SEQ Bus Network Review

[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

If you add that the average passenger does a journey roughly twice as long on rail as bus, shows that the cost per passenger-km is still slightly higher on bus than rail.

Both modes need to reduce costs.

[ozbob]

Both modes need to reduce costs.

[ozbob]

One of the positive aspects of this review was that TransLink wanted to use the existing capacity more effectively bus and rail. Using the existing capacity by feeding rail returns considerable cost benefits.  Putting another 400 pax on a train, just uses the existing services, to do the same on bus you need say another 7 buses and drivers. The TransLink planners were trying to achieve that to use rail to generate better cost reductions, but BCC fails to grasp these fairly basic planning considerations. 

[somebody]

One of the positive aspects of this review was that TransLink wanted to use the existing capacity more effectively bus and rail. Using the existing capacity by feeding rail returns considerable cost benefits.  Putting another 400 pax on a train, just uses the existing services, to do the same on bus you need say another 7 buses and drivers. The TransLink planners were trying to achieve that to use rail to generate better cost reductions, but BCC fails to grasp these fairly basic planning considerations.

I think having a Moggill-UQ route running frequently at least in peak hour would be a real positive.  Would allow interchange to the trains as well as the direct service to UQ.

[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

The 199 patronage graph is interesting - one can see the Glider and 196 BUZ drop offs in patronage.

444 graph has some unexplained features.  Was patronage really almost static in 2008 vs 2007?  88 shows a clear drop in 444 patronage.

[techblitz]

One of the positive aspects of this review was that TransLink wanted to use the existing capacity more effectively bus and rail. Using the existing capacity by feeding rail returns considerable cost benefits.  Putting another 400 pax on a train, just uses the existing services, to do the same on bus you need say another 7 buses and drivers. The TransLink planners were trying to achieve that to use rail to generate better cost reductions, but BCC fails to grasp these fairly basic planning considerations.

unfortunately when your a politician,councellor,minister.Cost benefits can take a back door and people power prevails most of the time.
But dont let that stop you trying to prove this theory wrong

I also think with this review we have probably learned something.
Commuters who dont like interchanging pretty much have the same mindset as the person who jumps in thier car just to go down the road to the local shops.

The question is `Can this easy lifestyle choice be changed?

[bagbuffy]

One of the positive aspects of this review was that TransLink wanted to use the existing capacity more effectively bus and rail. Using the existing capacity by feeding rail returns considerable cost benefits.  Putting another 400 pax on a train, just uses the existing services, to do the same on bus you need say another 7 buses and drivers. The TransLink planners were trying to achieve that to use rail to generate better cost reductions, but BCC fails to grasp these fairly basic planning considerations.

unfortunately when your a politician,councellor,minister.Cost benefits can take a back door and people power prevails most of the time.
But dont let that stop you trying to prove this theory wrong

I also think with this review we have probably learned something.
Commuters who dont like interchanging pretty much have the same mindset as the person who jumps in thier car just to go down the road to the local shops.

The question is `Can this easy lifestyle choice be changed?

Yes, I believe the Lifestyle can change, but over time. Introduce a few Routes as a trial, if the trial is successful then expand the network (As a positive step)  All people where seeing, was that their bus wasn't going down their  street anymore. Plus Translink had some harsh Community cuts that didn't go down well with the public.

[red dragin]

As more of a general member of the public rather than a advocate for better PT, I found the whole thing hard to follow with the overlaps etc, especially on a "iDevice".

An idea, though maybe not simple, would be to have setup a demo journey planner that could have shown the average person their new route vs old route.

And does BT/BCC actually have any planners on staff since Translink took over, or are they going to subcontract out to a tunnel traffic forecaster for their review? 

[#Metro]

That the question now be put:

Should Brisbane Transport be privatised or not?

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9762.0

[Golliwog]

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

The 199 patronage graph is interesting - one can see the Glider and 196 BUZ drop offs in patronage.

444 graph has some unexplained features.  Was patronage really almost static in 2008 vs 2007?  88 shows a clear drop in 444 patronage.

