Report No. 42, October 1997 A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

A RE-EVALUATION OF THE SOUTH EAST TRANSIT PROJECT

Report No. 42 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

MEMBERS

Mr Len Stephan MLA (Chairman) Member for Gympie

Mr Bill D’Arcy MLA (Deputy Chairman) Member for Woodridge

Mr Graham Healy MLA Member for Toowoomba North

Mr Pat Purcell MLA Member for Bulimba

Mr Ted Radke MLA Member for Greenslopes

Hon Geoff Smith MLA Member for

SECRETARIAT

Mr Les Dunn Research Director

Ms Alison Wishart Research Officer

Ms Maureen Barnes Executive Assistant CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE ...... i

INTRODUCTION...... 1

THE COMMITTEE ...... 1

SCOPE OF INQUIRY...... 2

THE RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT ...... 3

RECOMMENDATIONS 1 & 7 — EVALUATION ...... 4

RECOMMENDATION 2...... 5

RECOMMENDATION 3...... 6

RECOMMENDATION 4...... 8

RECOMMENDATION 5...... 8

RECOMMENDATION 6...... 9

RECOMMENDATION 8...... 10

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT ...... 10

OPTION 2 THROUGH SOUTH BANK ...... 11

CONCLUSION ...... 11

APPENDIX A — CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS...... 13

APPENDIX B — LIST OF SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED...... 14

APPENDIX C — LIST OF WITNESSES...... 16

APPENDIX D — CONSULTANTS’ REPORTS...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Preface A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

PREFACE

At the moment, transport planners have a great opportunity to establish a popular, effective and efficient public transport system in south east Queensland. The money and the will to develop public transport currently exists. The committee believes an efficient public transport system is necessary for the future economic development of the area.

Part of Queensland Transport’s approach to upgrade the public transport system is a 75km busway network throughout Brisbane. The South East Transit Project which will form part of the network includes a $200 million busway and $300 million of HOV lanes along the South East Freeway transport corridor.

In its initial report on the SET project the committee suggested that, before large investment is made in the South East Transit Project, Queensland Transport improve the efficiency of the existing public transport system. While it acknowledges that much is being done to improve the existing system, the committee believes that many of its comments in its original report are still relevant. The committee believes there is significant room for improvement in the current system.

This report contains no recommendations. However, the committee acknowledges that it has received additional information which shows that more is happening to improve public transport than it originally knew of. This is a welcome move and has the committee’s full support.

The committee appreciates the effort involved in preparing submissions and thanks all those who participated in the inquiry. The committee would particularly like to thank those Queensland Transport officers who have put so much time and effort into the inquiry. Thanks also to the committee staff for their efforts.

Len Stephan MLA Chairman

(i) Introduction A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

INTRODUCTION

THE COMMITTEE

1. The Parliamentary Committees Act 1995 (Qld) establishes the Public Works Committee. It consists of six members of the Legislative Assembly. Both the government and the opposition nominate three members. The chairperson must be a government member and has a casting vote if the votes are equal (s. 4A.(1)). The all-party committee adopts a non-partisan approach to its inquiries.

2. The committee’s role is to scrutinise the government’s capital works program. This can occur at any stage from planning to completion. The committee may determine to conduct a particular inquiry, or the Legislative Assembly may refer specific works for investigation. Amendments contained in the Parliamentary Committees Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Qld) allow the committee to consider major works conducted by Government-Owned Corporations (GOCs) (s. 20(1)(b)).

3. The committee considers a variety of matters when conducting its inquiries, many of which also form the basis of its decisions to inquire into particular areas or projects. The committee endeavours to review projects from as wide a selection of departments and other constructing authorities as is practicable, in a variety of locations throughout Queensland, of differing cost and scale, and at various stages of their implementation.

4. When investigating a work, the committee may consider: · the stated purpose of the work and the apparent suitability of the work for the purpose · the necessity for, and the advisability of, the work · value for money achieved, or likely to be achieved, by the work · revenue produced by, and recurrent costs of, the work or estimates of revenue and costs for the work · the present and prospective public value of the work, including consideration of the impact of the work on the community, economy and environment · procurement methods for the work · the balance of public and private sector involvement in the work · the performance of - · the construction authority for the work and · the consultants and contractors for the work with particular regard to the time taken for finishing the work and the cost and quality of it and · the actual suitability of the work in meeting the needs and in achieving the stated purpose of the work (s. 20(2)).

