TransLink Transit Authority Annual Report 2008-2009

[ozbob]

TransLink Transit Authority Annual Report 2008-2009

http://download.translink.com.au/about/091106_annualreport.pdf

PDF 5.4 MB

[dwb]

Here's my two cents on the report.


The Chair of the board seems to think the go card has been "extremely successful" - given that only 1/5 of passenger trips use it and the only way they think they can improve this figure is to remove the alternative from sale (ie paper tickets from customers who clearly prefer this product), I'd think this seems a rather contestable statement.

The CEO's report on page 5 has some hard to swallow text "the 2008-09 year will be remembered as a period of unprecedented change for public transport in SEQ. For the first time South East Queenslanders have a single point of contact for all their public transport needs".

Ummm, I'm not sure where this guy has been since 2004 because essentially passengers didn't notice any difference when Translink became a statutory authority, from an agency and even before it was an agency TransInfo existed to provide transport information.  Later in the report on p20 something closer to the truth comes out where TL acknowledges that Serco has been managing the call centre for TransInfo since 1995 providing journey planner information to the travelling public.

P3 states "at any time of day or night, customers are able to access comprehensive, up-to-date transport information through the TL website, call centre and information kiosks" - yet I'm still looking for maps on their website, so again 'comprehensive' is a bit hard to swallow.

The CEO's use of flowery language continues on p6 where he describes Fortitude Valley as "spectacular". Let's not stretch the truth, for the third major station in the system it falls well below international benchmarks.

Interestingly the repor notes (p23) five key priorities for customer satisfaction which include:
-efficiency
-reliability
-ease of use
-proximity
-affordability

It is only too bad that Go card (and most of the network) currently fails on most of these criteria.

It also identifies how much money was spent on three major station upgrades, but doesn't identify how many minor upgrades occurred (pdf p32).

It mentions real time information on p36 and again on p61 where it acknowledges they've established a project board for oversight, presumably as it implies the external scrutiny by KPMG identified issues with how this was being undertaken.

It states that the organisation believes that actively engaging with the community will ultimately lead to a better PT system (p42) - it is only unfortunate this doesn't seem to cover the TNP which is late nor the Fares Strategy that they still won't release, and that had no community engagement whatsoever (let alone consultation).

It identifies that "stakeholder analysis - a strategy and plan developed" (p45) however I have no idea what this is, it isn't published on the website.

It talks about a Business Excellence Framework and Organisational Self Assessment (p53) - of which I think they would do well to benchmark against external perceptions.

It identifies that 9 Freedom of Information requests were made last year (p63), but gives no details, nor are these on the TL website. It states a commitment to current Right to Information legislation, but their approach with the fares strategy indicates this is thin at best.

On p68 it identifies $42.3m worth of upcoming capital projects but does not identify what these are (except for UQ lakes station upgrade), nor could I find a figure for current bus operating km although it does state that 09/10 will operate more than 93million km of bus contract services.  In my mind, the report should review operating km since 2004 and cost per operating km and passengers per bus km. These are all reasonably intregral to validating an increase of fares.

p69 Revenue of $1.1bil ($272.1m in fares from 181.9m trips + $789.2m from government subsidy of $630.9m to QR and $382.9m to bus operators).  It doesn't break down the bus operators individually, but it does by region (p13).  It also identifies $25.1m expense to "ticketing enhancements"... of which I wonder what it represents.

In the finer print of the financial statements it looks like $23.6m was paid in staff salaries.  Of the $630.9m paid to QR for services $533.363m was to meet the Customer Service Obligation and $97.494m was "grant". I'm not exactly sure what the difference between the two types of payment are.

p89 indicates they hold $802,000 worth of Go card stock... I wonder how many cards this actually translates to and whether it is enough for their planned uptake rate and how long it takes to get more made.


So all in all I'd congratulate them on meeting their financial and legislative requirements in producing and publishing the report, however in my mind it leaves a lot to be desired and could best be summed up by the big cross on the front cover.