Looking more closely at that graph now rather than the original skim through I gave it, it's pretty poorly labelled. It's titled "Annual Growth compared with 2003 base year" which are two contradictory things. It's not an annual growth graph as an annual growth rate would be comparing the patronage of one year with the next (i.e. in your 2007-08 example of the 444 it would be down around 0, not staying roughly level at ~135%. I'm assuming it's not an annual growth rate because if routes 199, 150, 130, 200, 345, 385 and 444 had been experiencing over 100% growth annually since 2006/07 we'd have seen some far more significant complaints about overcrowding on buses...

[#Metro]

It is pretty clear that everything BT sees (despite being quite good) is through a bus/rail lens.

The reason why rail isn't so great is because there hasn't been a move in about a decade or more to introduce all day high frequency services, except on the FG line; and the FG line isn't frequent on weekends either.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

25th March 2013

Brisbane: Proudly achieving with a 1970s public transport network

Greetings,

The obvious shortcomings with the bus review were the poor community engagement and actually explaining the details.

There was little positive press, just mainly hysterical yarns about disappearing bus routes, which on closer analysis and explanation there were alternative new routes, and in some cases not.  However the feedback process was designed to sort out the issues and further inform the proposed changes. That will not happen now.

BCC is just interested in their own bus system.  They stood back from the bus review and in fact are the main reason why it fell over.  This fact was revealed on radio by Mr Emerson.  http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/03/bue-review-gets-passed-to-brisbane-city-council.html

The other regions where there was a much better relationship between the operators and TransLink informed the proposed changes and a good outcome achieved.  Ipswich generated 10 pieces of stage 3 feedback, shows what can be achieved.

I doubt if many people have actually read the review in full. http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review  There is a wealth of data and analysis that clearly shows Brisbane's bus system is broken and needs a lot of work.

Brisbane and SEQ cannot continue to not use all public transport assets properly.

If you haven't read this you really need to.  http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

All citizens should be alarmed that Brisbane particularly is being transported back to the 1970s.  One of the worlds worst performing public transport networks is about to get worse if that is possible.

Enjoy your commute!

Best wishes
Robert

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

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

25th March 2013

Rally for worse services, slower services and higher fares

Greetings

The amount of hysteria and misinformation that was circulating about the bus review makes the Salem witch trials look like a tea party.

On Saturday for example,  around 200 people or so gathered at the Inala Bus Interchange with Cr. Milton Dick and State Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk to rally against routes being axed and to seek guarantees from the Lord Mayor for the continuation of routes 122, 100 and 460 in particular.

700 people signed the petition.

We went to the TransLink website and what did we find?:

The 122 (S410) is being retained, and it is actually more, not less, direct, and therefore will be much faster under the connected network plan.

The 100 is being retained with almost no change, but it will have some services transferred to enable another high frequency route in the Inala/Richlands area to run.

Route 460 is being replaced by a number of routes, and is redundant because a brand new multi billion dollar train line, actually built at the direction of the current state member, and promoted early by her father, for that area and has now been built.

In the Tennyson ward, the local councillor blocked the introduction of high frequency services to her own area that would save Yeronga residents 45 minutes in waiting time and have buses every 15 minutes all day every day in preference to an hourly bus route that has a 10 minute indirect time wasting deviation on it. We just don't understand this logic.

Facts are that within the BCC area, the equivalent of almost $400 is taken from rates from each ratepayer across the city to pay for a bus network that is carrying 50% air. Air! If the connective network were in place, all of this air would be expelled at main interchanges - Garden City, Carindale, Indooroopilly, by pooling passengers which would allow only buses with good loads to enter the CBD, and buses to return to the suburbs to do another run.

The next fare rise of 7.5% is now locked in, as was the  number of huge rises of 20%, 15% and 7.5% that is making catching a bus unaffordable and fares the highest in the world. To travel one zone - basically from one end of Adelaide St to the other on a paper ticket already costs $4.80.

How much more will it have to rise to deliver the Lord Mayor's Bus Plan? 20%? 30%? There is a real risk that the plan BCC comes up with will have even less high frequency services than the one proposed by TransLink and actually be even worse!

