SEQ Bus Network Review

[BrizCommuter]

There is a free transfer bus from Greenslopes busway to Greenslopes Hospital every 15-20mins. How very generous of Ramsey Healthcare (shame about the terrible nurse the patient ratio and inedible food)! Absolutely no need for Greenslopes Hospital to be served by a BT bus.

[SurfRail]

^ It may as well be though.  There was no particular imperative for bypassing it on the one coverage route that was left for that area - negligible difference to add one more kink into the route.

If there was no coverage route in the area, I would not support having a dedicated public bus just for the hospital - but there is.

[Gazza]

BrizCommuter, to put it in perspective Greenslopes and Holland Park West stations are 2.6km apart, and then an enormous gap till you get to Griffith station....There was always going to be a need for some sort of coverage route in that area, especially considering how hilly it is.

It's a "does no harm" situation to send the route via the hospital, especially since Greenslopes station is in such a useless spot for walkup pax anyway.

[James]

I don't really see the hate for the 172. Change it? Yes. Eliminate it, no?

The simple fact is the area would have 3 BUZ type routes under a proper review, one along the SEB, one along Logan Road, and one along Cavendish Rd.

The issue is that for coverage purposes you kinda need a route in between the SEB and Logan Rd due to the fact the SEB has stops so far apart.

I would have kept it, but realligned it so it was away from Logan Rd the whole time, and had it go via Greenslopes Hospital as a bonus.

Gazza, have you gone for a trip on the 172? Most of the coverage it does is between Logan and Cavendish Rd. The fact is, you either miss Deshon St or Greenslopes Hospital - the hospital already has a service, Deshon St under a TransLink review does not. Seriously, by the way the 172 twists and turns you'd rather walk or get somebody to drive you than use it to get to Greenslopes hospital.

[#Metro]

http://www.greenslopesprivate.com.au/For-Visitors/documents/GPH-Express-Coorparoo-Timetable-Oct-2010.pdf

Yes, there is a free private shuttle bus to Greenslopes Private Hospital and it can extend to Coorparoo station on booking. It operates in connected network mode, because as you will notice, it does not travel direct to the Brisbane CBD. If the GPH shuttle extended to the Brisbane CBD, it might be too expensive and not exist. Again, highlighting how connections make covering a wider area with the same money possible.

It again shows that people can and do transfer where convenient. Why can't the public transport bus do this?

A private shuttle that connects the hospital-busway is useful but suffers from the free rider problem. Short bus routes under 5 km tend to have low patronage because they don't serve many different demand generators. A private shuttle will be run to benefit the private hospital, but no-one else, since it is not in the interest of GPH to be giving out free busway connections for people not doing business with the hospital.

A public bus would have an advantage in that it could connect more destinations via the GPH hospital (i.e. as far away as Carindale) and have better marketing (through TransLink) and thus bring more passengers in.

The route 172 is a coverage service that does not need to go to the CBD. It should connect at Greenslopes busway and continue to another destination other than the CBD where it would terminate. A BUZ should be placed along Chatsworth Rd and potentially feed into (directly to the CBD or by termination) at Greenslopes Busway.

[aldonius]

Clarification for those like me who were/are confused - Deshon St under the TransLink review did have a service (S400, essentially the 172 replacement); this is basically mutually exclusive with servicing Greenslopes Hospital in the same route.

[SurfRail]

Clarification for those like me who were/are confused - Deshon St under the TransLink review did have a service (S400, essentially the 172 replacement); this is basically mutually exclusive with servicing Greenslopes Hospital in the same route.

There are 2 ways to do it - one is to duck straight in on and off Logan Rd, the other one is to follow more of the 172 alignment and pop back onto Logan Rd further north by using a convoluted route partly on Juliette and Dunellan Sts.  The first option would have been what I would have suggested at the time.

[#Metro]

900 CITYCONNECTOR: How to reconnect Brisbane's Suburban Centres

Under this proposal, The Great Circle Line would be replaced with new 900 series CityConnector buses running between major centres along a more direct, faster and more frequent alignment. To begin this process, four bus routes would be created from the BCC bus network and put up for competitive tender. These routes would be 900 Indooroopilly – Garden City, 902 Garden City to Toombul, 903 Toombul to Mitchelton and 904 Mitchelton to Indooroopilly.

