Stage 2 timetables - delayed yet again?

Queensland Rail stage 2 timetable fail

It has been reported in the Rail Back on Track forum that according to informed sources, Queensland Rail's (QR) stage 2 (also known as sector 2 or phase 2) timetables may have been delayed yet again until 2014. The stage 2 timetables cover the Ferny Grove, Shorncliffe, Airport, Doomben, Cleveland, Gold Coast, and Beenleigh Lines.

Here is an updated history of the stage 2 timetable:

• No revolutionary timetable changes since 1996 - that's 17 years!
• Changes in 2008 improved the Gold Coast Line services, but stuffed up peak services for many users of the inner Ferny Grove, Cleveland, and Beenleigh Lines. For example, Enoggera and Gaythorne has 42% reductions in pm peak service!
• At the first QR Community Reference Group meeting, it was mentioned that new timetables would be introduced on all lines in 2010 - this didn't happen. 
• During TransLink's stage 1 timetable consultation in late 2010 it was quoted on TransLink's website that the stage 2 timetables would be introduced in late 2011 - this didn't happen.
• BrizCommuter complained to TransLink about the above delay in late 2011, and was told that stage 2 timetables would be introduced in early 2012 (for Ferny Grove duplication opening) - this didn't happen. 
• There was even a QR CRG on the stage 2 timetables, but QR staff were reportedly unable to actually mention anything about the new timetables, including what to expect, or any timelines - how pointless!
• 15 minute off-peak was introduced to Ferny Grove Line in Oct 2012 (6 months after the duplication opened), but was rather half-baked only being between 9am to 3pm on weekdays, with peak service frequencies often being worse! These changes also adversely affected timetables on some other parts of the network. 
• Informed sources mentioned that stage 2 timetables would be implemented after Sandgate station upgrade in late 2013.
• Reported by Rail Back on Track that stage 2 timetables now delayed until 2014. 

What problems are being caused by the continuing delays to stage 2 timetables?

• Unacceptable peak direction service gaps of up to 23 minutes on the Ferny Grove, Beenleigh, and Cleveland Lines, up to 30 minutes on the Shorncliffe and Airport Lines, and up to 45 minutes on the Doomben Line. - evidence from QR passenger load surveys show adverse changes in the 2008 timetable have deterred the use of rail transport at some stations! 
• Counter peak direction service gaps of 30 minutes or more on most lines.
• Off-peak (in)frequencies of every 30 minutes - worse than Melbourne, Sydney, and Perth. 
• Hourly frequencies late at night Mon-Thu, and on Sunday am on many lines - makes drink driving seem like an attractive option!
• Out-of-sync connections with stage 1 timetable lines (Ipswich, Richlands, Caboolture) since June 2011. 
• Confusing service patterns - even the 16km Ferny Grove Line has 4 different am peak service patterns. 
• Inefficient use of core network infrastructure - aside from am peak services from Gold Coast, Beenleigh, and Cleveland Lines, there is still spare track capacity (20-33%) in the peaks. 
• Does not take advantage of the $133m Ferny Grove Line duplication - for example some peak services still start or terminate at Mitchelton despite the bottleneck between Mitchelton and Ferny Grove being resolved more than a year ago!  

The continued delays to the stage 2 timetables, and lack of public information from the Queensland Government, TransLink, and QR is disgraceful, and displays huge contempt towards public transport users. During the period of this delay, multiple new timetables have been introduced in Melbourne. The failure of SE Queensland's public transport system continues. 

I Don't "Give a Beep"

Giving out the wrong message!

Just when you thought that Brisbane City Council couldn't be even more out of touch with reality, the SEQ Council of Mayors have announced their "Give a Beep" campaign to promote road infrastructure projects. Yes, this is the same SEQ Council of Mayors that promoted the ridiculous "Cleveland Solution" alternative to Cross River Rail, and the same Brisbane City Council that runs an inefficient and confusing bus network.

Despite the fact that most developed countries (and many developing countries) have realised that 1960s road centric policies are a failure, it seems that politicians in SE Queensland haven't noticed. 

A environmentally and financially sustainable city requires a healthy mix of road based transport, public transport, and active transport (walking and cycling). Public transport can help reduce road congestion, reduce pollution, and has proven economic benefits. Active transport again reduces road congestion, reduces pollution, increases health (note that Australia is one of the world's fattest nations), and has proven economic benefits. Yet, the SEQ Council of Mayors want to promote road infrastructure improvements instead. This will just lead to more road congestion, more pollution, more road trauma, and poorer health to society. 

On the "Give a Beep" home page, there is even a disgraceful anti-public transport comment (in screenshot above). The SEQ Council of Mayors should be thoroughly ashamed to 50 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to transport policies.

