SEQ Bus Network Review

[somebody]

By 'all-stops', I mean using current stop spacing. Under my plan, all services are "all-stops", but stop spacing is essentially like express services.

Please explain to me how this is not intellectually bankrupt.  I will expand on this below.

Further to this, I'd add that when they have expanded limited stop services in Sydney, which are still pretty few and far between outside of peak hour on the bus system, they have seen an uptick in PT use.  I'm referring to the M52 and 333 services which are really the only properly limited stop significant expansion in PT use.  For the former, if you refer to STA Performance info you can see the M52 is receiving approximately 60 boardings per trip, and it's operating approximately twice as often as the L20 which preceded it (I think more), also the STA annual report shows an uptick in the parallel route 500's use on its introduction.  For the latter you can look at the Byatt/Oscuo/Rookes paper from thredbo10.  It shows a 4.4% uptick in PT use in the first year of the 333's use.  Overall STA's patronage has been fairly flat over a number of years.  Presumably growth has continued on the 333 and parallel services.

What is the reason to think that there shouldn't be limited stop services, or that they are stupid?  Ideology is the only reason I can see.  I've posted facts about how they work to improve the situation which no one has countered.

-
I thought I was frustrated with Rail: Back on Track's brain damaged representations on fares.  I warned that if we kept harping on, non-specifically, about the fares policy which was almost perfect, we might get a change that we don't like.  Well it happened that way.  We're very unlikely to get change until the next election.

I'm far more frustrated with RailBoT and RailBoT members on the bus review.  The best chance for getting improvements likely for a decade or more almost totally wasted for ideological reasons!  How can it be thought that getting rid of most rockets is a good move?  That's just intentional mediocrity, which is par for the course in Queensland.  There are a number of other examples which I won't mention.  The first proposal fixed a number of the problems with the network, but somehow Translink were persuaded to ditch it for some crappy ground up redesign which introduced more problems than it solved.  Translink should have known better than to listen.

colinw was right:

I darn well give up.  This group is broken beyond redemption.  Goodbye!

Notice that 3 people with technical nous (IMO), myself, colinw and stephenk have gotten very frustrated with this group now.

A parting thanks to petey3801 for adding facts to the technical debate.

If my account remains open I'll clarify any of the above points if I deem it worthy to do so, otherwise, Goodbye!

[ozbob]

People have different view points.  Your viewpoints are not necessarily always correct.  On many  points you just assume a superior knowledge.

You need to learn to let things go.

It was Minister Emerson that directed TransLink conduct the review.  BCC did not cooperate.  The direction to TransLink was very specific.

My own view is that the bus review failures has set back public transport many years.

Re fares. More to come on this I am sure.

This is not an expert group and has never been.  If you don't think others are worthy of your input, you have no need too.

People come and go.  Doesn't concern me in the slightest.

[ozbob]

I thought I was frustrated with Rail: Back on Track's brain damaged representations on fares.  I warned that if we kept harping on, non-specifically, about the fares policy which was almost perfect, we might get a change that we don't like.  Well it happened that way.  We're very unlikely to get change until the next election.

crap.  Our fare representations where actually in line with the Go Card Reference Group and the PTAG.   

The outcomes were not what anyone wanted at that level, but were a political kneejerk response, completely at odds with what we, Go Card Reference Group and PTAG had argued for. 

However, I am hopeful in line with the Premiers committment that a new fare structure will be announced as part of the six month plan.  Still a few weeks to go.

[ozbob]

Thanks for sharing your ideas HTG and James.  There was much to look forward to with the bus review.

All we have now is just more of the same effectively, and the very reasons why Mr Emerson called the review still remain in essence.

Had to smile.  Just received this feedback, thanks.  Again, the change that was needed is just a memory ... for now ..

As a resident of the Centenary suburbs I am constantly amazed to see queues of buses from here and Kenmore / Chapel Hill heading on to the Western Freeway.
I see the large area of essentially vacant land under the Centenary Motorway where the Richlands line leaves the Ipswich line and think surely a large bus / train interchange could be built there.
Even when the Legacy Way is opened the Centenary Motorway and the Western Freeway will be at capacity during peak hours and this will only worsen if traffic is attracted from the Ipswich Motorway by the convenience of Legacy Way.
Buses going to an interchange near Ipswich road would be going against the flow of peak hour traffic and would therefore be fast.
In short, I cannot comprehend why many more buses don't just support rail.

[ozbob]

Springfield railway cannot come quick enough.  The congestion on Ipswich, Centenary Highway is getting much worse.  Some of the proposed changes did make a lot of sense, even if they upset the anti-transfer brigade.  Guess they will start whining as the bus journey times continue to get worse and worse.  I suppose they will whine then that there are no parking spaces at railway stations or proper feeder bus networks ... lol

Well, you made your bed Brisbane, guess you are going to lie in it for a bit longer ...

[somebody]

cr%p.  Our fare representations where actually in line with the Go Card Reference Group and the PTAG.   

So the representations were in line with what a committee deemed a good idea...

