This thread is for discussion about how PT governance could be structured in the future for Queensland.
As part of assessing how PT governance could be envisioned, a current state assessment was carried out. Here were the results:
BCC has most of the functions of a PT agency
The main finding here is that BCC exhibits virtually all functions one would expect from a transit authority - including funding, fare-setting (currently limited), and major infrastructure construction.
Thinking about this model further, and contrasting it with the single-authority model in Western Australia, it is possible to distinguish between a Singular Authority (e.g. WA PTA) and a Co-ordinating Authority (e.g. Translink QLD).
Singular vs Co-ordinating Authorities
-
In a singular authority model, the prior PT agencies are incorporated into a single new authority and the former agencies cease to exist as separate entitites. It is a single stakeholder model.
-
In a co-ordinating authority model, the prior PT agencies continue to exist, with the new authority acting as a central or co-ordinating body. Funding is used as the incentive to have each independent stakeholder co-ordinate with the new PT agency. It is a multi-stakeholder model.
The Transperth model in more detail:
The Translink model in more detail:
If different political parties administer Brisbane City Council and the Queensland Government, then a policy and strategy misalignment opportunity is presented. This misalignment is of course not possible in the single-authority model that Western Australia has with Transperth. In other words, the opportunity to misalign policies is facilitated by the structure of the governance arrangements itself.
1 Like
Review of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. Final Report. (1984)
PA Management Consultants
The MTA was a 1980ās predecessor to todayās Translink. It played a similar role - rather than replace the existing PT agencies, it filled the gap in between them and co-ordinated BCC and Queensland Rail. It relied on funding as its main motivation for compliance.
The problems the MTA faced 40+ years ago seems similar to the issues today. For example, introducing new bus routesā¦
Institutional politics was a problem back then, as it was today
The document also shows that a Bus-Train interchange at Indooroopilly has been discussed since at least 1970.
Organisational structure of the MTA
Notes
Review of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. Final Report. (1984)
PA Management Consultants https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/_/media/aboutus/rti/disclog/2023/rti-3474-release.pdf
Review
A South-East Queensland Transit Authority: Transport Planning And Coordination Amendment Bill 1995
Legislation Bulletin 7/95
David Thannhauser, Queensland Parliamentary Library, Brisbane.
November 1995.
About 17 years before then Premier Campbell Newman entered office, the fate of TransLink Mk I was already foreshadowed in this text of a 1995 Queensland Parliamentary discussion paper.
Quote from: Thannhauser (1995)In summing up the lessons which the demise of the MTA might have for similar coordinating bodies, John Minnery has warned that organisations created with charters that effectively restrict the powers of pre-existing agencies will be resisted and that their jurisdictional limits and powers must be developed and clearly defined or they may have to struggle for their very existence.11
^ In other words, the fate of Translink MkI was already sealed before either it came into existence or then Premier Campbell Newman came to office. John Minnery, who appears to have been a planning academic at UQ, properly recognised the situational aspect to the issue.
The discussion paper also sets out the initial co-ordination attempt that led to the creation of the MTA:
- In 1970 Wilbur Smith and Associates Study suggests an overall transport co-ordination body (unclear if this is just PT or both PT and roads)
- In 1970, the Metropolitan Transit Project Policy Committee was formed. The QLD Treasurer, the Minister for Transport, Brisbaneās Lord Mayor, The Coordinator-General and the Under Treasurer are members of the committee.
- In 1974, The MTPPC sub-committee was reconstituted as the Metropolitan Transit Project Board
- In 1976, Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) is formed under an Act bearing its name.
- In 1984, PA Management Consultants is commissioned by the Transport Minister to produce a report into the MTA. Their report is here.
- In 1985, the MTA is abolished.
The MTA had essentially the same responsibilities as TransLink MkI (properly integrated and efficient system of public passenger transport ):
Quote from: Thannhauser (1995)2.2 THE FORMER METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY
The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) existed from 1974 to 1985. It has since been claimed that the MTA āwas not in practice an effective coordinating bodyā.(4) There is a perception, referred to in the Ministerās Second Reading Speech, that a SEQ transit authority, such as the Bill proposes, may come and go the same way the MTA did.(5) The Minister stated, however, that he believed that, in light of the culture surrounding it, the MTA had been āahead of its timeā.(6) The primary objective of the MTA was the provision of a āproperly integrated and efficient system of public passenger transportā.7
(Bold added)
Significance
Mr Minnery identified the situational aspect to setting up a PT Authority, and well ahead of time accurately predicted its fate. The current ādilutedā form of Translink (essentially a TMR brand) exists because that is what works for the āpre-existing agenciesā Mr Minnery speaks of.
A Public Transport Authority set up as a co-ordinating body that seeks to fill in the gaps between existing PT agencies appears unlikely to work for the reasons set out above. There are now two cases in Queensland where setting it up as a co-ordinating body between existing agencies has not worked.
The obvious alternative (not necessarily suggesting this) is for a Public Transport Authority to be set up as a singular authority like the WA Public Transport Authority (Transperth) and incorporate the pre-existing agencies into the Authority as subsidiary divisions. Co-ordination is achieved by only having one set of managers run the show.
Notes
This is fundamentally a political problem. And I donāt think it gets better while Queensland remains one state. Iāve seen people advocate for BCC to be split up like other capital cities, but the difference is those capital cities dominate their stateās populations far more than Brisbane does. BCC is useful in being a powerful organisation to push Brisbaneās interests to the state government, and that has a need to exist at least until the north goes its own way.