5. The committee considers that when investigating public works, it is essential to listen to the views of end users as well as those held by people and organisations either

1 Introduction A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

affected by or with an interest in a particular project. One of its roles in facilitating this process is providing a public forum in which the community can express an opinion, whether it be a suggestion, praise or criticism. This enables the committee to assess the extent of public acceptance of the state’s capital works program.

6. The committee believes the focus of all state government capital works projects must be upon maximising the benefits to the community. It is determined to ensure Queensland gets best value for money from the development of capital assets, and that state government agencies manage such assets to provide the best possible outcomes.

SCOPE OF INQUIRY

7. On Tuesday 26 August the Legislative Assembly passed the following motion.

“That this Parliament notes the report of the All Party Public Works Committee into the South East Transit Project and directs the Public Works Committee to re-evaluate the SET Project and report to the Legislative Assembly by 9 October.”

8. Given the short timeframe for the inquiry the committee had to shorten its usual times for making submissions and appearing at public hearings. The committee advertised the inquiry in the Courier Mail on Saturday 30 August 1997 and in the Bayside Bulletin on Tuesday 2 September, the Albert & Logan News and South East Advertiser on Wednesday 3 September and the City & Shire Leader, the Southern News and the Southern Star on Thursday 4 September. Submissions closed on Monday 8 September. The committee held a public hearing on 11 September.

9. The committee received 25 submissions. A list is at Appendix B. A list of witnesses who appeared at the public hearing is at Appendix C.

10. The committee received advice from two consultants on the SET Project. The two consultants were Dr Peter Newman from the Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University and Dr Paul Mees from the Urban Research Program, Australian National University.

11. Because of the short timeframe the committee has not felt it necessary to rewrite its previous report. This report will cover only those areas which have arisen since the original report or where the committee believes additional information received has resulted in a substantial change of perspective by the committee.

2 The response to the committee’s report A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

THE RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT

12. In its original report the committee made 8 recommendations. In its response to the report Queensland Transport addresses each of these recommendations. In its submission Queensland Transport has provided general comments to the report’s recommendations (submission 24A:7, 8). The committee has put these comments into a table which is spread over the following pages. Queensland Transport goes on in its submission to the re-evaluation inquiry, to discuss each recommendation in detail.

13. Queensland Transport’s main concerns with the report are: · “It is misleading in suggesting that the SET project is about the provision of additional road capacity; · It is extreme in some of its proposals; · There are instances where literature material has been quoted out of context or where the quotation is not applicable; · It does not appear to acknowledge the growth in the corridor and the need for new infrastructure; · There are a number of unsubstantiated statements and opinions all of a negative nature, which appear to indicate a bias against the need for public transport infrastructure enhancement; · It seems to lack appreciation of the unique and specific nature of the land use and transport system in Brisbane and the types of solutions needed to suit Brisbane’s situation; · In many ways it reports outside the Terms of Reference, which presents Queensland Transport with difficulties in identifying the scope of its responses to the Committee’s interests; and · It appears to lack appreciation of the magnitude of the task ahead in South East Queensland of moving more people by public transport and what is needed to provide attractive alternatives to car travel” (submission 24A:6).

14. An analysis of Queensland Transport’s response to the report’s recommendations show that there is common ground between the committee and the department. Generally, the department accepts the committee’s recommendations with the exception of recommendations 1 and 7, which are about evaluation of the project, and recommendation 5 which suggest an examination of the viability of extending the busway during the current project. In those areas where there is disagreement it is more a matter of perspective rather than fact. The committee accepts that there may never be agreement on matters of perspective.

3 The response to the committee’s report A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

RECOMMENDATIONS 1 & 7 — EVALUATION

RECOMMENDATION 1:

The committee recommends: Queensland Transport responds:

(a) that, with the exception of the SET a) Considerable evaluation has been done of project and the inner northern busway the options to eight lane the corridor and study, construction of the rest of the these have been documented and busway network not proceed until a referenced in QT’s submissions. comprehensive evaluation of the south east transit project has been completed

(b) that an organisation independent of b) No further prior evaluation is needed. The Queensland Transport conduct the benefits and applicability of busways to evaluation SEQ have been documented and evaluated previously.

