Independent commission of audit

[HappyTrainGuy]

Redcliffe has a good route layout (not perfect) which will be a very good rail feeder service one the line goes through. Its really Rothwell to Petrie, frequency and span of hours that lets them down (in saying that the 683/684? the ones that service Dakabin and Kallangur primary schools needs a route rethink, same with the 676 through Petrie as that should be a full loop route feeder to Petrie Station rather than starting just up the road - All operated by Thompsons. Fat can very easily be remove from some timetables if HBL removed GoCard top ups from services. The 680 can also have some fat cut from its timetable). It would also take some slight pressure off the overcrowded 680's for those that are only going a short distance north of the station. North Lakes is still missing some key roads such as the North to South arterial road which hampers in the design of where they can run quickly ie only option is to rat run. Once the railway is up expect to see the 687 cut.

[ozbob]

Token coverage routes will always be just that ...

The  Ipswich 515 (a 15 minute service) is gaining a lot of patronage since frequency improved. 

Not rocket science ..

[SurfRail]

^ Exactly right.

The waste at BT is not coming from the BUZ or Blue CGLD routes (Maroon remains to be seen).  It's coming from the rockets and the backstreets services which run parallel or virtually next to BUZ routes, or at least reasonably frequent all-day all-stops or express routes.

I'd be comfortable with a LOT of the TransLink review not happening if the city stops could be fixed up, which would go some way to addressing this.

[somebody]

^ Exactly right.

The waste at BT is not coming from the BUZ or Blue CGLD routes (Maroon remains to be seen).  It's coming from the rockets and the backstreets services which run parallel or virtually next to BUZ routes, or at least reasonably frequent all-day all-stops or express routes.

I'd be comfortable with a LOT of the TransLink review not happening if the city stops could be fixed up, which would go some way to addressing this.

Rockets that aren't operated by BT don't waste money.

[SurfRail]

^ Exactly right.

The waste at BT is not coming from the BUZ or Blue CGLD routes (Maroon remains to be seen).  It's coming from the rockets and the backstreets services which run parallel or virtually next to BUZ routes, or at least reasonably frequent all-day all-stops or express routes.

I'd be comfortable with a LOT of the TransLink review not happening if the city stops could be fixed up, which would go some way to addressing this.

Rockets that aren't operated by BT don't waste money.

Some of them do, like the Ormiston one that got removed a while back.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The 339 rocket was cut. No doubt in favor of the 335 returning to going via Westfield/Chermside during peak hour which I mentioned so many times should happen

[somebody]

Some of them do, like the Ormiston one that got removed a while back.

I guess so, but <10% of trips.  BT rockets waste space >40%.

[SurfRail]

Some of them do, like the Ormiston one that got removed a while back.

I guess so, but <10% of trips.  BT rockets waste space >40%.

I suspect there are a few basic reasons for that:

- No direct alternative service for the most part (250, 540 or 555 and that's it for most of the day).  In the am, a lot of these services run in lieu of the local equivalent.  In the pm, you either catch your express home, or you have to catch the trunk route and wait for a possibly non-existent connection in the evening.
- Stop consolidation in the CBD already happens for private operators for the most part
- They are running express for a much bigger whack of the journey and so go reasonably quick, especially the Clark's ones if the M1 isn't too congested.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbane mX 3rd May 2013 page 1

In the cheap seats

[ozbob]

For interest ..

Victoria's public transport Assessing the results of privatisation R Allsop 2007 --> here!  External PDF

IPA --> A tale of two different rail cities

[SurfRail]

Caveat - I take material from the IPA with about as much salt as the Socialist Alliance (ie about a LakeEyresworth).

[#Metro]

Points should be taken on their merits. Melbourne does (a) have massive increase in patronage (b) a very aggressive company campaigning for more frequency and does 2 timetable reviews per year (whereas QR's 2nd phase timetables have vanished off the radar), and trains every 10 minutes on a Sunday on selected lines with plans for more. The private operator has also brought back staff to stations.

This needs to be contrasted with Perth, the best metric for Brisbane as it is so similar in city demographics and train operation as well.

A pity that no mention of buses was made there.

[ozbob]

Privatization of Rail and Tram Services in Melbourne:
What Went Wrong?

