Notice - Walter Taylor Ward By Election - Pre Election Forum

[ozbob]

Debate between the ALP Candidate and LNP Candidate on 612 ABC Brisbane Drive Program this afternoon. Major issue was the stalemate with the upgrade of UQ Lakes Bus Station.

Both candidates confirmed public transport as the major issue in the ward.

[#Metro]

Huh? I'm confused.

What does UQ Lakes bus station have to do with The Brisbane City Council?

1. It's State land that is exempt from BCC planning laws isn't it?
2. It's not on BCC land or BCC controlled land
3. Isn't it the QLD Gov's responsibility to design and deliver the bus station? I mean, the Bridge might be BCC owned, but the bus station attached to it shouldn't be?
4. Why isn't the Eleanor Schonell Bridge sold to the Queensland Government? Isn't it a busway?
5. Why is the council funding this? Shouldn't it be the Queensland Government?

6. How long is this new bus station going to hold up?

[ozbob]

According to the debate this afternoon, money is available ($4.3M) from the state but approval from the BCC is still pending.  Maybe this debate this afternoon might push it along.

I think the whole saga again demonstrates the problems with the Council being the operator effectively.

No idea who owns the bridge, I think it might be the council though.  

Smart state silliness.  The LNP candidate did mention how new buses were kept in storage whilst money for services from the State Government was not forthcoming.  Public transport users were waiting up to 50 minutes at Herston if you recall?  Boggo Road busway opened with very little new bus support.

We are in a public transport basket case unfortunately.  Worst train frequency for comparable systems in the world, and petty bun fights between Council and Government and presumably TransLink.  And still we wait for details of go card limited use etc. etc. etc.

Timetable consultation??

And the charade with the coal seam gas announcement today ...  it just makes one wonder and stare vacantly at the full buses scoot by and the non arriving trains. 

[#Metro]

What a mess.
Too many organisations, too many permissions, it shouldn't need BCC approval it isn't on BCC land or BCC controlled land.
Too much temptation to play politics and shadow puppetry and have a blamefest.

IMHO The Eleanor Schonell Bridge should be declared busway and ownership should pass to the Queensland Government, all the ferries and Brisbane buses which are already funded and owned by the State of Queensland should also pass to the QLD Government. Maybe they can be contracted out thereafter. BT should be split from the BCC.

Too many bizzare arrangements and practices!

[STB]

I do know from contacts that TL did want to put on extra services on the Green Bridge but were curtailed by BCC claiming that they only wanted BT buses using it (no private buses eg: Logan City).

I wouldn't be surprised to see TL putting on services in the future regardless with a kind 'screw you' behind the scenes, away from public view chit chat.

[#Metro]

I do know from contacts that TL did want to put on extra services on the Green Bridge but were curtailed by BCC claiming that they only wanted BT buses using it.

I would not be surprised. There is an underlying power dynamic.
Its a problem- stuff like this would never happen with a contracted private operator.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbane mX 22nd October 2010 page 2

Congestion talk drives bus plans

[somebody]

I do know from contacts that TL did want to put on extra services on the Green Bridge but were curtailed by BCC claiming that they only wanted BT buses using it (no private buses eg: Logan City).

I wouldn't be surprised to see TL putting on services in the future regardless with a kind 'screw you' behind the scenes, away from public view chit chat.

Does the council have the power to prevent private buses crossing the bridge?  Or was it a "gentleman's" request?

I'm actually surprised that they wanted to run private buses.  The only thing which makes much sense to me is a service further than 8 mile plains, like Springwood or Logan Hyperdome.

[Golliwog]

Well that would make having 3 routes running the busway better (ie: the 159 idea) The 169 would be extended past 8 Mile Plains. One of my problems with that concept was that the 169 only went one stop further than where the 159 would peel off the busway, which to me seemed like a bit of a waste.