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

Road to nowhere http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/road-to-nowhere-20130323-2gn0c.html

Route 100 http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-100.png

Route 122 http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-122.png

Route 460 http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-460.png

Sent to all outlets:

25th March 2013

Brisbane: Proudly achieving with a 1970s public transport network

Greetings,

The obvious shortcomings with the bus review were the poor community engagement and actually explaining the details.

There was little positive press, just mainly hysterical yarns about disappearing bus routes, which on closer analysis and explanation there were alternative new routes, and in some cases not.  However the feedback process was designed to sort out the issues and further inform the proposed changes. That will not happen now.

BCC is just interested in their own bus system.  They stood back from the bus review and in fact are the main reason why it fell over.  This fact was revealed on radio by Mr Emerson.  http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/03/bue-review-gets-passed-to-brisbane-city-council.html

The other regions where there was a much better relationship between the operators and TransLink informed the proposed changes and a good outcome achieved.  Ipswich generated 10 pieces of stage 3 feedback, shows what can be achieved.

I doubt if many people have actually read the review in full. http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review  There is a wealth of data and analysis that clearly shows Brisbane's bus system is broken and needs a lot of work.

Brisbane and SEQ cannot continue to not use all public transport assets properly.

If you haven't read this you really need to.  http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

All citizens should be alarmed that Brisbane particularly is being transported back to the 1970s.  One of the worlds worst performing public transport networks is about to get worse if that is possible.

Enjoy your commute!

Best wishes
Robert

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

[SurfRail]

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/03/25/is-the-qld-government-missing-the-bus/

[ozbob]

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/03/25/is-the-qld-government-missing-the-bus/

Thank you ...

[somebody]

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/03/25/is-the-qld-government-missing-the-bus/

It argues the changes would be revenue-neutral.

Doesn't that mean patronage-neutral?  Seems like the plan was mostly about cuts to me rather than promoting patronage.

EDIT: Where did the report actually say "revenue-neutral" - I've done a search and can't find it.

[ozbob]

No, patronage would have climbed bus and rail IMO, as it would also allowed some measures for fares as well.  It is just going to continue to slide from here now.  Rail will become marginalised and sold off.  Buses not far behind.

People who know what they are talking about (not BCC) can actually grasp the plan.  TransLink obviously had some expert input as well.  BCC planners must be feeling very marginalised from the rest of the transport planning community I think. Not their fault, but as Davies has concluded, " But the biggest problem this debacle shows up – which I'll have to leave for another time – is running the buses should be kept out of the hands of local government. "  Agree with that and unfortunately for Brisbane they are about to head for a far worse transport outcome now than the mediocre system at present.  Gutless leadership, no other word for it.

[SurfRail]

We need to release something drawing people's attention to the Crikey article.

I'm actually half-waiting for Jarrett to put something out on this.  Maybe somebody could enquire with him to see if he has any such plan?

(Can't jump in too much in the next month, I am covering for the boss who is overseas and uncontactable for until the end of April.)

[ozbob]

Simon: I read the ' revenue neutral ' aspect recently as yesterday, it might be in a statement.  I just can't remember at the moment where I saw it.

Re Davies' article, I have already tweeted it and will be sending an email later.

I sent a message to JW yesterday.

[ozbob]

It is implied ..

" The new network is expected to help grow patronage across the region therefore no increased operational expenditure is required overall. "

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

[ozbob]

We need to release something drawing people's attention to the Crikey article.

I'm actually half-waiting for Jarrett to put something out on this.  Maybe somebody could enquire with him to see if he has any such plan?

(Can't jump in too much in the next month, I am covering for the boss who is overseas and uncontactable for until the end of April.)

The link has been emailed out SurfRail ...  nice to have the support but the BCC and LNP Government are lacking any conviction.  They just want to sell it all off ...

[somebody]

No, patronage would have climbed bus and rail IMO, as it would also allowed some measures for fares as well.  It is just going to continue to slide from here now.  Rail will become marginalised and sold off.  Buses not far behind.

None of that is a fact, but it is your opinion.

[ozbob]

Of course it is and I said so IMO = IN MY OPINION, and so is yours ...  opinions flow freely on a discussion board ... on the web and in life actually.