PAUL MEES
Urban Planning Program, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of
Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT Melbourne's urban rail and tram systems were privatized in 1999 using a
concessioning or franchising model similar to that employed for British Rail in the 1990s.
The Melbourne franchise agreements promised improved services, increased patronage,
reduced government subsidies and no real increase in fares. However, within 2 years, it
became apparent that these predictions had been over optimistic, and subsequent negotiations
saw the departure of one of the three franchisees and a renegotiation of agreements
with the remaining two operators leading to substantial increases in subsidy levels. The
paper reviews the Melbourne privatization experience to assess the extent to which it has
produced benefits, the reasons the original predictions were not met and the extent to
which the problems were avoidable. It concludes that although the Melbourne franchises
were expressly designed legally to transfer revenue risk to the private operators, they
failed to achieve this as a matter of practicality.

Click here!  External PDF

[ozbob]

A Review of Melbourne's Rail Franchising Reforms
Graham CURRIE  2009

Graham Currie holds Australia's first professorship in public transport based
at the Institute of Transport Studies, Monash University, Australia.

Abstract
This paper reviews Melbourne's rail franchising to identify lessons learned. The first
franchising model sought cost efficiencies following much unionised influence on
management. Despite some successes, it failed due to "optimism bias" of revenue growth
and cost cutting potential, and flawed contract and revenue sharing arrangements. A
revised model involving negotiated sustainable funding, partnership approaches and
simplified revenue sharing emerged. Overall Melbourne's rail franchising is considered
a "qualified" success and demonstrates many cost efficiencies. All governments need to
consider the potential risks of commercialisation and to heed the hard learned lessons
from cities like Melbourne.

Click -->  here!  External PDF

[#Metro]

I like Currie's report as it is probably the middle ground between Mees and Allsop.

I've thought about how buses and trains might be contested, and I think there are two aspects:

1. Costs (money going out) <---- increasing costs mean less efficient service, but probably more lifeline/coverage service provided

2. Revenue (money coming in) <--- increasing revenue coming in means more effective service has been provided

There will always be coverage services which have high cost, low revenue (social transit) and patronage routes that engage that seek to replace car (rapid transit).

People want to see an increase in rapid transit across the city. Instead of running a tender the traditional way - as a package of costs + benefits (i.e. I'll offer X number of services for Y dollars), I'm wondering if the cost could be fixed at a certain level that the government would accept to pay and get the tenderers to compete on service provision, frequency etc (i.e. maximise service span, maximise frequency, maximise coverage of the frequent network).

For example, the government would say, "we have X million dollars to spend on PT, come up with a plan that maximises high frequency services across the city to the greatest number of people". I'm not exactly sure I've expressed the concept well enough, as the idea is rather complex to explain, but this would give certainty.

I've thought the idea out as I've heard of a toll road tender that, instead of bidding on lowest cost to build the tunnel, chose the tender on who would charge the cheapest toll...

Transporting this analogy to public transport, instead of bidding on the lowest cost to offer PT, the tender could be chosen on those who provided the widest coverage of rapid transit services across Brisbane for the same cost as now.

We have seen this concept in action a little bit by comparing the BCC bus review proposal to the TransLink proposal. The TransLink bus proposal makes no cost saving, but maximises useful services to the greatest number, the BCC bus review maximises cost savings but does so by making cuts and taking away useful services and does not increase rapid transit coverage of the city (still leaves Centenary, Yeronga, Builimba, Northwest in the dark).

Using the principles above, the BCC tender would be rejected outright.

As TransLink does the network planning, all proposals would have to be approved by it and looked at to endure CSO standards were still met...

Obviously the idea needs to be thought out a little more, but hopefully I have conveyed the concept.

[ozbob]

Depending on the biases of the writer, the same is different ...  obvious I know but very difficult to get real objectivity on many things.

Some things are clear.  The initial  steps were flawed. The process evolved into better competitive tendering process which the ICA is really on about.

It was very noticeable to me the deterioration in the rail network through the late 90/s and through to around 2009 or so in Melbourne.   Metro have certainly improved things from direct observations. There is a lot of squealing in Melbourne, in reality about not much at all.  They are rather spoiled lot in many respects.  Metro gets knocked around a bit particularly because of network reliability issues.  I always amazed that they can still run the frequency they do considering the state of much of the below rail stuff, but it is getting better. 

Here in SEQ the network is in better shape.  Still issues though and slowly they are getting there.  Remember the problems with the Ipswich line particularly around 2007 very bad.  The Ipswich line recently had a full week of 100% peak OTP performance.  Not a bad effort, I think some things are starting to come together.  The big advantage of the Ippy is the very few level crossings as well.

