Sector 2 (Stage 2) Timetable reviews

[aldonius]

Huh. I was on that, front end of the middle car.
Certainly room to spare... no seats to spare of course!

Very very glad that there is a service in this slot - it was one of the more annoying gaps.

Now they just need to add a 5:19pm ex Central and the Ferny timetable will be pretty much perfect from a weekday frequency perspective.

[techblitz]

5.26 ex central to ferny grove..6car set....announcements over p.a for passengers to move away from doors and down aisles if need be....as well as a reminder of the next train in 6 mins...

[aldonius]

Today I was on the Ferny-bound train that goes through Central just after 5pm. Front carriage had standees most of the way, but was not packed by any measure. I imagine the rear half of the train was relatively empty by Mitchelton - such is life now that FG has only the one platform entrance.

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/update-on-3-car-mageddon.html
Update on 3-car-mageddon!

[techblitz]

3 car 5.47 ex central to cleveland all stopper....fully sardine packed (including aisles) by southbank...passengers struggle to board till coorparoo.

Is that a regular occurrence? I have seen a few comments on QR's Facebook page about Cleveland Line crowding around this time.

If there any other consistently overcrowded services post sector 2 timetables, please post them here!

Yes, regular occurrence any time I have seen it since the new timetable.

Someone has just posted a picture of this very service on the translink facebook page.......not even a 30 minute peak hour 130 could look that bad...no wonder people use buses and rockets whenever they can at peak....this is probably what a caboolture line train would look like if the 330"s were fed into rail 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203303991022290&set=o.521288224563914&type=1&ref=nf

[ozbob]

Modal neglect is coming home to roost!  BaT just guarantees more failure ...

Trains, signalling, choke points should be sorted first.  This mob couldn't manage a large cup of popcorn at a Batman movie ..

[ozbob]

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/3/20/more-passengers-get-on-board-new-timetable?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Scott Emerson

More passengers get on board new timetable

Two months on and passengers have embraced the Newman Government's overhaul of the rail timetable with more people choosing to catch public transport.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said the new timetable included an additional 1000 rail services a week.

"Since the new timetable was implemented more than 27,000 extra trips have been taken a week compared to the same time last year," Mr Emerson said.

"Passengers are clearly taking advantage of the more frequent and consistent services as we continue our efforts to improve front line services for Queenslanders.

"Trains are continuing to run on time with our peak reliability record at 95.36 per cent since the new services started on January 20.

"This is in stark contrast to Labor's poor record of the lowest on-time running in three years."

Mr Emerson said the LNP was delivering its promise to improve the frequency, reliability and affordability of the network and the increase in patronage proves we are well on track.

"While we have made significant improvements to the network we acknowledge more needs to be done, particularly when it comes to affordability," he said.

"I can guarantee passengers that we will not go back to the bad old days of the former Labor Government that saw 15 per cent fare increases year after year.

"We understand affordability remains a challenge and will continue to find the savings to drive down the cost of fares."

[ENDS] 20 March 2014

[ozbob]

27 pax per service?  Fix the the fares!!

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

20th March 2014

All is not what it seems hey?

Greetings,

It is well done that train frequency has been increased. Sadly though the pax gains are barely keeping pace with population increase.

27,000 passengers per week is only an average of 27 per service. Trains can handle up to 1000 pax for short duration.

As the Minister has indicated.  Unless the fare system is sorted we are going to continue to see worsening road congestion, social isolation, stagnating and falling patronage.  This is costly for all.

Best wishes
Robert

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

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/3/20/more-passengers-get-on-board-new-timetable?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Scott Emerson

More passengers get on board new timetable

Two months on and passengers have embraced the Newman Government's overhaul of the rail timetable with more people choosing to catch public transport.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said the new timetable included an additional 1000 rail services a week.

"Since the new timetable was implemented more than 27,000 extra trips have been taken a week compared to the same time last year," Mr Emerson said.

"Passengers are clearly taking advantage of the more frequent and consistent services as we continue our efforts to improve front line services for Queenslanders.

"Trains are continuing to run on time with our peak reliability record at 95.36 per cent since the new services started on January 20.

"This is in stark contrast to Labor's poor record of the lowest on-time running in three years."