But not allowing non-BCC buses to use the green bridge is sheer stupidity. It makes Newman's complaints about non-BCC residents using our buses ridiculous, in this case they have no choice!

[somebody]

One of my problems with that concept was that the 169 only went one stop further than where the 159 would peel off the busway, which to me seemed like a bit of a waste.

Not quite sure what you mean by this.  A 159 may only be needed in peak, but seems to me that it is an advance even if it is only done by converting 169 trips to 159s.  Those who are interchanging at Garden City can still do so.  It is only those dirty rotten park and riders who have a reduction in service.

[Golliwog]

I meant you had two routes to UQ serving the same stops on the busway (I'm ignoring the 139 here) except the 169 continues just that one stop extra to 8 mile plains, so to me it just seemed a waste of buses to have two routes serving the busway as the 169 would be pointless to run alongside the 159 as its only benefit was to serve 8 mile plains, anyone else inbound from there could just as easily catch the 159. But if the 169 was given to Logan buses or something and extended past there it would make more sense. I'm assuming both routes would run full time, no peak only service, mostly because its a uni so student hours can vary significantly from the standard 9-5.

[somebody]

I meant you had two routes to UQ serving the same stops on the busway (I'm ignoring the 139 here) except the 169 continues just that one stop extra to 8 mile plains, so to me it just seemed a waste of buses to have two routes serving the busway as the 169 would be pointless to run alongside the 159 as its only benefit was to serve 8 mile plains, anyone else inbound from there could just as easily catch the 159. But if the 169 was given to Logan buses or something and extended past there it would make more sense. I'm assuming both routes would run full time, no peak only service, mostly because its a uni so student hours can vary significantly from the standard 9-5.

The thing is, though, that off peak interchange should be relatively easy.  Bus full problems can happen in peak.

[Golliwog]

You would need to ensure the buses were on time, or that they were given a decent amount of interchange time, which just lengthens the trip.

What about the current 150, it runs all day, even though it is just a city bound route so would have considerably less patronage than a uni bound route. When I say "less patronage" I simply mean off-peak, not all day long. By your justification wouldn't it make sense to get the 150 to interchange when it hits the busway?

EDIT: I think I miss-understood. I took it as during peak the 159 would operate to UQ, but off-peak it would just terminate at the busway. What I now think you meant was it would only run during peak and off-peak they would just catch the 150.

[#Metro]

If you want to know how the story ended, here are the results:
http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/local/waltertaylor2010/results/booth24.html

[ozbob]

LNP candidate elected, no surprise there, although with a reduced vote.  I think previously the former LNP councillor was around 70%.  Greens vote was good.

Another signal for the state ALP though.  They really do need to start engaging at the grass root level, although I think the ALP candidate in this by election was a good choice and did a good campaign, there is just too much negative against the ALP at a state level at this time.  They are not separate, one contaminants the other levels IMHO.  Good result for the greens and a good campaign.  I think both the LNP and ALP had better lift their game from now and to the state election if they want to be in government.

[Jonno]

Yes but 57% still voted for the party that wants to build more roads, pollute their air more and provide the least amount of public transport.  Our politicians are failing to fully educate the public on the realities of modern transport planning.  It seems the majority stull believe that we will out build congestion some day soon!!!  It ain't going to happen folks!!!

[O_128]

Yes but 57% still voted for the party that wants to build more roads, pollute their air more and provide the least amount of public transport.  Our politicians are failing to fully educate the public on the realities of modern transport planning.  It seems the majority stull believe that we will out build congestion some day soon!!!  It ain't going to happen folks!!!

Because in 13 years of labor in state gov they have just built so much public transport, give me a break. While I don't always agree with the way council does things and there current tunnel centric vision youve got to give them credit for getting things on time and on budget something you can't give the current pathetic state gov , water and power privatization , assets sell off and all the half baked projects not to mention ones that should be nearly finished and havnt even started

[ozbob]

Yes, and a good start would be build the stations at Ellen Grove and Springfield Lakes as greenfield,  and electrify the UP sub from Corinda to Darra ...  and immediately re-commence the Beerburrum to Landsborough duplication ....  just for starters ...

