RAIL - Back On Track Forum

Auckland Transport is LGA controlled PT agency who did a bus review at the same time as BCC, used the ex-head of Brisbane Transport Neil Cagney to do the review and got implemented.

Campbell Newman when Lord Mayor actually offered Brisbane Transport to the Queensland Government. The Queensland Government refused as it would entail making up an additional 25% of the costs for zero increase in service.

Any call to disengage BCC will have to address that unavoidable and unfavourable political equation.

Hook. Line. And sinker. Another BCC PT playing with politics gotcha!

BT does have some good staff but it also has a history (like the railways) of outside interference. The bus review. It wasn't BT deciding not to attend meetings. It was BCC telling BT staff not to attend the six different meetings.

TMR refused because it meant a very large upfront cost along with significant expenses and time delays just to decide what the costs were if they were to purchase. Newman knew this and bet the majority of the public didn't know about details which is what you are proving. The eagle farm depot alone sold a few years ago for over $100 million. At the time of the offer BT had a very large fleet of buses at their end of life or not DDA compliant. They also moved bus manufacturing ops from Toowong to eagle farm and entered into a 10 year manufacturing contract that TMR would also have to fulfill along with refitting existing depots to enable mtce on the newer fleet. TMR could have said no to the depots but it then had to find land and build facilities at their expense. Then came the upfront wage costs for BT employees and the costs for intergrating BT within the Queensland government sector.

It was a sham offer that both parties knew would not accept. No different than asking ICC if it wants to buy QR passenger. When all the emus were reaching their end of life and the smu200s were first showing signs of potential retirement before the emus (2 are now back at Mayne after a very very very expensive rebuild - there's now 4 classes of 200 - 200, overhauled 200 that are missing the blowers, 220, 260).

If there was a single LGA covering all of the metropolitan area (In the same way the Greater London Authority covers all of London or Auckland Council covers all of Auckland) then you could have that local government doing the funding and planning of all modes.

But Brisbane does not have this, we have 5 councils in Brisbane metro area, and 10 when looking across the whole SEQ area so it wont ever work effectivley I'm sorry to say.

What if we want a new rail line to achieve a 30 minute isochrone in a certain area. Does the state government build it, or does the state government say "Bad luck, maybe you can fund a local levy and have some buses instead"
Do NOT want to see that become the norm, especially if the blue team got in 

QuoteIf there was a single LGA covering all of the metropolitan area (In the same way the Greater London Authority covers all of London or Auckland Council covers all of Auckland) then you could have that local government doing the funding and planning of all modes.

But Brisbane does not have this, we have 5 councils in Brisbane metro area, and 10 when looking across the whole SEQ area so it wont ever work effectivley I'm sorry to say.

What if we want a new rail line to achieve a 30 minute isochrone in a certain area. Does the state government build it, or does the state government say "Bad luck, maybe you can fund a local levy and have some buses instead"
Do NOT want to see that become the norm, especially if the blue team got in 

But of course it would work. Doesn't have to be all modes, I'm primarily thinking about networks generally within LGA boundaries, such as bus networks.

TransLink would still be responsible for planning and ensuring that networks connected across the region, but it would do so in partnership with councils primarily on bus. In exchange for LGA funding, councils would have more influence on where to spend the extra money that they contributed in their LGA.

In that way, there would be more funding in the PT pot overall for each LGA area. In addition to that, there would be competition introduced against road funding also at the LGA level too. So two goals would be achieved with the one measure.

Unlike BCC, these councils would not be operators of PT. Nobody is suggesting that Gold Coast buy out Surfside buses for example.

In areas outside SEQ, it is difficult to see why bus networks in Cairns, Townsville etc are being decided and planned from Brisbane. Ideally councils would lead these initiatives, with TransLink taking on a more funding support and expertise support role.

I don't want your buses, Bligh tells Newman
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/i-dont-want-your-buses-bligh-tells-newman-20100310-pz6m.html

QuoteLord Mayor Campbell Newman has attempted to offload the responsibility of running Brisbane City Council's 1060-strong bus fleet to the State Government, after ongoing disputes over funding and the colour of the buses.

But the offer, which if accepted would have been a major shake-up in Brisbane's public transport network, was last night rejected by Transport Minister Rachel Nolan.

