SEQ Bus Network Review

[ozbob]

I agree TT.  I received significant feedback from people unable to access information on the proposed changes or give feedback.  I suggested they call TransLink but the difficulty was they often could not access the internet and there was no other way of visualising what was occurring. 

Local presentations  could have highlighted what was going on, particularly for those without other means.  The go ready campaign sessions were a good example of this sort of community education.

[techblitz]

the biggest failure of the bus review imo was not outlining the secondary route frequencies/start/finish times.
Yes it would have taken a lot longer to get this task done but it would certainly have given a clearer picture for those who were getting thier favorite routes axed.

eg:  im in salisbury east and would have been on the losing end of the cancellation of the 120.Frequent #23 going down lillian instead of henson...S404 unaccessable...and s405???Hello more details plz.....

Come on lol.....you dont cancel a MAJOR buz route and not tell the people who rely on that buz route the operating hours and frequencies of the other routes!!!!.Leaving them in the dark will only have one outcome...NEGATIVITY.And thats just what the review got.
I guess with the way things panned out yesterday...luckily they didnt spend the extra time and money

[#Metro]

The planner numbers were a MAJOR issue and a BIG TURN OFF. The absence of frequency and span meant that people were essentially being asked to accept a route for which they could make NO judgement on how frequent it was, when it ran or when it would stop running!

What's the frequency?
What's the span?

Where possible, current BT bus numbering should have been used.

[#Metro]

The minutes of the BCC general meeting where they talk at length about bus review are available now:

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council/governance-strategy/committees-meetings-minutes/meeting-minutes/index.htm



Quirk doesn't believe in interchange.

There are many students of public transport, many operators of transport systems who very much support intermodal and, indeed, transfers between the same mode as part of public transport journeys. I don't. I happen to hold the view that, if you make it too hard for people, they simply jump back into cars.

Coupled with the fact that the public relations at translink was non-existent in the real world, lead to a PR disaster...

Around 1000 residents since Thursday have contacted my office by phone, email, fax, to advise me that they are scared. They are scared about losing services, and the people of Inala and low income areas are being hardest hit by these changes.

The same them comes up again and again, TL's voice was completely missing. And the minister was only too happy to blame TL, and it was only later in the week that we had found out that the consultation was compromised because BT had decided to boycott the review in the first instance. I doubt this would have happened with TL under the control of an independant board...

[techblitz]

The planner numbers were a MAJOR issue and a BIG TURN OFF. The absence of frequency and span meant that people were essentially being asked to accept a route for which they could make NO judgement on how frequent it was, when it ran or when it would stop running!

What's the frequency?
What's the span?

Where possible, current BT bus numbering should have been used.

yep they obviously thought the 5 minute squiggly google maps trick was enough info for the masses

[Fares_Fair]

NOT when it is a quicker or more direct journey... 

[ozbob]

The day after the Minister announced the review, I requested those details be made available publicly from TransLink, that is spans and frequency of secondary routes, and clarification on the what was really meant re 7 to 7 and what routes would be running at greater frequency than just 15 minutes and outside the 7 to 7 timeframe.    Never was done .. 

I wonder if there was some sort of restriction on engagement with the public ...

[ozbob]

The minutes of the BCC general meeting where they talk at length about bus review are available now:

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council/governance-strategy/committees-meetings-minutes/meeting-minutes/index.htm



Quirk doesn't believe in interchange.

There are many students of public transport, many operators of transport systems who very much support intermodal and, indeed, transfers between the same mode as part of public transport journeys. I don't. I happen to hold the view that, if you make it too hard for people, they simply jump back into cars.

That is an opinion by the LM.  The reality is the opposite is the hard evidence, providing the frequency and interchange is done right.  The rest of world must be wrong ... lol

[#Metro]

Councillor Matic - again interchange. The new system might not work - well does the current system work? No of course not...

The key to the whole process for the review is this issue of interchange, of moving from route to route, from a start to a finish, rather moving towards the ability to catch a bus from one section, then stop at a super stop or an interchange area and then catch another bus which will then take you specifically into the CBD. Will this system work? As the LORD MAYOR says, this is something that is particularly challenging for Brisbane residents. It is something that we haven't seen before. So this is something that the government has to provide further detail on, and also provide further information as to how it is going to work.

[ozbob]

Councillor Matic - again interchange. The new system might not work - well does the current system work? No of course not...

The key to the whole process for the review is this issue of interchange, of moving from route to route, from a start to a finish, rather moving towards the ability to catch a bus from one section, then stop at a super stop or an interchange area and then catch another bus which will then take you specifically into the CBD. Will this system work? As the LORD MAYOR says, this is something that is particularly challenging for Brisbane residents. It is something that we haven't seen before. So this is something that the government has to provide further detail on, and also provide further information as to how it is going to work.