[#Metro]

Good to see that the report is out there. 

[#Metro]

Good work TL!  

I'm not offended by their CEO wages. Actually given their achievements and compared to what some CEOs earn, it think it is modest. They have improved things much better than previous, but there is still a way to go, especially with improving "core" services- more trains, buses and ferries and their frequencies. What was not obvious was that I think Translink made a big profit this year. Not a financial one, but one in terms of diverted car trips and what would have been spent on road widenings, diverted CO2 etc. Pity that they did not include this- it is measurable- and it would have been worthy of including as an achievement.

I would like to see the politicians disappear from making announcements etc- it confuses people as to who is running and in control of what. IMHO the pricing scheme should be in the hands of TL, with the minister having the power to disallow (but not prescribe) pricing levels. Actually, had they not announced the price rises and got TL to do it instead (and devise it), they would not have copped so much bad press and put the voters off side!

Some minor things

1. The call centre.
The current operation is bizzare. Listening to the privacy statement takes up ages (why not 'press 1 for privacy statement'?) and bus routes seem always to refer to an operator anyway. The system appears to have trouble, i.e. "The direction of your travel- towards or away from the city?" does not make sense for routes like 199. Why do you have to say the bus route, especially when at a noisy train station surrounded by the rat-race, can't you just type it in?

2. Train services fell below benchmark. It was not clear whether they were using the "Peak hour only" definition or the more holistic "all of service day" measurement. I think it was the latter.

3. Service performance
a. The "affordability" graph is a bit bemusing, given that there is only one ticket at uniform prices across all services. So this should be flat- which makes me think that some of the graphs appear to be displaying statistical noise. That is to say, the long term, true trend is a flat line.

b. "Without cancellation" is a bit ambiguous. So they are excluding cancelled services from the measure? That's ok, but these cancelled services should have their own tracking.

Passenger Time Lost (PTL) per 10,000 trips or so would be something I would like to see.
For example, a train cancelled with 30 passengers late at night is not as impactful as a cancelled peak hour train carrying 700.
I say per 10,000 trips for standardisation and year-to-year comparability. If a service were cancelled, a PTL would be the sum of the estimated delays that each passenger experienced. The difference of time between the next service and the original should not necessarily be used, because not everyone may be able to fit on the next service, leaving some passengers waiting.

QR scheduled trackwork etc should be excluded from PTL calculations, or reported as a separate number with an explanatory note.

4. Surprised that they have an "Employing Office." Curious to know why can't they hire staff directly, or use an agency.

5. Efficiency indicators appear to be missing (though this was my first read). WA's PTA compares and analyses the efficiency of each mode, year on year. See here http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/Portals/0/annualreports/2009/audited-key-performance-indicators/index.html. Very important to include for transparency and demonstrating that the gov is getting value for money.

[#Metro]

p89 indicates they hold $802,000 worth of Go card stock... I wonder how many cards this actually translates to and whether it is enough for their planned uptake rate and how long it takes to get more made.

GoCard is mostly plastic, so it should be very cheap to mass produce. They must have a Bunnings-sized warehouse somewhere holding these things. Or it could be all that excess packaging and glossy brochures that come with it as a "package".

[dwb]

Oh, I forgot to mention, it also lists the "Translink 12 priorities" which include:
1. organisational structure
2. customer service strategy
3. delivery partnerships: rail
4. delivery partnerships: bus/ferry
5. planning the network
6. growing farebox revenue
7. commercial opportunities
8. external relations
9. gold coast rapid transit
10. people strategy
11. investment and project control
12. financial control and kpi reporting

I think it is odd that they have nothing about engagement in there... it seems to obviously central to achieving their strategic direction!

[Derwan]

4. Surprised that they have an "Employing Office." Curious to know why can't they hire staff directly, or use an agency.

The "Employing Office" is simply the name given to that part of TransLink that employs people (e.g. marketing, strategy, etc) - as opposed the the "Authority" itself.  I don't really understand how it all works.