[Arnz]

Notice that 3 people with technical nous (IMO), myself, colinw and stephenk have gotten very frustrated with this group now.

A parting thanks to petey3801 for adding facts to the technical debate.

If my account remains open I'll clarify any of the above points if I deem it worthy to do so, otherwise, Goodbye!

Stephenk is still around.  He just speaks in the third person as a blogger.

[#Metro]

I thought I was frustrated with Rail: Back on Track's brain damaged representations on fares.  I warned that if we kept harping on, non-specifically, about the fares policy which was almost perfect, we might get a change that we don't like.

At the risk of me sounding like a BT Planner,  I believe that we did want a fare review (and rightly so) but an election got in the way and the opportunity to do political tricks presented itself and the pollies could not help themselves but put on pork barrel specials with our own money.

There was a freeze on rego and freeze on electricity prices. Price controls straight out of the 1970's. Did we ask for rego freezes? No. Did we ask for electricity price freezes? No. The ALP had 10 then free already going, they were just undercut with 9 then free. Purely political self-interest on the pollie's part. We DID ask for health care card and unemployed to get discounts. Did we get that, no we did not.

The problem with the fares is the underlying costs that drive them are out of control, before fare reform needs to come network reform to release the savings. Before network reform, needs to come the separation of Brisbane Transport from BCC.

[SurfRail]

Nobody is irreplaceable folks. 

Moving on...

[James]

A 10 minute frequency has an average wait only 2.5 minutes better than 15 minute frequency.  Please explain how that is necessary to be included in the standard rather than letting it be based on loads, but it is not necessary to speed up buses by 2 minutes per trip, saving operating cost? (Rhetorical question.)

Because the current system of express buses and all-stops buses is confusing to irregular PT users. Heck, not even until I started taking a stronger interest in PT did I really take notice of the idea. It also decreases network legibility and makes catching buses more difficult. Did I mention the 161 bus user who got a rude shock when he realised it didn't stop at Buranda?

10 minute frequency is half about frequency, half about capacity. If a BUZ route can justify 15 minutes in the off-peak, it can justify 10 minutes in peak most of the time. If peak-hour BUZ routes aren't going out full, more likely than not its because there are too many rockets being fired along the route and too much duplication (think 200 BUZ and the multiple rockets which cover that route).

It is also naturally a frequency increase. Rather than a user having to remember 'My BUZ frequency is ever 15 minutes, but this peak-hour rocket runs every 15 minutes sometimes then every half hour but it runs every 10 minutes for a bit too', they can remember the basic rule of thumb that peak services run every 10 minutes. It is about having a simple, legible network. Once I was trying to catch a bus to Toowong - I gave up knowing I could catch a train which would be faster, and it didn't leave from three locations in the CBD.

If this 'stopping for two minutes more' is such a big deal and such a huge burden on society, just rip out all the yellow stops and make all the buses all-stoppers (stopping only at the remaining express stops). There, problem solved.

Yes, I will admit I had poorly articulated myself regarding 'express' and 'all-stops' services above. When I said 'express' services once the intermediate stops had been ripped out, I meant services following the current 'express' stopping pattern. Of course if there is no all-stopping pattern the express services will become all-stoppers by default. There isn't a need to nit-pick to defend your argument.

Ok, sounds like you concede my point.  S99 diversion is not viable for service to RB&WH, without making that part of the service hideously useless for other trips.

It's more than 500m from RB&WH to either Bowen Hills or Fortitude Valley.

It depends on the classification of the service - coverage or patronage. Of course servicing the two is going to be difficult, but you were making it look like we needed a whole new route. And that last comment was in reference to the 'patronage' routing of S99. Those not mobile enough could change to a bus at RCH to get to RBWH via the busway. Those mobile enough can walk to RBWH.

You miss my point.  I was referring to the lack of maps.

Only 4bph in the peak direction for southside routes.  Hardly the end of the world.

There is a map of KGSBS right here: http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/maps/busway-station/130201-king-george-square.pdf

I do concede that removing 444 services in peak wouldn't be a huge thing, but its the principle of it.

You crack me up.  Even if that is so, give me a reason why they should be ignored in favour of people along Calam Rd who should have the 137 and 141, not to mention the 130 and 140 routes to use.  There isn't one I say.

I'm sure you must be trying to say something else here, otherwise you are countering your own argument.

Yes, on that point I am saying that generally you can whack a rocket anywhere and watch patronage soar - even P173 (which uses the awful 172 routing) gets quite decent patronage, and it doesn't even have decent frequency.

The issue with the 131 is that it duplicates pre-existing routes along 90% of the route, and due to it only operating in peak, is only useful for commuters. The difference with Calam Road is that it is on the key Mains Road corridor heading to Algester, Parkinson, Stretton and Browns Plains. A bus needs to get to the CBD somehow, and as it stands Calam Road is the main corridor. It is a point which ends up getting service because it is on the way to the CBD, not because it is a destination in its own right.

It is like complaining and saying the people who live along Moggill Road in parts of Chapel Hill don't deserve BUZ 444 because Chapel Hill Road has the same density and demand. If Helawell Rd service is necessary, service it with a cross-town coverage route.