Latest from LDT Blog ---> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?blog=124;sa=topic;id=6

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> The expanding suburb of Rochedale has fewer bus services now than five years ago with residents stranded at Eight Mile Plains after 6.25pm

[HappyTrainGuy]

It's all like that over the Brisbane network on the fringes. You arrive at a train station or bus stop only to find the buses have finished their shifts.....

[bagbuffy]

I Don't know what the big deal is surrounding the 172, while there are  still over serviced Buz routes. Every morning along Ipswich rd I usually see a 3/4qtr full 172 heading into the city, followed by a almost full 100 and a empty 100 tailgating behind.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

15th April 2014

"Strong Choices" required for BCC Bus Network

Greetings,

Documents linked to the new QLD Government 'Strong Choices' website confirm the ongoing charade that is public transport in south-east Queensland.

One of the website pages references the State Budget 2013-14 Service Delivery Statements Department of Transport and Main Roads where it states, among others,

"...improving transport service reliability, frequency and affordability – progressed the SEQ Bus Network Review in conjunction with Brisbane City Council (BCC)."

No it did not, and we ask that this line and others like it should be redacted from the report. BCC did its own review and rejected the SEQ Bus Network Review, exercising its de facto control over the bus network. We look critically at some of the claims made:

1. Reliability

Bus reliability statistics were deleted from the TransLink tracker reports after we highlighted dubious bus on time statistics and they have not been published since! So improvement to bus reliability across the network as a whole cannot be assessed, at least from publicly available data. Even if there were reliability improvements the fact that the central principle of the BCC bus review was that most routes would be unaffected, this must also mean that most passengers would not perceive an increase in reliability, as most routes were unchanged.

Reliability for Bulimba residents using the CityCat was made worse by the alteration of ferry service patterns as well.

2. Frequency

BCC *reduced* the frequency of a number of routes and was unable to add a single genuinely new BUZ service to its transport offering. Had the TransLink bus review proceeded and BCC not actively obstructed consultation by refusing the meet TransLink on six occasions, the residents of Yeronga, Centenary, Albany Creek would be riding high frequency BUZ services by now and the residents of Bulimba would be enjoying improved service.

3. Affordability

Fares went UP by 7.5% again due the the inability to contain the massive cost explosion that inevitably results from a taxi style network having to charge taxi style fares. This cost explosion engulfed the disadvantaged and vulnerable in our community, slamming people on the minimum wage, the unemployed and those on Centrelink payments.

In our opinion, regulatory capture of the agency TransLink through losing de facto control of bus route planning (and therefore cost containment) to the operator that is BCC, and TransLink practices where bus services are bought from local monopolies unchallenged and unchecked by competitive contracting contributed to this.

All bus network planning must be performed by TransLink to the exclusion of all others. Second, competition is desirable to monopoly and bus contracting therefore should proceed to bring Brisbane into line with Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney after meticulous consideration of the circumstances. It is our view that a private operator could significantly undercut BCC by simply offering to do what BCC cannot bring itself to do -run a connected bus network.

If the Queensland Government wants to make "strong choices" it can. Stand up to the BCC bus monopoly and pass legislation reversing the Queensland Government's 1925 decision to grant BCC public transport, put the bus network out to competitive contract, redesign the bus network to attract more patronage through emphasising speed, simplicity, frequency and connections, consider buying out all BCC bus depot land through a leaseback scheme contingent on holding a bus contract, and ensure that when the BCC bus contract comes up for review this year that the term is significantly shortened.

Best wishes
Robert

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


References:

Dealing with Queensland's Accumulated Debt Problems http://www.strongchoices.qld.gov.au/

State Budget 2013-14 Service Delivery Statements Department of Transport and Main Roads http://www.budget.qld.gov.au/budget-papers/2013-14/bp5-tmr-2013-14.pdf

Re: Brisbane: Transport functions must be removed from the Brisbane City Council http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9756.msg122660#msg122660

SEQ: BCC Bus Cost Explosion Engulfs Community http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=10458.0

[techblitz]

Couriermail Quest --> The expanding suburb of Rochedale has fewer bus services now than five years ago with residents stranded at Eight Mile Plains after 6.25pm

Good comments section....jut as many pro BTransporters in there as anti BT ones...

[#Metro]

Some observations:

@Robert @Pete The Translink plan to tear apart  Brisbane's bus service was rightfully opposed by the Lord Mayor who'se appropriate intervention proved he had Brisbane's commuters at heart , unlike the Translink bureaucracy. All Translink does is give more public servants jobs.