(c) that this evaluation consider non c) The SET project should not be dismissed engineering solutions to increase public as an engineering solution. It is an transport usage and decrease use of integrated land use/transport solution with motor cars a primary focus on public transport. The infrastructure focus is essential to achieve successful performance.

(d) that the Minister for Transport table the d) No further evaluation of the options is report of the evaluation in the parliament needed. within 1 year of the completion of the project.

RECOMMENDATION 7:

The committee recommends that the Minister Queensland Transport responds: for Transport include in his response to this report details of the Queensland Transport No further prior evaluation is necessary on evaluation process and the evaluation this project as it would only delay the timetable for the south east transit project. necessary public transport improvements. Major evaluation of the project will be done after it is completed post 2001. The terms of reference for the post evaluation are under development but are not a priority at this stage.

15. Queensland Transport’s concerns in regard to the committee’s recommendations on evaluation seem to be misplaced. The committee’s recommendations are not aimed at further evaluation of whether the project should proceed. Recommendation 1 suggests that Queensland Transport not proceed with construction of the rest of the busway network until the South East Transit Project has been fully evaluated after it has been completed. Given that the planning process for the other busways will take several years, the committee does not see this as an unreasonable proposal as it has not recommended that planning should not occur.

4 The response to the committee’s report A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

16. The committee believes it is important for someone who is not connected with the project to evaluate it. This is not a criticism of Queensland Transport but a realistic assessment that someone who has not been immersed in the project for several years may produce a more balanced evaluation of the project.

17. In regard to non-engineering solutions the committee believes the operational aspects of the project are as worthy of evaluation as is the actual construction itself. It is entirely appropriate for the minister to table the results of the evaluation in parliament.

18. In regard to recommendation 7 the committee asks that the minister include in his response to the report details of the evaluation process and timetable. Once again, the committee did not suggest that Queensland Transport undertake further evaluation of the South East Transit Project. The committee was suggesting that Queensland Transport publish how and on what timetable it intended to evaluate the project. The committee accepts Queensland Transport’s response that the terms of reference for post evaluation are under development but are not a priority at this stage. The committee would appreciate the minister tabling the terms of reference for post evaluation when Queensland Transport has developed them.

RECOMMENDATION 2

RECOMMENDATION 2:

The committee recommends: Queensland Transport responds

(a) that Queensland Transport in a) Work is progressing in developing an cooperation with Queensland Rail and integrated ticketing system. The initial the Brisbane City Council review fare aim is to have integrated ticketing for rail structures and establish an integrated and Brisbane Transport. This will extend ticketing system for buses, trains and to all public transport operators using the ferries busway system and elsewhere across the region.

(b) that Queensland Transport in (b) The need for a public transport map cooperation with Queensland Rail, the covering all of SEQ is agreed, although Brisbane City Council and private bus the complexity of the system may not operators develop a public transport lend itself to producing one map for such map for south east Queensland a large area. Operators currently produce localised maps which show services. The benefits of having all services on one map is agreed.

(c) that the integrated ticketing system be (c) The timeframe for integrated ticketing operational within 12 months for rail/Brisbane Transport will be within 12 months.

(d) that a public transport map of south east Queensland be available to the public within 12 months

5 The response to the committee’s report A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

(e) that the Minister for Transport include in his response to this report an account of the action Queensland Transport has taken to review fare structures, establish an integrated ticketing system for buses, trains and ferries and produce a public transport map.

19. Queensland Transport agrees with recommendation 2. Queensland Transport, Queensland Rail and Brisbane City Council are working toward an integrated ticketing system. Queensland Transport told the committee that an integrated ticketing system would be operational by 1998 (transcript 11/9/97:64). This is a welcome development. In 1998 the committee will assess Queensland Transport’s progress in implementing an integrated ticketing system.

20. Queensland Transport agrees with the need for a public transport map for south east Queensland, but points to the difficulty of producing such a complex map. The committee acknowledges that it will be difficult and encourages Queensland Transport to persevere. If one map is not possible, Queensland Transport could possibly concentrate on producing several maps, each covering a particular area. The committee would like to see the minister table a progress report on work to date with his response to this report.

