Public Takeover: Translink & QR

[#Metro]

As per the TransLink/TransPerth thread, what are your comments on a public takeover of QR by TransLink?
Vote will stay open for 14 days, results will appear on close of voting.

TransPerth info here: http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/AboutUs/AboutTransperth/tabid/276/Default.aspx

 

[ozbob]

Many would think that QR should take over TransLink ...

TransLink is not an operator but a coordinating authority.  The question is largely redundant.

[mufreight]

Many would think that QR should take over TransLink ...

TransLink is not an operator but a coordinating authority.  The question is largely redundant.

Unfortunately it woud seem that Translink is incapable of co-ordinating anything having confused co-ordination with micro management.
A considerable improvement would be if Translink were to leave QR Passenger to run rail and BT to operate the BT bus operations and act as a service co-ordinating and fare collection body.

[somebody]

Big time NO from me.

But something needs to change.

[#Metro]

Fair enough;
What needs to change and how would you change it?

[ozbob]

TransLink needs to get on track with respect to the reason it was morphed out of Translink V1.

"I launched the new TransLink Transit Authority in July and tasked them with progressing our vision for public transport and providing a blueprint for getting us there," he said.

"I'm excited to see the new TransLink Network Plan taking shape because we know that providing a high frequency mass transit system is vital to addressing congestion through reduced car use."

Mr Mickel said the plan sought to align urban and transport planning at all levels of government and would now be sent to local council for feedback.

It includes:
• A 10-year vision for public transport across south-east Queensland.
• A rolling 4-year program of planned service additions and adjustments.
• Creating more than 100 high-frequency routes, each guaranteeing bus and train services every 15 minutes.
"I'm excited to see the new TransLink Network Plan taking shape because we know that providing a high frequency mass transit system is vital to addressing congestion through reduced car use."

http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=60680  October 2008

The act is clear on the role of TransLink --> http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2008/08AC032.pdf
It is not as a public transport operator ...

[#Metro]

The act is clear on the role of TransLink --> http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2008/08AC032.pdf
It is not as a public transport operator ...

I agree that the act does define the role of what TL currently is, but that is different from what its roles should or could be.
The acts and arrangements can always be changed, to reflect these two things.

[longboi]

The current model is fine how it is. TransLink focuses on providing the overall vision and taking responsibility for ticketing and co-ordination, QR focuses on meeting their contractual obligations in the most efficient way possible. Once you give one entity too many competing responsibilites, the focus isn't there and generally standards will decline. You also have the fact that QR don't only operate Citytrain so a full takeover wouldn't be in TL's interest anyway.

[#Metro]

The current model is fine how it is. TransLink focuses on providing the overall vision and taking responsibility for ticketing and co-ordination, QR focuses on meeting their contractual obligations in the most efficient way possible. Once you give one entity too many competing responsibilites, the focus isn't there and generally standards will decline.

But surely if this were true, then Perth should be a shambles. Its not.
Despite being a city with lower population land big sprawl, their off peak trains are every 15 minutes, and they have finished building an entire complete rail line (New Metro Rail) project.

[longboi]

The current model is fine how it is. TransLink focuses on providing the overall vision and taking responsibility for ticketing and co-ordination, QR focuses on meeting their contractual obligations in the most efficient way possible. Once you give one entity too many competing responsibilites, the focus isn't there and generally standards will decline.

But surely if this were true, then Perth should be a shambles. Its not.

Okay that last bit was a bit of a generalisation but I think you're looking at the wrong places for improvement. The only reason Transperth also operate rail services is because WA Government has always operated the trains. If QR never became a GOC the same thing would have happened here.

If what you're proposing occured, the only change you would see is a proper re-branding of the rail network. All the staff, policies, procedures, equipment, infrastructure and the like would be exactly the same.

[Derwan]

It would be a recipe for disaster.

We've seen an overall improvement in QR due to effective management.  Communication channels have been opened and we are receiving honest feedback (when not "censored" by TransLink).

If TransLink were to take over, this would stop - and we'd be stuck with the bureaucratic nonsense.

[#Metro]

Okay that last bit was a bit of a generalisation but I think you're looking at the wrong places for improvement.

That's fine, if we were to be exact about everything, nothing would ever get said.
Which places do we need to look at for improvement? IMHO frequency is one...

It would be a recipe for disaster.

How? Why?

If TransLink were to take over, this would stop - and we'd be stuck with the bureaucratic nonsense.

I'm not sure if the Perth example bears this out. Their PTA reports are IMHO more transparent and give more information than the current TL tracker or TL reports do.

[somebody]

Looking at the Act:
section 14 (2) (b) clearly states that Translink is to have authority over scheduling.
section 14 (2) (f) states they are to be a single point of contact

I don't really agree with those points with regard to QR.  I would far rather TL just butt out of QR.  As for BT, I would say maybe, but if BT are to still be an operator then they should just do what TL ask.  Maybe BT are a problem too.

[Golliwog]

I think BT are definatly a problem. They seem to work with TL when it suits them, but for other things they are used for politic-ing by Council. You've got Translink who is trying to improve public transport for the whole region, then Council argueing that BT should provide mostly for Brisbane residents only, which is in direct competition with Translink. I'm not saying that Tranlink is trying to stuff PT for Brisbane, just that the outer areas need improvement and Council doesn't like that because that provides seats which could be used by non-Brisbane residents.

[#Metro]

How is TL 'interfering' with QR?

Looking at the Act:
section 14 (2) (b) clearly states that Translink is to have authority over scheduling.
section 14 (2) (f) states they are to be a single point of contact

I don't really agree with those points with regard to QR.  I would far rather TL just butt out of QR.  As for BT, I would say maybe, but if BT are to still be an operator then they should just do what TL ask.  Maybe BT are a problem too.

TL may have "authority" over scheduling, though what "authority" actually means in practice?
It seems QR draws up the timetable and then TL rubber stamps it...

[somebody]

Well, TL are refusing to fund additional services for a start.  The whole concept that TL need to approve a QR timetable is ridiculous, in my view.  They should NOT have this power.  What value does it add?  ZERO!!  And it adds to the paralysis that seems to pervade everything.   NEGATIVE VALUE!!  Also, the concept that you can't complain directly to the operator is very annoying.  Mightn't be so bad if you actually felt like TL took responsibility, but they just don't.

I think BT are definatly a problem. They seem to work with TL when it suits them, but for other things they are used for politic-ing by Council. You've got Translink who is trying to improve public transport for the whole region, then Council argueing that BT should provide mostly for Brisbane residents only, which is in direct competition with Translink. I'm not saying that Tranlink is trying to stuff PT for Brisbane, just that the outer areas need improvement and Council doesn't like that because that provides seats which could be used by non-Brisbane residents.

Yeah, seems that PT in Brisbane has become a political football for the brawl between Council and the state.