The following Rail Back on Track press release, has a pretty good list of references that need to be read and understood by Queensland Politicians:

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9932.0

Give a Beep website:

https://giveabeep.com.au

PS: The "Give a Beep" website is really badly designed as well - poor navigation, and doesn't display correctly in Safari! How much ratepayers money was spent on this?

More timetable change mediocrity from QR and TransLink

Richlands - 2 more train services

Some minor timetable changes to the Richlands, Cleveland, Ferny Grove, Airport, and Doomben Lines were announced on Friday 3rd May, for introduction on Monday 6th May. This is in keeping with TransLink's current form of giving customers as little notice as possible on timetable changes. Whilst the improvements to Ferny Grove Line reliability, and an extra two am peak services on the Richlands Line are welcome, it seems that Queensland Rail and TransLink have yet again stuffed up when it comes to informing their customers of the changes. Whilst the changes may be minor, the impact on some commuters journeys is not minor. The changes are enough for passengers from (for example) South Bank to Ferny Grove, to now have to change in the CBD and wait for the following Ferny Grove Line train. This may result in some commuters reaching their destination up to 11 minutes later than at present (at least on the occasions when the existing services are running on time). Also, passengers from the Cleveland Line, and South Bank area may miss onward connections from Roma Street to other lines and bus routes. There may be quite a big shock for a few passengers on Monday, who are likely to be blissfully unaware of the changes to to lack of information from TransLink and QR.

So what have TransLink and QR failed to do for this timetable change?

• Only announced changes on TransLink's website 1 working day ahead of change.
• One of these webpages contains at least 1 mistake!
• No .pdf timetables available on TransLink's website ahead of change.
• TransLink journey planner not updated with changes.  
• No new paper timetables available ahead of change. 
• Changes only announced to train crew 1 working day ahead of change. 
• No posters at train stations ahead of change.
• No updated timetable boards at stations. 

BrizCommuter can only assume that if QR are making minor adjustments to existing timetables (in many cases still based on the badly designed and implemented 2008 timetable), that the stage 2 timetables (now 2 years late and counting) are still not on the horizon - this is very disappointing!

SE Queensland public transport - the mediocrity continues.

Changes here:

http://jp.translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/details/1367461148

http://jp.translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/details/1367456988

Update - Friday 10th May

The TransLink journey planner has finally been updated (4 days after changes). New paper and .pdf timetables are still missing in action.

Update - Sunday 19th May

Still no new paper or .pdf timetables. Fail, fail, fail! 

Public vs Privatisation

Metro Trains Melbourne - trains every 10 minutes!

An article in today's Courier Mail website and mX newspaper has included negative comments from Melbourne's Public Transport Users Association about Melbourne's privatised rail network, and a warning about Brisbane going down the same path. Here is an extract from this Courier Mail article:


Melbourne's Public Transport Users Association president Tony Morton said privatising rail hadn't been cheaper or more innovative, with fares rising twice as fast as inflation since 1999.

Morton said the "privatisation experiment" in Melbourne caused fares to skyrocket above the CPI, with prices rising 20 per cent in two years.

He said Brisbane commuters "ain't seen nothing yet" when it came to fares.

"We have fundamental problems with the standard of maintenance and reliability on the system, which is giving us almost daily grief," he said.

The Rail Tram and Bus Union's David Matters said Brisbane shouldn't follow Melbourne's lead, warning private operators would "come in and loot the place".

A 2007 report on the first eight years of Melbourne's privatisation found over-crowding issues after a rise in patronage. But it also found there were no substantial savings.

BrizCommuter finds the last comment interesting. Overcrowding caused by a rise in patronage. Well, if patronage has risen, that using public transport must be considerably more attractive than in Brisbane where commuters are abandoning the infrequent and expensive train network!

In response to misleading panic about privatising rail services, here is a comparison between public Queensland Rail (QR) in Brisbane, and the privatised Metro Trains in Melbourne:

Single 5km peak adult train fare
Public/Brisbane $3.85
Private/Melbourne $3.50
The "sky rocking" prices of Melbourne's privatised train network are still cheaper than Brisbane's public train network.

Single 5km off-peak train fare
Public/Brisbane $3.08
Private/Melbourne $3.50
Off-peak, Brisbane's public train service is cheaper, unless of course you make more than 2 journeys (see below).

Maximum daily 5km train fare
Public/Brisbane $30+
Private/Melbourne $7 ($3.50 on weekend)
For frequent daily users such as tourists the privatised train service in Melbourne is miles cheaper, even more so on weekends.

