TransLink's Tracker 2008/9

[ozbob]

TransLink's Tracker

http://www.translink.com.au/resources/tracker/TransLinkTracker_0809Q4.pdf

About TransLink?s Tracker

TransLink has many responsibilities, including planning, ticketing, funding, integrating,
developing and managing the public transport network across South East Queensland.

Another key function of TransLink is monitoring the performance of the network, spread
across 10,000 square kilometres to inform ourselves, our operators and our customers of
areas that are performing well and areas that need our attention.

TransLink?s Tracker provides a performance snapshot of the TransLink network following
the fourth quarter of the 2008/9 fi nancial year.

The Tracker will become a quarterly feature of TransLink?s reporting and information
regime for a number of reasons:
? it?s important that our customers can access and scrutinise the performance of
TransLink and its operators
? it?s important that future developments, improvements and enhancements are
debated and viewed in the context of the current network
? it?s important that Queensland taxpayers, who also heavily subsidise public transport
services, are able to view the performance of the network
? most of all, it?s important that TransLink be an open and accountable organisation,
positioned to maximise public transport options throughout South East Queensland.

Monitoring performance across the network, holding our operators accountable
and listening to our customers? opinions are important as we continue to develop a
world-class network.

We value your feedback through www.translink.com.au or by phoning 13 12 30.
After all, public transport is, and should always be, about the customer.

Peter Strachan
Chief Executive Offi cer
TransLink Transit Authority

[ozbob]

As we have suggested, go card use has plateau-ed.  See page 9.   Bring on the new fare structure!

[ozbob]

The other immediate observation is the stated on time performance for bus doesn't match reality (page 6).  Also why is the customers' perception of reliability and frequency so poor for bus relative to rail (page 10) if the figures quoted for bus are correct?  Hmmmmmm

[ozbob]

Media Release 7 August 2009

SEQ:  Well done TransLink Tracker

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport users has congratulated TransLink and all operators on the release of the TransLink Tracker (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"RAIL Back On Track welcomes the information that has been made available publicly in the TransLink Tracker.  We congratulate TransLink and note that the provision of data on the performance of the public transport network is to become a quarterly feature of TransLink?s reporting and information. A great initiative."

"We note in the report that the go card usage has reached a plateau and now has fallen in absolute terms and particularly relative to the number of go cards issued.  It is crystal clear that a new fare structure for the go card is needed to drive uptake.  RAIL Back On Track has previously suggested we believed this was the case (2)."

"The perception of performance of the various modes of public transport is interesting.  According to the TransLink Tracker bus on time performance is better than Citytrain on time performance. This is not what the customers are perceiving clearly in terms of reliability and frequency as detailed in the report.  On time bus performance from our observations and feedback received is no where near 96%.  What are the actual performance criteria for on time running of all modes?  This should be detailed in the report so that valid comparisons can be made."

"The fact that operators are fined when performance targets are not met makes little sense to us.  Level crossing incidents, signal and track failures are not within the control of QR Passenger. Similarly road congestion and traffic incidents are beyond the control of bus operators.  What is the point of government fining itself in the case of QR Passenger?  Can someone please explain the logic of that?  Further, reducing funding of an operator just leads to more service shortfalls.  Rather than cutting funding, funding should be increased to improve service frequency and reliability."

"The TransLink Tracker is a great move forward.  Well done!"


References:

1.  http://www.translink.com.au/resources/tracker/TransLinkTracker_0809Q4.pdf

2.  26 June 2009 SEQ:  Commuters are abandoning the go card  http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2447.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[ozbob]

From the Brisbane mX 7th August 2009 page 1

Getting there

[ozbob]

From the Queensland Times 8th August 2009 page 7

Ipswich trains on time as other travellers wait

[dwb]

Buses getting stuck in road congestion is within the control of Brisbane City Council who run Brisbane Transport buses.  Bus priority measures are completely in the control of the council and indeed the council should be fined for missing service performance indicators where it fails to provide PT with priority... think Coronation Drive

Additionally, trains that run late, possibly due to staffing issues, mismanagment, or badly timed freight (all things under the control of QR) then indeed they should be fined.

[ozbob]

Yes, where they are result from matters in QR Citytrains control.  For example 2007/8 train cancellations due to crew issues was in the order of 400 to 500.  For 2008/9 it was about 10.  90% of the  time duration delays 2008/9 were due to level crossing incidents, signal and track faults, passenger illness and suicides.  The remainder were crew and rolling stock issues.  If these are taken into account QR Citytrain's performance is greater than 96%.