^^^ Already rejected by the Queensland Government. Has anything changed? Maybe RBOT can ask Mark Bailey when we see him next? I'm sure the answer hasn't changed.

The current setup is just going to fall apart without LGA funding IMHO. Just look at these numbers:

QuotePopulation booms
Logan, Moreton Bay and Ipswich are facing mammoth population growth, By 2041, both Logan and Ipswich expect to house more than 500,000 people, while Moreton Bay is preparing for more than 700,000 residents.

Outside of Brisbane, these centres are booming. So why is there 'not a lot' for them in SEQ's $1.8b City Deal? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-28/seq-public-transport-challenges/100939888

Local Councils do nothing because "its not their responsibility" (but spending lots of LGA money on lots of roads in these same areas IS).

QuoteLogan Mayor Darren Power said public transport to Flagstone and Yarrabilba was a "huge issue". The state government manages Logan's bus network to those new developments.

Bligh, Newman want help funding public transport
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-03-17/bligh-newman-want-help-funding-public-transport/368608

QuoteBrisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman has praised Premier Anna Bligh for suggesting south-east Queensland councils need to 'pitch in' to help cover the cost of running public transport.

Ms Bligh says more services could be provided if other councils helped.

^^^ So there you have it. Confirmed by the Queensland Government itself.

It does have to be all modes or else you get councils Wanting to run buses in competition with trains.

I don't understand your current obsession with sh%t policy?

Why do you sometimes take politicians words as gospel but other times want to do the opposite of what they say?

QuoteIt does have to be all modes or else you get councils Wanting to run buses in competition with trains.

I don't understand your current obsession with sh%t policy?

Why do you sometimes take politicians words as gospel but other times want to do the opposite of what they say?

Err, no. I don't accept that. All of the other councils in LGAs around Brisbane are not going to be funding buses to run into Brisbane. So no issue there.

In what way is Gold Coast City Council going to fund buses to run in competition with the Gold Coast Line? OR ICC? Or MBRC? Sorry, not really seeing it.

Also, if you look at that icc report, even if you deduct the 25% that BCC contributes, the amount they get per person is still far above what is spent in the west

The amount the west gets and below what the other "non contributing" councils get too.


Ok say icc do contribute 25%, cool now their busses run every 45 mins instead of hourly, its still not getting close to solving the problem.

Also take into account the times when things are said. A lot of comments are on a political grandstand and reporters tend to lean that way for a better story and when you look back it can easily be taken out of context.

It's been mentioned in state government documents that fare increases and limited investment in other regions such as Ipswich, Redcliffe, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast have been a direct result of inefficiencies in Brisbanes bus network taking up a large chunk of the funding. Also take into account the extra money BCC are paying is to keep the status quo instead of facing political backlash. It's not to provide additional services. Labour are doing a LNP repeat a decade later and have already campaigned that the current review will mean cut bus routes, locals should voice their concern and it hasn't even been made public yet.

Yes it would be good if councils put up more funding but it should go into a general pool but only once councils have all been stripped of planning rights with a dedicated body responsible. The way everyone here wants it. Take the Translink network review a decade ago. For Brisbanes Northside we finally had a usable public transport network. Yes there were some flaws here and there but overall it was fundamentally a intergrated pt network. Most of the complaints was from the south and west. Shortly after the state gave them the responsibility of doing the network review the Lord Mayor stated nothing was wrong and their surveys said residents didn't want to transfer. Shortly after the same Lord Mayor claimed they needed more funding from Translink because of OTP fell outside and council had to pay. End result was timetables on some routes increased from 20-40 minutes.

TBH Translink needs to be its own body again operating solo outside of TMR. Be given more power (reinstated power actually) and have a more important role in infrastructure planning and development. Even operator contracts should be partially revoked in terms of where buses are run when it comes to boundaries. Buses should also have Translink branding and not operator branding. This will further reduce confusion. Also depending on how it's set up you could also have a similar setup to the NGR/NGR2 where government own the buses and the operator runs them in conjunction with their existing fleet. But hey that's for another time.

QuoteAlso, if you look at that icc report, even if you deduct the 25% that BCC contributes, the amount they get per person is still far above what is spent in the west

The amount the west gets and below what the other "non contributing" councils get too.

Did you have a comparison Table? Might be useful.

QuoteOk say icc do contribute 25%, cool now their busses run every 45 mins instead of hourly, its still not getting close to solving the problem.

