27 Apr 2013: Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run city's buses

[HappyTrainGuy]

This thread has now broken the 1000 views mark!   

Stop pressing the refresh button! 

[Andrew]

Things to note when viewing these figures:
All figures taken from the Translink annual reports
Growth is calculated as a percentage of the first periods figures
Between 2009-10 and 2011-12:
3 new sections of busway opened (Boggo Rd, Eastern, Northern)
BUZ services increased from 10 to 18 plus the blue city glider.
Fleet of HCV's increased to well in excess of 100 buses (HCV's cost more)

[Andrew]

The TransLink report pointed out that growth over 3 years was just 2.9% compared to 35.5% increase in costs.

You will see the increase in costs in my tables.  They way you've put it there, it sounds horrible.  But considering Bus Service costs increased by 25% for the same period, 35% doesn't sound so bad.

Also, are you involved with writing the postings on the 'Save our Service' facebook page?

No but I am aware who runs it.  I'm not involved in the running of that page or any other "Save our Services" type pages.  The only public engagement I had regarding the Translink Bus Review was taking a Lieu day off work to plaster 300+ flyers up on bus stops at my own expense.

I have declared my other interests here earlier in the thread:

(For the record, I am a long term Brisbane resident who has had a passionate interest in public transport since childhood.  I have now been doing my dream job of driving buses for Brisbane City Council for almost 5 years.  I also am an RTBU member.  All opinions expressed here and on other forums are my own personal views, formed and formulated over many years)

I'm still waiting for a recipricol post like that by you Lapdog. 

[techblitz]

Things to note when viewing these figures:
All figures taken from the Translink annual reports
Growth is calculated as a percentage of the first periods figures
Between 2009-10 and 2011-12:
3 new sections of busway opened (Boggo Rd, Eastern, Northern)
BUZ services increased from 10 to 18 plus the blue city glider.
Fleet of HCV's increased to well in excess of 100 buses (HCV's cost more)

and the biggest cost of all for BT...running all of those air parcel express services of which there are too many to count. But we must give special mention to service 369

P.S..now that this service will lose the bulk of its passengers to the 590...is there a classifiation below `low patronage` `low value for money`? 

[#Metro]

I'm still waiting for a recipricol post like that by you Lapdog.

What can I say? I'm just a Lapdog. Lapdogs sit on laps, chew bones, chase cats all day and live in kennels.

No interest in any PT transport company whether direct or through shares or investments
Long time member of RAILBOT

I *DO* stand to make large gains if transport reforms are put through - in the form of easier to get around, won't have to buy car, won't have to wait ages for bus to come along, won't have to see fares go through the roof each and every year, won't have to take BS rides on indirect buses all the time and if services to Bulimba are improved, I will be able to go to my favourite restaurant more often than worry about when what the 235/230 is going to do.

Once supported state takeover of BT, position has changed as funds for that have dried up.
Happy to bite incompetent politicians regardless of level or political colour.

[#Metro]

If Brisbane Transport is privatised, that won't automatically mean that it will suddenly lose all of it's talents. Indeed, if it is so so good (cough), you could privatise it and it would actually do well and fend off the other competition.

Other operators seem to find the money to buy buses, maintain them, clean them, build buses, train drivers, buy depots etc without being attached to a local council and without local tax raising powers. Why can't BT do that?

[#Metro]

Thank you Brisbane Times for picking up the story!! 

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/audit-creates-more-uncertainty-for-bus-users-20130430-2iqxa.html

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

1 May 2013

Costello Audit creates more uncertainty for bus users

Greetings,

We have previously called for the separation of Brisbane Transport (BT) from Brisbane City Council (BCC) and bus contracts to be thrown open to competition. The ICA has agreed that all bus contracts should be contestable, and tested for competitive tendering effectively.

The BCC Bus Review does not address any of the major systemic issues with the BT bus network.

If Brisbane Transport is so efficient and innovative as it claims to be, then it should have no objection to being subject to private competition. With Brisbane Transport's contract running out in 2014, we believe that TransLink should not automatically renew it. Throw it open to competitive tender as has been done in Melbourne and Sydney. Transit Australia Group, Grenda's and Perth's Swan Transit could all be approached for example.

