Item No.	Item Title	Page No.
	Confirmation of Minutes
1	Confirmation of Minutes of the Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee No. 2021(11) of 1 December 2021	7
	Officers’ Reports
2	Expanding the Ipswich Bus Network	13
3	iGO Annual Report Card 2020 - 2021	38
4	Proposed Repairs to Unmaintained Roads Policy	57
5	Infrastructure and Environment Department Capital Delivery Report December 2021	63
6	Exercise Of Delegation Report	80
7	Planning And Environment Court Action Status Report	104
	Notices of Motion
	Matters Arising

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 February

2022

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee NO. 2021(11)

1 December 2021

Minutes

COUNCILLORS’ ATTENDANCE: Mayor Teresa Harding (Chairperson); Councillors Paul Tully (Deputy Chairperson), Sheila Ireland, Jacob Madsen, Marnie Doyle, Andrew Fechner, Kate Kunzelmann, Russell Milligan and Deputy Mayor Nicole Jonic

COUNCILLOR’S APOLOGIES: Nil

OFFICERS’ ATTENDANCE: Chief Executive Officer (Sonia Cooper), Acting General Manager Corporate Services (Sylvia Swalling), Acting General Manager Infrastructure and Environment (James Hilyard), General Manager Community, Cultural and Economic Development (Ben Pole), General Manager Planning and Regulatory Services (Peter Tabulo), Manager Development Planning (Anthony Bowles), Manager, Economic and Community Development (Cat Matson), Manager, Capital Program Delivery (Graeme Martin), Manager, Infrastructure Strategy (Tony Dileo), Senior Property Officer, Acquisitions and Disposals (Alicia Rieck), Senior Digital Media and Content Officer (Jodie Richter), Chief Financial Officer (Jeff Keech), Treasury Accounting Manager (Paul Mollenhauer), Senior Policy and Communications Officer (David Shaw), Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor (Melissa Fitzgerald) and Theatre Technician (Trent Gray)

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS ON THE AGENDA

Nil

BUSINESS OUTSTANDING

1. Georgie Conway Leichhardt Community Swim Centre

This report considers the operation of the Georgie Conway Leichhardt Community Swim Centre, with particular focus on water heating policy options, attendance trends and forecast cost impacts in changes to current water temperature settings.

DECISION

Moved by Councillor Sheila Ireland:

Seconded by Councillor Kate Kunzelmann:

That Council endorse the current practice of maintaining a water temperature of approximately 29 degrees during the winter season at the Leichhardt 25 metre pool.

DECISION

Moved by Councillor Andrew Fechner:

Seconded by Councillor Marnie Doyle:

That the matter lay on the table until the Council Ordinary Meeting on 27 January 2022.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

Confirmation of Minutes

2. Confirmation of Minutes of the Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee No. 2021(10) of 4 November 2021

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Russell Milligan:

That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 4 November 2021 be confirmed.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

Officers’ Reports

3. PETITION - Request for Removal of Bollards on Siedofsky Street, Redbank Plains

This is a report concerning a petition received by Councillor Sheila Ireland from the local community requesting the removal of bollards located on Siedofsky Street, Redbank Plains to allow the street to provide a through-traffic road function

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Sheila Ireland:

A. That the bollards located on Siedofsky Street, Redbank Plains not be removed.

B. That the chief petitioner be advised of the outcome of this report.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

4. Infrastructure and Environment Department Capital Delivery Report October 2021

This is a report concerning the performance of the capital delivery by the Infrastructure and Environment Department for the month of October 2021.

Officers across the whole Infrastructure and Environment Department are contributing to the positive results seen in the early stages of the 2021-2022 financial year. The result is especially pleasing when compared to the rate of delivery achieved in previous financial years.

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Andrew Fechner:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

5. Exercise Of Delegation Report

This is a report concerning applications that have been determined by delegated authority for the period 19 October 2021 to 16 November 2021

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Andrew Fechner:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

6. Planning And Environment Court Action Status Report

This is a report concerning a status update with respect to current Planning and Environment Court actions associated with development planning applications

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Marnie Doyle:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

7. Waste and Circular Economy Transformation Directive - Update 5

This is a report concerning an update on the implementation of the Waste and Circular Economy Transformation Directive.

DECISION

Moved by Mayor Teresa Harding:

Seconded by Councillor Marnie Doyle:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE

Councillors: Councillors:

Harding Nil

Tully

Ireland

Madsen

Doyle

Fechner

Kunzelmann

Milligan

Jonic

The motion was put and carried.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil

MATTERS ARISING

Nil

PROCEDURAL MOTIONS AND FORMAL MATTERS

The meeting commenced at 9.00 am.

The meeting closed at 9.21 am.

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 February

2022

Doc ID No: A7405923

ITEM: 2

SUBJECT: Expanding the Ipswich Bus Network

AUTHOR: Transport Planner (Transport Planning)

DATE: 12 January 2022

Executive Summary

Public Transport services in Ipswich are administered by the TransLink Division of the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. Nevertheless, Council receives many requests to improve public transport services within Ipswich and in particular the bus services.

In recent years, Council has had very limited success in lobbying the State Government to invest in the expansion of the bus network. This report highlights the state of Ipswich’s bus network, benchmarks the Ipswich bus network against other networks within South East Queensland (SEQ), and outlines several considerations for Council moving forward.

Recommendations

A. That a submission for citywide expansion of the bus network be prepared and considered as a potential Regionally Significant Project.

B. That Councillors meet with State MPs to discuss new bus services in Redbank Plains, as well as for a new direct bus service linking Ipswich Central and Springfield Central.

C. That Council officers work with the State Government to rationalise the existing bus network to achieve net benefits.

D. That if funding from the State Government is not secured for Council’s two (2) expansion priority projects (identified in Recommendation B) by the end of the 2022-2023 financial year, Council officers commence investigations into alternative funding options to subsidise the cost of these service changes and prepare a report for Council’s consideration.

RELATED PARTIES

There is no declaration of conflicts of interest regarding this report.

ifuture Theme

Vibrant and Growing

Purpose of Report/Background

The need for better public transport in Ipswich

Ipswich needs effective public transport to allow the city to grow and thrive. Public transport is not only a means to relieving traffic congestion, it plays a significant role in supporting the economic success of cities by connecting people to jobs and services, influencing the city’s urban form and reducing isolation and social exclusion.

Furthermore, the need for effective public transport is becoming increasingly urgent in Ipswich. The South East Queensland Regional Plan, ShapingSEQ, anticipates a population target of 520,000 people in Ipswich by 2041, over double the current population. ShapingSEQ also provides direction on a greater need to focus on public transport to support this population growth and economic development.

The City of Ipswich Transport Plan (iGO), acknowledges that “we cannot afford to build our way out of congestion by continually adding more and more road space just for cars” and that there needs to be significant shift to more sustainable transport modes. Consequently, iGO sets an aspirational public transport mode share target of 11% by approximately 2031 (refer to Table 1 below).

Based on data provided in the 2018 Queensland Household Travel Survey, the mode share for public transport in Ipswich has been drifting further away from the target set within iGO (refer to Table 1 below).