LOL  gawd and he is the Chair of Active and Public Transport.  Virtually every journey I do on PT in SEQ I interchange, he needs to get out of City Hall and actually catch a bus and a train.  He can watch them interchanging (transferring) all over the network ...

[#Metro]

LOL  gawd and he is the Chair of Active and Public Transport.  Virtually every journey I do on PT in SEQ I interchange, he needs to get out of City Hall and actually catch a bus and a train.  He can watch them interchanging (transferring) all over the network ...

Clearly all of these decision makers from the top down all drove to the council meeting.


Nicole Johnston - she has succeeding in keeping the 105, an hourly route, and rejecting all day high frequency to her area. I used to live near her ward office and I have to say, I walked a very long way to get to the 196 because the peak routes didn't exist at any other time of the day. Before the 196 was upgraded, I had to use a BICYCLE because services in that area at any time of day were 30 minutes and hourly at night and plain bad. She has a valid point about the 104 but that doesn't validate her other points.

Not only that; this Council knows full well and good that this State Government has targeted services that are performing and exceeding expectations. I am going to give a local example, the 107. This is a bus service that services a major retirement village in my ward in Yeronga. The State Government's own findings demonstrate that it is exceeding its minimum requirements. It is more than 70 per cent cost efficient. It averages 26 people on each run. It is being cut, for God's sake. It is being cut. I cannot understand why that bus service is being cut. It is raising money; it certainly has got a high patronage. Eight is the benchmark, apparently, according to the Minister. This service has got 26. That is one example in my ward.

Ms Johnson, you have just denied high frequency to your area! 107 is only viable to run in peak, and that's why it has good cost and load. But for the rest of the day - this bus does not exist!

And if you read further:

This Council should be asking for this State Government to desist from any cuts to bus services, not just peak hour services. The reason this is so important is because it is the elderly who particularly use non-peak bus services, going to the hospitals, going to see their doctors, going to the optometrist, doing their shopping. The elderly stay off peak services because they know they are the commuter services that are full.

That's right, NO CHANGE TO ANYTHING ANYWHERE ANYTIME. Where is the money going to come from for all these upgrades without reallocation of service hours from empty buses elsewhere. Reading these council minutes is a bloody comedy of sorts!! The ENTIRE BCC has NO IDEA about how PT actually works! They think it works like cars on a road!!

[#Metro]

Cr Nicole Johnston -

This Council should send a clear message down the end of George Street, and the message it should send is: we don't agree to any cuts to our bus services, particularly those like the 107 which are essentially non-peak services which are performing above minimum expectations...

But it only runs during peak hour and no sat or sunday services! Aaaargh!

[#Metro]

Cr Flesser -- has good points and I agree, however if BT had co-operated with the review it is likely that these fatal flaws would have been removed and fixed before general public release. If you tally up the number of changes to bus routes that one could consider 'mistakes' and divide that by the total number of services in the network in the BT area (about 230) then the bad ones would only make up less than 5% IMHO, but those very obvious faults are what really brought the plan down IMHO. Had the proposal been passed through a focus group first before general public release, or BCC or even RAILBOT, this could have been avoided.

My ward has seen cuts to the 306, 307 and 322 bus services. They are seriously going to affect the Australian Catholic University at Banyo. This is the largest problem area in my ward as far as parking and traffic issues are concerned, probably behind Nundah. The streets are being parked out; there is not enough bus services. The 306 and 307 both service the Australian Catholic University, and the proposal that has been put forward by the State Government sees no bus services to the Australian Catholic University. This is not a peak hour service. This is a service that is required for a university that already has huge parking problems. So, to reduce the bus services going to that university are going to make those problems even worse.
   Let's look at the whole suburb of Nudgee Beach. The whole suburb of Nudgee Beach, that is not peak hour. It is only a couple of services a day, but completely cut.

I agree with the Cr. There is no reason for 306 to run all the way into the CBD. It can be terminated at Toombul where pax can change to bus or rail. But removing the entire bus from that suburb would have been quite affronting.

[#Metro]

Cr Johnston again ---

It is clear that councillors think in terms of the bus routes in their ward, which is problematic because it is all about a network covering the city entirely, and bus routes are larger than anyone's individual ward. And because there is no TL voice, the assumption/expectation here is that 'good' services would stay and 'bad' services would be removed. The problem with this is that there was no person to explain who did what and why. Where were the network planners explaining what and why they made the changes and the logic to them? Nowhere? All you had was a form to fill out, press submit, and off it goes into the big pile with 16 000+ other submissions. No explanation. Nothing. A simple YouTube video on the non-existent TL Facebook and Youtube page explaining this, like in the media release recently showing TransLink Vancouver explaining how their logic worked, would have dispelled this and also human to human consultation. Filling in a form is not consultation.