RECOMMENDATION 3

RECOMMENDATION 3:

The committee recommends: Queensland Transport responds

(a) that Queensland Transport in a) Major improvements have been put into association with Queensland Rail place on rail services and are continuing undertake a study to establish how (see the body of Queensland Transport’s Queensland Rail can improve its submission). No further study is needed - passenger rail service to better meet the it would merely delay progress on public transport needs of south east improvements already being put into Queensland place.

(b) that the study consider operational as b) Both operational and infrastructure well as infrastructure improvements improvements are being put into place.

(c) that the Minister for Transport table in parliament the results of the study within 6 months.

21. Recommendation 3 asks Queensland Transport and Queensland Rail to evaluate how the rail system could be improved. What prompted the committee to make this recommendation was Queensland Transport’s statement that heavy rail can carry 50,000-60,000 passengers per hour (see table on page 19 of South East Transit Project report), but the rail system is carrying nowhere near this level. Having said that the committee acknowledges that Queensland Transport, Queensland Rail and the

6 The response to the committee’s report A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

Brisbane City Council have been working to improve the existing public transport system.

22. In its submission to the re-evaluation inquiry, Queensland Transport supplied the committee with a considerable amount of extra information over and above that provided in the original inquiry, particularly in regard to the initiatives being undertaken to improve public transport services. These initiatives are: · “quadruplication of the inner city rail tunnels which has resulted in improved rail reliability of 95% of trains on time (best in Australia); · improved passenger information systems for trains and buses (e.g. real time information at train stations and on Waterworks Road); · improved bus service contracts - e.g. new services in Logan City and a new operator in Redlands; · new line haul arrangements - giving people more options; · new Citytrain rollingstock - current rollingstock usage is at the 98% level; · new infrastructure for Citytrain - e.g. new tracks to allow more express services; · improved rail safety and security; · improved security on “special guardian” trains at night resulting in a 6% increase in patronage; · better intermodal facilities - e.g. bus interchanges planned at Springwood, Capalaba and Chermside; · completion of the Gold Coast rail line to Robina and a study into its extension to Coolangatta; · integrated ticketing - smartcard trials underway between QR and Surfside on the Gold Coast and discussions with Brisbane Transport and QR continuing; · bus/rail coordination - buses meeting trains at Helensvale rail station in a Trainlink project, trials in Redland Shire and Nerang; · better coordination between service providers in terms of services and information; · contributions to the purchase of new buses, including new floor buses; · improved and expanded park and ride facilities at selected locations; · public transport marketing and education campaigns; · more bike lockers at rail stations; · video surveillance to enhance security at rail stations; · more bikeways and cyclepaths;

7 The response to the committee’s report A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

· consideration of trials of new on-demand public transport services - dial a ride services in eastern suburbs, city circle services around the City; · planning for a control centre for the busway network to improve operational efficiency; · extensive studies as part of seven major operational studies completed during the planning of the SET project - as an example these showed that express service frequencies on the busway would be five minutes during peak periods” (submission 24A:20 & 21).

RECOMMENDATION 4

RECOMMENDATION 4:

The committee recommends: Queensland Transport responds

(a) that Queensland Transport develop a a) This is being developed. management model for the busway component of the south east transit project

(b) that the Minister for Transport table in parliament, within 12 months, a management model for the busway component of the south east transit project.

23. Queensland Transport is developing a management model for the busway. This addresses recommendation 4 of the report. The committee maintains its position that the minister should table a report of work in progress in 12 months.

RECOMMENDATION 5

RECOMMENDATION 5:

The committee recommends: Queensland Transport responds

(a) that Queensland Transport evaluate the a) This extension is not viable at this time viability of extending the busway further but is a longer term option as identified in south to the Logan Motorway during the the IRTP. Other busway links need to be current project progressed first to develop the network. Priority for additional investment is on the Inner Northern Busway.

(b) that the evaluation consider the option of b) The transit lanes have been shown to be an extended busway replacing the extra the most cost effective option at this stage two general traffic lanes along this to meet the various needs of public section of the South East Freeway transport, freight and general traffic.

8 The response to the committee’s report A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

(c) that the Minister for Transport include c) No further evaluation is needed. the results of Queensland Transport’s evaluation in his response to this report.

24. In recommendation 5 the committee calls for Queensland Transport to evaluate the viability of extending the busway during the current project. Queensland Transport responded that the extension is not viable and that other busway links need to be further developed before the south east busway is extended. Given that Queensland Transport intends to develop a busway network throughout Brisbane, the committee accepts this response.