Rather than fining QR Passenger, QR Network should be fined for the constant signal and track faults.   This might cause a bit of a change in attitude.  One of the problems is that the operator (QR Passenger) has no say in the network or running of trains on the network in an absolute sense.

The Ipswich line is performing very well, and this has 40% freight traffic.  Some of these are running in peaks. So things can be achieved.  A freight train was allowed to enter the suburban network last year with a known problem and it eventually failed causing major disruptions.  This contributes negatively to QR Passengers on time performance.

[ozbob]

http://www.londonmidland.com/your-journey/performance/

Performance of the London Midland Railway.  

QR Passenger is actually doing very well of late despite the clowns driving into boom gates almost every week, see http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2002.msg9464#msg9464.

[#Metro]

"The fact that operators are fined when performance targets are not met makes little sense to us.  Level crossing incidents, signal and track failures are not within the control of QR Passenger. Similarly road congestion and traffic incidents are beyond the control of bus operators.

I disagree with this. What if QR decided to pull a poor show? Then every time it did, its funding levels would increase! That is a perverse incentive, because it rewards 'bad' behaviour. Why bother running trains on time when you can run them late and get paid for it!? Of course no-one suggests that fines should be dished out for suicides, acts of God and the like. For rail crossing 'accidents' (is that the right word?) fines to whoever drove/parked on the tracks should be issued.

Where performance is bad, they should be fined, and the receipt of those fines should flow to the commuters who have been inconvenienced (i.e they get a credit). Where performance is excellent, bonuses should be paid.

There report should set out its method and also benchmark against two other cities- Sydney and Melbourne, and also time. We must also have definitions of what terms are, as many people are familiar with how Sydney managed to improve it's performance on paper: simply alter the definition of "on time".

[Derwan]

I disagree with this. What if QR decided to pull a poor show? Then every time it did, its funding levels would increase! That is a perverse incentive, because it rewards 'bad' behaviour.

The point we are making here is that there are so many causes of late running of trains that are out of QR Passenger's control.  Why should they get fined for something that's out of their control?  The obvious ones are level crossing accidents and passenger illnesses. 

My biggest bugbear is that a major reason why trains don't run as efficiently as they could is the lack of funding for infrastructure.  We still have sections of single track on a number of lines.  Every train on every line somehow has to fit on one of two tracks (each way) through the city.  Just one minor delay can cause so many other trains to be delayed.

What's the government's solution to this?  Instead of giving more money to QR for improvements, they take it away from them!  They expect QR to do more with less!  That's the ridiculousness of the situation!

If the Government wants to improve the on-time running of trains, they must get serious about providing the funding required for that to occur.

[O_128]

I disagree with this. What if QR decided to pull a poor show? Then every time it did, its funding levels would increase! That is a perverse incentive, because it rewards 'bad' behaviour.

The point we are making here is that there are so many causes of late running of trains that are out of QR Passenger's control.  Why should they get fined for something that's out of their control?  The obvious ones are level crossing accidents and passenger illnesses. 

My biggest bugbear is that a major reason why trains don't run as efficiently as they could is the lack of funding for infrastructure.  We still have sections of single track on a number of lines.  Every train on every line somehow has to fit on one of two tracks (each way) through the city.  Just one minor delay can cause so many other trains to be delayed.

What's the government's solution to this?  Instead of giving more money to QR for improvements, they take it away from them!  They expect QR to do more with less!  That's the ridiculousness of the situation!




When QR wants to be they can be efficient ahve a look at the exhibition line. 10min frequency een called the city loop. instead we built a busway to do the same thing.

If the Government wants to improve the on-time running of trains, they must get serious about providing the funding required for that to occur.

[ozbob]

Tramtrain, no one is suggesting that where it is the operators fault they are not fined, sanctioned whatever.  

The problem is the ontime performance is being impacted by factors NOT UNDER THE OPERATOR (QR PASSENGER) control.  This is where it is very silly.  The government has lead to the fundamental  network under resourcing through flawed planning processes (as identified by the Queensland Auditor General recently).  The failure to address  properly the level crossing incidents is another indictment on government.  As I quoted above, QR Passengers on time performance is actually very good when factors not under their control are removed.   Fining the operator simply means less funds for services?  Are you happy with that?  I am not, it is ridiculous to fine an operator for things it can do nothing about.

