SEQ Bus Network Review

[somebody]

You might as well not have a branded service at all, like the current 375 and 204, if you are going to operate in this way.

But those routes still get strong patronage despite an utter lack of branding.

So your argument then is that they should remove branding?  If not, what are you saying?

[Gazza]

Not  that, I just don't see the harm in including things like 375, 109, 369, 66 (and to a lesser extent the Ferny Grove Line) etc in the frequent network mapping and branding, because having them there reveals journey links that should be known about more widely...People looking at the BUZ map might not know Stafford Rd is actually pretty easy to get to most of the time actually.

Maybe the frequent network map could use thick lines for routes that have high frequency till late, like the 333 and 199, and line of equal thickness, but slightly faded/pastel coloured for routes that are still frequent, but not as late eg 375. This still makes the best routes stand out, but means the 375 etc doesn't get forgotten completely.

[somebody]

I see plenty of harm.  BUZ works.  Metrobus doesn't work even half as well.  You may argue that the major difference is the 15min vs 20min weekend services, but I do not believe this for one second.  Diluting the formula down will see a lot of people, discretionary riders leave PT.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow

Bus review feedback now open! --> https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/754/survey/950/view.html ... #qldpol #busreviewSEQ

I made a quick feedback to see how it works, a little restrictive and the PDF generated was a failure ...  better let them know ..

Been advised there is an 'intermittment' issue with the pdf generation after data submission.  Data is being collected, even though the pdf generation fails at times.  A notice to that effect is going to be added to the landing page ...

[Gazza]

I see plenty of harm.  BUZ works.  Metrobus doesn't work even half as well

But why "hide" them off the map?

Would you lose patronage due to the map being diluted, or would you gain patronage due to decent routes being revealed?

Would you accept having a double sided frequent network map?
-The "Pure" BUZ standard map

-On the reverse a map with all of the other 7am-7pm-7 days a week routes.

We could draw comparisons with the GoZone map in Adelaide. Their standard is weaker than ours, but I certainly support them having the map as a starting point.

Metrobus doesn't work even half as well.

I don't know metrobus that well, but does it duplicate other routes? Could that contribute to it not being as strong?

BUZ works.

All of them?

[Set in train]

One of a few errors I have noticed:

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-752.png

Route 752 proposed to travel via Sunshine but still illustrated as existing route via Rio Vista.

Springfield

The feeder routes to the train station to alleiviate the lack of park and ride - where are they?

Is an RTI required for this bus review? Is there a whole 'off Broadway' section of the report regarding future changes (Springfield rail, MBRL, GCRT) that we are not being shown?

Route 702

Limited stops proposed, fantastic.

I took this bus from Surfers to the airport at 6:30am on a Sunday morning a week ago. Amazing. This service was packed, most standing room occupied. The service was at least 14 mins late to my stop. By Burleigh, new passengers reported the previous service had not arrived (it had then caught us up). Actual travel time to the airport on a Sunday morning (once on the bus) was amazing.

[Set in train]

Frankly, many residents have to put up with woeful frequency and span of hours.  Redeploying some of the cream on the present BUZ routes to allow more people to actually use public transport is sensible.  My own 524 has 30 minute peak frequency and 60 minute off peak ...

The 524 services railway stations, they should meet every train out of peak and the same number as a minimum in peak.

[somebody]

BUZ works.

All of them?

As far as I've seen statistics.

Which one are you suggesting doesn't work?

[petey3801]

One of a few errors I have noticed:

http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-752.png

Route 752 proposed to travel via Sunshine but still illustrated as existing route via Rio Vista.

Springfield

The feeder routes to the train station to alleiviate the lack of park and ride - where are they?

Is an RTI required for this bus review? Is there a whole 'off Broadway' section of the report regarding future changes (Springfield rail, MBRL, GCRT) that we are not being shown?

Route 702

Limited stops proposed, fantastic.

I took this bus from Surfers to the airport at 6:30am on a Sunday morning a week ago. Amazing. This service was packed, most standing room occupied. The service was at least 14 mins late to my stop. By Burleigh, new passengers reported the previous service had not arrived (it had then caught us up). Actual travel time to the airport on a Sunday morning (once on the bus) was amazing.

In regards to the 522 through Springfield, I have just sent in a suggestion through the review page for this route to be adjusted slightly so it goes up to Springfield station as well.

In regards to the GFN frequencies, I actually agree with both sides of the argument to some extent.

I think the old BUZ standard is probably a bit much for a lot of routes, but the 7pm cutoff standard is probably a bit early (I know none of the current GFN routes will be stopping then, but who knows in the future...). I'd say a 9pm cutoff standard for 15min services would be pretty reasonable, possibly extending this a bit later on Friday and Saturday nights.

[Gazza]

Which one are you suggesting doesn't work?