RECOMMENDATION 6

RECOMMENDATION 6:

The committee recommends: Queensland Transport responds

(a) that Queensland Transport engage an a) It is agreed that improving local road independent consultant to undertake a networks is an essential action. Local review of the Logan City regional road Governments need to take responsibility network to ascertain the network’s for their role in planning the appropriate ability to support the south east transit infrastructure when local developments project are approved.

(b) that the Minister for Transport table the b) A process is in place to assess the Logan report of the review in parliament within City network. six months

(c) that where the report of the review identifies the Logan City regional road network to be inadequate the Minister for Transport allocate funds to upgrade the regional road network.

25. Queensland Transport agrees that improving local road networks is essential and states that a process is in place between the Department of Main Roads and the Logan City Council to assess the Logan City Network. The committee acknowledges that action is being taken to improve the Logan City regional road network. As the local road network is important to support the South East Transit Project the committee still believes that where deficiencies are identified the minister allocate funds to address those deficiencies. In the future the committee will monitor development of the Logan City regional road network, as it impacts on the SET project.

9 The response to the committee’s report A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

RECOMMENDATION 8

RECOMMENDATION 8:

The committee recommends: Queensland Transport responds

(a) that in its Implementation Management a) These issues are being taken into account Program for this project, Queensland in the Impact Management Plan (not the Transport specifically take into account implementation management program). the effects of vehicle emissions and increased traffic noise levels on residents living near the south east freeway corridor

(b) that for future major upgrades of b) Queensland Transport complies with existing infrastructure similar to the legislative requirements regarding the need South East Transit project, Queensland to conduct impact assessment studies. Transport carry out a full impact Generally, any major project involving assessment. new corridors would routinely involve impact assessment. In the case of SET and the Pacific Motorway, the Department of Environment determined that the Impact Management Plan approach was more appropriate given that the Government’s decision to undertake work in the existing corridor had already been taken.

26. In its response to recommendation 8 Queensland Transport states that the Impact Management Plan will address the issues of vehicle emissions and traffic noise. The committee accepts this and will in the future monitor what measures Queensland Transport has taken to address these issues.

27. In regard to consultation over the project the committee acknowledges that Queensland Transport has conducted extensive consultation with the local community about managing the impacts of the project. The committee congratulates Queensland Transport for this approach. However, this was not the point of the committee’s recommendation, which states that for future major projects Queensland Transport should carry out an impact assessment before deciding to proceed. The committee believes it should always be the case that consultation with local residents should occur before a major project proceeds.

PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

28. In the original inquiry Queensland Transport stated that the purpose of the project was to increase public transport usage and reduce people’s reliance on cars as their primary mode of transport (transcript:2). In its submission to the re-evaluation inquiry, Queensland Transport has expanded the purpose of the project. They now state that the purpose of the project is as follows:

10 The response to the committee’s report A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

“The purpose of the SET project is to dramatically improve the attractiveness, speed and reliability of the public transport, and to increase vehicle occupancy by the implementation of the government’s policy to eight lane the corridor in a way that makes the transport capacity last. The project will enhance the economic development of the region and manage growth by maximising the people moving capacity of the corridor” (submission 24A:12).

29. Queensland Transport makes the point that it is implementing the government’s 8 lane policy and that the busway/HOV lanes is the best solution to the policy. The committee acknowledges that Queensland Transport is implementing government policy.

OPTION 2 THROUGH SOUTH BANK

30. Since the committee’s original report, a second option for the busway route through the South Bank area has emerged. The original option was for an at grade busway along a realigned Grey Street just to the east of the existing rail line. The second option is for the busway to be moved to the western side of the rail line requiring the busway to cross over the rail line near the South Brisbane Station and at the Vulture Street end of the South Bank area.

31. The committee received several submissions from businesses which will be adversely affected by the realignment proposed under option 2. In the majority of cases these business were worried by the imminent resumption of their properties which would force them to relocate established businesses to new premises.

32. As no decision has yet been made, the committee will not comment on option 2 other than to say the government should look closely at whether option 2 serves equally the interests of the South Bank Corporation and affected neighbours of South Bank. Given the status of the South Bank Area Approved Development Plan, the government could find itself embroiled in an expensive legal battle.