Yes, 2 frequent routes.  The synergies of that justify the investment.  The other side of the Centenary Hwy can get something too but that is hardly relevant to the discussion.  I don't care for your argument that because the east side of the hwy might be cr%p so should the west side of the hwy.

You support the current Northern Suburbs network which is full of PT blackholes and useless bus routes while you support TWO frequent routes to Jindalee/Mt Ommaney/Riverhills?

We need to look at spreading out resources evenly. Yes, I too think the Centenary Suburbs deserve two BUZes. But I strongly disagree with the notion we should give the western side of the freeway two BUZ routes while swathes of Chapel Hill and Kenmore remain PT blackholes with infrequent and poorly designed bus routes which run hourly off-peak and half-hourly in peak.

Yes, not everybody in Centenary gets a frequent route, but F25 covered most residents and was a well-designed route. Instead, the remaining areas can get a secondary route and the remaining resources can be put into funding either a Chapel Hill or Kenmore CFN (I use CFN instead of BUZ as I don't believe these routes should continue to the CBD, nor should they run to 11pm at night on 15 minute frequency).

I understood perfectly.  I just didn't see the big deal.  411 runs 3/hr, 428 runs far more often than it should.  Ideally it would be in the middle of some 411 trips but if not, it's not a perfect world.  It won't be reducing longest waits unless it operates as often as the 411 does.

Last I checked, the 427 didn't serve ANY of the same stops as the 411 after UQ.  Another irrelevance.

427 serves Ironside State School at all times - always will during school terms, and apparently "if requested" at all other times.

I was talking about off-peak and counter-peak here. Peak frequency (even at 2pm in the afternoon going from UQ) is more than satisfactory along this corridor. Come to UQ one day and try and catch a bus to a destination along/off Hawken Drive. It is a big deal because:
1. The 411 goes out carrying air. By making it 15 minutes later than the 428, at the very least, it will make things more convenient for residents along Swann Road/Hawken Drive and stop this bus carrying so much air! Right now I can end up waiting up to 29 minutes for a bus taking me to a destination no more than 30 minutes walk away. Especially for short trips like this, frequency matters.
2. The 427 runs in the late morning are often empty because a 432 has left only 8 minutes earlier and a 428 leaves 7 minutes later.
The runs in the opposite direction often do better because from some places on campus it is a struggle to get to the bus stop by :55 if you leave your lecture/tutorial at :50, and hence the 427 runs at :00 or :05 do a lot better.

The patronage these routes carry could be improved by a fair amount just by cutting services which don't need to exist and modifying services to provide improved frequency to residents. Often I have walked and on weekends, driven a car to UQ because of the patchwork nature of the bus services.

No, they should not be avoided.

Elaborate further on this comment of rockets. A lot of these rockets really don't provide much in time savings thanks to congestion. P142 is a rocket which I agree should exist, two Centenary Rockets (P455 and P456) - these DO save time and provide capacity which would otherwise be wasted. Other rockets which should continue to be provided due to the lack of capacity through the core section of the busway (Mater Hill to Victoria Bridge) include P217, ONE P-rocket to cover the 130 BUZ area, ONE P-rocket to cover the inner section of Mains Road and so on.

Rockets which shouldn't exist in my opinion include the P431, P446 and possibly P426 as well. Peak-only routes are often a sign of the existence of poor and indirect off-peak routes (think 105 vs. 107/108) which could very easily be replaced with simpler routes. I disagree with the P107/P109 routes scheduled for Chelmer/Graceville/Sherwood, unless data shows that people in those houses are 'untapped' demand which currently do not already go to rail.

Note the big reason for prepaid rockets is not primarily speed, it is due to the busway being a victim of its own success (and hence to manage capacity, buses must go via CCB). In this same breath, we need to stop the madness of rockets all going from different locations in the CBD. If QSBS ends up half-empty in the off-peak, so be it, it is far better than having this current network which is illegible and requires you to pick a place to wait for a bus as quite possibly another bus leaves you behind.

Perhaps so but almost everyone in the catchment, which is non zero, ignores it because its easier to park at the station. The 467 actually didn't used to do that.  It used to only run Sinnamon-Oxley.

Oh it's very necessary.  Without paid parking no one will use a feeder bus when they have a car in the garage.  They'd much rather compete with other travellers for parking space.

I don't think once a feeder network is in place that a Park n Ride charge should be compulsory. Firstly provide the network and see if it changes behaviour. If it doesn't, then charge. Remember, people don't like paying for something which they think should be free. Unless you introduce parking restrictions as well, people will park in back streets. Go out to Chermside or Carindale one day and see what happens when you take away people's ability to Park n Ride.

The 329 route is too short to draw any patronage, that's why it costs the taxpayer. The route needs to be lengthened into Bracken Ridge and made to meet every train in peak. Yes, the current 329 routing is pretty average. It doesn't mean the route should be trashed. In relation to the 467 - Oxley and Darra are two places which once provided with a better feeder network - can be given paid parking. In fact, they should be some of the first. Ensure Oxley Central introduces a Westfield-like parking system too.

