NEW Local Government Funding for Bus Services in SEQ and QLD

[#Metro]

So, I'm going to summarise:

- The current funding arrangements for PT are not good. Note this is not just talking about the levels of funding, it is about the arrangement around who pays.

- The current funding arrangements for PT are looking unsustainable moving forward. We have "cost-neutral" budgets which is leading to a net decline in PT funding.

- LGAs are free to spend all their transport budgets on roads (and they do). They also have cost-sharing arrangements with roads through an MoU with the Queensland Government and LGAQ. There is no likewise cost-sharing agreement for PT operational services.

- The costs of LGAs contributing to PT would be both high-impact (~$160 million p.a. for SEQ) and reasonable to afford, whether measured at the household level or at the council level. Using a test value of $150 p.a. this would be around $2.88 per week and below 5% of council budgets.

- The proposal can be shown to be reasonable in a council that has no commercial rateable properties. In other words, that is the "high water mark" value. If an LGA contained any measure of commercial rateable properties, the figures would be even less.

(Of course, if the Queensland Government were to enter into negotiations with the LGAQ and LGAs then this figure would be determined by their agreement.)

- This is not about BCC or whether BCC has a special advantage or disadvantage, or whether TransLink should or should not be restructured as an independent authority. These are distractions. This is about guaranteeing funding supply for each and every LGA into the future, leveraging local government in a partnership, and guaranteeing that the funds raised in their local area stay invested in PT service in their local area (rather than each council fighting every other council for funding).

- It is also not about the Queensland Government avoiding its responsibilities. It already is responsible for shouldering high capital cost projects and ongoing operational funding (~ 100% of operational PT costs outside of BCC). It is about LGAs contributing to the ongoing liveability of their communities and their responsibilities in making that happen. LGAs are in a good position to recover that value capture through rates.

If nothing changes, then those patronage statistics that were posted at the beginning of this thread will simply continue. I understand that there are members who do not agree, and that is fine. But I would be very interested in what precisely is Gazza's competing plan to get ~ $160 million p.a. funding increase for PT out of Minister Mark Bailey. Do tell us.

[Gazza]

But I would be very interested in what precisely is Gazza's competing plan to get ~ $160 million p.a. funding increase for PT out of Minister Mark Bailey. Do tell us.

For starters, stop this idea that RBoT is about 'competing plans' tied to a specific member and that you get kudos for coming up with the one that works. Ozbob, htg etc has largley been agreeing with me but i notice you're not branding it "Ozbobs competing plan" so you can drop that mindset.

But in terms of what we should do... getting back to basics and putting pressure on, just outright asking for services where they are needed rather than some roundabout psuedo political economic science of first proposing changes to taxation, and then hoping crumbs get thrown in the right direction in 3 or 4 years time.

By pointing out the hypocrisy of promoting sprawl in these outer areas and then only having PT that runs on the same unupgraded ex rural roads.

By leveraging off the demands to meet net zero.

Ensuring all LGAs/bus regions get the same amount per capita from the government spent, prior to any council top up.
(I mean, theoretically the outer regions should receive slightly more than bcc given you'd expect a bus service in an outer area to have slightly less efficiency)

It's not just buses getting a raw deal remember, rail services should be funded more too, where's our high frequency services on other lines and on weekends and on other lines?

The last thing is pointing out the relationship between service contract expenses and population.
PT funding has been frozen. I think perhaps we have been a bit tied up in trying to wring efficiency that we perhaps could outright be questioning why improvements are so glacial.

[Gazza]

Bus contract spend from ICC report.



BCC is $258.21 per capita

But if we take the State Gov contribution that comprises 75% of that the figure is $193.65

Why is the state so much more generous per capita than say logan which only gets $143?

Bear in mind on top of the higher bus spend,  The bcc area also benefits from better coverage by the QR network.

Eg Logan has 8 train stations and will get 2 busway stations.

Redlands has 5 station, zero Busway.

Brisbane has like 40 stations right? And all the sections with 4tph off peak are within the BCC boundaries.

Like no matter what way you cut it the outer suburbs, get dudded.
You would expect that the outer regions which are more bus dependant would have a higher bus spend per capita to compensate for the lack of rail but the opposite is true

[#Metro]

For starters, stop this idea that RBoT is about 'competing plans' tied to a specific member and that you get kudos for coming up with the one that works. Ozbob, htg etc has largley been agreeing with me but i notice you're not branding it "Ozbobs competing plan" so you can drop that mindset.