Weekday midday off-peak train frequency
Public/Brisbane 15-60mins (typically 30mins)
Private/Melbourne 10-20mins
Melbourne's private train operator has a far more frequent off-peak train service than Brisbane's public operator which mainly has abysmal 30 mins off-peak services.

Reliability Target 
Public/Brisbane 94.93% (within 4 mins inner-suburban, 6 mins outer-suburban)
Private/Melbourne 88% (within 5 mins)
Brisbane has higher reliability, but it's pretty easy to be reliable when your trains are so infrequent!
Melbourne's rail network is generally run much closer to maximum capacity, thus resulting in less achievable reliability.

New Timetables
Public/Brisbane  - no significant changes to 7 lines since 2008
Private/Melbourne - multiple major timetable improvements every year

Cost per km data could not be obtained, however previous reports have shown QR to have the highest cost per km in Australia. So as we can see, using a private rail operator in Melbourne has resulted in generally cheaper fares, and more frequent train services in Brisbane's publicly owned rail operator QR. Is the potential privatisation of QR really that bad?

QR CityTrain and Brisbane Transport to be privatised?

QR - To be privatised?

The long awaited Queensland "Independent commission of audit" was finally released today. This not particularly independent audit of the states finances by LNP ex-federal treasurer and non-accountant Peter Costello has cast a gloomy look on the states finances. This has given Campbell Newman the chance to achieve the liberal dream of privatising as much as possible under the guise of "contestability".

Interestingly, this news is on the same day that it has been reported in Brisbanes mX newspaper that train patronage has nosedived yet again, due to high un-affordability of Brisbane's inefficient public transport system.

So what does this mean for public transport in SE Queensland? It has been quoted in the Courier Mail that "The government has accepted recommendations to open up city passenger rail services, long distance tourist rail services and bus service contracts to competitive tendering. In relation to the CityTrain network, the government has agreed to allow different providers including private providers to bid to operate services and maintain below-rail assets under franchise and lease arrangements". In other words bus and train services will be open to contestability (i.e. can the same service be provided by a private operator for less).

BrizCommuter generally sees this as good news. As mentioned in this recent blog article Queensland Rail (QR) is grossly inefficient, and possibly one of the world's least efficient train operators in terms of cost/km. For just 10% of QRs current operating budget, almost the entire inner-suburban network could receive a 15 minute 7 day/week off-peak service. Whilst privatisation in some cases such as the UK has not decreased costs (or performed more for the same cost), this was due to the rail operators being efficient in the first place (unlike QR). Safety is however a concern, with QR having a very good safety record compared to many other rail operators (public and private). BrizCommuter is sure the unions will have a word or two to say!

The mention of buses is also intriguing. The innefficiency of Brisbane Transport's network has also been mentioned a lot recently in this blog, including this previous post. However, Brisbane Transport is a Brisbane City Council asset, not a state asset. So is Brisbane Transport to be opened to contestability? BrizCommuter hopes so, with the added benefit that network design can be returned to TransLink. This in turn will allow for the introduction of TransLink's revolutionary and much needed bus network changes, with a few modifications to solve the "unpopular" issues with the canned review.

Laughable politician quote of the day comes for Shadow Transport Minister Jackie Trad, who is quoted as saying “And what that means is the tens of thousands of commuters who use the city network each day can no longer be assured they will be getting the very best.” Just a second Ms Trad, we are not getting anywhere near the best at the moment! Brisbanites pay the world's 3rd highest fares for 20+ minute peak service gaps, 30 minute off-peak service gaps, and hourly service gaps late at night. Not exactly a great train network is it?

Courier Mail story:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/premier-campbell-newman-outlines-government-response-to-commission-of-audit/story-e6freoof-1226632086888

Brisbane City Council Bus Network Review - Epic Fail !

Brisbane City Hall - Incompetence Towers!

Brisbane City Council (BCC) have just announced their bus network review a few weeks after TransLink's revolutionary (but not perfect) bus network review was dropped by Transport Minister Scott Emerson. This was in response to hysteria from  ill-informed Brisbanites, politicians, and journalists. Here is an overview of BCC's review.

The good:

• 109 and 66 merged (as per TransLink's review).
• 199 routed full-time via Ivory Street (as per TransLink's review).

The mediocre:

• Maroon CityGlider (AKA SillyGlider, Campbell's PorkBarrelGlider) will have a stop added at Bardon Shops, which should never have been missed out in the first place.
• 161 now stops at SE Busway stations making it marginally more useful. However, this just adds to number of bus routes that commuters have to remember when travelling to/from SE Busway stations. 
• 198 reduced in frequency due to low patronage, but to 50 minute intervals. Why not 60 minutes, so that passengers can at least remember the timetable!
• 369 truncated to Toombul, and 590 extended from Airport DFO to Toombul. But the 369 is still is an air carrying waste of tax-payers money. 
• P88 dropped, but part replaced by peak P163. Will the 111 and 444 thus have capacity increases?
• 77 cut back to hourly off-peak, when it should just be canned. 

