15 Jan 2012: SEQ: Public transport is firmly on the election agenda

[ozbob]

Media release 15 January 2012

SEQ: Public transport is firmly on the election agenda

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said the release of the GHD report ' Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure ' coincides neatly with the build up for the Queensland State and Local Government elections (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track welcomes the GHD Report (2). This report examines the cost of public transport projects, not the benefits though, and suggests a number of  approaches.  The corner stone is the conversion of the Ferny Grove - Cleveland lines to a light metro system - the Cleveland Solution.  The cost estimate of this project is estimated to be $2.5 billion, less than the cost of the Cross River Rail Project at $8 billion."

"The cost estimate of the Cleveland Solution we believe is an underestimate, and no mention is made of the necessary level crossing grade separations that would be needed if a true 3 minute frequency was to be achieved."

"Unfortunately the whole premise of the Cleveland Solution is false.  Merivale bridge capacity constraints will not be improved sufficiently by taking out Cleveland services to allow for the growth in the other lines such as Gold Coast, Beenleigh and future improvements such as Flagstone (3), and network wide improvements to the Sunshine Coast line, Moreton Bay Rail Link, and CAMCOS."

"Most services on the Merivale bridge are Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines, together with specials and freights.  And both of these lines will have future significant demands on them, far more so than Cleveland."

"The document does raise issues that we too have highlighted for years such as wasteful busway construction including tunneling when simple bus priority on roads would achieve much the same,  and the need to fix the Cultural Centre Bus station bus-jam."

"The real Cross River Rail project, together with the Trouts Road Corridor will actually give the essential capacity needed for all lines and ease the bus capacity crisis.  Cross River Rail is a realistic and appropriate response to positioning Brisbane and South East Queensland for a sustainable transport future."

"The Cleveland solution is only a short term fix at best, and will lead to further massive catch up infrastructure expenditure if Cross River Rail is further delayed."

"The section in the report that details what commuters want though is spot on (4).  What commuters want is frequency, integration, affordability and reliability!"

References:

1. http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.0

3. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.msg83366#msg83366

4. http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf page 8

Contact:

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

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

17th January 2012

Flawed report -  not being challenged

Greetings,

It is time to point out the serious flaws in the ' GHD report Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure, http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf  ' .  It is an important tenet in journalism that balance be sought, rather than peddle a particular political line.  This report is nothing but a very poor attempt to de-rail Cross River Rail for political ends.  An outcome should it occur that would be devastating for the future of south-east Queensland.

Lets consider a couple of aspects of the so called 'Cleveland Solution '  a light metro proposal from Ferny Grove to Cleveland.

Cleveland line trains represent only 38% of the train paths through South  Brisbane.  Consider this:

Reference http://translink.com.au/travel-information/services-and-timetables/trains

Services

Inbound at South Brisbane  6am to 9am Monday to Friday

Cleveland line 15 services

Gold Coast line  8 services

Beenleigh line 16 services

Cleveland trains represent only 38% of normal timetabled services, and with sector 2 timetable revision this will probably fall as well as more Gold Coast services are added.

Outbound at South Brisbane 4pm to 7pm Monday to Friday

Cleveland line 12 services

Gold Coast line 9 services

Beenleigh line 12 services

Cleveland line trains represent only 36% of normal timetable services.

=====================

The study claims that capacity will be increased by over 70% are misleading, those are relative figures. This is what they are playing on .. that people won't realise the difference.

If you have 38% of services as Cleveland, you only gain 38% increase overall if you give that to the other lines.

Cross River Rail will give a real increase of 114%  of train paths through the CBD.
http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=121

It is a consultants report, GHD ( http://www.ghd.com/australia/ ).  It has none of the rigour of the CRR project work up.   Infrastructure Australia I think is a good judge of a particular projects merit or otherwise.

Quote
Mr Alchin gave Infrastructure Australia's assessment of Cross River Rail, explaining that the "project is nationally significant" and provides "significant impact on improving transport options for a large proportion of people in SE Queensland."

http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?id=5010


Cross River Rail tops Queensland's infrastructure priority list  --> http://www.urbanalyst.com/in-the-news/queensland/889-cross-river-rail-tops-queenslands-infrastructure-priority-list.html

Costings:

The consultants have suggested the cost of the Cleveland solution would be $2.5 billion.  Rubbish!

For a start a light metro would need to be grade separated.  There 17 level crossings and 5 pedestrian crossings that would need grade separation first.  The cost of that alone would approach $2 billion.

