• Welcome to RAIL - Back On Track Forum.
 

Bus region Ipswich/Springfield (Western)

Started by ozbob, July 09, 2016, 10:02:39 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cazza

Gotta love a masterplanned city that cant even accommodate a standard bus... it's a sign of the times people :fp:

ozbob

The road network around Springfield I find confusing and to me, unsafe.  I avoid the general area in horseless carriages.
Parts of it just don't make much sense at all.

I will go there by train/bus but that's it!


Cars parked illegally along a narrow street in Springfield.(Supplied: Jason Crouch)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-09/drivers-frustrated-by-fines-curbing-illegal-parking-brisbane/9957784
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

achiruel

^ agreed Bob. I've driven to Springfield once, never again! If I can't take the train and/or bus there, I won't go.

City Designer

I have to disagree. The 533 follows a series of collector roads more than capable of accommodating a 12.5m rigid bus. I have noticed 12.5m rigid buses are now regularly used.

ozbob

Quote from: City Designer on July 17, 2021, 20:45:40 PM
I have to disagree. The 533 follows a series of collector roads more than capable of accommodating a 12.5m rigid bus. I have noticed 12.5m rigid buses are now regularly used.

Thanks.  As I said not impossible for larger buses do the route.  The reason for the small buses initially was the road conditions according to TransLink. 

Still don't like the layout of Springfield roads.  As I said I avoid the area given the choice ...  :hc
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

ozbob

#205
Ipswich City Council

Proposal for expansion of the Ipswich Bus network

https://ipswich.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/CBWS_20211130_MAT_2892.PDF

=====

https://ipswich.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/CBWS_20211130_MIN_2892_WEB.htm


1.           EXPANDING THE IPSWICH BUS NETWORK

The public transport services in Ipswich are run and administered by the Translink Division of the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. In recent years, Council has had very limited success in lobbying the State Government to invest in the expansion of the bus network. The attached draft Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee report (Attachment 1) titled 'Expanding the Ipswich Bus Network' highlights the state of Ipswich's bus network, benchmarks the Ipswich bus network against other networks within South East Queensland (SEQ), and outlines several considerations for Council moving forward.

This report and accompanying presentation is to outline the contents of the Committee report and allow Council to discuss the matter prior to it being presented to a future committee meeting.

Attachments

1.    Draft Committee Report - Expanding the Ipswich Bus Network ⇨

2.    Attachment to draft committee report - bus service changes ⇨

3.    Presentation - Expanding the Ipswich Bus Network ⇨ 

( Go to https://ipswich.infocouncil.biz/Open/2021/11/CBWS_20211130_MIN_2892_WEB.htm for attachment links )
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

ozbob

^ I have only had a quick look, but will spend some more time on over the next couple of weeks.

But looks like a good attempt to get some improvements.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

ozbob

Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

ozbob

Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

ozbob

ICC https://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/about_council/media/media-releases/articles/2022/ipswich-residents-left-waiting-for-new-bus-services

Ipswich residents left waiting for new bus services
17 February 2022

The expansion of the bus network within Ipswich has not kept up with the population growth experienced within the city, with fewer bus routes and patronage lower than what it was a decade ago.

Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee Chairperson Ipswich Mayor Teresa Harding said while Ipswich is the fastest growing city in Queensland, a Council review shows the bus network has remained largely unchanged, and the Ipswich community deserves better.

"Council receives many requests to improve public transport services within Ipswich and in particular the bus services, and this report demonstrates that Ipswich residents have been left waiting for new bus services to arrive," Mayor Harding said.

"Public transport services in Ipswich are the responsibility of the Queensland Government, administered by the TransLink and the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR).

"We need new bus services in Redbank Plains, as well as a new direct bus service linking the Ipswich CBD with Redbank Plains and Springfield Central.

"The bus services currently on offer in these booming suburbs are not meeting the needs of our residents. With the Ipswich to Springfield Central Public Transport Corridor (I2S) project still some years away, it is critical we have an efficient bus network in place to keep up with Ipswich's growth.

"We need a plan for more services, better routes, and greater access to public transport now: the Ripley Valley region is the fastest growing community in Queensland, and residents need to know when their ticket to ride will arrive."

Compared with other regions in South East Queensland, Ipswich (Western Region) has the smallest bus service contract spend by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) of about $106 per resident, correlating with the lowest number of urban bus routes at 18.

Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee Deputy Chairperson Councillor Paul Tully said that over the last decade, only eight bus routes in Ipswich have experienced improvements to routing or frequency.

"When the bus service has limited operating hours with low frequency, long journey times, indirect routes and don't go to where the most people need them, people won't use them," Cr Tully said.

"Public transport is not only a means to relieving traffic congestion, but it also plays a significant role in supporting Ipswich's economic success by connecting people to jobs and services, moving residents around the region, and reducing isolation and social exclusion."

The report, tabled at the Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee (Item 2) meeting on 10 February, can be found on Council's website here.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

ozbob

Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

#Metro

Ipswich needs to enter into a similar agreement with TL similar to BCC. Money for route consultation.
BCC residents pay about 500-700 per year via rates to subsidise TfB the BCC bus operator.

Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

techblitz

Is that another council asking for extra funding by the state government?....message....join the queue with other councils...because this government really only cares about rail / light rail or park and rides....has the writing not been on the wall the last 5 years or so??
You only have to check the transport ministers social media feeds to see where his priorities rest.
Buses/bus networks and bus operators have largely been ignored.

achiruel

Quote from: #Metro on February 17, 2022, 13:43:49 PM
Ipswich needs to enter into a similar agreement with TL similar to BCC. Money for route consultation.
BCC residents pay about 500-700 per year via rates to subsidise TfB the BCC bus operator.

What, so that ICC can run a horribly inefficient and duplicative bus network as well? No thanks!

#Metro

QuoteWhat, so that ICC can run a horribly inefficient and duplicative bus network as well? No thanks!

Unlike other states, Queensland councils are generally large and well-financed. City transport clearly incorporates a level of local government responsibility, as it is local residents that benefit the most, not the state at large.

ICC can get more service if it pays.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

STB

Reminds me, I've drawn up a new network for the Redbank/Redbank Plains/Springfield area, which includes a route from Springfield Central to Riverlink and Ipswich.  Might have to draw it up and post it up for others to comment on.

ozbob

Ripley Valley bus service improvement survey
Have your say on how to improve the Route 531 bus service

Overview
TransLink is seeking your feedback to improve Ripley's Route 531 in 2022 and beyond.

Launched in January 2019, Route 531 operates:

Monday to Friday between 6am and 10pm
Saturdays between 7am and 6pm.
With a plan to introduce more weekday and weekend services this year, TransLink wants to hear from you to make sure bus services meet your needs.

Provide your feedback in the survey below about when you currently travel and what time of day or week you think needs more services.

TransLink is also interested in finding out any other locations you would like to travel to from Ripley.

Your feedback will help to improve Route 531 this year and into the future.

>> https://www.yoursay-projects.tmr.qld.gov.au/ripley-bus-route
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

achiruel

I gave some feedback. After looking at the 531 and 515 timetable, it's pretty clear that not a lot of thought was put into connections, with the transfer window at times being 3-4 minutes, which leaves very little scope for late running. Needs to be 6-8 minutes. Considering the lack of frequency, the potential for this connection to be broken fairly easily would IMO discourage anyone bar those with no alternative from using the 531.

I don't expect the 531 to run every 15 minutes, but hourly would be a good start. 2 hourly bus services are a joke.

ozbob

Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

ozbob

It's time !!!!

Quote from: ozbob on February 17, 2022, 10:13:37 AMICC https://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/about_council/media/media-releases/articles/2022/ipswich-residents-left-waiting-for-new-bus-services

Ipswich residents left waiting for new bus services
17 February 2022

The expansion of the bus network within Ipswich has not kept up with the population growth experienced within the city, with fewer bus routes and patronage lower than what it was a decade ago.

Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee Chairperson Ipswich Mayor Teresa Harding said while Ipswich is the fastest growing city in Queensland, a Council review shows the bus network has remained largely unchanged, and the Ipswich community deserves better.

"Council receives many requests to improve public transport services within Ipswich and in particular the bus services, and this report demonstrates that Ipswich residents have been left waiting for new bus services to arrive," Mayor Harding said.

"Public transport services in Ipswich are the responsibility of the Queensland Government, administered by the TransLink and the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR).

"We need new bus services in Redbank Plains, as well as a new direct bus service linking the Ipswich CBD with Redbank Plains and Springfield Central.