[Jonno]

On budget?  Sorry what project has been delivered on budget by the Lord Mayor.  Absolutely none!! He won the Lord Mayor race on the back of I will fix congestion and rates will not go up more than CPI. he has delivered on neither.  Nor has the State Govt so they are just as unpopular with me.

On privatization, it is time to realize that we have to pay for what we use rather than subsides them.  Roads as well.  This is just a reality of life.  The sooner we learn that the soon we will make changes to our unsustainable ways.

[O_128]

On budget?  Sorry what project has been delivered on budget by the Lord Mayor.  Absolutely none!! He won the Lord Mayor race on the back of I will fix congestion and rates will not go up more than CPI. he has delivered on neither.  Nor has the State Govt so they are just as unpopular with me.

On privatization, it is time to realize that we have to pay for what we use rather than subsides them.  Roads as well.  This is just a reality of life.  The sooner we learn that the soon we will make changes to our unsustainable ways.

Clem 7 was finished over 6 months early and on budget, the go between bridge, the elanor shonell bridge

[Jonno]

Clem 7 was meant to cost 1.2 billion.  What was theal cost?? 4.2 billion.  Same for Norther link and Airport Link. The GBB was also way over budget for the final design?  Only reason they may be delivered ahead of time is because it was the private sector involved.  And what have the road projects achieved?  Not a single reduction in car use!  Coronation Drive is a car park morning , noon and night!

[#Metro]

Yes, and a good start would be build the stations at Ellen Grove and Springfield Lakes as greenfield,  and electrify the UP sub from Corinda to Darra ...  and immediately re-commence the Beerburrum to Landsborough duplication ....  just for starters ...

I have yet to see a half-baked tunnel! 

[#Metro]

Half-Bake- list your "muffin" infrastructure projects here  ---> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4701.0

[STB]

I do know from contacts that TL did want to put on extra services on the Green Bridge but were curtailed by BCC claiming that they only wanted BT buses using it (no private buses eg: Logan City).

I wouldn't be surprised to see TL putting on services in the future regardless with a kind 'screw you' behind the scenes, away from public view chit chat.

Does the council have the power to prevent private buses crossing the bridge?  Or was it a "gentleman's" request?

I'm actually surprised that they wanted to run private buses.  The only thing which makes much sense to me is a service further than 8 mile plains, like Springwood or Logan Hyperdome.

I think it's more of a 'gentleman's request' ie: through management and network planners on the ground.  My guess is that to prevent any more bad blood between the two, they would prefer to negoiate terms of using privates using the bridge rather than get involved in the deep end and throwing privates on willy nilly. 

Didn't BCC fund the bridge themselves?  If so, then rightly or wrongly, they can argue that because they spent their own money on the bridge then BT has first prioity in using the bridge before any other operator.

[#Metro]

Didn't BCC fund the bridge themselves?  If so, then rightly or wrongly, they can argue that because they spent their own money on the bridge then BT has first prioity in using the bridge before any other operator.

Yes, but that's not really fair is it? Its not good for the city, and its discriminatory.
"You can't use MY bridge for PRIVATE buses", isn't that anti-competitive?

What's next? No private buses to drive on Old Cleveland Road?

The sooner BT is split from BCC and sold to QLD Gov (who own all the vehicles and fund the thing anyway!) the better.
The funding arrangement also needs to be made explicit and transparent. Nobody is impressed with the football this issue has become
between OUR residents using the bus and THEIR residents using OUR the bus.

[O_128]

Clem 7 was meant to cost 1.2 billion.  What was theal cost?? 4.2 billion.  Same for Norther link and Airport Link. The GBB was also way over budget for the final design?  Only reason they may be delivered ahead of time is because it was the private sector involved.  And what have the road projects achieved?  Not a single reduction in car use!  Coronation Drive is a car park morning , noon and night!