Was the the result of a careful calculation or just general rhetoric? How did you distribute that additional funding?

QuoteAlso take into account the times when things are said. A lot of comments are on a political grandstand and reporters tend to lean that way for a better story and when you look back it can easily be taken out of context.

Well I think when Rachel Nolan said "NO", there was nothing ambiguous about that? Was there something unclear when Anna Bligh came out and said that more funding would be available if councils contributed? What was contradictory to either of these statements in the context you read?

QuoteYes it would be good if councils put up more funding but it should go into a general pool but only once councils have all been stripped of planning rights with a dedicated body responsible.

How is this going to fly? It sounds a lot like "Taxation Without Representation".
Let's say ICC raises 20% PT operational funding, and that then disappears into a "General Pool/ Black Box" managed by TL. I think ICC councillors would like to know how much of that $$ contribution came back to ICC? Why would they even sign up to such a scheme?

Ipswich First: Council to advocate for expansion of Ipswich's bus network

QuoteExpansion of Ipswich's bus network has now become a regionally significant priority as part of council's ongoing advocacy for improved infrastructure and services for the city.

Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee Chair Ipswich Mayor Teresa Harding said voting to make this project an advocacy priority meant council would double down on its efforts to secure State Government support for improved bus services.

"We know that 70 per cent of Ipswich's population growth is taking place in the corridor between Ipswich and Springfield Central.

"The ultimate goal is the development of the Ipswich to Springfield Central Public Transport Corridor and, while this project is now progressing, its completion is still years away.

"Elevating Ipswich's bus network as a regional priority means council is advocating on behalf of our growing communities to ensure they have access to reliable and efficient public transport sooner rather than later.

"Put simply, success through advocacy would be a significant and sustained increase of investment by the State Government in the Ipswich bus network," Mayor Harding said. ...

Yep it's a tax. Just like your tax. Not everyone in noosa lives there but they still pay the PT tax for free summer buses that everyone in the community uses. PT is for everybody and not council lines on a map. People also cross council lines for multiple reasons. It's also where a lot of blackholes are. Remember the BCC Friday free bus travel proposal?? Using your model why not just have a blanket PT tax for each council. This can be worked out for a whole range of ways. Have your base tax and then your service tax. There are ways to work this out for different councils. Even increase the pt tax amount for poorly designed areas approved by council. Make it publicly available so residents can see why. Moreton bay council approves a 600 home housing development with poor road layouts in the sticks west of Burpengary so the MBCC pt tax goes up which gets passed onto every mbcc resident. Might make mbcc think more clearly about its land use and can't prop it up by throwing money at it if it could. Same with BCC approving a 200 home housing development in upper Kedron. Poor road layout and difficulty with PT so publicly announce a $$$ figure increase to the BCC PT tax. If local rates go up for someone in Nudgee they can look up why and find out because of a cash grab from a land developer. Also discourages poor road design and added congestion problems (which was identified by this project). And it all starts with a single main body like Translink with greater powers overseeing the PT network.

QuoteDid you have a comparison Table? Might be useful.

Ok so its in the link ozbob posted and you could have read it.
So by the sounds of it you've been running your mouth without actually reading the report in question.

QuoteWell I think when Rachel Nolan said "NO", there was nothing ambiguous about that? Was there something unclear when Anna Bligh came out and said that more funding would be available if councils contributed? What was contradictory to either of these statements in the context you read?

At one point Graham Quirk said that " The Brisbane bus network isn't broken"

Despite that I recall you developed a new bus network proposal despite the fact the Lord Mayor didn't support the idea.

Is it ok to sometimes go counter to defy a politican, depending on which way the wind is blowing?

QuoteWas the the result of a careful calculation or just general rhetoric? How did you distribute that additional funding?

So Ipswich generally has a hourly buses.

When I posted about Geelong (similar) you said the 20 minute frequency there still isn't good enough and it needs to be every 15 minutes.

So it's pretty clear that an hourly bus network isn't going to magically become the 15 minutes frequency you require by a 25 percent funding boost.