Mr Emerson said the LNP was delivering its promise to improve the frequency, reliability and affordability of the network and the increase in patronage proves we are well on track.

"While we have made significant improvements to the network we acknowledge more needs to be done, particularly when it comes to affordability," he said.

"I can guarantee passengers that we will not go back to the bad old days of the former Labor Government that saw 15 per cent fare increases year after year.

"We understand affordability remains a challenge and will continue to find the savings to drive down the cost of fares."

[ENDS] 20 March 2014

[#Metro]

I think it is an OK start given that the fares are high, the bus network is not feeding the trains (sometimes I suspect the purpose of this is to keep the bus-km high for BCC as this means more revenue for PT run under the control of BCC rather than QR over which BCC cannot design or alter routes). The issuing of a flyer on buses a few years ago erroneously comparing the Brisbane bus system to the whole of the QR network (which has as much validity as comparing one's right hand to their left leg, and then concluding that the leg should be amputated for 'efficiency' reasons) and declaring 'buses as the lead mode' supports this theory.

Train patronage, particularly in the off peak, would be better utilised (i.e. Minister for transport would have to fork out the same or less cash) rather than pay to cart air parcels.

One cannot have it both ways. It is not financially possible under a fixed budget to design a system that BOTH sends everybody to the CBD (i.e. no transfer) AND also connects everyone who wants to go to the train stations across the network in a meaningful way.

[#Metro]

Someone has just posted a picture of this very service on the translink facebook page.......not even a 30 minute peak hour 130 could look that bad...no wonder people use buses and rockets whenever they can at peak....this is probably what a caboolture line train would look like if the 330"s were fed into rail 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203303991022290&set=o.521288224563914&type=1&ref=nf

This is a justification for improvements to the train network (i.e. eliminating 3 car services across the entire network by buying more trains) rather than a justification for competing Brisbane Transport rocket buses. To move the same number of pax as a train (1000 persons) you need 12 BT bus drivers and 12 buses, compared to just two QR staff (and one staff member if DOO were introduced by using cameras on platforms and TV screens near the front of the train to see around the train).

These so called 'mass transit' BUZ services, operating for an entire peak hour, don't carry anywhere near what 1 train service carries in a single go. And as everyone knows, there are additional slots to add trains during peak hour and not just 1 train runs in peak, multiple trains operate in peak hour, so the extra people per carriage would be something in the low two digit range.


Mathematical Proof:

A large bus (i.e. non standard bus) in BT bus fleet carries 85 people. If this bus operates every 10 minutes, and assuming 100% occupancy (the 50% air buses in peak at Cultural Centre would strongly suggest much less than 100% loading, but to show even under the extreme case, feederisation is unlikely to even come close to overloading the train system):

85 passengers x (60 minutes/ 10 minute frequency) = 85 x 6 buses = 510 passengers.

Capacity of one QR train = ~1000 pax in peak.

It barely fills even half a train. This is the basic fact BCC and Brisbane Transport have a problem with: if many buses were fed into the rail network (in direct violation of their so called I-don't-like-to-transfer network dogma), as they already are in Perth (Mandurah line, part of which runs in a former busway alignment, Melbourne (SmartBus), Stockholm (SL Blue Trunk Buses) and as planned in Auckland (NZ), not only would the train network cope, but there would be increased chances of getting a seat on the bus and more pax could be accommodated in peak hour across the entire network for minimal or no additional cost.

[ozbob]

The BaT is shaping up as a compromise on a compromise.  Might be time to call mark time and get the rest of the network sorted first.

Signalling improvements, more trains, obvious bottlenecks. Sort the bus network for ALL of SEQ. I doubt if the BaT will operational by 2025 if ever ..

[techblitz]

To move the same number of pax as a train (1000 persons) you need 12 BT bus drivers and 12 buses, compared to just two QR staff (and one staff member if DOO were introduced by using cameras on platforms and TV screens near the front of the train to see around the train)

Well at least your adknowledging the 3 car issue which is good
however....
I notice how you always conveniently miss out the maintenance,construction ,rolling stock costs in your mathematical ranting when comparing heavy rail to buses....
If you actually take into account ALL factors LD instead of soley arguing your case on capacity and number of drivers blah blah blah.....you would most likely find that there is only a "slight -medium " advantage at best of rail over bus.....its an advantage yes but your talking it up to be way larger than what it is..