Further to this, I'd add that when they have expanded limited stop services in Sydney, which are still pretty few and far between outside of peak hour on the bus system, they have seen an uptick in PT use.  I'm referring to the M52 and 333 services which are really the only properly limited stop significant expansion in PT use.  For the former, if you refer to STA Performance info you can see the M52 is receiving approximately 60 boardings per trip, and it's operating approximately twice as often as the L20 which preceded it (I think more), also the STA annual report shows an uptick in the parallel route 500's use on its introduction.  For the latter you can look at the Byatt/Oscuo/Rookes paper from thredbo10.  It shows a 4.4% uptick in PT use in the first year of the 333's use.  Overall STA's patronage has been fairly flat over a number of years.  Presumably growth has continued on the 333 and parallel services.

What is the reason to think that there shouldn't be limited stop services, or that they are stupid?  Ideology is the only reason I can see.  I've posted facts about how they work to improve the situation which no one has countered.

Firstly - it is not about whether the service is 'all-stops', 'limited-stops' or 'non-stop' - it is about the SPACING of these stops and HOW MANY stops are made as well as the SPEED of the road. The Gold Coast train is all stops Beenleigh - Varsity Lakes and it is hardly as slow as an all-stops Roma Street - Beenleigh train. That's because the Beenleigh train makes 24 stops vs. Gold Coast's 5 stops.

With the current state of the all/limited stops services, it makes no sense that we continue to have all stops services east of Indooroopilly. Sure, if we spaced stops so that the only bus stops between Indro and the CBD were at Taringa, Toowong and Auchenflower, sure, put in an all-stops service. But right now the all stops services don't take much longer than express services, there are not many more stops compared with express services and it adds another level of network complexity. I am not against limited stops services, but they need to be WORTHWHILE. There is a limited-stops express which already exists along the Coronation Drive corridor, it is called the Ipswich/Richlands line.

On Gympie Road, same thing. The 330 (non-stop Chermside - RBWH) takes two minutes less than the 370 (all stops Chermside - RBWH). 333 takes one minute less than the 370. Now tell me that limited-stop services are necessary.

On the note of 9 then free - broken fare policy. Better off going back to 10 than free and reducing fares by 10%. No net money loss for commuters, but it allows for fares to go down 10% for the general population - making PT more attractive which will in turn boost the subsidy. 9 then free only ingrains in the minds of the people of SEQ that public transport is strictly for commuting to the CBD for work. Until we get out of this mentality, PT will never go far.

[#Metro]

Did I mention the 161 bus user who got a rude shock when he realised it didn't stop at Buranda?

Paris Hilton isn't complaining. 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Just saw 346, 360, 370 just go through the valley together. A minute or two later 379 and 375 trundled along. Gotta love the traffic light cycles. Corridor duplication at its finest. Missed the 370 but got the 360 and 346 in the photo so I will post that and other photos when I can.

[somebody]

I invoke my out, but only because James is new around here and these points haven't been discussed since his arrival.

Because the current system of express buses and all-stops buses is confusing to irregular PT users.

Way to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  They should have the words "express stop" printed in legible type on every white stop rather than the stupid colour codes.

10 minute frequency is half about frequency, half about capacity. If a BUZ route can justify 15 minutes in the off-peak, it can justify 10 minutes in peak most of the time. If peak-hour BUZ routes aren't going out full, more likely than not its because there are too many rockets being fired along the route and too much duplication (think 200 BUZ and the multiple rockets which cover that route).

Unconvinced.  And there is a 4 minute turnaround standard in the drivers awards, making it somewhat prickly to operate a second route from a QSBS stop which includes a BUZ at the 10 minute standard.

It is also naturally a frequency increase. Rather than a user having to remember 'My BUZ frequency is ever 15 minutes, but this peak-hour rocket runs every 15 minutes sometimes then every half hour but it runs every 10 minutes for a bit too', they can remember the basic rule of thumb that peak services run every 10 minutes. It is about having a simple, legible network. Once I was trying to catch a bus to Toowong - I gave up knowing I could catch a train which would be faster, and it didn't leave from three locations in the CBD.

Just fix up the destination displays is good enough in the AM peak.  In the PM peak, fix the city stop locations.

If this 'stopping for two minutes more' is such a big deal and such a huge burden on society, just rip out all the yellow stops and make all the buses all-stoppers (stopping only at the remaining express stops). There, problem solved.

Again, not happening.  And besides, that would remove the welfare component of the service.

Ok, sounds like you concede my point.  S99 diversion is not viable for service to RB&WH, without making that part of the service hideously useless for other trips.

It's more than 500m from RB&WH to either Bowen Hills or Fortitude Valley.

It depends on the classification of the service - coverage or patronage.

Missing the point!  The fact is that the TL review should have catered better for someone travelling from Northgate to RB&WH and it didn't.

You miss my point.  I was referring to the lack of maps.