The ugly: 

• Very few improvements. TransLink's canned network review had cuts, but also plenty of improvements (especially high frequency services). BCC's review appears to be 99% cuts.
• Lack of City Stop consolidation. This was one of the best things in TransLink's review. It appears that City Stop locations will continue to be a confusing and illogical mess. 
• Lack of move towards efficient trunk and feeder network (including feeding rail), which TransLink's review was moving towards. In fact, even some feeder bus routes for the high frequency Ferny Grove Line have had services will be cut by BCC. 
• No high frequency bus services to Centenary Suburbs, Northern Suburbs, Yeronga, Wynnum Road, Webster Road - these were all planned to be served by high frequency routes in TransLink's network review. Commuters in these areas should be pretty annoyed at BCC's neglect. 
• No major reduction to bus congestion through Cultural Centre. TransLink's review planned to reduce congestion by around 25%. 
• No consolidation of bus route numbers on the same corridor. TransLink's review managed to consolidate routes on many corridors. Very confusing for passengers!
• Very poor feedback form - quite obviously trying to avoid anyone with common sense providing sensible feedback. 
• Cuts to the 379/380/381 which serve Campbell Newman's Ashgrove electorate - doh!

As expected, the review is hugely disappointing, and BCC's politicians and planners should be completely ashamed of themselves. Brisbane's bus network will continue to be inefficient, confusing to use, and wasteful of taxpayers money. It's time that BCC admit that their bus network is well and truly broken, and hand the bus network review back to TransLink.  

BCC's Bus Network Review:

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/buses/bus-network-review/index.htm

Previous BrizCommuter posts on TransLink's network review:

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/brisbane-public-transport-hicksville.html

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/more-of-brisbane-city-councils-not.html

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/brisbane-city-council.html

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/go-network-major-change.html

Go card gets even more expensive

Too expensive to purchase?

The problem with stupidly high train fares to Brisbane Airport is that many passengers (apparently 1000 a month) will try and rort the system. This, up until now could be done quite easily by using a purchasing a go card with $5 deposit, running it into debt on the way to the airport, and then chucking the go card in the bin. A further 4000 passengers are using this loop hole across the rest of the network on longer journeys. This is costing TransLink (and thus taxpayers) $220,000 a year network wide. Wow, that could pay for another fat cat QR executive!

From May 6th 2013, the minimum cost of a go card will be increased to $15, with a $10 deposit to deter the amount of go card rorting. However, with CBD to Airport journeys costing $16, and a peak single from Gympie to Central costing $20.91, then the system can still be rorted, just not by quite as much.

Whilst steps need to be taken against fare evasion. BrizCommuter has a few concerns that the go card price hike may further deter the purchase of go cards by infrequent, or potentially new public transport users. Whilst, Melbourne has successfully abolished paper tickets, SE Queensland is still languishing behind with 20th century paper ticketing for occasional users. It should be noted that Melbourne's Myki card only has a deposit (purchase cost) of $6, that's $4 less than the go card's new price. It also seems odd that nothing has been about the rorting of the ill-thought out 9 journeys then free policy, which can be rorted by longer distance commuters taking short trips in their lunch break. How much is this costing the tax payer?

Of course, it could also be argued that maybe if SE Queensland's train fares were more sensible (especially Airtrain) then passengers may be less inclined to rort the system?

News Limited finally realise Queensland Rail is inefficient!

QR - Inefficient

The Courier Mail have released this story, about a "secret" 2009 report showing that Queensland Rail (QR) is the most inefficient passenger train operator in Australia, and a whopping $24/km more expensive to run than Sydney's inefficient CityRail. Well done News Corp for writing a story based on 4 year old information! The fact that QR is a hugely inefficient organisation is already well known to anyone who reads this blog or Rail Back on Track.

However, the timing of this story 4 years after the report was made seems a tad suspicious. Is this just another News Limited pro-Newman government privatisation story? BrizCommuter noted that comments (which would have been mostly negative) on the deplorable Queensland Health privatisation plans were never published on Courier Mail's website! The Courier Mail have also failed in investigative journalism to highlight some of the biggest stuff ups in Queensland Rail and TransLink's recent history such as chronic Inner Northern Busway overcrowding, and the 2 year disappearance of the stage 2 train timetables.

