Articles: Lord Mayor wants State Government to run buses

[somebody]

Seems to make sense for ratepayers to pay something for it, there's no service in most country regions for example.  Ipswich, Logan, Redlands, Caboolture aren't contributing though, apparently.  What's inequitable is for one council to be paying, and others not.  Which is probably what is getting up Campbell Newman's nostrils.

Regarding artic 199, would that be doable?  I thought there were a few tight bends on that route.  Not to mention issues with Bowen Hills depot not having any bendies.  I prefer higher frequency generally to bigger buses.  It's not like the buses are coming every 8 mins off peak.

[#Metro]

For large parts of the day, 199 runs every 5 minutes
At other times it is every 10 minutes

There have been local works recently, roundabouts have been removed in preparation for the cityglider service.

When cityglider comes along, that should take some pressure off 199. We shall see...

a high frequency timetable - every five minutes during peak times and every 10 to 15 minutes off-peak

West End is going to be invaded by a sea of buses...
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_5855

[ozbob]

From the Queensland Times click here!

Fare deal for buses to up rates?

Fare deal for buses to up rates?

17th March 2010

PREMIER Anna Bligh has told councils, including Ipswich, they should follow Brisbane's lead and help pay for their public transport.

Brisbane ratepayers pay $384 per household to fund the city's bus service, and Ms Bligh said if every council in south-east Queensland made the same contribution it would pump an extra $292 million into public transport.

"The impact this extra funding would make is significant – more public transport, less congestion, and lower greenhouse gas emissions," Ms Bligh said.

"TransLink advice says that kind of funding could provide an extra 39,000 public transport services each and every week, including 3200 for Ipswich.

"I am pleased to see that some councils like the Gold and Sunshine coasts have started to take up this challenge and I call on others to get on board."

Last week, Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said it was "a disgrace" that Brisbane ratepayers subsidised its buses while it was being used by people, including Ipswich residents, who paid nothing.

At the time, Ipswich Mayor Paul Pisasale said Ipswich ratepayers should only fund their city's bus service and that it should be improved.

Yesterday he was outraged that Ipswich ratepayers could be slugged with an increase of almost $400.

"If I put rates up that much in one year I'd be looking for a new job," Cr Pisasale said. "I know how people react when there's a one per cent increase on their rates. This is an extra $400.

"It's a big slug at a time when the cost of living is on the rise.

"What we're getting is a triple whammy – the price of water is going up, the price of electricity is going up and now this. It will hurt people.

"The growth summit is coming up and I think the Premier is flagging these things to see what people think. I think I know what people will think of this. I think the letters to the editor will tell us in the next couple of weeks."

He said he would look to have urgent discussions with Premier Bligh to put Ipswich's case to her.

"We couldn't afford to pay as much as Brisbane," he said.

"We're not the capital; Brisbane has their own buses, does that mean we have to get ours?

"At the end of the day I want to see the details. The devil's always in the detail.

"What do we get back in return? I can't see any other councils agreeing to it and it'll have to be one in, all in."

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Premier backs Lord Mayor's public transport call

Premier backs Lord Mayor's public transport call
TONY MOORE
March 17, 2010 - 5:37AM

An extra 39,000 public transport services - mostly buses - could be put on the road each week if each South-East Queensland councils paid a "per capita" share of public transport like Brisbane City Council, Premier Anna Bligh said yesterday.

Her comments put her in agreement with Brisbane's Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, who argues that Brisbane City ratepayers were contributing $384 each year for each of the city's rateable properties.

Brisbane ratepayers were effectively subsiding public transport in the local government areas surrounding Brisbane, Cr Newman says.

Anna Bligh yesterday said if councils contributed a per capita share of Brisbane's public transport funding more than $292 million extra could be raised each year, or $6 billion by 2031.

"The reality is if every council in the South-East Queensland region made the same contribution as Brisbane is doing, that would be an extra $292 million each and every year, or almost $6 billion over the life of the [South East Queensland] Regional Plan," Ms Bligh said.