[ozbob]

From Crikey here!

Is the Qld government missing the bus?

Is the Qld government missing the bus?
Alan Davies | Mar 25, 2013 9:01AM

Within weeks of floating it, the Newman government has backed away at the first sign of trouble from its dramatic new vision for an efficient, high-frequency bus network in South East Queensland

South East Queensland (SEQ) has lots of buses but there're sharp differences of opinion about whether they're managed as efficiently and equitably as they could be.

An important new report by public transport agencey TransLink, SEQ Bus Network Review, was released earlier this month by the Qld Minister for Transport, Scott Emerson. It identified a range of issues with the regional bus system:

    Capacity utilisation: Half of all services (50.3%) carry fewer than 7 passengers on average.
    Overlap: Two thirds of bus routes share more than 70% of their bus stops with another route.
    Frequency: Routes with high frequencies are much more attractive to patrons. Within the Brisbane City Council area, they account for 8% of all routes but 44% of all passengers.
    Utilisation: 84% of passengers on the frequent network travel between 7 am and 7 pm, but the same high level of service is provided from 6 am to 11.30 pm.
    Infrastructure constraints: Bus congestion in the CBD is acute. 600 buses per hour entered the CBD in the AM peak in 2011 (220 in Adelaide St). Under the business as usual scenario, this is expected to rise to 1,070 in eight years.
    Operating expenditure: Over the last three years, annual funding for buses increased 22.1% (from $475 million to $580 million) and in-service kms by 9%. However patronage only rose 1.6%.
    Legibility: There are 446 routes across the region and 230 in Brisbane. Navigating the network, and finding the right place to board in the CBD, is difficult for new and occasional users.

Public transport advocacy group Rail Back On Track endorsed the tenor of the findings. On 9 March, it issued a media release saying:

    We believe the current bus network is......operationally unsustainable because adding more and more buses to the system is causing huge congestion and delays in the city centre.....Brisbane's failing bus network presently prioritises transporting air over transporting passengers.

The TransLink report proposes these issues should be addressed by re-balancing resources away from under-used services toward a network of high frequency "turn-up-and-go" trunk routes.

It argues the changes would be revenue-neutral. The increase in patronage induced by the higher level of service would generate sufficient revenue to pay for the changes.

For example, it's proposed the number of high frequency routes in Brisbane would be increased from 16 to 26, bringing 20% more people within 400 metres of a trunk route. The focus of the frequent service network would primarily be on 7am-7pm services, 7 days a week.

Across the region, route numbers would be reduced 30%, largely by consolidating and eliminating under-performing services.

Capacity utilisation in corridors entering the city centre would be improved by requiring some passengers to forgo single-seat trips to the CBD. Some routes would be  redesigned as feeder services to trunk routes and rail stations, requiring a transfer.

Rail Back On Track endorses the direction of the changes, arguing that "recycling waste, duplication and inefficiency in the current bus network will give the city the simplicity, frequency and span of service that we need." It goes on:

    The current bus system is anti-patronage and doesn't serve the needs of the city. We look forward to a simpler, frequent and more reliable network.

There's considerable resistance to the proposals. For example, Qld planner Linda Carroli wrote on Larvatus Prodeo on 12 March that the "proposed changes will result in negative impacts which will become disincentives for bus usage". She's particularly concerned that:

    the direct bus route which runs mostly along Gympie Road will now terminate at Chermside Bus Interchange and require commuters to transfer.

Brisbane City Council, which operates the most services in SEQ, also opposes the changes. Last week the Transport Minister walked away from the recommendations, saying "there will be no changes to bus routes in Brisbane without full support of the Brisbane City Council."

He handed responsibility for implementing the report over to Council, which promptly announced they're dead in the water. Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said:

    Brisbane's bus network isn't broken and doesn't need a radical overhaul like the one proposed by Translink, which is why I've scrapped it now that the state government has handed council control.

This argument can be conceived of in terms of the inevitable tension in transit planning between the demands for 'patronage' versus those of 'coverage'.

Nevertheless, as I've argued before, I think the idea of a network of fast, frequent services is the right choice (I'm not, however, familiar enough with contemporary Brisbane to endorse the detail of specific route changes).

