Queensland Parliament - Estimates Committees, what questions would you ask?

[ozbob]

Re Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
Parliament of Queensland
Media Statement
Friday 17 June 2011

New Budget review process to provide greater accountability  copy --> here!

"Estimates Committees will now be able to directly question Chief Executive Officers of Government departments and Statutory Authorities," Mr Mickel said.

If you were able to ask a question, what would it be?

Mine:  Transport and Main roads: Why are public transport infrastructure projects in south-queensland often compromises and botches which in turn leads to futher excessive costs to fix what should have been incorporated in the original project and subsequent work arounds?

Some recent examples, Corinda to Darra track amplication project including failure to electrify the UP sub line and construct 4th platform at Oxley, Oxley railway station subway, Oxley bus stop B, Indooroopilly railway station and lack of bus interchange, recent railway station upgrades failing to fix platform height issues, lack of toilets at Elimbah and Beerburrum railway stations, no passenger ammenties on platforms 1, 2 and 3 at Darra, enchroachment in the rail corridor for planned track amplications Darra to Redbank at Goodna and Dinmore, and so forth ...

[Stillwater]

    

[Stillwater]

Is it true that the South-East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program, of which transport infrastructure is a major component, has won a Premier's Award for leadership excellence, recognising the SEQIPP Rail component particularly for its efficient and innovative approach to delivering rail infrastructure?

Putting aside, for the moment, the fact that this was a case of the government, through the Premier, awarding itself for a forward-looking program of works, is it not the case that large parts of the plan have been delayed, not implemented, have not been re-costed due to those delays and remain unfunded?  Is not the plan unravelling to the point that it is no longer a plan to act, but an exercise in wishful thinking?

Why is it that the government continues to call SEQIPP an 'award winning plan' when, if the judging panel were reconvened today, it most likely would revoke the award because of these failures to implement its component parts according to that plan?

Are you proud of a plan that has not delivered all that it said it would, at a cost it said it would cost and in the delivery timeframe stated?

How confident can Queenslanders be in an infrastructure plan that is flawed in these fundamental aspects?

Will you now recast the plan into what is possible using available funding and what could be possible if funding could be found from as yet unidentified sources – at least to inject some realism into the debate over the provision of transport infrastructure in SE Queensland?

[Fares_Fair]

Mine: Transport and Main Roads.

This question is made because the government itself would not give an appropriate answer to QoN 405 by made Andrew Powell MP.

• What is the cost for the rail line duplication of the North Coast Line from Beerburrum to Landsborough, in 2011 dollars ?
• What is the cost for the rail duplication of the North Coast Line from Landsborough to Nambour, in 2011 dollars ?

I require answers to these questions in order to pursue the situation at a Commonwealth level, due to the State's inaction.


Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Stillwater]

FF, most likely this question will get the same response Mr Powell received.   :conf

[Stillwater]

However, I think these questions would be pertinent, and in keeping with the intent of your question, FF:

Do you stand by the content of the Caboolture to Landsborough Corridor Upgrade Study, particularly that section which states that, without duplication on a new alignment, adherence to the current alignment will result in 'high operational and maintenance costs'?

Do you agree with the public statements made by the current Deputy Premier in August 2005 that:
"The Caboolture to Landsborough section of track is one of the weakest links in the Queensland rail network and that its single, winding track forces all trains to slow and that its condition severely restricts the capacity of rail services"?

In committing to overcome this deficiency, did not the current Deputy Premier state, and I quote: "The project will be constructed in two stages from today (29 August 2005).  The rail line between Caboolture and Beerburrum will undergo a major upgrade.  Funding of $262.4 million has been provided for that 14km section.  It will be completed by mid-2009"?

In that same statement, did not Mr Lucas, the current Deputy Premier of this state, in respect of the Beerburrum-Landsborough section, say: "To deliver both these important projects, the Beattie Government has made a total commitment of $480 million"?  In other words, a commitment of not just the in initial $262.4 million for the Caboolture-Beerburrum section, but of a further sum to bring the total committed to $480 million.

Why was the project truncated after the duplication had reached Beerburrum?  Why was the commitment to the duplication to Landsborough, and the commitment of additional funds to do that work, not carried through?

Is it not true that TMR advised the relevant minister in 2009, through a ministerial briefing paper that the sunk costs of the Sunshine Coast Line duplication between Caboolture and Beerburrum would have no appreciable benefit unless the government capitalised on that expenditure through funding the further stage to Landsborough?