In 2007/8 there were a lot of cancellations due to crew issues.  Part industrial part reflecting the serious under-staffing that had been allowed to develop and a major seasonal flu outbreak.  From about 450 trains cancelled to about 10 for crew issues in a year is a remarkable turnaround.  What has caused the greatest impact in 2008/9 has been network problems, track and signal faults and level crossing incidents.  Why should the operator be fined for that?  Surely it makes more sense to fine QR Network?  

This is the point we are making.

And while we are at it, TransLink can fine themselves for botching the go card roll out.  Government can fine itself for botched urban planning.  Queensland Transport can fine themselves for the discordant planning requirements identified in the ICRCS and SEQIP Rail.  Do we really need to go on?

Cheers
Bob

[ozbob]

Submitted to the Courier Mail August 9  Letter to the Editor

The article (Transport use booms but reliability of buses queried, CM Aug 7) has correctly identified there is a problem with the reliability of buses in the recently released TransLink Tracker report. In that report, on time bus performance is stated as approaching 96% of late. How can that be?  It seems that the assessment of ontime bus performance does not follow the same methodology as the assessment of ontime train performance, which when level crossing incidents and network failures are taken in account is world class. To correctly interpret the data in the survey the criteria for ontime performance for all modes needs to be spelt out. Any regular bus user can tell you ontime performance is nowhere near 96%!  This is reflected in the customers correctly identifying bus reliability and frequency as very poor in the survey.  Why the apparent discrepancy?

[dwb]

I found the following things of interest when reading the report:

- go card did not show how many cards in active use, along with how many cards issued, and the data did not go back to commencement of the product.
- no one has seemed to identify publicly the goals for go card that the minister keeps referring to them being ahead of the goal
- go card penalty fares as a proportion of all fares was not graphed... only actual adjustments (of which many people couldn't be stuffed)... and presumably some people who travel long distances have worked out how many penalties they can have before the card locks?

- the affordability question is slightly odd... although I acknowledge it is harder to get a monthly ticket on bus than rail... otherwise this should really be the same... unless people perceive value in relation to service quality not just cost

-train passenger load reports should be graphed as a pie chart rather than bar graph and they should be charted by line by year, rather than simply network by year in bar graph

- interesting that BT buses scored lower satisfaction than network wide buses across most scores except safety... I think this might correlate with the more congested nature of where these services run and the absolute lack of bus priority!

- bus on time certainly needs more clarification, probably by region and operator... perhaps even by line.  I really think passengers should understand that some services are much more reliable than others... it would also allow operators more understanding that certain lines are bringing their averages down and they may then more highly articulate the need for particular bus priority measures... I'm thinking 444 on Coro here, 385 on Caxton, 345 on KG etc etc.

I think this first move is extremely positive by Translink, however I hope they tweak the presentation of information to make it even more useful to the customer. I also hope it gets much more detailed so particular communities on particular bus routes for instance can use it as a measure to argue for better services for their local community.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

One-third of commuters use go cards: survey

One-third of commuters use go cards: survey
Tony Moore
August 10, 2009 - 6:01AM

More than a third of trips on buses, trains and ferries in South East Queensland now use the go card, a new survey reveals.

However, South-East Queensland rail commuter lobby group, 'Rail: Back on Track', said the level could be boosted to 80 per cent if go card prices were reviewed and were more equitable for rail commuters.

Translink said it was constantly reviewing the fare structure.

While more than 370,000 go cards were used for 4.4 million trips on buses, ferries and trains by June 2009, the number of go card trips per month had dipped from the five million trips recorded in March 2009.

The 4.4 million commuters is equivalent to 33 per cent of all public transport trips in South East Queensland.

While it showed an increasing proportion of commuters were using the go card on buses and ferries, the take up on trains has been slower.

Rail: Back on Track attributed the stalling go card figures for rail passengers to weekly and monthly paper tickets still being cheaper than the go card.

Spokesman Robert Dow said said paper tickets were still better value for rail commuters than the digital go card, despite its convenience.

"Rail users at the moment prefer to use weekly and monthly (paper) tickets - and daily to a certain extent - because you can do unlimited journeys on those tickets," Mr Dow said.

"With the go card you essentially pay for every trip, even with the 50 per cent discount," he said.

