RAIL - Back On Track Forum

It is worth reflecting on why the TransPerth model is stable and works well.

An independent Public Transport Agency has now been tried twice in Queensland and on both occasions was dissolved and re-absorbed back into TMR.

A third attempt at a similar authority is likely to meet the same fate, if the reasons why the previous two attempts resulted in dissolution are not known.

Different people were running BCC and the MTA in the 1980s compared to TransLink in the early 2000s. And yet essentially the same situation played out. Why did that happen?

The WA PTA

Looking at the PTA organisational chart, there are two key differences with the WA PTA that stand out. https://www.pta.wa.gov.au/about-us/our-role/organisational-structure

- Firstly, TransPerth trains are run as a division of the PTA. Translating this to the Queensland situation, it suggests that Queensland Rail would be absorbed into the PTA and QR would then be one of its brands. Rail service operation moved into the MTT, a predecessor of TransPerth in 1974.

- Secondly, Perth did not have a large LGA deliver bus services. As private bus operators were financially distressed, they were taken over by the MTT in 1958. Later the bus operations were contracted out, which is what TransLink does today with the non-BCC bus operators.

Without a separate train operator or large council pushing back - or manage relationships with - the WA PTA was free of distractions to do its job. The Bligh Red Team Government passing up the Blue Team BCC administration's offer to upload its buses was a missed opportunity when viewed from this lens.

So, those are the two key differences. 

Our History - PTA WA
https://www.pta.wa.gov.au/about-us/our-role/our-history

TransPerth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transperth

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

Translink was doing pretty good and was on the improvement. The problem with it getting absorbed back into tmr was due to a former bcc Lord Mayor playing payback games under the guise of cost cutting when he got the states top seat. Who then went totally overboard. Translink/state imposed restrictions on bcc/bt when he was there as Lord Mayor. He was quite vocal about Translink in this regard. Those restrictions have since been relaxed when he got in nor have they since been reimposed which is why we still get these pointless network reviews, lack of connections, political games from local and state on both sides, gold gliders, coottha buses etc.

Newman intended to privatise the railways along with many other state public services. QR was changed from a government owned corporation to a statuary body and services outsourced to tmr who by themselves admitted they were not prepared or had the skills/personnel to do so (they were also bound by the employment freeze). Yes men were on thin ice for the first time. NGRs were set up and are effectively privatised. Same for the next units coming. Massive staff cuts to make it look lean on paper while totally destroying it in the long run. Railway jobs were outsourced to tmr. IT services outsourced. Big cuts to front line staff - contracts not renewed, employment freeze etc). Trains ordered that would have added benefits in the long run for when the network went DOO (NGRs are DOO trains. Only problem is they weren't built DOO compatible at the moment as they were outfitted in a non DOO spec. The 100/120/160/260 would be cheaper and easier to outfit for DOO than the NGRs are). With the staff cuts and office managers reading too much into what caused the Banyo level crossing accident lead to the Kippa ring driver shortage and to this day the same axed and outsourced positions haven't been reinstated but staff numbers have ballooned past what they were prior thanks to the NGR's requiring station staff just to maintain otp and timetables.

BCC was never going to sell the state their bus operations. It was all a political stunt. Which you still keep thinking was serious. The state was never in the position to do so and bcc wasn't in the position to sell. All a political game.

Newman did quite a bit of damage to active transport and public transport in his short stay. He still gloats about how the NGR's are cheaper in the long run (doesn't include the DOO refit costs). However the bigger problem is labor refusing to fix these mistakes and maintains the status quo. Because it's easier to maintain the status quo than it is to get bad press about changes. And having bcc labor complaining about proposed bcc lnp bus changes doesn't help. But then again neither does management of the QTMP disaster.

https://x.com/tamhus8/status/1724298328899264794?s=20

Sent to all outlets

Public Transport Queensland - Now is the hour!