There is a map of KGSBS right here: http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/network-information/maps/busway-station/130201-king-george-square.pdf

Hardly meets the criteria.  You shouldn't need to cross reference the Adelaide St, QSBS and KGSBS maps to find your bus, which you would still miss if yours was an Alice St or Ann St route.  Not to mention the Edward St ones, e.g. 227.

If Helawell Rd service is necessary, service it with a cross-town coverage route.

You have no basis for this.

We need to look at spreading out resources evenly.

BUZ's success is built on doing the exact opposite.

427 serves Ironside State School at all times

Quite.  And so does the 432.  I could have been a bit more precise on that one.

Elaborate further on this comment of rockets. A lot of these rockets really don't provide much in time savings thanks to congestion. P142 is a rocket which I agree should exist, two Centenary Rockets (P455 and P456) - these DO save time and provide capacity which would otherwise be wasted. Other rockets which should continue to be provided due to the lack of capacity through the core section of the busway (Mater Hill to Victoria Bridge) include P217, ONE P-rocket to cover the 130 BUZ area, ONE P-rocket to cover the inner section of Mains Road and so on.

I'd agree that consolidating P207 and P217 is a needed move, as is P133 & P137.  Both of these were in TL's original proposal.

Rockets which shouldn't exist in my opinion include the P431, P446 and possibly P426 as well.

I'm not prepared to make such a pronouncement without more info.

I don't think once a feeder network is in place that a Park n Ride charge should be compulsory.

Yeah well I think without it the feeder network cannot succeed.  Ideally they'd come simultaneously, but that seems unlikely.

Firstly provide the network and see if it changes behaviour.

It's been tried, from my info.

The 329 route is too short to draw any patronage, that's why it costs the taxpayer. The route needs to be lengthened into Bracken Ridge and made to meet every train in peak. Yes, the current 329 routing is pretty average. It doesn't mean the route should be trashed. In relation to the 467 - Oxley and Darra are two places which once provided with a better feeder network - can be given paid parking. In fact, they should be some of the first. Ensure Oxley Central introduces a Westfield-like parking system too.

Further to this, I'd add that when they have expanded limited stop services in Sydney, which are still pretty few and far between outside of peak hour on the bus system, they have seen an uptick in PT use.  I'm referring to the M52 and 333 services which are really the only properly limited stop significant expansion in PT use.  For the former, if you refer to STA Performance info you can see the M52 is receiving approximately 60 boardings per trip, and it's operating approximately twice as often as the L20 which preceded it (I think more), also the STA annual report shows an uptick in the parallel route 500's use on its introduction.  For the latter you can look at the Byatt/Oscuo/Rookes paper from thredbo10.  It shows a 4.4% uptick in PT use in the first year of the 333's use.  Overall STA's patronage has been fairly flat over a number of years.  Presumably growth has continued on the 333 and parallel services.

What is the reason to think that there shouldn't be limited stop services, or that they are stupid?  Ideology is the only reason I can see.  I've posted facts about how they work to improve the situation which no one has countered.

Firstly - it is not about whether the service is 'all-stops', 'limited-stops' or 'non-stop' - it is about the SPACING of these stops and HOW MANY stops are made as well as the SPEED of the road. The Gold Coast train is all stops Beenleigh - Varsity Lakes and it is hardly as slow as an all-stops Roma Street - Beenleigh train. That's because the Beenleigh train makes 24 stops vs. Gold Coast's 5 stops.

With the current state of the all/limited stops services, it makes no sense that we continue to have all stops services east of Indooroopilly. Sure, if we spaced stops so that the only bus stops between Indro and the CBD were at Taringa, Toowong and Auchenflower, sure, put in an all-stops service. But right now the all stops services don't take much longer than express services, there are not many more stops compared with express services and it adds another level of network complexity. I am not against limited stops services, but they need to be WORTHWHILE. There is a limited-stops express which already exists along the Coronation Drive corridor, it is called the Ipswich/Richlands line.

On Gympie Road, same thing. The 330 (non-stop Chermside - RBWH) takes two minutes less than the 370 (all stops Chermside - RBWH). 333 takes one minute less than the 370. Now tell me that limited-stop services are necessary.

On the note of 9 then free - broken fare policy. Better off going back to 10 than free and reducing fares by 10%. No net money loss for commuters, but it allows for fares to go down 10% for the general population - making PT more attractive which will in turn boost the subsidy. 9 then free only ingrains in the minds of the people of SEQ that public transport is strictly for commuting to the CBD for work. Until we get out of this mentality, PT will never go far.

None of that counters my points above.  Not sure what you are looking at with the Gympie Rd example, but the timetable has a 4-5min difference.  If you are talking about a single example trip on each, that point is to be dismissed.

No way in the world would there be as wide spaced stops on Coro, Moggill Rd, Old Cleveland Rd or Ipswich Rd if it wasn't for the tiered services.  Similarly with the M52 in Sydney.

And that is my last word.

[#Metro]

And there is a 4 minute turnaround standard in the drivers awards, making it somewhat prickly to operate a second route from a QSBS stop which includes a BUZ at the 10 minute standard.

