BaT - Bus and Train project (was UBAT, was no CRR)

[minbrisbane]

Realistically, the only losers with this proposalvare those transferring between the Beenleigh/Gold Coast and Cleveland lines.
Woolloongabba provides ample connection to buses for PA/UQ/Ecoscience precinct. It's easy to modify or introduce bus routes to match demand.

In the grand scheme of things (i.e. actually getting this infrastructure built), is Park Road that crucial?

If anything, advocating for buses to dive at Woolloongabba - utilising the layover/GoPrint space - if that would allow for a Park Road rail station (as LD has suggested) might be a better position for RBoT to take. As opposed to just being completely unsupportive of the project altogether.

Personally, I think a Park Road interchange is absolutely critical.  I'm happy with the rest of the project.

[bcasey]

Realistically, the only losers with this proposalvare those transferring between the Beenleigh/Gold Coast and Cleveland lines.
Woolloongabba provides ample connection to buses for PA/UQ/Ecoscience precinct. It's easy to modify or introduce bus routes to match demand.

In the grand scheme of things (i.e. actually getting this infrastructure built), is Park Road that crucial?

If anything, advocating for buses to dive at Woolloongabba - utilising the layover/GoPrint space - if that would allow for a Park Road rail station (as LD has suggested) might be a better position for RBoT to take. As opposed to just being completely unsupportive of the project altogether.

How easy will it be to modify bus routes, considering the failure of the Translink review and BCC's lack of cooperation with them?

The joint Bus/Train UBAT concept is already a bad idea, from a duplication of services perspective. It will only reinforce BCCs direct service network, which we all know is the wrong way to run a public transport network.

[paulg]

The main thing we need to push for is inclusion of the Park Road interchange. Based on the designs I have seen I simply don't accept the argument that it is not constructable. It looks like a simple cost cutting exercise which will cause significant network inefficiency.

The bus tunnel component has to start at Park Road due to the vertical alignment and the whole principle of using a single TBM for a single drive to include both bus and train (not that I think including bus is a smart idea, but I can live with it).

The other major problem with UBAT is that in the absence of any surface track amplification there will be only 3 tracks between Park Road and Yeerongpilly, compared to the 5 tracks that CRR would have provided. I don't think it is worth trying to lobby for any changes on that front though, presumably the new bottlenecks that UBAT creates will have to be remedied further down the track.

Cheers, Paul

[STB]

The main thing we need to push for is inclusion of the Park Road interchange. Based on the designs I have seen I simply don't accept the argument that it is not constructable. It looks like a simple cost cutting exercise which will cause significant network inefficiency.

The bus tunnel component has to start at Park Road due to the vertical alignment and the whole principle of using a single TBM for a single drive to include both bus and train (not that I think including bus is a smart idea, but I can live with it).

The other major problem with UBAT is that in the absence of any surface track amplification there will be only 3 tracks between Park Road and Yeerongpilly, compared to the 5 tracks that CRR would have provided. I don't think it is worth trying to lobby for any changes on that front though, presumably the new bottlenecks that UBAT creates will have to be remedied further down the track.

Cheers, Paul

Speaking of track amplification, I can see it being a major issue at the northern end of the tunnel in particular due to all the types of trains that use the exhibition loop already.  Without the extra tracks, I think it'll make UBAT fairly useless regardless and simply will only add extra paths to the existing Merivale Bridge simply because the Beenleigh and Gold Coast trains are diverted if it is planned to work like that - wouldn't it be a waste if they just used it during peak hour only!

And yes, Park Road is critical, it's not efficient to make passengers stay on a train if they don't need to by going all the way into the city and then out again, among other reasons.

[ozbob]

The group need to formally "not support" the current proposal!

It is a matter of working constructively for better outcomes ...

Might as well ask Colonel Klink to bring the bloody trams back, you'll have about the same hope of success. This half - baked project is going ahead with no public consultation whatever. Can we have a vote on whether we support it  or not?

Stand fast Huddo.  I am a Captain .. lol

Seriously give us 2 weeks to get the detail .. and then very happy, and keen for a poll?  Ok Sir?

[huddo45]

Seriously give us 2 weeks to get the detail .. and then very happy, and keen for a poll?  Ok Sir?

Ok by me, let's look at the detail first. Some good ideas here already, maybe a better plan will emerge.