They mean to say the people driving the buses aren't public servants?
BT is a division of BCC. By definition drivers are council staff/public servants too. I remember seeing somewhere the costs of TL was around 5% of transport budget or therabouts. In other words, 100% abolition of TransLink would do almost nothing by way of introducing more funding into the network.

Auckland performed a near identical review at the same time and is implementing it. If anyone is tearing apart Brisbane it is these very concerning policies which have lead to enormous cost impacts being inflicted on the most vulnerable in the community - refugees, people on the minimum wage, people on Centrelink payments, unemployed. That's what's tearing apart the city, socially. I listed at a bus stop to some cleaners and one woman was talking how her commute from Caboolture to Brisbane cost so much more now and how she was struggling on Centrelink payments to make ends meet. There are a lot of people from Ipswich who make long distance commute to Brisbane - they get the worst of both worlds, rubbish frequency AND high costs. The ticket prices are enormous, and the $400 annual levy is very high considering that most people only get 1-hourly or 30 minute service or rockets in peak.

Furthermore, the residents of Centenary, Yeronga, and Albany Creek would be riding BUZ services by now. Embarrasing.

Danny 21 hours ago

@Robert BCC owns the buses in Bris. Translink is responsible for the fares and scheduling. Some of the services mentioned here are Logan buses. Don't be so quick to blame without researching. SE QLD could have the best transport system in Australia if all parties stopped worrying about making a profit out of public transport (which is never going to happen) and start reducing fares and increasing services to get people to use it

Incorrect. Queensland Treasury owns the buses and leases them back to BCC under a leaseback arrangement. The same type of buses are used in Melbourne, I know because I personally rode one, I think it was a Grenda's bus. Everything inside was the same except for the BCC logo stamped seating furnishings.

@Nathan @Danny @Robert Brisbane is big enough to stand on its own and does not need Translink and would be better off without this bureaucracy. The big waste is an unnecessary bureaucracy who make unrepresentative decisions on buses which we the City of Brisbane own, and the BCC's primary responsibility is to Brisbane , not neighboring shires or cities. Graham Quirk did a first class job standing up for Brisbane against Translink.

The network had all of the cuts and almost none of the benefits. If BCC thinks it can stand on its own, fine, it can consider paying for the ENTIRE bus network itself with no subsidy from the state. Good Luck! Ratepayers already pay $400 per year for what? Half hourly or hourly service. Would love to know what the annual $400 fee would increase to under BCC-fifedom only funding. Sydney, Melbourne and Perth don't run on this system, and yet there is plenty of public oversight.

[ozbob]

LOL  I attempted to make a number of clarifying comments on that yarn. For example pointing out who actually owns the buses.

CM editorialised them out ... they are not interested in the truth, just LNP spin.

I have just about given up on News.corpse ...  getting worse by the day ...

[#Metro]

I also worked out a theory for why the Albany Creek services are so rubbish. If you look at the Electoral maps, Albany Creek lies OUTSIDE the BCC boundaries. Hence hourly services.

From the maps it seems that Bracken Ridge is actually furhter away to reach than Albany Creek. Bracken Ridge also does not have the benefit of a strong fast arterial road leading directly to it.

[techblitz]

LD.....why you continue to put aucklands & S.E Qld's bus review on the same level bewilders me.....there was a key difference in the proposed network maps....translink stuffed it up.....auckland got it right.

https://at.govt.nz/media/309584/9-Pre-consultation-Map-Proposed-New-Network-fo-South-Auckland.pdf

Spot the difference compared to translinks consultation maps....


For those south auckland routes....commuters were given a far better approxamation of frequencies than what brisbane users were ever given.
To be honest...TL should have also put in the effort to give approxmate stopping patterns for certain areas which were due for drastic changes...eg: ipswich rd corridor...(current 125 to HF/100 buz replacement)

[#Metro]

LD.....why you continue to put aucklands & S.E Qld's bus review on the same level bewilders me.....there was a key difference in the proposed network maps....translink stuffed it up.....auckland got it right.

https://at.govt.nz/media/309584/9-Pre-consultation-Map-Proposed-New-Network-fo-South-Auckland.pdf

Spot the difference compared to translinks consultation maps....

What was the proposed frequency for Bulimba, Yeronga, Centenary, Albany Creek and how does this compare to the non-plans that BCC non-implemented for these areas?

The maps could have been better, but then again, BCC didn't provide network maps *either*,  only route maps.

Tell me, where on this website http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/buses/bus-network-changes
is the network maps?? All I can see is individual route maps, just like what TransLink had.