[bcasey]

To move the same number of pax as a train (1000 persons) you need 12 BT bus drivers and 12 buses, compared to just two QR staff (and one staff member if DOO were introduced by using cameras on platforms and TV screens near the front of the train to see around the train)

Well at least your adknowledging the 3 car issue which is good
however....
I notice how you always conveniently miss out the maintenance,construction ,rolling stock costs in your mathematical ranting when comparing heavy rail to buses....
If you actually take into account ALL factors LD instead of soley arguing your case on capacity and number of drivers blah blah blah.....you would most likely find that there is only a "slight -medium " advantage at best of rail over bus.....its an advantage yes but your talking it up to be way larger than what it is..

On the recent interview that the Transport Minister had on ABC612, http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2014/03/bill-breakdown-train-tickets.html, at about 3mins 30 seconds, he said that the costs were about 50% salaries, 30% consumables (electricity, parts, etc), and about 20% on maintenance of tracks and trains and aquiring new tracks and trains, etc. I think these figures are just for the QR portion of the public transport network, although I'm not 100% sure. It would be interesting to see the figures for the bus network for comparison, to see what the actual relative costs are over the entire network.

As you can see, the salaries are a significant portion of the costs on running the network. I don't think that Lapdog is necessarily against having buses, and getting rid of bus drivers to reduce the cost, but to utilize the existing drivers and vehicles more efficiently, so they carry more people per trip. The best way to do this is to integrate the networks by feeding passengers that are not in the catchment area of the rail network to it via buses, rather than the current system where the rail and bus networks are competing for passengers.

[#Metro]

I notice how you always conveniently miss out the maintenance,construction ,rolling stock costs in your mathematical ranting when comparing heavy rail to buses....
If you actually take into account ALL factors LD instead of soley arguing your case on capacity and number of drivers blah blah blah.....you would most likely find that there is only a "slight -medium " advantage at best of rail over bus.....its an advantage yes but your talking it up to be way larger than what it is..

Disagree.

I have shown that the extra people trains would have to carry would be slight. A single extra train service would absorb approximately two high frequency BUZ routes being operated at full load capacity for the entire 1-hour peak. The cost of one extra train service in peak (even with your points raised) would be very marginal, and we know there is capacity on the network due to recent additional services.

Using buses to compete with trains to "extend" rail capacity is a nonsense argument because I can show that any extra purported capacity is so, so tiny. So what is the real reason? I daresay a careful analysis may also reveal that for two or three minutes time savings by rocket or express peak buses duplicating rail comes at a cost of tens of millions of dollars per year, for just for a few minutes.

Buses also have maintenance, land depot construction costs, consumables costs (tyres, fuel), bus acquisition costs (and a far shorter economic lifecycle than trains), use an order of magnitude more staff to transport the same number of people, the costs for busway extension are the same or higher than it is for rail, and indeed approach that for construction of metro on a per km basis. The labour cost is significant because as we have seen, it is the overwhelming cost in transit operation, and buses require an order of magnitude more staff to transport the same people. On another thread in this forum, it was also shown that maintenance costs for rail account for a mere 20% of the cost; So for 1 extra train service in peak, would almost be zero.

With the massive boosts in capacity recently there is accommodation for interchanging passengers and bus network redesign. Buses feed the Manurah line in Perth to dedicated interchanges and SmartBus does the same in Melbourne, which has had a massive patronage increase - which they accommodated using trains and not by putting rocket buses in parallel to train lines.

The longer a bus service is, the more it will cost. This is why driving all the way to the CBD for passengers that are rail-contestable is expensive. Everybody knows this, when you catch a taxi to the local train station it is likely to be cheaper on the meter than when you instruct the driver to drive all the way to the CBD.

Redesign the buses to feed the trains. Not every bus can do this, but for those that can, should.

[#Metro]

I don't think that Lapdog is necessarily against having buses, and getting rid of bus drivers to reduce the cost, but to utilize the existing drivers and vehicles more efficiently, so they carry more people per trip. The best way to do this is to integrate the networks by feeding passengers that are not in the catchment area of the rail network to it via buses, rather than the current system where the rail and bus networks are competing for passengers.