The Premier said the money could provide 3200 extra services for Ipswich and the Redlands, 5100 extra services for Logan, 7500 extra services for the Sunshine Coast, 7700 extra services for Moreton Bay and an extra 12,000 extra services for the Gold Coast.

"It wouldn't be at the cost of local rates either," Ms Bligh said.

"Brisbane City Council's average rates are not materially higher than any other local government in South-East Queensland."

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan also agreed with Cr Newman on this point last Thursday, saying she would like to see more local councils contribute to public transport.

Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast councils have begun to contribute, with the Gold Coast City Council also adding $150 million to the Gold Coast rapid rail transit project.

Cr Newman hailed the Premier's comments in Brisbane City Council chambers yesterday.

"Guess what. The Premier of this state believes that other local governments should contribute to public transport," Cr Newman said.

"Thank you Premier. Well done for stating the problem.

"That is exactly what I was saying when I stood up for the ratepayers of this city last week.

"The time has come for everybody to pay their fair share for public transport."

Last week Cr Newman said Brisbane ratepayers effectively subsidised public transport users who live on the city's fringes, outside Brisbane City Council's jurisdiction.

He argued each of Brisbane's 410,000 rateable properties contributes $384 each year to Brisbane's buses, but that services became full on the city's fringe.

"People from around the region have been using Brisbane's buses," Cr Newman said.

However Logan, Ipswich and Moreton Bay councils last week rejected making a contribution.

[longboi]

There's no reason that rates have to go up because of this. I'm sure these LGAs could find savings in other areas (Prefereably non-urgent road maintenance) to contribute to PT.

[#Metro]

However Logan, Ipswich and Moreton Bay councils last week rejected making a contribution.

Residents living in these councils are the cause of such strain on the BCC subsidised network. They use it but they don't pay. 
If they don't come to the party, a levy on their resident's electricity bill (like the community Ambulance levy) should be considered.

Alternatively, the TransLink pricing structure for the number of zones travelled might need to be changed.

[ozbob]

I think we need to stand back and think through a number of issues.

Rates in the shires outside of BCC are a lot more expensive already.  A similar property in Ipswich compared to BCC for example, attracts about $100 more in rates per quarter already.  This is due to the more decentralised nature of the regional councils, less ratepayers larger areas to cover with proportional less rate payers.

Brisbane City Council is one of the largest council areas in Australia (if not the world).  There is an economy of scale simply not matched by other councils.

Is it really appropriate for some rate payers to be paying for public transport and not others via rates?  Rate payers are not paying for rail in BCC as they are apparently for bus.  I think the funding should be the responsibility of Translink (Government) overall.  If rate payers are to pay additional monies for public transport it should be flat and per capita as an additional levy.  I am not sure if that would be universally acceptable political or otherwise.

The Government is attempting to squeeze out of its service obligations.

:bi

[Fridge]

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/03/17/council-bus-money/

Council hit up for bus money
THE Sunshine Coast council should put more money into public transport, Premier Anna Bligh told a tourism and transport forum in Brisbane yesterday.

Ms Bligh said that if every council in South-East Queensland contributed the $364-a-household that Brisbane City Council pitched in, it would produce an extra $292 million for public transport across the region.

Ms Bligh claimed it would not be at the cost of significant rates increases.

"It needn't be at the cost of higher rates ... Brisbane City Council's average rates are not materially higher than any other local government in South-East Queensland," she said.

Sunshine Coast council already gathers a $20 levy from ratepayers, introduced nine months ago, while the Gold Coast last year contributed $150 million towards a proposed light rail system, facts which the Premier acknowledged.

"I am pleased to see that some councils like the Gold and Sunshine Coast have started to take up this challenge and I call on others to get on board," Ms Bligh said.

Public transport is normally the domain of state governments and Ms Bligh's "pitch in for PT" at the forum suggested a different tack.

The Coast council's public transport spokeswoman, councillor Vivien Griffin, said she believed the Premier's underlying message was aimed at councils other than Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast or Brisbane.