But in terms of what we should do... getting back to basics and putting pressure on, just outright asking for services where they are needed...

So has any of this been tried before? What was the result?

BCC is $258.21 per capita

But if we take the State Gov contribution that comprises 75% of that the figure is $193.65

Why is the state so much more generous per capita than say logan which only gets $143?

I've had a look to see if it is possible that we can arrive at an answer that is equal to about the regional average.

It depends on what comprises the "contract spend". Is that the total expenditure of BCC + State, or is that just the State component?

The reason why I ask is because if it were the total amount of money (BCC+State), the numbers would match:

* $328.7 million is the total contract spend
* minus $144.8 million p.a. which is BCC's contribution (from p.14 ICC minutes)
* Gives $183.9 million p.a.
* Divided by 1.27 million people

Equals $144.80 per person (State Contribution). Which would be about the same as what Logan LGA gets.

So that $328.7 million figure needs clarification. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but evidence will need to be presented. Perhaps members could ask at the meeting how the funding works and the numbers. It would suggest that BCC's contribution is around ~ 40% which seems a bit high.

[RowBro]

- This is not about BCC or whether BCC has a special advantage or disadvantage, or whether TransLink should or should not be restructured as an independent authority. These are distractions.

What is a distraction, IMO, is trying to convince LGA's to fund something which is solely a state government responsibility. The purpose of an LGA is to provide and maintain local amenities and infrastructure (back roads, rubbish, etc.). There's a reason that all the main roads fall under TMR. It's because they are used by people both within the LGA and outside. It's so that the connections across LGA's are well maintained. Public transport is in the same boat. A lot of bus routes cross between multiple LGA's and are used by people both within the LGA and outside the LGA. If we are going to start expecting the LGA's to pay, then they will want to put all this money into PT solely inside their boundaries. This is counterproductive to the aim of a well-connected SEQ. We've already seen this with BCC, where busses between LGA's are significantly less frequent (327 anyone?).

Regardless of that however, the main issue is that as soon as it is the expectation for the LGA's to contribute to PT, it becomes easier for the state government to neglect PT funding even more. Why would they increase funding when the LGA could instead. It'll just become another bureaucratic roadblock over which government should fund a particular project. It's a bad precedence to set when the ultimate goal is for the state to fund more PT.

[Gazza]

Yeah for me it almost seems like blame is being laid at councils for not putting in funding for buses, and not the state for underfunding.

I mean theoretically you can ask for money from either/ both but Primarily blaming the minor funding partner seems a bit off imho.

The reason why I ask is because if it were the total amount of money (BCC+State), the numbers would match:

In terms of the BCC contract spend, you need to read thoroughly and not mix up contract years.

$144.8m was BCCs contribution in the 2021/22 FY.

The $328.7m figure was 2019/20

Here is the source
https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/ckan-publications-attachments-prod/resources/41fd94db-5e38-4d71-a290-1b95c5b3519a/annual-report-2020-appendices.pdf?ETag=de5d6bb32b92c742ccc2d1e175a4edd5

"Brisbane City Council (Transport for Brisbane) $328,702,812"

Fyi in the same report, BCC Transdev ferries get $20,492,480

Now if you look at the BCC budget also in 2019/2020

https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council/council-information-and-rates/news-and-publications/council-annual-plan-and-budget/council-annual-plan-and-budget-2019-20#:~:text=The%20key%20areas%20of%20the,million%20to%20deliver%20Brisbane%20Metro

"$134.2 million to subsidise public transport across the city"

According to the below this consists of:
https://docs.brisbane.qld.gov.au/cp/docs/budget/20190612-Annual-Plan-and-Budget-2019-20-Transport-for-Brisbane.docx

$89m for operating subsidy plus $6.7m for Blue Glider, and $6.3m for maroon glider, and $1.3m for the Mt Coot Tha shuttle and $34m for Ferry subsidy.

So if we take the bus only aspects that gets $103.3

That gives a subsidy level of more like 30% .

But still, if you take the remainder ($328.7m-103.3m) The state purely funded $225.4m in 2019/20

$225.4m / 1.26m people its still $178 per person by this method, which is a long way in front of other LGAs.

[ozbob]

Thanks Gazza     

My position is that we need a proper public transport authority. 

The best model I know of in the great Oz land is the PTA of WA. 

[PTA = Public Transport Authority of Western Australia]

The public transport issues can be turned around, and will be if the Government follows up on the CRU recommendations and acts.

[#Metro]

I think these numbers should be put to Translink for confirmation.