"The bus services currently on offer in these booming suburbs are not meeting the needs of our residents. With the Ipswich to Springfield Central Public Transport Corridor (I2S) project still some years away, it is critical we have an efficient bus network in place to keep up with Ipswich's growth.

"We need a plan for more services, better routes, and greater access to public transport now: the Ripley Valley region is the fastest growing community in Queensland, and residents need to know when their ticket to ride will arrive."

Compared with other regions in South East Queensland, Ipswich (Western Region) has the smallest bus service contract spend by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) of about $106 per resident, correlating with the lowest number of urban bus routes at 18.

Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee Deputy Chairperson Councillor Paul Tully said that over the last decade, only eight bus routes in Ipswich have experienced improvements to routing or frequency.

"When the bus service has limited operating hours with low frequency, long journey times, indirect routes and don't go to where the most people need them, people won't use them," Cr Tully said.

"Public transport is not only a means to relieving traffic congestion, but it also plays a significant role in supporting Ipswich's economic success by connecting people to jobs and services, moving residents around the region, and reducing isolation and social exclusion."

The report, tabled at the Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee (Item 2) meeting on 10 February, can be found on Council's website here.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

ozbob

Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

ozbob

ABC --> Ipswich council calls for greater government investment into bus network as driver shortages persist

QuoteQueensland's fastest-growing city is calling for a serious financial injection into its ailing bus network amid fears thousands of new residents will become car bound.

Key points:
Ipswich council is calling for an improved public transport route between the city hubs of Ipswich and Springfield
The state government has committed to a $400,000 transport review
Translink says bus routes cancelled in July remain suspended due to driver shortages

According to a report recently tabled in Ipswich City Council, the city has only 18 urban bus routes managed by the state government, compared to 35 in Redlands, 47 in Logan, and 48 in Moreton Bay.

Mayor Teresa Harding said Ipswich's annual growth was at 4 per cent, well above Queensland's 1.9 per cent, as nearly 5,000 new residents moved to the council region last year.

The region's current population of 242,000 residents is expected to top 520,000 by 2041, and at present, fewer than 11 per cent of residents use public transport.

"If we don't put in the public transport now, if we don't service the growth that is happening in those fast-growing areas as well as our established areas, people will just go to cars," Ms Harding said.

"We have this terrific opportunity to get more people onto public transport, so they do become a one-car or zero-car family. ...
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

#Metro

Is there any value in Ipswich City contributing to PT funding as well? BCC has done it for decades.
Otherwise, perhaps they might have to look at visa sponsoring people to drive buses. Just a thought.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

minbrisbane

I feel the issue is the pay - there's not enough money in it to attract people.  It's not a simple job and you're dealing with the public. 

SurfRail

BCC benefits from having an enormously higher proportion of its rates coming from commercial properties than most other LGAs.  It isn't as simple as saying other councils should just "pay" - that translates into putting rates up quite significantly on residences.  It is the State's job since it has a much broader revenue base and can do things like this consistently across council boundaries.
Ride the G:

#Metro

QuoteBCC benefits from having an enormously higher proportion of its rates coming from commercial properties than most other LGAs.  It isn't as simple as saying other councils should just "pay" - that translates into putting rates up quite significantly on residences.  It is the State's job since it has a much broader revenue base and can do things like this consistently across council boundaries.

I think control of local transport in local areas is probably best devolved to the local authority in partnership with TransLink. It is the local government that is best placed to decide politically both the level of funding (above a basic minimum) and the proportion of funding split between coverage routes and patronage routes.

These are value judgements, not technical assessments.

I believe in BCC the amount is $400-500 p.a. per ratepayer. Now, nobody is suggesting these levels of yearly contribution for ICC (that is a question ICC and ICC ratepayers should decide through the political process), but they are growing so it makes sense some proportion of the costs be shared with the locals who will benefit.

BCC's view is that TransLink providing the basic level of PT service would not be enough for Brisbane, hence the top up of 25% that BCC provides in funding. That sort of logic could apply in the ICC case as well.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

Gazza

Quotehence the top up of 25% that BCC provides in funding. That sort of logic could apply in the ICC case as well.
The 25% gets whittled away a bit on duplicative routes etc imo.