Cr Griffin said Brisbane's contribution was not a levy so it was hidden among the other rateable items, "but what it doesn't say is what Brisbane gets back for its outlay".

"But what the (Coast) $20 levy does is guarantee the funds are used for what they are meant to be used," she said.
"There is a clear policy about that – and no increases are planned."

Cr Griffin said it would be "nice" if Ms Bligh could meanwhile honour the council's "under-estimated" cost of amalgamation, estimated at $13.9 million, but preferred to focus on the positives.

She said a "significant" relationship had developed with Translink as a result of the levy.

"(It) has been in place for just nine months but (Translink boss) Peter Strachan is well aware of the council's contribution," Cr Griffin said.

"For him the Sunshine Coast became a role model for partnership."

She said while new transport initiatives to date had occurred mainly in the hinterland, the next step marked a tipping point.

"We plan to introduce 10-minute frequencies on key coastal routes, where users will no longer need a timetable as they will know a bus will arrive within 10 minutes,'' Cr Griffin said.

"That's the kind of public transport system we want.''

[mufreight]

Once again this Government makes promises about public transport then expects someone else to pay.

[ozbob]

The problem with slugging rate payers is that the majority of the community who are not rate payers are not subjected to the extra costs.  Much more equitable to fund from general revenue as is education, health and so should be transport.  The overall savings in terms of reduced congestion, lessened environmental impacts and reduced road trauma (a massive cost to our society) means that Government should be investing heavily in public and active transport.  There is a user fee, ticketing. 

Having public transport constrained and limited by council boundaries is anachronistic.

From the Queensland Times click here!

Passengers slam rate hike

Passengers slam rate hike

Zane Jackson | 18th March 2010

IPSWICH residents have slammed a suggestion from Premier Anna Bligh that their council rates should include an extra fee to improve public transport.

Public transport user Leanne Bevin is adamant ratepayers should not contribute to improve the state of public transport.
Claudia Baxter

IPSWICH residents have slammed a suggestion from Premier Anna Bligh that their council rates should include an extra fee to improve public transport across the city.

As reported in yesterday's The Queensland Times, Ms Bligh said Ipswich ratepayers should match their Brisbane counterparts and contribute $384 per household to fund bus services.

But angry Ipswich commuters yesterday said that they should not have to pay extra rates for improved services after ticket prices for public transport were recently increased.

One Mile resident Leanne Bevin, 55, said although her bus to Bell Street was frequently delayed, she would not be willingly to pay more rates to have her bus service improved.

John Freiberg, 68, said he thought Ipswich current bus services could be improved without charging ratepayers.

"I think you'll find that if they reworked the timetables to ensure the buses they have now run on time, commuters would be happy and you wouldn't have to raise the rates," the Raceview resident said.

Basin Pocket resident Melanie Rogers, 28, said she would consider a significantly cheaper increase to rates if it was guaranteed to pay for better public transport services.

Ms Bligh said if every south-east Queensland council made the same contribution as Brisbane ratepayers it would pump an extra $292 million into public transport.

"TransLink advice says that kind of funding could provide an extra 39,000 public transport services each and every week, including 3200 for Ipswich," she said.

Ipswich Mayor Paul Pisasale rejected the call from the Premier, saying with electricity and water prices on the rise, it would be too big a slug on residents.

Robert Dow from public transport advocacy group Rail Back on Track said it would be unfair for local governments like the Ipswich City Council to slug ratepayers with extra fees for public transport.

"I don't think council's like Ipswich should have to fund public transport in their own regions, it should be up to the State Government," he said.

[#Metro]

True, but the state treasury has ... well... run out of cash apparently.

How should it be funded.
1. One consistent rule for all.
2. Might have to increase fares again
3. Levy on power bill across SEQ (idea only)

[somebody]

The problem with slugging rate payers is that the majority of the community who are not rate payers are not subjected to the extra costs.  Much more equitable to fund from general revenue as is education, health and so should be transport.  The overall savings in terms of reduced congestion, lessened environmental impacts and reduced road trauma (a massive cost to our society) means that Government should be investing heavily in public and active transport.  There is a user fee, ticketing. 