In the light of the extra fat in the Sunshine Coast Line timetable to allow for train crossover difficulties on what is still a single-track section between Beerburrum and Landsborough and the long hold time for southbound trains at Elimbah station that effectively fritters away the time saving on the Caboolture-Beerburrum section, what has been the benefits of a Caboolture-Beerburrum track upgrade without the complementary Beerburrum-Landsborough upgrade?

In that same press release, Mr Lucas said that track realignment and duplication between Caboolture and Landsborough "sealed the Beattie Government's promise to build a $1 billion fast passenger rail service along the CAMCOS corridor".  Do you recall those words?

Yes, Mr Lucas – the man who is a heartbeat away from being Premier of this state – spoke of sealing the commitment of a $1 billion rail project.  What's happened to that 'sealed and committed' promise?

The promise was for rail to be built in the CAMCOS corridor as far as Caloundra by 2015 and Maroochydore by 2020, Mr Lucas' exact words being: "We (the government) will establish the line from Beerwah to Caloundra by 2015 and up the coast to Maroochydore by 2020."

What is the CAMCOS timetable now and can taxpayers rely upon that timetable with any certainty than they did on Mr Lucas' promised deadlines – backed by the promised and committed, mystical, $1 billion, or even the lesser sum for Beerburrum-Landsborough duplication that's gone missing in action?

In the light of these things, how can the government claim any credibility for what it says in respect of the Sunshine Coast upgrade?

[Jonno]

Evidence and leading practice around the world has shown that major road investment has a negative NPV, does not reduce congetion, increases car usage, makes an economy more susceptible to peak oil and supports the least efficient form of modern transport. Further our roads kill ~1600 people a year and cost our economy $40B in road trauma.

Given this why are we continuing investing billions in major freeway construction whilst our rail plus public  and active transport system languish far far behind world-class?

[Stillwater]

Yep, and in a similar and related way:

In his report to Parliament titled: Transport Network Management and Urban Congestion
in South East Queensland: A Performance Management Systems Audit, the Auditor-General found evidence of what could be summed up as 'silo mentality' within government.

The Audit, released in June 2009, considered the impact of urban congestion on South East Queensland and the growing pressure on the transport network caused by population growth and increasing economic activity in the region.  The Auditor-General specifically examined the governance structures and systems for the planning, reporting and management of the transport network in South East Queensland.

Do you agree with the auditor's findings that a lack of coordination and weak governance structures has been hindering progress towards significant efficiency gains?  What steps has your agency taken to address the auditor's findings?

That answer is general in its nature.  Let me get to the heart of the auditor's concerns.  He had this to say:

• Leadership at the state level is not coordinated effectively and makes it more difficult for government agencies to manage the transport network and urban congestion in an integrated and coordinated manner;

• Due to a systematic weakness in integrated planning across government agencies, there is no certainty that the agreed responses will achieve the right mix between the different elements of an urban transport network, such as land-use, transport infrastructure, demand management and intermodal options;

• The continued use of out of date key transport documents and plans may result in decisions that are based on obsolete data and assumptions, and will not effectively address the current challenges; and

• Inconsistencies in data collection and reporting might have significant impacts on the entities' ability to base their plans on accurate, complete and timely data, as well as to report on outcomes achieved.

Addressing each of these dot points specifically, what has your agency done to address the substantial concerns raised?

Finally, the Auditor-General concluded that "no one entity can deal with the critical issue of congestion alone and genuine collaboration is vital to tackle it successfully". The Audit also found "an integrated government response involving entities working across portfolios, agency boundaries and tiers of government is necessary".

How are these matters being addressed?

[Stillwater]

In the light of the Auditor-General's findings about how well government departments are working together and coordinating their activities in respect of transport and land use planning, I would like to take you through the likely scenario facing Brisbane and the threats to its liveability index on a number of fronts.

Do you agree that by 2020 it is expected that congestion will cost the Brisbane economy around $3 billion per annum?  

In the longer term, this cost is likely to be substantially higher.  Depending on the estimation method used, our analysis suggests that by 2055 congestion costs in Brisbane could be between $6 billion and $9 billion per annum if improvements to the transport system are not delivered – two to three times higher than cost predictions for 2020.

Is that a realistic future scenario?

Don't you agree that strong, proactive decision making in relation to long-term transport and land-use planning will be vital to avoid rapid growth in congestion costs? For example, delaying difficult decisions about preserving land corridors for the future will carry a large opportunity cost and dramatically increase levels of car dependency and congestion in the long term.