PS as I understand it Transperth does it all at the state level, therefore there is no need to devolve to the council level.

Also gives rise to buck passing.
Eg you have areas that experience high growth because thats where the state wants the growth to happen:
https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/economic-development-qld/priority-development-areas-and-projects/priority-development-areas/ripley-valley

And the buses in these areas are demonstrably below par, and then the state then goes "well if you want better buses, why dont you fund some"

It sets up inequites. As Surfrail said, BCC  benefits from its central location in SEQ and has the CBD so gets huge rates revenues.

Are less wealthy councils with smaller rates bases doomed to have bad public transport?




ozbob

ICC Transport staff have done some great work on the bus network.
Ipswich bus region has been treated poorly by the authorities.

See > https://ipswich.infocouncil.biz/Open/2022/02/GIW_20220210_AGN_3049_AT_WEB.htm
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

#Metro

#228
QuoteThe 25% gets whittled away a bit on duplicative routes etc imo.

Different council, different politics. ICC aren't a dual council-bus operator either.

QuotePS as I understand it Transperth does it all at the state level, therefore there is no need to devolve to the council level.

Perth has tiny local council areas, as does Sydney and Melbourne.
This is not the case in SEQ or QLD generally.

QuoteAnd the buses in these areas are demonstrably below par, and then the state then goes "well if you want better buses, why dont you fund some"

Of course, State Government already contributes 75% of the funds in BCC and I believe 100% everywhere else, so...

QuoteIt sets up inequites. As Surfrail said, BCC  benefits from its central location in SEQ and has the CBD so gets huge rates revenues.

BCC gets more PT because it is willing to pay more for a premium level of PT over and above the basic level that TL would otherwise provide. If ICC wants the same for its areas, it can do something similar. If it doesn't want to do so - because of money - then it will just have to compete with all the other local councils in SEQ whole of QLD for who also want funding for "their" local government area.

Pay more - Get more.

And I want to also address this "it wouldn't be affordable". Based on what, precisely? If ICC determines what is affordable for it (presumably > $0.00) and pays that to TL.
ICC can decide how much, e.g. $X per ratepayer and where in ICC that should be spent.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

Gazza

QuotePerth has tiny local council areas, as does Sydney and Melbourne.
This is not the case in SEQ or QLD generally.
Yes so if the council areas are tiny, they'd only have a couple of bus routes to fund right?
It's all in proportion right?

QuoteBCC gets more PT because it is willing to pay more for a premium level of PT over and above the basic level that TL would otherwise provide. If ICC wants the same for its areas, it can do something similar. If it doesn't want to do so - because of money - then it will just have to compete with all the other local councils in SEQ for who also want funding for "their" local government area.
It's not because they are "willing" to pay more, its because they are able to pay more.
BCC has revenue streams other councils do not have access to, so can afford to do these sorts of things.

Just to be clear, you now support BCC funding and devolving planning to BCC?

QuoteOf course, State Government already contributes 75% of the funds in BCC and I believe 100% everywhere else, so...
Yes but its bad policy IMO. The state is imposing growth on certain councils, but is reluctant to pay to service that growth.

#Metro

QuoteYes so if the council areas are tiny, they'd only have a couple of bus routes to fund right?
It's all in proportion right?

Well, did you read the part where I outlined the differences in LGA size for Perth/Melbourne versus SEQ?  :is- ICC literally has two entire cities enclosed within it, as compared to somewhere like Peppermint Grove LGA in Perth which has an area of just 1.1 km2.

QuoteIt's not because they are "willing" to pay more, its because they are able to pay more.
BCC has revenue streams other councils do not have access to, so can afford to do these sorts of things.

Well, BCC is both willing and able. But what I said before is correct. The alternative is that ICC will have to compete with other LGAs who also want funding from the Queensland Government such as:

- BCC
- Logan (also rapidly growing)
- Gold Coast (also rapidly growing)
- Redlands
- Scenic Rim
- Toowoomba
- Sunshine Coast (also rapidly growing)
- Somerset
- Locker Valley
- Moreton Bay Regional Council (also rapidly growing)
- Noosa (also rapidly growing)

So that is at least 11 other councils in SEQ that they are up against, but as TL does the whole of QLD now, they also in competition with Cairns, Townsville, Gladstone etc...