The problem with that is that it means people from country areas are paying for it, but only the cities gets a service.  Of course, that's true for other things the state does.

[ozbob]

People in country areas receive transport subsidies  for air for example.  These are paid for by the Government, taking through the notion of rate payers means should these people be paying for those subsidies, and why should people not using those services pay for it?  A rhetorical question of course, I don't believe they should not.  Everyone wins somewhere.

Transport is just another service that is for the overall community benefit.  The user pays in terms of fares, this may not meet the overall cost but does the charges for education, health, serwerage and so forth meet the costs?  No it doesn't, the reason we have Governments is to the provide the services for all.  Ratepayers are just a small subset, they already carry the can for much.  Many people are not rate payers, much more equitable for all to have the costs disbursed over the entire community.  That money comes from the tax base and other Government fees, everyone contributes.  GST is all distributed back to the states ...

[somebody]

Many people are not rate payers

Renters pay it indirectly through their rent.

[ozbob]

Yes, partly.  But more equitable to have it out of the general tax base, that was one of the arguments for the GST, it would make it equitable for services.

In reality council constrained public transport has had its day, the boundaries are too small.  Hence the issues that BCC now has.  BT is a good operator and they need not change, perhaps the funding needs a rethink though.  A poll tax was tried in UK I recall and was hated ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots )

Rail is not so constrained, it is a good model for the other modes.

[longboi]

Yes, partly.  But more equitable to have it out of the general tax base, that was one of the arguments for the GST, it would make it equitable for services.

In reality council constrained public transport has had its day, the boundaries are too small.  Hence the issues that BCC now has.  BT is a good operator and they need not change, perhaps the funding needs a rethink though.  A poll tax was tried in UK I recall and was hated ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots )

Rail is not so constrained, it is a good model for the other modes.

Well the simple solution to that one is don't give councils any control over the actual planning or delivery.

This PT levy could act - like others have mentioned - like the ambulance levy.

Residents living in TransLink contracted areas would equally contribute to funding for that specific contract area. This way the number of households would dictate the amount available to TransLink for each region and therefore relative improvements in PT infrastructure and service delivery would benefit everybody, whether or not they actually use PT.

Users of public transport would immediately benefit from savings made on decreased car expenses for local, indiscretionary or off-peak trips. Likewise, road users would benefit from less congested roads and higher vehicle efficiency, because those that don't HAVE to drive will be given the option of high quality public transport which is simply lacking anywhere outside of Brisbane City and GC City.

[justanotheruser]

However Logan, Ipswich and Moreton Bay councils last week rejected making a contribution.

Residents living in these councils are the cause of such strain on the BCC subsidised network. They use it but they don't pay. 
If they don't come to the party, a levy on their resident's electricity bill (like the community Ambulance levy) should be considered.

Alternatively, the TransLink pricing structure for the number of zones travelled might need to be changed.

with all due respect this is just a genralised statement that is not neccesarily true. Examples have been shown where there are buses that are not paid for by BCC which pick up alot of people in the BCC area. There are also other non-BCC buses which are prohibited by BCC from picking up passengerts in the BCC area. If Newman was serious he would allow those buses to help. Finally there are many who catch the train into the city and do not catch a bus.

[longboi]

However Logan, Ipswich and Moreton Bay councils last week rejected making a contribution.

Residents living in these councils are the cause of such strain on the BCC subsidised network. They use it but they don't pay. 
If they don't come to the party, a levy on their resident's electricity bill (like the community Ambulance levy) should be considered.

Alternatively, the TransLink pricing structure for the number of zones travelled might need to be changed.

with all due respect this is just a genralised statement that is not neccesarily true. Examples have been shown where there are buses that are not paid for by BCC which pick up alot of people in the BCC area. There are also other non-BCC buses which are prohibited by BCC from picking up passengerts in the BCC area. If Newman was serious he would allow those buses to help. Finally there are many who catch the train into the city and do not catch a bus.