4th December 2023

Brisbane Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner has highlighted the need for much better transport in his resignation from the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games Intergovernmental Leaders' Forum, saying "We don't need overpriced stadiums, we need better transport."

We sure do need better public and active transport.  We suggest that the Queensland Government move immediately to form a proper public transport authority (Public Transport Queensland) and take over the administration of public and active transport for Queensland, including preparation of the transport plans for the 2032 Olympic Games. Lord Mayor Schrinner is correct when has says " Politicians cannot be trusted ".

Public transport in Queensland continues to blunder on. There is little doubt that Queensland must move forward with a proper stand alone Public Transport Authority. The Translink brand can remain as such, but a proper authority similar to the Public Transport Authority of Western Australia ( https://www.pta.wa.gov.au/ ) is needed. Simply blundering along with the failure structures at present is only making everything worse.

The lack of timely reporting, the fire-wall between the public and Translink (communications outsourced), the silos of blunder and miscommunication are all compounding the failure. A Government that fails to be truly transparent when it comes to public transport matters.  It took years of advocacy for the rail network operational plan for Cross River Rail to be made public for example.

Unless there is radical change, the mess will never be sorted.

The key issue is the present organisation, administration and delivery of public transport in Queensland.  The current fragmented structures have delivered failure, for example - rail fail, Redcliffe Peninsula line fail, botched new trains - NGRs, bus network reform fail, fare fail, greater Brisbane the nation's worst for public transport access, half-hearted DDA compliance, delayed rail improvements on the Sunshine Coast and level crossing removal stagnation. Could hardly be worse.

The structure needs reform.

There needs to be a stand alone public transport authority. A good model could be based on the Public Transport Authority of WA ( https://www.pta.wa.gov.au/ ) with the resources and the will to properly champion public transport and turnaround the constant failures.

The present fragmented structures of Brisbane City Council, Queensland Rail, Transport and Main Roads and Translink will not.  They will just continue to propagate failure.  The Government did task the Citytrain Response Unit to make recommendations with respect to an Integrated Public Transport Model.  They completed the review December 2017 and passed to Government for consideration ( https://www.cru.qld.gov.au/Reports ). Nothing has been heard since

In the Page 6 Citytrain Response Unit Final Report* (publicly available June 2021) was this recommendation:

" Recommendation 36a-c remains open. The
Citytrain Response Unit recommends that a further
review be undertaken, building on the work
completed by the CRU, to consider how greater
integration across the public transport cluster can
be achieved to support the successful delivery
of public transport projects and services into the
future."

And page 3

" However, further work is required to ensure Queensland's
public transport arrangements are suitable for supporting
the successful delivery and operation of forthcoming network
changes including Cross River Rail, the European Train Control
System, the Brisbane Metro and a possible Olympic bid.
Although some improvements have been realised through the
delivery of the Fixing the trains program, greater integration
between public transport agencies would better support
the long-term success of these projects and deliver superior
customer outcomes."

*https://www.cru.qld.gov.au/-/media/CRU/Fixing-the-Trains_Final-report_December_2020.pdf

Nothing had been heard on the recommendation 36a-c.

As we have posted previously ( https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=264693 ) we believe the way forward from here is to establish a proper public transport authority.  We suggest 'Public Transport Queensland' which will provide the proper integration and better administration and delivery than the fragmented 'silo' arrangements at present.

This is now even more pressing with the State's commitment to the 2032 Olympic Games.
Doing nothing is not an option, it is time to bite the bullet of structural reform.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Facebook ...

https://x.com/railbotforum/status/1731317733416149248?s=20

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1731318773372899513?s=20

https://x.com/railbotforum/status/1750699196435616155?s=20

https://x.com/JonathanPBryant/status/1750783315907637573?s=20

^

More evidence why BCC needs to brought into line with a proper public transport authority.

Our State Governments are gutless.

Sent to all outlets:

squabble squabble squabble

5th February 2024

Good Morning,

The embarrassing political squabbles continue. 