Table 1: Household Travel Survey Comparison with iGO Mode Share Targets

	Household Travel Survey			iGO Mode Share Target
	2011	2017	2018	iGO Mode Share Target
Ipswich Population (rounded)	167,000	208,500	218,000	435,000
Private Vehicle Mode Share	86%	87.6%	88.4%	75%
Public Transport Mode Share	6.3%*	6.7%*	5.4%*	11%

Source: iGO Annual Report Card 2019-2020

*Figures also include Taxi and Rideshare

The iGO Public Transport Advocacy and Action Plan (iGO PTAAP) was adopted at Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 20 August 2019. iGO PTAAP, a child Strategy of iGO, has been used by Council to:

· Provide consistent, evidence-based messaging about the public transport priorities for Ipswich;

· Raise awareness of the urgent need for more investment in public transport in Ipswich and for Council to provide support for this where possible; and

· Assist with the development and maintenance of partnerships with key public transport stakeholders.

A survey was undertaken as part of the development of iGO PTAAP to determine the satisfaction of residents on using the public transport network in Ipswich. Within this survey, 36% of respondents were ‘unhappy’ or ‘very unhappy’ with the state of the public transport network and 32% of residents were ‘neutral’.

When asked about the factors that prevent residents from using public transport more often, the most popular response was ‘It takes too long’, followed by ‘It’s not convenient or easy to use’, ‘There are no stops / stations near my home or travel destination’, and ‘It’s too expensive’.

The Ipswich Bus Network

The Ipswich bus network is largely designed for local travel needs within communities, connecting residents with activity centres. The network also provides connections to train stations along the Ipswich and Springfield Lines, which are currently the only ‘trunk’ public transport connections to the Brisbane Central Business District (CBD). There are no bus routes which connect the Ipswich Local Government Area (LGA) to the Brisbane CBD.

As of June 2021, there were 18 urban bus routes providing connections to destinations within the Ipswich LGA. Three (3) of these bus routes also provide connections to destinations outside of the LGA (Somerset Region, City of Brisbane and City of Logan).

Most of the bus services within the Ipswich LGA operate between 6am and 7pm on weekdays, and 8am and 5pm on weekends. The majority of bus routes operate on hourly frequencies during the day, increasing to half-hourly during peak periods.

The Ipswich LGA forms part of TransLink’s Western Bus Region. Bus patronage within the Western Bus Region has been stagnant over the last decade, contrary to the large population growth experienced within the Ipswich LGA. Additionally, the number of urban bus routes within the Ipswich LGA has also decreased over the last decade (refer to Table 2 page over).

Investment in bus services has also been modest over the last decade. As identified in Table 3 (page over), there was a slight decline in investment between the 2011-12 and 2017-18 financial years (remaining steady at approximately $18-19 million per annum). Recent investment has occurred; however, this is unlikely to reverse the declining patronage in the short term, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the stagnation of the bus network due to years of underinvestment.

A comprehensive list of historic bus service changes within the Western Bus Region can be found in Attachment 1 of this report.

Table 2 –Western Bus Region Statistics

	Population (Ipswich LGA)	Bus Patronage (Western Region)	No. Urban Bus Routes (Western Region)
2006	142K	Not publicly available	20
2012	178K	1.66 million trips (11/12 FY)	19
2013	184K	1.83 million trips (12/13 FY)	15
2019	222K	1.81 million trips (18/19FY)	16
2020	230K	1.57 million trips (19/20 FY)	18

Sources: Rail Back on Track, TMR, Profile ID

Table 3 – Western Region Bus Service Contract Spends

Source: Derived from TMR data

*Service contract spends include both urban and school bus services

Benchmarking Ipswich against other TransLink Regions

A comparison has been made between the Ipswich/Western Bus Region and other regions within SEQ (refer to Table 4 page over). It is acknowledged that there are some limitations with the contents of Table 4 (overlap with service contracts, regions etc), however it still provides a sound representation as to where investment in the bus network lies within SEQ.

	Brisbane	Gold Coast	Sunshine Coast / Noosa	Moreton Bay (Northern)	Logan (Southern)	Redlands (Eastern)	Ipswich (Western)
Number of urban bus routes	≈233*	56	30	48	47	35	18
Bus Service Contract Spend (19/20 FY)^	$328.7 M*	$94.6 M	$54. 5 M	$60.6 M**	$49.1 M***	$27.9 M**	$24.4 M
Population (June 2020) ERP	1,272,999	635,191	393,069	479,639	341,985	160,331	229,845
Bus Service Contract Spend (per resident)	$258.21	$148.86	$138.58	$126.42	$143.68	$173.98	$106.15

Table 4 –Comparison of SEQ bus networks (as of June 2020)

Source: Derived from TMR, Profile ID & Rail Back on Track

^Service contract spends include both urban and school bus services

*Figure includes only services operated by Transport for Brisbane

** Figure does not include services operated by Transport for Brisbane

*** Figure does not include services operated by Surfside Buslines or Transport for Brisbane

It should also be noted that the Brisbane City Council, City of Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast Regional Council and Noosa Shire Council all contribute financially in some capacity to bus services.

As identified in Table 4, Ipswich (Western Region) has the smallest bus service contract spend by the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR), correlating with the lowest number of urban bus routes. In comparison, Redlands (Eastern Region) has a much smaller population but has higher bus service contract and almost double the number of urban bus routes (the spend specified in Table 3 for the Eastern Region, excludes services operated by Transport for Brisbane).

Whilst TransLink typically use ‘contract areas’ for comparison, rather than Local Government Areas (LGA), if the bus service contracts were divided into per capita spends, it works out that Ipswich has the lowest spend per capita in SEQ (refer to Table 4).

Since 2013, there has also been a net decrease in the number of routes within the Western Region (refer to Table 5 below). Whereas all other regions (excluding the Eastern Region) have experienced growth in the number of bus routes, particularly in Moreton Bay and the Gold Coast, aligning with other major public transport infrastructure projects such as the Redcliffe Peninsula Line and Stages 1 and 2 of the Gold Coast Light Rail.

Table 5 – Net Change in Urban Bus Routes (2013 to 2020) by TransLink Region

LGA	Number of Urban Bus Routes (2013)	Number of Urban Bus Routes (2020)	Net change (between 2013 & 2020)
Ipswich (Western Region)	19	18	-1
Redlands (Eastern Region)	36	35	-1
Sunshine Coast	27	30	+3
Logan (Southern Region)	42	47	+5
Gold Coast	50	56	+6
Moreton Bay (Northern Region)	37	48	+11

Sources: TMR & Rail Back on Track

It is acknowledged that the Western Region fairs favourably against other regions when it comes to peak frequencies. The Ipswich LGA has the highest percentage of bus services operating at 30-minute headways or better during the peak periods (refer to Figure 1). However, the key factor differentiating the Western Region and others is the lack of services (as identified in Figure 2 page over) and investment.

Detailed maps illustrating historic service frequencies can be found in Attachment 2 of this report.

Figure 1: Peak frequency type as % of all urban bus routes (2021)

Source: Derived from TMR data

Figure 2: Number of urban bus routes operating during peak (2021)

Source: Derived from TMR data

Network Expansion (2011 to Present)

Whilst population within the City of Ipswich has grown by 38% since 2011, expansion of the bus network has been very limited over this period. Over the last decade, the bus network has expanded to Ripley, South Ripley and Spring Mountain, with peak and off-peak services no greater than hourly in these locations (refer to Table 6 below).