Possibly the 120 since they want to cut it back already? 340 too I guess.

Re the other bit of my post, What do you think of a double sided frequent network map?

[Set in train]

I think the old BUZ standard is probably a bit much for a lot of routes, but the 7pm cutoff standard is probably a bit early (I know none of the current GFN routes will be stopping then, but who knows in the future...). I'd say a 9pm cutoff standard for 15min services would be pretty reasonable, possibly extending this a bit later on Friday and Saturday nights.

We have to remember that the BUZ services were instituted wholly and solely by the BCC, not a transport planning agency such as Translink. Therefore, clear polticial influence is present resulting in, "the old BUZ standard is probably a bit much for a lot of routes".

[Set in train]

Which one are you suggesting doesn't work?

Possibly the 120 since they want to cut it back already? 340 too I guess.

Re the other bit of my post, What do you think of a double sided frequent network map?

The map is a good idea.

What I don't understand is the 120 to be cut back? What other reasons are there? Patronage as shown by figures posted on this forum demonstrated 120 is a successful BUZ route, I recall it was doing better than some other BUZ routes. Not a straggler.

[ozbob]

Having a look at http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-120.png  seems they want to get a few more frequent buses on inner Ipswich road since 100 freq reducing, hence the HF 23 replacing 120 with S404 S405 covering the other old 120 route sections.  I am sure they have worked with BT on this and looked at the load data etc.

[ozbob]

Twitter

3 mins TransLink SEQ TransLink SEQ ‏@TransLinkSEQ

We're aware of Get Involved issue with blank pdfs. Your responses have still been recorded. Apologies - http://ow.ly/iIsHQ

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow

Bus review feedback now open! --> https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/754/survey/950/view.html ... #qldpol #busreviewSEQ

I made a quick feedback to see how it works, a little restrictive and the PDF generated was a failure ...  better let them know ..

Been advised there is an 'intermittment' issue with the pdf generation after data submission.  Data is being collected, even though the pdf generation fails at times.  A notice to that effect is going to be added to the landing page ...

[ozbob]

Petition re 443 and 444

http://www.change.org/petitions/translink-qld-and-qld-state-government-stop-cancellation-of-443-and-444-from-4070-to-brisbane-city-4

[#Metro]

So, whats gazzas reply to the above? I think a simple comparison panel is required explaining specific routes travel time under direct and connective networks.
The reality is the current network can no longer be operated, the waste is enormous, even if you kept the current system it would fail as cultural centre and the CBD are at overload, and with all the cash the system burns, another 20 % fare rise would need to be administered. subsidy is already huge, it must change.

[Gazza]

Hi Veronica.

My name is Gavin Seipelt, and I am a Member of Commuter group Rail back on Track (Though we are concerned will all public transport, not just trains!)

A couple of observations I wish to make about the proposed changes.

The 444 is one of the most used routes in Brisbane indeed, but most of this usage is from Indooroopilly to the CBD. There is less usage the further west you go. This may have influenced Translink in splitting off the route so this lesser used bit is a separate route.

Secondly, it may sound counter intuitive, but the new arrangements will -reduce- travel times, not increase them.

The 444 is slated to be replaced by the S500.

See http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-444.png

As the map shows, It will travel to Indooroopilly, go down the hill to Indooroopilly Station, and then continue to UQ. The fact the bus now goes to the station is the crucial factor.

The key point is that the bus currently takes 25 minutes to travel Indooroopilly to the CBD.

But express trains from Indooroopilly take just 8 minutes (All stops trains still only take 12 minutes) And they arrive every 6 minutes in peak hour. This is twice/triple the speed of the bus.

Passengers from Moggil will actually be better off under the new system, because they can stay on the bus after Indooroopilly shopping center, and get off one stop later at the station, and wait a maximum of 6 minutes for a train.

Surley changing to the train and getting to the city in 8 minutes flat is far better than enduring the 25 minute "Coronation Drive crawl"!

Finally, the best outcome for the area is to ensure the bus still runs every 15 mins 7 days a week.

The shortened route to Indooroopilly and UQ will cost less to run, but will speed up travel to the CBD due to the chance to take advantage of the trains, which residents have never been able to do easily.

Cheers

Gavin Seipelt

[somebody]

Or introducing another wasteful duplicating bus route like the Maroon Glider (and I admire how TransLink accept the Maroon Glider as a fait accompli and have worked around it to remove unnecessary duplication, at the Paddington end anyway).

I wonder why section 43 of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act wouldn't apply to the Maroon Glider?