Imo most of the 25 boost would get sucked up through extra route km needed in the expanded urban footprint (zones shown in the icc report)

PREMIUM!
https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/170109-311%2C312%2C313%2C314.pdf

25% PREMIUM!
https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/220711-326-327.pdf

THANK YOU BCC!
https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/180122-338.pdf

THANK YOU FOR THIS PREMIUM SERVICE!
https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/210712-357%2C359.pdf

SO MUCH PREMIUM!
https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/170109-336%2C337.pdf

THANK TOU FOR THIS PREMIUM!
https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/acquiadam-assets/timetables/170109-350%2C351%2C352.pdf

The worst thing about my area if you use the buses you need to know the 338, 350, 357 and 359 bus timetables as they aren't consistent and have so many clauses like this in the 357/359 timetable "Route 350 journeys after 7.15pm from the City observe Hawkins, Leitchs Rd and Albany Village stops on journeys to Aspley Hypermarket. Please refer to 350 timetable" or in the 338 you also need to know the school timetables to know if your bus will show up or if it will be 10 mins faster or 10 mins later " During school terms, service travels via Craigslea High School. During school holidays journey times may vary by
approximately 8 minutes.
B During school terms, service travels via Eatons Hill and Albany Creek State Schools.
During school holidays, service arrives at Chermside approximately 10 minutes earlier.
C Service travels via Aveo Albany Creek Retirement Village.
D Service commences from Queen Elizabeth Dr (outside shopping centre)". Is this the premium we can expect for? Or do you agree with the Lord Mayors comments that nothing is wrong with the network and bcc should continue the premium tax because it looks like brisbane rate payers are getting a raw deal. Or should I accept that as someone outside BCC this is what I have to put up with because I don't pay the BCC premium public transport tax because their busses run across the bcc boundary line?

QuoteOk so its in the link ozbob posted and you could have read it.
So by the sounds of it you've been running your mouth without actually reading the report in question.

Yaaaawn, how about you stop playing the person play the ball. Let's try that again.

QuoteYep it's a tax.

HTG, councils need something in return. They won't be onboard if you just tax the council and provide them nothing in return, its unfair.

QuoteAt one point Graham Quirk said that " The Brisbane bus network isn't broken"

Despite that I recall you developed a new bus network proposal despite the fact the Lord Mayor didn't support the idea.

Is it ok to sometimes go counter to defy a politican, depending on which way the wind is blowing?

But here you just demonstrate no sense of judgement, or application to circumstances at hand, just brute-force rules "Always agree with politician" or "Always disagree".

Now, I'm not an expert but as someone who actually went through the ENTIRE Brisbane City Council bus network route by route, line by line and then actually published the whole thing for all RBOT members to download for themselves, I think I'm well placed to make an informed opinion for myself using my own judgement on all the lines of evidence about whether it was a network in need of reform or not.

(and moreover BCC is reviewing their bus network with TL as we speak, so just another very poor argument progressed by yourself there)

This thread has gone off track. If you wish to continue to discuss councils subsidising public transport please start a new thread.

This thread is about Western Bus improvements and is the raison d'être.

We all have different points of view.  Just leave it at that for now.

Quote from: ozbob on December 24, 2021, 10:38:35 AMIpswich 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 )

Ipswich First: Council to advocate for expansion of Ipswich's bus network

QuoteExpansion of Ipswich's bus network has now become a regionally significant priority as part of council's ongoing advocacy for improved infrastructure and services for the city.

Growth, Infrastructure and Waste Committee Chair Ipswich Mayor Teresa Harding said voting to make this project an advocacy priority meant council would double down on its efforts to secure State Government support for improved bus services.

"We know that 70 per cent of Ipswich's population growth is taking place in the corridor between Ipswich and Springfield Central.

"The ultimate goal is the development of the Ipswich to Springfield Central Public Transport Corridor and, while this project is now progressing, its completion is still years away.

"Elevating Ipswich's bus network as a regional priority means council is advocating on behalf of our growing communities to ensure they have access to reliable and efficient public transport sooner rather than later.

"Put simply, success through advocacy would be a significant and sustained increase of investment by the State Government in the Ipswich bus network," Mayor Harding said. ...

QuoteBut here you just demonstrate no sense of judgement, or application to circumstances at hand, just brute-force rules "Always agree with politician" or "Always disagree".

In this case im choosing to disagree with the position that councils should be forced to supplement inadequate state funding, so i disagree with Bligh and Nolan.


In terms of Ipswich, the direct Springfield to Ipswich CBF route was needed yesterday.

Route extensions/splitting for Redbank plains is an urgency.