Table 6 – Network Expansion within the Ipswich LGA since 2011

Route

Year of Implementation

Detail

Yamanto to Springfield Central, via Ripley

2019

Service implemented in January 2019. Service is jointly funded between Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) and TransLink.

Weekday Peak: Hourly

Weekday off-peak: Two Hourly

Saturday: No Service

Sunday: No Service

Spring Mountain Loop

2020

Service implemented in January 2020. Change made in conjunction with the introduction of the 527 & 528 (page over).

Weekday Peak: Hourly

Weekday off-peak: Hourly

Saturday: Two-hourly

Sunday: Two-hourly

Source: Derived from TMR data

Service Improvements (2011 to Present)

Over the last decade, only 8 bus routes in the City of Ipswich have experienced improvements to routing or frequency (refer to Table 7 below). Ten of the existing 18 bus routes have experienced no changes to frequency or coverage since 2011. Route 529 (Ipswich Central to Toogoolawah) has not experienced a substantial service improvement since at least 2008.

Table 7 – Service improvements since 2011 within the Ipswich LGA

Route	Year of Implementation	Detail
Tivoli to Booval Fair	2011	Route 514 replaces the previous 505 & 510 services in 2011. Terminus shifted from Booval Train Station to Booval Fair in 2013. No changes to frequency since 2011.
Ipswich Central to Goodna	2013	Reinstatement of half hourly peak frequency (weekday) in 2013. This is consistent with the peak frequency from 2005 (introduction of service) which was downgraded to hourly in 2010.
Ipswich Central to Leichhardt	2013	Absorbs previous 516 service (One Mile Loop). Improvement of off-peak frequency (weekday) from hourly to half-hourly in 2013 for 506.
Brassall to Riverlink	2013	Absorbs part of the discontinued 513 service (Woodend Loop). No changes to frequency.
Brassall to Yamanto/Willowbank	2013	Absorbs the discontinued 508 service (Yamanto to Willowbank). No changes to frequency.
Springfield Central to Goodna	2020	Replaces the discontinued 522 service. Frequencies remain consistent with previous 522 service.
Springfield Central to Springfield Station	2020	Replaces the discontinued 522 service, reducing travel time. Frequencies remain consistent with previous 522 service.
Yamanto to Springfield Central, via Ripley	2021	Two-hourly Saturday services were introduced in October 2021. Service is jointly funded between Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) and TransLink.

Source: Derived from TMR data

Figure 3 highlights the key events impacting the Western Bus Region since 2011. As identified in Figure 3, the last Major Service Change came in 2013 in the form of a whole of network review. Following the major network review, there was a long barren period of investment by the State Government, whereby the Western Bus Region did not receive a bus service change until 2019.

Figure 3 – Key events and service changes affecting the Western Bus Region (2011 to present)

Source: Derived from TMR data

FUTURE NETWORK EXPANSION

Action 2.1 of the iGO Public Transport Action Plan (iGO PTAAP) identifies the need for Council to advocate to the State Government to undertake a full bus network review, as outlined below:

“Council will advocate for and collaborate with the State Government to undertake a full network review in the short term to include:

· Early introduction of services to new development areas (full time services, as well as on demand services);

· Consideration of the existing and future land use patterns in Ipswich, including the planned role of major centres and designated infill and greenfield growth areas;

· A review of the existing declared bus service contract areas and expansion to include locations not currently serviced in the short and medium term;

· Increases in the frequency, span of operating hours and directness of bus routes;

· Modal access planning for rail stations and major bus stations;

· Consideration of movement of people within Ipswich, as well as on the regional network; and

· Consideration of logical next steps for the bus network’s continued development.”

TransLink have advised Council that there will be no new bus service changes in the 2021/22 financial year aside from minor changes to the 531 service (jointly funded by TransLink EDQ – refer to Table 6).

Whilst the bus network is in need of significant overhaul, it is unlikely that any wholesome changes will be made until at least the 2024/25 FY (subject to funding), once the State Government have completed a Transport and Mobility Study for the City of Ipswich. This particular study is a $400,000 election promise by the Labor Government and will be undertaken over two financial years (between 2022/23 & 2023/24). The study will be delivered by TMR’s Transport Strategy and Planning team which typically works in the 5 to 20 year planning horizon (i.e. medium to long term planning).

Although a commitment to review the medium to long term public transport network is supported by Council officers, there has been no such commitment by the State Government in the short term to make improvements to the existing bus network. TransLink officers have advised Council officers that any short-term expansion of the bus network in Ipswich will need to be cost-neutral or will need to be funded directly by Council.

Officers of Council and Translink have recently discussed and negotiated a priority list of projects, as part of TransLink’s 5-year service plan. However, these projects are subject to limited funding and are in competition with proposals from other LGAs. The challenge to fund new service changes within Ipswich is also made difficult by TransLink’s single year funding cycle and obligation to fund committed service changes (i.e. service changes with joint funding).

Given the difficulties with obtaining funding for new bus services, it is suggested that Council first consider the following points in the short term:

1. Re-focus Council’s engagement with the State Government

2. Explore opportunities to rationalise the bus network

If 1 and 2 do not achieve their intended outcomes by securing funding for Council’s expansion priority projects, it is suggested that Council consider the following:

3. Investigate alternative funding opportunities

Detail on points is outlined below.

Re-focus Council’s engagement with the State Government

Over the last 5 years, Council’s engagement with the State Government on improvements to the bus network has been limited to interactions between Council and TransLink at an officer level. Whilst TransLink and Council have a strong relationship at an officer level, this has not correlated with investment in new bus services.

Given the limited success in securing investment in new bus services, Council needs to reconsider its approach to engagement with the State Government. It is recommended that Council take a more coordinated approach with its engagement with the State Government, by maintaining its strong relationship at an officer level, but by also involving Council’s elected officials and positively involving members of the community who are passionate about seeing change.

The disconnect between the Ipswich community and TransLink was evident during the 2013 SEQ Bus Network Review, whereby only 12 responses were provided by members of the community. As identified in Table 8 (below), this is significantly lower than all other TransLink regions.

TransLink officers often mention that community feedback (through TransLink’s customer feedback webpage) is an important consideration for when they review funding submissions for potential bus service changes. Plainly, service changes are less likely to be considered required if they don’t have community feedback to support the change.

Table 8 – Number of community responses (by Region) as part of the 2013 SEQ Bus Network Review

Brisbane	Gold Coast	Sunshine Coast / Noosa	Moreton Bay (Northern)	Logan (Southern)	Redlands (Eastern)	Ipswich (Western)
1418	64	81	70	218	151	12

Source: Derived from TMR data

Recommendations A and B of this report outlines a two-stepped approach to engagement with the State Government.

· That a submission for citywide expansion of the bus network be prepared and considered as a Regionally Significant Project. This has the potential to achieve a more targeted and consistent approach to advocacy.

· That Councillors engage in the immediate term with the State Government on the two (2) identified priority expansion projects (which are detailed further on page 14 of this report).

Explore opportunities to rationalise the bus network

As previously mentioned, TransLink have stated that any short-term expansion of the bus network will need to be self-funded or cost neutral.

Whilst there are a number of cost-neutral opportunities that Council could consider, this approach will likely generate winners and losers as existing services may need to be altered or discontinued in order to fund other services that are deemed a higher priority. TransLink have also advised there is no guarantee that cost savings from a discontinued service will be reinvested back into Ipswich and that new proposals will need to go through the usual submission process and compete for funding against other proposals.