(1) A person must not provide
a public passenger service for an
area or route if the
area or route is a
service contract area or
route for public passenger servi
ces of that kind unless the
person is entitled to provide the public passenger service
under—
(a) if the service contract area
or route is in the TransLink
area—
(i) a TransLink service contract; or
(ii) a written agreement with the chief executive; or
(iii) with the chief executive's approval, a written
agreement with the holder
of a TransLink service
contract; or
(b)...
Maximum penalty—
(b) if the service contract area
or route is in the TransLink
area—160 penalty units; or

[Gazza]

^Problem is, LNP wont take their council friends to court.

Maybe TL accepted the Maroon Glider in exchange for BCC butting out of the new network design?

[somebody]

Maybe TL accepted the Maroon Glider in exchange for BCC butting out of the new network design?

An interesting possibility.  It has certainly been unexpected how quiet they are about this level of change.

[hU0N]

I'll admit I haven't read the review cover to cover, but I did find myself wondering if, in some locations, the proposed routes create transfers simply for the sake of having transfers?  Don't get me wrong, I think the basic idea of the GFN is a very solid idea.  However, the design seems to ignore THE significant advantages of bus transit, namely route flexibility. 

As an example, the proposed F26 provides 4 vph off peak between the CBD and Mt Ommaney Centre where this kind of high frequency is necessary.  Once these vehicles reach Mt Ommaney Shops, they ALL sort of convert into a local feeder through Jamboree Heights and Riverhills, which is great for these suburbs, but probably less essential.  The suburbs of Jindalee and Mt Ommaney  on the other hand get stuck with a non-high frequency (I guess this means 30min headways) feeder that additionally requires a transfer.

Why is this a better arrangement than subnumbering the F26 as F26A and F26B, with all F26 services running CBD to Mt Ommaney then half the services running the 454 route tail and the other half running the 453 route tail (but in reverse)?

I understand that it's somewhat less legible than the proposed routes, but not so much so that it couldn't be overcome with good signage etc.  Also, it means that the 454 tail wouldn't get high frequency, but the point of the review isn't to roll out high frequency to random out of the way bus termini (like Riverhills West) anyway.

Similar situations exist all through the review.  The F6 runs to a suburban node at the Gap Village, then runs a shuttle service between the Gap Village and Bill Fursman place (a la the 385) and back.  People living elsewhere in the Gap (in areas currently served by the 379 and 380), must catch a separate feeder to the Gap Village.  The frequency to the Gap Village is surely justified, but is it really justified on the tail of the route?  Particularly when varying the tail to cover some of the 379/380 catchment would improve quality of service to passengers in these areas.

Same again on many of the frequent routes across the network.

None of this would be massive duplication within the frequent network.  In many ways, sending all the F6 to Bill Fursman Place or all the F26 to Riverhills West is probably more wasteful duplication.  And this way THE key strength that the bus mode enjoys could be leveraged in order to drive patronage even further with our existing infrastructure.

[BrizCommuter]

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/go-network-major-change.html
Updated blog post, with a few links for unhappy 444 commuters.

[achiruel]

A couple of things:

Is there sufficient layover space at UQ for all the buses that will now be terminating there?

Should Ipswich express trains also now serve Oxley to cater for the F25?

[Mr X]

I would hope so, considering it only got rebuilt a year ago.

[Gazza]

The F25 also serves Darra, so people could catch express trains from there if they really wanted to. I don't really support any extra stops on the Ipswich expresses....The fact they express through Toowong is a bit of a non issue now that UQ students will just use the routes coming from Kenmore/Moggil.

I just did a joyride on the 444, boarding at Misty Morn (Kenmore Park and Ride)...There was a flyer stuck up already at the stop.
saveyourcommute.wordpress.com is the url/QR code.


On the outbound (Around 8:30) there were 9 others onboard from where I joined. On the inbound, I was the only one on-board. After getting back in the car to go home I eventually caught up with the bus at the Chapel Hill stop, and people were boarding...About 4 or so.

There were about 4 adults on board, and the rest were teenagers.

I reckon it is likely frequency will be cut back after 8pm to half hourly.

[#Metro]

^ I think this requires a media release IMHO.

[Gazza]

I think we should support the retention of the 443, but send it via the Western Freeway. What is the point of having go via Coro if its non stop and doesn't have to service Indro or Toowong?

[ozbob]

Media release 12th March 2013



Bus Review: Western suburbs' commutes faster with connection

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers welcomes the SEQ Bus Network review which proposes a shift from an everything to the CBD direct network to a Go Frequent Network based on connections (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The basics of connection based bus networks and their advantages is laid out here ---> http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html  In brief, more people can get frequent, reliable and faster service with connections than without them. It is also cost effective, efficient and avoids flooding the CBD with buses and gives residents of Centenary, Bulimba, Yeronga and the Northwest greatly improved services for the first time ever."