Couriermail --> War of words rages on between Brisbane City Council, Transport Minister over bus funding split after failed negotiation
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/qld-politics/war-of-words-rages-on-between-brisbane-city-council-transport-minister-over-bus-funding-split-after-failed-negotiation/news-story/459e84a511436a818a2a1c02f55abe7f

Until we have a Government that is prepared to set up a proper Public Transport Authority which has the resources, staff and funding to properly administer public transport in Brisbane and SEQ (as a single unit), and the rest of our regional Queensland services, public transport in SEQ and Brisbane will continue its slide to bottom of our nation's public transport networks. 

Frankly, it is past the point of embarrassing.  It is sadly pathetic. 

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

BCC (all local council's for that matter) should not be able to build or run their own public transport projects/services! They fund Translink to provide services and to deliver projects. And that's it!

This problem is equally created by BCC political game playing and refusal to just be a service provider

To be fair, the Queensland Government has been riding on the back of BCC.

If this were Sydney or Melbourne, the State Government would have to pay for absolutely everything and do all the actual planning work etc.

They don't want to do this, which is why the current situation works for them.

Quote from: Bart Mellish"If Brisbane bus commuters are not satisfied with the current level of service, they should ask why Adrian Schrinner poured so much money into a single, costly metro project, which is now impacting council's ability to deliver services," Mr Mellish said.

"Instead of investing in local bus networks, the Schrinner council chose a bespoke product which is proving to be very expensive and years behind.

These comments by the Transport Minister make no sense. The BUZ and CityGlider services are BCC initiatives, not State ones.

Indeed, what are the state initiatives when it comes to buses? Very hard to identify other than busway extensions.

Just ask the Transport Minister for a list. I think he would struggle to identify anything the State Government has done in the last 10 years within the BCC area in relation to buses.

Queen Street Busway, KGS, Eleanor Schonell Bridge all BCC initiatives or had BCC heavily involved.

State Government is being carried in this area it seems. And it's not like the State Government have done stellar job of the rail network either...

Until we have a single PT authority it will continue to be a shambles ...

I am sure of the LNP were asked whether it would support a SEQ PT Authority, the reply would be: "We will release our transport policy closer to the election."

If they announced there support, the media would go into attack, asking the government its response. The issue would be elevated in the public discourse.

A public transport authority would be for all of Queensland. 

It is unlikely the LNP would support a PTA because of the politics involved IMHO.

Mr Bailey had his chance and didn't do anything. 

So the future of PT in SEQ / Brisbane is continuing further slides down to worst in class. 

The state labor government has underfunded bus services for some time. 
Ipswich region, labor heartland has been ignored now for years.  It is starting to tell hey ...

#Metro, always be circumspect with what is reported in the media. 

It is often not the full comments and can be misleading.  But your point is taken.

Quote from: ozbob on February 05, 2024, 09:02:08 AMA public transport authority would be for all of Queensland. 

It is unlikely the LNP would support a PTA because of the politics involved IMHO.

Mr Bailey had his chance and didn't do anything. 

So the future of PT in SEQ / Brisbane is continuing further slides down to worst in class. 

The state labor government has underfunded bus services for some time. 
Ipswich region, labor heartland has been ignored now for years.  It is starting to tell hey ...

Are you planning on raising a PTA when you meet with the new Minister, or will you wait until you've developed good relations first?

Quote from: OzbobA public transport authority would be for all of Queensland.

It is unlikely the LNP would support a PTA because of the politics involved IMHO.

A PTA would only be half the solution. From the background research I've been looking at, if the PTA is constituted as a co-ordinating authority it will suffer the same fate as the prior two transit authorities - the MTA and TransLink MkI.

What the background information is indicating is that PTA formation would have to be coupled with removal of the pre-existing authorities as well. This would constitute it as a singular authority, not a co-ordinating one.