Example, BCC route 66 bus, no other bus routes in the map ---> http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/66.pdf
Indeed, it doesn't even show where the old bus route went either. TL's map did show this. TL also made distinction between higher frequency routes and lower frequency, secondary routes. This is evident from the report and the Go Network map as well.

If it were really really true that the TL review failed for want of maps, we should expect that the BCC review would also fail for the same reason because its mapping presentation is essentially the same.

Looks more like TL's route map than Auckland's. Also does not explain why all other operators and regional areas, some quite large areas like Gold Coast did not have the same reaction, despite having the same kind of maps.

Auckland Council also pays for the trains, so there is strong incentive to integrate the network and eliminate internal competition. BCC does not pay for trains. Big difference.

[James]

LD.....why you continue to put aucklands & S.E Qld's bus review on the same level bewilders me.....there was a key difference in the proposed network maps....translink stuffed it up.....auckland got it right.

https://at.govt.nz/media/309584/9-Pre-consultation-Map-Proposed-New-Network-fo-South-Auckland.pdf

Spot the difference compared to translinks consultation maps....


For those south auckland routes....commuters were given a far better approximation of frequencies than what brisbane users were ever given.
To be honest...TL should have also put in the effort to give approxmate stopping patterns for certain areas which were due for drastic changes...eg: ipswich rd corridor...(current 125 to HF/100 buz replacement)

Yes, we all know there was a communication issue, but the fact is, instead of the councillors supporting the review, they rubbished it and tried to scrap it. I think Nicole Johnston takes the cake though - denying her electorate a BUZ because of some granny who lives on the Corso in Yeronga. That woman, to put it nicely, is an idiot.

Instead of Brisbane people trying to find out more information, people saw 'MY HOURLY AIR PARCEL IS BEING CUT' or 'MY PERSONAL HOME ROCKET AND TAXI SERVICE IS BEING CUT', and then proceeded to throw their toys out of the pram and totally ignoring any benefits from the review. For example:

(Picture taken from a stop in Riverhills - note that the 450/457 is missing from that list)

People just ran blatant misinformation campaigns because people are stupid and averse to change, and BCC jumped on it and decided to be "the champions of the residents". Also note that drastic changes needed to be made because parts of the Brisbane bus network have essentially not changed in either timetable or routing in over 20 years! Heck, you can trace many routes back to the tram days! Trams! Trams! The things that left Brisbane in the 1960s!

This is why the network needed to be re-written.

[techblitz]

TL also made distinction between higher frequency routes and lower frequency, secondary routes. This is evident from the report and the Go Network map as well.

prove it...if your referring to the 3rd document(part 3)...proposed network...all that is on there is indicitave spans and frequencies of the go network HF routes....and then some small explanations on which rail stations the seondaries will go....nowhere near good enough....
I will remind  you again LD......Auckland got it right by put the proposed approx frequencies for EVERY bus route.

Frequent Services:At least every 15 minutes,
7am – 7pm, 7 days a week.
Lower frequencies early morning
and evenings
Connector Services:
At least every 30 minutes, 7am –
7pm, 7 days a week. Generally 20
minutes at peak. Lower frequencies
early morning and evening
Local Services:Generally every 60 minutes and 30
minutes at peak

at least it was something
what was the frequency for that 100 buz secondary again? or perhaps the frequency for our little crosstown cooper plains feeder......you dont go ripping out major legacy/and or buz routes like the 110,100 or the 120 and not disclose thier replacements approx frequencies...leaving the general public guessing and in limbo.Approxamate is better than nothing...

If it were really really true that the TL review failed for want of maps, we should expect that the BCC review would also fail for the same reason because its mapping presentation is essentially the same

please tell me your not comparing the TL review with the BT one. The latter review was virtually nothing...as youve stated multiple times...the TL review needed a far more indepth and upfront explanations....TL felt it only necessary to focus on their flash new HF routes for brisbane and palm off the secondary frequencies for later down the track.....
Perhaps they needed 2 stages...go network proposal...to get everyone geed up and psyched...and then to slowly sit down and work out the frequencies and spans for the secondaries....

[#Metro]

please tell me your not comparing the TL review with the BT one. The latter review was virtually nothing

You are right about this! The latter review (the BT one) was virtually nothing, its central claim to fame was that it was minimal in changes. The fact that the network still needs review after TWO rounds of review says a lot!

The people in Yeronga, Centenary, Albany Creek would all be riding BUZ by now! 