Queensland Rail will themselves be very competitive once the long distance stuff goes.

DOO remains a vexed question and possibly a trump card ...

[ozbob]

LOL on cue  ...

========

Twitter

Metro Trains ‏@metrotrains 8m

Due to signalling issues betwn Richmond & Flinders St citybound trains from Dandenong, Sandringham & Frankston may be delayed by 10 minutes.

[somebody]

Graham Currie's (of Monash) research always seems fair and balanced.  He's made a number of relatively positive comments about busways, I might add.  Not the sales pitch of Prof Hensher or Bonsall.

A Mees paper always reads as an anti sales pitch.  I tend to think his highlighting of the situation at Monash Uni helped lead to the establishment of the 601.

Some of them do, like the Ormiston one that got removed a while back.

I guess so, but <10% of trips.  BT rockets waste space >40%.

I suspect there are a few basic reasons for that:

- No direct alternative service for the most part (250, 540 or 555 and that's it for most of the day).  In the am, a lot of these services run in lieu of the local equivalent.  In the pm, you either catch your express home, or you have to catch the trunk route and wait for a possibly non-existent connection in the evening.
- Stop consolidation in the CBD already happens for private operators for the most part
- They are running express for a much bigger whack of the journey and so go reasonably quick, especially the Clark's ones if the M1 isn't too congested.

I was referring to situations outside of Qld too.

[SurfRail]

^ Including Sydney I suppose, where you even have "rockets" from the Hills which go to North Sydney and Milsons Point only (and to which I have no objection, in the absence of a better alternative at present).

[somebody]

I would have thought you would argue that they should run to Macq Uni and use the train from there.

[longboi]

I like Currie's report as it is probably the middle ground between Mees and Allsop.

I've thought about how buses and trains might be contested, and I think there are two aspects:

1. Costs (money going out) <---- increasing costs mean less efficient service, but probably more lifeline/coverage service provided

2. Revenue (money coming in) <--- increasing revenue coming in means more effective service has been provided

There will always be coverage services which have high cost, low revenue (social transit) and patronage routes that engage that seek to replace car (rapid transit).

People want to see an increase in rapid transit across the city. Instead of running a tender the traditional way - as a package of costs + benefits (i.e. I'll offer X number of services for Y dollars), I'm wondering if the cost could be fixed at a certain level that the government would accept to pay and get the tenderers to compete on service provision, frequency etc (i.e. maximise service span, maximise frequency, maximise coverage of the frequent network).

For example, the government would say, "we have X million dollars to spend on PT, come up with a plan that maximises high frequency services across the city to the greatest number of people". I'm not exactly sure I've expressed the concept well enough, as the idea is rather complex to explain, but this would give certainty.

I've thought the idea out as I've heard of a toll road tender that, instead of bidding on lowest cost to build the tunnel, chose the tender on who would charge the cheapest toll...

Transporting this analogy to public transport, instead of bidding on the lowest cost to offer PT, the tender could be chosen on those who provided the widest coverage of rapid transit services across Brisbane for the same cost as now.

We have seen this concept in action a little bit by comparing the BCC bus review proposal to the TransLink proposal. The TransLink bus proposal makes no cost saving, but maximises useful services to the greatest number, the BCC bus review maximises cost savings but does so by making cuts and taking away useful services and does not increase rapid transit coverage of the city (still leaves Centenary, Yeronga, Builimba, Northwest in the dark).

Using the principles above, the BCC tender would be rejected outright.

As TransLink does the network planning, all proposals would have to be approved by it and looked at to endure CSO standards were still met...

Obviously the idea needs to be thought out a little more, but hopefully I have conveyed the concept.

I see what you're saying but I don't think it's necessary.

Especially considering what tenderers would need to outlay in order to bid on contracts. It wouldn't make sense to asses operators on their own network plans - that is the role of TransLink.

Rather, the assessment needs to be solely based on what operators are actually required to do; operate. Bids should be assessed upon operating costs and the assets an operator can provide which meet the needs for current services and allow for strategic network growth (i.e. depot locations which minimise dead running, adequate fleet size, age and specifications).

Any post-ICA contract should obviously remove the current provision which allows Operators the right of first offer (essentially self-renewing contracts) and introduce measurable KPIs of which operators need to achieve in order to be able to bid for the renewal of contracts.