By 2016 it is expected that half of Brisbane's population will be located in the outer suburbs of the city, while an extra 700,000 dwellings will be needed in South East Queensland over the next 25 years.  Does that accord with your department's future scenario analysis?  And does that analysis also predict that population and employment growth is expected to generate an extra 250,000 daily trips into the CBD by 2026?

What, then, is your department's planning – concrete and deliverable projects and policies – to address this likely scenario?

But even that won't be good enough, will it?  Given the population growth estimates, the number of kilometres travelled by road are likely to increase markedly even in the event of a doubling in the growth rates of public transport.  Would you agree?

Is not the answer you have just given inadequate in the light of the facts as just stated?

Turning to freight for a moment, growth in urban freight will also have a major impact on the region's transport system. While the port area is serviced by road and rail infrastructure, 90 per cent of freight movements within Brisbane are road based. Between 2003 and 2020, the road freight task in Brisbane is expected to grow at an annual rate of 3.7 per cent, compared with the 3 per cent growth expected in both Sydney and Melbourne.
Vehicle kilometres travelled (vkt) in Brisbane are expected to grow by 43.2 per cent between 2005 and 2020, compared to 35 per cent for Sydney and 30.3 per cent for Melbourne.

We are going to see a major conflict between freight and passenger movements, not withstanding the measures you have outlined.  And we have seen that the Auditor-General has exposed inadequacies within government processes to coordinate, but especially implement, an adequate response.

Can you outline the task, and the funds needed to address that urgent task, to move freight off our roads and onto rail in a manner that does not then cause conflict with passenger rail services in South East Queensland?

[Stillwater]

Having established th Auditor-General's concerns about government being ill-prepared and disorganised to handle the task of coordinating transport and land use planning; and having illustrated the failings of strategic plans to cope with the looming transport task, will you accept that even doing nothing does not protect the taxpayer from additional considerable costs?

For, does not it follow that, even if all the planning and effort works, and the seemingly impossible task of doubling transport useage by 2020 occurs on an inadequately-funded network of trains and buses, will not the end result by a $3 billion congestion cost in just 10 years?

In other words, notwithstanding all the government's best efforts -- which, conclusively, are falling short of the mark, the cost of this inappropriate action, or lack of action, to society will be of the order of $3 billion ever year -- year on year?

If we are sure of that cost, and it seems likely that will be the cost, does it not suggest that Queenslanders would be better off spending an extra $3 billion a year on public transport and freight efficiency transport measures, rather than forking out $3 billion for the cost of doing nothing, or doing no more than we are doing now?

[Fares_Fair]

Yep, and in a similar and related way:

In his report to Parliament titled: Transport Network Management and Urban Congestion
in South East Queensland: A Performance Management Systems Audit, the Auditor-General found evidence of what could be summed up as ‘silo mentality’ within government.

The Audit, released in June 2009, considered the impact of urban congestion on South East Queensland and the growing pressure on the transport network caused by population growth and increasing economic activity in the region.  The Auditor-General specifically examined the governance structures and systems for the planning, reporting and management of the transport network in South East Queensland.

Do you agree with the auditor’s findings that a lack of coordination and weak governance structures has been hindering progress towards significant efficiency gains?  What steps has your agency taken to address the auditor’s findings?

That answer is general in its nature.  Let me get to the heart of the auditor’s concerns.  He had this to say:

• Leadership at the state level is not coordinated effectively and makes it more difficult for government agencies to manage the transport network and urban congestion in an integrated and coordinated manner;

• Due to a systematic weakness in integrated planning across government agencies, there is no certainty that the agreed responses will achieve the right mix between the different elements of an urban transport network, such as land-use, transport infrastructure, demand management and intermodal options;

• The continued use of out of date key transport documents and plans may result in decisions that are based on obsolete data and assumptions, and will not effectively address the current challenges; and

• Inconsistencies in data collection and reporting might have significant impacts on the entities’ ability to base their plans on accurate, complete and timely data, as well as to report on outcomes achieved.

Addressing each of these dot points specifically, what has your agency done to address the substantial concerns raised?

Finally, the Auditor-General concluded that “no one entity can deal with the critical issue of congestion alone and genuine collaboration is vital to tackle it successfully”. The Audit also found “an integrated government response involving entities working across portfolios, agency boundaries and tiers of government is necessary”.

How are these matters being addressed?

In the light of the Auditor-General’s findings about how well government departments are working together and coordinating their activities in respect of transport and land use planning, I would like to take you through the likely scenario facing Brisbane and the threats to its liveability index on a number of fronts.