Given the risks associated with removing existing routes, it would be in Council’s best interest to work with TransLink to look at rationalising existing routes or reducing the frequency of existing routes with low patronage to generate cost savings for initiatives that are a higher priority.

Investigate alternative funding opportunities

Council have not previously explored this option, as public transport has historically been seen as a responsibility of the State Government. However, several Councils within SEQ are currently subsidising services within their jurisdiction. As of June 2021, Brisbane City Council, Sunshine Coast Council, Noosa Shire Council and City of Gold Coast were all subsidising public transport services in some capacity.

Table 9 – Public Transport subsidies (by Local Government entity)

Brisbane City Council

$144.8 Million (2021/22 Budget)¹

· $144.8 M towards subsidising public transport services

City of Gold Coast

$2.3 Million (2021/22 Budget)²

· $1.3 M towards free travel for seniors and veterans

· $1.3 M towards service improvements in Northern Gold Coast

Sunshine Coast Council

$0.32 Million (2019/20 Transport Levy Annual Report)³

· Funded through a Transport Levy

· $0.32 M was allocated towards bus service improvements in 19/20 FY

Noosa Shire Council

$0.20 - $0.30 Million(spend in 2020/21 FY)⁴

· Funded through a Sustainable Transport Levy

· Includes free Christmas and Easter holiday bus services and ‘Go Noosa’ loop bus

¹https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020-06/20200615-Annual-Plan-and-Budget.pdf

² https://new.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Council-region/Future-plans-budget/Annual-Plan-City-Budget/Annual-Plan

³https://d1j8a4bqwzee3.cloudfront.net/~/media/Corporate/Documents/Built%20Infrastructure/200181A_Transport%20Levy_201920_Annual%20Report_www%20final.pdf?la=en

⁴ https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/downloads/file/2277/2020-07-07-s-o-agenda-item-1-attachment-1-go-noosa-initiatives-evaluation

Action 4.2 of iGO PTAAP identifies the need for Council to investigate the feasibility of using alternative funding mechanisms to improve the public transport network within the city.

“Council will investigate the feasibility of alternative funding mechanisms for public transport improvements with guidance from the State Government, to demonstrate its commitment to better public transport in Ipswich. This could consider using a portion of Council’s parking

revenue for public transport improvements”

An opportunity to consider alternative funding avenues does lie within the City of Ipswich Parking Pricing Strategy, whereby a recommendation of the Report to the June 2020 General Purposes Committee was for Council officers to commence investigations into the alternative use of parking revenue for the purpose of sustainable transport initiatives (including public transport) but not prior to the 2021-2022 Financial Year.

Council could look to invest into an existing or new urban service operated by TransLink or alternatively Council could look to partner with an organisation such as West Moreton Health whom are part way through a 3-month trial of a free CBD Shuttle Bus (Figure 4 below). This is an initiative that Council could look to support and build upon using alternative funding mechanisms such as parking revenue.

This also aligns with iGO Action P12 which states the following:

“If required, open the Limestone Park car park to commuters and if feasible introduce a shuttle bus between the park and the Ipswich City Centre (possibility in conjunction with the Ipswich Hospital bus)”

Figure 4 – West Moreton Health CBD Shuttle Bus (August 2021)

COUNCIL’s EXPANSION PRIORITIES

Whilst there are many parts of Ipswich (such as Deebing Heights, Karalee, parts of the Ripley Valley and Collingwood Park) that are without an adequate public transport option, Council’s two biggest expansion priorities are as follows:

1. An expansion of the bus network within Redbank Plains (south of Redbank Plains Road)

2. A trunk bus connection between Ipswich Central and Springfield Central

These two (2) ‘expansion’ priorities have scored the highest on TransLink and Council’s priority list of projects and should be the focus of Council’s short-term engagement with the State Government.

Bus network expansion within Redbank Plains

One of the priorities within the Queensland Government’s Draft 10 Year Plan for Queensland Passenger Transport is that passenger transport is “responsive to changing community needs”.

Redbank Plains is in need of enhanced public transport services given its lack of existing public transport coverage (unchanged since 2010) and rapidly growing population. The residential population within Redbank Plains has risen from approximately 15,375 in 2011, to approximately 24,166 in 2020 (ABS Estimated Resident Population), an increase of 57% over the last decade. Figure 6 (page over) visualises some of the expansion experienced within Redbank Plains since 2010.

iGO PTAAP also identifies Redbank Plains as a suburb with a population that has a higher proportion of ‘reliant/captive’ public transport users and socio-economic disadvantage.

The expansion of the bus network within Redbank Plains has been listed as a ‘high priority’ project by both Council and TransLink and is identified in TransLink’s 5-year Public Transport Service Plan. This priority was put up at the last service change submission process (for the 21/22 FY) by TransLink and was unsuccessful in securing funding.

Figure 5 – Residential expansion in Redbank Plains since 2010

A trunk bus connection between Ipswich Central and Springfield Central

There is currently no single seat public transport connection between the city’s two (2) Principal Regional Activity Centres, Ipswich Central and Springfield Central. To make this journey currently, there are following travel options:

· Car travel (approximate travel time of 25-30 minutes - outside of the peak hours)

· Train travel with an interchange at Darra Station (minimum travel time of 47 minutes)

· Bus travel (travel time between 1-2 hours depending on connections and time of day)

o via Yamanto (515 & 531)

o via Goodna (500 & 527)

o via Redbank Plaza (500 & 526)

Figure 6 – Current journey times (off peak) between Ipswich Central (Bell Street) and Springfield Central Station

Not to be confused with the Ipswich to Springfield Public Transport Corridor Study (I2S Corridor), iGO identifies a corridor between Ipswich Central and Springfield Central via Redbank Plains as a ‘high frequency bus service connection’. This connection (refer to Figure 8 page over) is also identified within the South East Queensland Regional Transport Plan as a ‘frequent bus link’ and partly as a ‘bus priority corridor’.

A new trunk bus connection between Ipswich Central and Springfield Central has been listed as a ‘high priority’ project by both Council and TransLink and is identified in TransLink’s 5-year Public Transport Service Plan. Such a connection would achieve the following:

· Stronger linkage between the City’s Principal Regional Activity Centres – including greater access to employment and services

· A single seat journey - customers would no longer need to interchange or cross a Translink fare zone

· Reduced carbon emissions and traffic congestion – potential reduction of the number of vehicles on the road

· Travel time savings - compared to existing public transport alternatives

· More travel choices - a new direct service would provide a viable travel alternative to the car

Figure 7 – Indicative Trunk Bus Corridor between Ipswich Central and Springfield Central, in comparison to current public transport offerings

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Not Applicable

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

If future investment in the bus network from the State Government is not forthcoming, bus patronage in Ipswich may continue to decrease. On the current trajectory whereby investment in the bus network has not kept up with residential growth, the public transport mode share within Ipswich will continue to decline, shifting further away from the 11% mode share target identified in iGO.

The risk of not servicing growth areas with public transport options is that these communities establish habits/patterns of car usage, which is difficult to break once established, leading to greater congestion on roads, pollution as well as various social-economic issues.