[#Metro]

Reading this is an embarrasment on Brisbane!!


https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/new-public-transport-network

[James]

at least it was something
what was the frequency for that 100 buz secondary again? or perhaps the frequency for our little crosstown cooper plains feeder......you dont go ripping out major legacy/and or buz routes like the 110,100 or the 120 and not disclose thier replacements approx frequencies...leaving the general public guessing and in limbo.Approxamate is better than nothing...

Ideally, nobody bound for the CBD would use BUZ 100 any more because they can use the Oxley station rail feeder (which in peak, is faster). And the frequency and span of that route WAS disclosed. 120 was a newly established BUZ, and by all the patronage reports, one with tepid patronage at that, and near to the busway/other routes in a number of parts.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I also worked out a theory for why the Albany Creek services are so rubbish. If you look at the Electoral maps, Albany Creek lies OUTSIDE the BCC boundaries. Hence hourly services.

Why else do you think I had a good laugh when BCC said they weren't increasing services and then announced a $45 rate increase for BCC residents 

From the maps it seems that Bracken Ridge is actually furhter away to reach than Albany Creek. Bracken Ridge also does not have the benefit of a strong fast arterial road leading directly to it.

Gympie Road/Arterial Road, Murphy Road, Sandgate Road and The Gateway all lead to Bracken Ridge. Albany Creek only has 2 main roads depending on where you are heading from the City. Depending on a few factors from the city Gympie Road to Albany Creek Road is a hell of a lot faster. Even banging it along Maundrell Terrace/Appleby Road via Hamilton Road or Albany Creek road is faster. Too many traffic lights and built up areas along Old Northern Road. Ashgrove is a basket case of a route to take. Kelvin Grove Road is just as bad through Everton Park/Alderley/Enoggera. Gympie Road and bang it along Stafford Road is pretty quick too.

What I would have liked to have known was if Translink would have known the frequencies for starters. More than likely they would have had planned frequencies but because BT wasn't allowed to provide feedback would translink have been able to map out the logistics side of rollingstock positioning and driver numbers? and what effect would that of had on those that ran alongside other routes 315 vs 310 for example (#210? Brighton to Chermside via Virginia).

For what it's worth the translink review wasn't perfect. Communication was a big let down. But for the northside a lot of wasted resources had been addressed and the railway lines and local interchanges with HF routes were all heavily utilised for pretty much a first for the northside network. A very very connective network. Something which doesn't currently exist. Well, it does if you want to use the 336/337 - you know the 5 daily services running only between morning and afternoon peak or the 326/327 - where one arrives at Geebung station the same time as the train does and the other in peak hour terminates early and then dead runs along its normal route to Strathpine to form the inbound service.... 

[techblitz]

^
Sorry to say HTG but putting polyticks aside for a second...there must have been someting to stir the hornets nest and i can safely say the cancellation of the 110 & cutback pf 100 buz and the resulting protests down at inala is no doubt what provided the double edged sword for translinks review.

[#Metro]

I think it was just naked opportunism, plain and simple. The 100 buz had an alternative and has only been a BUZ since, what, 2011? That's quite recent in the history of things. The way people carried on makes you wonder what people did in 2010.

It was very clear what the proposal was. As there would be a BUZ to rail the 100 would be retained at its pre 2011 frequency. Route 125 would be boosted to BUZ level to cover Ipswich Road.

Sounds like loss aversion to me.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't know much about the southside but the northside was mostly quiet on the matter. Hardly a peep about issues with people having services cut. Everything stired up in the matter was basically from Indro, Bulimba and Yeronga ways. It created fear and the media pounced on it which just made it even worse. Those that don't catch public transport frequently jumped on the band wagon of misinformation to add their few cents. Driving home all the negative aspects while leaving out the advantages. Negative and misinformed publications was what ultimately led to the complete downfall of the Brisbane part of the review. The whole time I think I saw only 2 or 3 newspaper clippings about the changes across the northside. There were sweeping cuts to basically every single northside bus route, the 340 buz was scrapped, the 333 was scrapped aswell IIRC (can't recally 100% but wasn't it replaced with the 330 buz/hf, the taigum buz/hf and the Toombul buz/HF route?).

What most people didn't realise or seem to care was that it was still a proposal/draft still in the very very early stages.

[James]

^
Sorry to say HTG but putting polyticks aside for a second...there must have been someting to stir the hornets nest and i can safely say the cancellation of the 110 & cutback of 100 buz and the resulting protests down at inala is no doubt what provided the double edged sword for translinks review.