All other 15 operators in SEQ are private. Has the sky fallen down? Brisbane City Council needs to explain exactly what is so special about its bus operations that no private company could ever replicate and why it couldn't just pay for more bus service without actually owning it.

The protected monopoly that BCC has had on buses must end. It has left the Brisbane suburbs of Centenary, Bulimba, The Northwest and Yeronga with poor bus services so it could put on the vanity service that is the Maroon CityGlider. There is no reason why BCC could not continue to pay TransLink if it wants more service, like other councils already do.  BCC does not properly support the rail network in a true integrated fashion, a fact highlighted with the TransLink Bus Review.  Two inefficient  major operators in competition does not make a proper cost efficient connected network!

We note that Brisbane Transport has dropped proposals for the merger of 111 + 555 bus services in their so called Bus Review, In our opinion, this is because it crossed council boundaries and would have opened up the possibility of Clark's Logan City Buses winning the contract to operate that route. Their dropping of this proposal appears to be against competitive neutrality principles. Indeed Brisbane Transport as an operator should not even be designing the bus routes - that's TransLink's job, who is the regulator?

The Lord Mayor and BCC can no longer be trusted to run the city's buses. After a decade of games, it's time to separate Brisbane Transport from Brisbane City Council.

This is now a real test for the Minister for Transport of Main Roads and the Newman Government. Will they put Queensland first, or kowtow to BCC.

Best wishes
Robert

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

References:

Audit creates more uncertainty for bus users
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/audit-creates-more-uncertainty-for-bus-users-20130430-2iqxa.html

Is the Qld government missing the bus?
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/03/25/is-the-qld-government-missing-the-bus/

[somebody]

Great info, Andrew!

[ozbob]

Great info, Andrew!

Indeed, thanks!

[#Metro]

Up on 612 ABC http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/05/costello-audit-and-public-transport-contestable-train-and-bus-services.html?site=brisbane&program=612_breakfast

[somebody]

Andrew's figures show two things:
QR are far more inefficient that Cityrail, no mean feat.
Bus's cost per service-km has risen by 10% or more.
As has rail's.

Seems that there's one common factor!  Translink.  All operators' costs have risen.

[Fares_Fair]

Up on 612 ABC http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2013/05/costello-audit-and-public-transport-contestable-train-and-bus-services.html?site=brisbane&program=612_breakfast

Great interview. 

[SurfRail]

Things to note when viewing these figures:
All figures taken from the Translink annual reports
Growth is calculated as a percentage of the first periods figures
Between 2009-10 and 2011-12:
3 new sections of busway opened (Boggo Rd, Eastern, Northern)
BUZ services increased from 10 to 18 plus the blue city glider.
Fleet of HCV's increased to well in excess of 100 buses (HCV's cost more)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the above appears to be relevant to the quoted figures at all.

I am quite confident that those contract figures do not include any capital costs whatsoever, which is where you account for busways, stop upgrades or new bus deliveries etc - things paid for by the state out of consolidated revenue but which are not going to the operators because they don't own the asset being delivered (and that includes buses).  The figures quoted are contract payments for the actual operation of the service.

These figures are basically meaningless without the patronage growth data, which we now know to be something in the realm of 2-3% for over 30% extra expenditure for Brisbane Transport alone.  That is beyond ridiculous and clear evidence that something is very, very wrong. 

The railways are not excused - it's even worse over there, but a lot of those issues are inherently related to infrastructure, rollingstock and safeworking questions which just don't apply to the bus network and therefore will take longer to iron out.  You can chop and change routes and eliminate wastage a lot more easily there.

[johnnigh]

Councillor Dick is now complaining bitterly about the BCC review's plans for the buses in his ward. I recall him complaining about the Translink review. Which would he prefer? SWNews, paper edition.

[Gazza]

Councillor Dick is now complaining bitterly about the BCC review's plans for the buses in his ward. I recall him complaining about the Translink review. Which would he prefer? SWNews, paper edition.

Dont change anything ever?

[ozbob]

Councillor Dick is now complaining bitterly about the BCC review's plans for the buses in his ward. I recall him complaining about the Translink review. Which would he prefer? SWNews, paper edition.