Anyway, back to QR. What can be done to improve efficiency aside from the almost inevitable privatisation?

• One person operation - Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, London Underground, and many other rail operators from around the world have all successfully eliminated guards. Guards can be redeployed and trained as drivers to allow for off-peak frequency improvements without increasing staff. Automatic Train Protection and other infrastructure such as platform mirrors and CCTV would need to be installed, but these would pay themselves off within a few years. 
• Better use of existing infrastructure - The trains exist, the track exists, the stations exist, but the trains are only every 30 minutes. There is a lot of expensive infrastructure doing nothing - just see Mayne depot at midday!
• Next generation rolling stock - Newer "off-the-shelf" trains tend to have much lower maintenance costs, unlike the old EMU trains which need some spare parts specially made.  
• Cut some inland regional train services - BrizCommuter may be controversial here with rail fans, but why run 2 trains a week to an outback town when you could run 2 coaches a day at a lower cost? Many developing countries have excellent coach networks with competing companies, frequent services, comfortable reclining seats, facilities, and air condition. 
• Make better use of Tilt Train services - BrizCommuter often observes the 5pm Bundaberg Tilt Train with less than 50% seat loading. In the UK, it would be rare to see any "inter-city" services with spare seats. BrizCommuter believes that unsold seats should be reallocated to go-card users travelling to Tilt Train stops on the suburban network - Landsborough, Nambour, and Gympie (maybe with a slight fare premium, as occurs with Japan's limited expresses). 
• Internal efficiencies - the management and operation of more efficient rail operators (which doesn't exactly narrow down the list) needs to be investigated and followed to reduce internal efficiencies. This would happen anyway if QR is privatised. If QR could save 10% of it's current operating budget, the funds could be reused to fund 15 minute off-peak services to most of the inner-suburban rail network (and that figure is still with guards!). 
• Property market - Make use of land above railways and stations. Hong Kong MTR Corporation makes far more revenue from property than from fares. Just make sure that there is room for rail  expansion underneath the new structures! 
• Advertising and sponsorship - QR are getting better with advertising (e.g. wrapped trains), but are a long way behind many other urban rail operators. 
• Attitude - just stop the "we can't run trains every 15 minutes because of [enter poor excuse here] attitude" QR! 

Outside of QR's control, increased efficiencies include more attractive fares to stop the negative cycle of patronage stunting and increasing subsidy. Buses feeding trains services would make for a more efficient public transport network. Unfortunately, the latter is unlikely if Brisbane City Council continue to review their own bus network with complete disregard to the bigger picture.

Update 16/04/2013

It has been reported that Queensland Rail will move from being a government owned corporation to being a "more passenger focussed" government statutory authority. A "governmentisation" rather than "privatisation". Well QR, can you start off with introducing the belated stage 2 train timetables?

Wind your clocks back 50 years

It's the time of year when some states move their clock back 1 hour. Unfortunately, in Queensland it looks like the clocks are about to be wound back 50 years to the 1960s (although Campbell Joh Bjelke Newman appears to be taking Brisbane back to the 1970/80s anyway).

In the 1960s roads were the king with low oil prices resulting in public transport heading into temporary decline around the world for a few decades. However, in the last few decades most sensible countries have realised that building more roads just results in more road congestion, and that public transport has a major role in environmentally sustainable transportation. Unfortunately, no-one forgot to tell likely next prime minister Tony Abbott. According to this Courier Mail article (in reference to comments by Tony Abbott on Melbourne's planned rail tunnel) "a Coalition government would expect the states and territories to fund public transport projects out of their own pockets." Federal funding is essential for Brisbane's $4b+ Cross River Rail to be constructed, and Tony Abbott's comments have put the federal LNP opposition at odds against the LNP state government and federal MPs. This is bad news, not just for Brisbane, but for all Australian Cities requiring rail infrastructure projects to move towards a more sustainable transport future.

With Cross River Rail looking increasingly unlikely, some of the world's highest fares, infrequent trains, and Brisbane City Council in denial that their bus network is an inefficient mess, things are looking very bad for Brisbane's public transport users. In fact Brisbane appears to be in a death spiral towards an unsustainable and congested transport future. Welcome back to the 1960s in Queensland!

Meanwhile, over in Auckland, a major rival to Brisbane for businesses in the Asia Pacific region, the bus network review appears to be going well, trains are moving towards 10 minute frequencies, and public transport fares are quite reasonable.

Brisbane = public transport Hicksville?

The last two blog posts have slated Brisbane City Council's poor bus design over the last few decades (with a bit of recently added TransLink input). Unfortunately, TransLink's revolutionary (but not entirely perfect) improvements to the bus network were abandoned. This was partially due to mass public hysteria, quickly followed by mass politician and union hysteria. Here is a case study, looking at just one bus stop, where BrizCommuter happened to come across a protest sign - click photo to enlarge.