An effective public transport system that can service the whole metropolitan area rather than just the CBD requires that travellers be prepared to transfer.

I'm reminded of what transit planner Jarret Walker said recently when discussing a broadly similar proposal for Auckland. In considering the proposal, he asked Aucklanders to focus on the key question:

    Are you willing to get off one vehicle and onto another, with a short wait at a civilised facility, if this is the key to vastly expanding your public transport network without raising its subsidy? 

As the severe tram congestion on Swanston Street attests, even Melbourne's vaunted tram system suffers from too many single-seat trips to the CBD and too few access points.

The report notes that 20% of all trips in SEQ already involve a transfer, up from 13% in 2008/09.

So far as eliminating under-used routes is concerned, travellers have shown they're prepared to walk further to frequent, direct services.

It already happens in cities like Melbourne that have good rail networks. As I've noted before:

    Half of Melbourne's train travellers walk more than 800 metres (to the station) and a quarter more than 1.3 kilometres.

There are better ways of dealing with the transport needs of those who can't walk to stops than running under-used bus services e.g. demand responsive transit (which I'll look at in more detail next time).

The noises coming from the Transport Minister and the Lord Mayor indicate Brisbane isn't about to follow Auckland's lead (which isn't to say the rest of SEQ will necessarily follow suit).

Partly that's because the Government handled public consultation and "selling" the changes poorly and without conviction. I also think more emphasis should've been given to cross-town movement.

But the biggest problem this debacle shows up – which I'll have to leave for another time – is running the buses should be kept out of the hands of local government.

[hU0N]

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

How hard is it to walk
This hard!!

I know that your questions were rhetorical, but nevertheless, they are questions that have actually been studied at some length.  And the answer seems to be, changing from bus to train is 10 - 15 minutes worth of hard.

In other words, from a passenger point of view,

duration of a transfer = alighting time + walking time + waiting time + boarding time + the time value of the physical, mental and emotional cost of transferring. 

The final term in the equation equals about ten minutes.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Versus waiting in congestion on Sandgate road, Gympie Road, Old Northern Road, Coro Drive.... basically every arterial road to and from the City

[Gazza]

As an interim step, could we at least council convince the worth of transferring in situations where a genuinine time saving exisits, for example in Inala and Forest lake?

I mean, that idea of the gap local route with only one bus in and out was a bit of a stretch in terms of convincing people to transfer but there are areas where it genuinely could be done in an attractive manner?

[Mr X]

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.

I love how it has a picture of a bus jam on the Victoria Bridge, as if it's meant to be a good thing. lol!

[hU0N]

Versus waiting in congestion on Sandgate road, Gympie Road, Old Northern Road, Coro Drive.... basically every arterial road to and from the City

Absolutely.
I think this was a large part of the communication problem. Media and just about everyone else focused on the question "how long will it take me to get to the city?"

Which was a trick question from the beginning. Because, even where the journey times were shorter with a transfer, the benefit was less than the transfer penalty. 444 is a perfect case in point. Everyone got to arguing whether the time saving on a CBD journey was worth the inconvenience. It was nearly impossible to win that argument because the numbers are actually very close.

Fact is, once you factor everything in, the current network does give fast, direct connection to the CBD to a,lot of people. This point should be conceded (as should the congestion busting argument), because they sidetrack everyone into talking about the weaknesses of a connected network and strangle any chance of talking about it's strengths.

[#Metro]

In other words, from a passenger point of view,

duration of a transfer = alighting time + walking time + waiting time + boarding time + the time value of the physical, mental and emotional cost of transferring. 

The final term in the equation equals about ten minutes.

It really depends. And I think this is the "modellers" objection. http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

Secondly, due consideration must be given to the simple fact that it is impossible to give everyone a single seat trip. What if I want to go from Logan to Toowong? Just because I don't want to transfer and I might suffer physical and mental and emotional cost, does this mean I should get a bus route that takes me straight there? No, of course not. Buy a car! This is PUBLIC transport. Public = you share the space with other people, lot's of other people.