So that's what that is. I've heard over the radio in the bus a few times QSBS Control telling drivers not to arrive early and to drive around / drive out of QSBS and come back if they're early. Wastes fuel.

[HappyTrainGuy]

375 + 370 + 379 going to the valley together. All the passengers could have been transferred onto 1 bus.


360 + 346 + just out of shot to the right is the 370.


370 + 375


Also spotted this overcrowded 346.


I don't see any duplication here. Do you see any duplication LP?

[ozbob]

Noted an outbound 104 on Fairfield Road last evening around 6pm, zero pax.

The TransLink bus review was not perfect, but was a considerable improvement on the continuing BCC network failure.

Worth noting again that the TL review was based on hard data, actual pax numbers down to the number boarding and leaving every stop, not feel good notions about bus routes to my door.

BCC review is nothing but a charade.  Done in great haste because nothing really changed.  Only cuts but no real network gains.

There was room to compromise on both networks, but we are now stuck with continuing mediocrity, simply because of weak politics.

It is a very sad outcome for Brisbane, indeed.

I intend to plug away and work for improvements.  The Smart bus network in Melbourne is a good model in some respects. 

The test now for the LNP Government is to see how genuine they really are with respect to competitive tendering ... time will tell won't it?

[HappyTrainGuy]

On the northside alot of the city routes like the 379 were changed into east-west routes going via a busway station or two or connecting with a frequent/railway line for interchanging purposes and then took on duties of other routes across the suburbs which helped reduce duplication/cut other routes/implement frequent routes (eg Sandgate Road corridor Hamilton Road/Toombul-City) which I really liekd.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I can't see anything wrong with this bus network. 

Post morning peak hour flood of returning buses back to the northside. There was a third bus in the middle lane out of view in the first photo.



Now onto the in service buses. 379 + 375


370 chasing the above buses.


Now this is the typical example of the services between the valley and RBWH.
353 overtaking the 360.

360 catching up to the 353.

The 360 is at the far right about to go up the hill. The 375 is heading past in the middle and 370 is stopped at the bus stop. 379 was in the process of crossing the intersection behind the 370.

A close up since its not that clear.

And the 370 said hello.


Nothing will go past for about 10 minutes now which is enough time to walk to the busway station. Then the whole cycle repeats itself 

Meanwhile at Bridgeman Downs...

My bus will be coming along soon...



Any minute now.... Any minute now...

*stretches* Arrrrrrrrr---hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Any minute now.

[James]

I went on a trip to the northern suburbs today to tour around the bus network there.

Never have I seen so many empty buses. Never have I been on so many air parcels. Never have I seen so much waste. The network up there is a disaster. It's infrequent, indirect and quite frankly a total waste of money.

After reaching the CBD, I caught the 346 from Edward Street Stop 143 - a stop which it has in common with buses to Ashgrove and close to buses to Wynnum. So much for bus co-location. We left with one passenger and one passenger got on in the Valley - before BOTH got off at RBWH! So the bus ran all the way to Aspley with the sole passenger - me - on board!



And so this continued all the way to Aspley Hypermarket. The driver remarked as I got off that she was my personal chauffer. All it needed was an express leg and I would have felt just like Paris. 

I then crossed the road and caught the 338. The 338 is a good example of what happens to bus routes when you develop suburbia which is windy and is not developed with PT in mind - a slow, windy route which has difficulty capturing patronage for those reasons. The route had a maximum of 7 passengers on board - half of them elderly passengers from the retirement home in Albany Creek. What is the most depressing thing is that I think it was only second to the 308 in terms of buses today.

At Strathpine, transferred to a 327. I got on - and again - I had my very own chauffer!



The first passenger (aside from myself) only got on once we'd finished doing that horrible urban safari trip through Bracken Ridge. The Taigum shops were the main trip generator, although once again, no more than five passengers were on board at any one time. But really, it is easy to see why. From Strathpine it's a pretty poor way of accessing anything beyond Bracken Ridge, and down along Handford Rd the route is duplicated by BUZ 330. In the end, it was only really as the bus started approaching Toombul did it start picking up any passengers.

308 was probably the most highly patronised route with around 7 passengers. Not really a surprise - BUZing Route 300 and extending it to Chermside really is a good idea to be honest. Ironically it is the only route I travelled on which is slated for cuts in the BCC bus review - but I can see the point of it with the GCL existing Monday - Saturday.

Then I caught the 336. The bus driver in fact was telling passengers to catch other more direct bus routes. It isn't a bad feeder to say the least, but the fact is it is too slow, indirect and infrequent. It is pretty much the classic example of the feeders on the northside. Low frequency, indirect and poorly co-ordinated with connecting services. Leaving Aspley once again - I was the only person on board.



After returning to Chermside, I finally got on the 354. Only one passenger got of at PCH - although quite a few were waiting for a bus back to Chermside. Another route with poor patronage, poor operating hours and poor frequency. If it weren't for the 361, I would say this is the 172 of the northern suburbs. And in 172-like fashion - it duplicated a lot of pre-existing routes along the corridor. And once we passed Trouts Road, the route began carrying just me again - taxi to Brookside please!