Ed: fixed quotes

[ozbob]

^  cheers ..  patience can be a virtue ..  some times .. 

[longboi]

Realistically, the only losers with this proposalvare those transferring between the Beenleigh/Gold Coast and Cleveland lines.
Woolloongabba provides ample connection to buses for PA/UQ/Ecoscience precinct. It's easy to modify or introduce bus routes to match demand.

In the grand scheme of things (i.e. actually getting this infrastructure built), is Park Road that crucial?

If anything, advocating for buses to dive at Woolloongabba - utilising the layover/GoPrint space - if that would allow for a Park Road rail station (as LD has suggested) might be a better position for RBoT to take. As opposed to just being completely unsupportive of the project altogether.

How easy will it be to modify bus routes, considering the failure of the Translink review and BCC's lack of cooperation with them?

The joint Bus/Train UBAT concept is already a bad idea, from a duplication of services perspective. It will only reinforce BCCs direct service network,which we all know is the wrong way to run a public transport network.

By 2012 it will be much easier...

[longboi]

The main thing we need to push for is inclusion of the Park Road interchange. Based on the designs I have seen I simply don't accept the argument that it is not constructable. It looks like a simple cost cutting exercise which will cause significant network inefficiency.

The bus tunnel component has to start at Park Road due to the vertical alignment and the whole principle of using a single TBM for a single drive to include both bus and train (not that I think including bus is a smart idea, but I can live with it).

The other major problem with UBAT is that in the absence of any surface track amplification there will be only 3 tracks between Park Road and Yeerongpilly, compared to the 5 tracks that CRR would have provided. I don't think it is worth trying to lobby for any changes on that front though, presumably the new bottlenecks that UBAT creates will have to be remedied further down the track.

Cheers, Paul

You don't need multiple TBMs to start the bus tunnel at the Gabba...

[STB]

Realistically, the only losers with this proposalvare those transferring between the Beenleigh/Gold Coast and Cleveland lines.
Woolloongabba provides ample connection to buses for PA/UQ/Ecoscience precinct. It's easy to modify or introduce bus routes to match demand.

In the grand scheme of things (i.e. actually getting this infrastructure built), is Park Road that crucial?

If anything, advocating for buses to dive at Woolloongabba - utilising the layover/GoPrint space - if that would allow for a Park Road rail station (as LD has suggested) might be a better position for RBoT to take. As opposed to just being completely unsupportive of the project altogether.

How easy will it be to modify bus routes, considering the failure of the Translink review and BCC's lack of cooperation with them?

The joint Bus/Train UBAT concept is already a bad idea, from a duplication of services perspective. It will only reinforce BCCs direct service network,which we all know is the wrong way to run a public transport network.

By 2012 it will be much easier...

2012???

[longboi]

Realistically, the only losers with this proposalvare those transferring between the Beenleigh/Gold Coast and Cleveland lines.
Woolloongabba provides ample connection to buses for PA/UQ/Ecoscience precinct. It's easy to modify or introduce bus routes to match demand.

In the grand scheme of things (i.e. actually getting this infrastructure built), is Park Road that crucial?

If anything, advocating for buses to dive at Woolloongabba - utilising the layover/GoPrint space - if that would allow for a Park Road rail station (as LD has suggested) might be a better position for RBoT to take. As opposed to just being completely unsupportive of the project altogether.

How easy will it be to modify bus routes, considering the failure of the Translink review and BCC's lack of cooperation with them?

The joint Bus/Train UBAT concept is already a bad idea, from a duplication of services perspective. It will only reinforce BCCs direct service network,which we all know is the wrong way to run a public transport network.

By 2012 it will be much easier...

2012???

ugh...2021

[STB]

Just thinking out loud.... is there any way that they can just sink the rails just after Fairfield, still following the existing track and tunnel it from there?  Not sure if that would increase the price that much, but I'm guessing it would allow a Park Road station to exist.

[bcasey]

Yeah, hopefully by 2021 things will have changed.

[SurfRail]

^ Hopefully even by next year.  It still looks like bus contract tendering may still happen.

Presumably the gutless wonders will exempt BT like STA was specifically excluded from the NSW metropolitan tenders, but they did force them to accept considerable impositions in exchange for continuing to exist.