"For students for example, they are much better off with a daily concession ticket because they can do multiple journeys."

He said Translink must review its go card fare structure before commuters made more trips on the go card.

"I don't think they will get an increase (in trips) until they bring in a new fare structure that beats the integrated paper ticketing system," he said.

Rail: Back on Track also favours a scheme where the Seniors "red" go card offers senior citizens free Sunday travel, rather than the current concession fares.

"This would encourage senior citizens to take up go cards - and they are often the people who are paying cash on Monday to a Friday commutes," Mr Dow said.

He renewed his call for Translink to introduce "incentive" fares to encourage commuters to travel outside main peak hours.

Translink said a number of fare options were being explored.

[Derwan]

I would like to know how they get "trip numbers" when the Go Card isn't used.

For example, if I buy a weekly ticket, who's to say that I will be doing 10 trips that week?  I could do 12... or 20!  The same could be said - even for a daily that could be 1, 2, 4 or more trips during the day.

I might buy a weekly from a train station and then use a bus for part of my journey.  How are those trips counted?

"Trip Numbers" have to be estimated - and there is no indication of how trip numbers are estimated.  For all we know, it could be grossly inaccurate.

Also - I was just having a look at the on-time performance.  There are 2 footnotes:

* Within four minutes (early or late) of the scheduled arrival time.
# Within six minutes (late) or two minutes (early) of the scheduled arrival time.

It's not indicated which these refer to - but I'm assuming the four minutes is for trains - and the 6 minutes is for buses.  Why do they get a couple of extra minutes?

[ozbob]

Yes, that is the point I made in correspondence to the Minister and TransLink.  I asked a number of colleagues to estimate their bus route on time performance.  The best from six regular bus users was 75%.   According to the figures in the Tracker there appears to be no bus cancellations either?  Rubbish, one of the constant complaints is buses not showing up.  

Buses on the surface have twice the time than trains.  We know that trains don't run early and if they are they are held.  It is a misleading comparison.  Even 8 minutes for buses I doubt that the 96 % figure is actually accurate.  It is clearly not the perception of the users!

[Paul.Zenon]

I would like to know how they get "trip numbers" when the Go Card isn't used.

For example, if I buy a weekly ticket, who's to say that I will be doing 10 trips that week?  I could do 12... or 20!  The same could be said - even for a daily that could be 1, 2, 4 or more trips during the day.

I might buy a weekly from a train station and then use a bus for part of my journey.  How are those trips counted?

"Trip Numbers" have to be estimated - and there is no indication of how trip numbers are estimated.  For all we know, it could be grossly inaccurate.

Seems strange to me also.


I don't think those trip numbers are accurate.  Just seems weird how everything to do with buses is fantastic news and anything to do with rail is so..so..


Those trip numbers need to be explained in detail how they arrive at those figures.

I fail to see how you can count rail passengers trips when the majority of them use unlimited trip papertickets. It seems a nonsense to me. I wish Bob could get a detailed explaination how they arrive at those numbers.

Especially as patronage seems to be the number 1 excitement factor for government to shout about at the moment.

[haakon]

Don't forget that bus drivers count the number of paper ticket uses as they board  by pressing a button (1 press per paper ticket) on the cubic unit.

[Otto]

Don't forget that bus drivers count the number of paper ticket uses as they board  by pressing a button (1 press per paper ticket) on the cubic unit.

Try doing that when loading up at a busy stop with people buying tickets from you as others walk past flashing their paper tickets at you ( the console can only do 1 thing at a time ).... Add to that the gocard users boarding and the CID's (readers) don't beep so you just don't know if the people slipping past have tickets.
That is why we must get the TTO's off their behinds and checking tickets. ( a sight thats rarely seen by drivers .. just read my sig ..)

[ozbob]

The information source for this article appears to be the TL Tracker.

From the Brisbane mX 11th August 2009 page 1

Go-ing for too much

[mufreight]

Translink Tracker, what a joke, more fudged figures to try to justify a sadly flawed and failed system and give credibility to Australias worst Public Transport joke, TRANSLINK.
This system is apparently incapable of determining the number of Go Cards actually used over a set period of time yet able to determine the numbers of commuters in total using each mode of public transport regardless of ticket type.
Solve South East Queenslands Public Transport problems, disband Translink and SEQIP and spend their current budgets on public transport infrastructure instead of bureacurats hot air and obfuscation.