They need to explain why the rate is so low for Ipswich, so high for Redlands and confirm what the numbers are for Brisbane.

We also need to know what their formula is for deciding what the base level of funding is per region.

Public transport within a LGA, particularly bus, is a local amenity by and large, and thus LGAs should contribute just as they do with local roads and just as they cost share with an MoU with the  State Government on roads.

This actually creates a new ongoing funding source and new money. Members suggest that this would allow the state to reduce funding, but then how do you explain State Government funding the BCC at a rate higher at $178 per person when they have been funding PT for over 90 years?

Don't you think we should have observed a lower funding rate for BCC if the State funding withdrawal theory were true? They've had 90 years to reduce it.

So that is evidence against the idea that reduction in funding by the state will happen at all.

I mean theoretically you can ask for money from either/ both

Yes. And we should ask from both. If there is any doubt about the capacity of LGAs to contribute, this should be tested by referral to the Queensland Treasury and Queensland Productivity Commission. Reviews of LGA finances and their soundness have happened before.

[#Metro]

What is a distraction, IMO, is trying to convince LGA's to fund something which is solely a state government responsibility. The purpose of an LGA is to provide and maintain local amenities and infrastructure (back roads, rubbish, etc.).

- Worldwide many LGAs and Regional Councils contribute or operate PT. So it is not like some set in stone thing that cannot be changed.

- Whether one agrees or disagrees with TransLink being an independent authority or not, does not change the fact that this will create no new revenue, and will still have its funding determined by the minister or Parliament.

- 'Independent' means independent in management or operations, not in the ability to raise finances independently, set its own budget independently, or tax independently.

- LGAs have the (independent) power of taxation, something that an independent TTA will never have.

[HappyTrainGuy]

What is a distraction, IMO, is trying to convince LGA's to fund something which is solely a state government responsibility. The purpose of an LGA is to provide and maintain local amenities and infrastructure (back roads, rubbish, etc.).

- Worldwide many LGAs and Regional Councils contribute or operate PT. So it is not like some set in stone thing that cannot be changed.

- Whether one agrees or disagrees with TransLink being an independent authority or not, does not change the fact that this will create no new revenue, and will still have its funding determined by the minister or Parliament.

- 'Independent' means independent in management or operations, not in the ability to raise finances independently, set its own budget independently, or tax independently.

- LGAs have the (independent) power of taxation, something that an independent TTA will never have.

How's that working out for public transport in America. Or for Brisbane residents??

[#Metro]

Well, You can always move to MBRC, or any other council that doesn't boost PT funding HTG if you think that offers the overall better outcome...

[RowBro]

Well, You can always move to MBRC, or any other council that doesn't boost PT funding HTG if you think that's the better outcome...

The better outcome is actually having the state government fund public transport properly.

[#Metro]

The State Government already contributes 100% outside of BCC, councils virtually 0%. Even objectively that is unfair.

It's difficult to argue that a council road servicing mainly LGA residents should be a local responsibility, but a bus driving on that same local road picking up those same LGA residents should have no contribution from that LGA whatsoever. The bus is a service just like periodic rubbish collection is, just that we are collecting passengers not trash.

The other thing is that the bus network is already broken up into Translink bus contract areas and these already place limits on where buses can run in the network. Generally, buses originate and terminate within their Translink contract area.

Coincidentally, these bus contract regions overlap the LGA areas closely. There is very little overlap, with the main exception being the busway, which is a state-controlled road anyway. TransLink has been doing this since it was created in 2004.

Sharing is caring. If your LGA values PT then it will set aside a portion of its budget to pay for it. Just like your LGA sets aside money for local roads.

The current funding model doesn't scale and is heading for serious breakdown.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Well, You can always move to MBRC, or any other council that doesn't boost PT funding HTG if you think that offers the overall better outcome...

Done! 

As rowbro said state government should fund pt better. A 20 billion dollar roads budget and a trickle for pt across the state.

[Gazza]

Well, You can always move to MBRC, or any other council that doesn't boost PT funding HTG if you think that offers the overall better outcome...

Serious just stop with these smug posts telling people to move.

It's the equivalent of a bumper sticker that says "Love it or Leave"

The main thing that needs to be done is to undo the funding freeze on buses. The state is the majority funding partner, even if the lgas contributed, so boosting the state contribution improves this.

PS the contract boundary issue is something that should be adressed too!

I think RowBrow mentioned the goal is to create a well connected network. For example, if I decide I want to head up to the Sunshine coast for the day,  or if i have a job in a neighbouring LGA, I should find a consistent standard of buses.