It is loss aversion and whining, that's all it is. There was no need for anybody in Inala/Forest Lake to carry on like they did. 110 is essentially useless for residents of Inala aside from those going to Acacia Ridge (which was covered by a new route anyway) - 100 BUZ is the only thing people really should be using these days anyway.

The same thing was observed right across Brisbane, in some parts people were trying to save their hourly bus services thanks to loss aversion/'we won't change'.

[techblitz]

110 is essentially useless for residents of Inala aside from those going to Acacia Ridge (which was covered by a new route anyway) - 100 BUZ is the only thing people really should be using these days anyway.

stick to centenary commentary james.
You have absolutely no idea of the demand (especially weekend) to moorvale/moorooka shops via the 110...from archerfield north&south,acacia ridge,rocklea south and of course inala.
You seem to have an inept ability to call patronage levels on various routes just from occasional offpeak sightseeing tours

[James]

stick to centenary commentary james.
You have absolutely no idea of the demand (especially weekend) to moorvale/moorooka shops via the 110...from archerfield north&south,acacia ridge,rocklea south and of course inala.
You seem to have an inept ability to call patronage levels on various routes just from occasional offpeak sightseeing tours

I never said anything about 110 connections for connections from Acacia Ridge to other places. You are putting words in my mouth.

Why anybody is going from Inala to do their shopping in Moorooka when there is a far larger set of shops at both Inala, Forest Lake and Mt Ommaney (all connected by direct trips), is beyond me. The two are on different sides of town. It is whining, that is all it is.

On the note of air parcels, was in horseless carriage along Coronation Drive around 5:30pm. Between Auchenflower and the Regatta, there were 10 buses all following close behind each other. 4 were 412s, the rest were a mixture of other routes. A number of the 412s were empty - making me think it may be an idea to have the semester-only 412s go to Toowong instead of the CBD. Currently these ones just deadrun back to UQ - it'd be far more efficient to simply send them Toowong, and leave the remaining 6bph to go to the CBD (which caters to the remaining demand).

[techblitz]

Why anybody is going from Inala to do their shopping in Moorooka when there is a far larger set of shops at both Inala, Forest Lake and Mt Ommaney (all connected by direct trips), is beyond me. The two are on different sides of town.

No idea at all....
moorooka shops hold a significant ethnic factor that you will not find at the shopping centres you have mentioned. There are actually business owners there who use the 110....ive seen them close down the shop and jump on the bus


As i mentioned previously...TL had only numbers...but had absolutely no idea of the ethnic value/ importance of moorooka shops...the types of shoppers and the demand from the south. And just thought they could shove everyone from the south into our lovely non dda compliant salisbury station via the also bus unfriendly coopers plains station.....
EPIC FAIL....
Two pronged attack from 110 and 100 users....they seriously didnt have one iota of getting thier review passed....

[James]

No idea at all....
moorooka shops hold a significant ethnic factor that you will not find at the shopping centres you have mentioned. There are actually business owners there who use the 110....ive seen them close down the shop and jump on the bus


As i mentioned previously...TL had only numbers...but had absolutely no idea of the ethnic value/ importance of moorooka shops...the types of shoppers and the demand from the south. And just thought they could shove everyone from the south into our lovely non dda compliant salisbury station via the also bus unfriendly coopers plains station.....
EPIC FAIL....
Two pronged attack from 110 and 100 users....they seriously didnt have one iota of getting thier review passed....

And go where? As I said, never said there wasn't a reason to connect Acacia Ridge with Moorooka. The more I think about it, the more I think an 'Acacia Ridge to City via everywhere' coverage route could have had merit. Especially when it came to dealing with that annoying pocket of suburbia the 116 goes into.

But there is no need for a bus connecting Moorooka and Inala. There is no "ethnic connection" at all (Moorooka is dominated by Sudanese, Inala more by Vietnamese), if you are going to pull that card. 110 loss was due to whining because people no longer had a direct trip to the CBD. End.

[#Metro]

No, it's very simple. Bus review failed simply because you had an obstinate council that didn't participate in the bus review, effectively sabotaging it. Then you had a campaign, egged on by the member and councillor for Inala (Annastacia P) and Milton Dick (Richlands ward, BCC) who are BOTH presumed candidates for next Premier and Mayor respectively and obviously shamelessly milked the politics of the situation for all it worth you, and have a two tier transit network with split responsibility and funding. Academic really.

