Website | Forum | Gallery | Fleet Wiki
ACT Bus Forum

SEQld bus service review

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline route56

  • *
  • 136
  • I see what you did there!
    • ACT Light Rail
« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 05:34:48 PM by ACTbusspotter »

Offline The Love Guru

  • *****
  • 948
  • Gender: Male
  • ACTION 0305, perfection in public transport
Re: brisbane busways declining patronage
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2013, 11:09:48 AM »
Without reading the whole thing, there is no mention anywhere of declining patronage, it actually states that patronage across the network has increased.

Facts over political milage please.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 11:54:17 AM by The Love Guru »

Offline Barry Drive

  • *****
  • 3718
  • Gender: Male
  • Obscurantist
Re: Brisbane bus service review
« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2013, 11:37:10 AM »
Topic title has been amended. Nowhere does Courier Mail article refer to a decline in passenger numbers.

Offline route56

  • *
  • 136
  • I see what you did there!
    • ACT Light Rail
Re: Brisbane bus service review
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2013, 06:57:52 PM »
Feel free to restore the censored title.

Declining bus patronage is why the review was conducted.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/government-launches-bus-review-20120723-22keo.html

Quote

Underperforming bus routes that carry as few as one or two passengers will be targeted in a six-month review of all southeast Queensland services to be announced this morning.

Transport Minister Scott Emerson said the review was necessary after the latest bus patronage figures had declined on 13 of southeast Queensland's 16 bus companies.

The review will also involve finding a solution to empty buses congesting the CBD's Victoria Bridge.

In November last year, brisbanetimes.com.au reported more than 200 buses many empty mounted up across the Victoria Bridge in peak hours because of route problems.

 
The bus review will include public submissions and detailed discussions with bus companies working in Brisbane and the Gold and Sunshine coasts.


« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 09:33:14 AM by Buzz Killington »

Offline The Love Guru

  • *****
  • 948
  • Gender: Male
  • ACTION 0305, perfection in public transport
Re: Brisbane bus service review
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2013, 09:03:20 PM »
The title still isn't right Damien, it states that patronage had dropped for 13 out of 16 operators, but no where does it say that patronage had dropped overall. The previous article actually states a .5% increase.

For someone who should be on top of this sort of thing, your ability to read what is actually written in front of you is rather disappointing. Might help to take the blinkers off.

On a side note, why does the government in QLD think that cutting out services is the answer to declining patronage? Oh that's right, Liberal party way of thinking, best way to grow your economy is to cut as much as possible out of it.

Offline Bus 400

  • ***
  • 4691
  • Gender: Male
Brisbane bus service review
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2013, 03:14:04 PM »
On a side note, why does the government in QLD think that cutting out services is the answer to declining patronage? Oh that's right, Liberal party way of thinking, best way to grow your economy is to cut as much as possible out of it.

Lucky we didn't end up with a Liberal Government, the same thing could of happened to us.

Offline route56

  • *
  • 136
  • I see what you did there!
    • ACT Light Rail
Re: Brisbane bus service review
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2013, 08:09:51 PM »
let me just check my mathematics. 13 out of 16 show a decline in patronage yet thats not a decline in patronage?

Im struggling to see how there is anything 'political' in pointing out facts.

Maybe this over-sensitivity to pointing out flawed bus networks reflects more upon yourself.

My aim is to see as many people as possible using public transport. Much like the authors of the actual report and the people who directed them to undertake it.

 

 


Offline Snorzac

  • ***
  • 4137
  • Gender: Male
    • Zac's Flickr
Brisbane bus service review
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2013, 08:53:39 PM »
It says nothing about an overall decline though, you will most likely find that the three operators not showing a decline are Brisbane Transport, Surfside and Sunbus which would (I am estimating) account for approx 75% of the patronage on translink run services.

Go to Brisbane and try and get on a route 333 to Chermside in the afternoon peak and then tell me that there is a decline in patronage.

The way I see this is that you are interpreting the articles as what you want to see, not what the actually say!

Offline The Love Guru

  • *****
  • 948
  • Gender: Male
  • ACTION 0305, perfection in public transport
Re: Brisbane bus service review
« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2013, 08:54:40 PM »
So if 13 areas lost 1 passenger each and the other 3 gained 30 each you'd still call it a decline in patronage?

I guess it depends how you want to see.

Your aim Damien is to serve your own lobby group interest. Hard not to be political about it when you are the face of a group who's aim is to see light rail installed, even if it is not done properly or even the correct mode of transport to begin with. I take with a grain of salt 'facts' that anyone with an agenda such as yourself tell me.

Offline Ed

  • ***
  • 195
  • Gender: Male
  • Sinking the boat. And proud of it!!!!
Re: Brisbane bus service review
« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2013, 09:08:13 PM »
Quote
On a side note, why does the government in QLD think that cutting out services is the answer to declining patronage? Oh that's right, Liberal party way of thinking, best way to grow your economy is to cut as much as possible out of it.
Glancing at this report, this report seems to focus on reallocating available resources (ie increasing frequencies of high patronage routes while at the same time cutting and/or reducing frequencies of routes of lower patronage). It does not advocate axing routes "left, right and centre".

Quote
let me just check my mathematics. 13 out of 16 show a decline in patronage yet thats not a decline in patronage?

Part 2 of this report actually states that "Bus patronage has increased over recent years, but growth is slowing year on year".
Which is from 2007-08 to 2011-12.

Without much further ado, here are the links to the actual 100 page report (without newpaper or political bias) in four parts. For the hardcore gunzels here, you can go over this with a fine tooth comb. As for me, I really couldn't be fucked.

http://translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/seq-bus-network-review?utm_source=translink&utm_medium=primary-tile&utm_content=march-2013&utm_campaign=seq-bus-network-review
and also click on "Report available here" for the four links to the four parts
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 09:37:21 PM by Ed »

Offline Barry Drive

  • *****
  • 3718
  • Gender: Male
  • Obscurantist
Re: SEQld bus service review
« Reply #10 on: March 24, 2013, 06:05:55 PM »
Feel free to restore the censored title.

Declining bus patronage is why the review was conducted.
Title has been modified again since review was for more than just Brisbane.

The latest happenings with this review is that the Qld Government has caved on making the changes within the BT area.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/city-hall-left-holding-the-go-card-after-complaining-about-bus-route-changes-20130321-2gi1x.html

While I've not looked into this matter closely to form an opinion, I do find it interesting that the public objections to the proposed changes were mainly to do with an unwillingness of passengers to transfer from one service (bus) to another service (train or different bus) to complete their journey to the City. Something for ACTION to consider when they ever get around to releasing their next network review.

Also worth noting what Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said:

Quote
My view was that Brisbane's bus services were not broken with annual patronage increasing from 48 million to 80 million since 2004.

[As for the alleged deletion of a post to "start an anti light-rail rant in another topic" - I didn't start the rant, the discussion had moved off-topic and was therefore split into its own topic. The re-instated posting has once again been deleted as it mainly refers to the off-topic post and is still fully readable in the new topic and does not warrant re-posting.]