Article John mentions --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9754.msg125447#msg125447

[Andrew]

Things to note when viewing these figures:
All figures taken from the Translink annual reports
Growth is calculated as a percentage of the first periods figures
Between 2009-10 and 2011-12:
3 new sections of busway opened (Boggo Rd, Eastern, Northern)
BUZ services increased from 10 to 18 plus the blue city glider.
Fleet of HCV's increased to well in excess of 100 buses (HCV's cost more)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the above appears to be relevant to the quoted figures at all.

I am quite confident that those contract figures do not include any capital costs whatsoever, which is where you account for busways, stop upgrades or new bus deliveries etc - things paid for by the state out of consolidated revenue but which are not going to the operators because they don't own the asset being delivered (and that includes buses).  The figures quoted are contract payments for the actual operation of the service.

The are very relevant.  And you're correct aboute the infrastructure but that's not the point.   The point I am trying to makes is that in the 3 periods mentioned there was new infrastructure (with associated service upgrades), rapid expansion of service levels and a massive increase of HCV's.

These figures are basically meaningless without the patronage growth data, which we now know to be something in the realm of 2-3%...

I agree but I think you'll find the fare increases had more to do with low patronage growth than the service levels.  I believe the real reason was to stagnate growth.

...2-3% for over 30% extra expenditure for Brisbane Transport alone. That is beyond ridiculous and clear evidence that something is very, very wrong. 

I think you and others on this forum are jumping to conclusions prematurely because you have an anti-BCC axe to grind.   

The gross cost growth was 35.5% but this was only 9% more than the average for all the bus operators combined. BT's share of the bus funds only grew 3.4%. The growth, other than substantial service level increases, can be attributed to a huge increase in the number of HCV's. Part of the cost is an agreed rate per km, which is higher for a HCV.  BT's HCV fleet went from 44 (36 artics and 8 14.5m) to 157 (30 artics and 127 14.5m) at the end of the 2011-12 period.  That's a fleet increase by a factor of about 3.5!!!  So in essence, the buses are costing more per km which is offset a little by the extra capacity they provide because in theory you may not have to run extra services.

The context of the growth over the three year period provides for some compelling evidence as far as a reasonable explanation of the cost increases are concerned.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I'm only anti BCC when it comes to their network planners because their northside network and services are just plain bulls**t! So what if the northern busway came though. That only benefits a handful of routes to the point where its not uncommon to see drivers on the 330 use 3 variants of the Kedron-RBWH leg depending on the time of day with the busway sometimes being the slowest route for travel. Yay I got to Chermside faster. Now to wait for my hourly bus. Good thing its not a Sunday though.

[#Metro]

So in essence, the buses are costing more per km which is offset a little by the extra capacity they provide because in theory you may not have to run extra services.

What I found curious is that larger buses were bought and new services were put on but the patronage impact was almost negligible. So the costs impact came in, but the patronage impact didn't seem to follow. And this increase in capacity occurs while there are a lot of other empty buses running around on the network. I can understand the need for larger buses, but on the other hand, I feel that route overlap from the direct service model is likely to be a significant inefficiency and further to the point the low loadings / low capacity utilisation due to this network design also plays a role here.

Something like P88 increases bus service km travelled but doesn't really attract new passengers as there is already heaps of service. The same would go for Maroon CityGlider as well. And you would incur the costs of buying and operating more buses for that as well but only attract marginally more pax because the catchment area already has these other routes.

Another example is how 222, 200 and 209 all run down Old Cleveland Road, and on top of each other. Why do we need almost 3 BUZ services on top of each other when just operating one would give the necessary capacity and acceptable frequency? This also increases bus-km travelled, number of buses required, but with only marginal pax gain.

Even at the height of peak at Cultural Centre, there's not good capacity utilisation at all. That means the operator:passenger ratio is not so good...an inefficiency. In the off peak, running buses to trains, rather than all the way to the CBD is also a factor I feel. It would be a better utilisation of empty rail capacity in certain parts of the network.

All this would further be compounded by self-reinforcing cycle of higher fares, less patronage, which would further increase the amount of air parcels carried and less fare revenue.