Do you agree that by 2020 it is expected that congestion will cost the Brisbane economy around $3 billion per annum? 

In the longer term, this cost is likely to be substantially higher.  Depending on the estimation method used, our analysis suggests that by 2055 congestion costs in Brisbane could be between $6 billion and $9 billion per annum if improvements to the transport system are not delivered – two to three times higher than cost predictions for 2020.

Is that a realistic future scenario?

Don’t you agree that strong, proactive decision making in relation to long-term transport and land-use planning will be vital to avoid rapid growth in congestion costs? For example, delaying difficult decisions about preserving land corridors for the future will carry a large opportunity cost and dramatically increase levels of car dependency and congestion in the long term.

By 2016 it is expected that half of Brisbane’s population will be located in the outer suburbs of the city, while an extra 700,000 dwellings will be needed in South East Queensland over the next 25 years.  Does that accord with your department’s future scenario analysis?  And does that analysis also predict that population and employment growth is expected to generate an extra 250,000 daily trips into the CBD by 2026?

What, then, is your department’s planning – concrete and deliverable projects and policies – to address this likely scenario?

But even that won’t be good enough, will it?  Given the population growth estimates, the number of kilometres travelled by road are likely to increase markedly even in the event of a doubling in the growth rates of public transport.  Would you agree?

Is not the answer you have just given inadequate in the light of the facts as just stated?

Turning to freight for a moment, growth in urban freight will also have a major impact on the region’s transport system. While the port area is serviced by road and rail infrastructure, 90 per cent of freight movements within Brisbane are road based. Between 2003 and 2020, the road freight task in Brisbane is expected to grow at an annual rate of 3.7 per cent, compared with the 3 per cent growth expected in both Sydney and Melbourne.
Vehicle kilometres travelled (vkt) in Brisbane are expected to grow by 43.2 per cent between 2005 and 2020, compared to 35 per cent for Sydney and 30.3 per cent for Melbourne.

We are going to see a major conflict between freight and passenger movements, not withstanding the measures you have outlined.  And we have seen that the Auditor-General has exposed inadequacies within government processes to coordinate, but especially implement, an adequate response.

Can you outline the task, and the funds needed to address that urgent task, to move freight off our roads and onto rail in a manner that does not then cause conflict with passenger rail services in South East Queensland?

Having established th Auditor-General's concerns about government being ill-prepared and disorganised to handle the task of coordinating transport and land use planning; and having illustrated the failings of strategic plans to cope with the looming transport task, will you accept that even doing nothing does not protect the taxpayer from additional considerable costs?

For, does not it follow that, even if all the planning and effort works, and the seemingly impossible task of doubling transport useage by 2020 occurs on an inadequately-funded network of trains and buses, will not the end result by a $3 billion congestion cost in just 10 years?

In other words, notwithstanding all the government's best efforts -- which, conclusively, are falling short of the mark, the cost of this inappropriate action, or lack of action, to society will be of the order of $3 billion ever year -- year on year?

If we are sure of that cost, and it seems likely that will be the cost, does it not suggest that Queenslanders would be better off spending an extra $3 billion a year on public transport and freight efficiency transport measures, rather than forking out $3 billion for the cost of doing nothing, or doing no more than we are doing now?

However, I think these questions would be pertinent, and in keeping with the intent of your question, FF:

Do you stand by the content of the Caboolture to Landsborough Corridor Upgrade Study, particularly that section which states that, without duplication on a new alignment, adherence to the current alignment will result in 'high operational and maintenance costs'?

Do you agree with the public statements made by the current Deputy Premier in August 2005 that:
"The Caboolture to Landsborough section of track is one of the weakest links in the Queensland rail network and that its single, winding track forces all trains to slow and that its condition severely restricts the capacity of rail services"?

In committing to overcome this deficiency, did not the current Deputy Premier state, and I quote: "The project will be constructed in two stages from today (29 August 2005).  The rail line between Caboolture and Beerburrum will undergo a major upgrade.  Funding of $262.4 million has been provided for that 14km section.  It will be completed by mid-2009"?

In that same statement, did not Mr Lucas, the current Deputy Premier of this state, in respect of the Beerburrum-Landsborough section, say: "To deliver both these important projects, the Beattie Government has made a total commitment of $480 million"?  In other words, a commitment of not just the in initial $262.4 million for the Caboolture-Beerburrum section, but of a further sum to bring the total committed to $480 million.