The cost of 70 rail vehicles would be in the order of $1.5 billion.

Works, track duplications, upgrade to light metro signaling would cost around $1 billion dollars.

Then add the cost of tunnels, bridges and stations.

There would be little change out of $8 billion dollars for the Cleveland solution, the actual cost of Cross River Rail.

The real Cross River Rail project, together with the Trouts Road Corridor will actually give the required capacity needed for all lines.  Cross River Rail is a realistic and appropriate response to positioning Brisbane and South East Queensland for a sustainable transport future.

This report appears to me to be a political response to the Cross River Rail wedge  created when Mr Newman changed from being a strong supporter of Cross River Rail to an alternative view, at the time he resigned as Lord Mayor.

The Council of South East Queensland Mayors should be held to task for wasting rate payers money on such a weak report in my opinion.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Media release 15 January 2012

SEQ: Public transport is firmly on the election agenda

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said the release of the GHD report ' Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure ' coincides neatly with the build up for the Queensland State and Local Government elections (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track welcomes the GHD Report (2). This report examines the cost of public transport projects, not the benefits though, and suggests a number of  approaches.  The corner stone is the conversion of the Ferny Grove - Cleveland lines to a light metro system - the Cleveland Solution.  The cost estimate of this project is estimated to be $2.5 billion, less than the cost of the Cross River Rail Project at $8 billion."

"The cost estimate of the Cleveland Solution we believe is an underestimate, and no mention is made of the necessary level crossing grade separations that would be needed if a true 3 minute frequency was to be achieved."

"Unfortunately the whole premise of the Cleveland Solution is false.  Merivale bridge capacity constraints will not be improved sufficiently by taking out Cleveland services to allow for the growth in the other lines such as Gold Coast, Beenleigh and future improvements such as Flagstone (3), and network wide improvements to the Sunshine Coast line, Moreton Bay Rail Link, and CAMCOS."

"Most services on the Merivale bridge are Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines, together with specials and freights.  And both of these lines will have future significant demands on them, far more so than Cleveland."

"The document does raise issues that we too have highlighted for years such as wasteful busway construction including tunneling when simple bus priority on roads would achieve much the same,  and the need to fix the Cultural Centre Bus station bus-jam."

"The real Cross River Rail project, together with the Trouts Road Corridor will actually give the essential capacity needed for all lines and ease the bus capacity crisis.  Cross River Rail is a realistic and appropriate response to positioning Brisbane and South East Queensland for a sustainable transport future."

"The Cleveland solution is only a short term fix at best, and will lead to further massive catch up infrastructure expenditure if Cross River Rail is further delayed."

"The section in the report that details what commuters want though is spot on (4).  What commuters want is frequency, integration, affordability and reliability!"

References:

1. http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.0

3. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.msg83366#msg83366

4. http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf page 8

Contact:

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

[Stillwater]

All of the following is taken verbatim from the LNP website:

"Queensland needs a new economic development and infrastructure vision - a new innovative approach - to ensure we can provide the infrastructure that will underpin the
state's future economic growth and social development.  The LNP is focussed on getting public transport back on track and we'll make sure there is a choice – a viable choice for Queensland commuters.
Under the current tired Labor Government infrastructure constraints hamper the performance of the Four Pillars of Queensland's economy that drive growth, job creation and prosperity – Agriculture, Construction, Resources and Tourism.

"The LNP believes delivering infrastructure to drive economic growth and deliver services should be a primary policy objective of our State Government.  All of the infrastructure projects that have been allocated genuine construction funding in the current four year budget forward estimates process should be completed as scheduled.  Sourcing additional funding for the great many more infrastructure projects – that have
been identified but remain unfunded - should be a priority to address the backlog caused by 20 years of Labor mismanagement and inertia."

Some questions arise:

What is the LNP transport infrastructure vision and what is the innovative approach whereby it will be achieved?

How will the LNP 'get public transport back on track'?  What is this talk of 'choice'?  Is the choice CRR or the Cleveland Solution?

Can you demonstrate for us the way in which better transport infrastructure will improve the Brisbane and Queensland economies?

Should CRR be one of those projects allocated 'genuine construction funding in the current four-year budget estimates', will you give an undertaking to fund it?

What will be the source of additional funding for the great many new infrastructure projects required in the future?  How does the need to raise additional funds sit with the promise the LNP has made to keep cost of living pressures down for Queenslanders?

Will the LNP abandon the automatic 15 per cent year on year rise in PT fares?