[SurfRail]

People get jailed for less serious mismanagement of public funds.

If we don't like "criminal", how about:

- negligent
- dumb
- stupid
- unjustified
- thick
- demented
- brainless
- idiotic
- inept
- bumbling

etc. 

I refuse to accept being thrifty as a sensible reason for such an obvious and avoidable design flaw.

[James]

I second SurfRail's comment. I'd much rather see the project canned than not see a station at Park Road not put in. It is total negligence.

(Edited as the sentence made no sense in its original form).

[Jonno]

People get jailed for less serious mismanagement of public funds.

If we don't like "criminal", how about:

- negligent
- dumb
- stupid
- unjustified
- thick
- demented
- brainless
- idiotic
- inept
- bumbling

etc. 

I refuse to accept being thrifty as a sensible reason for such an obvious and avoidable design flaw.

+1

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Underground stations promise peak hour relief for Central Station commuters

Underground stations promise peak hour relief for Central Station commuters

New underground train stations at George Street and at Roma Street will take the peak-hour commute pressure off a rapidly-congesting Central train station, new modelling for Brisbane's underground rail project shows.

The modelling shows a new underground George Street station would be used by about 14,500 passengers in a two-hour "peak commute" period in 2021, while a new underground Roma Street station would be used by 12,500 in a two-hour "peak commute" period in 2021.

The new modelling was discussed at an industry briefing on December 5.

Underground Bus and Train (UBAT) project director Arthur Stamatoudis told the forum the project would ease the pressure on Central Station which was already feeling the passenger pinch.

He said without the new stations at George Street and Roma Street, passenger numbers at Central Station would continue to double from around 20,000 passengers in a two-hour peak morning commute to almost 40,000 passengers.

"There is a bit of an equilisation happening between the stations shown in the modelling," Mr Stamatoudis said.

"Central drops a fair bit, and Roma Street and George Street pick up.

"So you are moving about 20,000 people in and out of the stations at George and Roma.

"And Central drops from about 38,000 (at the moment) in 2021, down to the low 30,000s.

"And that's what we want, because we are beginning to get real passenger issues at Central.

"From a passenger access egress point of view, we are running out of capacity."

Mr Stamatoudis said the structure of Central Station made it costly to upgrade with the Sofitel Hotel in place over the station.

"With our platforms and with the hotel building above, it makes it really hard to upgrade that facility without spending a lot of money," he said.

Transport Minister Scott Emerson confirmed the figures and said Central Station had a maximum capacity of 43,000 passenger movements in a two-hour peak.

Based on those figures, this gives a growth in passenger morning peak hour capacity at Central from a "low 30,000s" in a two-hour period to 43,000 passenger movements if the project proceeds.

"Central Station currently has more than 20,000 passengers over two hours in the morning peak period," Mr Emerson said.

"And Central is estimated to have a capacity of 43,000 passenger movements over any two-hour period."

Meanwhile, rail commuter group Rail: Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow welcomed the George Street stop, but said UBAT planners needed to reconsider their plans not to have an underground rail stop at Park Road, or Boggo Road.

"George Street is whoopee wonderful," Mr Dow said.

"Having been based at QUT's Gardens Point for years I understand how it is really a public transport blackspot up there," he said.

Mr Dow said the important problem was the lack of connection between the underground rail and the existing rail at Park Road/Boggo Road.

"There is no underground station planned at Park Road/Boggo Road as there was with Cross River Rail," he said.

"That would make sense because it would mesh in with the existing network."

"That connection to us, is the really big issue."

He said Rail: Back on Track believed rail commuters were happy with the suggested pedestrian walk from the existing Park Road station to the Princess Alexandra Hospital.

"And we are not too concerned about closing Dutton Park station. It's quite a hoof from there to the front of the hospital and it's all uphill."

"The real concern for us - and for most public transport people - is the lack of connection at Park Road and Boggo Road."

He said without an underground connection at Park Road/Boggo Road, some passengers from the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines would face major transfer and connection problems.

Transport Minister Scott Emerson said detailed modelling would continue as the UBAT project model was refined.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/underground-stations-promise-peak-hour-relief-for-central-station-commuters-20131208-2yz7r.html

[paulg]

That's a great contribution to that article, Ozbob. Thanks, well done.