Why was the project truncated after the duplication had reached Beerburrum?  Why was the commitment to the duplication to Landsborough, and the commitment of additional funds to do that work, not carried through?

Is it not true that TMR advised the relevant minister in 2009, through a ministerial briefing paper that the sunk costs of the Sunshine Coast Line duplication between Caboolture and Beerburrum would have no appreciable benefit unless the government capitalised on that expenditure through funding the further stage to Landsborough?

In the light of the extra fat in the Sunshine Coast Line timetable to allow for train crossover difficulties on what is still a single-track section between Beerburrum and Landsborough and the long hold time for southbound trains at Elimbah station that effectively fritters away the time saving on the Caboolture-Beerburrum section, what has been the benefits of a Caboolture-Beerburrum track upgrade without the complementary Beerburrum-Landsborough upgrade?

In that same press release, Mr Lucas said that track realignment and duplication between Caboolture and Landsborough "sealed the Beattie Government's promise to build a $1 billion fast passenger rail service along the CAMCOS corridor".  Do you recall those words?

Yes, Mr Lucas – the man who is a heartbeat away from being Premier of this state – spoke of sealing the commitment of a $1 billion rail project.  What's happened to that 'sealed and committed' promise?

The promise was for rail to be built in the CAMCOS corridor as far as Caloundra by 2015 and Maroochydore by 2020, Mr Lucas' exact words being: "We (the government) will establish the line from Beerwah to Caloundra by 2015 and up the coast to Maroochydore by 2020."

What is the CAMCOS timetable now and can taxpayers rely upon that timetable with any certainty than they did on Mr Lucas' promised deadlines – backed by the promised and committed, mystical, $1 billion, or even the lesser sum for Beerburrum-Landsborough duplication that's gone missing in action?

In the light of these things, how can the government claim any credibility for what it says in respect of the Sunshine Coast upgrade?

You have summed it all up pretty well SW !
(d) all of the above.


Regards,
Fares-Fair

[Stillwater]

And....remember ... evidence in budget estimates is given under oath.  Should be interesting.

[BrizCommuter]

When will 15 minute off-peak rail services to Ferny Grove, Kuraby, Manly, and Petrie be introduced?

[O_128]

How much does it cost to run a 6 car train per run/ week/year

[Stillwater]

Further to BC's question:

Has the government costed 15-minute services to Ferny Grove, Kuraby, Manly and Petrie and, if so, what is that cost?

Can that cost be broken down into operational recurring costs and one-off infrastructure upgrade costs?

Would 15-minute running require the hire of additional crew, and what would those numbers be?  And can you state whether sufficient rolling stock exists to provide a 15 minute service to these destinations?  If not, what additional rolling stock needs to be brought in and over what time?

What is the cost of a 15-minute service as a proportion of QR's overall passenger rail costs annually?

Has any work being done on estimating additional passenger numbers likely with a 15-minute service to Ferny Grove, Kuraby, Manly and Petrie, and what are those numbers?

If nothing else changes, what is the date identified, under current planning scenarios, for introduction of 15-minute services to these destinations?

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

6th July 2011

Queensland Parliament Estimates Committee Hearings July 2011

Greetings,

We have noted that the Queensland Parliament Estimates Committee Hearings are scheduled for 12 - 21 July 2011.

RAIL Back On Track Members have compiled their own list of 'questions for the hearings'.

These questions are detailed here --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6305.0

A perusal of these questions would perhaps help clarify why citizens are very concerned with the state of transport in Queensland.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Any more questions?  Starts tomorrow, 12th July ...

Schedule here!

Daily schedules can be accessed through the calendar links --> http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/sitting-dates

Transport 14th July --> http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/TLGIC/2011/Estimates2011-12/hp-14July2011.pdf

[Fares_Fair]

Q1
What will be the cost of the rail duplication works from Beerburrum to Landsborough (in 2011 dollars) ?

Q2
What will be the cost of the rail duplication works from Landsborough to Nambour (in 2011 dollars) ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[petey3801]

Q1
What will be the cost of the rail duplication works from Beerburrum to Landsborough (in 2011 dollars) ?

Q2
What will be the cost of the rail duplication works from Landsborough to Nambour (in 2011 dollars) ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

After Q1, the next question should be: 'What will be the cost of NOT duplicating the Beerburrum to Landsborough' and see if they squirm with THAT figure...

[somebody]

After Q1, the next question should be: 'What will be the cost of NOT duplicating the Beerburrum to Landsborough' and see if they squirm with THAT figure...