Maybe we should run a bit with the outer bus narrative, not just Ipswich but Logan and the northern GC too, really hammer the point that across multiple growth areas get less per person, and it demonstrably results in more traffic and poor services.

Quotebut as someone who actually went through the ENTIRE Brisbane City Council bus network route by route, line by line and then actually published the whole thing for all RBOT members to download for themselves, I think I'm well placed to make an informed opinion for myself using my own judgement on all the lines of evidence about whether it was a network in need of reform or not.

Then you would have seen how BCC's premium 25% pt tax isn't working and how the 680 operated by hornibrook is the next most frequent bus north of Chermside other than the 330 and 340.

There are lots of blackholes across brisbane. The same for Ipswich and Springfield. Browns Plains. Strathpine, Redcliffe, Caboolture, deception bay, Northern Gold Coast, Logan etc etc. And having a premium tax simply doesn't work as BCC have shown for over 2 decades. You need a proper governing body to be the sole network designer. That way you can intergrate routes across council boundaries without interference from councils and allowing for proper network integration. Having a dedicated body not constrained by tmr for example with power and a proper budget can then provide greater subsidies for pt providers such as what the state has done for BCC in the past and offering increased pay incentives for drivers (done via Translink/operator contracts) of private operators which has been a major hurdle for many private bus operators attracting new drivers. Translink have been hampered in the past aswell. Take the original rail timetable review in 2008/2009. There were small issues with a couple services and they became quite clear they were going to become a sustained serious issue. QR noticed and came to a solution within a few days and needed 2 days or a weekend to implement due to staff rostering/rollingstock issues (IIRC it was due to a terminating crew operating one of the services). Translink staff organised the printing of new timetables and everything else needed. It took just over a month for someone to finally sign off on it (apparently it was due to someone high up trying to save a few bucks to see if there would be a passenger load shift that never came).

By making Brisbanes pt network more efficient you can reduce costs and the money that would have funded in efficiencies in Brisbane could instead be used to fund more areas that really need it across the network. Such as Ipswich, Springfield and browns plains. But until we have a dedicate pt outfit set up we are always going to have the continuing short comings and problems not just in Brisbane but across the entire seq area.

Apologies Bob if went a bit off topic again but many areas in seq and especially the fringes of BCC/ICC/LCC etc don't have a quick and easy fix such has proposing new routes. You can't run routes without drivers. It starts from the head down. Queensland needs a proper stand alone public transport body and as much little interference from councils.

QuoteQueensland needs a proper stand alone public transport body and as much little interference from councils.

You are forgiven HTG 

The font of forgiveness extends in a bountiful way to all members  

but not those clowns up in Big Willy! 

It is good though that Ipswich City Council is mobilising. 

Their transport staff have been doing some great work,
I do communicate with them from time to time. 

New route for when they find some drivers: 

I'd probably have it run via Booval Fair too, seems like quite a substantial centre that should be serviced.

Quote from: Cazza on October 01, 2022, 12:10:06 PMI'd probably have it run via Booval Fair too, seems like quite a substantial centre that should be serviced.

Would you then continue along Brisbane Rd (follow 500 route) or dogleg back on to Blackstone Road (follow 502 route)?

I think Blackstone Rd could use better service, but I also hate giant doglegs.

I'd swap 500 and this route between Booval and Ipswich Central (500 via Blackstone and this one via Brisbane Rd).

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1594343375783612417

I understand the desire for more services, but shouldn't priority 1 be to get enough drivers to operate the current timetable without numerous cancellations?

Reduced service timetables will end in a couple of weeks by the looks of things.

Ipswich is many years overdue now. 2023 going to be a big bus 🚌 year out west!

LGA funding of bus services is here > https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=14835.0

This thread is for Ipswich bus service improvements.

Any posts not relevant will be moved or removed.

ICC Community Matters Newsletter December 2022 page 2



 

ICC:

Better Bus Network:

Council seeks an annual commitment of $5 million towards two new bus services for Ipswich: a trunk bus route between Ipswich Central and Springfield Central and the expansion of bus services within Redbank Plains

https://www.ipswichtribune.com.au/news-politics/council-plea-for-infrastructure-funds

I had a 3hr meet up with the Ipswich City Council Transport Planner the other day, and this is top priority.  I've informed him that I previously was a transport planner in charge of Ipswich many years ago and alerted him that a Redbank Plains-Ipswich service was planned in 2007, on a report for a future bus network for then developing Springfield.