[ozbob]

That's a great contribution to that article, Ozbob. Thanks, well done.

[ozbob]

I have been invited to a meeting with the TMR. 

Please, if you have any more concerns, detail here, or if so desired email me at admin@backontrack.org or message ..

[SurfRail]

1. Is Park Road actually achievable within current project scope?

2. Is the exclusion of Park Rd from the project scope some kind of bureaucratic stuffup or did they actually consider this would be an acceptable outcome (and if so why?)

3. What modelling and assumptions are they using as to how it interfaces with the rest of the rail system - proposed service standards, where trains will operate?

4. What other enhancements are necessary to fix the problems properly in light of what they are building it to accommodate (extra tracks north and south, further down the line etc)

5. How does this sit with TransLink's ultimate aim of simplifying the bus network and moving towards one which feeds the trains (particularly when there is no apparent guarantee BCC will even be running buses after the next 2 years)?

6. How are they going to make the Harrogate St tunnel (busway junction to PAH and UQ) T-intersection work with so many additional buses proposed to enter this new tunnel in that area?

[Gazza]

-Boggo Rd....What is the cost in terms of conveying bus passengers back from Wooloongabba over the long term compared with the capital cost of the new station?
What about people changing to the Cleveland line, or pax from Kuraby wanting the new underground stops.

I got a letter from TMR actually and they reckon uq pax will just travel to wooloongabba and backtrack, but what about passengers to/from  Cleveland?
Also, what about the cost of forgone urban renewal at Boggo Rd?

-Stations being designed for 7 car trains...Why not 8 to make it even, or 9 as per the original scope?

-Will the upper deck be convertible to another mode as patronage grows? What would be the cost in making it full heavy rail/metro standard? This avoids another 5 billion dollar problem in 20 years time...Instead it only costs a few hundred million to convert.

-What are the proposed service patterns/bus services that will notionally use the tunnel?

[ozbob]

Just thinking out loud.... is there any way that they can just sink the rails just after Fairfield, still following the existing track and tunnel it from there?  Not sure if that would increase the price that much, but I'm guessing it would allow a Park Road station to exist.

Fair comment. But that is the basic concept .. if the portal is shifted, as you are suggesting cryptically .. the station at Park / Boggo is the go!

[BrizCommuter]

I have been invited to a meeting with the TMR. 

Please, if you have any more concerns, detail here, or if so desired email me at admin@backontrack.org or message ..

BrizCommuter's concerns are all in his blog.

[ozbob]

I have been invited to a meeting with the TMR. 

Please, if you have any more concerns, detail here, or if so desired email me at admin@backontrack.org or message ..

BrizCommuter's concerns are all in his blog.

Link please?

[ozbob]

Thanks  ^  concerns please post or utilise the other communications options eg. email.

[#Metro]

I'd like to push for a in person meeting with RAILBOT members who are willing to come along and meet with TMR. This project is too important for BCC/BT to be messing up.

[ozbob]

I'd like to push for a in person meeting with RAILBOT members who are willing to come along and meet with TMR. This project is too important for BCC/BT to be messing up.

Indeed!

I will request that. 

Anyone who would like to meet, please indicate by message or email [ admin@backontrack.org ]

Dates/times are not negotiable.  What they say is what we do ..yeah I know, life is tough ...

[STB]

Guys,

Just expanding on my previous post, here's my idea for the UBAT project.


Rails are sunk just after Fairfield station and are sunk into a cutting following the existing corridor.


Optional Dutton Park station in cutting, tunnel begins about 10m past this location, 3rd track splits into two tracks and rises again towards the surface level, as the rise continues, one track veers to the left to join the inner city tracks near Park Road station, other track veers to the right towards the Cleveland line.  Option to the track veering right to split again into a second track to allow trains to run into the inner city lines (could allow some trains to run into the city via South Brisbane - eg: Gold Coast express trains, and act as a back up if the tunnel needs to be closed for whatever reason and trains could be diverted this way - Park Road station would be missed going this way though, but for express trains or emergencies requiring the tunnel to be closed it would not be a problem, use Southbank to change trains at).  Airspace could be sold off and used to build a multi-purpose building to hold UQ students and patients needing to be close to the PA Hospital, also could have offices and shops.  Underground subway also allows entrance to the Boggo Road precient (if you have an north-south subway with a T intersection from the underground platforms, turn left for the Boggo Road precient, turn right for Park Road/Boggo Road platforms).