CONCLUSION

33. The response to the report has surprised the committee. Allegations that the committee recommends that there be no infrastructure development or that it does not support public transport infrastructure, are untrue and do not encourage a rational analysis of what the committee’s report says. The committee agrees with Queensland Transport that there is a need for improved public transport services in south east Queensland. The difference lies in how to approach this very important task. In the committee’s view Queensland Transport should continue to work at improving the existing public transport system in conjunction with spending $500,000,000 on the SET project and a further $800,000,000 on the rest of the busway network. The committee believes there is wide scope for improvement in the existing public transport system through improved service frequency coordination and improved ticketing and fare structures.

11 The response to the committee’s report A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

34. The committee believes that its position in its original report is reasonable and defensible. The original report does not make any extreme proposals — it presents an alternative approach to public transport.

35. The committee still believes that there is significant scope for improvement in the existing public transport system and that this should occur as the government invests large amounts of money in the busway system.

12 Appendix A — Call for Submissions A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

APPENDIX A — CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

The following advertisement appeared in the Courier-Mail on Saturday 30 August 1997, the Bayside Bulletin on Tuesday 2 September 1997, the Albert & Logan News and South East Advertiser on Wednesday 3 September 1997 and the City & Shire Leader, the Southern News and the Southern Star on Thursday 4 September 1997

Public Works Committee Call for Submissions South East Transit Project The Public Works Committee, an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland, inquires into public works constructed by the and its Government Owned Corporations. On 26 August the Parliament directed the Public Works Committee to examine again issues raised in its report on the South East Transit Project (SET). To help in its inquiry the committee is calling for submissions from interested individuals and organisations. You should base your submission on the terms of reference for the inquiry. The terms of reference for the inquiry are as follows: In relation to the South East Transit Project the committee is to inquire into and report on: · the purpose and the need for the project · the value for money achieved by the project · the capital and operational costs of the project · the impact of the project on the community, economy and environment · procurement methods for the work. Send submissions to: The Research Director Public Works Committee Parliament House, George Street Brisbane Qld 4000. The committee must report to the Parliament by 9 October 1997. Submissions close on Monday 8 September 1997. If you need further information, contact the committee’s research director on (07) 3406 7689 or the research officer on (07) 3406 7926 or e-mail [email protected].

Len Stephan MLA Chairman

13 Appendix B — List of Submissions Received A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

APPENDIX B — LIST OF SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

1A. Mr Len Ardill MLA 8A. Ms Imogen Zethoven Member for Archerfield Coordinator Shop 5 Queensland Conservation Council 888 Boundary Road PO Box 12046 COOPERS PLAINS QLD 4108 Elizabeth Street BRISBANE QLD 4002

2A. Ms Anna Bligh MLA 9A. Mr Vince O'Rourke Member for South Brisbane Chief Executive PO Box 74 Queensland Rail STONES CORNER QLD 4120 GPO Box 1429 BRISBANE QLD 4001

3A. C C Rose 10A. Cr Jim Soorley Acting Chief Executive Officer Lord Mayor Logan City Council Brisbane City Council PO Box 226 GPO Box 2287 WOODRIDGE QLD 4114 BRISBANE QLD 4001

4A. Ms Lynette Garner 11A. Dennis & Mary Corry Garner Agencies Pty Ltd 159 Birdwood Road Unit 6, Southpoint HOLLAND PARK QLD 4121 196A Vulture Street SOUTH BRISBANE QLD 4101

5A. Mr Geoff Noble 12A. Reg & Yvonne Clark Manager Clarks Logan City Bus Service Executive Chef Pty Ltd PO Box 3039 PO Box 8235 LOGANHOLME QLD 4129 WOOLLOONGABBA QLD 4102

6A. Mr Michael Yeates 13A. Mr Richard Allom Convenor Director Public Transport Alliance Allom Lovell Marquis-Kyle 7 Marston Avenue Architects INDOOROOPILLY QLD 4068 PO Box 431 FORTITUDE VALLEY QLD 4006

7A. Mr Dennis Kyling 14A. Mr Tony Merucci 8 Ku-Ring Gai Court 90 Underwood Road KULUIN QLD 4558 EIGHT MILE PLAINS QLD 4113