He's written a paper to show what is needed, and I'm in the middle of drawing up a network that I worked on some years ago for the Redbank Plains/Springfield region.

Thanks STB.  The longstanding neglect of Ipswich public transport by State Governments is something I intend to highlight.  Our local MPs for the Ipswich Region need to stand up and support council.

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1669485716500537344

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1669487169134813186

Springfield—Riverlink via Redbank Plains & Bell St should be a core HF route IMO. I think the biggest problem, though, is where Westside will find more drivers. They're already struggling to run the existing network, and unlike, say, BCC, there's not a lot of room for consolidation of existing routes.

I finally managed to make my way to my local MPs office (Lance McCallem) today to raise some issues, and when I mentioned to the staff at the desk about what the ICC Transport Planner said about the funding issue, that the state hasn't chipped any money in this area, she got rather hostile and mentioned changes that were done some years ago (the 524/525/527 etc).  I mentioned that ICC wanted a Springfield to Ipswich service (bus), and she said it's 'in the pipeline', same with getting a connection (524 assumingly), from Redbank Plains to Springfield, again she said 'it's in the pipeline'.

I'm sorry, but the Ipswich to Springfield bus route has been 'in the pipeline' since 2007!  Sounds like the ALP just don't want to unclog the so called 'pipeline'. 

She also called out ICC for not throwing in money for the bus network, and that if they want changes, they have to chip in as well. 

QuoteShe also called out ICC for not throwing in money for the bus network, and that if they want changes, they have to chip in as well.

Ipswich gets less PT $ on a per capita basis compared to the SEQ per capita average funding.

That said, I think the staffer has a point. PT funding is the odd apple in the bunch. All other transport modes other than PT can get LGA funding.

The current Translink funding model for financing operations isn't optimal. It's had about 20 years to prove itself. I suspect it's actually unsustainable which would neatly explain the unofficial cost neutral funding policy.

BCC recognised the problem decades ago and came up with a good solution - co-funding. This is why BUZ, CityGliders, CityCats and BRT metro buses can exist. Note, this is not an endorsement of BCC network planning or decisions.

Practically, can I see the Queensland Government doing a large operational funding increase for PT alone?? No. It seems already difficult enough for them to fund and deliver things on our existing wishlist.

Quote from: STB on June 26, 2023, 19:04:33 PMI finally managed to make my way to my local MPs office (Lance McCallem) today to raise some issues, and when I mentioned to the staff at the desk about what the ICC Transport Planner said about the funding issue, that the state hasn't chipped any money in this area, she got rather hostile and mentioned changes that were done some years ago (the 524/525/527 etc).  I mentioned that ICC wanted a Springfield to Ipswich service (bus), and she said it's 'in the pipeline', same with getting a connection (524 assumingly), from Redbank Plains to Springfield, again she said 'it's in the pipeline'.

I'm sorry, but the Ipswich to Springfield bus route has been 'in the pipeline' since 2007!  Sounds like the ALP just don't want to unclog the so called 'pipeline'. 

She also called out ICC for not throwing in money for the bus network, and that if they want changes, they have to chip in as well. 

Thanks for the update STB.  I had a meeting with Lance just before Christmas last (he is my local State MP too), during which I discussed the bus issues at length.  He said he was very supportive of improvements. Ipswich is under-funded but there is a possibility that ICC might chip in some $$ as well.  Things are developing.

QuoteIpswich is under-funded but there is a possibility that ICC might chip in some $$ as well. Things are developing.

This sounds promising. If ICC were to put money down for extra 'top-up' bus service funding within Ipswich LGA, would we support that, or would we support the principle of Translink exclusive only funding for PT services?

Translink is the primary funding entity.  A number of LGAs do put some funding in for some extra services eg.  Sunshine Coast Council.  It is not really a matter of supporting one or the other but advocating for improvements.

Pretty clear some here don't understand that councils such as Ipswich (or Logan, Redland, Moreton Bay) don't have the capacity to find services as Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, or Gold Coast. They don't have the massive rates from CBD and inner-city commercial buildings, or from the hotels/resorts of the coasts.

DTMR needs to do a better job of funding PT instead of trash investments like Coomera Connector, western Bruce Hwy duplication, and the ever& expanding M1.