[SurfRail]

I would have thought you would argue that they should run to Macq Uni and use the train from there.

There might have been a case for this while buses could easily access Epping.  Macquarie seems to be going too far off-track for limited gain after already spending a fair whack of time on the freeway.  When the NWRL opens then you would probably not bother with these services.

I'm not against rocket type services, just where they appear to do virtually the same thing as the normal route (in which case you just question why the most efficient service isn't used all day long eg 179 v 180, 141 v 140 etc).  The North Sydney routes aren't exactly like the all-day services from the CBD to Castle Hill/Rouse Hill, which serve a different function based on all-day demand vs very peaky demand.

Likewise there is still a case for peak hour only routes here to get people to the southern part of the CBD - just not as many, and with a preference to just running more buses there full-time. 

Redlands routes I largely wouldn't touch, and Logan routes I would only bother with changing if Clark's happened to have a fleet of high-capacity buses and could run the 555 at very high headways and with more frequent services at local bus stops than the current direct-to-CBD operating pattern permits.

[somebody]

Rather, the assessment needs to be solely based on what operators are actually required to do; operate. Bids should be assessed upon operating costs and the assets an operator can provide which meet the needs for current services and allow for strategic network growth (i.e. depot locations which minimise dead running, adequate fleet size, age and specifications).

Depots are an interesting one.  There doesn't seem any ideal solution to this problem.  What seems to be happening in Sydney is people are leasing depots rather than buying them which isn't ideal at all because the lessor is under no obligation to renew, but the operator doesn't want to be caught holding a depot it can't use or forced to sell it to a replacing operator.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Council clashes over bus tendering

Council clashes over bus tendering
May 8, 2013 - 12:01AM

Tony Moore

The impact of the Newman Government's decision to change the way Brisbane's bus services are run drew a fiery response from councillors last night.

While Labor fears the outcome will be job losses for bus drivers, the LNP's council administration said they welcomed being asked to re-tender for bus routes.

Labor's opposition leader Milton Dick accused lord mayor Graham Quirk of using "weasel words", while the LNP accused Labor of misunderstanding the difference between privatisation and competitive tendering.

In its third Commission of Audit Report last week, the Newman Government has decided to introduce "competitive tendering" for bus service contracts throughout Queensland.

In southeast Queensland, competitive tendering for buses already operates to a degree, with 17 bus operators - 16 private operators and Brisbane Transport - winning contracts over geographical bus runs.

The state government now wants to review the process Queensland-wide to search for cost-efficiencies, the Commission of Audit report made clear last week.

Labor's opposition leader Milton Dick last night said the "uncertainty" over Brisbane bus services was the major concern for bus commuters.

"There is no more important issue for Brisbane bus commuters than certainty," he said.

"Certainty that the buses across our city, that the public transport network, will survive the axe of the Newman Government."

He accused the state government of always having a long-term plan to privatise many services across Queensland.

"Now we know for a fact that they have plans to privatise public transport for this city," he said.

Cr Dick used a motion he lodged on the council agenda last night to speak on the issue.

He repeated the anti-privatisation words of lord mayor Graham Quirk on March 5, 2013 about Council's bus fleet.

"I took the lord mayor at his word when he said on March 5, 'I do not support the privatisation of Brisbane Transport and I will not support the privatisation of buses'," he said.

"And he has also said 'I have held a consistent position that I do not support the privatisation of Brisbane's bus fleet'."

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk was not in the chamber when the debate took place.

Public Transport committee chairman Peter Matic said Brisbane Transport had won public transport contracts through competitive tendering since 2001.

"All of these things Cr Dick fails to acknowledge," he said.

"Why? Because it doesn't help his political argument and it doesn't help his pre-selection for federal government and it certainly doesn't help develop anything they had in a productive way in this chamber."

The motion was lost 19 to 8 with Cr Nicole Johnston voting with Labor.

The final version of Brisbane City Council's bus review will be known in a fortnight.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/council-clashes-over-bus-tendering-20130507-2j5z5.html#ixzz2Sd6mnC6k

[nathandavid88]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Council clashes over bus tendering

Council clashes over bus tendering
May 8, 2013 - 12:01AM


While Labor fears the outcome will be job losses for bus drivers, the LNP's council administration said they welcomed being asked to re-tender for bus routes.

That might change when they realise that re-tendering will involve (I certainly hope) a demand to improve the current network/do more with less money.