Remember, 25 per cent of all bus services in this city are about to be cut or reduced. We know from the Council officers that TransLink is targeting services that are profitable and those that have good patronage levels. They are not just targeting those with low patronage and high costs, as Councillor MATIC said. We have got that in writing here from the officers. So what is the agenda? Why are we being told one thing there and another here?

A simple map of the before and after network (or a business as usual versus a frequent network - go to the Auckland Transport website to see how Auckland did it) would have dispelled this one instantly. It seems that TL was very rushed indeed for time to get everything done, and as we know, there is a inverse relationship between quality and speed when it comes to reporting tasks and projects.

[#Metro]

Deputy Mayor--

Brisbane City Council buses carry 80 million passengers per year at the moment. Queensland Rail trains carry 52 million—80 million, Brisbane City Council, 52 million,

Yes, we have heard this one trotted out constantly. A few years ago BCC actually made a flyer with pie graphs comparing their buses to rail and boasting that it was 'the lead mode'. Clearly didn't take into account the local/regional function and also the fact that no real investment in all day off-peak services had been made on rail at all. This actually supports the case for the bus review because if the reason for this good patronage growth was (a) a combination on TL integration of fares since 2004 and (b) BUZ routes, then it would follow that you'd want to expand the BUZ network, which was the WHOLE purpose of the bus review!! Facts are that almost 50% of the network are on BUZ routes

[ozbob]

And Mr Emerson hand balled Brisbane's public transport future to this bunch,  oh dear ....

One thing I have found disappointing is the lack of real input into the public discourse by transport academics at the various universities around town.  I am sure Chris Hale would have been vocal had he been here ...

I am still getting email pleas from folks telling me their bus is going and it is the end of the world.  I try to point out what is actually happening and they are then surprised and happy at what really was going to occur for their bus.  Some cases there are issues and on those points I really think changes would have been made.  As you point out TT if BT had taken part and informed the review a lot these issues would have long been sorted.

Brisbane is heading for failure.  The sad thing is 5 to 10 years there will be a need for a much more radical change that was proposed in the review,  as the system is going to collapse as is.

[#Metro]

Deputy Mayor ---

The deputy mayor uses particular figures which are taken from BT. How do I know this? Because I actually have the graph and the link to it. It is here --> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2012/BRT/Warren.pdf
It comes from page 19.

The issue here is the BUZ network. The whole idea of the review was to EXPAND the BUZ network, build on it and simplify it! The figures as presented in the BT presentation are misleading because what you are comparing is a low frequency peak hour oriented rail network which runs some of the lowest (30 minute) frequencies for a developed city.

A fair analysis would only consider the subsidy for trips and patronage within the 85 rail stations within BCC's boundaries only . And again it is absolutely clear that BCC / BT is thinking along modal lines again - what's the vehicle - rather than values such as frequency, span, hours etc irrespective of whether the vehicle has rubber tyres or steel wheels. Queensland Rail has it's own major problems - not least that TransPerth trains, which run identical trains - not only achieve better cost recovery but also have double the frequency to all stations on the entire network (we don't) and provide cheaper fares AND run buses to trains.

Thank you. If you look, for example, at the TransLink funding for rail passengers, they are investing more than $15 per passengers that travels on the rail network. If you look at the TransLink funding for other bus operators, not Brisbane City Council, they are investing $6 per passenger in city network. If you look at the investment TransLink puts into the Brisbane bus network, they are investing $3 per passenger. That means we are doing it more efficiently, and it means we are providing a great service for the people of Brisbane, and one that we want to see retained.

[#Metro]

I am still getting email pleas from folks telling me their bus is going and it is the end of the world.  I try to point out what is actually happening and they are then surprised and happy at what really was going to occur for their bus.

And this is why the TransLink internet feedback form is bullsh*t. See with a person at least a dialogue is possible. Even a facebook page would have allowed dialogue. NO, the minister and TL chose a one way communication system, of course it all failed. It is actually hard to say that this was a PR disaster - because there WAS no PR!! And when people keep saying there was no consultation and others look confused and say but there were three rounds of consultation - this is what they mean! They wanted a medium where there could be DIALOGUE. TWO WAY. Which is what Auckand Transport is doing and they don't have issues in Auckland with the bus review. TL had 20x more feedback pieces than Auckland Transport, even though they are mirror images of one another. The Auckland review has been much better handled.

