TTA Media Release: Ipswich residents embrace go card

[ozbob]

http://www.translink.com.au/mediarelease.php?id=126

Ipswich residents embrace go card

Friday 23 April 2010

Thousands of Ipswich residents are embracing the value and convenience of go card.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said go card usage on Westside bus services has risen more than 330 per cent in the last year to 16,190 go card trips a week in late March, up from 3739 go card trips a week in March 2009.

"This increase in go card use represents a potential time saving of almost 36 hours a week on bus services compared to buying a paper ticket on the bus," Ms Nolan said.

"Ipswich customers continue to use bus services in record numbers and even more of them are now using go cards.

"People have quickly discovered the go card is a much easier and cheaper option with a go card trip the same price as a single trip paper ticket price in 2007."

The State Government, through TransLink, spent more than $13.6 million last financial year to provide bus services across Ipswich.

In the six months to December, more than 1.12 million passenger trips were made in TransLink"s western region, an increase of 123,174 trips or 12.3 per cent for the same period in 2008. The region includes Westside Bus Company and Laidley Bus Company.

TransLink CEO Peter Strachan said Westside Bus Company had 22 urban routes covering Ipswich, Goodna, Camira and Springfield seven days a week," Mr Strachan said.

"Westside also provides Monday to Saturday bus services between Ipswich train station and Toogoolawah, servicing Pine Mountain, Fernvale, Lowood, Patrick Estate, Coominya and Esk."

For more information on public transport throughout South East Queensland, call 13 12 30 or visit the TransLink website www.translink.com.au for more details.

[dwb]

Do you reckon this is a promo to get the interest of the competition (eg Veolia) in Westside's operations? Maybe TL is getting close to being able to re-tender??

[#Metro]

Dwb, do you know if the tenders are competitive or not?
For example, would it be possible for an operator to actually lose their contract?

[ozbob]

It is an interesting release Dwb.  It may reflect the local dissatisfaction with the public transport.  The bus timetables are a major issue, I think it is not so much the operator per se.

[dwb]

@ tramtrain: Of course. Read the legislation. (Not sure if they've used their powers yet though).

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TranstOpPasTA94.pdf (section 46,47)

Possibly further info in http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpTLAA08.pdf and http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpTLAR08.pdf

Dwb, do you know if the tenders are competitive or not?
For example, would it be possible for an operator to actually lose their contract?

[dwb]

It doesn't copy very well, but here it is... my reading of this is given a review and warning TL can then take steps to offer a route/service contract to an alternative supplier. That is the whole point of the legislation!

