Translink - is it really making a positive difference??

[somebody]

Perhaps there should also be a parallel thread,
Translink - how negative has been its influence on public transport, I for one am quite sure that there would be many valid, credible and justified posts on such a thread.
Your thoughts please.

I'd be interested in your suggestion of what the TL structure should be though.

[mufreight]

Going through correspondence that I have previously had with Translink management I came accross a response from the Group Manager(Strategy, Performance and Financial Management) Mr Richard Steer dated 21 April 2009.

I had written to and had spoken to the then Translink CEO Mr Strachan with regard to Ipswich area bus services, in particular with regard to routes 505 & 505 and the response in part contained this paragraph which I quote.
Translink is finalising a service improvement plan for the Western region.  Service improvements will be implemented early in the second half of 2009.  A goal for the service improvement plan is improvements in the on time running of services in the region.  The service changes will also see improvements to the servicing of the Riverlink retail precinct.

As for the structure of TRANSLINK it should be only be responsible for co-ordinating services, providing timetableing fare information and the operation of the intergrated ticketing and fare collection.  Actual service scheduling and operation would be best left to the actual operators such as QR, BT and other private operators who are more than capable subject to minimum service requirements of operating the required services.
Well this is now the middle of 2010 somewhat past the early second half of 2009 which one would reasonably assume to have been between July and September of that year yey to date nothing has been done and we are now being told that another review is now being undertaken by Translink.

IS TRANSLINK MAKING A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE? THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WOULD HAVE TO BE A RESOUNDING NO  At the present time all that TRANSLINK has delivered has been obfuscation and increased costs with diminishing levels of service.

[somebody]

IS TRANSLINK MAKING A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE? THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION WOULD HAVE TO BE A RESOUNDING NO 

I have to agree.  A lot of the improvements which have happenned, besides integrated ticketting, haven't really been TL initiatives as far as I can see.

[#Metro]

As for the structure of TRANSLINK it should be only be responsible for co-ordinating services, providing timetableing fare information and the operation of the intergrated ticketing and fare collection.  Actual service scheduling and operation would be best left to the actual operators such as QR, BT and other private operators who are more than capable subject to minimum service requirements of operating the required services.

I'm not sure that I totally agree. BT can't be left to do planning as parochial council boundaries get in the way. Scheduling is part of co-ordination. If a train timetable gets changed, the bus connecting to it needs to be altered too. Dr Paul Mees in his Transport for Suburbia book goes into this in detail.

TransLink is making a difference. Patronage increases over forecast and an immediate spike in transport services in 2004 after they had slow and single digit growth shows this is the case. Yes I have gripes, lots of them- Frequency on rail is a big one, but much of this comes down to funding and I suspect planners being hesitant to try things like pulse timetabling, 66 + 109 and things like that.
TL does need to be looked at, there are things there that can be improved but I would be very very against the abolition of TL.

And before anyone asks. No, I don't work for TL or the gov.

[mufreight]

Were the patronage usage growth figures as a consequence of population growth with more commuters dependent upon public transport due to economic reasons or an ageing population with more people unable to utilise private transport rather than service improvements by Translink, or were the figures due the extension of services into new areas such as rail services on the Gold Coast (not a Translink initiative) or a different accounting and collection of figures rather than better services.

[somebody]

That ignores initiatives like the BUZ services which are really council initiatives.  Doubtless cheaper tickets, integrated ticketting and more funding hasn't hurt a bit.

[#Metro]

Were the patronage usage growth figures as a consequence of population growth with more commuters dependent upon public transport due to economic reasons or an ageing population with more people unable to utilise private transport rather than service improvements by Translink, or were the figures due the extension of services into new areas such as rail services on the Gold Coast (not a Translink initiative) or a different accounting and collection of figures rather than better services.

It seems unlikely. How would you test this idea or look for things that might indicate that its not just population growth?
I don't know what the rate of population growth is, but I would think it would be somewhere around 2-3%. The increases later on are double digit- a rate well above what population growth might be.

The forecasts would probably have incorporated population growth into them, but the actual results are higher.
We could also look at the number of transfers between modes bus-rail, bus-bus and bus-ferry (did they increase suddenly? Likely)
The busway was also in place in 2001, but patronage did not take off significantly until 2004 so service extensions alone cannot explain the increase in growth.

Its well known that easy transfers make a better system (free transfer for 2 hrs, TL initiative), integrated ticketing (TL initiative), and easy pricing scheme (TL zones, a TL initiative), a single desk agency (TL). etcetera. Most importantly is the fare collection. TL collects all the fares so that cross subsidy can occur and operators don't compete against each other.

TL isn't perfect. But if you want to remove it, what will you put in its place to do a better job than it does now? An abolition of TL only makes sense if there would be a significant improvement in doing so. How would this be brought about in the absence of TL? An alteration to TL - OK, but removing it. Maybe not.

[somebody]

The difference between the target and actual patronage is around the number of pax carried by BUZ routes.  It's hard to compare as I don't have exact figures from the same years.

[#Metro]

Of course, patronage trend is double digit growth and it isn't going down. That's the main thing.
I don't think TL isn't harmful to patronage growth, which is what seems to be suggested.
And its not clear what the replacement for TL is and how that would work better.

I think funding is more of the issue and planning (more dedicated feeders to rail stations).

[somebody]

I don't think TL isn't harmful to patronage growth,

But the question is: Are they doing anything good?  It's not at all clear that they are.  It's not good enough for them to say that they've implemented integrated ticketting and that's enough.

[#Metro]

What do you want them to do?

[somebody]

What do you want them to do?

Umm: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3519.0 (30 issues)
And this single post: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3736.msg25459#msg25459

Do you want me to go on?

[#Metro]

Thanks! It has been a while.
Look generally like:

Customer service
Service alterations to the route/stops/time
More services
More trains
Fix Go Card
Link CEO pay with performance

The thing is though, these improvements can't be carried out by TL if it is abolished right? And they need planning/funding too.
I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

May be useful to have a list of problems and release it every 6 months. Like the new services tally.
Change takes time.

[somebody]

I suppose I would put it more like this:
A lack of integration between services
Lack of consultation
Lack of communication
Adled city stop locations

Those are probably the main things if you aren't arguing for increased funding.

Might be time to raise the 109+66 again as well?

Sorry, didn't respond to this before.  It might be.  I'll put something in the "proposed media releases" when I get a chance.  I suppose since they haven't bitten yet, we may have to do a lengthy release to cover all the possible negative points.