Exactly. Integration often represents an efficiency. Disintegration represents inefficiency and results in longer routes which results in extra distance which has to be paid for. There are 85 train stations within the BCC area, and most people live within a few km of a station. For example, Bracken Ridge has two train stations within 3-4 km of the centre of the suburb. The issue is getting people that 3 km from their home to the station... by bus...

A feeder model would still have many buses go to the CBD, but many more go to train stations. Nobody is denying that 85 x 6 = 510 which is 510 < 1000. I strongly suspect the financials also add up too.

[aldonius]

Just saying, 1000 is very much a crush loading. The 'maximum design loading' for both EMUs and IMUs is 750, for a 6 car train. That's 44 and 50 standees per carriage, respectively. 1000 would be 85 and 92, respectively.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't think that Lapdog is necessarily against having buses, and getting rid of bus drivers to reduce the cost, but to utilize the existing drivers and vehicles more efficiently, so they carry more people per trip. The best way to do this is to integrate the networks by feeding passengers that are not in the catchment area of the rail network to it via buses, rather than the current system where the rail and bus networks are competing for passengers.

Exactly. Integration often represents an efficiency. Disintegration represents inefficiency and results in longer routes which results in extra distance which has to be paid for. There are 85 train stations within the BCC area, and most people live within a few km of a station. For example, Bracken Ridge has two train stations within 3-4 km of the centre of the suburb. The issue is getting people that 3 km from their home to the station... by bus...

A feeder model would still have many buses go to the CBD, but many more go to train stations. Nobody is denying that 85 x 6 = 510 which is 510 < 1000. I strongly suspect the financials also add up too.

The problem with Bracken Ridge having Carseldine and Bald Hills as stations is access to them. To get to Bald Hills you have to go to the very north of the suburb and then make a detour pretty much to the gateway then back past the station. Carseldine is similar with the current road configuration but that has got a lot better now as the Norris Road/Telegraph Road intersection, Norris Road extension and the railway overpass is now being constructed. The added benefit of that is that Fitzgibbon is now booming with housing estates lining the main road between Telegraph Road-Carseldine Station. The connection road is also pretty much a b line direct to the station.

[techblitz]

The longer a train line is..the more maintenance it needs...the more trackwork it needs...the more susceptibility to force majeure events and then some.....vastly more expensive equipment to keep those tracks maintained...

one for you mr mathematics...

http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/Thredbo11_Tirachini_Comparing_operator_and_user_costs_of_light_rail.pdf

Conclusions are intersting...even if they may not apply accurately for brisbane.....still a decent effort...

[James]

The longer a train line is..the more maintenance it needs...the more trackwork it needs...the more susceptibility to force majeure events and then some.....vastly more expensive equipment to keep those tracks maintained...

one for you mr mathematics...

http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/Thredbo11_Tirachini_Comparing_operator_and_user_costs_of_light_rail.pdf

Conclusions are intersting...even if they may not apply accurately for brisbane.....still a decent effort...

...and the more passengers which can be fed into the railway line.

Lapdog's mathematics are correct and true. While I don't think we need to be feeding routes like BUZ 330 into the railway line, there are so many routes all over Brisbane which are carrying less than full seated loads in the AM/PM peaks (almost all 400 series routes, a few 412s and 444s excluded, for example). It would hardly affect anybody to feed these passengers into rail, and the subsequent efficiencies found can go towards improving frequencies in the area. Some of these routes carry less than 15 pax - you'd need 10 of them just to get close to filling ONE carriage!

Of course sending a direct service from the CBD to one's doorstep is the fastest service option, but it is not economical to do that - and transfers are part of a 'tradeoff'. Yes, one may have to transfer on their new journey, but either their trip time or waiting time decreases, so overall it is a net positive.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

21st March 2014

All is not what it seems hey?

Greetings,

Real public disclosure of detailed public transport data is not done in Queensland as for other states. [ SEQ: Call for transparency and accuracy with public transport data --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=10357.0 ]

One can only assume this is so that spin statements like the one by the Minister of Transport on 20th March 2014 (below) can remain unchallenged by the majority. Well we are not the majority we care for the future of our public transport network and despise the petty attempts to mislead, spin and bluster.