Whereas if Ipswich City Council just makes a contribution from its own rate payers, then they 100% guaranteed that it will be spent in THEIR local area. That's the difference.

QuoteYes but its bad policy IMO. The state is imposing growth on certain councils, but is reluctant to pay to service that growth.

The principle of subsidiarity is well established. The people of Ipswich should simply have the question put to them (a) do you want to pay more and get more, and (b) if yes, decide on how much more.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

Gazza

#231
There's no need to "play off" different council areas against each other.

Perth doesn't do this!

Instead, they have the  PTA which not only looks at the Perth metropolitan area, but also various regional towns, each TransBunbury, TransHedland, TransKaratha etc.

What this demonstrates is that you can design an effective, well patronised network, without needing to seek alternative funding sources from lower tiers of government.

They do not design services looking at invisible council boundaries, or allocate services based on who gave them the most money, instead they just remain focused what works.

There is no need to advocate for alternative models to this because it will demonstrably result in a poorer network, even in council areas which do provide additional funding. (i.e. the "Queensland Model")

BCC provides additonal funding, but they still don't have a good, well designed bus network.


Have you ever asked yourself why Perth can constantly expand the network, run good bus and train frequencies etc?

Because they actually spend money on public transport.

HappyTrainGuy

#232
Quote from: #Metro on September 27, 2022, 13:00:32 PMIs there any value in Ipswich City contributing to PT funding as well? BCC has done it for decades.
Otherwise, perhaps they might have to look at visa sponsoring people to drive buses. Just a thought.

Not the best example. BCC has subsided it's contract each year by about 30-40million in 2015 (outside of its 400 million a year contract) because it refuses to reform its network and continues to use it as a political tool rather than a public transport service. Hell they were forking out over 5 million a year in just driver overtime because they couldn't meet OTP. BCC don't pay a premium for services. They are propping up a failing network that full of inefficiencies, duplication and black spots. Some areas get 12bph after 10pm meanwhile some areas have 12 buses per day. Just think of how much people could be using pt if it was usable instead of the pandering and keeping the status quo. Both parties are guilty of this which is why bcc should not have route design/control and the state doesn't help by watering down contracts/giving bcc more power. They have hammered the state government in the past but they don't admit fault. Such as the only way to reform the bus network is to build metro. No one wants to transfer on the busway but with metro will force transfers at RBWH for example. If you want an example look at Noosa where there is free bus travel during the summer holidays.

QuoteIt's not because they are "willing" to pay more, its because they are able to pay more.
BCC has revenue streams other councils do not have access to, so can afford to do these sorts of things.
Their land/property revenue income is crazy. Take CBIC. It's owned by bcc and its sole purpose is to generate income for the BCC. It has massive properties, it owns buildings all across brisbane, it's in residential and industrial, they have interests in Victoria and NSW (pretty sure the NDIS and ATO buildings in Canberra are owned by CBIC - let's see Ipswich try this out) and has lots of different revenue streams. Trade coast is a prime example. CBIC own tradecoast. BCC sold their eagle farm bus depot for 105 million. New owners pay BCC rates. Owners pay CBIC for leasing the property in Tradecoast. BCC own CBIC.

Edit: CBIC paid BCC a $20 million dividend for the 19-20 financial year for the 5th time running with $284 million in assets. They took a hit during covid and only paid out $15 million which was on par with 2015 takings...

#Metro

#233
QuoteThere's no need to "play off" different council areas against each other.

Perth doesn't do this!

Instead, they have the  PTA which not only looks at the Perth metropolitan area, but also various regional towns, each TransBunbury, TransHedland, TransKaratha etc.

What this demonstrates is that you can design an effective, well patronised network, without needing to seek alternative funding sources from lower tiers of government.

They do not design services looking at invisible council boundaries, or allocate services based on who gave them the most money, instead they just remain focused what works.

QuoteHave you ever asked yourself why Perth can constantly expand the network, run good bus and train frequencies etc? Because they actually spend money on public transport.

Well, all it demonstrates is that when your state is the HQ for Hancock Prospecting et al. and home to global mining billionares your public services will be well funded by mining royalties/taxes. See Mining sector lifts WA budget to $5.7 billion surplus https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/mining-sector-lifts-wa-budget-to-5-7-billion-surplus/

But the essence of your argument isn't actually about more money being required (no dispute there). The essence of your argument is that any money to fund PT absolutely must not be sourced from Local Government. You want to keep LGAs as non-contributors to the operational costs of Public Transport funding, even if they were in a financial position to contribute something, anything.

