley,+Queensland+to:410+Adelaide+St,+Brisbane+Queensland+4000+to:10+Adelaide+St,+Brisbane+Queensland+4000&hl=en&geocode=FacZXf4dmFMfCSlpVVbnkFmRazGB7n-8OWGvFg%3BFdcBXf4d0FEfCSkF-Y-2j1mRazEKjy02aWEc4A%3BFegJXf4dpzYfCSk53fpxjVmRazFXD6bSoBh4tA%3BFc8LXf4deygfCSm7xBOx9lmRazEt3TKR8H4wNg%3BFaLvXP4dqw8fCSn1EE059lmRazEnTm-IB-wzbg%3BFWrWXP4d2vAeCSnTBkdGBFqRazG1iQtiWIVYcA&mra=ltm&dirflg=w&sll=-27.459031,153.049963&sspn=0.00054,0.001143&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.459153,153.047359&spn=0.00054,0.001654&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=-27.459182,153.047251&panoid=mRwCFpX_BToR3ihl7iay2Q&cbp=12,251.67,,0,14.01

[#Metro]

Finally someone agrees with me! When I posted on the forum and then did my survey 3 years ago, no-one seemed to think taxis should take Go card as payment! (suggestion 15. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=810.msg3510#msg3510)

And the results and analysis from the survey http://www.scribd.com/doc/8001700/Fair-Fares-Survey-Analysis below (ranked 14th out of 14):

Yes. All taxis should have them. If flexilink takes over the provision of the welfare function that buses within urban areas of Brisbane currently do, then this will be essential. The equipment is there already... just have to figure out how to make it talk to the TL systems.

I don't own a car. There are many times when public transport has failed me because most of the buses within Brisbane have
a) infrequent
b) cut out immediately after peak hours
c) have lots of welfare routing
d) don't have good connections (the lines connect on the map, but the on the ground reality is that you are waiting in the dark for ages).
e) have bad Saturday and Sunday morning services

So I have used taxi to fill in these gaps. Latest taxi trip was around $20. 

[dwb]

Here's my take on the situation below... BUT I STILL THINK THERE WILL BE A POLITICAL/LOCAL ISSUE WITH REMOVING A 20MIN SERVICE FROM PEOPLE ON Elystan Road, Mark Street, Mountford Road, Moray Street and Sydney Street.

Moray Street is not losing service.

I know this, I copy-pasted the list of streets. I've now edited my original post to remove Moray & Sydney St.