BCC Budget for Public Transport

[Aydin]

Hi all,

I was wondering if anyone knew the rough percentage of a council's budget for transport, roads and traffic projects is reserved exclusively for public transport (ideally excluding school services).

My guess is anywhere between 50-70% assuming that transport infrastructure projects (extending roads, erecting rail corridors, etc.) are built using the respective council's infrastructure budget. But in all fairness, I have no clue so I could be way off.

Cheers,
Aydin

[#Metro]

Hello, for BCC and PT only it is about 4% to PT operations IMHO.

It's probably a good idea to separate the capital expenses (new roads, new bridges, new buses etc) from the ongoing operational expenses (e.g. annual road maintenance, annual running bus operations). Projects have a start, middle and an end and are not intended to be ongoing. This is the opposite of operations, which carry on indefinitely.

Might be an interesting exercise to trawl through the budget report and see the breakdown. 

[Aydin]

Yeah, thanks #Metro. I looked through the BCC's budget report and found that of the 1.7 billion AUD recorded in the public transport budget, 5.99% (or roughly 100 million AUD) was allocated to exclusively subsidising the current routes.

It's on page 239 (on the document it reads page 237) of https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022-06/20220620-Annual-Plan-and-Budget-2022-23.pdf

Turns out I was way off lmao

[#Metro]

Thanks Aydin.

If members want to wade through this, some thick glasses and a ruler are required.

ON p239 is reported the performance of the Blue CityGlider versus the Maroon CityGlider.

- Blue CityGlider expected to cost $8.9 million per year to run, expected to bring in $6.3 million in revenue. (about 70% cost recovery)

- Maroon CityGlider expected to cost $6.6 million per year to run, expected to bring in only $82,000 in revenue. (about 1.2% cost recovery). This seems odd. Have I missed something?

So a question is if TransLink collects all PT revenue, why are revenue amounts showing up on BCC's financial statements for this at all?

[aldonius]

The Gliders have non-standard funding splits.

* partnering with the Queensland Government to subsidise the Blue CityGlider
* provision of the majority of funding for the Maroon CityGlider

In cases like the Maroon City Glider the service is 100-per-cent funded by council and that costs us over $5 million a year
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/angry-council-threatens-to-cancel-popular-maroon-city-glider-to-save-5m-20160823-gqzgwl.html

So a question is if TransLink collects all PT revenue, why are revenue amounts showing up on BCC's financial statements for this at all?

I'd suggest that the "revenue" lines in the BCC budget represent money coming in from the state government.

Also note (numbered) pages 31 and 276 in the report. That shows TfB generally. The state government spends about $1 million per day on TfB, and BCC chips in a bit over half that as well. Plus about $30mil/y in "Other Income" which I'm guessing is advertising money.

[pangwen]

Also note (numbered) pages 31 and 276 in the report. That shows TfB generally. The state government spends about $1 million per day on TfB, and BCC chips in a bit over half that as well. Plus about $30mil/y in "Other Income" which I'm guessing is advertising money.

Possibly includes bus charters too?