[#Metro]

Cr Abrahams -- raised issue with the speed of the final step, also doesn't seem to get the difference between coverage and patronage services. The 17% of residents would be catching 199, 196 and Cityglider and shun the 192 and 198. The 192 has a case to be retained, but not in it's current form. The 198 I don't think should be retained, as the 196 performs that function. A change at UQ Lakes from 192 would still allow access, superior DDA access actually to the PA hospital busway etc.

Again, a simple YouTube video explaining the difference between coverage and patronage services would have done the job. A conversation with the network planners would have done the job. Sigh.

By conclusion, do you know why this is so important? In the one suburb in my ward that has had its two bus services cut, 17 per cent of that suburb don't own a car. With this one move, they are losing all access to public transport. Public, because it is a service; transport, because it moves them around. That suburb, and those 17 per cent of residents in that suburb, in just a flick of a pen, don't have any access to the hospital, any access to their shopping centre. I would want more than two weeks to be able to tell them the impact of this review.

[ozbob]

Yes.  I am getting constantly attacked, which is another sign of the lack of any real meaningful education process here. (The attacks don't bother by the way, just confirms what a shocker this has been in the PR/education side of things).

I am identified as someone who publicly supports the review, therefore is evil.  In fact I am doing them all a huge favour in fighting for a coherent network, one that does operate as a connected network, that is much more accessible in terms of fares and frequency.  At the micro level broadly I am not concerned because I was confident that the issues would have been sorted before implementation. 

With BCC taking over there will continue to be a disjoint between services and costs.  Eventually it will implode ...  There is also the issue that BCC does not factor in flow on effects for the areas outside their boundaries.

The cost of subsidies needs to be looked at terms of passenger/kilometres not just trips alone.  Most bus trips are much shorter than rail trips, and when this is taken into account bus and rail are comparable.  As rail frequency and capacity ramps up it goes much more in favour of rail.

[#Metro]

Cr King--

We already have up to approximately 8000 people a day that use this interchange at Chermside. The effects that it has on the outer suburbs, I have already calls from my Aspley area ringing up and saying, it already takes 40 minutes for us to commute from Aspley to the city; how much longer is it going to take that we now have to get off the bus at Chermside and transfer to another bus to continue our trip into the city? They are commuters.

^ And this is why the frequencies and span of hours needed to be made explicit. Pity they were not. Time savings from frequency are invisible, so TL has to be explicit about reductions in waiting time.

[#Metro]

Councillor KING:   —for 20 years. They did not stand up for their residents over the many years when 15 per cent hikes in our bus fares went up and up. If they were really concerned, they would have got up and said, my residents in my ward, especially Councillor DICK who gets up and puff, puff, puff, puff, political garbage, political garbage, spin, spin, spin, how good I am; he should have been standing up and actually saying, my residents from Inala cannot afford to catch the bus on a daily basis.

^ Cr. King is a champ!!

The cost of subsidies needs to be looked at terms of passenger/kilometres not just trips alone.  Most bus trips are much shorter than rail trips, and when this is taken into account bus and rail are comparable.  As rail frequency and capacity ramps up it goes much more in favour of rail.

$400 dollars per year for each rateable property in Brisbane is a HUGE amount to pay, particularly for the awful services that are provided off the BUZ network. Absolutely HUGE amount! And then when you jump on the bus, you pay the world's highest fares!! And they are going to go UP! That's unbelievable!!

I actually think that it perhaps is not so bad that the review has gone to the BCC - should never have got this far - but now that it has, they have to do it their way. The PR at TransLink is non existent, and that would not have been the case under the board arrangement present previously.

[ozbob]

Yes, there will be even more air as people continue to avoid high cost fares ... 

Sad hey?  Suckers really, all being lead to oblivion by a failing Council, Government, Transport agency because politics cannot be separated from public transport ...

We tried, and glad to say we did. 

It is not over yet,  but the reality will take a while to gel in peoples minds.  The BCC review will either lead to continuing high cost fare increases, poor service or real cuts.  Magnified because they will see themselves as the single mode in a sacrosanct  precinct.  The rest be damned ...

[SurfRail]

I don't think Brisbane is salvageable.

Out and about today on the Gold Coast, I saw:
- Buses carrying full seated and full standing loads all over the place
- A light rail system under construction
- Double decker buses
- Large bus interchanges at all of the city's train stations
- QR and Surfside working together to clear people from an event at Skilled Park
- Zero duplication between bus and rail
- Reasonably simple route network

[#Metro]

Yes, I know, and GCCC kicked in funding for hard concrete infrastructure for PT as well.