Gavin Seipelt, Brisbane West Region Spokesperson for RAIL Back On Track said:

"While the 444 carries many passengers, most of this is from Indooroopilly to the CBD.  While it may sound counter intuitive, but the new arrangements will actually reduce travel times, not increase them. The 444 is proposed to be replaced by the S500. (See http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review/Route-444.png) It will travel to Indooroopilly, and then continue to UQ. The fact the bus now goes to Indooroopilly train station is the crucial factor."

"The key point is that the bus currently takes 25 minutes at best, usually longer to travel between Indooroopilly and the CBD. But express trains from Indooroopilly take just 8 minutes to do the same journey (All stops trains still only take 12 minutes). Trains at Indooroopilly train station arrive every 6 minutes in peak hour. This is twice/triple the speed of the bus."

"Passengers from Moggill will actually be better off under the new system, because they can stay on the bus after Indooroopilly shopping center, and get off one stop later at the station, and wait a maximum of 6 minutes for a train. And if, for whatever reason they prefer a bus, there will be many to choose from at Indooroopilly Shopping Centre."

"Surely changing to the train and getting to the city in 8 minutes flat is far better than enduring the at least 25 minute 'Coronation Drive crawl'!"

"Finally, the best outcome for the area is to ensure the bus still runs every 15 minutes 7 days a week. The shortened route to Indooroopilly and UQ will cost less to run, and will speed up travel to the CBD due to the chance to take advantage of the trains, which residents have never had been able to do easily."

Robert Dow concluded:

"Many of the world's great cities have connections based public transport - London, Paris, Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto. For example, in Toronto, Canada, 98% of buses run to train stations, with only a handful of peak hour buses making it into the CBD. Passengers perform a connection from buses to trains, which allows trains to run every 5 minutes in the off peak, all day long. Maximum simplicity is achieved, with the minimum number of bus routes. Passenger fares cover ~ 70% of Toronto's transit operations, and fares are low - the exact opposite to what we have here in South East Queensland. Brisbane also runs significantly more bus routes than Toronto, even though Toronto has a larger city and far more passengers, a testament of Brisbane's very complex inefficient bus system at present."

"We look forward to the roll-out of the Go Frequent Network, as always,  members of the public are welcome on our forum anytime."

Contacts:

Gavin Seipelt
Brisbane West Region Spokesperson for RAIL Back On Track

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

Reference:

1. SEQ bus network review http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Smaller buses and more routes key to bus services, says lobby group

[achiruel]

I would hope so, considering it only got rebuilt a year ago.

Yes, but were there plans to terminate a heap of extra routes there a year ago?

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Extensive bus network changes means some residents need to rethink trips

[The Reaper]

At the risk of pedantry, shouldn't we be referring to it as the Go Network, not the Go Frequent Network? It's never actually referred to as the GFN in the report. There's lots of references to the 'frequent network' (note lack of branding) from about page 22 onwards, and the product is referred to as the Go Network (with branding, the product offering) from page 94. I know it is pedantic but I think we should be using the right terminology. Alternatively, happy to be shouted down if I've missed the reference to the GFN 

It seems like they've done a very good job overall.

[ozbob]

GFN is a slant.  Yes, it does say GN but also states GN could change.  Some think GFN is a better term ...  in any case it is clear what is being spoken about ..   

[somebody]

Couriermail Quest --> Extensive bus network changes means some residents need to rethink trips

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said Yeronga and Salisbury will benefit from higher frequency with the 196 and 100 services moving into the areas.

Huh?  The 100 is being reduced!

[ozbob]

Couriermail Quest --> Extensive bus network changes means some residents need to rethink trips

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said Yeronga and Salisbury will benefit from higher frequency with the 196 and 100 services moving into the areas.

Huh?  The 100 is being reduced!

You can never be sure if that is what was actually said, often errors in the published word unfortunately ...

[somebody]

Probably talking about frequent route 23. Current 125, which actually goes to Salisbury unlike the 100.

[ozbob]

Probably talking about frequent route 23. Current 125, which actually goes to Salisbury unlike the 100.

Yes, I think you might be right.  Probably been noted thanks to your post, and they might correct it ...

[somebody]

I for one am angry about these proposals on the whole and they are sure to result in reductions in PT use, all other things being equal.

On the plus side, at least a more appropriate service is being substituted for the 100, as I suggested before the 100 was BUZed,  Note that the 100 is the most subsidised service in Brisbane.

[HappyTrainGuy]

   How can you say that without even seeing the whole network as one along with the actual frequencies/timetabling especially considering the review isn't even finished yet.

From what I've seen the Northside is finally getting a proper bus network that feeds into the main railway corridor that has a better span of hours than the bus network along with better peak frequencies and the real people mover.

[ozbob]

Feeding the rail western is a lot better too.  This review will reposition the network for future growth as well.

Something has to be done to stop the rot and sort out the mess. Nothing is for ever ...