Of the considerations outlined previously, TransLink/TMR may be cautious about supporting cost neutral projects due to the potential for community backlash. Removing services or decreasing the frequency of existing bus services to fund ‘higher priority’ bus services generates winners and losers, which may not be supported politically by the State Government.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS
OTHER DECISION

(a) What is the Act/Decision being made?	Recommendation A states that a submission for citywide expansion of the bus network be prepared and considered as a potential Regionally Significant Project. Recommendation B states that the Councillors meet with State MPs to discuss new bus services in Redbank Plains, as well as for a new direct bus service linking Ipswich Central and Springfield Central. Recommendation C states Council officers work with the State Government to rationalise the existing bus network to achieve net benefits. Recommendation D states if funding from the State Government is not secured for Council’s two (2) expansion priority projects (identified in Recommendation B) by the end of 2022/23 financial year, that Council officers commence investigations into alternative funding options to subsidise the cost of these service changes and prepare a report for Council’s consideration.
(b) What human rights are affected?	No. The proposed decisions are at a high level and so there is no immediate impact on human rights.
(c) How are the human rights limited?	Not applicable
(d) Is there a good reason for limiting the relevant rights? Is the limitation fair and reasonable?	Not applicable
(e) Conclusion	The decision is consistent with human rights.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The report has outlined three (3) considerations for Council moving forward, all of which have no immediate financial implications to Council.

The option to investigate alternative funding opportunities may have future financial implications if supported by Council, however any decision on this would be subject to an additional report for Council’s consideration.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

There were no internal/external consultation activities associated with the development of this report. However, it is the intention of this report for the broader community to have a greater say and influence on the Ipswich bus network as part of Council’s advocacy works in line with the recommendations of this report.

Conclusion

The expansion of the bus network within Ipswich has not kept up with the population growth experienced within the city, with the number of bus routes and bus patronage lower than what it was a decade ago. Investment by TransLink within the Western Bus Region is significantly less than other regions within SEQ.

There are challenges and difficulties of obtaining funding by TransLink for new services and therefore Council may consider several approaches regarding the Western Bus Region, including a change in how Council engages with the State Government, exploring cost-neutral opportunities and alternative funding opportunities.

Council officers have identified two (2) priority projects which is suggested to be the focus of Council’s short-term advocacy works, and investment decision making.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Bus Service Changes (2005 to 2021) ⇩
2.	Historic Bus Service Frequency Maps ⇩

James MacArthur

Transport Planner (Transport Planning)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Mary Torres

Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Tony Dileo

Manager, Infrastructure Strategy

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Sean Madigan

Acting General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 February

2022

Doc ID No: A7600192

ITEM: 3

SUBJECT: iGO Annual Report Card 2020 - 2021

AUTHOR: Senior Transport Planner

DATE: 20 January 2022

Executive Summary

This is a report outlining the results of the 2020 - 2021 Annual Report Card for the delivery of the City of Ipswich Transport Plan (iGO). The report provides an overview of the status of iGO related projects and transport trends being experienced in Ipswich. While many iGO projects have been delivered in the financial year, the impact of continued high population growth, the COVID-19 pandemic and changing travel demands has resulted in a need to undertake a major review of iGO, to address the associated challenges and opportunities, and readjust Council’s strategic transport direction for Ipswich.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

RELATED PARTIES

There was no declaration of conflicts of interest.

There are no related parties

ifuture Theme

Vibrant and Growing

Purpose of Report/Background

Background

At its Ordinary Meeting on 24 May 2016, Council formally adopted the City of Ipswich Transport Plan (iGO) as its master plan to shape Ipswich’s transport future [refer Item 4 tabled at the City Infrastructure and Emergency Management Committee Meeting No. 2016(02)]. The document is now being used to:

(i) GUIDE transport related policy, planning, investment and resourcing decisions;

(ii) ADVOCATE for funding from higher levels of government for transport initiatives; and

(iii) PROMOTE travel choices and a sustainable and healthy transport culture.

The Delivery Chapter within iGO lists a number of methods that will be used to evaluate the delivery of iGO. ‘Monitoring’ is one of these methods and will be used to track progress towards achieving the iGO vision, objectives, mode share targets, policy focus areas and actions (refer to page 166 of iGO).

One of iGO’s monitoring processes is outlined in Action D10 (Table 38, Page 167 of iGO) which states the following: “Produce an iGO Annual Report Card that provides a snapshot of the achievements of delivering iGO over the previous year and the key actions for the next year.” From here, planning, funding, infrastructure and service delivery priorities can be informed and guided. This report relates to the 2020-2021 Annual Report Card for the delivery of iGO.

2020-2021 Annual Report Card Results

iGO Project Deliverables

From July 2020 to June 2021 a number of actions from iGO have been completed or progressed and are outlined in Attachment 1.

Some of the key projects include:

- Ipswich City Centre Second Bremer River Crossing Business Case – Infrastructure Australia Stage 1 Submission;

- iGO Freight Action Plan;

- 1 Nicholas Street Green Workplace Travel Plan;

- Sydney Street/ Albion Street, Brassall Road Upgrade Corridor Plan;

- Detailed design of Redbank Plains Road Upgrade Stage 3;

- Detailed design of the Springfield Parkway and Springfield Greenbank Arterial Duplication Stage 1 (Centenary Highway to Eden Station Drive);

- Detailed design of Eastern Ipswich Link Bikeway Stage 1;

- Construction of the re-alignment of Marsden Parade;

- Construction of Robertson Road/ Grange Road Intersection Upgrade;

- Construction of Brassall Bikeway Stage 5;

- Construction of Springfield Parkway Shared Path (Logan Rd to Topaz Rd); and

- Participation in the Lexus Australia Cooperative Intelligant Transport Systems Trial and the DTMR Cooperative and Automated Vehicle Initiative.

There have also been ongoing data collection and modelling activities (including commencement of the development of a new multi-modal Ipswich Strategic Transport Model and Ipswich City Centre Transport Model), development of transport infrastructure priority lists and investment plans, promotional activites covering cycling and road safety and various advocacy efforts for infrastructure funding.

Further, Attachment 1 is not an extensive list of all iGO Actions which have been progressed during the identified period. The Infrastructure Strategy Branch also regularly undertake ‘business as usual’ activities such as providing technical advice on development applications and Department of Transport and Main Roads’ (DTMR) projects. This advice is guided by the intent and direction provided in iGO. There are also other Council programs and projects which are working towards the implementation of iGO actions but are considered too minor in nature to report on (e.g. pedestrian kerb ramp upgrades) or are associated with other Council project areas which have their own reporting.

Future iGO Project Deliverables

Key iGO projects to be completed or commenced in the 2021 - 2022 financial year include:

· Completion of the Keidges Road Upgrade Corridor Plan;

· Completion of the Ripley Road and Rief Street Intersection Options Assessment and Concept Plans;

· Completion of the Eastern Ipswich Link Bikeway Stage 3 and 4 Corridor Plan;

· Completion of the new multi-modal Ipswich Strategic Transport Model;

· Completion of the new multi-modal Ipswich City Centre Transport Model;

· Completion of the transport components of the Local Government Infrastructure Plan;

· Completion of the School Road Upgrade Preliminary Design;

· Completion of the Eastern Ipswich Link Bikeway Stage 2/ Queen Victoria Parade Service Road Bikeway Detailed Design;

· Commencement of the iGO Parking Strategy;

· Commencement of the Local Area Traffic Management Implementation Plan;

· Commencement of the development of a new Road Hierarchy for Ipswich and new Transport and Parking Code within the new Ipswich Planning Scheme;

· Commencement of the Mt Juillerat Drive Road Upgrade Corridor Plan;

· Continuation of Brassall Bikeway Stage 6A and 6B Detailed Design;

· Continued construction of Redbank Plains Road Upgrade Stage 3 (multi-year project);

· Continued construction of the Springfield Parkway and Springfield Greenbank Arterial Duplication (multi-year project); and

· Construction of Eastern Ipswich Link Bikeway Stage 1.