Secondly, I want to share my experiences of travelling on the 161 Paris Hilton Rocket. This bus is the EPITOME of waste. On weekends it terminates at Garden City and everybody has to change. On weekdays however, it is an all day, both directions rocket. I often get on this bus and think "hmm, I don't want to change" and this bus, with just ME on it, takes me EXPRESS to the city, all the way and over the captain cook bridge right into QSBS where it terminates. The bus could fit 80 people on it, but it just carries one person -me- on it.

Think about it - there are a bazillion other buses with empty seats both in front of me and behind me. There are 79 spare seats surrounding me - those seats could be better used elsewhere to make life more convenient for 79 other people. Yeah, it's inconvenient for me if the bus terminated and I had to walk down stairs (and suffer emotional distress of this) and wait a little, but I have this driver that is being paid $25+ per hour to drive me to the city, and I just pay ~$4.50 for that

That is just complete and utter waste, for my small inconvenience 79 other people could have had massive benefits. I think the focus here is on the wrong people being inconvenienced!

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

26 March 2013

Public transport crisis

Greetings,

Time the Government, BCC, and TransLink all take deep breath.  Public transport is in crisis.

Worlds highest fares for arguably the worlds most mediocre system for our type of jurisdiction.

The TransLink bus review was a correct step to reposition the network for more frequent, efficient services and sustainable growth, use all modes more efficiently.  BCC stood off consultation so they could sabotage the review. For this intransigence Minister Emerson has now allowed BCC to create further massive dislocation and failure. BCC still sees TransLink as some sort of ALP tainted anti-Christ movement it appears.  Minister Emerson should resign and allow the Assistant Minister for Public Transport, who directed the TransLink bus review  to get on with it.

Minister Emerson has failed to outline what is really going to occur from this point.  BCC cannot plan for an integrated network because they are only concerned about themselves and scoring political points.  They run the BT bus network in competition with other modes and just do not understand the major issues they have caused.  It is a tragedy of the highest order that the LNP Government is unable to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

The Brisbane media has largely failed to look at the review in depth, responding with hysterical articles that have lacked depth, research and balance.  Some exceptions and for those we acknowledge your professionalism, the rest have just furthered the political manipulation by BCC and others.  This will be a great cost to the community.

Minister Emerson, do you really think BCC is capable of addressing these issues in a self-centred review?

    Capacity utilisation: Half of all services (50.3%) carry fewer than 7 passengers on average.
    Overlap: Two thirds of bus routes share more than 70% of their bus stops with another route.
    Frequency: Routes with high frequencies are much more attractive to patrons. Within the Brisbane City Council area, they account for 8% of all routes but 44% of all passengers.
    Utilisation: 84% of passengers on the frequent network travel between 7 am and 7 pm, but the same high level of service is provided from 6 am to 11.30 pm.
   Infrastructure constraints: Bus congestion in the CBD is acute. 600 buses per hour entered the CBD in the AM peak in 2011 (220 in Adelaide St). Under the business as usual scenario, this is expected to rise to 1,070 in eight years.
    Operating expenditure: Over the last three years, annual funding for buses increased 22.1% (from $475 million to $580 million) and in-service kms by 9%. However patronage only rose 1.6%.
    Legibility: There are 446 routes across the region and 230 in Brisbane. Navigating the network, and finding the right place to board in the CBD, is difficult for new and occasional users.


From  http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/03/25/is-the-qld-government-missing-the-bus/

This is now a crisis of the highest order.  The TransLink bus review must be brought back into play.  Direct BCC to sit down with TransLink and work through the changes.  The investment in the bus review must not be wasted.  It was the correct thing to do.

Best wishes
Robert

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

[ozbob]

What Transport Minister Emerson has done is effectively allowing a dodgy accounting firm to audit their own books ...

Much grief on the way folks, time to dig in for the long battle ahead ...

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow

Lord Mayor Campbell Newman wants State Government to run buses --> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/campbell-newman-wants-state-government-to-run-buses/story-e6freoof-1225839337936 ... #qldpol #showstherealmentalityofBCC

" ... LORD Mayor Campbell Newman wants the State Government to run Brisbane's bus network, which he says is being overcrowded by commuters who live outside the city ... "

No idea what an integrated network is ...  Minister you need to act!!