As before, WA LGAs are far smaller than LGAs in QLD. What would be impractical to setup in Perth or WA is actually possible in QLD. For example, the Gold Coast LGA is above 600,000 people, its area is 1,334 km². That's more people than the ACT and Canberra. It's pretty hard to argue that they're not in a position to financially contribute something.

WA's population is also concentrated into Greater Perth. About 77% of all Western Australians live in Greater Perth.

- 2.19 million in Greater Perth
- 2.7 million WA Population

So the WA Government can't really focus its attention on much else. In contrast, Ipswich, Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast,Toowoomba, Townsville and Cairns are all fairly mid-size to large cities in their own right with their own economies. Large enough to contribute, and possibly share planning PT as well.

QuoteThere is no need to advocate for alternative models to this because it will demonstrably result in a poorer network, even in council areas which do provide additional funding. (i.e. the "Queensland Model")

QuoteBCC provides additonal funding, but they still don't have a good, well designed bus network.

The current model demonstrably results in a poorer bus network. The bus service frequencies everywhere outside of BCC area are terrible. How is it possible that we have entire cities with 100,000 or 200,000, or 600,000 people and only enough funding for hourly buses everywhere? Do you want more of this? Do you want to keep doing this?

It's also not a new or "alternative model". The framework to activate LGA contributions is already there, it just needs other LGAs to start contributing along with BCC who already does it. Rather than progress unproductive lines such as "that's a State Government responsibility".

The bottom line is that with more funding from LGAs we can buy more frequency.
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

#Metro

#234
QuoteEdit: CBIC paid BCC a $20 million dividend for the 19-20 financial year for the 5th time running with $284 million in assets. They took a hit during covid and only paid out $15 million which was on par with 2015 takings...

That's a 7% return, on par with investing in publicly traded shares.

234,614 population of Ipswich, divide by the average household 2.35 = 99,836 ratepayers (estimate).
$20 million / 99,836 ratepayers = $200 per year ($3.84 per week). Note, this calculation assumes zero commercial businesses exist in Ipswich, which is clearly not the case. So the actual number in terms of rates is a lot less than this.

To put this in perspective, the amount ICC spends on household rubbish bin collection is $371/ratepayer per year (2020-21 ICC budget). For reference, I believe the BCC contribution to PT each year is in the order of $400-500 per ratepayer.

ICC might decide to choose a lower level of co-funding if it thought that was appropriate. Its PT demand is much less than that for Brisbane.

Other Cities
If somewhere else such as Gold Coast started contributing, how much would this raise?

Population 633,764, divide by average household 2.35 = 269,686 ratepayers. Calculate test contribution at $3.84 per week... x 52 weeks = $53.8 million more for PT services. (Again assuming no rateable commercial businesses exist on the Gold Coast, so the real figure much lower than this).

^ With figures like this, do you still want to maintain the idea of no operational funding from LGAs??

Source: Ipswich 2020–2021 Budget At a Glance https://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/131328/Budget-at-a-Glance-2020_A4_Web.pdf
Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

ozbob

Quote from: Gazza on September 27, 2022, 17:31:40 PMThere's no need to "play off" different council areas against each other.

Perth doesn't do this!

Instead, they have the  PTA which not only looks at the Perth metropolitan area, but also various regional towns, each TransBunbury, TransHedland, TransKaratha etc.

What this demonstrates is that you can design an effective, well patronised network, without needing to seek alternative funding sources from lower tiers of government.

They do not design services looking at invisible council boundaries, or allocate services based on who gave them the most money, instead they just remain focused what works.

There is no need to advocate for alternative models to this because it will demonstrably result in a poorer network, even in council areas which do provide additional funding. (i.e. the "Queensland Model")

BCC provides additonal funding, but they still don't have a good, well designed bus network.


Have you ever asked yourself why Perth can constantly expand the network, run good bus and train frequencies etc?

Because they actually spend money on public transport.