Queensland Household Travel Survey Results

During the 2020-2021 financial year, combined Queensland Household Travel Survey (HTS) 2017-2020 (pre-COVID) data became available, providing valuable insight into how people in Ipswich were travelling compared to nearby Local Government Areas (LGA’s) and Ipswich’s progress towards achieving the iGO mode share targets.

Of note;

· The Queensland HTS is undertaken annually by the Queensland Government Department of Transport and Main Roads. HTS data is collected across eight (8) major LGA’s in the south-east of Queensland, including Ipswich;

· The HTS data has a small sample size (i.e. 1,747 households in the Ipswich LGA between 2017 and 2020) and does not cover the full population;

· Sample sizes may change from year to year depending on a number of factors such as available funding, response rates etc.;

· Changes in sample size and targeted groups would result in minor changes to mode share between individual years, but these small changes would not necessarily mean that certain modes performed better in that year; and

· This data does not include the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on transport trends, which is briefly discussed in the next section.

Table 1: 2017-2020 Household Travel Survey Data Comparison with nearby LGA’s

LGA	Private Vehicle	Public Transport	Walk/Cycle	Estimated Total Daily Trips (2019)
Brisbane (C)	77.6%	9.2%	13.2%	3,709,326
Gold Coast (C)	86.5%	3.7%	9.8%	1,740,328
Logan (C)	88.8%	4.9%	6.3%	845,073
Moreton Bay (R)	86.3%	4.8%	8.9%	1,265,502
Redland (C)	87%	5.5%	7.5%	376,240
Ipswich (C)	88.2%	5.2%	6.6%	596,652

Table 2: 2017-2020 Ipswich Household Travel Survey Comparison with iGO Mode Share Targets

	Private Vehicle	Public Transport	Walk/ Cycle	Population	Estimated Total Daily Trips
Ipswich	88.2%	5.2%	6.6%	221,990ppl	596,652
iGO Mode Share Target	75%	11%	14%	435,000ppl	1,500,000

As can be seen from Table 1, the use of private vehicle travel (either as a driver or a passenger) remains the most popular mode choice, with Ipswich’s private vehicle mode share currently trending on par with many of our neighbouring LGA’s. Ipswich’s public transport mode share is also seemingly on par with neighbouring LGA’s. However, this statistic does not reflect the overall long term downwards trend in Ipswich’s public transport mode share from 6.3% in 2011 to 5.2% average between 2017-2020 or the long term decline in Ipswich bus routes and bus investment in the LGA. Interestingly, there is greater differentiation evidenced between LGA’s in terms of the uptake of active travel modes such as walking and cycling. It demonstrates various local governments levels of success in funding and encouraging this form of transport.

As can also be seen in Table 2, Ipswich’s mode shares are still significantly out of sync with the desired mode shares outlined in iGO. This trend raises major concerns for how Ipswich develops as a sustainable city as there is an increasing likelihood that parts of our regional and local road network will suffer signicant congestion and delays as the population within the Ipswich LGA continues to grow, despite the current funding and resourcing being directed to transport infrastructure projects for all mode types.

Of note however, the above statistics and trends and iGO mode share targets do not include the flow on effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated impacts on travel demands, trends and the potential transport opportunities.

The COVID-19 Transport Impact

In early 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic spread and the resulting Federal and State Government health directives took effect, the transport trends in Queensland started to change (refer to Attachment 2). With international borders closed and lockdowns in place, it initially saw to a significant reduction in net overseas migration, in total population growth and in total trips on the transport network, with many businesses either unable to operate or where possible, transitioning their workforce to working from home or providing more flexible working hours. Peak hour congestion and patronage on public transport dropped exponentially, while participation in active travel (mainly cycling) and e-scooter use increased. The importance of the freight supply chain network was also highlighted as online trade sales and at-home deliveries increased.

However, as restrictions lifted and people began returning to workplaces, private vehicle traffic congestion worsened as people who had a choice continued to stay away from public transport due to social distancing concerns and the availability of free parking schemes in various CBDs aimed at attracting people back to workplaces and city businesses. Indeed, in February 2021, congestion on the road network in Brisbane was recorded as being higher than the levels in the same periods in 2019 and 2020 (Kolenbet 2021, IPWEAQ Conference). Nevertheless, as public confidence in Queensland’s pandemic response increased and exposure sites and case numbers were kept low through the majority of 2021, a gradual return to public transport was experienced, though not returning to pre COVID-19 levels. However, at each point during subsequent COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown events, a significant drop in public transport usage and return to increased working from home hours was also experienced.

Overall however, business models have changed, now including a greater acceptance of working from home (at least one or two days a week) and more flexible start and finish times adopted. This, in addition to the continued popularity in active travel and e-scooters, has positive benefits on the transport network by managing peak hour travel demands on the road network or by using a more sustainable form of transport. The challenge will be to ensure these positive transport trends are supported as the pandemic continues to evolve and that confidence in the public transport network is restored over time. These strategies will be key to helping to manage the Ipswich communities future travel demands and transport infrastructure needs in a sustainable manner.

Review of iGO

Transport planning is an evidence-based process to identify current and future access needs – for people, places, goods and services – and inform decision makers on ways to manage the transport system and landuse to best address these needs. It aims to do this in a way that sustains economic growth, conserves the environment and supports the quality of life of current and future generations.

Council is strongly committed to the development and management of a safe and reliable transport system in Ipswich which provides for the sustainable movement of people and goods for all travel modes. The development and management of an Integrated Transport Plan for Ipswich which addresses the city’s short and longer-term transport challenges, working to a shared vision of what the city aspires to be in the future and coordinating policy, resourcing and investment decisions to achieve that vision is considered vital.

iGO, Council’s current Integrated Transport Plan, is now over five years old and Ipswich has experienced much change in this time in population growth and due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is therefore prudent for a major review of the document to be undertaken. iGO is scheduled to commence its first major review in the 2022-2023 financial year and a business case for operational funding to undertake this work has been developed for Councils consideration.

Key objectives of the major review will be to:

o Assess Council’s progress towards achieving the iGO first edition vision, objectives, mode share targets and actions;

o Assess the overall effectiveness of the document in positively influencing Council’s transport planning activities, transport related capital delivery and Ipswich resident’s/ visitors travel behaviours;

o Identify and consider any ‘lessons learnt’ from the development and implementation of the first edition of iGO;

o Re-asses the short to longer term opportunities and challenges facing Ipswich and its future development as a city, including such things as revised population growth targets, recent transport and technology trends, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games announcement on the Ipswich transport network;

o Respond to further planning work undertaken by Council, State and Federal Governments, new technical documents, guidelines and standards, legislative changes and data availability;

o Review and refine the transport analysis and modelling that the first edition of iGO is based upon, giving due regard to the work being undertaken for the Local Government Infrastructure Plan;

o Review and refine the structure of iGO and its subordinate Network Action Plans, Operational Strategies and Implementation Plans/ Guidelines;

o Align with and contribute towards the vision, themes and strategic outcomes of Council’s Corporate Plan – iFuture;

o Adjust transport policy direction, targets, priorities and actions where required by giving due regard to the outcomes of the above objectives and Council’s responsibility to provide transport infrastructure to support its population growth in line with its resourcing capabilities and financial sustainability objectives; and

o Continue to further develop the monitoring and performance measures for iGO to ensure its robustness as a document and to assist in determining the document’s future success or failure.

