QLD Smart Ticketing - Open Payment

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

4th May 2019

What's the go with open payment for the go?

Good Morning,

There has been renewed interest in the introduction of the new payment system for public transport fares in Queensland this past week. This is not new - Contactless payment adopted on Qld transport June 2018 https://www.govtechreview.com.au/content/gov-mobility/news/contactless-payment-adopted-on-qld-transport-1214069530

Open payment means the introduction new alternate ways to pay, including contactless debit and credit cards, smartphones and wearable devices (such as smart watches), a good thing in principle.
There some concerns that need to be answered though.

One of the problems with open payment at present is that the usual benefits associated with the smart card ticketing product such as caps, off peak discounts and so forth don't always apply.  Open payment is in fact an expensive way to regularly travel at present compared to the base card in jurisdictions that already have open payment.

For opal (Sydney) if you consistently use the same contactless card or linked device to tap on and tap off, you may qualify for Opal daily, weekly and Sunday fare caps but no other Opal benefits apply ( https://transportnsw.info/tickets-opal/opal/contactless-payments ).

Same with myki (Melbourne) - not all benefits via open payment ( https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/tickets/myki/mobile-myki/mobile-myki-frequently-asked-questions/ )

What is planned for the new payment system for Queensland?  If there is a cost disadvantage to using open payment as compared to the base go card uptake might not be as high as touted. This needs detailed clarification.

Additionally where is the public consultation on this?  In 2016 as a result the Fare Review Taskforce, the Government recommended that a Public Transport Fares Advisory Panel (PTFAP) be formed.  This was not done until July 2018, following questions in Parliament Estimates ( https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2018/Jul/ApptFaresPanel/Appointments%20to%20Public%20Transport%20Fares%20Advisory%20Panel.docx).  Publicly, we have heard nothing about the PTFAP or if there have been meetings or engagement with the public since.

A major change such as is planned with the new payment system needs to engage the public properly. Spin and gloss media is not consultation.  Top down implementations without in depth public consultation are doomed to failure.

Best wishes,

Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1124442181807235073

[ozbob]

' What's the go with open payment for the go? '
Facebook, going off ! > https://t.co/jPD15qalf0#qldpol pic.twitter.com/Px8yUjtEbz

— RAIL_BoT_Forum (@railbotforum) May 3, 2019

[ozbob]

https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/2598841263463378?comment_id=2598902863457218

Some points to ponder ... If the new system is capable of setting up individual user accounts ( some indications it will be ), and then you will identify to that account the devices and cards that you will use then all should be sweet. You will receive concessions, cap benefits etc that you get on on your current go card even if you use your phone, smart watch, chip in forehead (joke) etc. However, and this is the killer, use a random credit card, smart phone etc. not registered to an account the system will not be able to apply concessions or caps (unless perhaps the same random device is used for a number of transactions eg. opal) and will simply charge the adult fare. What will these fares be? Standard go card fares or paper fares? Also, I believe consultation as to the range of ticketing products to be part of the new fare system is very important. Will there be periodical options? I know from feedback and discussions that many punters, myself included, would like periodical ticketing options eg. weekly, monthly and yearly. Melbourne has that option on their myki, so called myki pass. I am sure there will be other complexities that will pop up too. But this is a very good move of course, and having the new fare payment system Queensland wide is a great thing. This in turn will open up further opportunities for innovative practices and sales. 😎👍 Robert

[ozbob]

https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/2598841263463378?comment_id=2598902863457218

The new fare system is going to Queensland wide, that is for urban bus. Presently the urban bus cities all have their own fare structures and costs. The fares are cheaper than SEQ ( https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/public/transport/timetables/qconnect ). So wonder what will happen? Will there be separate fare tables for each geographic location or will costs be universal for a one zone journey? 🧐 Robert


Map of locations across Queensland where the new payment system will be rolled out

[ozbob]

^

https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/2598841263463378?comment_id=2598902863457218&reply_comment_id=2600470429967128

Thinking about urban bus fares some more. I think the only real equitable solution is to have separate fare tables for each location. That is a minor programming exercise. I don't think it would be fair to have what would be very significant fare increases for urban bus if the the fare table was a universal one, ie. SEQ + all urban bus jurisdictions. Just some thoughts. Robert

[verbatim9]

Hopefully the usage of the new system will be seamless between regions. Cairns Se Qld incl (Gympie) and Toowoomba should be on the same fare structure.