Local councils jobs are very simple, keep the roads at a good standard and pick up our waste aswell as building approvals etc, last time I checked was the state governments job to maintain and get people onto public transport so before people complain that Campbell Newman only builds tunnels remember that the council really isnt obligated to build public transport.

[somebody]

Seems that in SEQ, councils do indeed take responsibility for providing bus services.

BCC's attitude on the bridge may well be that it is a private road which they own.

But what would be the problem with asking them to extend the 169 down to Logan Hyperdome, for example?

[frereOP]

And why is it that the operating costs for LRT are 2x higher than for buses? I would have expected them to be lower?
Do these numbers make sense? They seem to, yet $589 million
(One wonders, if this is the cost for LRT, imagine what the cost for a metro is going to turn out to be!!!)

I can't believe that people are still thinking like this!  This is a typical "economic rationalist" approach - if it doesn't make a profit, and it costs a fortune to run, don't build it.

While it might be an appropriate model for a company that wants to make a profit (eg Airtrain), governments are responsible for the whole community.  The question should NOT be how much does it cost to build and operate, but rather how much is it going to cost the community if it doesn't get built?  It might be expensive and it might need a subsidy but if you don't build it you are deferring those costs to the wider community in the form of increased road congestion, slower travel times, increase use of fossil fuels etc etc etc, and everything that goes with it.  That's why you do the business case.

Therefore the Government (ie read TAXPAYER) should be subsiding these projects (including late night Airtrain services) because of the wider benefit to the community as a whole.

[#Metro]

I can't believe that people are still thinking like this!  This is a typical "economic rationalist" approach - if it doesn't make a profit, and it costs a fortune to run, don't build it.

While it might be an appropriate model for a company that wants to make a profit (eg Airtrain), governments are responsible for the whole community.  The question should NOT be how much does it cost to build and operate, but rather how much is it going to cost the community if it doesn't get built?  It might be expensive and it might need a subsidy but if you don't build it you are deferring those costs to the wider community in the form of increased road congestion, slower travel times, increase use of fossil fuels etc etc etc, and everything that goes with it.  That's why you do the business case.

Therefore the Government (ie read TAXPAYER) should be subsiding these projects (including late night Airtrain services) because of the wider benefit to the community as a whole.

I put it up there because I wanted to see if anyone had an opinion about the numbers. They have compared LRT with buses. The questions in my mind were (1) are we making an apples and apples comparison or an apples and oranges comparison with respect to the service, and (2) are the numbers correct or reasonable (e.g. 30 million/km for Cairns LRT is far too high IMHO when talking about diesel LRT).

I can see where you are coming from frereOP, and I agree with you. But there too are limits to how much even a public sector will want to fund something. Their cost-benefit is done in a different way to what a private sector company would do with its cost benefit. For instance, the gains to society from pollution reduction or reduced congestion would likely be invisible to a private sector company doing the business case.

Now, I think LRT would be better- that is just my opinion. The planners' opinion is something along the lines of nobody cares if it is a bus or LRT, what matters is the service frequency and characteristics (stops, speed, frequency, legibility), and LRT would take too long and be too costly. So we will put on CityGlider, and when patronage grows, we will put on a fancy BRT bus with more capacity (Think Amsterdam Phileas Buses, Bogota Buses or Los Angeles buses).

I would agree with the planners view, but only up to a point. Service characteristics matter a lot, and huge improvement can be made. The BUZ shows this. However, I still think that LRT in this corridor is the best ultimate solution and that is what should be worked towards. West End is full of cars despite high frequency PT, LRT will get more choice riders IMHO, have more capacity long term. Where buses have replaced trams, IMHO there is some evidence of an inherent loss of ridership...