This major review is likely to take two financial years to complete and will incorporate the development of a Project Advisory Group, background research papers, transport modelling, an extensive community consultation process and Councillor Workshop sessions in order to reassess and redefine Council’s transport vision and targets for the community.

Legal/Policy Basis

Not Applicable

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Council officers are continuing to deliver the strategies, plans, designs and undertake the promotional and advocacy activities which have been set out in iGO, as well as delivering new and upgraded transport infrastructure for the people of Ipswich. Where possible, new transport related technologies and trends are also being embraced (as evidenced in the endorsed iGO Intelligent Transport Systems Strategy and more recently, the endorsement of an e-scooter trial). All of these activites are contributing towards the delivery of the iGO vision and ultimately a more sustainable city.

However, while iGO is a substantial and thorough piece of policy work that provides a good foundation for sustainable transport guidance in Ipswich, there is a risk to Council in not understanding and appropriately planning for the more recent changes in travel demands, population growth projections and the associated challenges and opportunities for Ipswich. There is a risk of Council’s transport policies being dated, out of touch with the community and their required infrastructure needs, out of alignment with Council’s corporate strategic direction and financial sustainability objectives and presents missed opportunities in terms of economic and business prospects for evolving transport related technologies, trends and events.

Ultimately, as the years continue to progress without reassessing and adjusting Council’s strategic transport direction and planning, Council would trend further and further away from delivering the transport infrastructure that is needed to meet population growth, travel demands and Council’s quality of life objectives for its residents, businesses and visitors.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS

RECEIVE AND NOTE REPORT

The Recommendation states that the report be received and the contents noted. The decision to receive and note the report does not limit human rights. Therefore, the decision is compatible with human rights.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The high order preliminary capital cost of delivering iGO is estimated as $2-3 billion ($2016), of which Council’s expenditure estimate is $1-1.5 billion ($2016) (Page 163 of iGO).

Council spent approximately $20m on traffic and transport related projects in the Capital Works Program in the 2020-2021 financial year (including grant funding and excluding maintenance and rehabilitation projects), with a majority proportion of this spent on road based infrastructure. This investment level is on par with last year’s $21 million. Regardless, the Ipswich community demand for various modes of new or upgraded transport related infrastructure remains very high and continues to grow as fast as the population does. However, Council’s delivery resourcing capabilities and transport investment appears to remain relatively static with a focus primarily on road-based infrastructure and private vehicle travel. Hence there is an ever-growing divide between what transport infrastructure is needed to support Ipswich’s growing population and what Council is actually physically able to deliver and afford.

This growing divide needs to be formally acknowledged in the community and alternative strategies put in place to mitigate the impacts where possible. Revising the strategic direction of iGO and taking advantage as much as possible of the positive transport impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are a key component of this. Further, increased investment and delivery capacity of Council staff is required, as well as continued political and stakeholder support from internal and external parties, particularly for larger transport investment projects which require funding assistance from Federal and State governments to deliver.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

No community or stakeholder consultation was conducted as part of the development of this report card.

Conclusion

From July 2020 to June 2021 a number of actions from iGO – The City of Ipswich Transport Plan have been completed or progressed. Despite this, recent combined data provided by the 2017-2020 Queensland Household Travel Survey is indicating the continued popularity of the use of private vehicle travel in the Ipswich LGA at 88.2%, which is comparitive to neighbouring LGA’s but is diverging further away from the iGO private vehicle mode share target of 75%. This trend raises major concerns that our regional and local road network in parts may suffer signicant congestion and delays as the population within the Ipswich LGA continues to grow. This is because it is unlikely that Council or the State government will be able to afford the required road infrastructure investment at the time it is needed or that continued investment in road projects alone will address this issue.

With the recent changes in travel demands and trends due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an opportunity for Council to reassess and adjust the strategic transport direction of Council to take advantage of new opportunities, align better with Ipswich community expectations and Council’s new corporate strategic direction and financial sustainability objectives.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	iGO Project Status 2020-2021 ⇩
2.	2021 AITPM National Conference Presentation - TMR COVID-19 Presentation Excerpts ⇩

Jessica Cartlidge

Senior Transport Planner

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Mary Torres

Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Tony Dileo

Manager, Infrastructure Strategy

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Sean Madigan

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Growth Infrastructure and Waste Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 February

2022

Doc ID No: A7796022

ITEM: 5

SUBJECT: Infrastructure and Environment Department Capital Delivery Report December 2021

AUTHOR: Manager, Capital Program Delivery

DATE: 9 December 2021

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the performance of the capital delivery by the Infrastructure and Environment Department for the month of December 2021.

Recommendation/s

That the report be received and the contents noted.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no known conflicts of interest in relation to this report

ifuture Theme

Vibrant and Growing

Purpose of Report/Background

Summary

The result for the month of December was well short of the budget, with a financial outcome of $4.94 mil of actual expenditure versus a budget of $8.63 mil. This represents a YTD result of $37.1 mil expenditure versus a budget of $43.5 mil, a negative variance of 13.9%.

Although the financial variance has increased, the program schedule shows recovery of variance from late February to end of FY.

A significant portion of the December shortfall in expenditure against budget is again attributable to the phasing of the Whitwood Rd rehabilitation works. The re-phased works also didn’t meet the anticipated scheduled spend of $422k in December as forecast.

Monthly Program Variances Greater than $100k (Budget vs Actual)

Asset Rehabilitation was $3.84m under budget for the month. There were two projects that did not meet budget projections across this program of work, which were Whitwood Road project with $1.61mil budget vs actuals of $21k and the Gravel Resheeting program with $191k budget vs actuals of $15k, these projects were delayed due to recent wet weather.

These were partially offset by increased spends across the resurfacing program, Redbank Plains Recreational Reserve Lighting and South Station Rd rehabilitation projects with increased outputs heading into the Christmas Closedown period.

As mentioned above and in previous reports, the current phasing of the Whitwood Rd landfill rehabilitation project is out of alignment with the original budget baseline. Due to recent wet weather the project is now retargeted to be completed in June 2022, with a revised expenditure now in the order of $6.6mil down from $6.95mil reported last month.

Parks, Sport & Environment was $34k over budget for the month of December.

Overspend for the month partially a result of advanced works undertaken on Denmark Hill Upgrade project and advanced design progress on the Suttons Park Skate project.

There is also a small quantity of Natural Environment Stormwater projects that were overspent at a value of $115k that were offset by underspends across the program.

Transport & Traffic was $317k under budget largely due to the Springfield Greenbank Arterial Stage 3 delay with service relocation works. Queen & Albert St intersection project has been re-phased with NBN service relocation scheduled to commence shortly and main construction works scheduled to commence in April. Due to timing this project will now be completed in FY 2022-23, with $850k requested in budget submission.