[SurfRail]

The are very relevant.  And you're correct aboute the infrastructure but that's not the point.   The point I am trying to makes is that in the 3 periods mentioned there was new infrastructure (with associated service upgrades), rapid expansion of service levels and a massive increase of HCV's.

And how many more people are these bus services moving?  10% more?  20% more?  30% more?  Putting a bus on the road does not necessarily do anything if the service is poorly designed, as we are seeing now on a daily basis.  Even BCC recognises that now, albeit reluctantly.

I agree but I think you'll find the fare increases had more to do with low patronage growth than the service levels.  I believe the real reason was to stagnate growth.

I don't agree because that attributes a deviousness of intellect and design that we haven't seen previously.  I think it's just manifest incompetence on TransLink's part in designing the fare pricing path (until somebody can show me internal working documents or some other evidence which says otherwise).

I think the main reason patronage growth is stagnating is because services are not actually improving in any meaningful way for most of Brisbane outside of peak hour (rail and bus), which means a huge section of the market is missing out.  Fares are also a factor, I will agree.

I think you and others on this forum are jumping to conclusions prematurely because you have an anti-BCC axe to grind.

If I have an axe to grind its because I can find fairly obvious fault with nearly everything they do when you compare it to what better performing cities do with their bus services.  It's not irrational to point these things out - it's irrational to defend them.

The gross cost growth was 35.5% but this was only 9% more than the average for all the bus operators combined.

And if you compare BT to the average for just the privates it's closer to 18%.

BT's share of the bus funds only grew 3.4%.

In other words denuding resources from the other operators except for the 3 who got a slight pittance more.  There's a reason there are virtually no high-frequency levels of service outside of the BT contract area.  It's because they can't afford to provide it because the funds don't exist, having been misallocated to services which don't perform.  680s are leaving people behind on a daily basis and only run hourly on weekends and nothing is being done, meanwhile we have nonsense like the 138 running every 15 minutes.

The growth, other than substantial service level increases, can be attributed to a huge increase in the number of HCV's. Part of the cost is an agreed rate per km, which is higher for a HCV.  BT's HCV fleet went from 44 (36 artics and 8 14.5m) to 157 (30 artics and 127 14.5m) at the end of the 2011-12 period.  That's a fleet increase by a factor of about 3.5!!!  So in essence, the buses are costing more per km which is offset a little by the extra capacity they provide because in theory you may not have to run extra services.

The context of the growth over the three year period provides for some compelling evidence as far as a reasonable explanation of the cost increases are concerned.

Do you have numbers for the additional payments based on vehicle size?  I suspect it wouldn't be a massive increase given their relatively small proportion of the current fleet (just over 10%).

By no means am I suggesting that the mere fact the service cost has gone up is indicative of failure.  It is the declining passenger count which makes it a failure and I am convinced quite utterly that fares are not the determining factor.

These costs are having an impact on other regions too.  We all pay the same fares, and I have heard several accounts now of network improvements for other regions which have been delayed because of BT stamping its foot about certain things (most noticeably what happened to Ipswich).

[ozbob]

BCC is no longer a team player when it comes to a proper public transport network. Simple fact of life.

Brisbane is no longer an isolated colony surrounded by market gardens and scrub.  I am certain if BT was hived off BCC, a much better result would be achieved for BT, for Brisbane residents and the network in SEQ overall.

Why should the rest of SEQ put up with mediocrity of service to support air transport in BCC's area?  At least TransLink had the guts to finally move on it.  Just a great shame that the political will to support them was lacking.

Still more to play out on this no doubt ....

Onwards!

[Andrew]

And how many more people are these bus services moving?  10% more?  20% more?  30% more?  Putting a bus on the road does not necessarily do anything if the service is poorly designed, as we are seeing now on a daily basis.  Even BCC recognises that now, albeit reluctantly.

Well considering you can still get full 14.5m buses on 130's, I'd say the buses are still moving a lot of people, some of which is bound to be an increase.

I agree but I think you'll find the fare increases had more to do with low patronage growth than the service levels.  I believe the real reason was to stagnate growth.