27,000 extra trips a week hey? How about providing an analysis of how many of those trips are actually the result of rorting on the go card? A failed fare system indeed.

How many of those trips are the result of Queensland Rail staff being moved onto corporate go cards?

What mode are these trips occurring?

Coming clean with the real data would be the correct thing to do. As we have seen this week, doing the right thing in the transport portfolio is a rare event.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

20th March 2014

All is not what it seems hey?

Greetings,

It is well done that train frequency has been increased. Sadly though the pax gains are barely keeping pace with population increase.

27,000 passengers per week is only an average of 27 per service. Trains can handle up to 1000 pax for short duration.

As the Minister has indicated.  Unless the fare system is sorted we are going to continue to see worsening road congestion, social isolation, stagnating and falling patronage.  This is costly for all.

Best wishes
Robert

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

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/3/20/more-passengers-get-on-board-new-timetable?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Scott Emerson

More passengers get on board new timetable

Two months on and passengers have embraced the Newman Government's overhaul of the rail timetable with more people choosing to catch public transport.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said the new timetable included an additional 1000 rail services a week.

"Since the new timetable was implemented more than 27,000 extra trips have been taken a week compared to the same time last year," Mr Emerson said.

"Passengers are clearly taking advantage of the more frequent and consistent services as we continue our efforts to improve front line services for Queenslanders.

"Trains are continuing to run on time with our peak reliability record at 95.36 per cent since the new services started on January 20.

"This is in stark contrast to Labor's poor record of the lowest on-time running in three years."

Mr Emerson said the LNP was delivering its promise to improve the frequency, reliability and affordability of the network and the increase in patronage proves we are well on track.

"While we have made significant improvements to the network we acknowledge more needs to be done, particularly when it comes to affordability," he said.

"I can guarantee passengers that we will not go back to the bad old days of the former Labor Government that saw 15 per cent fare increases year after year.

"We understand affordability remains a challenge and will continue to find the savings to drive down the cost of fares."

[ENDS] 20 March 2014

[#Metro]

The longer a train line is..the more maintenance it needs...the more trackwork it needs...the more susceptibility to force majeure events and then some.....vastly more expensive equipment to keep those tracks maintained...

1. The train line is not being lengthened in the sense of new construction. Existing lines, of which the construction has already been paid for would get a handful of extra services in peak *if required* to further promote bus interchange. Yes, this would increase rail-km travelled, but would also allow buses to be turned back at stations, increasing capacity and quality of the network overall.

2. If I add a handful of services to the rail network in peak, how many extra force majure events will happen over and above current levels? It would seem small. Would it make sense to delete peak hour services on rail lines and run buses in competition with QR rail lines instead for the purposes of insuring against / reducing the probability of said events on the rail network (i.e bridge strikes, boom gate crashes, signal faults)? Adding extra buses on competing routes direct to the CBD would also expose people to congestion (road operation is Class C ROW), traffic accidents and when it rains, general meltdown of the bus network (i.e. Coronation Drive).

2. How much more maintenance and trackwork would be caused if one train service were added in the am and pm peak? Is the real purpose of BCC/TransLink operating buses past train stations/direct to the CBD just a strategy to reduce QR's maintenance budget? Is this an effective way to reduce rail maintenance costs? Is the actual reason simply not just that BCC sees the bus network as 'theirs' and wants to see it serve BCC's policy goals rather than TransLinks?

3. I had a quick read of the paper. There's a lot of complex math that I wouldn't even try to analyse and pass judgement on but if you step back, you notice its not about a feeder model or network redesign.  I draw your attention to this paragraph on page 3, where it EXPLICITLY states it is not about feeder and transfer, which is what I was proposing.

We deal with a radial trunk network in line with the structure of many real urban public transport
systems, characterised by a centre (usually the Central Business District or CBD) with a set of radial lines, as shown in the examples of Figure 1.

The frequency and number of lines are the decision variables. The design of a feeder network is not considered.

So the design of a feeder network is not even considered by this paper. It doesn't disprove the calculation that two BCC BUZ routes running at full load in peak could be accommodated by just half of one train, and therefore there is capacity for feeder services.

If we were to interpret and implement the suggestions of this paper in Brisbane, what would we have to do to apply its findings? Shut down the Ferny Grove line and replace it with a BRT busway because that would be operationally cost-minimising over the long term?