I think you will find those private services that don't stop in BT territory is because they are peak hour express/rocket-type services.

[justanotheruser]

One of Westside Bus Company's vehicles in Ipswich. Authorities are divided over whether money should go to improve Brisbane's buses or stay with local councils.

One of the other problems with westside is that extra parts were added onto some of their runs but no extra time was allowed in the timetable for this. This affects alot of runs as the buses don't spend the entire day doing the same run (except for the 515). This means if it does the run with extra stops and no extra time it makes it late for others. The other issue is that the other day on one run the bus waited a full 10 minutes simply to make a right hand turn due to traffic. The timetable also does not allow for this. All the same Westside could do with significant improvement from their end.

[justanotheruser]

However Logan, Ipswich and Moreton Bay councils last week rejected making a contribution.

Residents living in these councils are the cause of such strain on the BCC subsidised network. They use it but they don't pay. 
If they don't come to the party, a levy on their resident's electricity bill (like the community Ambulance levy) should be considered.

Alternatively, the TransLink pricing structure for the number of zones travelled might need to be changed.

with all due respect this is just a genralised statement that is not neccesarily true. Examples have been shown where there are buses that are not paid for by BCC which pick up alot of people in the BCC area. There are also other non-BCC buses which are prohibited by BCC from picking up passengerts in the BCC area. If Newman was serious he would allow those buses to help. Finally there are many who catch the train into the city and do not catch a bus.

I think you will find those private services that don't stop in BT territory is because they are peak hour express/rocket-type services.

no this is not the case. It is a rule that they are not allowed to pick up passengers. They are allowed to set passengers down though.

[somebody]

no this is not the case. It is a rule that they are not allowed to pick up passengers. They are allowed to set passengers down though.

People who make such rules should be shot.  I presume you are talking about on the inbound there.  One would also assume that the reverse applies, that they are not allow to set down outbound.

[#Metro]

What about 250 pickup at Wooloongabba or 555 pick up at all stops along the busway?

[somebody]

I also meant to ask for examples.  Just checked the 680 timetable, and no such rules are noted.

[Fridge]

Sunshine Coast Regional Council is actually being proactive with introducing the PT Levy.  It is being used to contribute to the planning, funding and provision of both PT infrastructure and services.  Such as:

• expanding the free holiday services;
• introducing flexi-link services to rural areas outside Translink's service area;
• funding new services such as the Hinterland Connect or the Beerwah extension to the Landsborough-Maleny bus;
• planning for new bus routes; and
• other PT infrastructure investgations.

This since the introduction of the PT Levy 9 months ago.

Because in reality, Translink hasn't appeared to have done much for the Sunshine Coast in the last 5 years.

[#Metro]

See this is strange. Why does the local council need to undertake PT planning and raise funds for that?
Isn't that TL's job?

[justanotheruser]

no this is not the case. It is a rule that they are not allowed to pick up passengers. They are allowed to set passengers down though.

People who make such rules should be shot.  I presume you are talking about on the inbound there.  One would also assume that the reverse applies, that they are not allow to set down outbound.

this is correct.

[Fridge]

See this is strange. Why does the local council need to undertake PT planning and raise funds for that?
Isn't that TL's job?

True, but Council knows that PT is insufficient on the Sunshine Coast and they want to do something about it.

[Arnz]

See this is strange. Why does the local council need to undertake PT planning and raise funds for that?
Isn't that TL's job?

True, but Council knows that PT is insufficient on the Sunshine Coast and they want to do something about it.

I hardly call Route 600, 610, 616, 620 and the 62x Noosa routes insufficient.  Most of them operate every 15 minutes, the others every 30 minutes.

Translink hasn't appeared to have done much for the Sunshine Coast in the last 5 years

TranLink may have it's problems, but I have to disagree with you massively there.  Considering the frequency increases on a number of routes, and the upgrading of the USC Bus Station to Brisbane Busway-like standards being some examples.

[longboi]

no this is not the case. It is a rule that they are not allowed to pick up passengers. They are allowed to set passengers down though.

