NEW Local Government Funding for Bus Services in SEQ and QLD

[Gazza]

So in Auckland its one council for the entire city, and Auckland Transport are the relevant sub authority running all modes of the PT network so there is clear delineation of responsibility isn't there?

Which is kind of what we want to have in SEQ.

So comparing with Auckland I don't feel is helpful.
It's not comparable to LGAs in SEQ which might fund 25% of one mode.

You CAN have local government doing PT, but it should be all or nothing IMO. None of this split responsibility business.

Eg if there was a mega council for all of SEQ, and they had funding to run the bus/ferry/rail/tram systems, that would probably work well.

[Gazza]

I have not seen any evidence that the State has reduced its funding rate because BCC has pitched in - as you have shown their rate is higher, not lower, than the regional average.

That's not at all what I meant.
What I believe is happening is that the government is starving out calls for improvements to bus services by saying that the councils should be chipping in if they want better. In effect "Let them eat cake".
It's probably easier for them to say that to lobbyists from LGAs, but a bit harder when it comes from the General public, so perhaps we should be careful with our phrasing to avoid giving them that out.


As i understand it, there has more or less been a freeze on bus funding since about 2012 (I have heard this a few times from a few places) , so I think its a Newman era policy that has stuck around.

Also to an extent there was a fair bit of investment in "300,000 seats per week" or whatever it was at the time in the late days of the the Bligh government. But the issue was the increase in investment didn't correlate in a proportional increase in patronage, and I think that scared the bureaucracy off continuing to invest.
I think that was the wrong conclusion because the service improvements came at the time of the brutal fare hikes, and too an extent some of the improvements were in areas that were not the right place to be spending (Eg the P88 got funding, but underserved areas didn't)

 

Who approved the development?

Well in the case of Yarrabilba and Flagstone and Ripley, the state!

Maybe...we should ask to have Mark Bailey in a RBOT meeting and put questions about funding etc to him. What do you think??

Bob have we ever requested to meet Bailey face to face?

AIUI TransLink won't fund areas that are below 7 dwellings/ha, developing areas would have a lot of undeveloped land and thus might not meet that standard.

Nah check out google earth and move the time slider to the present day. These are subdivisions that are fully built out and by my measurements are around 15 per hectare (In fact slightly above that likely since dual occupancy blocks are quite common in these estates now)
And in any case, the TL standard should be based on the assumed final density, and the TL rules should be relaxed to run 'loss leader' services in emerging areas to ensure the service is visible when the residents arrive.

[ozbob]

I have meet with the Minister in the past.  I can try to set up a meeting, online might be best to suit commitments etc.  I will give it some thought.

[ozbob]

Translink are frustrated by the BCC, and funding shortfalls from Government.  This is part related to the fact that Translink is buried in TMR and has to compete against the huge road funding bias (same for rail).

Queensland is a lot bigger than Auckland or BCC's area of responsibilities.

This thread is something I don't support, except for some special top up funding by LGAs as done at present.

We need a proper authority that can deliver for all of Queensland and not be concerned with a council that has its own political priorities that flow on to PT and create issues for proper network integration.

Despite Newman, the PTA is very successful.  One only has to look at the way PT in WA was transformed to best in class these days. 

End. of. section.

[ozbob]

I suggest we move on from this thread to the other issues which dominate the state of PT today.

[#Metro]

I have meet with the Minister in the past.  I can try to set up a meeting, online might be best to suit commitments etc.  I will give it some thought.

Yes, would support that.

[achiruel]

On the other hand, the real world issues like having new subdivisions with no bus service whatsoever, no Sunday service / 2 hourly service on weekends, or having recognised hubs without connections to other hubs....Those are CLEAR cases where it's the state government running away from their own standards.

Who approved the development?

As has already been pointed out, in many cases, it was the State Government, as Priority Development areas. https://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/economic-development-qld/priority-development-areas-and-projects/priority-development-areas Therefore, it should be their responsibility to provide public transport in those areas.

AIUI TransLink won't fund areas that are below 7 dwellings/ha, developing areas would have a lot of undeveloped land and thus might not meet that standard.

If this were true, there would be no trains north of Nambour, no Route 529, no route 539, probably no 540 either.

Council charges developer fees, but the PT contribution is just bus stops. Really the cost of future bus service (or even interim stop-gap service) should be passed on as well in those council developer charges.