Firstly, that would incur transaction costs over and above simply adding an additional train in peak or converting 3 car units to 6 car units to carry just additional pax from BUZ services transferring to the train at say, Enoggera Interchange. Or maybe it means we close the FG line and spend the money on buying 100 additional bus services/hour** for BT to run pax direct to the CBD on Old Northern Road / South Pine Road? (a bus every 36 seconds in Class C ROW). My point is, this paper is useful if you are a city and don't have a rapid transit system, and are wondering what to build; it is not so useful if you have an existing system which the construction is already paid for and services operating. We have a train system, we're not in a position to start from scratch.

** 8000 pphd / 85 buses = 94 bus services/hour (there will be air and imperfect loading, so round up to 100)

The paper also neglects 2D-spatial common sense. With such biblical numbers of buses flooding into the limited space in the CBD, there is going to be a space problem both in terms of where to put the bus stops and general amenity. This experience is what is driving Sydney to install light rail in the CBD and Ottawa to convert the Ottawa Transitway to rail (which, by the way, Ottawa expects to make an operational saving by doing this conversion) and tunnel construction in the CBD.

The paper doesn't deal with whether  additional train services should be added to an established line or buses should be run parallel to it, it is an evaluation of whether a city, in theory, should choose bus or rail as a rapid transit mode. It may be useful for cities which don't have rapid transit that are considering installing or extending it or useful for areas which don't have ready access to rail (i.e Doncaster in Melbourne), but crucially, it is not an evaluation of 'would my network be better off if we converted from direct service to connected service network paradigms.'

[#Metro]

There are other parts of the paper that irk me, maybe I am interpreting it wrong, but what is with Table A.1? The cost per kilometre of construction of 'BRT' (what is the definition of BRT here, Class A busways like Brisbane or Maroon CityGliders?) is listed as just 10 million per kilometre?? Heavy rail construction of just 35 million/km? These numbers seem to be 10x off the mark.

A BRT vehicle is listed as having a capacity of 100 pax (Table A1). Standard BCC buses are just over half this capacity (65 pax) and the largest ones carry 85. I'm all for larger superbuses, but again, they're not evidence against a feeder network design. Heavy rail is listed as 750 pax/vehicle but QR trains can take up to 1000 at peak.

[HappyTrainGuy]

RIP UP THE RAILWAY LINES! BUSWAYS FOR EVERYONE!!!!

[ozbob]

RIP UP THE RAILWAY LINES! BUSWAYS FOR EVERYONE!!!!

What's the name of the place that tried that, now re-establishing rail?  BrisBANE??   

[ozbob]

For  Redcliffe, BRT was costed as well as heavy rail.  BRT was a little cheaper to construct but much dearer to operate, particularly over the longer term hence MBRL.

It is always horses for courses.  The trouble with the bus centric phase we have been in since the early 2000s is that it lead to much neglect of the rail system.  Senior people in transport in Queensland have said that was bit of a blunder. Rail is now slowly starting to recover as it is clear the present bus system will not cope with much more load, particularly radial.  That load needs to be put back on rail.  Buses are buses, trains are trains.  Great scope for a lot more bus feeder and satellite (Smart bus like) routes etc.  Melbourne is going that way too I note.

We are entering into a more balanced phase.

People need to get chips off their shoulders, and put those shoulders to the wheel, be it bus or rail!

[Arnz]

RIP UP THE RAILWAY LINES! BUSWAYS FOR EVERYONE!!!!

Lets not keep this to Brisbane, let's extend this to all of Australia.  The Indian Pacific is now a massive bendy bus.  Oh oh and the XPT is now the XPB

The ARTC will now be called the ABTC (Australian Busway Track Corporation).  Maglev buses every 5 minutes on the new Australian North Coast Busway Line from Sydney to Cairns!!!!!!!111!!   

[bcasey]

I'm not sure that paper is really applicable to the situation in Brisbane. Some of the assumptions they make in order to make the model simpler also means that it is not necessarily applicable in terms of the Brisbane Network.

First of all, this paper is comparing BRT vs Light and Heavy Rail, which they are assuming are all segregated from general traffic. So the results here are only really applicable for comparing the costs of putting in new busways vs rail lines, as opposed for the consideration of general bus networks that run on arterial roads compared to rail networks.