This suggests that BCC bus operations and BCC funding all moves into the new PTA and is run in-house.

^ indeed.  A PTA is the single authority.

BCC would just another bus operator, which there are many in Queensland doing PT bus services.

Well, it's more likely that BCC will not be a bus operator at all under a singular authority.

That's how things are set up in Perth and every other capital. It's either direct public operation (Tasmania, ACT) or contracted.

There's no local council.

Retaining BCC would create opportunity to clash over bus routing and bus reviews. And invent their own services, as they did with Maroon Cityglider etc.

Much better to just upload them into the PTA directly it seems.

Transperth???  Translink would continue as the brand. BCC can remain an operator.  Hardly an issue.  You are making things far more complicated than they need to be.

But it is possible that BCC may no longer want to be a bus operator 

There are two kinds of PTA you can have - co-ordinating or singular. I'll post a diagram later to make it clearer. 

PTA WA  Organisational Structure

https://www.pta.wa.gov.au/about-us/our-role/organisational-structure

^ little wonder they gets thing done!   

Quote from: RowBro on February 05, 2024, 09:21:43 AMAre you planning on raising a PTA when you meet with the new Minister, or will you wait until you've developed good relations first?

I think the issue would have been mentioned in Ministerial briefings for the new Minister.  See how things go.

Part of putting together a diagram was figuring out who was doing what. 

The main finding here is that BCC exhibits virtually all functions one would expect from a transit authority - including funding, fare-setting (currently limited), and major infrastructure construction. This is not commenting on whether this is a good, neutral, or bad thing but rather presenting known historical facts and observations. Please advise if any factual errors are present in the table.

^ thanks #Metro.  You have encapsulated what is really the problem.  Dual ' transit ' agencies.  BCC works solely for it's own patch with out regard to the impacts on the rest of SEQ. BCC use PT for politics in an extreme way as well IMHO.

We know that a single PTA is the best model from a scan of the other jurisdictions. BCC is only in this position because of unique history of the formation of BCC and circumstances at the time. "In 1924, the Queensland State Parliament passed the City of Brisbane Act to set up a single government in Brisbane. Before this, the Brisbane area had been divided up into 20 local authorities and joint boards." https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council/council-information-and-rates/council-history

That is 100 years ago now.  Been massive changes since then.  It is no longer appropriate for BCC to be acting as a transit agency.  We need a proper transit agency acting for the whole of SEQ including Brisbane as one (and the rest of Queensland). 

So the research put together informed a 'Governance Mapping' excercise to visualise what is happening on the ground. This is what it looks like (see below). Any factual inaccuracies - please let me know for correction.

Conceptual Governance Models


Transperth Model


Translink Model (for Brisbane LGA)


Some Comments:

- BCC is unlikely to ever be 'just a plain bus operator'. Compare the Perth bus and ferry operator circle with what is in the BCC circle. There are a tonne of council assets and infrastructure, plus it is the city's job to set a vision for the whole city. This is the people-independent situational aspect to all of this.

- There are many types of Public Transport Authority. At one end of the spectrum you have a singular authority which holds the power, and at the other end you have a co-ordinating authority which just fills in the gaps (e.g. integrated ticketing and fares) between existing operators who retain a high degree of autonomy. When we say we want a PTA, we also need to specify which type, as there is more than one.

- Just because something looks simple or more complicated on paper, does not necessarily mean it is a bad model. It depends. None of the other capitals have large powerful councils like Queensland does. The model in NSW is probably closer to the Queensland model, and cities outside of Greater Sydney generally have mediocre PT services as LGA funding support isn't there and the NSW Government focus is mainly on Sydney.

- The Queensland Government's strategy seems to be rather than changing the governance arrangements for Brisbane, they will just make Brisbane City Council pay more operational subsidy % over time to be commensurate with their high level of influence.