Park Road station is underground.  Buses service existing Boggo Road busway and enter UBAT through a left hand turn at the existing tunnel turnaround at the entrance and dives underneath turning towards the UBAT tunnel, so no underground bus platforms are needed, will be served by existing Boggo Road busway platforms.  Subway with lifts and escalators between underground station and Park Road station, with the entrances located outside the current ticket office from platforms 1-4.  Subway runs inbetween the bus tunnel and rail tunnel and can double as an emergency exit egress.  Underground subway to PA Hospital via a tunnel which slowly rises and opens out into the open just past the existing tracks that turn onto the Cleveland line, the entrance to that being at the southern end of Park Road station's underground platforms (P7 and P8).

Provision is given at Fairfield to expand to a 4th track where rail sinking begins and Fairfield station could eventually be 4 platforms, along with other stations south if quadding happens (which I think it will eventually).  After Park Road station, tunnel continues as normal as planned to the city.  Northern part of the tunnel I think will need additional tracks to prevent junction conflicts, as a side note.

I hope this helps with showing what I mean.  Feel free to comment, Ozbob, feel free to share if you think it's worth it to the UBAT project team.

[STB]

I'd like to push for a in person meeting with RAILBOT members who are willing to come along and meet with TMR. This project is too important for BCC/BT to be messing up.

Indeed!

I will request that. 

Anyone who would like to meet, please indicate by message or email [ admin@backontrack.org ]

Dates/times are not negotiable.  What they say is what we do ..yeah I know, life is tough ...

Yes, I'd be interested in that if that can be organised.

[STB]

PS: In regards to my idea by the way, I cannot see any resumptions required, maximum perhaps 1 or 2 tops, and can allow more flexibility for the rail line in future.  Now obviously I'm not an Engineer, and not sure if it is viable in full, but I think it's worth raising this with the project team for input.

NB: I noticed that Scott Emerson has responded to the complaints re: no platforms at Boggo Rd/Park Rd station in the Brisbane Times suggesting that there will be a two tier timetable with some trains going via Park Road and other trains going via the tunnel.  I think we'd better drill down more into what that means, and if he means that only Gold Coast trains will go via the tunnel, the tunnel sounds like a bit of a waste of money IMO, and that still doesn't sort out passengers who need to transfer to Gold Coast trains (if that's the case) and will still require a double transfer penalty at perhaps Altandi if Gold Coast trains still stop at Altandi post 2021, which I'm sure they will be.

[STB]

Ooh, just something I thought of in that suggestion I put up.  Instead of a tunnel from Park Road station to PA Hospital that rises to the surface.  Escalators and lifts could be installed to take you to the surface of the southern end of Boggo Road precient which you can then walk to a footbridge that links between Boggo Road Precient and the western side of PA Hospital and footpaths to Annerley Road with bus stops placed at that the end of that path to allow transfers to Annerley Road bus services.

Basically that would allow a direct connection from the underground platforms to Annerley Road, including the existing above ground platforms if you wish to access Boggo Road precient that way.  It also gives two entrances from Boggo Road/Annerley Road to the stations (if I'm reading the layout right).

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Minister Emerson denies underground plan will "break journeys"

Transport Minister Scott Emerson has rejected claims Brisbane's new $5 billion underground rail project means some Gold Coast-Beenleigh line passengers will have to travel to Roma Street first and travel back to Park Road to use the Cleveland line.

On Monday rail commuter group Rail Back On Track said their major problem with the $5 billion underground bus and train project (UBAT) was that there was no underground station at Park Road.

Rail: Back on Track also complained Beenleigh-Gold Coast passengers would have to transfer to a second train at Fairfield, to get to Park Road, to catch a bus to the University of Queensland, or the Princess Alexandra Hospital.

Spokesman Robert Dow said the decision would ''break journeys'' and could inflate journey times for those who do not happen to be travelling to the CBD.

''It will create mammoth inconvenience and add to crowding at rail stations not designed or intended for large volumes of transferring passengers,'' he said.

The existing Park Road-Boggo Road rail and bus station is where the Cleveland rail line leaves the main southern rail line.