I don't agree because that attributes a deviousness of intellect and design that we haven't seen previously.  I think it's just manifest incompetence on TransLink's part in designing the fare pricing path (until somebody can show me internal working documents or some other evidence which says otherwise).

I think the main reason patronage growth is stagnating is because services are not actually improving in any meaningful way for most of Brisbane outside of peak hour (rail and bus), which means a huge section of the market is missing out.  Fares are also a factor, I will agree.

Fares definately had a major impact on the patronage growth.  It's a simple formula really.  Increase the price, remove periodical tickets and then introduce a journey based Go Card cap and you have an unsustainable fare structure that is bound to increase.  Higher ticket costs have a negative impact.  It's not rocket science.

I think you and others on this forum are jumping to conclusions prematurely because you have an anti-BCC axe to grind.

If I have an axe to grind its because I can find fairly obvious fault with nearly everything they do when you compare it to what better performing cities do with their bus services.  It's not irrational to point these things out - it's irrational to defend them.

Of course this will include things like the Blue Glider and the 8 new bus routes as well as making the entire fleet air conditioned and over 85% wheelchair accessible yes? (Not to mention the excellent customer service  )

The gross cost growth was 35.5% but this was only 9% more than the average for all the bus operators combined.

And if you compare BT to the average for just the privates it's closer to 18%.

Yes but we have a much larger area and density to service too.  Really an accurate comparison would be by service km or even by % of services run.  BT is the largest operator.

BT's share of the bus funds only grew 3.4%.

In other words denuding resources from the other operators except for the 3 who got a slight pittance more.  There's a reason there are virtually no high-frequency levels of service outside of the BT contract area.  It's because they can't afford to provide it because the funds don't exist, having been misallocated to services which don't perform.  680s are leaving people behind on a daily basis and only run hourly on weekends and nothing is being done, meanwhile we have nonsense like the 138 running every 15 minutes.

Have you ever caught a 138? You can fill the seats on those.  I don't doubt their are problems outside the BT network and I'm quite aware BT is not the pinnicle of efficiency sometimes.  But that's not to say there is a case to justify the spending increases.  On top of this, BCC put in their own money too so you could argue the routes which are truly a service (low value for money, low patronage) are subsidised by that funding.

The growth, other than substantial service level increases, can be attributed to a huge increase in the number of HCV's. Part of the cost is an agreed rate per km, which is higher for a HCV.  BT's HCV fleet went from 44 (36 artics and 8 14.5m) to 157 (30 artics and 127 14.5m) at the end of the 2011-12 period.  That's a fleet increase by a factor of about 3.5!!!  So in essence, the buses are costing more per km which is offset a little by the extra capacity they provide because in theory you may not have to run extra services.

The context of the growth over the three year period provides for some compelling evidence as far as a reasonable explanation of the cost increases are concerned.

Do you have numbers for the additional payments based on vehicle size?  I suspect it wouldn't be a massive increase given their relatively small proportion of the current fleet (just over 10%).

By no means am I suggesting that the mere fact the service cost has gone up is indicative of failure.  It is the declining passenger count which makes it a failure and I am convinced quite utterly that fares are not the determining factor.

You're kidding right? Mate when I started back in mid 2008, it cost $2.40 for a 1 zone paper ticket single.  Now that cost has literally doubled! I'm not saying that a fare increase per se is bad but the sheer amount now for tickets is having a really negative impact on patronage.  I'm sure this is would be quite evident on the trains too as their journeys are substantially longer.  Put simply you are burying your head in the sand to say that fare costs are not an impact on poor or negative patronage growth.

These costs are having an impact on other regions too.  We all pay the same fares, and I have heard several accounts now of network improvements for other regions which have been delayed because of BT stamping its foot about certain things (most noticeably what happened to Ipswich).

There's a term for that... it's called heresay.  In all seriousness though, I don't discount the possibility but as I mentioned, BT is the biggest operator with the largest area and population.  Ultimately Translink would have to take some blame for giving in.

[somebody]

BT's cost per service-km have increased in real terms, fairly noticeably.  Some of that can be explained by the removal of bus/transit lanes, some by increased traffic congestion, some by closing Larapinta depot and generally inappropriately located depots (who's fault is that?), not sure if that is all of it.