Cr Milton Dick ---

So a person has gone and got 9 pages of signatures to save the 460. Cr Dick, there is BRAND NEW RAIL LINE BUILT under the direction of YOUR LOCAL STATE MEMBER who was also PREVIOUS TRANSPORT MINISTER to your area that makes the 460 now a duplication and mostly redundant? 

If someone can go door to door and get 9 pages of signatures, I think it only shows what a shambles the TL PR and consultation is. People just have NO idea what the plan is, why it is there, how TL arrived at it etc etc.

Is Cr Dick is just raising his media profile for preparation at the next mayoral tilt? Seems so.

Councillor MATIC that's fine, look over here. Here are the signatures, here they all are. I've just got an email from my office. Someone who came and visited me who also was worried about the 460 has bought in nine pages after going door to door in Forest Lake today. I don't know who that person is but they came up to me—so that is the level that you're dismissing Councillor MATIC. These people are worried because they are fearful and they are concerned and they don't trust the LNP. That's the bottom line and they want their Council to stand up for them.

[#Metro]

Relevant BCC motions ---

7.   RECOMMENDATION:

   THAT COUNCIL NOTE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE REPORT.
ADOPTED

B   PETITION – CALLING ON THE LORD MAYOR TO GUARANTEE THAT PASSENGERS WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE REVIEW OF BUS ROUTES
      CA13/71296
515/2012-13
8.   A petition from residents of Brisbane, requesting that they will be no worse off as a result of the Queensland Government's review of bus routes and services was presented to the meeting of Council held on 5 February 2013 by Councillor Milton Dick and received.

9.   The Divisional Manager, Brisbane Transport Division, supplied the following information.

10.   The petition contained 44 signatures. Of the signatories, 21 petitioners resided in Inala, six in Oxley, and five in Forest Lake. The remaining 12 petitioners are from the surrounding suburbs.

11.   TransLink, is a division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads in the Queensland Government, and is responsible for the delivery of public transport services and infrastructure for South East Queensland.

12.   Council continues to have a major role in bus services. However, Translink oversees all public transport delivery in South East Queensland, and has the authority to support or initiate changes to bus services. In this case, the bus network review is being undertaken by TransLink. Council has not been involved in planning any changes related to service reductions and the Lord Mayor is not in a position to guarantee that there will be no reduction of services in Inala, or across the whole Brisbane City Council contracted area.

13.   Council has recommended that service levels should not be decreased by the proposed changes; rather there should be a range of service augmentations across the network, to address demand for services.

14.   Where TransLink has proposed reducing services, Council has raised specific concerns and made it clear that there will be a negative impact on the community, accessibility and the overall use of public transport. Council has raised particular concerns with proposals that would disadvantage people who have limited alternatives, school children and elderly passengers.

15.   TransLink will determine the outcomes of the review and the extent to which feedback from the community and Council is considered.

Consultation

16.   The Councillor for Richlands Ward, Councillor Milton Dick, has been consulted and does not support the recommendation.

      Preferred option

17.   It is the preferred option that the petitioners be advised that TransLink is responsible for the review of the bus network.

Petitioners should also be advised that the Brisbane City Council is not in a position to guarantee that passengers will not be affected by the TransLink review outcomes, but that Council will forward their concerns to TransLink for consideration.

18.   The Divisional Manager recommends as follows and the Committee agrees, with Councillor Steve Griffiths dissenting.

19.   RECOMMENDATION:

   THAT THE PETITIONERS BE ADVISED OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
ADOPTED

[#Metro]

CONSIDERATION OF NOTIFIED MOTION: SEQ Translink bus network review
(Notified motions are printed as supplied and are not edited)
522/2012-13

The Acting Chairman of Council then drew the Councillors' attention to the notified motion listed on the agenda, and called on Councillor Milton DICK to move the motion. Accordingly, Councillor DICK moved, seconded by Councillor Helen ABRAHAMS, the following motion:

'That this Council rejects the recommendations of the SEQ Translink bus network review that will see users of public bus transport in Brisbane lose services.

