My Observations on South east Queensland Public Transport

[mch]

I have noticed that TTA seem to be focussed on removing the QR Citytrain logo from everything.

If you look at the buses, you will see the TTA logo, but you will also see the company name as well.  Why is it not the same?

QR?s core business is the movement of Passengers, freight, coal and mineral products and livestock in the safest and most efficient manner.
At least I thought this was the case. If it is not, what are they doing?
QR passenger should then have as their core business the movement of Passengers in the safest and most efficient manner.
The 19 listed partner companies should also I presume have similar core business in the movement of passengers throughout South East Queensland.
(Bear in mind that private operators will also have an overriding goal of running a profitable business ? If they don?t they will probably end up out of business.) 

Translink?s aims and role as shown below seem to be suitable in most areas:
TransLink is committed to delivering a world-class public transport network for the people of South East Queensland.
The Queensland Government created the TransLink Transit Authority to improve and expand public transport services across the South East Queensland network.

Our role is to:
Provide a single point of contact for customer information that is easy to access and understand coordinate and integrate public transport services;
Deliver and manage infrastructure such as train station upgrades and busways;
Introduce new technology such as real time passenger information.

The delivery and management of train station upgrades is fine, but should be done on behalf of QR Passenger as the operator (Not to replace them) (I hope they are not trying to do this.)
Now where does it indicate that they should limit the introduction of new services or control the logos on the busses, ferries or rail rollingstock?
All of the roles are really as an overseer and coordinator and should not be to replace the functions already done by the individual.  While it is important that they understand the schedule process and work with the operators to produce efficient coordinated services, they should not try to take over that process. 
QR has been doing their scheduling job for years and local bus companies have been doing similar, so why should TTA now try to tell them how to do it.
Translink really need people who are very customer focussed and can look out of the box to make suggestions that will cause people to think about what they are doing, but should not be taking over the process unless there are some real good reasons for doing so.

So what has happened?
As far as I am concerned, TTA has not been really successful.
Many bus services not achieving the potential of efficiently carrying people (empty buses not connecting with trains etc);
Train service expansion not occurring at a steady rate to meet growing demand (Gaps in peak demand periods);
Go Card not really achieving its real potential (failures, fare structure and usage)
Single point contact not working ? poor feedback to public and many web link failures

Real work needs to be done to make it work.  Not higher paid managers, but workers given the right direction, training, tools and authority that they need to get their jobs done.

Translink should be working to build up the operators not try to compete with them for control.

If we look around Australia and overseas we can see that trying to make major changes to ownership or the work of existing operators has failed to fix issues and in many cases has led to more problems.
Translink Transit Authority needs to work towards improving the coordination of existing operators.
For anything else to happen could spell disaster for South East Queensland travellers.

Noel Haynes

[Derwan]

I have noticed that TTA seem to be focussed on removing the QR Citytrain logo from everything.

Interestingly enough, the later SMU's actually have the Citytrain logo.  There was a period where they were coming out of EDI Rail without the logos, but now they're back.  Perhaps common sense has prevailed.

I agree with your sentiments on the TTA!

[mufreight]

Translink has many espoused aims,
Pity that when it comes to action they are so far off target, particularly in relation to rail that one wonders if their agenda is in fact to discourage public transport use with abysmal performance that denies QR Passenger the ability to respond to commuter's needs and concerns in a meaningful manner.

[stephenk]

I have to agree with many of these comments.

The lack of 15 minute off-peak service, and service gaps longer than 15 mins in the peaks are preventing public transport from being more attractive.

The lack of bus service planning (such as the chronic overcrowding on the Northern Busway to RBWH), is also making public transport unattractive.

Rail infrastructure investments planned with short term vision, which only temporarily solve local overcrowding issues are also making public transport unattractive.

[Jon Bryant]

Also agree but note that the failure to develop public transport as a priority is not Translinks fault.  I think it has made great gains in coordination and ticketing but needs the Government to be focued on public transport as its No.1 transport priority.  We need to remember that until last year it was a coordination unit that had minimal authority.  That has changed but it will take time to change the culture of all our transport providers to become a single service provider.

Lets keep the focus on the need for investment which lies with the Governments.

[mufreight]

The only thing that Translink can claim any credit for has been intergrated ticketing.
Co-ordination you have to be kidding, it is doubtful that they could even co-ordinate their linch breaks.

[justanotheruser]

As far as logos go I have seen numerous private buses that only have translink on them and not the company name (unless you count the personalized number plates).


Translink in the past has has been a toothless tiger. They have admitted as such at times. A number of private bus companies have made a rule that prams and strollers must be folded before getting on the bus. Apparently this is because a child went through the windscreen when a bus had to suddenly brake hard. Despite spending time searching google news I was unable to find evidence of such a story. Acording to the terms of contract private bus operators are not able to make those kind of rules but translink said they were powerless to do anything about it.
Forcing a parent to hold onto a child means they have no hands at times to hold on should the bus suddenly brake. (young kids squirm alot). In a pram or stroller strapped in then you always have one hand holding pram and one holding onto a pole to prevent flying forward in an accident.

[O_128]

why should trains and etc be branded. To me it is as pointless as the 50 Queensland government logos i see every time i step on a new IMU/SMU for a non profit organization they sure ahve a lot of advertising expenditiure