The assumption that the network consists of straight lines radiating out from the centre is reasonable enough for the busways or rail lines in Brisbane, while they may diverge a bit from a straight line in some places, over the entire line these divergence is only a small part overall. I'm not sure the same could be said of bus routes that don't spend the majority of their time on the busways, whether this is due to the shape of existing arterial roads, or natural obstructions like the Brisbane River.

Also, this statement concerns me a bit:

"the algorithm chosen to find the solution, implemented in Matlab, has two parts: first, the problem is solved assuming that n
is a real number, then the solution for n is rounded to its lower and upper closest integer (nl and nu, respectively), and the problem is solved again using nl and nu (as given values), choosing the solution that provides the lowest total cost".

I've only had a glance at the mathematical model, so the shape of the curve may be ok to perform this relaxation, but it is still a naive method of solving an integer programming problem.

The others who posted before me have also brought up good points, in terms of the capacity in the centre to handle all of the vehicles that would be terminating there, (which from our experience in Brisbane, this is a bottleneck for the maximum number of radial lines you can have), etc.

[techblitz]

For  Redcliffe, BRT was costed as well as heavy rail.  BRT was a little cheaper to construct but much dearer to operate, particularly over the longer term hence MBRL.

It is always horses for courses.  The trouble with the bus centric phase we have been in since the early 2000s is that it lead to much neglect of the rail system.  Senior people in transport in Queensland have said that was bit of a blunder. Rail is now slowly starting to recover as it is clear the present bus system will not cope with much more load, particularly radial.  That load needs to be put back on rail.  Buses are buses, trains are trains.  Great scope for a lot more bus feeder and satellite (Smart bus like) routes etc.  Melbourne is going that way too I note.

We are entering into a more balanced phase.

People need to get chips off their shoulders, and put those shoulders to the wheel, be it bus or rail!

for regions such as north lakes and springfield..its a no brainer...feed buses into rail...trains ferry pax to cbd......this model will stay in place on all/future rail lines
While it is logically common sense to increase rail feeding  in brisbane....you cant get away from the fact that its simple pipedreaming at best
to think that BT would implement frequent 1/2 zone feeders into say oxley/ferny grove/cooper plains when they can score 5/6 zone fares direct to the CBD....and not hand that revenue over to QR
Standing right in the middle of these pipedreams would be the RBTU and politicans/counsellors....

[ozbob]

Never fear brave warriors, competitive tendering will no doubt have a cleansing effect on ingrained prejudices ..  lol

[techblitz]

There are other parts of the paper that irk me, maybe I am interpreting it wrong, but what is with Table A.1? The cost per kilometre of construction of 'BRT' (what is the definition of BRT here, Class A busways like Brisbane or Maroon CityGliders?) is listed as just 10 million per kilometre?? Heavy rail construction of just 35 million/km? These numbers seem to be 10x off the mark.

A BRT vehicle is listed as having a capacity of 100 pax (Table A1). Standard BCC buses are just over half this capacity (65 pax) and the largest ones carry 85. I'm all for larger superbuses, but again, they're not evidence against a feeder network design. Heavy rail is listed as 750 pax/vehicle but QR trains can take up to 1000 at peak.

The construction costs seem to matchup reasonably 2-4 times rail to bus. They were using articulated buses and 3 car sets as the capacity examples.

As noted by Smith (1973, p. 31), "If there are valid non-economic reasons for preferring a new railway, these reasons ought to be clearly identified and weighted against the advantages of the best bus alternative". In this paper we have presented a number of scenarios representative of plausible real situations, which suggest that if buses run at the same (or comparable) speed than trains, these "other reasons" must be able to outweigh the benefit of having more frequent services, better coverage and a lower total operator cost, provided by a high standard bus based system, in comparison to current LR and HR technologies. The challenge we face is convincing the political process to stop focussing on the ideological commitment to specific modal technologies and to base infrastructure and service provision decisions on value for money.

Another paper of interest..

http://bic.asn.au/information-for-moving-people/bus-rapid-transit

[ozbob]

Best results are always with an integrated network, using the strengths of the various modes optimally.  Something that still escapes many  ....