(skipped a few paragraphs here)

Councillor JOHNSTON:   I'd like to and, Madam Chairman, I think the words of this motion are important, Madam Chairman, and I would like my residents to know that this is what I'm supporting tonight, that is, that this Council rejects the recommendations of the Southeast Queensland TransLink bus network review that will see the users of public bus transport in Brisbane lose services.
   Secondly, further that the LORD MAYOR and all councillors support Brisbane residents who are opposing these changes. I support this motion wholeheartedly. Residents in my area, as we've heard today, are going to be hugely impacted by the loss of services, Madam Chairman. I don't think that's good enough


^ I have to say, Cr Johnston has just done the most massive disservice to her area by saving the 105, she's actually blocked the introduction of a Yeronga BUZ into Yeronga which would save 45 minutes off waiting time to the CBD and is infinitely more useful than services which only exist in peak hour on weekdays or hourly coverage routes. She has opened herself to the very real possibility that other political candidates will take advantage of this and tell residents of her ward that 'Your local councillor just blocked a BUZ to your area'

If you reject change that has disadvantages, then you also reject change that has advantages - as they come packaged and parceled together. Why? Because for every cut, there is a paste. With no cuts, there can be no pastes. That really is the bottom line.

[#Metro]

Yes.  I am getting constantly attacked, which is another sign of the lack of any real meaningful education process here. (The attacks don't bother by the way, just confirms what a shocker this has been in the PR/education side of things).

I wouldn't bother explaining, just give a link to the HT website and HT book and tell them to read it cover to cover! The HT book is available on google books for a peek.

[#Metro]

13.   Council has recommended that service levels should not be decreased by the proposed changes; rather there should be a range of service augmentations across the network, to address demand for services.

Yep, just give the council even more cash so the route can be piled ever higher on top of the spaghetti that is the current network. And to do this where is the money going to come from? Fare increases!!

[SurfRail]

OK, I'm going to suggest something interesting.

How about this?

We get a team of BCC-located representatives together, and we beat the door down until we get a meeting with the BT people to express our concerns and state our position to them directly.

Clearly banging away at them in the press is not going to achieve the desired result by itself.

Thoughts?

[longboi]

TT -  In terms of consultation...it began at the same time staff numbers were cut at TMR. There were neither the staffing numbers or budget to conduct what you have suggested. However, there were in fact staff on the network but evidently they didn't capture everybody.

Time and budgeting were also a factor. No budget to conduct a massive marketing/community engagement campaign and at the same time enormous pressure from the Minister to review services and find efficiencies. I think it was too much, too soon which seems to have been the hallmark of the LNP Government thus far. The review is much needed and hopefully we can at least see some meaningful changes outside the BCC area but it should not have been as rushed as it was.

[#Metro]

OK, I'm going to suggest something interesting.

How about this?

We get a team of BCC-located representatives together, and we beat the door down until we get a meeting with the BT people to express our concerns and state our position to them directly.

Clearly banging away at them in the press is not going to achieve the desired result by itself.

Thoughts?

It is possible, but so long as BT is a division of BCC, I think all we are going to hear is bus bus bus and how Brisbane is going to be the new Bogota.  Years ago I actually asked the manager of BT why Perth ran buses to trains and had no issue with interchange, and why we couldn't do that here? The response was 'Perth is a linear city'. There were transport academics in the room, and I swear they were all very upset, and know the issues well. Paul Scurrah, head of QR at the time was somewhat offended also there and solidly said that he would like to see BT run a bus to the Gold and Sunshine Coasts and put a toilet on it or something like that - something that BT would never do since the universe for them ends at Logan's council boundaries.

The bottom line is the Lord Mayor would rather have people stuck in traffic on Coronation Drive for 25 minutes or up to almost two hours as long as they were stuck on a Brisbane Transport Bus and not on a QR train. It is apparent that all councillors drove to the council meeting and some, incredibly, but perhaps unconsciously managed to shoot down vastly improved servies to their own ward areas! I mean what do you do?  The Lord Mayor is wearing two hats - as Bus Company CEO and as Lord Mayor of a council.

Ultimately governments need to be responsible for their own decisions, and if you make bad decisions then I think it is only fair that you roast in your own juices so to speak. If BCC wants to run a high cost, air parcel service that is only attractive to pensioners outside the BUZ network, then so be it. The BUZ network is actually something good, but we need more of that and there is no magic pudding to get funds for more BUZ services - fares and subsidies at all levels are already at maximum limits. The last gov't lost an election on fare rises, can't they see how toxic another large fare rise after this debacle will be?

BCC actually have very good public engagement processes due to all the neighbourhood planning and so forth, so I don't think the consultation will be so bad. However the scope has been restricted to direct service network, which is a bit like running a massive consultation on something that is only going to be window dressing and I strongly suspect that the plan BCC comes up with will be even worse than TransLink's simply because there will be even less high frequency services to areas such as Bulimba, Centenary, Yeronga, Albany Creek etc. I think this point needs to be really pressed - will the BCC's plan have more or less high frequency services than the current translink plan?

[longboi]

Years ago I actually asked the manager of BT why Perth ran buses to trains and had no issue with interchange, and why we couldn't do that here? The response was 'Perth is a linear city'.