It would be intellectually inconsistent to call for a regional fast rail network, but then leave the fate of the connecting buses to the funding abilities of each LGA.

[#Metro]

I support two funding streams. Increasing both would be the best of both.

The overall rate of funding per person for BCC area is high because BCC contributes. That's why it's over $250 per person.

In other councils funding is the basic regional rate ~$144 per person.

I've suggested other LGAs contribute. Unfortunately yourself and others made clear you don't want councils to pay, no matter what.

And that's fine. But as the saying goes, there is nothing for nothing.

For example, if I decide I want to head up to the Sunshine coast for the day,  or if i have a job in a neighbouring LGA, I should find a consistent standard of buses.

Which standard? The BCC one? Oh, wait...

[Gazza]

No not the bcc standard either (strawman), it has been discussed ad nauseum and what the problems with Brisbane public transport are.

If you subtract the bcc funding component, the state still chips in well above $144 in that region.

And what about areas getting well below $144....like Ipswich?

[#Metro]

There is nothing for nothing.

The BCC issues are being resolved with the series of bus reviews that are rolling out.

Much easier to fix the BCC network that has good funding than one that has one that has none.

[Gazza]

Indeed, if the Brisbane region is getting $180-190 per resident from the state (plus more heavy rail lines)

Then that is easier to fix than a region that has only $110-$140 per resident from the state and less heavy rail to fall back on.

[#Metro]

I have a practical solution that can potentially raise ~ $160 million p.a ongoing ** on top** of whatever unfreezing the regional basic rate will do.

You're presenting this as if it were an exclusive either or case choice and it's not. It's an AND. The funding is supplemental.

I already demonstrated in the analysis a shortfall for Ipswich of ~ $8 million. Translink. I have no objection to lobbying for that, but I think Ipswich should throw money in too.

[Gazza]

What makes it practical?

[achiruel]

I have a practical solution that can potentially raise ~ $160 million p.a ongoing ** on top** of whatever unfreezing the regional basic rate will do.

You're presenting this as if it were an exclusive either or case choice and it's not. It's an AND. The funding is supplemental.

I already demonstrated in the analysis a shortfall for Ipswich of ~ $8 million. Translink. I have no objection to lobbying for that, but I think Ipswich should throw money in too.

You don't have a practical solution. You are totally ignoring the economics of what you are proposing. Gazza and others have pointed it out on previous pages, yet you keep carrying on like your solution is the only one that makes sense. It doesn't, and you fundamentally fail to see why, so there's little point in rehashing it here, only to say it's an utterly shambolic idea and you should go spend your energy on something that has a point.

[#Metro]

0% contribution makes total sense to you? It doesn't to me.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Cazza]

Yes, because local governments have bins to collect, potholes to fix, barking dogs to stop and refuge islands to erect. Not fund a Citywide bus service which is overseen by the State Government.

It's not a matter of the State not having enough funding, it's a matter of political will. And unfortunately, it's the big ticket capital projects that get votes (and therefore the funding), rather than improvements to bus services across the regions.

Whilst this view is somewhat beginning to change both out in the public and internally within some Government departments (growth regions such as northern Gold Coast, Moreton Bay and Sunshine Coast receiving bus funding in the most recent budget), and the current network review trying to make the best out of the current situation, only a proper transport authority can make this happen. Not the current situation where Translink seemingly get the crumbs after what's left over from the 'Main Roads' part of TMR.

[Gazza]

0% contribution makes total sense to you? It doesn't to me.

Yes because that's the situation in 99% of LGAs in Australia?
And others have explained the advantage of having a good state level body and state funding.

[achiruel]

0% contribution makes total sense to you? It doesn't to me.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yes, because it's the job of the State Government.

What's next, should ICC start helping fund RAAF Base Amberley simply because it benefits the area in bringing employment?

[#Metro]

There is nothing in the LGA co-funding proposal that prevents RBOT or any member pursuing a funding increase from the State Government or a restructure of TransLink.

What this proposal does is supplement those funds with LGA funds so we can have overall much more funding and thus service than if the State Government had to shoulder those operational costs alone.

That's a reasonable proposition, and a view expressed by the Queensland Government in the past. Also, the powers and responsibility of a local council are delegated State powers and responsibilities through LGA Acts and regulations (essentially, "The Dillon Rule").

If the Queensland Parliament saw fit, it could add PT funding to the list of LGA responsibilities if it wanted to.