[O_128]

Tramtrain isn't it interesting that most nimby suburbs seem to have some of the best public transport options and the highest car ownership 

[ozbob]

These lovely trams, and similar cousins  managed to carry more passenger journeys in the middle 1940s than the entire sum of the south east Queensland bus and rail network passenger journeys today.  And Brisbane's tram network was not a large one either.  It shows just how efficient as a people mover trams are.  Sacrificed on the altar of the car in 1969.  Well, I for one am waiting for the car to be sacrificed on the alter of the tram (its modern equivalent, light rail), and the wait won't be too long now.  Buses are just innocent bystanders, not their fault that some people think they are trains.

[somebody]

Buses are just innocent bystanders, not their fault that some people think they are trains.

What do you mean by this comment?

[ozbob]

What do you think??  OK, buses are not trams or trains.  They have been put into roles in Brisbane that they cannot achieve much longer.  Buses are flexible feeders.  Trams and trains are line transport.  It is time we had the best fit of modes for purpose.  Buses are very useful but they do have limitations, as do trams and trains.  

At the forum there was much concern raised with the failing bus system at the local level.  I mentioned that Indooroopilly will soon have a much improved around the clock train frequency and this will provide some with an alternate.

An interesting suggestion was to put in moving sidewalks from the bus interchange in the shopping centre down to the railway station ..

[ozbob]

The only hope I see for sorting out the mess from here is for a new political force to take control.  It is anachronistic for councils to be operating public transport based on council boundaries.  A single authority that has control over the state is needed.  The constant tension between the BCC, TransLink and the State Government is beyond a joke.  Even the successful LNP candidate gave examples of this at the forum ... 

[somebody]

The constant tension between the BCC, TransLink and the State Government is beyond a joke. 

Got to agree with this one.  The BCC boundaries are something of an anachronism, but given that Translink operate across SEQ, it does seem better to have a state takeover than any revision to council operation.

[frereOP]

The constant tension between the BCC, TransLink and the State Government is beyond a joke. 

Got to agree with this one.  The BCC boundaries are something of an anachronism, but given that Translink operate across SEQ, it does seem better to have a state takeover than any revision to council operation.

BCC have offered their buses to the State Government.  Problem is BCC (and rightly so for the ratepayers that have funded much of the bus purchases) will not want an asset transfer but an asset sale.  That's going to happen for sure! ;-) 

[somebody]

BCC have offered their buses to the State Government.  Problem is BCC (and rightly so for the ratepayers that have funded much of the bus purchases) will not want an asset transfer but an asset sale.  That's going to happen for sure! ;-) 

I think the problem is to do with the amount of the subsidy BCC are proposing to kick in.

[Jonno]

These are 2 separate issues.  BT is a supplier of bus services to Translink and is owned by BCC.  BCC makes contribution to the overall funding of Translink (as should all SEQ council on a dollar for dollar basis with their road funding).  The fact it is an operator as well should not alter the funding provided.

PS. I don't buy into the argument that councils do or should not provide PT.  They have a duty to mange transport not just a particular transport mode.

[#Metro]

These are 2 separate issues.  BT is a supplier of bus services to Translink and is owned by BCC.  BCC makes contribution to the overall funding of Translink (as should all SEQ council on a dollar for dollar basis with their road funding).  The fact it is an operator as well should not alter the funding provided.

PS. I don't buy into the argument that councils do or should not provide PT.  They have a duty to mange transport not just a particular transport mode.

It's a conflict of interest, pure and simple. Transport and land use are closely linked. 
BCC has done a good job, especially with BUZ, but pure and simple, the city has spilled outside of the BCC boundary and is now far beyond it. In theory BCC should not care whether its buses run to West End or run to West of Ipswich. In practice, it is quite different.
Is it a co-incidence that no private operators use King George Square or Queen St bus station or Adelaide Street?

[Jonno]

Agree totally.  BT buses should be painted the same as other Translink buses and operate any route Translink request them to including across city boundaries.  The city busway stops should also be used by any Translink service!!