The whole purpose of a Statewide ticketing system is to use one account throughout the whole State seamlessly.

The regions could easily adopt the same fare structuring as Seq, especially if incentives come into play such as daily, weekly, monthly caps and off-peak fares. (Flat rate Sundays and Public Holidays) This will make it financially viable for commuters with these incentives in place which they don't have at the moment.

^^Be good to include community feedback on what kind of fare products are preferred. Plus how much the community are willing to pay for a 1-2 zone trip in general. Even if it's just feedback from formulated questions sent over the web. Community forums would be the next step, if information was not informative to formulate the best fare structure and incentives.

[ozbob]

The fare structures can be the same, it is the fare tables that will be location specific.

Have you had a look at the zone fare costs for urban bus?  They are a lot less generally than SEQ, you can't increase fares massively overnight.

[Cazza]

I've had a rant about this before so I'll keep it short this time but I think zones aren't the way fares should be based on. It should be on distance. As I've said, as cities become more polycentric, the zone fare structure becomes useless and completely unfair (pardon the pun) to most commuters.

Let's look at a few scenarios:
-Ashgrove (Zone 1) to City (Zone 1). Distance approx. 5kms, Peak-Hour Price $3.31, timetabled journey on Route 380 at approx. 8am: 26 mins (to Adelaide St, Stop 17).
-Ashgrove (Zone 1) to The Gap (Zone 2). Distance approx. 5kms, Peak-Hour Price $4.03, timetabled journey on Route 380 at approx. 8am: 10 mins (to The Gap Village).

Even though I travel the same distance, take over 15 mins less, head against the flow of peak hour (towards The Gap in the morning and Ashgrove in the afternoon) I get charged a higher fare. Go figure.

Second scenario:
Ashgrove (Zone 1) to The Gap (Zone 2).
Lawnton (Zone 2) to Browns Plains (Zone 2). Distance approx. 50-60kms (depending on trip taken by car, going to be slightly longer by PT), Peak Hour Price $4.03, timetabled journey on train and Route 140 at approx. 8am: 1 hour, 40 mins.

And with this example, I think anyone can see how the current system is slightly broken. Why do I get charged the same price for a fare even though I travel over 50kms less and it takes my journey just 10 mins, compared to the 1 hour, 40 mins of the other? (even with the fastest journey possible). Better still, since the both the start and the end zone is Zone 2, it may even calculate it as a 1 Zone fare (reinforcing my point further).

I think it's pretty clear to see why so many people choose to take the car if they aren't travelling to the City...

[ozbob]

It is entirely possible that one of the options might well be distance based fares (point to point).  This was mentioned in 2016 during the Fare Review.  It would be optional.  Fare zones are easier for the majority and I would expect those to be retained. 

But you highlight Cazza why they need to start getting serious feedback from the punters.  They are apparently in the design phase now.  Unless they seek feedback we will be presented with another fait accompli as was the case with go card mark 1.

I will add some further comments that may help understand why we have our present system.  The go card system mark 1 was one of the first smart card ticketing systems and is not that well developed in terms of what can be done.  The 23 fare zone initial roll out was an attempt in some respects to try to be a defacto point to point in some respects but it was very anomalous. The programming limitations also are why we have the weird capping after x journeys (no periodical options). For example if you went north <> south say 5 km you could easily go through 3 zones, but east <> west only one zone.  The 2016 review was very much constrained by the limitations of the go card system itself.  Point to point is simply not able to be implemented at all.   So the rationalisation of the zones was a good attempt to make fares a bit more affordable and a lot more equitable. Sure there are still anomalies but  less that what there was.  It was understood it was an interim solution until the new payment system was introduced.

Point to point can be anomalous too depending on how it is determined, as the crow flies or actual journey distance?

There are no perfect solutions.  But by offering a range of options though, most people should be able to work out what best fits their travel patterns.