[RowBro]

There is nothing in the LGA co-funding proposal that prevents RBOT or any member pursuing a funding increase from the State Government or a restructure of TransLink.

What this proposal does is supplement those funds with LGA funds so we can have overall much more funding and thus service than if the State Government had to shoulder those operational costs alone.

The problem is it distracts from the real issues (e.g. the states funding & an independent transit authority), adds unnecessary bureaucracy and infighting when there's already enough as it is, results in a less connected network, and gives the State Government another scape goat to neglect PT more. Muddying the waters for funding is not a solution when it is already so hard to get funding commitments from the state as it is.

[achiruel]

There is nothing in the LGA co-funding proposal that prevents RBOT or any member pursuing a funding increase from the State Government or a restructure of TransLink.

What this proposal does is supplement those funds with LGA funds so we can have overall much more funding and thus service than if the State Government had to shoulder those operational costs alone.

That's a reasonable proposition, and a view expressed by the Queensland Government in the past. Also, the powers and responsibility of a local council are delegated State powers and responsibilities through LGA Acts and regulations (essentially, "The Dillon Rule").

If the Queensland Parliament saw fit, it could add PT funding to the list of LGA responsibilities if it wanted to.

It could also abolish every LGA in the state if it chose. I recommend starting with the City of Brisbane.

[RowBro]

There is nothing in the LGA co-funding proposal that prevents RBOT or any member pursuing a funding increase from the State Government or a restructure of TransLink.

What this proposal does is supplement those funds with LGA funds so we can have overall much more funding and thus service than if the State Government had to shoulder those operational costs alone.

That's a reasonable proposition, and a view expressed by the Queensland Government in the past. Also, the powers and responsibility of a local council are delegated State powers and responsibilities through LGA Acts and regulations (essentially, "The Dillon Rule").

If the Queensland Parliament saw fit, it could add PT funding to the list of LGA responsibilities if it wanted to.

It could also abolish every LGA in the state if it chose. I recommend starting with the City of Brisbane.

That's another good point. If LGA's were a reasonable size it would be ridiculous expecting them to fund PT. The fact that they are large, however, does not mean that they should operate any differently to councils of smaller sizes. Regardless of the size, the responsibilities are the same. The fact that BCC does operate differently is itself part of the problem with PT in Brisbane. PT should be taken away from BCC because all they want to do it micromanage the network within its boundary to benefit them and only them, while the rest of the SEQ bus network is left mostly disconnected.

It is a suboptimal solution, and it is exactly why we need an independent public transit agency which has full control over the network, regardless of LGA boundaries, and with only one funding source. As soon as there are competing sources of funding for such an agency, it's effectiveness will be diminished by this council and that council demanding this route goes here, and that route goes there, because they are paying money.

[timh]

I don't have anything new to add to this debate, but I wholeheartedly agree with RowBro, Gazza et al. Especially Rowbro's last point there where BCC's massive influence and deep pockets aren't necessarily a good thing, and shouldn't be replicated.

And yes there are local governments in North America that control public transport and do a good job (Toronto, for example), but again that's an exception to the rule and North American public transport is, except for a few small things, not something we want to emulate.

PTQ, the removal of Translink from TMR, and the political willpower at a state level to divert funds to PT is the answer

[#Metro]

The fact that they are large, however, does not mean that they should operate any differently to councils of smaller sizes. Regardless of the size, the responsibilities are the same.

LGAs provide all sorts of services including funding arts, health services, migrant services, recreation and pools, festivals, airports and social housing.

The reason why BCC is so large was that it was an amalgamation of multiple smaller councils. The approach taken in Sydney and Melbourne where many small hyper-local councils exist didn't work out in Brisbane. Hence their merger.

Similar circumstances led to the amalgamation more recently of Auckland's councils in New Zealand into one council, who also is responsible for public transport across Auckland. It also funds ferries and trains due to its size (comparable to BCC).

PT should be taken away from BCC because all they want to do it micromanage the network within its boundary to benefit them and only them, while the rest of the SEQ bus network is left mostly disconnected.

The rest of the SEQ bus network is like that simply because they have $144 per person to use, and BCC has ~ $250 per person to use.

Will the Queensland Government fund all the other LGAs at that level? Maybe they would go from $144 p.p. to $180 p.p., but it seems really unlikely they would fund it to ~ $250 p.p.

With that sort of funding increase, how many new bus routes could somewhere like Ipswich get? Maybe 2 and a bit.

I don't think it's going to move the dial as far as we would like.

[RowBro]

LGAs provide all sorts of services including funding arts, health services, migrant services, recreation and pools, festivals, airports and social housing.