I donāt agree with this assertion personally. Sure, Queensland is a large state land wise, but population wise it is still smaller than NSW and Victoria. The North of Queensland really isnāt a big enough population centre to make an independent state out of it (and the truth is that SEQ benefits a lot from the mining in the North of the state to prop up our budget).
We donāt need BCC to do this though. By virtue of having such a large population (and thus such a large portion of the Legislative Assemblies MPs), there is an inherit political need to keep Brisbane and SEQ in general satisfied.
1 Like
How is it talk of a new transport body/authority end up been a rally cry for creating new states. Unless the BCC yields certain legislate powers such as transport planning , they will continue to act as a micro-nation inside the state.
With the way things are going and projected population growth in the future, the whole SE QLD region will cease to exist and will be swallowed up by Brisbane into one huge LGA.
1 Like
BCC has a lot of influence because it contributes financially to ongoing operational costs, where other LGAs do not.
The culture at the Queensland Government generally is that they do things in partnerships or collaborations. Thatās how things get done.
If there is not at least 1 or 2 other levels of government on board, partnership or seed money on the table, itās far less likely to go anywhere.
The are many LGAs in SEQ, all having growth pressure, and all saying the same messages when lobbying. Itās not a point of difference. Cash on the table from BCC is.
Transition the Cross River Rail Authority to deliver both the Sunshine Coast Rail and The Gold Coast rail, being the extension to OOL. The expertise is already there and the authority is already set up. It could be completed by 2035. Then have them work on the Toowoomba leg as well. We could have trains running to Toowoomba by 2038.
1 Like
There is pretty much zero chance there will be passenger rail to Toowoomba by 2038. Maroochydore and OOL are unlikely to be finished by then.
Also, all existing plans for rail to Toowoomba have relied on Inland Rail sharing much of the corridor. Inland Rail north of the Qld/NSW border is basically a dead duck now, so thereās going to need to be a huge pot of funding to get anything happening.
I know the ins and outs to date. This is to provide a solution and speed up the projects.
If you have any solutions that would ensure delivery please share.
If you want Toowoomba by 2035, you might get it if you delay DSCRL and heavy rail to OOL. I think these two projects, especially DSCRL, are more important. I think itās important to be realistic about priorities. To do otherwise makes us look irrational.
Thereās a finite amount of resources available, including civil construction equipment and labour. Trying to do too many things at once will simply make projects more expensive, and may well not result in a faster outcome anyway.
Iām not suggesting we keep kicking the can down the roadāobviously Toowoomba needs to be fixedābut around 2040 (maybe 2038) is more realistic than 2035.
2 Likes
Yeah considering just how much there is to do I think Iād prioritise Toowoomba below any of the other big five rail projects on the horizon (DSCRL, G:Link stage 4, Flagstone, Springfield extension, GC extension).
Of course if Inland Rail does come through and builds the new Main Range crossing and the new Little Liverpool Range crossingā¦ absolutely go for Toowoomba because it really isnāt much more than getting some DMUs (or BMUs as the case may be by then!) Sure the BCR might not be great but neither is the C, and that might suffice politically.
I do think thereās political value for Inland Rail (which I presume we all want to see happen) by making it clear that IR is effectively a pre-requisite to running a modern passenger service to Toowoomba. But Iām not sure thereās anything to gain there ā as in, Iām pretty sure the Toowoomba area LNP members already want to see IR happen.
1 Like
All fair critique of whatās reasonable and realistic for reaching Toowoomba and other regional centres on beyond the range by rail and appropriate prioritisation, given the ābangā for buck against other projects. This is why the paradigm needs to change with respect to regional bus services subsidised or managed by the state.
The four LGAs that could be better served if this mindset changes (Lockyer Valley, Toowoomba, Southern Downs and Western Downs) have a combined population of over 290,000 (ABS data below). If a new transport authority is ready to think differently about services that cross the Great Dividing Range and connect communities in my part of the world while we wait for the 2(+) decades for Inland Rail to arrive, Iām all for it. We can even talk about utilising the existing rail network that exists to connect Toowoomba - Dalby and Toowoomba - Warwick as part of that, if youād like (I have first-hand experience traversing the QR network between Toowoomba - Warwick - Stanthorpe and Goondiwindi and know the track), but I wouldnāt necessarily advocate for having to use rail routes, just because the track exists.
Based on ABS 2022-23 statistics (Regional population, 2022-23 financial year | Australian Bureau of Statistics) :
Lockyer Valley LGA has a population of 43,847 (including Gatton SA2 district of 8,436);
Toowoomba LGA has a population of 181,821 (including multiple suburban SA2 districts of >10,000);
Southern Downs LGA has a population of 37,444 (including Warwick SA2 district of 16,064 and Stanthorpe SA2 district of 5,403); and
Western Downs LGA has a population of 34,991 (no specific SA2 district for Dalby but the town population exceeds 12,000)
3 Likes
Precisely. Existing roads are infrastructure too. There are already coach services between Brisbane and Toowoomba. By using the bus mode the service gap could be closed before any rail project on the books other than perhaps CRR and for a fraction of the cost.
To be fair, the same principles apply also to rail in the case of Brisbane Airtrain. Just close the service gap and bring fares into the PT network. You donāt even need to buy it to do this.
Letās not make it harder than it needs to be.
I think this thread is derailed. The main objective was discussion on a PTA viability, which I believe itās not needed if the CRR authority continues in some form.
The challenge I see of splitting Transport Planning and Delivery is you have 2 organizations arguing their importance to get more of the limited transport budget.
We will only deliver better transport if we reprioritise that budget not balance it!
The problem is the politics of transport is biased toward roads and the rest is allowed to flounder.
If we had good transport leadership we would have the support to make it work. Allowing it to flounder means BCC is the bully in the mess.
1 Like