Clearly hasn't looked at a rail network map. If bus/rail interchange is only possible in "linear" cities, I wonder how the likes of London and Toronto manage?

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

24th March 2013

Re: Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council

Greetings,

The minutes of the BCC meeting where the bus review was discussed is here --> http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council/governance-strategy/committees-meetings-minutes/meeting-minutes/index.htm

It is alarming to say the least. Many Councillors have denied their constituents bus improvements.  Personal opinions by the Lord Mayor and others goes against all the public transport research available in the literature, and the real experiences of networks elsewhere in Australian and globally.  Connected networks are the only way our system can improve.  Over 50% of the buses are simply not carrying sustainable loads in the present system.  More frequency, better connections will transform the network, this is the global experience.  Brisbane is not a special case, it is however a good example of poorly designed, under performing network, with some of the worlds highest fares for a very mediocre outcome.

Some of the Councillors do have some things correct. For example Cr King highlighting the relentless fare increases.  Others are in fairy land.

The failure of the Minister for Transport to get Brisbane Transport to cooperate with the review is the basic cause of the problem.  Where operators had cooperated with TransLink for the review the outcomes were excellent.  For example stage 3 for Ipswich, only 10 pieces of feedback.

An interesting discussion on the bizarre BCC minutes can be followed from here -->   http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9045.msg122712#msg122712

Take the time to read the discussion, you will no doubt be alarmed that the LNP Government has deserted the citizens of south-east Queensland for politics.

The way TransLink has been treated by the Minister for Transport is disgusting.  A call for his resignation has been overwhelming supported by our members ( see http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9749.0  )

The future of public transport in SEQ is now very grim.

Not cheered at all.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

23rd March 2013

Re: Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council

Greetings,

Interesting article from the Couriermail below.  Nearly a year old but right on the mark don't you think?

Couriermail 11th April 2012 pages 18-19


http://backontrack.org/docs/cm/cm_11apr12_p18.jpg


http://backontrack.org/docs/cm/cm_11apr12_p19.jpg

Best wishes
Robert

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

Media release 23 March 2013



Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers calls for legislation amending The City of Brisbane Act to remove Brisbane City Council's public transport functions.

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Brisbane City Council's Bus review has as much credibility as a cigarette manufacturer calling for a review into the effects of its own cigarettes. The Lord Mayor is effectively the head of Queensland's largest bus company."

"Money that would have been spent on high frequency all day service or improvements to Bulimba, The Centenary Suburbs, The Northwest and Yeronga for example,  will now be spent on running buses full of air all the way from the suburbs, into to the CBD, continuing to worsen bus congestion and reliability."

"Yeronga and the Centenary suburbs are amongst the worst affected by the scrapping of the high frequency bus plan."

"Will the Lord Mayor announce a Centenary BUZ, Yeronga BUZ, BulimbaGlider and Albany Creek BUZ as part of the Brisbane City Council Review to make up for the loss of planned high frequency services to these areas?"

"Will Brisbane City Council cut any bus routes and if so which ones and where?"

"Will Brisbane City Council continue to ignore other operators and run an independent network without due regard to optimise all modes such as rail and other bus operators? Will they still focus on council boundary border 'hissy-fits' complaining that non BCC residents are on Brisbane Transport buses?  South East Queensland is bigger than Brisbane Council and needs an integrated public transport network, not Brisbane Transport and the rest."

"The fact that Brisbane Transport did not cooperate with TransLink and the real bus review, highlights the self serving, selfish and anti-public transport stance of Brisbane City Council. All other operators did.  Had Brisbane Transport taken part in the TransLink review there is a little doubt a much better overall outcome would have been achieved, and consequently an improved network."

"TransLink has been used as an ATM, now a shell agency and a lapdog for the Brisbane City Council. Brisbane Transport, the bus operator that TransLink is supposed to be regulating and contracting has captured full control of the agency, TransLink via the BCC. No other bus operator has been able to do this. Brisbane Transport can do as it pleases, invent and foist services upon the agency at will such as the Maroon WasteGlider."

"Now planning a multi-billion dollar bus tunnel, also outside its jurisdiction, it will no doubt want the State Government to pitch in 100% of the cash for that it so it can continue to operate its high-waste direct service to the CBD bus network."

"Where does it end? When does the Minister put his foot down and say enough is enough?"

"The whole idea of TransLink doing the route and network planning is to keep costs down for passengers. By keeping the network simple and efficient, fares can be low and stay low while connecting everyone with decent service. Now with the agency captured, the Minister powerless and groveling, and the operator, Brisbane Transport at the controls drawing up the routes, there will be extraordinary upward pressure on fares and taxpayer subsidies to rise. The next fare rise is a planned whopping 7.5%, and potentially 20% or higher."