Can you cite your source for where councils have been funding health services, migrant services, airports, and social housing? These are all responsibilities of the state, not of the council. Here's an excerpt straight from the QLD governments website.

In general, Queensland's 73 local councils are responsible for services like:

providing and managing public recreational facilities (like parks, bike paths and libraries)
maintaining local roads
town planning and development approvals
animal management and waste disposal.

The reason why BCC is so large was that it was an amalgamation of multiple smaller councils. The approach taken in Sydney and Melbourne where many small hyper-local councils exist didn't work out in Brisbane. Hence their merger.

What exactly is so different in Brisbane such that smaller councils didn't work? Next question. Is the situation the same as it was when they were merged? Besides, as I keep saying, just because the council is larger in footprint doesn't mean it should take on additional responsibilities. There is a very good reason why the different levels of governments have a separation of concerns. LGA's are always going to prioritise their residents first, hence why they are not given responsibilities which cross LGA borders.

Similar circumstances led to the amalgamation more recently of Auckland's councils in New Zealand into one council, who also is responsible for public transport across Auckland. It also funds ferries and trains due to its size (comparable to BCC).

Aukland is a very different case study to Brisbane and its surrounding regions. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Sure, there's some similarities, but that doesn't mean they can be compared. The complete lack of density in SEQ and the reliance surrounding regions have on Brisbane are some of the differences which make a huge difference.

The rest of the SEQ bus network is like that simply because they have $144 per person to use, and BCC has ~ $250 per person to use.

You fail to understand that it's not the rest of the SEQ bus network that is like that, it is all of the SEQ network. BCC has more money for PT and yet they still cannot manage frequent services to Strathpine and other interchanges just outside the border. That's not a lack of funding, that's just BCC prioritising its citizens, which is to be expected since they don't have any political gain in the contrary, which ultimately results in a worse network for everyone.

Will the Queensland Government fund all the other LGAs at that level? Maybe they would go from $144 p.p. to $180 p.p., but it seems really unlikely they would fund it to ~ $250 p.p.

And yet you think it is likely that Ipswich City Council is going to fund their PT to that level??? Besides, unlike the LGA's, the state government actually does have the funding to do that. They simply don't. Instead, the money goes towards adding lanes to the Bruce highway, creating new highways, and doing up highway interchanges. Regardless however, this debate is not about whether the State is likely to fund it, because we all know that they aren't in the current state: the debate is about whether LGA's should fund it.

With that sort of funding increase, how many new bus routes could somewhere like Ipswich get? Maybe 2 and a bit.

I don't think it's going to move the dial as far as we would like.

Once again, you are contradicting yourself. If the state increases funding by that much it results in 2 and a bit new bus routes. If the council increases funding by that much it dramatically improves PT in the LGA.

What isn't going to move the dial as far as we would like is getting LGA's - who are already short for cash trying to ensure their actual responsibilities are met - to fund PT when that will most definitely result in a worse outcome in the long term.

As soon as there are competing sources of funding for such an agency, it's effectiveness will be diminished by this council and that council demanding this route goes here, and that route goes there, because they are paying money.

An independent authority for PT, something im sure we can all agree upon, is only effective when it is truly independent. Obviously, that is impossible since it has to get funds somehow (i.e. the state), but the more funding sources the less independent it becomes. How do you expect such an organization would operate when 73 local councils are funding it: all wanting different things for their residents.

[#Metro]

Can you cite your source for where councils have been funding health services, migrant services, airports, and social housing? These are all responsibilities of the state, not of the council. Here's an excerpt straight from the QLD governments website.

Sure. Australian Local Government Association https://alga.com.au/facts-and-figures/

I once signed up to an internet provider that offered commercial telephone, mobile phone service and broadband internet - it was a business unit run and owned by a collective of local councils.

BCC used to own shares in Brisbane Airport, and currently runs social housing in the Valley through a subsidiary in partnership with Qld Gov. Sunshine Coast owns Sunshine Coast Airport. In Victoria many LGAs offer social housing, and so forth. Many offer and operate Childcare and Early Learning centres.

It can and often is a lot wider than just roads and rubbish.

Yes, you are correct that these are responsibilities of the State... and they have been delegated to LGAs by the State. The State creates LGAs and delegates State powers to them. LGAs are creations of State Government, they have no standing or mention in the Australian Constitution.