Lloyd-North-30

Click to enlarge

This bus stop is located in Enoggera, just off Wardell Street. It is only served during weekday daytime, with no services in the evenings or weekends. Two low frequency routes currently serve this stop - 361 (Mitchelton to City via everywhere), and 372 (Ashgrove to City via everywhere).

In the TransLink network review, these two routes were both "cut" or "replaced", but with new routes replacing them. All services were removed from this particular bus stop. What alternative options would there have been for users of "Lloyd-North-30" bus stop, if the TransLink network review had come into fruition (frequencies given are Mon-Fri daytime off-peak)?

• Ferny Grove Line (Enoggera Station) - 737m walk - every 15 minutes
• New F7 bus (Mitchelton to CBD via Ashgrove) -  162m to 442m walk - every 15 minutes
• New S114 bus (existing route 390) - 448m walk - probably every 15 minutes 
• New S110 bus (Mitchelton to Ashgrove via everywhere) - 307m walk - unknown frequency
• New S210 bus (Chermside to Indooroopilly) -  162m to 442m walk - unknown frequency

Additionally, the the peak there were also plans for:

• P110 and P111 express buses (Albany Creek to CBD) - 531m walk - unknown frequency

So, anyone using Lloyd - North - 30 was not exactly going to be massively disadvantaged. However TransLink's review did not have any information on which stops on Wardell Street would have been observed by routes F7 and S210. The best case scenario would be 2 bus routes within 170m walk, 2 more bus routes within 450m walk, and a frequent train line (plus peak express buses) within 740m walk. The worst case scenario would have been 1 bus route within 310m walk, 3 more bus routes within 450m walk, and a train line (plus peak express buses) within 750m walk.

Most able bodied people should have no problem walking any of these distances. Primary school children should also be capable of walking (preferably with supervision) to the 4 stops within 450m walk. This leaves the elderly and disabled, who in most cases should be able to manage the 307m walk to the route S110 stop. If not, there is always the pre-booked Council Cabs alternative. The S110 route would have served two shopping centres, and lets face it, you'll walk considerably further than 307m around a supermarket do your shopping! Of course, it is unknown if this particular stop is even used by any elderly or disabled passengers.

So for the benefit of an extra frequent bus route serving this suburb, less confusing route options, consistent CBD bus stops for services to this suburbs, and more network efficiency (i.e. lower fares), the negatives of the closure of "Lloyd-North-30" bus stop are minimal.

Elsewhere in Brisbane

Brisbane bus users?

This example has been repeated right across Brisbane. It seems many Brisbanites, when reviewing TransLink's route changes were able to read "route .... is cut", but were then not able to read "route ... will be replaced by routes ... ". Whilst TransLink's consultation information was somewhat lacking, it seems that many did not even bother reading or understanding the information that TransLink made available.

An example below, is an article from last weeks Southern Star newspaper about the "epitome of waste" route 161 - "Campaign coordinator Diane Deem said news of the binned review came as a relief for hundreds of residents who would have been left without a viable transport option". The route 161 was actually planned to be replaced with another route, the S407. The S407 allowed interchange at Garden City to access to CBD via high frequency SE Busway services, and additionally gave direct access to Sunnybank, Coopers Plains, and other SE Suburbs. Not exactly an un-viable replacement was it Diane?

A minority of passengers would have been genuinely worse off due to the TransLink network review, and would thus have good reason to complain. However, BrizCommuter expects that the vast majority of bus users would have been advantaged. Due to the public and political hysteria over the planned changes (verging on selfish, ill-informed, and even quite stupid in some instances), TransLink's network review was canned with responsibility passed onto Brisbane City Council. Major bus network improvements such as frequent services for the first time to Centenary Suburbs, Wynnum Road, Yeronga, and North West Suburbs may now not come into fruition. CBD bus stop locations may remain confusing. Bus fares may continue to be the world's second most expensive, due to continuing inefficiency.

We will now have to wait and see if Brisbane City Council's bus network review will continue with its inefficiency and confusion, so as to not upset any irrational pitchfork wielding Brisbanites.

Update 07/04/2013

Click to enlarge

One of BrizCommuter's readers Garvin has printed out part of the above blog post, and placed it at the bus stop in question. BrizCommuter took a photo of the result. Maybe, some more sensible rebukes should be added at quite a few bus stops where protest signs have gone up?