Today's trip, in my mind, was all I needed to see how broken the network is. Compared to the network in the northern suburbs, the western suburbs has a "world clarse" network. In general, I just saw so many buses carrying air - at least two I saw while travelling I believe had one or no passengers aboard. The network is simply a disaster with infrequent routes, poor operating span, poor coverage routing and poor connections. It's shocking.

[Gazza]

Anyone reckon it would be good to do a few trips on the routes which "could have been BUZed" under the review....325, 175 etc?

[ozbob]

Brisbane: Bus changes --> http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review-2013/brisbane

[ozbob]

Thanks James ^

Diabolical is it not?   Brisbane City Council hang your head in shame ...   

[#Metro]

That's where your $400 bus tax within council rates go. Same story with the Paris Hilton Rocket, 198, 105 etc.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The 338 is a good example of what happens to bus routes when you develop suburbia which is windy and is not developed with PT in mind - a slow, windy route which has difficulty capturing patronage for those reasons.

Not to mention this massive kick in the testicles when reading the timetable.


The occasions that I have to ride it or see it most of the patronage are people from Albany Creek - Eatons Hill and usually picks up around the 1.30-2pm periods. Strathpine - Eatons Hill can also get about 10-15 people on the final service from workers finishing at Westfield, people transferring from a few trains but also students. Its also the same with the arvo on the Chermside end with it picking up in the peaks with workers at Westfield clocking off/living just outside Aspley. Its also a route that has its patronage really change from day to day eg shopping.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Team Quirk ‏@Team_Quirk 1m

Brisbane business delegation is greeted by Maori dancers at Auckland Airport to begin the Sister City visit. http://ow.ly/i/2sHM6

============

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow 22s

@Team_Quirk While you are there ask them to show you how to do a proper bus review! ....

============

[HappyTrainGuy]

 

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

27th June 2013

Lord Mayor must visit Auckland Transport

Greetings

RAIL Back on Track is aware that the Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk is in Auckland today. We urge the Lord Mayor to pay a visit to Auckland City Council's Auckland Transport and in particular on the issue of the Auckland Bus Review. Perhaps a copy of the Auckland bus review will convince him that connections are international best practice?

Both Brisbane and Auckland conducted bus reviews at the same time and came to the same conclusion - that the bus network needed connections introduced into the system to reduce waste, duplication and allow more buses more frequently to more places within the city.

Sadly, only the Auckland bus review was adopted with the Brisbane bus review dumped. We warn that Brisbane Transport's bus network is politically, financially and operationally unsustainable.

Auckland's New Public Transport Network -->

What is not sustainable shall not be sustained!

Best wishes
Robert

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

[#Metro]

I think it would be great if the video were on the RBOT facebook page with a message for Quirk. People can share it through their networks.

And also a message on

https://www.facebook.com/aklcouncil

would not hurt

[ozbob]

Had to smile last evening.  Heading into hospital inbound along the Ipswich car park near Rocklea, noted a couple of 100 BUZ buses bunched together in the outbound 'car park' (congestion is chronic there in PM peak).  First bus around 6 pax, second maybe one.

I think many have already decided rail is a better option ....

Not hard to see evidence of the bus review charade wherever one looks in Brisbane ...

[techblitz]

Had to smile last evening.  Heading into hospital inbound along the Ipswich car park near Rocklea, noted a couple of 100 BUZ buses bunched together in the outbound 'car park' (congestion is chronic there in PM peak).  First bus around 6 pax, second maybe one.

I think many have already decided rail is a better option ....

Not hard to see evidence of the bus review charade wherever one looks in Brisbane ...

Hmm...its good that your taking note of these loads ozbob (from rocklea) but with your high support of the HF TL proposed mt ommaney service.....sort of leaves me wondering

Most times that ive used or seen the route ive seen good general loads.I wont deny that ive also seen some air-parcels 100`s.
I regularly use this service from inala,annerley junction or Clifton hill (on occasions) Stats from TL clearly state `very high patronage' So we know the service is being used.Of course your going to see air parcels as part of the buz standard...even at peak on occasions

Which gets me back to your statement above that people are starting to ditch the 100 and its slow peak hour trip along Ipswich rd. As much as you WANT this to happen to push for the case of the HF Mt ommaney service...I myself cant see it happening.
If this was even remotely true....then there would already be more take-up patronage on routes like the 466 , with more people connecting to richlands. These services are STILL running ridiculously empty with max 10 passengers on the pm outbound services from richlands.
I will be using the new route 101 in both directions when it comes in and will be eager to see all those passengers that will be supposedly ditching the 100 .

In a nutshell.. 466 & 465...both failures due to people preferring the 100 buz DIRECT to the city...even on the car park congested Ipswich rd.

[ozbob]

Won't really know until a HF 25 was put in place ...   Ipswich Highway will be getting much worse ...

Put on a HF 25 Smart Bus, promote and see what happens.  That will do a lot for folks going to Springfield etc. as well.

BUZ 100 carries air a lot of time.  The high patronage really reflects the inner parts of  the routes that would have been well covered. 