14 Appendix B — List of Submissions Received A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

15A. Mr Alan Buchanan 22A. Mr Bill Proud 14 Crestway Street Managing Director KEPERRA QLD 4054 The Marketing Centre 285B Grey Street SOUTH BRISBANE QLD 4101

16A. Mr Drew Hutton 23A. Mr Ben Wilson The Queensland Greens Vice President PO Box 5763 Bicycle Institute of Queensland WEST END QLD 4101 PO Box 8321 WOOLLOONGABBA QLD 4102

17A. Mr John Packer 24A. Mr Bruce Wilson Chairman Director-General Southpoint Body Corporate Queensland Transport c/- Merrin & Cranston Pty Ltd GPO Box 1549 PO Box 3447 BRISBANE QLD 4001 SOUTH BRISBANE QLD 4101

18A. Mrs D D Law & J L Tuffley 25A. Mr Gary Fites 44 Buena Vista Avenue General Manager, External Relations COORPAROO QLD 4151 RACQ PO Box 4 SPRINGWOOD QLD 4127

19A. Mr Howard Lawrence 26A. Mr Stephen Robertson MLA PO Box 8373 Member for Sunnybank WOOLLOONGABBA QLD 4102 Unit 5 62 Pinelands Road SUNNYBANK HILLS QLD 4109

20A. Mr Cos Sita 27A. Mr Malcolm Keane Managing Director Executive Secretary Coachtrans Australia Infrastructure Association of Qld Inc PO Box 237 PO Box 579 OXENFORD QLD 4210 ASHGROVE QLD 4060

21A. Mr Donald Cranston 33 Catherine Street St James's Park BIRKDALE QLD 4159

15 Appendix C — List of Witnesses A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

APPENDIX C — LIST OF WITNESSES

1. Mr Alan Buchanan 7. Mr Glen Dawe 14 Crestway Street Group General Manager, Citytrain KEPERRA QLD 4054 Queensland Rail Level 2, Rail Centre 305 Edward Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

2. Mr Geoff Noble 8. Mr Rob McAlpine Manager Manager, Planning & Business Executive Chef Pty Ltd Development, Citytrain PO Box 8235 Queensland Rail WOOLLOONGABBA QLD 4102 Level 2, Rail Centre 305 Edward Street BRISBANE QLD 4000

3. Mr John Packer 9. Mr Neil Cagney Chairman Manager - Brisbane Transport Southpoint Body Corporate Brisbane City Council c/- Merrin & Cranston Pty Ltd GPO Box 1434 PO Box 3447 BRISBANE QLD 4001 SOUTH BRISBANE QLD 4101

4. Mr Len Ardill MLA 10. Mr John Dudgeon Member for Archerfield A/Director 5/888 Boundary Road Transport, Planning & Policy Branch COOPERS PLAINS QLD 4108 Brisbane City Council GPO Box 1434 BRISBANE QLD 4001

5. Mr Michael Yeates 11. Cr Maureen Hayes Convenor Chairperson Public Transport Alliance Transport & Traffic Committee c/- 7 Marston Avenue Brisbane City Council INDOOROOPILLY QLD 4068 GPO Box 1434 BRISBANE QLD 4001

6. Dr Paul Mees 12. Mr Michael Kerry Research Fellow Divisional Manager Urban Research Program Urban Management Australian National University Brisbane City Council CANBERRA ACT 0200 GPO Box 1434 BRISBANE QLD 4001

16 Appendix C — List of Witnesses A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project

13. Mr Reg Clark 20. Mr John Bonsall Clarks Logan City Bus Service Project Consultant PO Box 3039 Queensland Transport LOGANHOLME QLD 4129 GPO Box 1549 BRISBANE QLD 4001

14. Mrs Yvonne Clark 21. Mr Barry Broe Clarks Logan City Bus Service A/Director, Transport Planning SEQ PO Box 3039 Queensland Transport LOGANHOLME QLD 4129 GPO Box 1549 BRISBANE QLD 4001

15. Mr Cos Sita 22. Mr Les Ford Managing Director Executive Director Coachtrans Integrated Planning Unit 552 Reserve Road Queensland Transport COOMERA QLD 4209 GPO Box 1549 BRISBANE QLD 4001

16. Mr Peter Turner 23. Mr John Gralton Consultant A/Deputy Director-General Coachtrans Queensland Transport 552 Reserve Road GPO Box 1549 COOMERA QLD 4209 BRISBANE QLD 4001