What the BCC councillors do not understand that this will count against them in the future. Retaining a network with lots of waste and redundancy makes it easier for a private operator to massively undercut BT because it means there is lots of fat to cut. A leaner network would be less of a target.

Yeronga, Centenary and Albany Creek effectively had BUZ services slated for these areas cut/cancelled. The only reason why more noise about that was not made was because they had not come into existence yet (which is a loss of a future hypothetical, which does not trigger loss aversion) as compared to having something given to you taken from you, despite being logically equivalent in their ultimate and final effects.

Perfection is for the next world. Is the current network 'perfect'?, certainly not. Many 'imperfections' would never have seen the light of day had BT been involved in the process (was banned from involvement, humpf, I think we can all guess why!) or RBOT before public release. Would have saved a lot of grief.

[techblitz]

And go where?

Ughh south? Why would i mention it if they were going north? Small observations paint a bigger picture..heres another one...the 110 is a great on-time performer...i dont know why but the reliability of this route amazes me
Stick to centenary james...you may be a consistent observer around there but not along ipswich/beaudesert rds...

What most people didn't realise or seem to care was that it was still a proposal/draft still in the very very early stages.

I will judge that statement HTG by how negotiable translink has been with the private operator routes and issues/complaints which have arisen....hows that 522 adjustment coming along?
Surfrail has been arguing with TL for the last 3 months (via facebook) on some of the gold coast changes...
TL are yet to budge an inch on thier original proposals......must be a case of set and forget with no turning back once the feedback period finished? Or is it just a case of BT has robbed us completely and it is an absolutely impossible for us to change our implementations? If it is that...then the least they could do is come clean and stop insulting their customers on facebook with the generic responses...

Then you had a campaign, egged on by the member and councillor for Inala (Annastacia P) and Milton Dick (Richlands ward, BCC) who are BOTH presumed candidates for next Premier and Mayor respectively

If they are so powerful as your saying...then translink messed up epicly by fiddling with those 2 routes which were the highest patronised routes down there....

[#Metro]

If they are so powerful as your saying...then translink messed up epicly by fiddling with those 2 routes which were the highest patronised routes down there....

How high does patronage have to be before achieving 'sacred cow' status and being immune from review for all time, ever?

Even a standard bus doing a BUZ at full load carries no more than 390 passengers/hour.

My point is it may be desirable to make alterations, regardless of load patronage. For example, route 66 had high patronage and high value for money but was altered not to serve Wooloongabba, it was altered to serve UQ because an even better and higher value routing was found.

TransLink designs a network, and focusing on individual routes can be misleading because it may ignore the broader development of a network.

[longboi]

If they are so powerful as your saying...then translink messed up epicly by fiddling with those 2 routes which were the highest patronised routes down there....

TransLink designs a network, and focusing on individual routes can be misleading because it may ignore the broader development of a network.

This.

[James]

Ughh south? Why would i mention it if they were going north? Small observations paint a bigger picture..heres another one...the 110 is a great on-time performer...i dont know why but the reliability of this route amazes me
Stick to centenary james...you may be a consistent observer around there but not along ipswich/beaudesert rds...

I observe more than just Centenary. My observations cover a broad area, from Moggill across to Oxley and then up to St Lucia and Bardon. I don't even live in the Centenary suburbs, to start with. Gazza does, although I don't think he's a bus expert given BCC effectively gutted the buses running into his area.

Techblitz, it doesn't matter if they're just "going south" - it is about the where. If you looked at the 427/428 patronage figures, going by the 'look at all these people going west' idea, you'd BUZ the route all the way out to Chapel Hill, when really, the frequency is only really needed Indro - UQ.

Route reliability is a non-factor when it comes to how highly patronised a route is. 428, great patronage, horrible OTP. 412, great patronage, very good OTP. 590, not great patronage, bad OTP.

[SurfRail]

Surfrail has been arguing with TL for the last 3 months (via facebook) on some of the gold coast changes...

Be a lot easier for them to deliver better services SEQ-wide if BT was cheaper to run.

Then again, Brisbane is special, unique and entirely different to the rest of the planet.  The laws of physics and mathematics operate on different fundamental constants north of Kuraby, so it follows that the local politics must be "special" as well...