If, as Mr Newman says, the election campaign has started and the clock is ticking, the unanswered questions on the LNP transport policy represent a ticking timebomb for his party's credibility.

[somebody]

What is this talk of 'choice'? 

I think it's the choice of where you might park your car.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

18th January 2012

Re: Flawed report -  not being challenged

Greetings,

A member has described the GHD Report as:

" Having just come back from Perth and missed all this in the last few days, my observation is as follows.

This report is absolute bunk.

I think we should castigate them for producing something so childish and get back on with the job of pushing for CRR. "

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.msg83777#msg83777

Hidden away in the report are some good points, points which we have raised for years, a remarkable coincidence don't you think?

To further highlight the mediocrity of this report, the planned route of the Cleveland Solution, doesn't even have Kurilpa bridge on it, and at one point goes over the Clem 7 tunnel vent (how ironic .. LOL ) again further highlighting what the real purpose of this document is.

Some of us a not as gullible as some would think.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Sent to all outlets:

17th January 2012

Flawed report -  not being challenged

Greetings,

It is time to point out the serious flaws in the ' GHD report Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure, http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf  ' .  It is an important tenet in journalism that balance be sought, rather than peddle a particular political line.  This report is nothing but a very poor attempt to de-rail Cross River Rail for political ends.  An outcome should it occur that would be devastating for the future of south-east Queensland.

Lets consider a couple of aspects of the so called 'Cleveland Solution '  a light metro proposal from Ferny Grove to Cleveland.

Cleveland line trains represent only 38% of the train paths through South  Brisbane.  Consider this:

Reference http://translink.com.au/travel-information/services-and-timetables/trains

Services

Inbound at South Brisbane  6am to 9am Monday to Friday

Cleveland line 15 services

Gold Coast line  8 services

Beenleigh line 16 services

Cleveland trains represent only 38% of normal timetabled services, and with sector 2 timetable revision this will probably fall as well as more Gold Coast services are added.

Outbound at South Brisbane 4pm to 7pm Monday to Friday

Cleveland line 12 services

Gold Coast line 9 services

Beenleigh line 12 services

Cleveland line trains represent only 36% of normal timetable services.

=====================

The study claims that capacity will be increased by over 70% are misleading, those are relative figures. This is what they are playing on .. that people won't realise the difference.

If you have 38% of services as Cleveland, you only gain 38% increase overall if you give that to the other lines.

Cross River Rail will give a real increase of 114%  of train paths through the CBD.
http://www.crossriverrail.qld.gov.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=121

It is a consultants report, GHD ( http://www.ghd.com/australia/ ).  It has none of the rigour of the CRR project work up.   Infrastructure Australia I think is a good judge of a particular projects merit or otherwise.

Quote
Mr Alchin gave Infrastructure Australia's assessment of Cross River Rail, explaining that the "project is nationally significant" and provides "significant impact on improving transport options for a large proportion of people in SE Queensland."

http://www.propertyoz.com.au/Article/NewsDetail.aspx?id=5010


Cross River Rail tops Queensland's infrastructure priority list  --> http://www.urbanalyst.com/in-the-news/queensland/889-cross-river-rail-tops-queenslands-infrastructure-priority-list.html

Costings:

The consultants have suggested the cost of the Cleveland solution would be $2.5 billion.  Rubbish!

For a start a light metro would need to be grade separated.  There 17 level crossings and 5 pedestrian crossings that would need grade separation first.  The cost of that alone would approach $2 billion.

The cost of 70 rail vehicles would be in the order of $1.5 billion.

Works, track duplications, upgrade to light metro signaling would cost around $1 billion dollars.

Then add the cost of tunnels, bridges and stations.

There would be little change out of $8 billion dollars for the Cleveland solution, the actual cost of Cross River Rail.

The real Cross River Rail project, together with the Trouts Road Corridor will actually give the required capacity needed for all lines.  Cross River Rail is a realistic and appropriate response to positioning Brisbane and South East Queensland for a sustainable transport future.

This report appears to me to be a political response to the Cross River Rail wedge  created when Mr Newman changed from being a strong supporter of Cross River Rail to an alternative view, at the time he resigned as Lord Mayor.

The Council of South East Queensland Mayors should be held to task for wasting rate payers money on such a weak report in my opinion.