More of Brisbane City Council's "not broken" bus network

In the last blog post, BrizCommuter took a look a high level issues with Brisbane's bus network after decades of poor network design by Brisbane City Council and TransLink. In this post, BrizCommuter continues to look at Brisbane City Council's calamitous bus network which Lord Mayor Graham Quirk is quoted as saying "isn't broken".  Poor network design includes:

• Different CBD bus stops for routes heading in the same direction
• Routes that duplicate other bus and/or train routes
• Routes that duplicate each other with minor variations
• (Almost) every bus route to the CBD network

Below are more reasons why Brisbane's bus network is well and truly broken.

Route 161

Route 161 - epitome of waste!

This route is the epitome of poor network design and waste:

• It serves a small residential area of approx 1km x 0.5km in size, but then runs express along the congested busway to the CBD (Mon-Fri) - a waste of bus and driver resources, and unnecessarily adds to congestion along the SE Busway.  
• Appears to only run inbound in the am peak, so are empty out of service buses running in the other direction? Further waste of a bus and driver resources. 

There are plenty of other examples of low patronage buses that add to SE Busway congestion, when they should just act as feeder services, such as the 183. 

This route needs to become a feeder service, terminating where it meets the busway at Garden City. Ideally, as it takes a bus only 10 minutes to drive this route, it should become part of another feeder bus route that passes through the area (as per TransLink's canned network review). 

Route 195

The route 195 (light grey) - for lazy people

This peak only route serves New Farm and Merthyr, all within 1 block away from the high frequency route 196. Why on earth does it justify it's own route?

This route should be cut (as per TransLink's canned network review), and its passengers can get a bit of exercise. Even The Biggest Looser contestants can manage a 300m walk! 

The Great Circle Line

Who seriously thought it was a good idea to have a bus service running in a huge circle around Brisbane? This bus takes 3 and half hours for a full revolution, and not surprisingly is often observed running late.  Oh, and don't try to use it on a Sunday, or you will be waiting until Monday. So much for Sunday shopping at Chermside!

This routes needs to split up into multiple routes (as per TransLink's canned network review), which can serve each area with a more appropriate timetable and routing.

P343, P344, 345

More duplication, apart from in the CBD

These buses run between Aspley and the CBD. The 345 is notorious for being full on the inner part of the route along Enoggera and Kelvin Grove Road. The P343 could help with this congestion, but runs express past the overcrowded sections of the 345 route, usually with spare seats available - much to the annoyance of passengers left behind by full 345 services! The P344 almost runs on the same route as the 345 and P344, but with a short variation along Webster Road. Just to add insult to injury, all three routes stop at different locations in the CBD, so you cannot wait for all 3 services from the same CBD location. There are plenty of other examples in Brisbane of multiple bus routes serving the same corridor (until they reach the CBD), when they should just be merged into single routes - e.g. P129, P133, and P137 duplicating the 130, and P141 duplicating the 140, P157 duplicating the 156, P179 and P189 duplicating the 180, the list goes on and on!

The P343 services should be turned into extra 345 services (as per TransLink's canned network review) - this would also result in consistent CBD stop locations. Multiple routes serving the same corridors need to be merged into one route. At the most any transport corridor should not have any more than 2 stopping patterns (e.g. all stops and express stops). 

Route 450, 453, 454, P455, P456, P457, P458, P459 (again)

8 routes, but no frequent off-peak service

These 8 routes all serve the Centenary Suburbs. Yet, only one stop in Centenary Suburbs (Mt Ommaney Shopping Centre) is served by what could be classed as a "high frequency" service during the off-peak, resulting in this suburb being a huge public transport black-hole. The via Indooropilly routes do not interchange with train services (which may be faster than bus in the peak). As mentioned in the previous blog post, these 8 routes confusingly have 4 variations of CBD bus routings. In the future buses could have used BCC's Legacy Way road tunnel to access the CBD quickly via the Northern Busway - Campbell Newman was once quoted as saying 2000 express buses per day would use the tunnel. Unfortunately, the connection between the road tunnel and the Northern Busway has not been built due to political stupidity. 

These 8 routes should be consolidated into 2, with one being a high frequency route running out to Riverhills (as per TransLink's canned network review). Consolidated routes should share CBD stop locations. Consideration should also be given for a frequent bus route linking Centenary Suburbs with the frequent Ipswich Rail Line at Darra or Oxley (as per TransLink's canned network review).  Legacy Way tunnel should ideally be linked to the Inner Northern Busway.

These examples only scratch the surface of the inefficiency, duplication, and poor design of Brisbane's bus network. Brisbane needs a bus network "revolution", as was planned by TransLink. There is not much point with Brisbane City Council's planned bus network "evolution" if your bus network is a like a sloth in the first place (no offence to sloths!). Most of these issues would have been fixed by TransLink's plans. What will Brisbane City Council do?