[#Metro]

The minister can't act - on anything!!
Too busy operating this:

TOOTHLESS!!


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Short-haired-Dachshund.jpg

Lapdog image for satire purposes.

[ozbob]

Out at Greenslopes Hospital this morning, around 11am noted the 172 bus, one pax.  Shuttle bus arrived full ....

[hU0N]

It really depends. And I think this is the "modellers" objection. http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html

Secondly, due consideration must be given to the simple fact that it is impossible to give everyone a single seat trip. What if I want to go from Logan to Toowong? Just because I don't want to transfer and I might suffer physical and mental and emotional cost, does this mean I should get a bus route that takes me straight there? No, of course not. Buy a car! This is PUBLIC transport. Public = you share the space with other people, lot's of other people.

Absolutely this is the modellers objection.  But that doesn't mean it is irrelevant.  The Human Transit article itself states that there is significant documentation of (and research into) transfer penalty.  That's what got me thinking about it in the first place.

I found this article very useful http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/66798/52971233.pdf

The summary is, transfer penalty was measured for a particular subway system (and found to be 10min).  This was compared to measurements from other systems (and found to be broadly comparable with other measurements that are typically in the 10-15min range).  The transfer penalty was then analyzed to determine what part of it was intrinsic (ie part of the experience of transferring thus not avoidable), and what part was extrinsic (ie the result of an independent factors such as station design that could be mitigated).  He found that about 25% of transfer penalty is intrinsic, and about 75% is extrinsic.

The implication is, since you probably can't remove extrinsic factors entirely (unless the bus physically docks with the train and the seats motor themselves over to the new vehicle), you might be able to engineer transfer penalty down by quite an amount, maybe even close to the 25% floor.  Although I'd guess that most designers would probably be happy splitting the difference.

But that's not really my point.

Point is, it's unproductive to argue as if transfer penalty doesn't exist.  It's pointless to pretend that a 10-15min transfer penalty doesn't exist just because you need it to go away when you try to show a 444 passenger that they will be 12 minutes better off with a transfer.  It's a waste of time because people intrinsically know that they won't feel better off.  Why not just concede the point?  That way the discussion doesn't get bogged down, and can move onto the ACTUAL benefits of transfer based networks, ie affordability, frequency and reliability.  Concede that a persons journey to work actually won't be that much faster, but it will be more on time, cheaper and less bound to the vagaries of a timetable.  I mean, most people would probably agree that the physical, mental and emotional cost is a worthwhile trade for those benefits.

[Cam]

Caught route 88 from Roma Street to Indooroopilly on Friday at about 4pm due to the bridge strike at Indooroopilly. It took 33 minutes compared to 8 (express) or 12 minutes on the train. The scheduled trip is 30 minutes.

Only a handful of passengers boarded/alighted between Roma Street & Indooroopilly. The 88 travelled in tandem with the 444 that I found out takes the same route & stops at the same stops. What purpose does the 88 serve west of the CBD?

[petey3801]

What purpose does the 88 serve west of the CBD?

It helps BT make sure their pax don't go over to that pesky, evil railway that must be stopped as it keeps trying to steal all their passengers!

[somebody]

Caught route 88 from Roma Street to Indooroopilly on Friday at about 4pm due to the bridge strike at Indooroopilly. It took 33 minutes compared to 8 (express) or 12 minutes on the train. The scheduled trip is 30 minutes.

Only a handful of passengers boarded/alighted between Roma Street & Indooroopilly. The 88 travelled in tandem with the 444 that I found out takes the same route & stops at the same stops. What purpose does the 88 serve west of the CBD?

It was introduced before Indooroopilly had a 15 minute frequency rail service evenings and weekends and still helps to reduce congestion on the 444 outbound.

Not that it's a good solution for the west - I like the service for the southside, mostly.

EDIT: correct comment to "evenings and weekends".

[Arnz]

^

Indooroopilly had a 15 min frequency out of peak (the old Shorncliffe-Corinda interpeak) well before the 88 was started.