People who make such rules should be shot.  I presume you are talking about on the inbound there.  One would also assume that the reverse applies, that they are not allow to set down outbound.

this is correct.

I'm aware 680 doesn't pick up passengers along Gympie Rd when it does the City run during peak but other than that I have been able to catch many different private operator services within BT territory.

[somebody]

I think if the State Government controlled the buses and the associated infrastructure there should be better co-ordination between road and rail.

Translink should already have enough control. I am strongly against any move to sacrifice what is a very good bus service, perhaps the best in all of SEQ, in the hands of a new operator called Anna.

If funding is a problem, then buses should be paid a proper subsidy like the other operators to extend services outside of BCC boundaries. BT is supposed to be an arms length operator from the BCC...

I am strongly in favour of this plan, the more I think about it.  While in the pre-Translink days, BT may well have been the best operator by far, looking forward the old paradigm has had its day.  We need to get rid of the blame shifting and just of one agency responsible.

EDIT: spelling

[#Metro]

Why do we need one agency responsible? Isn't TL responsible enough already?
The Queensland Government already own the buses through the Queensland Treasury. The same with the Ferries.

Brisbane City Council buses have to respond to need, if they don't they can lose the whole council.
In recent council elections, buses and transport featured highly- with promises to introduce BUZ and new routes being a centrepiece.
If this was ceded to Translink, all of that incentive to improve things would be muted.
BUZ, CityGlider, Spring Hill loop, City Loop, Eleanor Schonell Bridge, CityXPress, Rocket buses, trials of bikes on buses...all BCC initiatives. To be fair, they had the support of TL but they weren't TL initiatives in their own right.

[somebody]

So, more of the same then??

Effectively, there is a double veto to get through to get anything done.

[#Metro]

Long Post Warning

I'm not clear on what should be done, its all a bit murky to me.
But for clarity, I thought a look in the Transport Operations (Translink Transit Authority Act) 2008
would help.

Yes, I do take your point about TTA being a bit like the UN.
www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2008/08AC032.pdf

Code Select Expand


Part 3 Functions and powers ofTransLink
Division 1 Functions

14 Main function and its achievement

(1) TransLink's main function is to give effect to the purposes of
this Act.
(2) The main function is performed primarily by TransLink doing
the following in relation to mass transit services for the
TransLink area—
(a) operational planning for a mass transit network;
(b) planning, purchasing and delivering the services,
including, for example, by coordinating the scheduling
of modes of mass transit services;
(c) managing and maintaining infrastructure for the
services, including, for example, bus stops and on-road
bus facilities;
(d) delivering and managing infrastructure that is critical for
the services;
(e) improving and expanding the range of the services;
(f) establishing a single point of contact for customer
service issues, including, for example, the provision of
service information and complaints handling;
(g) managing the introduction of new technology to
improve the services;

Example—
real time passenger information and the widespread use of new
ticketing technology
(h) improving the governance of the services, with local
government, consumer and independent expert
representations;
(i) managing service contracts and other contracts to—
(i) ensure value for taxpayers through
performance-based incentives that promote
integration, on-time running and customer service;
and
(ii) minimise fare evasion;
(j) managing integrated ticketing, including, for example,
by developing fare products;
(k) providing information to passengers;
(l) carrying out commercial activities related to the services
to obtain revenue for the performance of its other
functions;

Examples of commercial activities that TransLink may carry out—
• the sale of advertising rights on TransLink facilities
• commercial arrangements for the application of new
ticketing technology
(m) making recommendations to the Minister about fare
strategies and service levels;
(n) giving information to help the development of plans and
strategies under other Acts relating to transport;
(o) implementing government policies for, or in association
with, other governmental agencies.

[b]Part 3 Functions and powers of TransLink[/b]
(3) It is Parliament's expectation that once the single point of
contact for customer service issues has been established, an
operator of any relevant mass transit service will not establish
or continue any similar point of contact for the service without
TransLink's agreement.
(4) In this section—
commercial activities include—
(a) commercial activities that are not within the ordinary
functions of the State; and
(b) commercial activities of a competitive nature.
relevant mass transit service means a mass transit service
provided under an agreement entered into by TransLink in its
own right or as a delegate.