[James]

I've had a rant about this before so I'll keep it short this time but I think zones aren't the way fares should be based on. It should be on distance. As I've said, as cities become more polycentric, the zone fare structure becomes useless and completely unfair (pardon the pun) to most commuters.

<snip>

First of all, I'd like to say that I agree with your example of The Gap - reducing from 23 zones down to 8 was a bad move IMHO. Yes, there were issues with the number of zones and the spacing of those zones on the coasts, but everything else is for a reason.

We want to reward people who use public transport for cross-town journeys, as someone going Chermside - Upper Mount Gravatt is going to go through congested corridors to get there (via the ICB/M3), yet they will likely have plentiful parking at their workplace, so we should offer them a 'discount' to make using PT more attractive - inherent in the zonal system (the trip out to UMG is 'free').

We also want to reward someone choosing to travel an 'orbital' route from say Altandi to Indooroopilly, as an orbital route will
reduce the burden on the network than someone going in and out of the city, as that spot can now be used by a city-bound commuter, maximising capacity.

A per-km travelled system is most equitable, as it means everybody pays for what they use. However, failing this, a system with lots of zones gets very close to doing this, while offering discounts in a positive way. TransLink consolidating zones removed some anomalies, but they didn't even bother to fix the remaining ones either - e.g. Chelmer station is still in zone 1, while Chelmer bus stops are in zone 2.

[verbatim9]

I've had a rant about this before so I'll keep it short this time but I think zones aren't the way fares should be based on. It should be on distance. As I've said, as cities become more polycentric, the zone fare structure becomes useless and completely unfair (pardon the pun) to most commuters.

Let's look at a few scenarios:
-Ashgrove (Zone 1) to City (Zone 1). Distance approx. 5kms, Peak-Hour Price $3.31, timetabled journey on Route 380 at approx. 8am: 26 mins (to Adelaide St, Stop 17).
-Ashgrove (Zone 1) to The Gap (Zone 2). Distance approx. 5kms, Peak-Hour Price $4.03, timetabled journey on Route 380 at approx. 8am: 10 mins (to The Gap Village).

Even though I travel the same distance, take over 15 mins less, head against the flow of peak hour (towards The Gap in the morning and Ashgrove in the afternoon) I get charged a higher fare. Go figure.

Second scenario:
Ashgrove (Zone 1) to The Gap (Zone 2).
Lawnton (Zone 2) to Browns Plains (Zone 2). Distance approx. 50-60kms (depending on trip taken by car, going to be slightly longer by PT), Peak Hour Price $4.03, timetabled journey on train and Route 140 at approx. 8am: 1 hour, 40 mins.

And with this example, I think anyone can see how the current system is slightly broken. Why do I get charged the same price for a fare even though I travel over 50kms less and it takes my journey just 10 mins, compared to the 1 hour, 40 mins of the other? (even with the fastest journey possible). Better still, since the both the start and the end zone is Zone 2, it may even calculate it as a 1 Zone fare (reinforcing my point further).

I think it's pretty clear to see why so many people choose to take the car if they aren't travelling to the City...

It is entirely possible that one of the options might well be distance based fares (point to point).  This was mentioned in 2016 during the Fare Review.  It would be optional.  Fare zones are easier for the majority and I would expect those to be retained. 

But you highlight Cazza why they need to start getting serious feedback from the punters.  They are apparently in the design phase now.  Unless they seek feedback we will be presented with another fait accompli as was the case with go card mark 1.

I will add some further comments that may help understand why we have our present system.  The go card system mark 1 was one of the first smart card ticketing systems and is not that well developed in terms of what can be done.  The 23 fare zone initial roll out was an attempt in some respects to try to be a defacto point to point in some respects but it was very anomalous. The programming limitations also are why we have the weird capping after x journeys (no periodical options). For example if you went north <> south say 5 km you could easily go through 3 zones, but east <> west only one zone.  The 2016 review was very much constrained by the limitations of the go card system itself.  Point to point is simply not able to be implemented at all.   So the rationalisation of the zones was a good attempt to make fares a bit more affordable and a lot more equitable. Sure there are still anomalies but  less that what there was.  It was understood it was an interim solution until the new payment system was introduced.

