POLL: Privatise Brisbane Transport?

[colinw]

In light of recent discussions, and in response to a challenge from TramTrain, I thought it was worth asking the group what we think should be done with BCC's Brisbane Transport buses. Discussion welcome!

[#Metro]

The state govt won't buy it as 'there is no cash'. You can be sure about that.

[SurfRail]

I vote "other" but only because I think it involves a 2-step process - first option 2 (State control), and then option 4 (multiple franchisees).

[somebody]

I think we're ignoring a critical issue!  What of the funding which BCC contribute to BT?  Should the state take over full funding?  Why should any council contribute to any Translink service?  City Loop buses don't need to come under the Translink banner.

[SurfRail]

I think we're ignoring a critical issue!  What of the funding which BCC contribute to BT?  Should the state take over full funding?  Why should any council contribute to any Translink service?  City Loop buses don't need to come under the Translink banner.

GCCC and SCRC do not operate a bus fleet.  GCCC does not operate trams, and MBRC does not operate trains.  They only tip in funding.  We can quibble about the difference in quantum, but the principle is entirely the same.

I actually think all local councils in the TransLink service area should just have a state administered charge on rates bills like the fire levy which is used to fund public transport specifically in the city of collection.  The funding would not necessarily increase TransLink's subsidy, but would oblige it to spend that portion specifically on certain areas, which should put an end to ignoring service reviews forever on end (like my dear old Route 20...) because the budget has been sucked up elsewhere. 

The focus for bus funding in particular increasingly has to be outside the BCC boundaries, where most of SEQ actually lives.

[somebody]

Yeah, and SCRC have been sticking their oar into where their money is spent ever since they started contributing.  Just have one government responsible.

[#Metro]

I vote "other" but only because I think it involves a 2-step process - first option 2 (State control), and then option 4 (multiple franchisees).

I am strongly against any move to break BT up into smaller operators - there are economies of scale and flexibility by having the city under one large operator with many depots.

I think we're ignoring a critical issue!  What of the funding which BCC contribute to BT?  Should the state take over full funding?  Why should any council contribute to any Translink service?  City Loop buses don't need to come under the Translink banner.

Local councils do have an interest in services, so if they want to contribute, there should be an avenue for them to do that. HOWEVER, the whole railroading in just any old bus route without respect to how it fits into the network at large (Maroon CityGlider) has to stop. Maybe they should have some standard assessment criteria and some form of competitive round. Toronto has this when it comes to suggestions ---> http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/service_improvements_2008.pdf

Look how it analyses everything! Maroon CityGlider wouldn't have survived something like that.

[somebody]

The state should own the depots and buses to make it easier to change operators as in WA.  Indeed, as many moves as possible should be made to make it easy to change operators.  WA have recently changed operators in one of their regions, so probably provide a model of what needs to be done.  NSW own the buses and require operators to make depots available to an incoming operator.

[SurfRail]

Yeah, and SCRC have been sticking their oar into where their money is spent ever since they started contributing.

But quite constructively.  Only BT is politicised and mucked around.

What you will find is SCRC actually provided seed funding for numerous routes, and over time several have (and will shortly) become funded entirely by TransLink.  Their budget papers concerning the use of their PT levy are quite instructive and show exactly the activity I'm alluding to.

A centrally managed organisation like TTA will have difficulty ever getting new routes off the ground simply because they don't have as much of an interest in actively upgrading services in any particular area - they have a limited budget to stretch over all of SEQ.  But if you can lead them to water, they will happily suck up the stream so to speak, once it can be proved the service is actually viable.  (SCRCs papers show quite conclusively that a number of their trial services, all FlexiLink type arrangements, failed dismally - one in fact attracted NO users in 13 months.  But the TTA contract services and qconnect runs are a very different story.)

Because SCRC obtains its own revenue through the PT levy and general rates, it is more able to fund these sorts of investigations and trials than TTA, which is drip-fed.

One thing I learned from those papers is that TTA actually funds - entirely - the Hinterland Connect service.  Not TMR, not Council.  Apparently SCRC is pushing for go card integration.

[somebody]

I'll accept that.

I don't think BCC are going to keep kicking in the funding that they do if TTA takes BT off them though.  Not having BT does force SCRC to be constructive.