[HappyTrainGuy]

It wasn't really Translink that gave in though.... Just like what's happened in the railway so many times where someone higher up has thought they knew what was best.

[#Metro]

This thread will soon go through the 2000 views mark. Who said no-one would be interested??

[HappyTrainGuy]

This thread will soon go through the 2000 views mark. Who said no-one would be interested??

I said before stop pressing refresh! 

[somebody]

This thread will soon go through the 2000 views mark. Who said no-one would be interested??

No one actually said that, even Andrew.

[Andrew]

BCC is no longer a team player when it comes to a proper public transport network. Simple fact of life.

Brisbane is no longer an isolated colony surrounded by market gardens and scrub.  I am certain if BT was hived off BCC, a much better result would be achieved for BT, for Brisbane residents and the network in SEQ overall.

I think the argument you meant to used is never really been a team player.  I understand what your getting at and agree with it to a point.  The issue is that BCC partly funds it's routes to guarantee a service and is accountable for this at the ballot box.  This coupled with a lack of investment in rail infrastucture and frequency have in my opinion brought about the situation we are in now.  We have a council who is accountable to it's residents for a bus service and no real incentive to connect most of the time.

Why should the rest of SEQ put up with mediocrity of service to support air transport in BCC's area?  At least TransLink had the guts to finally move on it.  Just a great shame that the political will to support them was lacking.

Still more to play out on this no doubt ....

Onwards!

I don't disgree there are still possibilities for efficiency gains in the current network but I don't think that the rest of SEQ has put up with an entirely mediocre network.  Thompsons for example went up by about 50% because of a sizable investment in local services - in particular a 7 day service for the first time.

I'm still disappointed that you guys still don't comprehend how bad some of the details of the bus review were.  I agree with the principles they were trying to use but the final design was in a large part woeful.

[ozbob]

I was always confident that feedback would have lead to changes, the principles were what I think was really important.  The finer detail and changes would have come. 

Still, i think there is still room to improve things even from here.  Despite some communications suggesting everything is final, I am still hopeful!

By the way Andrew, I agree that the fare fail has been a major factor in patronage turnoff.   

[#Metro]

I think the argument you meant to used is never really been a team player.  I understand what your getting at and agree with it to a point.  The issue is that BCC partly funds it's routes to guarantee a service and is accountable for this at the ballot box.

How is it accountable to residents? The residents of Centenary, Bulimba and Northwest launched petitions for more services and it was rejected. See ---> Calls for Bulimba glider rejected http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/calls-for-bulimba-glider-rejected-20120201-1qtbt.html

Bus routes neglected
http://www.thesatellite.com.au/news/bus-routes-neglected/1768555/

CENTENARY residents have questioned the introduction of Brisbane City Council's $9 million Maroon CityGlider, saying the money could be better spent improving services in their own backyard.

Seventeen Mile Rocks resident Gavin Seipelt said frequency of bus services in the Centenary suburbs needed imporvement.

He said residents signed a petition for better services in 2010 but were still awaiting delievery.

Instead, they put on Maroon CityGlider. A bus service would still be publicly accountable in the sense that TransLink would be in control, which is a public agency, and if performance wasn't up to scratch, the operator would be fired. As has been shown elsewhere.

At the moment, when something isn't right, what we get is a truckload of spin, as we have seen from the Mayor who says that he doesn't like transfers and that the system is "not broken" and that the Cleveland Rail Line can be replaced with trams rather than build cross river rail. It is also only too happy to invent it's own services and then turn around and say "bus routes are the responsibility of TransLink". It also removed the Coronation Drive bus lane so that it's own buses would be stuck in congestion using up more fuel and more labour time and promised 2000 express buses on legacy way per day just cook up support for its road tunnel. When was the last time anyone heard of Clarks Logan City buses or TAG promise 2000 express buses down a toll tunnel?

And let's not forget how Cr Dick and Johnston campaigned against the bus review proposals and now actually leave bus services in their areas much worse off.

BCC did have accountability, but only up until 2004, when TransLink came in. Single point of accountability (SPA) was lost and now a good grey zone to play games in and blame shift has opened up in the space there.