The 100 was to remain anyway.  TransLink have the real data and that informed the initial review.  You know more?

I recall Simon posting once that the 100 BUZ is the most cost inefficient of all the BUZ routes ...

Anyway, what I see is what I see ...  I do not like your assertions of otherwise either.  I have been travelling counterpeak PM on the Ipswich Highway daily for the last two months for reasons I do not wish disclose.  I have yet to see a well loaded 100 bus (on the highway between Rocklea/Oxley).  Sure there will be some but the distinct impression I get it is not the most efficient BUZ on the network by a long shot.

[SurfRail]

A high-frequency long span of hours and no-change-to-the-city bus will attract more passengers than a low-frequency low span of hours bus to the nearest train station.  That doesn't make it the most efficient use of resources, nor is it proof high patronage will only come with transfer-free services.  We've now got conclusive data that it isn't.

[James]

Won't really know until a HF 25 was put in place ...   Ipswich Highway will be getting much worse ...

Put on a HF 25 Smart Bus, promote and see what happens.  That will do a lot for folks going to Springfield etc. as well.

BUZ 100 carries air a lot of time.  The high patronage really reflects the inner parts of  the routes that would have been well covered. 

The 100 was to remain anyway.  TransLink have the real data and that informed the initial review.  You know more?

I recall Simon posting once that the 100 BUZ is the most cost inefficient of all the BUZ routes ...

Anyway, what I see is what I see ...  I do not like your assertions of otherwise either.  I have been travelling counterpeak PM on the Ipswich Highway daily for the last two months for reasons I do not wish disclose.  I have yet to see a well loaded 100 bus (on the highway between Rocklea/Oxley).  Sure there will be some but the distinct impression I get it is not the most efficient BUZ on the network by a long shot.

I think I might have already put this on the forum, but for the last few months I have been needing to get to/from the Blunder Road area every few weeks. In this instance I have been coming from UQ. Every time I have used BUZ 100, it has been because of the FREQUENCY of the route. The fact I would have had a double transfer going via the 428/Ipswich Line/101 didn't weigh in to my considerations when thinking of 100 vs. 101. The 101 is HOURLY, and conveniently timed so it arrives just after a 100 BUZ along Blunder Road, which is running every 15 minutes.

It reminds me of 215/225. What would you rather catch if going to the CBD - an hourly feeder bus or an hourly bus to the CBD? The bus to the CBD wins every time, and with 100 (to the CBD) running every 15 minutes, no wonder it does well. The feeder needs to be more attractive and it needs to be shown to the people of Inala/Forest Lake that their journey times will be similar.

I have found that the 100 can get very good loads in the peak direction, but counter peak the route does awfully. In my opinion, BUZ 100 should have been turned into a feeder. I believe out of principle, buses should not be going from zones 5 and 6 directly into the CBD (130/140/150 are exceptions as they are more symbols of how Queensland has totally failed to effectively expand the capacity of the rail network). Buses are not efficient modes of transit for travelling long distances in cities. Unfortunately we've already gone down that path, so the 100 would need to be kept - I think 15 minute peak frequency + 30 minute off-peak frequency would be enough.

I think HF25 was a very good new route - the only issue I had was sending HF25 down to Riverhills afterwards. I don't think that was a good idea and it gave the tail of the route 7.5 minute frequency at 9pm on a Sunday night. Much better just to trim the route at Mt Ommaney.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Bus changes for Brisbane commuters

[ozbob]

The reasons why the TransLink review was commissioned by Minister Emerson still remain, and no amount of bluster and spin alters these basic facts ...


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

[techblitz]

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.

Theres not a chance in buggery this will ever happen. BT will be either broken up by then or they will have new infrastructure in place to address these so called 1070 buses. Talk about `talking it up' . Business as usual? I cant see any new routes being implemented for at least a year or more through the CC.
Loads are being handled extremely well at peak. Albeit a `minor` inconvenience of a slow trip through the inner busway for commuters....who to be honest are pretty much used to it by now.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Victoria Bridge our 'weakest link', say transport experts

Used to it?  LOL, not by the feedback I have seen ...  many are ranting and/or  giving it away, something has to give.

The BCC review reduces the number of buses by 15 only,  negligible improvement.

I agree they will be forced eventually to change.  Major infrastructure such as Bus Link is a long way away if ever ...

[HappyTrainGuy]

Out of service. Out of service. Out of service. Why the hell are there so many out of service buses along Gympie Road at 8.30 in the morning?


Oh... well that explains why.


Can they please merge the 370 into the 333 route for the short term to save a few bucks. There's just too much duplication. The 370 will shadow the 333 all the way to the busway because of the traffic on Gympie Road and its intersection setup.

[ozbob]

Interested bystander .. 'Hey, wasn't there a recent bus review that was going to reduce the duplication and drive more high frequency services to novel areas?' ...   'Oh, wait ...  that was in New Zealand ... '   

[HappyTrainGuy]

Merge the Gympie Road corridor routes and bring on longer buses. Heck even send the bendies that do the 111s up this way