17. Mr Ross Walker 24. Mr Don Steele Consultant Project Director (SE Transit) Coachtrans Queensland Transport 552 Reserve Road GPO Box 1549 COOMERA QLD 4209 BRISBANE QLD 4001

18. Mr Stephen Robertson MLA 25. Mr Bruce Wilson Member for Sunnybank Director-General Unit 5 Queensland Transport 62 Pinelands Road GPO Box 1549 SUNNYBANK HILLS QLD 4109 BRISBANE QLD 4001

19. Mr Luke Woolmer Member for Springwood PO Box 712 SPRINGWOOD QLD 4127

17 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

No. Report Date Tabled 1 Annual Report for the Period Ending 30 June 1989 6 July 1989 2 Inquiry into the Proposed Construction by the Brisbane and Area Water 28 September 1989 Board of a Dam on the Albert River at Wolffdene (September 1989) Report for the Period 1 July to 19 October 1989 19 October 1989 3 No Public Works Committee Report No. 3 was issued 4 Annual Report for the Period 6 March to 30 June 1990 23 August 1990 5 Hospital Redevelopment - Stage Two (October 1990) 24 October 1990 6 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing - The Future (May 1991) 28 May 1991 7 Annual Report for the Period 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1991 18 July 1991 8 Building Another Mental Institution or Housing a New Mental Health 24 October 1991 Service? - A Report on Community Debate Concerning Construction of the New Kirwan Psychiatric Rehabilitation Unit (October 1991) 9 Consultation and Planning for Schools and Colleges between State and 5 December 1991 Local Authorities (November 1991) 10 The Proposal to Build a 33-Level Office Block at 111 George Street 5 December 1991 (November 1991) Annual Report for Year 1991-1992 25 November 1992 11 Kirwan Psychiatric Rehabilitation Centre 2 March 1993 12 The Proposed Upgrade of the Townsville Correctional Centre 3 March 1993 13 Public Housing in Toowoomba 19 March 1993 14 The Development of the Sciencentre - the Old Government Printery 13 May 1993 15 Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies 13 May 1993 16 Cairns Courthouse, Police Headquarters and Watchhouse Complex 20 May 1993 17 Replacement Schools for Herberton and Mission Beach 15 July 1993 Annual Report for Year 1992-1993 1 September 1993 18 Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre 13 October 1993 19 The Construction of New Government Office Accommodation in 18 November 1993 Rockhampton 20 Health Facilities in Far North Queensland - Preliminary Report 3 December 1993 21 Health Facilities in Far North Queensland - Final Report 25 February 1994 22 Cairns Convention Centre 28 April 1994 No. Report Date Tabled 23 Landsborough Highway, Jessamine Creek, and University Road, 28 April 1994 Townsville Annual Report for Year 1993-94 2 August 1994 24 The Development of Mountain Creek High School 31 August 1994 25 Nambour Hospital Block 6 and Associated Matters 9 September 1994 26 Queensland Cultural Centre - Stage Five 28 October 1994 27 Technology Facilities Toowoomba College of Technical and Further 23 February 1995 Education 28 Development of the Teemburra Dam and Associated Irrigation Areas 24 March 1995 29 Development of the Mackay Small Craft Harbour 31 March 1995 30 Development of the Hervey Bay Courthouse 6 June 1995 31 Development of the Bundaberg Police Headquarters and Watchhouse 6 June 1995 Annual Report 1994-95 19 October 1995 32 Redevelopment of the Cairns Base Hospital 23 July 1996 33 Expansion of the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre Farm 23 July 1996 Annual Report 1995-96 8 October 1996 34 Construction of the new Woodford Correctional Centre 29 October 1996 35 Tilt Train Project 26 March 1997 36 The Expansion of the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal 8 May 1997 37 Redevelopment of the Princess Alexandra Hospital — interim report 27 May 1997 38 The provision of infrastructure in Cape York 27 June 1997 39 The South East Transit Project 22 July 1997 40 The Mareeba/Dimbulah Irrigation Area Project 19 August 1997 41 The Development of 75 William Street 19 August 1997 Annual Report 1996-97 24 September 1997 42 A re-evaluation of the South East Transit Project 9 October 1997

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS ARE ON THE INTERNET. The Queensland Parliament web site address is: www.parliament.qld.gov.au