[#Metro]

2000 

[somebody]

I'm still disappointed that you guys still don't comprehend how bad some of the details of the bus review were.  I agree with the principles they were trying to use but the final design was in a large part woeful.

I completely agree.

[#Metro]

But it wasn't the final design, it was a proposal open to consultation (not great, but have you seen the BCC's consultation form, it's almost identical) and change. And the minister tried to make alterations (on the run) and it all fell down. Botched.

You don't have this problem in Auckland, NZ, they actually run things without fuss, take their time, have face to face deputations. Why is it that Queensland makes it so hard for themselves to get anything done?? It would have saved having to do the review TWICE.

[HappyTrainGuy]

But it wasn't the final design, it was a proposal open to consultation (not great, but have you seen the BCC's consultation form, it's almost identical) and change. And the minister tried to make alterations (on the run) and it all fell down. Botched.

Yep. And wasn't the proposal also only done by Translink because BT didn't put any input in with helping some of the routes?

[somebody]

But it wasn't the final design, it was a proposal open to consultation (not great, but have you seen the BCC's consultation form, it's almost identical) and change. And the minister tried to make alterations (on the run) and it all fell down. Botched.

You don't have this problem in Auckland, NZ, they actually run things without fuss, take their time, have face to face deputations. Why is it that Queensland makes it so hard for themselves to get anything done?? It would have saved having to do the review TWICE.

Oh come on, give it a rest!  The proposal should be something reasonably close to the final design, perhaps with a few tweaks from the consultation.  The TL proposal was so far from what it should have been that I wouldn't be surprised if a Director lost their job.

[ozbob]

People have their views.

Minister Emerson said on radio that BCC did not cooperate.   The interviewer actually pushed quite hard on that point and why Emerson was virtually rewarding their intransigence. 

I have suggested that BCC actually get together with TransLink and sort it out.  No, looks like we will continue with mediocrity ...

I am not even convinced that BT will be forced to really contest, despite Costello's alerts in the ICA.

[somebody]

People have their views.

Minister Emerson said on radio that BCC did not cooperate.   The interviewer actually pushed quite hard on that point and why Emerson was virtually rewarding their intransigence. 

I can remember that too.

I am not even convinced that BT will be forced to really contest, despite Costello's alerts in the ICA.

Indeed, Costello's review makes some pretty salient points that they will have trouble attracting bidders if BT will be bidding net of BCC's funding.

[#Metro]

Indeed, Costello's review makes some pretty salient points that they will have trouble attracting bidders if BT will be bidding net of BCC's funding.

I don't think this is a problem. Get BCC to publish the bus levy independent of the gross rates before making changes. In an absolute worst case apocalypse like scenario, provisions could be inserted into the City of Brisbane Act to collect a transport levy frozen and indexed to CPI until further notice and the State's resumption powers could be used to claim the land on which depots are sited. But I stress, absolute apocalyptic scenario must exist and I think sanity will ultimately prevail. The alternative is to sell off a few more QR/Aurizon shares and use the funds to buy out as necessary.

[#Metro]

There is a very useful report up on the Brisbane City Council Website, it is the AT Kearny Efficiency Review.

You can find it here ----> http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/about-council/council-information-and-rates/news-and-publications/securing-2026-operational-sustainability-review/index.htm

I have saved a copy in case it accidentally on purpose disappears.

Firstly, BT makes up ~ 20% of BCC's labour force. Separating BT from BCC would see the size of BCC shrink by ~ 20%.



There doesn't seem to be any case for "unique capability" for Brisbane Transport, given that there are 15 private bus operators in SEQ and furthermore, there are likely to be buyers. It may not make sense to separate BT until the contract winner is announced however.



Rocket services ARE highly inefficient because they run empty on the way back to their starting point, however it is hard to see what the alternative would be. Some rockets could be diverted to rail, for instance in the western suburbs.



BT's dead running costs are higher than private operators - contestability here? It's not clear how this might be reduced given the spatial aspects of the issue



Different buses have different maintenance requirements. It would seem that a connected network, rather than a direct network, would result in higher bus capacity utilisation and in turn, would result in less buses needing to be used, and thus lower maintenance costs being taken from TransLink.