Best wishes
Robert

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

Media release 15 January 2012

SEQ: Public transport is firmly on the election agenda

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said the release of the GHD report ' Public Transport in SEQ Options to deliver value and innovation in future South East Queensland public transport infrastructure ' coincides neatly with the build up for the Queensland State and Local Government elections (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track welcomes the GHD Report (2). This report examines the cost of public transport projects, not the benefits though, and suggests a number of  approaches.  The corner stone is the conversion of the Ferny Grove - Cleveland lines to a light metro system - the Cleveland Solution.  The cost estimate of this project is estimated to be $2.5 billion, less than the cost of the Cross River Rail Project at $8 billion."

"The cost estimate of the Cleveland Solution we believe is an underestimate, and no mention is made of the necessary level crossing grade separations that would be needed if a true 3 minute frequency was to be achieved."

"Unfortunately the whole premise of the Cleveland Solution is false.  Merivale bridge capacity constraints will not be improved sufficiently by taking out Cleveland services to allow for the growth in the other lines such as Gold Coast, Beenleigh and future improvements such as Flagstone (3), and network wide improvements to the Sunshine Coast line, Moreton Bay Rail Link, and CAMCOS."

"Most services on the Merivale bridge are Gold Coast and Beenleigh lines, together with specials and freights.  And both of these lines will have future significant demands on them, far more so than Cleveland."

"The document does raise issues that we too have highlighted for years such as wasteful busway construction including tunneling when simple bus priority on roads would achieve much the same,  and the need to fix the Cultural Centre Bus station bus-jam."

"The real Cross River Rail project, together with the Trouts Road Corridor will actually give the essential capacity needed for all lines and ease the bus capacity crisis.  Cross River Rail is a realistic and appropriate response to positioning Brisbane and South East Queensland for a sustainable transport future."

"The Cleveland solution is only a short term fix at best, and will lead to further massive catch up infrastructure expenditure if Cross River Rail is further delayed."

"The section in the report that details what commuters want though is spot on (4).  What commuters want is frequency, integration, affordability and reliability!"

References:

1. http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.0

3. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7475.msg83366#msg83366

4. http://www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/docs/Publications/COMSEQ-Public-Transport-in-SEQ_LOW-RES.pdf page 8

Contact:

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

[Stillwater]

There is one way in which Campbell Newman and the LNP could be snookered on transport in the lead-up to a state election, and that would be for the CRR application currently with IA to be fast-tracked and approved to become the centrepiece of the Labor campaign, thus negating Mr Newman's 'can-do' credentials.  Anthony Albanese could make clear that the funding is for CRR, as proposed.  If not applied to the project as outlined in the Business Case, the available money would be lost to projects in other states.  Obviously, the ALP will pledge to build CRR with money confirmed.  Joined by the media and the community, they could then call on Mr Newman to pledge to build CRR with the money confirmed.  He would be forced to answer 'yes' or face incredible pressure to disclose the detail of his alternative and argue why it would be superior.

[#Metro]

You know, sometimes I think they really do think up BS policies and publicly announce them just to generate controversy and attention.

What else explains the public display of garbage - 6 and 1/2 car trains (ha!), dismembering the Cleveland line, converting it to light metro and undercosting it (are you serious),
9-trips then free, which has already been trumped by 10 trips then free and a whole heap of service improvements, mega-car park + rides within the CBD zone (are you serious?!),
extra platforms at South Brisbane (what the?!)
and the list goes on.

Who are they employing as their transport advisers? Did they really come up with this stuff? Really? The ALP of course engages in future faking - glossy documents and fantasy plans that could not possibly be funded until 3030 (you read correctly) with the $$ available.

What's next? Free muffins after 10 trips?

What actually do they stand for? Surely soon the policies will pop out.

[Cam]

I'm still waiting on a political party in Queensland to announce a policy that SE Qld will receive 15 minute off peak & counter peak rail frequencies on 1 or more railway lines. I guess it is assumed that the vast majority of the 1200 state employees relocating to Ipswich within a couple of years will be driving to work.

[Mr X]

Greens seem to want their usual, which is light rail down the 111, 130, 150, 199, 200, 333, 345, 385.. pie in the sky for no real benefit 

[#Metro]

I think we should have a policy table that lists the different party's policies and our positions on them.

I do not support LRT down the busway. Either get those 300 pax chinese superbuses or put an automatic rubber tyre metro down the busway.
I do not support a metro in any other location.

[aldonius]

The currently available Greens transport policy (http://qld.greens.org.au/content/transport-1) seems out of date:

Install new safety features at all level rail crossings by 2012

They have 'principles', 'goals' and 'measures' sections - items are from 'measures' unless stated.