It is also the main hub for buses to Buranda, Stones Corner, the Princess Alexandra Hospital, Dutton Park and University of Queensland Lakes.

Mr Dow said most trains coming up from the Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines would go underground between Fairfield and where Dutton Park train station is now.

''Now with Cross River Rail and Cross River Rail 'Light' there was an underground rail station at Park Road/ Boggo Road,'' Mr Dow said.

''That made sense because it connected into the network quite well,'' he said.

''If someone is coming up from the Gold Coast and wants to catch a train to Cleveland, they are going to have to transfer at Roma Street and come back,'' he said.

''That is because of this lack of a connection at Park Road/Boggo Road.''

However Transport Minister Scott Emerson said in 2021 a ''two-tiered'' stopping pattern would be used on the Beenleigh line, eliminating the problem.

''This will provide both all-stop trains to the Park Rd-Boggo Rd interchange and express train access to the new Woolloongabba interchange,'' Mr Emerson said.

''Access to the University of Queensland would be about five minutes from Woolloongabba or two to three minutes from the Boggo Rd busway station,''  he said.

He said the proportion of Beenleigh and Gold Coast lines that stopped ''all stations'' and those that went underground on the UBAT service would be considered by mid-2014.

That is when the project's reference design will be decided after input from transport experts and the community, he said.

Mr Emerson said the state government had decided the cost of resumptions for an underground bus and rail stop at Park Road was too expensive.

''There are significant costs and surface property resumptions associated with a connection at Park Road,'' he said.

''And this type of design made Cross River Rail unviable and unaffordable.''

Mr Emerson said overall the LNP's underground rail project doubled the number of trains across the Brisbane River, stopping at underground rail stations at the Gabba, George Street and Roma Street.

On Monday Fairfax Media reported the new rail stations at George Street and Roma Street would significantly reduce the number of passengers using Central Station.

More than 27,000  train commuters in a two-hour peak period will use the new Roma Street and George Street underground stations by 2021, with many now using Central Station.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/minister-emerson-denies-underground-plan-will-break-journeys-20131209-2z1rt.html

[curator49]

Well, Emerson has just proved it. No matter what anyone says the Government wants to do it "on the cheap" and to hell with future consequences or what the public think.

Park Road is ideal for a major interchange between modes - rail to rail, bus to rail and rail to bus and even bus to bus.

Wooloongabba will be an interchange - rail to bus and bus to rail with another interchange back to rail at some point as well as bus to bus interchanges. This government's thought processes and decision making is ludicrous.

There is no planning for the future. They are offering only what they want not what is actually needed or asked for by the people. How pathetic can they get?

[SurfRail]

So in other words, it will still involve broken journeys (2 transfers instead of one to get from outer Beenleigh to Cleveland) and lock in trains still having to operate via South Brisbane.

Well done Emmo.   

At least this is the lesser of the 2 evils I identified.  Considering there has been no information about the proposed services (which is pretty fundamental to the design of the project I would have thought), it was reasonable to draw the conclusion that either of the 2 would be possible.

[ozbob]

Bus plans seem vague as well.  Hopefully more detail will be forthcoming.   

[#Metro]

However Transport Minister Scott Emerson said in 2021 a ''two-tiered'' stopping pattern would be used on the Beenleigh line, eliminating the problem.

NO!!! SPLITTING THE LINE INTO TWO MAKES IT MORE CONFUSING AND CUTS EFFECTIVE FREQUENCY IN HALF!!
It will also reduce the cost benefit ratio because half the trips DO NOT have the 10 min time saving.

The bus network will also be bifurcated (via S'Bank, via BUM, via C'Cook Bridge)

STOP!!

[#Metro]

Following on from what STB has said, why can't they do it? Look at the Melbourne City Loop, the line DIVES down after Southern Cross Station very steeply.

[STB]

After letting Scott's words sink in, I think it's time to announce that Scott Emerson receive the 1st annual 'Double Facepalm for Public Transport Award' aka the 'Dafaq for SEQ PT Award', first the bungling of the SEQ Network Review, and now the bungling of the Cross River Rail Project (both light version and full version), with the inferior Brisbane Underground.  Well done Scott and the LNP!



Here's a  for your work! 

(Seriously, for a bit of fun, we should issue an award like this for the biggest bungles in SEQ public transport, seems to happen at least once a year!  )