"We believe that Brisbane Transport and Brisbane City Council must be broken apart and special state legislation altering The City of Brisbane Act 2010 must be introduced to require Brisbane City Council to divest itself of bus operations. Only by doing this will south-east Queensland's public transport network be significantly improved, transformed into a connective network and put on an economically sustainable model without the huge fare increases as we have seen since 2010."

References:

1. Bus review gets passed to Brisbane City Council http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/03/bue-review-gets-passed-to-brisbane-city-council.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Regulatory capture occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called "captured agencies".

Contact:

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

[ozbob]

OK, I'm going to suggest something interesting.

How about this?

We get a team of BCC-located representatives together, and we beat the door down until we get a meeting with the BT people to express our concerns and state our position to them directly.

Clearly banging away at them in the press is not going to achieve the desired result by itself.

Thoughts?

Go for it, any volunteers?  I am not able to directly participate at the moment but I am sure others can lead that.

[SurfRail]

I wouldn't be coming along for the obvious reason:

OUTLANDER!!!

[#Metro]

How hard is it to change from bus to train?
This hard!!

How hard is it to walk
This hard!!

http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf

[techblitz]

and in the case of chermside......how hard is it to walk accross the road and catch the inbound 340,330?
not hard at all......but the majority still refuse

Translink probably should have thrown a few interchanging questions into thier recent surveys/studys.

[somebody]

The deputy mayor uses particular figures which are taken from BT. How do I know this? Because I actually have the graph and the link to it. It is here --> http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conferences/2012/BRT/Warren.pdf
It comes from page 19.

Great link.

OK, I'm going to suggest something interesting.

How about this?

We get a team of BCC-located representatives together, and we beat the door down until we get a meeting with the BT people to express our concerns and state our position to them directly.

Clearly banging away at them in the press is not going to achieve the desired result by itself.

Thoughts?

Worth a shot.  Doubt it would go anywhere though.

and in the case of chermside......how hard is it to walk accross the road and catch the inbound 340,330?
not hard at all......but the majority still refuse

Translink probably should have thrown a few interchanging questions into thier recent surveys/studys.

Majority probably don't understand.

[ozbob]

Worth noting again ..

In recent years bus operating expenditure has grown rapidly, from $475 million in 2009/10 to $580 million in 2011/12. Service priorities have typically built on top of existing networks with new routes added and frequencies increased, rather than addressing any historic network inefficiencies associated with the way services have been planned in the past. This is typified by the South East Busway, where a high number of parallel bus routes operate on the busway from Mt Gravatt to the Brisbane CBD while many other on-road routes also operate in parallel corridors and/or following indirect routes. In summary the operating costs have increased in Brisbane by 35.5% with 2.9% more passengers and in the whole of SEQ by 22.1% with 1.6% more passengers.

These cost increases are partially proportional to service increases, with total in-service kms up 17% in Brisbane and 9% in the rest of SEQ. The remaining cost increase is attributable to the increasing cost of providing the same services i.e. with no increase in input resources.
This results from price rises (for example in fuel and labour costs), step costs (of depots and fleet maintenance) and also the cost of traffic congestion, whereby the same service costs more to provide due to slower average speeds.

This review is about efficiency of resource allocation but also fundamentally about effectiveness of investment i.e. attracting more passengers with the same resources.

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/seq-network-review-part1-introduction.pdf

Infrastructure constraints

Inner city capacity issues are emerging in Brisbane as more and more buses try to access the CBD. While new infrastructure will be required eventually, there is a need to make the most of existing infrastructure.
Under the 'business as usual' scenario, the number of buses entering the CBD in the AM peak hour could increase from about 600 (2011) to over 1070 in 2021. Adelaide Street currently carries about 220 buses per hour in the peak and is a significant constraint resulting in delays. To assume Adelaide Street could handle almost double the number of buses as currently operating is not sustainable.

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/seq-network-review-part1-introduction.pdf

Capacity Utilisation

Capacity Utilisation measures the average load compared to the number of seats provided in the bus
network. Essentially, it is a measure of how full the buses are. The bus network capacity in SEQ is well
utilised during the peak periods on weekdays, but less so in the off-peak periods and weekends.
Currently, 50.3 % of bus services have an average load less than 7 passengers (where average load is
measured over the entire length of the route). 83.8 % of bus services have an average load less than 14
passengers. Given issues related to costs of vehicles and congestion along key corridors, the review aims
to increase capacity utilisation, particularly along key corridors and between key centres.

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/seq-network-review-part2-current-network.pdf