As with most government departments and statutory bodies, job advertising is performed through the Shared Service Agency.

[#Metro]

6. growing farebox revenue
7. commercial opportunities

Didn't really see any graphs about farebox revenue or changes over time like in TL's "go card price rise" pdf. I'm sure a number is in the financial statements.

GC Light Rail Transit as a commercial opportunity was alluded to, but nothing further on these measures.
What about TODs? No mention.

[dwb]

p69 Revenue of $1.1bil ($272.1m in fares from 181.9m trips + $789.2m from government subsidy of $630.9m to QR and $382.9m to bus operators).  It doesn't break down the bus operators individually, but it does by region (p13).  It also identifies $25.1m expense to "ticketing enhancements"... of which I wonder what it represents.

Given that Brisbane Transport buses alone carried 72million trips in 2008/09 out of 182million trips for PT, and QR by all accounts only carried 65.1m trips, it seems odd that subsidy for QR passenger was at $631m versus $175.67m (pdfp13 TTA Annual Report includes Mt Gravatt & Brisbane Buslines, but excludes what BCC contributes to BT buses).  I believe BCC has budgeted $160.5m this year for PT (both ferries and buses and infrastructure ie new buses).  Even if you add $176m+161m=$337m which for 72.5m passenger trips is $4.64 per trip compared to QR at $631m for 65.1m trips or  $9.69 per trip.

To a certain extent this is understandable as rail trips are generally longer than bus trips. In Brisbane a bus to Algester from the city is say 25km although I'm guessing the average passenger probably only travels <10kms. To get a train from Robina to Brisbane is something like 80km, but trains should be much cheaper to run per passenger for long distances.

Does the QR figure have capital expenses included in the revenue figure/ TTA expense?
Why does it appear that rail is so much more expensive to operate per passenger trip?

Why does it appear that QR gets 62% of the funding pie to carry 35.8% of the passengers while BT receives less than 17% of the pie to carry 39.8% of the passengers?

Perhaps BCC shouldn't fund BT at all, and the State Gov should implement a levy/land tax across all Councils in the region and put the funding of BT on an even peg with other operators???

And, why should I as a 2 zone traveller be faced with increases to fares far in excess of the cost of provision of service to me just because so many people in the region live far from where they work?  Ie presumably if the average cost for bus service in Brisbane is $5 (as worked out above) to travel a distance of 10km, then surely the cost to travel 5km is near enough spot on my fare of $2.40, not the $7.20 they seem to be claiming when they say they contribute $3 to every one of my dollars? (Yes I realise the 3:1 is across the system and worked out from saying my fare contributes to fare revenue of $272.1m out of a total cost of $1100m, but this seems false to me)!

Can anyone explain because I'm dumbfounded!

[ozbob]

There are some interesting figures here Dwb --> http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2914.msg15519#msg15519
In Perth rail is cheaper!

I think it might be the way the subsidies are accounted for as you have indicated, and the simplistic approach of passenger trips rather than passenger kilometres. Additional costs of rail the infrastructure is included but not the same costs for bus (roads etc.)?

Advice (verbal) told to me has been that the average journey on rail is 3 times the length of bus.  Taking that view then rail is cost competitive.  Clearly the longer the journey the more cost effective rail should be.  Bus optimal for the short haul. 

[dwb]

I thought it might have been the case, the QR passenger component does mention $211m worth of capital works including rolling stock, station upgrades, car parks and information).

It seems to me there really should be some clarity gained around what is operational/maintenance expense and what is investment cost. For example fares could conceivably easily enough cover 50% of operating cost... but not if infrastructure costs are included in the "subsidy" level.  If the government is going to be telling the public that we should be contributing a set amount, say 70% of whatever, then this needs to be clear, because by 2014 you can have all the fare increases you like but if you start building cross river rail and including that infrastructure cost in your subsidy level, then well, we're not going to get anywhere!