Great question.  Love to see that asked.  It does require a forecast of how much freight will be won to rail to answer, and it is very sensitive to that forecast.

[mufreight]

After Q1, the next question should be: 'What will be the cost of NOT duplicating the Beerburrum to Landsborough' and see if they squirm with THAT figure...

Great question.  Love to see that asked.  It does require a forecast of how much freight will be won to rail to answer, and it is very sensitive to that forecast.

More to the point it requires a forecast of how much freight will be lost from rail does it not?

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

14th July 2011

Transport's turn - Estimates

Greetings,

Transport's turn this afternoon at the Queensland Parliament Estimate Commitee. In view of the ineffectual past performances of the Opposition at the Queensland Parliament Estimate Committee - Transport, RAIL Back On Track Members have put together the questions they would like asked.  It is doubtful if such questions would be asked as they go to the core of the rail transport neglect over the past 20 years or so  by both sides of the political spectrum.

As we move forward with a Carbon Tax policy that is seriously flawed with respect to transport, one that favours cars and trucks over environmentally sustainable transport modes such as rail, and penalises public transport and encourages more cars and mayhem, it is little wonder that thinking Queenslanders are very very concerned for our transport future.  Delays to Cross River Rail are in our opinion another sign of the broad incompetence  that pervades government, the opposition  and its bureaucracy.

Enjoy reading!

--> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6305.0

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

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

Media release 28 April 2011 re-released 14th July 2011

SEQ: ACF backed on call for funding shift to public and active transport

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 strongly supports the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) in their call for 'Two thirds of the transport budget should be spent on public and active transport and one third should be spent on roads' (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"South-east Queensland blunders on with worsening road congestion and public transport poor utilisation and development. In the face of looming oil price rise crises and failing road tunnels the authorities continue to ignore reality and waste yet more funds on non-solutions (2)."

"Time is running out.  The ACF is correct in their call for the funding imbalance to roads be corrected with the majority of development directed to sustiainable transport solutions."

"The first thing that needs urgent action to move forward with the Cross River Rail project. The Governments actions in delaying this project are grossly flawed (3)."

References:

1. Australia's public transport a poor cousin to roads http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3378

2. Australia faces looming fuel shortages http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Aleklett/News-release-v4-JG.doc

3. Cross River Rail should be expedited http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5855.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Live broadcasts - video and audio can be accessed from this page --> http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/

:bi

[ozbob]

Transport 2.00 pm – 4.15 pm  14th July 2011

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/TLGIC/2011/Estimates2011-12/hp-14July2011.pdf

Broadcast accessed from --> http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/

[ozbob]

Underway now ..

[Fares_Fair]

seat belt on ... here we go !

[ozbob]

Missing car park spaces, first big item ....  apparently 16 got lost!   

groan ...

[ozbob]

Missing car park spaces, first big item ....  apparently 16 got lost!   

groan ...

I can tell you they are not at Goodna!   

[Fares_Fair]

nor at Palmwoods.
16 car spaces equates to $82,376.24 per year ... the D-G would not answer the number of years that taxpayers paid.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

DD from the Member for Brisbane, on reconstruction efforts.

[Fares_Fair]

.. over to you Bob. 

[ozbob]

Good to document the excellent recovery efforts.  It was a great job to recover all the network and maintain and re-establish PT.

Now, when are we going to get a Goodna express?  

[ozbob]

Member for Brisbane, another DD on rail timetables.

Sunny Coast gets a mention .. as did Jeff!

Minister announces phase 2 changes ...  consultation and implementation in November?   That is what the Minister said. Clarified later, consultation to start in November.

RAIL Back On Track thanked ..  

[ozbob]

Another DD question on Gold Coast services.

Frequency increased. Minister reading out the improvements.

[STB]

Sounds like the consultation will be undertaken during November and implementation some time later to allow the analysis and any changes to be made after the consultation.  

Being a long term Cleveland line user and a Beenleigh line user for nearly a year, I'll be looking at what they propose very closely!

[ozbob]

Another DD on busways.

Eastern busway soon to open.  (I think around October).

[Fares_Fair]

Dorothy does get around ...

[ozbob]

Member for Indooroopilly, back to the audit report ...  Question to the Minister about the lost car parks ... The Minister was advised by the DG, Minister has every confidence that the DG has taken the right course of action. 

[ozbob]

Further question from Member for Indooroopilly, how much money was lost?  Response the audit report was done, subsequent question on Driver Licences.

[ozbob]

Further question to DG on budget cost for Driver Licence project.

Further questions on security of smart DL card and so forth.