- It would not surprise me if the subsidy ultimately became 50:50 over time between BCC and the Queensland Government. The Queensland Government is essentially paying 75% of the costs for 25% of the control in Brisbane. The Queensland Government has 11 other LGAs to assist with growth pressures in SEQ. If it can get BCC to shoulder a greater % of operational subsidy, the Queensland Government can start to spend more in the LGAs surrounding Brisbane. This would also force BCC to properly review its bus network to reduce duplication because the Council's direct exposure to the costs would now be much much higher.

The % operational subsidy seems to be the only lever left for the Queensland Government as the alternative of taking over BCC assets would require it to wear a massive transition cost and pay for and plan for absolutely everything thereon.

- You will notice that there is a separation between Queensland Rail and TMR in the mapping. This suggests TMR potentially lacks in-house expertise when it comes to major rail projects and has to rely on QR's word (alluded to in an inquiry report re: Kippa Ring line's signalling issues etc.). Perth's model largely avoids this because the interface between the rail operator, infrastructure project management, and policy is all in-house under one management structure.

I hope this all provides good material and insight for members to think about and discuss.

TMR are responsible for all major rail projects when Newman changed QR from a government owned corporation to a statuary body (previously it was treasury that was the main hold up to projects). Most designers and planners were axed under Newman and during the privatisation. QR has some input about how they want the network setup (QR were the ones that wanted a quad 160kph corridor for the Sunshine Coast - they've proposed that back in the mid 90's) but tmr/state gets the final say even if it stuffs the network up long term as we saw with MBRL (removing trouts road provisions/removing Dakabin stabling provisions and provisions for the Anzac avenue overpass replacement project as these were gold plating), NGR, CRR (hiding it and other projects under the CRRDA) and other projects such as the L2GCFRP where tmr/minister ignored other departments advice/not consult other sectors in the haste to make the project public with the feds which is what is causing delays and project cost increases. We've also seen some problems with the Sunshine Coast works (backing away from a 160kph corridor in favour of a cheaper slower speed project) and QTMP which are also TMR projects.

^ yes it is very disturbing the poor outcomes now with rail projects.  Stuff up, after stuff up!

TMR has managed to further stuff up the Sunshine Coast line with the cutback from Landsborough. 

God knows what the DSCRL will look like ..

Quote from: HTGTMR are responsible for all major rail projects when Newman changed QR from a government owned corporation to a statuary body (previously it was treasury that was the main hold up to projects). Most designers and planners were axed under Newman and during the privatisation. QR has some input about how they want the network setup (QR were the ones that wanted a quad 160kph corridor for the Sunshine Coast - they've proposed that back in the mid 90's) but tmr/state gets the final say even if it stuffs the network up long term as we saw with MBRL (removing trouts road provisions/removing Dakabin stabling provisions and provisions for the Anzac avenue overpass replacement project as these were gold plating), NGR, CRR (hiding it and other projects under the CRRDA) and other projects such as the L2GCFRP where tmr/minister ignored other departments advice/not consult other sectors in the haste to make the project public with the feds which is what is causing delays and project cost increases. We've also seen some problems with the Sunshine Coast works (backing away from a 160kph corridor in favour of a cheaper slower speed project) and QTMP which are also TMR projects.

This is a well thought out post, one which was good to read.  Thanks HTG

Quotewhere tmr/minister ignored other departments advice/not consult other sectors in the haste to make the project public with the feds which is what is causing delays and project cost increases.

Interested to hear more about this.