Summed up well.  The sooner BCC is just an operator the better.
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Ozbob's Gallery Forum   Facebook  X   Mastodon  BlueSky

HappyTrainGuy

Quote from: #Metro on September 27, 2022, 22:53:10 PM
QuoteEdit: CBIC paid BCC a $20 million dividend for the 19-20 financial year for the 5th time running with $284 million in assets. They took a hit during covid and only paid out $15 million which was on par with 2015 takings...

That's a 7% return, on par with investing in publicly traded shares.

234,614 population of Ipswich, divide by the average household 2.35 = 99,836 ratepayers (estimate).
$20 million / 99,836 ratepayers = $200 per year ($3.84 per week). Note, this calculation assumes zero commercial businesses exist in Ipswich, which is clearly not the case. So the actual number in terms of rates is a lot less than this.

To put this in perspective, the amount ICC spends on household rubbish bin collection is $371/ratepayer per year (2020-21 ICC budget). For reference, I believe the BCC contribution to PT each year is in the order of $400-500 per ratepayer.

ICC might decide to choose a lower level of co-funding if it thought that was appropriate. Its PT demand is much less than that for Brisbane.

Other Cities
If somewhere else such as Gold Coast started contributing, how much would this raise?

Population 633,764, divide by average household 2.35 = 269,686 ratepayers. Calculate test contribution at $3.84 per week... x 52 weeks = $53.8 million more for PT services. (Again assuming no rateable commercial businesses exist on the Gold Coast, so the real figure much lower than this).

^ With figures like this, do you still want to maintain the idea of no operational funding from LGAs??

Source: Ipswich 2020–2021 Budget At a Glance https://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/131328/Budget-at-a-Glance-2020_A4_Web.pdf

Public shareholders?? If you don't know BCC is the sole and only shareholder of CBIC. The Newman Council invested 130 million to set it up (which was heavily criticised at the time as some big bcc assets were transferred to a private company which was immune from government FOI requests) and have already got back 170 million in dividends.

By all means allow for councils to add another tax which will go down well trying to see but funding should go into a pool. Otherwise we will continue to see the PT sillybuggers to thrive. Like the 327 terminating/starting at Bald Hills in peak hour instead of Strathpine. Or the 338 linking Albany creek to strathpine having the last service leave strathpine before the shops have closed. And to prevent that take route running out of council control by having one authority overseeing everything.

Nothing summed up the pt network big dick swinging competition like the late 2000's. State gov prevented Newman bcc from starting another bus network with legalisation forcing them to play ball. BCC could no longer use the threat of stopping its contract and holding on to/selling buses, depots and other assets as state gov knew they couldn't afford to, the bad image and situation created for residents and state gov buying depots and fleets for a steal. Newman gets into state and then proceeds to remove the legalisation that prevented that along with gutting and damaging Translink to the pointthat it still hasn't recovered from. Now state gov and bcc are continually playing games with each other making compromised deals between each other because they can't agree on the basics and we the public are stuck in the middle of it rather than having a proper integrated network that we can easily use.

Gazza

QuoteWell, all it demonstrates is that when your state is the HQ for Hancock Prospecting et al. and home to global mining billionares your public services will be well funded by mining royalties/taxes. See Mining sector lifts WA budget to $5.7 billion surplus https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/mining-sector-lifts-wa-budget-to-5-7-billion-surplus/
Queensland has a mining industry too.


Lets take other LGAs in Australia.

The City of Greater Geelong has 270,000 people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Greater_Geelong

This is a larger population than Ipswich. Several main routes run every 20 mins offpeak.
Routes are generally logical and aren't really circituous. They run down main roads
https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PTV-default-site/more/maps/Local-area-maps/Regional/a158711d31/Geelong-Bus-Network-v2.pdf

This demonstrates that even in a state without mining, and without local government funding you can have a decent network if the state government does its job.


I could give other examples from interstate, for example Cantebury Bankstown is 370,000 people, Paramatta is 250,000.

Big councils are certainly not unique to Queensland!


QuoteThe essence of your argument is that any money to fund PT absolutely must not be sourced from Local Government. You want to keep LGAs as non-contributors to the operational costs of Public Transport funding, even if they were in a financial position to contribute something, anything.
This is correct. Local councils should focus on local roads, fixing footpaths, waste collection, sporting facilities etc and make sure these things are done to a high standard.


QuoteThe bottom line is that with more funding from LGAs we can buy more frequency.
You say that, but its not what we actually get.