BRT v LRT v HRT comparisons are just getting tedious. 

The imbalances in the SEQ transport network are a classic case study of what not to do.  As I said, correction is underway ... more to come, watch this space ...

Sector 2 timetables are a good move forward. 

[bcasey]

Can someone remind me how BT gets paid from Translink for the services they run? I think its been mentioned before in this thread or another thread, but I can't remember exactly the metric they get paid by.

Using a feeder system for the buses rather than a direct line system, you can increase the frequency and/or increase the length of the feeder to areas not covered by the direct line system, while maintaining the same costs. So if BT is being paid on the total KMs travelled by all of the services they run, there is no real disadvantage to them in running a feeder system, while improving the service for the public, making politicans happy, and unless there are other issues I'm not seeing, no jobs would need to be lost, so the RBTU shouldn't really have a problem with this system. There must be something I'm missing here.

The only main downside to a feeder system is that it would require more people to transfer, but as long as the frequency of services is kept at a reasonable level and the connected routes are scheduled to allow for quick transfers, this shouldn't be a big issue for the majority of people.

[ozbob]

Service kilometres, pax number irrelevant largely, hence the inefficiencies ... 

Direct service model networks have numbered days ...

Interesting to note, all the major cities in NZ are moving to connected networks.  Brisbane?  Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[James]

for regions such as north lakes and springfield..its a no brainer...feed buses into rail...trains ferry pax to cbd......this model will stay in place on all/future rail lines
While it is logically common sense to increase rail feeding  in brisbane....you cant get away from the fact that its simple pipedreaming at best
to think that BT would implement frequent 1/2 zone feeders into say oxley/ferny grove/cooper plains when they can score 5/6 zone fares direct to the CBD....and not hand that revenue over to QR
Standing right in the middle of these pipedreams would be the RBTU and politicans/counsellors....

Of course it is in BCC's self-interest to compete with rail, but the fact is, it is operationally inefficient. As shown by my own review, BCC's refusal to feed pax to rail in zones 3/4/5 is the reason why over 10,000 residents in Brisbane's west do not have access to a frequent bus route.

[ozbob]

Can someone remind me how BT gets paid from Translink for the services they run? I think its been mentioned before in this thread or another thread, but I can't remember exactly the metric they get paid by.

Using a feeder system for the buses rather than a direct line system, you can increase the frequency and/or increase the length of the feeder to areas not covered by the direct line system, while maintaining the same costs. So if BT is being paid on the total KMs travelled by all of the services they run, there is no real disadvantage to them in running a feeder system, while improving the service for the public, making politicans happy, and unless there are other issues I'm not seeing, no jobs would need to be lost, so the RBTU shouldn't really have a problem with this system. There must be something I'm missing here.

The only main downside to a feeder system is that it would require more people to transfer, but as long as the frequency of services is kept at a reasonable level and the connected routes are scheduled to allow for quick transfers, this shouldn't be a big issue for the majority of people.

Indeed.

The other advantage not oft mentioned is that local coverage routes can actually be improved, both in terms of actual coverage frequency and span once you get away from the essentially direct service model.

[OzGamer]

Given the generally positive reaction to 15 minute weekday frequencies, what does the group think should be the next priority in service improvement?

Suppose that there was a fixed amount of money available (and the required network and rollingstock capacity) do one or the other but not both of:

a) Increasing the 15 minute services further on the network to, for example, Kuraby, Manly and Shorncliffe (assuming Petrie ends up with high frequency once MBRL starts up), or
b) Increasing the span of hours later into the evening and/or to weekends

What would you prefer to see happen?

[ozbob]

Bump Springfield, Ipswich<-> Caboolture) to 3 trains per hour instead of two.

[OzGamer]

Ah, option c)...interesting.

But Bob, do you think that's most important, given that Milton-Darra and (after KR opens), Albion-Petrie will have turn up and go all day and evening seven days a week, while the likes of Cooraroo, Yeronga and Alderley are still half hourly from all weekend and weekday evenings?

[ozbob]

BaT will take care of the southern line.  Cleveland should and could move to 3 trains per hour as well.

I think we need to look at increasing frequency incrementally.  Melbourne and other systems have done that.  If you cannot get to 15 minutes, 20 minutes is sure a lot better than 30 minutes ..