[Jonno]

Oh Dear

http://www.humantransit.org/2014/04/how-to-make-buses-more-useful.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HumanTransit+%28Human+Transit%29
how to make buses more useful

Are your transit authority and city government working together to make buses as functional and useful as possible?  A new TRB report summarizes the industry's own consensus on where the easy wins are for improving bus service.  Peyton Chung has the rundown:

A recent report on "Commonsense Approaches for Improving Transit Bus Speeds" surveyed not just the scale of the problem, but also solutions. In it, 59 transit agencies across America shared how they have responded to the scheduling problems presented by ever-slower bus routes. The agencies report on the most successful actions they've taken to improve bus speeds and reliability. Here they are, listed in descending order of popularity.

Consolidate stops: More than half of agencies have thinned bus stops, some by focusing on pilot corridors, and others by gradually phasing in policy changes. Many agencies moved stops to far side of intersections at stoplights, and 13 agencies adopted physical changes like longer bus stops or bulb-outs, which help passengers board faster and more conveniently.

Streamline routes: Straightening out routes, trimming deviations, eliminating duplication, and shortening routes didn't just simplify service, it also sped up service for two-thirds of the agencies that tried this approach.

Transit signal priority: The 22 agencies with signal priority can change stoplights for approaching buses. They mostly report a minor to moderate increase in bus speeds as a result. In fact, agencies singled out traffic engineering approaches like TSP as the closest to a "silver bullet," one-step solution.

Fare policy: Several agencies changed fare structures or payment methods. The one agency that collects fares before passengers board, and lets them board at both bus doors, decreased bus running times by 9 percent.

Bus Rapid Transit: Ten agencies combined multiple approaches on specific routes and launched BRT service. Of those that measured the impact, almost all reported a significant increase in speed, typically around 10 to 15 percent.

Vehicle changes: More than half of agencies have moved to low-floor buses, which reduce loading times by one second per passenger. Smaller buses might be more maneuverable in traffic, and ramps can speed loading for wheelchairs and bicycles.

Limited stop service: Although new limited-stop services offered only minor to moderately faster speeds, it's a simple step and 18 agencies reported launching new limited routes.
Bus lanes: Dedicated lanes are used by 13 agencies, and one reported that "most routes are on a bus lane somewhere." When implemented on wide arterial streets, this moderately improves speeds.

Adjust schedules: Almost all of the surveyed agencies have adjusted running time, recovery times (the time spent turning the bus), or moved to more flexible "headway schedules." All of these actions improve on-time performance reliability for customers, and reduce the need for buses to sit if they're running early.

Signal timing: Synchronized stoplights along transit routes can make sure that buses face more green lights than red, but only have a mild impact on operating speeds.

Express service on freeways: This strategy had the largest impact on speeding up buses for the three agencies that tried it.

Many transit agencies have adopted at least some of these changes. For example, Streetsblog has covered San Francisco Muni's efforts to consolidate stops, launch limited-stop service, rebuild stops, install signal priority, and use prepaid fares to allow passengers to board at both doors.
The survey also asked about the major constraints that agencies faced when attempting to improve bus speeds. More than a third of them cited a lack of funding and competing priorities within the agency — streamlining a route, for instance, may reduce the area covered by the service. More than one in seven agencies cited a lack of support from other government agencies, like transportation departments in charge of streets and signals (in San Francisco, Muni benefits from being housed within the city's transportation department). Rider opposition, particularly to removing bus stops, and existing traffic congestion, also thwarted some attempts to streamline bus operations. Interestingly, few agencies cited community opposition or a lack of staff time as constraints

That last paragraph is crucial.  Buses don't improve because the people who want them to aren't sufficiently organized and focused to balance out the kinds of resistance that the report lists.   Most local elected officials who are responsible for transit get great earfuls from those defending every detail of the status quo, while advocates for improvement can sound vague and abstract by comparison.

[#Metro]

One of the things that got up my nose was the presentation of two bus routes that were vastly different being presented such that it gave the impression that they were similar in contribution to the overall network. For example, compare route 416 and BUZ 444. Anybody looking at that would think "gee, they must be equal in patronage and importance!". It is nothing of the kind! Bus 416 has about six services per day, whereas BUZ 444 has round 150! Clearly some measures of span and a way to capture the overall convenience of a bus route is required.

So that's what I set out to do.

---

The Span Index Number (SIN): A New Way To Rate Service Span In A Frequent Network

Traditional methods of evaluating bus network rely on evaluating 'agency side' metrics such as the service cost, value-for-money and whether the patronage on the service is 'high' or 'low'. Unfortunately these metrics do not easily capture or communicate on-the-ground customer perceptions of how convenient any particular individual service may be from the customer perspective.

Latest from LD Transit Blog ---> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?blog=124