Redbank Plains Stage 3 had an overspend of $164k for relocation works that were brought forward.

There were also several overspends recorded against projects in both design and delivery phases for Norman St Bridge concept development, Pine Mountain Rd Road Safety design, Eastern Ipswich Bikeway delivery and a few minor Traffic Signal works.

The Bus Stop program (PTAIP funded) was $116k ahead of plan with works brought forward and are progressing well.

Fleet was $49k under budget baseline for the month of December. This was the balance of an overspend with Minor Plant replacement and the underspend for non-delivery of passenger vehicles, which has been an issue experienced with the supply chain for some time. Further vehicles are scheduled to be delivered in January.

Other fleet purchases and revised delivery timelines will be assessed and reported through the next Budget Amendment.

Summary

Capital Expenditure for the full year is now forecasting to be approximately 2% above the approved budget, which is down from a forecast of 5% over last month. This however will be further scrutinised as part of the current BAV1 submission, currently being finalised.

Major Projects

Springfield Parkway & Springfield-Greenbank Arterial Road Upgrade

Expenditure for the combined projects in December was $440k down on budget expectations ($1.01mil vs $562k actuals), with wet weather impacting the works more than other sites.

Major milestone was achieved with the bridge beams placed on the Opossum Creek Bridge.

Earthworks are 95% complete with the balance to be completed following the remaining bridge and culvert works. The bridge piles and abutments are complete, and the walkway slabs are manufactured.

The relocation works for Energex and Telstra services are progressing well with completion of these items scheduled for late January. UU water main are 90% complete and are currently on schedule.

Redbank Plains Rd Stage 3

Expenditure for the project in December was above budget expectations, due to rephasing of service relocations and the incurred expenditure of $164k from these.

Telstra have continued their service relocation works with works completion now expected in February, due to Covid affecting the Contractor undertaking the work.

Energex Overhead works from Highbury Drive to Kruger Parade remains 90% complete and will be completed following scheduled stormwater relocations, during the main contract period.

The Principal Contractor has been engaged with work to commence in early 2022. It should be noted that the industry is experiencing delays with the lead time required for the supply of reinforced concrete pipes. It is likely this will impact Redbank Plains Rd and potentially delay the commencement of works.

Resurfacing Program

Expenditure on the re-surfacing program was $554k below budget baseline for the month of December. Actuals of $735k vs Budget of $1.289mil.

Despite the recent wet weather, the full program remains anticipated to be completed within the financial year, due to current acceleration of works.

The acceleration of works since November has placed the program ahead of schedule, with $1.36mil ahead of YTD budget baseline. (YTD Budget $4.012mil vs YTD Actual $5.375mil)

Grant Funding

Two projects were completed in December with external grant funding commitments:

· Eastern Ipswich BW 19 (CNLGGP)

· Hill St Cyprus St TI 20 (Blackspot)

PTAIP Bus Stop Program - projects are progressing in the design phase, with some sites handed over to the Construction Team, with the first Bus Stop at Riverview being completed in December.

The remainder are being delivered before the end of FY, in line with the agreed funding completion date of June 2022.

Grant Projects Scheduled for delivery this FY (includes Multi-year Funding)

NOTE: Below table includes reporting on capital construction projects only – it does not include Design Only or OPEX projects

Name	Suburb	Estimate	Funding	Completion Date (Completed)
LRCIP Round 2 (Local Roads & Community Infrastructure Program)
Laurel St KR 20	Redbank Plains	$663,702	$241,721	27/08/2021
Mount Crosby Rd FR 21	Tivoli	$306,058	$146,439	8/09/2021
South Station Rd LR 20	Raceview	$1,029,395	$450,000	28/01/2022
Trevor St Remedial Works	Bellbird Park	$3,214,754	$2,900,000	19/11/2021
North Station Rd Ret Wall 18	North Booval	$3,780,603	$1,095,000	31/08/2021
Tivoli SC Baseball F 21	Tivoli	$109,000	$150,000	15/10/21
URCSP (Unite and Recover Community Stimulus Package)
Sutton Park Skate 19	Brassall	$816,822	$1,230,000	27/04/2022
PTAIP (Passenger Transport Accessible Infrastructure Program)
PTAIP BU 21 – Bus Stops x 22	Various	$1,335,000	$831,825	19/05/2022
CNLGGP (Cycle Network Local Government Grants Program)
Eastern Ipswich BW 19	Ipswich	$1,050,826	$275,000	21/01/2022

Blackspot
Old Logan Rd & Addison Rd TL 19	Camira	$696,340	$459,220	10/09/2021
Hill St Cyprus St TI 20	North Ipswich	$121,379	$121,500	10/12/2021
Brisbane Rd Esther St TL 22	Riverview	$111,724	$112,000	30/11/2021
Cemetery Rd Whitehill Rd TL 22	Raceview	$125,338	$126,000	30/11/2021
LERP (Local Economic Recovery Program)
Hardings Paddock L 20	Purga	$418,000	$340,000	11/04/2022
Fire Station 101	Ipswich	$284,357	$58,540	9/08/2021
TIDS (Transport Infrastructure Development Scheme)
Redbank Plains Stage 3	Redbank Plains / Bellbird Park	7,415,000	705,446	29/06/23
R2R (Roads to Recovery)
Springfield Greenbank Arterial	Springfield / Springfield Central / Springfield Lakes	21,014,554	2,327,860	23/06/23
SEQCSP (South East Queensland Community Stimulus Program)
Rosewood RRC Major Upgrade	Rosewood	$4,500,000	$4,500,000	30/03/2024
Riverview RRC Upgrade Stage 1	Riverview	$2,170,000	$2,170,000	30/06/2023

Multi-year Funded Grant Projects

· Rosewood RRC Major Upgrade

· Riverview RRC Upgrade Stage 1

Master Schedule Delivery Milestones for December

Milestone	December Baseline	December Actual	Actuals Year to date
Practical Completion	9	6	32

As at end of December, the current project completion status shows 32 projects have reached practical completion from a total of 101 projects scheduled for delivery this FY.

Master Schedule Baseline Deliverables for 21-22 FY

Baseline Deliverables	Count of Projects

Design
Concept Design	25
Detailed Design	41
Construction
(IFC yet to Complete)	26
(IFC completed)	75
Multiyear Construction	11
Programs	37

The progress of projects to have design completed and issued for delivery this FY, is well ahead from the same time last FY with 75% of projects now issued to the construction teams.

The data shown above for Concept Design & Detailed Design includes forward design efforts for project delivery in the 22-23 FY which is also progressing well.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Local Government Act 2009

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The Infrastructure and Environment Department has a departmental risk register that includes delivery of the capital program. The leadership team of the department continues to monitor our risk in relation to this and takes mitigation action where necessary.

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS

RECEIVE AND NOTE REPORT

The recommendation tates that the report be received and the contents noted. The decision to receive and note the report does not limit human rights. Therefore, the decision is compatible with human rights.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The Infrastructure and Environment Department remains on target to meet the 2021-2022 capital budget.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

No community consultation was required in relation to this report.

The Stakeholder Management Branch of the Infrastructure and Environment Department engages extensively with the community impacted by our works to ensure that they are informed in advance of works, communicated with during works and ensure that any issues that arise are managed effectively.

Conclusion

The Infrastructure and Environment Department is committed to delivering high quality infrastructure for the community and has done so successfully for the month of December.