You fail to understand that it's not the rest of the SEQ bus network that is like that, it is all of the SEQ network. BCC has more money for PT and yet they still cannot manage frequent services to Strathpine and other interchanges just outside the border. That's not a lack of funding, that's just BCC prioritising its citizens, which is to be expected since they don't have any political gain in the contrary, which ultimately results in a worse network for everyone.

There is a train from Strathpine that crosses the BCC boundary.

Well, I did also mention that TransLink bus contract areas already constrain where buses can run. I am not suggesting that all funding be put up by LGAs. So I would expect the bus can cross the council boundary, because the state funding component will permit that.

And yet you think it is likely that Ipswich City Council is going to fund their PT to that level???

Not by themselves, but in the document they wrote and published they are considering co-funding. Lobbying the State Government hasn't worked, they wrote that quite clearly, I provided excerpts. If it didn't work for Ipswich Council, why would we be more successful?

I *did* find they were underfunded versus the regional average. But the scenario that generates the most funds is a cofunding model. That would probably give enough to bring their network to mostly half-hourly all day.

An independent authority for PT, something im sure we can all agree upon, is only effective when it is truly independent.

Independent of what precisely? The minister and Parliament is still going to set its budget. If they want to fund mostly roads, that is what they will instruct the public service to do. There is nothing to stop a TTA being starved of funds if that is what State elected representatives turn out to do, do you agree?

To use a Federal example, the ABC is "independent" but it has had plenty of cuts. Having a second funding source is independent because it is sourced from a different place entirely. I appreciate this means more entities to deal with, and in an ideal case we would not be considering this concept. On the other hand, TransLink is already dealing with all of these councils already because they are all lobbying TransLink with their unfunded plans and concepts.

I hope this helps.

[RowBro]

I once signed up to an internet provider that offered commercial telephone, mobile phone service and broadband internet - it was a business unit run and owned by a collective of local councils.

BCC used to own shares in Brisbane Airport, and currently runs social housing in the Valley through a subsidiary in partnership with Qld Gov. Sunshine Coast owns Sunshine Coast Airport. In Victoria many LGAs offer social housing, and so forth. It can and often is a lot wider than just roads and rubbish.

Yes, you are correct that these are responsibilities of the State... and they have been delegated to LGAs by the State. The State creates LGAs and delegates State powers to them. LGAs are creations of State Government, they have no standing or mention in the Australian Constitution.

Even so these things are either intended to create alternative revenue streams, or for the sole benefit of those living within the council. Public transport is neither profitable (at least it shouldn't be, much like roads are not profitable), nor is it for the sole benefit of those living within the council.

Not by themselves, but in the document they wrote and published they are considering co-funding. Lobbying the State Government hasn't worked, they wrote that quite clearly, I provided excerpts. If it didn't work for Ipswich Council, why would we be more successful?

I *did* find they were underfunded versus the regional average. But the scenario that generates the most funds is a cofunding model. That would probably give enough to bring their network to mostly half-hourly all day.

I agree that the funding from the State is lackluster at best. It is clear that more funding is needed. I simply believe that getting this funding from the councils will result in a worse network in the long term. Short term sure it will make the network slightly better for the residents of the LGA (at what cost though?), but it will result in a more segmented network in the long term. Once split funding is started, it will be hard to undo. It sets a bad precedence which I believe to not be worth it for the marginal gains (this assuming that it is even practical for most LGA's to fund PT which I also believe to not be the case) in the short term.

Independent of what precisely? The minister and Parliament is still going to set its budget. If they want to fund mostly roads, that is what they will instruct the public service to do. There is nothing to stop a TTA being starved of funds if that is what State elected representatives turn out to do, do you agree?

To use a Federal example, the ABC is "independent" but it has had plenty of cuts. Having a second funding source is independent because it is sourced from a different place entirely.

You are selectively quoting me without the surrounding context. You would find the next sentence to be: "Obviously, that is impossible since it has to get funds somehow (i.e. the state), but the more funding sources the less independent it becomes." With that context you will find that I am not trying to say that such an authority would be completely independent. All I am saying is that it will be more independent, and more effective, if there is only one source of funding. Having a second source of funding makes it less independent because there are more parties for it to report to, and more obligations to adhere to. By your logic we should allow other sources of funding other than the state government for the Crime and Corruption Commission because that will make it more independent.

Keep in mind that I define independence in this context as the number of conflict of interests that exist.

[#Metro]

Even so these things are either intended to create alternative revenue streams, or for the sole benefit of those living within the council. Public transport is neither profitable (at least it shouldn't be, much like roads are not profitable), nor is it for the sole benefit of those living within the council.