Quote from: HappyTrainGuy on February 06, 2024, 07:19:37 AMTMR are responsible for all major rail projects when Newman changed QR from a government owned corporation to a statuary body (previously it was treasury that was the main hold up to projects). Most designers and planners were axed under Newman and during the privatisation. QR has some input about how they want the network setup (QR were the ones that wanted a quad 160kph corridor for the Sunshine Coast - they've proposed that back in the mid 90's) but tmr/state gets the final say even if it stuffs the network up long term as we saw with MBRL (removing trouts road provisions/removing Dakabin stabling provisions and provisions for the Anzac avenue overpass replacement project as these were gold plating), NGR, CRR (hiding it and other projects under the CRRDA) and other projects such as the L2GCFRP where tmr/minister ignored other departments advice/not consult other sectors in the haste to make the project public with the feds which is what is causing delays and project cost increases. We've also seen some problems with the Sunshine Coast works (backing away from a 160kph corridor in favour of a cheaper slower speed project) and QTMP which are also TMR projects.

Hello HTG,
The B2N (if it ever starts) has partial 160km/h in the proposed realigned section near Glasshouse Mountains.
The DSCL (formerly CAMCOS) corridor has been recently realigned for 160km/h design speeds.
Are you referring to just the partial speed upgrade of B2N?

Caboolture-Nambour was to be a quad 160kph corridor with full realignment in the 2000's version. QR had wanted this since the mid 90's as part of upgrading the NCL to 160kph for the tilts. Over the years outside parties have vetoed a lot of these plans including the section of track where a tilt derailed a while back which had plans for realignment.

I can't find my plans for the Beerburrum2Landsborough project unfortunately to compare them. Found mentions of the NNAMCOS and the spin off of that which I had forgot all about. If you include the various other studies such as the Maroochydore station study, C2B, B2L, L2N, B2N etc just how many damn studies has been done haha.

Surprised this is still up on the tmr website but it still outlines the 160kph desired alignment/80kph minimum in constrained areas, future proofing for a quad corridor, interchanges along with other things such as 150m platforms that can be extended and platforms moved onto straights.

https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/-/media/Projects/L/Landsborough-to-Nambour-Rail-Corridor-Study/route-identification-report/pdflandnambrirexecutivesummary.pdf?la=en

Quote from: Gazza on February 06, 2024, 10:57:13 AM

Quotewhere tmr/minister ignored other departments advice/not consult other sectors in the haste to make the project public with the feds which is what is causing delays and project cost increases.

Interested to hear more about this.

Not privy to the full details or its extent but it's along the lines of the project team/tmr not fully communicating with other departments. I can't recall 100% if it was internally within tmr or maybe another department such as the department of environment and sciences or department of wildlife and fisheries.

Some reading material for those interested in more detailed resources other than what tmr has released such as a start date of 01/06/2024.

https://epbcpublicportal.awe.gov.au/_entity/sharepointdocumentlocation/383af5f6-d5be-ed11-83fe-00224818a31f/2ab10dab-d681-4911-b881-cc99413f07b6?file=00-2022-09439%20Referral.pdf

https://epbcpublicportal.awe.gov.au/_entity/sharepointdocumentlocation/383af5f6-d5be-ed11-83fe-00224818a31f/2ab10dab-d681-4911-b881-cc99413f07b6?file=Attachment%20C%20%282%20of%203%29.pdf

The time the Queensland Government handed $50 million for the Brisbane Metro back to the Australian Government just because 


Interesting observation:

BCC CEO Colin Jensen was the former director of the then Translink Transit Authority (TTA). 

Probably one of the thousands of people within the state government made redundant when Newman wanted to cut costs.

With the ability to do this + the right to build bike/mobility + bus lanes

https://x.com/humantransit/status/1816857512802681165?s=46&t=EDszjTErsxTIqAna7yuP-w

https://x.com/iamkennethchan/status/1816689158687002973?s=46&t=EDszjTErsxTIqAna7yuP-w

Brisbanetimes --> Premier promises to cap petrol price hikes, and take over Brisbane buses $

QuotePremier Steven Miles will promise to limit how much petrol prices in Queensland can be increased in one day under a suite of new pre-election proposals.

A re-elected Labor government would also take over the running of buses from Brisbane City Council and make Translink an independent authority so bus and train services can be better coordinated with each other, Nine News has revealed. ...