[b]Division 2 Powers[/b]
15 General powers
(1) TransLink has the powers—
(a) necessary or convenient to perform its functions; or
(b) incidental to the performance of its functions; or
(c) to help to achieve the purposes of this Act.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), TransLink may do all or any
of the following—
(a) acquire, hold, dispose of, and deal with, property;
(b) appoint agents and attorneys;
(c) engage consultants;
(d) subject to sections 16 and 17(5), enter into contracts,
joint ventures and commercial arrangements;
(e) do anything necessary or convenient to be done in the
performance of its functions under an Act.

[b]Part 3 Functions and powers of TransLink[/b]
(3) In performing its functions, TransLink may act alone or in
conjunction with public sector units, local governments,
agencies or instrumentalities of the Commonwealth and other
entities.
(4) TransLink also has the powers conferred on it under another
provision of this Act or under another Act.

16 Service contracts
(1) TransLink does not have the power, in its own right, to enter
into a contract that is, or is in the nature of, a service contract.
(2) To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (1) does
not prevent TransLink from entering into service contracts or
performing functions or exercising powers relating to service
contracts as the delegate of the TOPTA chief executive.

[#Metro]

This part is of special interest. Does this mean Translink cannot itself be an operator and run a bus, train or ferry?
I think it would as it would also be consistent with TL's role of regulating and co-coordinating operators.
In other words, i think this means that TL cannot contract with itself to run services. But correct me if I'm wrong.
Although, the Act could be changed.

16 Service contracts
(1) TransLink does not have the power, in its own right, to enter
into a contract that is, or is in the nature of, a service contract.

The Queensland Government, IIRC already owns the BCC buses and BCC ferries (through the Queensland Treasury) and the trains (through QR). It just does not operate them (except the trains, which it does through QR)

The difference between the Brisbane City Region and the others is that the other councils don't operate services, companies do. For the Brisbane area there is a difference as the BCC is both an operator and a local government organisation. Although BCC is supposed to be arms-lengths from BT, the I think the introduction of CityGlider and other BCC led initiatives suggests otherwise. Does BT or BCC have its own public transport planners? This might be a doubling up of functions, but I don't have enough info to know.

[somebody]

I think clause 16 might be refering to things like they can't contract to provide services to places like BEC by themselves, although I'm a bit murky on what that's refering to as well.

Clause 2(a) is where they are dismally failing.

I don't care a great deal what is in the Act.  If they wanted to, they could change it easily.  There isn't even an upper house to get through.

EDIT:
And you didn't answer the question: "More of the same then?"

[#Metro]

There are not necessarily two solutions.
There might be more, such as making the roles between the organisations clearer and
having standards for things like when a council wants a new service in their area.
I see TL as the front desk, a ticketing and co-ordination agency, a regulator and a monitoring body.
TL also holds the cash.

Try out the less drastic solutions first. You wouldn't knock down a house just because the front door knob was broken.

Co-location might be another solution to close the communication gap.
For example, Brisbane City Council and Main Roads IIRC are in the same room for control and monitoring of Brisbane's traffic.
They work together seamlessly.The whole operation is done from Brisbane Square. See http://www.bmtmc.com.au/home/
You rarely, if ever, hear about disagreements or poor co-ordination in this area.

Brisbane City Council is also more than capable of doing route planning all the way through to complex engineering studies and a whole host of projects.
http://bce.com.au/index.php?page=example-projects-3

[#Metro]

Another solution would be to have some kind of competitive proposal process.
All the operators can submit requests for new bus, train routes or new services to TL on a "as requested basis".
A request would be a formal document would contain

Don't know what the current process is, maybe it already is similar to above. Actually, how does TL do it now?

[somebody]

Can I suggest that you set this thread to unread, have a think about what they should do, and get back to me?