Well, it isn't for the "sole" benefit of non-LGA users either, hence the basis for exploring co-contribution. Co-funding recognises that benefits accrue to both in-LGA and outside-LGA persons.

You are selectively quoting me without the surrounding context. You would find the next sentence to be: "Obviously, that is impossible since it has to get funds somehow (i.e. the state), but the more funding sources the less independent it becomes." With that context you will find that I am not trying to say that such an authority would be completely independent. All I am saying is that it will be more independent, and more effective, if there is only one source of funding. Having a second source of funding makes it less independent because there are more parties for it to report to, and more obligations to adhere to.

Personally I think a TTA is a desirable thing.

That said, IMHO there is nothing to stop the Queensland Government starving a new TTA of funds, and continuing the current situation. I understand this many not be what members want to read, but I do believe this to be the case. I also believe the previous TTA, which had its own board, IIRC there was a mechanism where the minister could write a directive and the TTA had to follow it.

Even with an "independent" board - they can still nominate someone like an ex-politician or other "friendly party" to that board. Again, the ABC board process has been criticised for just that. The Cross River Rail Delivery Authority just has DTMR directors/public service executives on it, even though it is constituted as an independent authority.

So I don't think it will be a panacea. It's a partial solution at best IMHO.

By your logic we should allow other sources of funding other than the state government for the Crime and Corruption Commission because that will make it more independent.

Although this is not relevant to the matter at hand, I will address it.

The Wikipedia entry for CCC mentions that the Newman Government reduced funding to the "independent" CCC which saw 44 of its staff having to leave the watchdog. So if we replace the "CCC" with "TTA", then hopefully you can see my point.

Crime and Corruption Commission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_Corruption_Commission

[Gazza]

Similar circumstances led to the amalgamation more recently of Auckland's councils in New Zealand into one council, who also is responsible for public transport across Auckland. It also funds ferries and trains due to its size (comparable to BCC).

There's not really states in NZ though is there, so they are the relevant tier of government in that country.

So my point in this debate is that if ICC are being knocked back for certain essential things, we should probably be a voice assisting them, rather than being an enabler for the Govs unfair funding freeze.

The way i see it, if a LGA wants to contribute, then it probably should be limited to 'luxury' things that don't make or break the network.

Eg if BCC want to run a 24h maroon glider that overlaps existing HF bus routes or invent random peak hour rockets or a free city hopper, sure they can fund that themselves.

If Noosa want to run free summer holiday buses, cool go right ahead.
If the Gold Coast want to give seniors free off peak travel, great.

But none of of these things make or break the network. If you took away all these measures, the network would essentially be just as functional, though some people might be sad.

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.

So that's where I'm coming at it from. The focus should be maintaining pressure on the state to get its own house in order.

Obviously RBoT can only run so many campaigns, I think most of our energy has been on the bus network in the BCC, the SC line, and general stuff that is coming up in the media cycle like ensuring CRR got built

I dont think we really HAVE given outer regions sufficient focus, and I admire bob for his work in the ICC, but I think perhaps with CRR in the can and duplication as far as Beerwah, the focus could be on some of these outer regions. Not just buses, but the rail extensions to these areas have no excuse not to happen now either.
With some good messaging, its easier to get some pressure on, and hopefully empower locals in these areas to start pestering their MPs.

[#Metro]

Something interesting I came across ... over in Perth academic Prof. Peter Newman is arguing that the  WA Main Roads department should be rolled into the Department of Transport, the parent agency of the WA Public Transport Authority.

"Everywhere else in Australia, Main Roads have been shifted into the Department of Transport"

An independent TTA is fine, but we still need more revenue to fund services. I can't see that coming just from rearranging the public servants.

I have a hunch this funding freeze has something to do with Queensland Treasury, who would likely be involved in the process to put budgets together. But we would need to understand that process of how funding is allocated and split. I don't think the director-generals decide funding splits, but that said I am no expert on the budget funding request process.

[#Metro]

There's not really states in NZ though is there.

True. They have two layers of LGAs which overlap instead - regional and city.

For example, Canterbury Region which does the Christchurch bus network has a population of 649,800 which would make it comparable to the Gold Coast City Council. Canterbury Regional Council raises its funding through rates on property.

(Christchurch city population is about 381,500, and has its own City Council)

[#Metro]

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?

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.

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.

So my point in this debate is that if ICC are being knocked back for certain essential things, we should probably be a voice assisting them, rather than being an enabler for the Govs unfair funding freeze.

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.

(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).

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