Really, the cost should be met by the State Government, because they are the ones essentially forcing councils to approve these areas. Stop trying to cost shift bad State decisions on to Councils.

I have not seen any evidence that the State has reduced its funding rate because BCC has pitched in - as you have shown their rate is higher, not lower, than the regional average. We should not see that if it were true that co-contributions enabled funding withdrawal or reduction.

Yet the State continues to fund BCC at a higher per-capita rate than every other surrounding LGA. It smacks of favourtism.

(The other possibility is that the QLD Gov't really does have money problems, but we need to understand the basis and motivation of this freeze).

The State's financial problems should not be shifted to councils which have a far smaller ability to raise funds.

Maybe...we should ask to have Mark Bailey in a RBOT meeting and put questions about funding etc to him. What do you think??

Quite frankly I think the Minister is incompetent, should be dismissed, and it would be a waste of time. He ignores almost everything that isn't road-related.

[Jonno]

All Councils need to remember:

Successful multimodal cities aren't just about what your city starts doing — i.e., funding transit — it's what you stop doing — i.e., widening roads. And starting to do something is a lot harder for cities than stopping something, because you get credit for investing in a bike lane. You get to do a ribbon cutting. Politically speaking, stopping the wrong thing is harder than starting the right thing. I'm here to tell you that if you try to have your cake and eat it too, you will not succeed

Asking for additional public transport finding whilst continuing to have a transport budget that is dominated by road projects is a receipt for transport failure. Claiming that public transport is a State responsibility is also a receipt for failure. 

[#Metro]

"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.

Asking for additional public transport finding whilst continuing to have a transport budget that is dominated by road projects is a receipt for transport failure. Claiming that public transport is a State responsibility is also a receipt [sic] for failure.

"I agree with Jonno." 

Council should raise funds for PT and negotiate with TransLink using that as leverage to get their funding rate in alignment with the regional average.

Local Government is responsible for all transport modes - except PT. That is the sole exception. So ICC will pay for local roads (cars), local cycling (bikes) and local walking (footpaths), but not buses in their area.

ICC might think their bus network is a regional/strategic importance, but so do all the other LGA areas. They are going to be in competition with those other LGAs. And Ipswich isn't the largest of them either - Moreton Bay Regional Council has a stronger claim as its population is much higher, as does Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast LGAs. All of them are rapidly growing.

What is not sustainable will not be sustained; and eventually I think this current funding model will break, forcing other LGAs to contribute.

[#Metro]

For those members interested in some of the deeper social/econ/political theory around the production of public goods and services by LGAs...

Tiebout Choice, Economics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_model

The Tiebout model, also known as Tiebout sorting, Tiebout migration, or Tiebout hypothesis, is a positive political theory model first described by economist Charles Tiebout in his article "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures" (1956). The essence of the model is that there is in fact a non-political solution to the free rider problem in local governance.

Specifically, competition across local jurisdictions places competitive pressures on the provision of local public goods such that these local governments are able to provide the optimal level of public goods.[1]

In other words, LGAs are in competition for future ratepayers in the production of public goods and services. The fact that they are publicly funded, not-for-profit, or incorporate elections doesn't change that.

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty

Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1970) is a treatise written by Albert O. Hirschman. The work hinges on a conceptual ultimatum that confronts consumers in the face of deteriorating quality of goods: either exit or voice. The book has been described as influential.[1]

In 2019, Professor Ian Shapiro of Yale University told a class of undergraduates, graduate students, and community members, "if you read no other book in the social sciences before you graduate, this is certainly one of the two or three books you should definitely read."[27]

Update - table posted earlier in this thread was updated to reflect implied funding to BCC area from the Queensland Government.



LGA's have a market positioning, whether they are conscious of it or not.

Price = $ Rates in this case.

...Some LGAs will follow a 'pay less get less' value proposition (low-rates focus), others will follow a 'pay more get more' value proposition (high-services focus), and there are those that will be in-between. But the choice for each LGA exists.



Source: https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/3-pillars-of-successful-marketing-segmentation-targeting-and-positioning/0/steps/179105

[Gazza]

ICC might think their bus network is a regional/strategic importance, but so do all the other LGA areas. They are going to be in competition with those other LGAs. And Ipswich isn't the largest of them either - Moreton Bay Regional Council has a stronger claim as its population is much higher, as does Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast LGAs. All of them are rapidly growing.

I would say that RBoT wants greater funding for all growth areas, not just ICC and not ICC at the expense of other LGAs.