One thing that should be achievable nowish (probably need legislation though) is to take the 130/140/150 off them into a new depot somewhere near Browns Plains (like Larapinta).  This would require no compulsory acquisition of an existing depot.  I think they'd need to legislate to compel BT to allow them to use the BUZ brand.

[Golliwog]

Yeah, and SCRC have been sticking their oar into where their money is spent ever since they started contributing.  Just have one government responsible.

On that topic:
http://jp.translink.com.au/travel-information/service-updates/details/1339741564

Changes for 607 and 636 timetables

Last updated: 5.15pm Friday 15 June 2012

From 23 June 2012, the 607 and 636 will not operate services after 9pm from University of Sunshine Coast.

The University and TransLink offered an after 9 pm service on the 607 and the 636 as a trial in Semester 1 2012. However, due to low patronage these services will no longer be operating.
Effective 23 June 2012:

    the last 607 service to depart from USC will be at 7.53 pm Monday-Friday
    the last 636 service to depart from USC will be at 6.20 pm Monday-Friday.

Passengers are encouraged to check the journey planner for more travel information.

Affected services:

    607
    636

Would you see BCC scrapping the Maroon City Glider if/when it fails?

[Arnz]

On a related note, the late night services from the University to Caloundra and Nambour was a 3 way funding arrangement between USC, TransLink and SC Regional Council.  Considering those late services were usually sighted carrying 1-3 people per night during the uni semesters, it made sense in that case to cancel it. 

It's unfortunate for the very few passengers that catch the late night to Nambour, (no other options apart from either a taxi or a car-pool) but fortunately for the few that head to Caloundra after 9pm, one option for those passengers is the 9:03pm 616 to Sunshine Plaza, then 10 mins to connect to the 9:40pm 600 back to Caloundra, or the quicker option - 9:10pm 615 to Mooloolaba bowls club, then a 3 min transfer time to cross the road then catch the 600 back to Caloundra leaving the Bowls Club at 9:21pm.

[somebody]

The Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 will need to be changed.

62AAH Compensation
(1) This section applies if an affected operator under section
62AACA or 62AAG—
(a) did not offer to provide the new service or the amended
service under that section; or
(b) is not awarded a TransLink service contract to provide
the new service or the amended service.
(2) The affected operator may claim compensation from the State.
(3) The amount of compensation payable to the affected operator
is to be decided by agreement between the chief executive and
(4) Without limiting the matters an arbitrator may or may not take
into account, a regulation may provide for matters to be
considered, or not considered, in deciding the amount of
compensation.
(5) The Commercial Arbitration Act 1990 applies to the
arbitration.

What this means is that if a different operator is granted a service contract within an existing operator's area, then compensation is payable.  Seems a bit daft.

62AAD Offer of new TransLink service contract
(1) This section applies if the chief executive—
(a) decides the performance of a holder of a TransLink
service contract (the existing contract) has been
satisfactory; and
(b) proposes, at the end of the term of the existing contract,
to invite offers for a new TransLink service contract—
(i) for the same kind of general route service provided
under the existing contract; or
(ii) for those services and additional services for the
same area or route defined in the existing contract.
(2) The chief executive must, by written notice, invite the holder
to offer for the new TransLink service contract.
(3) The chief executive may invite offers from any or all other
holders of TransLink service contracts or from the public only
if the holder—
(a) refuses the invitation; or
(b) fails to respond to the invitation by the prescribed day;
or
(c) fails to make an offer that is acceptable or, despite
section 62AAE, is substantially acceptable.
(4) This section does not apply in relation to an existing
contract—
(a) that is an emergency service contract; or
(b) that is a service contract in relation to which an option to
renew may be exercised; or
(c) that states this section does not apply to it.

So renewal is automatic, in effect, so long as performance is satisfactory.  Ouch!!  Talk about preventing change.

5 Development of passenger transport strategies
(2) In developing passenger transport strategies, the chief
executive must take reasonable steps to engage in public
consultation.

So this is a good thing.  But the responsibility for consultation rests with the Department of Transport (not Translink!).  Could be delegated to Translink though.

Perhaps I'm getting something wrong.

EDIT: Remove superfluous quote.