Even under the most extreme view (ie that pt fares should cover all operational costs), new infrastructure would still require government investment.... it is just too large a cost to be bourne by users or commercial operators, especially when competing against private motor vehicle which is as we've all alluded to extremely highly subsidised.

But still, this doesn't take into account the non-monetary BENEFITS of public transport, for instance reductions to travel time, carbon emissions, deaths, waiting or improved health outcomes, economic prosperity, better more equitable access to education, employment, entertainment, nor the social benefits of giving elderly, young, disabled and other forced non-car users access and inclusion in our society.

[somebody]

And, why should I as a 2 zone traveller be faced with increases to fares far in excess of the cost of provision of service to me just because so many people in the region live far from where they work? 

A good question.  I'm really not sure what the answer is, but I think there is an aspect of revenue protection there.  If you make it unattractive to dodge fares by having a steep flagfall, less people will.  Otherwise, the current flagfall is pretty indefensible.  As is the CityRail one station fare.

[dwb]

Revenue protection is provided by go card charging the full (penalty) fare when you tag on, and not refunding you the difference unless you tag off.... so I'm not quite sure what you mean, unless you're suggesting against people just buying a one zone paper ticket.... which is possible but won't be in about a year!

[dwb]

Further to cost calcs above, looking at the Hale St/Ipswich services announcement, BCC are paying $67k for 70 services (ie M-F x 2 for 7 wks).  That means that if each train has even capacity of 750 pax on it, then it is only costing $1.27 per pax (assuming that BCC is paying in full for the service, and that state is not charging them half price).

[somebody]

Revenue protection is provided by go card charging the full (penalty) fare when you tag on, and not refunding you the difference unless you tag off.... so I'm not quite sure what you mean, unless you're suggesting against people just buying a one zone paper ticket.... which is possible but won't be in about a year!

It may be that paper tickets will be gone in a year, but it is my theory that revenue protection is partly behind the current fare structure.  Just because it's a reason that will no longer apply if current plans are actioned, doesn't mean it's not a reason that it will still be done that way in 2011.

[#Metro]

@dwb
A thoughtful post.

I could not find the efficiency indicators in the TL report. WA whole-of-network subsidy was only 3% higher (78%), while QLD's was 75%. That appears enough for Perth to run trains (the brand new ones, same kind as QLD) 15 min off peak for most lines. And the cost per passenger is actually falling over time, so the services are becoming more efficient.

One idea would be for the gov to simply pay for all of the capital costs, and none of the operating costs.
I think building and maintaining the track, new stations, wiring are what costs heaps. But then again, how does Melbourne do it? Does Connex build track or do they only do maintenance?

But still, this doesn't take into account the non-monetary BENEFITS of public transport, for instance reductions to travel time, carbon emissions, deaths, waiting or improved health outcomes, economic prosperity, better more equitable access to education, employment, entertainment, nor the social benefits of giving elderly, young, disabled and other forced non-car users access and inclusion in our society.

I agree. There is a good case for public transport subsidy, especially when all the costs that road users generate but do not pay for themselves (congestion, inefficient use of road space etc). Though one has to be mindful that the subsidy should give maximum effect for each dollar spent. OK, so Perth doesn't have as many people or a network as big, but actually that should make it more expensive per passenger, not less. (NB: Couldn't find the figures to compare with Bris).

The 'non-monetary benefits' explanation is valid, but it is equally true for any other field of endeavour that the government has (health, defence, education, public infrastructure). So the mere fact that expenditure on PT has non-monetary benefits is not a powerful or unique enough reason to increase funding levels or subsidy over other causes I mentioned.

(Please don't read this to mean that "I don't support more $ for PT; I'm just explaining why the "it has social benefits" argument seems to have little effect on the gov).

[STB]

From what I understand, DoT (State Government of Melbourne) own and fund the rail infrastructure, where Connex (soon to be MTM) simply hire and fire staff to run the trains and customer service, and maintain the trains themselves, through funding given by DoT.