Division 3   Administrative provisions
44
45
Term of service contracts
(1)   A service contract is for a term of not more than 7 years. (2)   Subsection (1) is also subject to sections 47 and 47A.
Conditions of service contracts
(1) A service contract is subject to conditions agreed by the parties.
(2)   A service contract may provide for payment, by the holder, of an amount to the chief executive for a breach of a key performance indicator.
(3) The payment can not be more than the equivalent of 40 penalty units.
(4)   The payment is payable on demand by the chief executive and may be recovered as a debt payable to the chief executive.
(5)   This section does not limit section 47 or the chief executive's right to damages for a breach of service contract, including damages arising out of a breach of a key performance indicator.
(6)   In this section—
key performance indicator, for a service contract, means a term of the service contract identified in the contract as a key performance indicator.
46
Review of holder's performance
Page 48
Reprint 7D effective 1 April 2010
(1A) (1B) (1) (2)
(3) (4)
(5)
(6) (7)
(7A)
This section does not apply to a prescribed school service contract or a ferry service contract.
Subsections (4) to (7) do not apply to a TransLink service contract.
The chief executive may arrange for reviews of a holder's performance under a service contract.
However, each service contract, other than an emergency service contract or a service contract for a term of less than 2 years, must be reviewed as near as practicable to the middle of the term of the contract (a midterm review).
A service contract may also be reviewed at another time if the parties agree.
Each holder under a service contract must, for a midterm review, conduct a market based needs assessment for public passenger services of the relevant type for the contract area or route.
The chief executive may make, and distribute to holders, guidelines to which operators must have regard in conducting assessments under subsection (4).
The chief executive must take into account any relevant research done by the holder.
If, on a review, it is shown that the holder—
(a)   has taken all reasonable steps to fulfil the contract and actively promoted the use of public passenger transport; but
(b)   has not achieved the patronage levels agreed to by the chief executive and the holder;
the chief executive may review the holder's minimum service levels or work with the holder to achieve increased patronage.
On a review of a TransLink service contract, the chief executive must take into account whether the holder is meeting the requirements of the holder's service contract.
(   If, after a review, the chief executive is of the opinion the holder's performance has been inadequate in a significant respect, the chief executive—
(a)   must notify the holder of the inadequacy; and
(b)   may require the holder to take specified steps to remedy the inadequacy.
(9) If a holder fails to take the required steps to remedy the inadequacy within the time allowed by the chief executive, the chief executive may, by notice to the holder, terminate the service contract.
(10)   Compensation is not recoverable from anyone (including the chief executive and the State) for or in relation to the termination of the service contract under subsection (9).
Amendment, suspension or cancellation of service contracts for breach of service contracts
(1)   The chief executive may, by notice given to a holder, amend, suspend or cancel the holder's service contract if—
(a)   the holder contravenes a condition of the contract; or
(b)   the chief executive reasonably believes a contravention of the contract by the holder is imminent.
(1A) However, the chief executive may not amend a holder's service contract to increase an amount payable to the chief executive for a breach of a key performance indicator.
(2)   Before taking action against a holder under subsection (1), the chief executive must give the holder written notice of the intended action, and allow the holder an opportunity to make written representations about the intended action within 10 working days.
(3) The chief executive may, by notice given to a holder, immediately amend, suspend or cancel the holder's service contract if the chief executive reasonably believes that the holder is unable to provide any or all of the services required under the contract.
(4)   A holder may claim compensation from the State if the holder incurs a cost, damage or loss because of the amendment, suspension or cancellation of the holder's service contract under subsection (3).
(5) Compensation or costs that may be recovered under subsection (4) may be claimed and ordered in a proceeding brought in a court having jurisdiction for the recovery of a debt in the amount claimed.
(6)   A court may order the payment of compensation only if it is satisfied—
(a)   there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the holder was unable to provide any or all of the services required under the contract; and
(b)   it is just to make the order in the circumstances of the particular case.
(7) A regulation may prescribe matters that may, or must, be taken into account by the court when considering whether it is just to order compensation.
(   Subsection (4) has effect to the exclusion of any other remedy.
(9) The amendment, suspension or cancellation of a service contract under this section is declared to be an excluded matter for the Corporations Act, section 5F in relation to the Corporations Act, section 440C.
47A   Renewal of service contracts
(1) Despite section 44(1), a service contract, other than an emergency service contract, may contain a provision giving the holder of the contract the option of renewing the contract for 1 further term only.
(2)   However, the option for renewal may not be exercised if the chief executive has given the holder a notice under subsection (3).
(3) The chief executive may, for this section, decide that the holder's performance under the contract has been
unsatisfactory and give the holder written notice of the decision and the reasons for it.
This section does not limit sections 62 and 62AAD.

[dwb]

Sorry Tramtrain, I didn't actually read your post correctly...

I assume the new tenders would all have to be done competitively. They surely couldn't strip the contract from one provider then offer it to a someone else without putting it to tender for all current and possible future providers?

[#Metro]

Is that true, but maybe they have the power but are not using it?

I would also find it hard to believe that TL would let anyone else win certain areas (i.e. could you imagine Brisbane Transport competitively 'losing' their contract for the Brisbane area to someone else? Unthinkable!) 

[dwb]

could you imagine Brisbane Transport competitively 'losing' their contract for the Brisbane area to someone else? Unthinkable!)

That is why I posted it! Trying to think outside the box of perception that BT is the best we'll ever get.

[Jon Bryant]

It is more likely that BT may at some stage may not have the capacity to fill a new or expanded service.  Competitve tendering should also drive beeter service costs.  It should also be allowed on rail to allow quicker increases in service.

[Golliwog]

Wrt rail, I don't think the lack of service increases are really QR's fault. I think its a lack of funding for services from TL that is limiting service expansion.

But I agree, the bus tendering process should always be a competitive one. Just because we're in BCC area, doesn't mean we shouldn't have the option to catch services run by different companies if they can do it more cost effeciently than BT.

[Jon Bryant]

Agree totally that rail is not Qr fault but is due to funding.  If we want rapid increases in services it might make sense to have 2 or 3 organizations working on increasing the services not just one.  Plus could have cost efficiency benefits from competition.

[Golliwog]

But how would having multiple companies sharing the same amount of funds help? Surely that would erode the increase in services? Although I can't see the down side to a little bit of competition.