-On the GC the council funds off peak travel for seniors
-In Noosa, its some free buses in the school holidays.


Nothing like the network actually needed, just discounts for certain people at certain times.





#Metro

#238
QuoteThe City of Greater Geelong has 270,000 people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Greater_Geelong

This is a larger population than Ipswich. Several main routes run every 20 mins offpeak.
Routes are generally logical and aren't really circituous. They run down main roads
https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/PTV-default-site/more/maps/Local-area-maps/Regional/a158711d31/Geelong-Bus-Network-v2.pdf

Well, your example doesn't really "prove" anything.

Obviously, if The City of Geelong contributed to PT, then there would be more money over and above what PTV provides available. Perhaps those bus services would be running every 15 minutes and not every 20 minutes. A 20 minute service is too long a wait to make decent connections, 15 minute frequency really is the minimum.

And Melbourne overall is infamous for its terrible bus services.
And as before, bus services outside of Greater Melbourne barely exist.

- As Melbourne's west grows, poor bus services are forcing residents to rely on cars https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-11/bus-services-missing-in-melbournes-west/101425670

- Meandering bus routes driving Melbourne around the bend, says new study https://www.ptua.org.au/2012/06/08/meandering-bus-routes/

QuoteThe PTUA study compared the actual route distances travelled by Melbourne's buses to the shortest, most direct routes possible. On average, bus routes were 70% longer than the direct alternative, while best practice guidelines recommend routes should deviate by no more than about 30% from the most direct route.

Some 20% of Melbourne bus routes were so indirect that the route length was more than double the shortest distance by road.

Ironically, isn't this the one of the same issues that we get up at BCC for doing?

Famously, the the Toronto Transit Commission is one of the world's best PT systems and it is operated by an LGA. Same with Transport for London, an LGA-level agency. There has been a lot written about the TTC and Melbourne, TTC far outperforms Melbourne.

Melbourne v Toronto
https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2009/11/21/melbourne-v-toronto/



Melbourne's PT patronage tanks, even with a far more extensive rail network, and that's due to the poor bus services that occurred under Victorian State Government stewardship.



QuoteThis is correct. Local councils should focus on local roads, fixing footpaths, waste collection, sporting facilities etc and make sure these things are done to a high standard.

And I don't agree with this. The higher tiers of government are less responsive to local areas. And if you look at comments that RBOT member Jonno makes about how there needs to be less road expenditure you can see the problem with allowing LGAs to spend lots of money on roads and have no responsibility for contributing something for PT operational funding. As it is "Not Their Responsibility" there is no competition to allocating their transport budget 100% towards more roads.

So you have this imbalance where at the State Level who funds main roads, and public transport, and the LGA level where you have councils fund roads including local arterials, but nothing for local PT. A lot of that road funding that member Jonno would like to see reduced or diverted is also happening at the LGA level.

For example, in its 2021-2022 Ipswich Council budget, ICC spent $15.2 million Redbank Plain Road upgrades  (Stage 3 and 4) and $22.9 million Springfield Parkway and Springfield Greenbank Arterial (Stages 1 and 3).

These are similar amounts to what ICC could raise with a modest $3 or $4 week rate levy for PT contributions, the price of one coffee a week!

QuoteYou say that, but its not what we actually get.

Which is why I think RBOT needs to seriously reconsider the current view of having LGAs other than BCC essentially exempt from contributing funds to PT operations in partnership with TransLink. At the moment if an LGA other than BCC has a transport problem, they just spend ~ 100% of their LGA's transport budget it on more roads!!

Negative people... have a problem for every solution. Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members.

Gazza

QuoteWhich is why I think RBOT needs to seriously reconsider the current view of having LGAs other than BCC essentially exempt from contributing funds to PT operations in partnership with TransLink. At the moment if an LGA other than BCC has a transport problem, they just spend ~ 100% of their LGA's transport budget it on more roads!!


No RBOT wants BCC out of the planning and funding all together, not going the other way more councils being like BCC.
That's just further entrenching a bad approach.

Having two fingers in the pie causes problems. Do you want other councils to sink bus reviews?

If it's 100% a state government responsibility then there is nowhere to hide and nobody to blame but themselves.
Local level representation comes through local MPs.

Anyway this a dumb debate and literally nobody on here agrees with you on this.



🡱 🡳