Previous blog post:
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/brisbane-city-council.html
Brisbane = public transport Hicksville?
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/brisbane-public-transport-hicksville.html

Brisbane City Council's "not broken" bus network

Brisbane's bus network review by TransLink (which was largely positive) has been canned, with responsibility moved to Brisbane City Council (BCC) who own bus operator Brisbane Transport.  Lord Mayor Graham Quirk appears to be in denial, stating that Brisbane's bus network "isn’t broken and doesn’t need a radical overhaul like the one proposed by Translink". Here is a list of reasons why Brisbane's bus network is broken, grossly inefficient, confusing to use, and urgently needs a radical overhaul!

CBD Stop Locations

Confusion

Only in Brisbane can multiple bus routes heading in the same direction stop at different locations in the CBD, and take different routes in and out of the CBD. Some even take different routes at different times of the day. Most confusing!

Routes P129, 130, 131, P133, 136, P137, 138 towards Sunnybank and beyond take 4 different routes through the CBD. Routes 450, 453, 454, P456, P457, P455, P458, P459 towards Centenary Suburbs also take 4 different routes through the CBD. This is obviously annoying to passengers if you miss a bus, and then have to cross the CBD to catch the next bus to your destination. In fact, the CBD bus stop locations are so confusing that casual travellers often have difficulty even finding which stop to catch their bus from.

Brisbane needs consolidated CBD "super stops" for buses travelling in similar directions. Also, bus stop locations (and associated routes and destinations) need to be well signed. 

All routes to the CBD

Inefficiency

As per the above two examples, Brisbane operates an (almost) all routes to the CBD bus network. Whilst this avoids passengers having to change buses, it is grossly inefficient, results in empty buses travelling into the CBD, and significantly adds to busway congestion through Cultural Centre. It also results in a confusing number of bus routes serving the same transport corridor with only minor variations. Brisbane has one of the world's highest ratios of bus routes to population. Despite this, many parts of Brisbane such as Centenary Suburbs, Wynnum Road, and North West Suburbs are public transport black holes.

Brisbane needs a trunk and feeder network, where low to medium frequency feeder routes feed very high frequency trunk routes. Arterial road corridors serving residential areas should be served by a high frequency bus routes where possible. All other areas should be served by buses feeding the high frequency routes. Changing buses is a fact of life in efficient public transport systems.

Duplication of other bus and train routes

Duplication

BCC's bus routes also duplicate each other, as well as train routes. For example, the P88 duplicates the frequent Ipswich train line, and SE Busway services. The Maroon CityGlider duplicates much of the route 385, but bizarrely serves different stops. Even travelling from Chermside the the CBD is served by at least 7 different routes.

An integrated public transport system should not have train and bus services competing with each other, but working together. It would also help if train services were frequent in the first place! Multiple bus routes serving the same corridor should be consolidated into a single very high frequency route. 

Other assorted rubbish

Aaaargh!

There are other fine examples of other waste. The 314 runs twice a day on weekdays only, and serves low density areas between Deagon and Shorncliffe. Most of this route is within walking distance of multiple train stations. The 338 runs between Chermide and Strathpine, or Brendale, or Eatonvale. In fact there appears to be at least 6 different route 338 variations, most of these serving schools which are within walking distance of the main route anyway.

Bus networks should not be designed to serve every possible journey. Aside from elderly residential developments, and larger primary schools, making some passengers walk a few hundred metres to a bus stop is really not a big issue.

It is very sad to see the sorry state of the SEQ Bus Network Review, especially when Auckland has embraced its well designed bus network review. Incidentally, the Auckland bus network review was designed by a Brisbane based company - you couldn't make it up! Leaving Brisbane City Council to fix to money wasting mess that they created in the first place is laughable. Its like a leaving an alcoholic to reform liquor licensing laws!  It is time to take public transport in SE Queensland out of the hands of local councils. Network planning should return to TransLink (Department of Transport and Main Roads), and Brisbane Transport should be privatised.

More of Brisbane City Council's "not broken" bus network
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/more-of-brisbane-city-councils-not.html

Brisbane = public transport Hicksville?
http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/brisbane-public-transport-hicksville.html

Crikey Blog on Brisbane's bus changes:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/03/25/is-the-qld-government-missing-the-bus/
Human Transit Blog on Auckland's network design:
http://www.humantransit.org/2012/10/auckland-how-network-redesign-can-transform-a-citys-possibilities.html
Human Transit Blog on transit design goals:
http://www.humantransit.org/2013/03/abundant-access-a-map-of-the-key-transit-choices.html