Good bits: dual tracking all current single track, supporting CRR (well, ICRS' proposal), feeder buses to rail and increased synergy, no new road tunnels, reconfiguration to reduce facing moves, PT season passes for state gov employees, 'goal' to promote long-distance rail freight over road.

Iffy PT (mostly foam): inner city freight bypass (is it needed?), Bethania-Beaudesert rail, alternative fuel buses, connecting GC rail to NSW north coast rail, Doomben-Pinkenba electrification and services.

Iffy road: Cut funding for all 'new road' projects (too much of a blanket statement, roads still make sense for rural/regional Qld), anything to do with rego (unpopularity).

Bad: little to no timeframes for anything. In many ways, they're still thinking like a fringe party, not a party of government. Light Rail foam. Nothing about frequency except for the 'goal' to

Extend and increase the level of service in South East Queensland's urban rail network.

In context, that's mostly about new corridors.
It's interesting to note they tout LR as an upgrade to the busway network. This is surely 'light rail good, bus not so good' thinking on their part - a 'empathy' rather than a 'system' upgrade. As has been discussed, LR just doesn't have a good BCR in Brisbane - it's lacking capacity for the busway, and it's overkill anywhere else.

LNP: only things on the website are roads roads roads (Bruce Highway in particular) and 9-then-free. Add the Cleveland non-Solution.
[EDIT: Cleveland solution is not officially LNP policy. My opinion is that they want to be seen as offering a cheaper alternative to CRR, of which this is the latest.]

Labor: Connecting SEQ 2031 etc. 'The devil we know'.

[#Metro]

In context, that's mostly about new corridors.

And this is the thing - when we are talking about new corridors, we are probably talking about COVERAGE service frequencies.

Bethania-Beaudesert rail will be a welfare service
GC to NSW north coast rail will also be welfare
Doomen-Pinkenba electrification (God Forbid!) will also be welfare

These things will improve access and coverage, but on the basis that it will be a lifeline, not super high patronage.

We just don't have the cash.

Also replacing buses for LRT does not increase mobility unless the capacity increases also... a subway would have extra capacity that would permit bus network re-organisation (as much as BT must be cringing about this).

[Mr X]

Have the LNP 'officially' claimed the Cleveland Solution as their policy though? I can't see it on their website.

[ozbob]

Have the LNP 'officially' claimed the Cleveland Solution as their policy though? I can't see it on their website.

No, not that I am aware of.

[aldonius]

Edited post for clarity.

Cleveland solution is not officially LNP policy. My opinion is that they want to be seen as offering a cheaper alternative to CRR, of which this is the latest.

[Mr X]

I read their discussion paper and it did say that they are looking at alternatives for CRR for the "long term"

Cleveland Solution isn't exactly a "long term" fix is it...

[#Metro]

Queensland Rail and shortcuts 

Short cuts are cheap to do. Cut a corner here, cut a corner there. It saves money.

Examples of this are short track sections, flat junctions, curved platforms, single track sections, missing electrifications etc.

Now try and timetable a service on the network. Very difficult and a pain in the butt!

The Merivale Bridge ITSELF was a shortcut. Cross River Rail 1970 was supposed to be the main line between the Gold Coast and Brisbane.

A band aid upon a band aid!

[Mr X]

42 years we still have no proper solution 

Will it be fixed in 2054? Unlikely.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Queensland Rail and shortcuts  

Short cuts are cheap to do. Cut a corner here, cut a corner there. It saves money.

Examples of this are short track sections, flat junctions, curved platforms, single track sections, missing electrifications etc.

Now try and timetable a service on the network. Very difficult and a pain in the butt!

The Merivale Bridge ITSELF was a shortcut. Cross River Rail 1970 was supposed to be the main line between the Gold Coast and Brisbane.

A band aid upon a band aid!

Its also dependant on how much the Government wants to cough up unfortunatly   Its not the first time and it won't be the last. I see option two is cheaper, we'll give you money for that coughmbrlcoughcough

[SurfRail]

I don't think anybody could seriously claim Queensland doesn't know how to build and operate railways per se.  A quick trip out to the Blackwater system would disabuse anybody of that notion (even though that does belong to QRN now).

I will agree that the infrastructure issues are generally caused by Treasury, who seem to be responsible for all the nonsense which has resulted on projects like Corinda-Darra.  QR is quite capable of designing good outcomes when the funding is there.

QR's main failing when it comes to passenger rail is in its high operational costs, which are arguably part of the reason why Treasury will not stump up for more services.