Point to point can be anomalous too depending on how it is determined, as the crow flies or actual journey distance?

There are no perfect solutions.  But by offering a range of options though, most people should be able to work out what best fits their travel patterns.

I've had a rant about this before so I'll keep it short this time but I think zones aren't the way fares should be based on. It should be on distance. As I've said, as cities become more polycentric, the zone fare structure becomes useless and completely unfair (pardon the pun) to most commuters.

<snip>

First of all, I'd like to say that I agree with your example of The Gap - reducing from 23 zones down to 8 was a bad move IMHO. Yes, there were issues with the number of zones and the spacing of those zones on the coasts, but everything else is for a reason.

We want to reward people who use public transport for cross-town journeys, as someone going Chermside - Upper Mount Gravatt is going to go through congested corridors to get there (via the ICB/M3), yet they will likely have plentiful parking at their workplace, so we should offer them a 'discount' to make using PT more attractive - inherent in the zonal system (the trip out to UMG is 'free').

We also want to reward someone choosing to travel an 'orbital' route from say Altandi to Indooroopilly, as an orbital route will
reduce the burden on the network than someone going in and out of the city, as that spot can now be used by a city-bound commuter, maximising capacity.

A per-km travelled system is most equitable, as it means everybody pays for what they use. However, failing this, a system with lots of zones gets very close to doing this, while offering discounts in a positive way. TransLink consolidating zones removed some anomalies, but they didn't even bother to fix the remaining ones either - e.g. Chelmer station is still in zone 1, while Chelmer bus stops are in zone 2.

I would like to see distance based introduced for all modes. We do it for Air travel soon for road travel with the change to EVs. Why not PT? It would be good if the Government did some modelling on distance based vs zonal based travel and put it to the public for feedback.

[SurfRail]

Scrap all fare zones, charge on distance as the crow flies from where you board to where you alight.  Flagfall of $1.00 - no continuation travel other than that you only pay the flagfall once.  Price peaks differently to off-peaks (and perhaps have different gradations between weekday off-peak and weekends).

[ozbob]

As I commented early, point to point was raised in 2016.  What concerns me is the absolute lack of any public consultation at this point of time.  The Public Transport Fares Advisory Panel seems to be in name only.  The fait accompli that was go card mark 1 must be avoided.

[ozbob]

We are getting a good response on the Facebook post https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/2598841263463378

I have just added this to the post.  Be interesting to see what the punters think.

https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/2598841263463378?comment_id=2603933452954159

" An alternate way of basing fare costs is distance based, that is point to point. You pay a fare for the distance between the two locations travelled, this gets around zone boundary issues and other fare anomalies such as present in the original 23 zones we had in SEQ for example, and the 8 zones now in place for SEQ fares. Similar zone anomalies are found in all the urban bus fare zones too. My understanding is the backend for the new fare payment system probably will have the ability to support point to point fares. This paper from UQ ' Developments in transit fare policy reform ' https://backontrack.org/docs/fares/farepolicypaper.pdf ( 130 kb ) is a few years old now but gives a good background. What do you think about point to point fares? Robert "

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1125489992258580480

[ozbob]

Letter to the Editor Queensland Times 7th May 2019 page 17

Payment system could be doomed to failure

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

Lot of interest in the new fare payment system FB post ...

Presently 2,294 3041 4340  People reached 304 360 469 Engagements

[ozbob]

QUESTION ON NOTICE ASKED

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2019/820-2019.pdf

Wednesday, 15 May 2019

Answer Due: Friday, 14 June 2019

820 MR S MINNIKIN ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (HON M BAILEY)

With reference to the Next Generation Ticketing System—

Will the Minister advise the level of (a) public consultation/consumer engagement for the system,
particularly in relation to fare structure, products, and costs and (b) involvement of the Public Transport
Advisory Panel in the process?

[verbatim9]

Touch on and off with credit and debit cards to begin second half of 2019


Brisbane Times----------->https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/new-public-transport-ticket-system-expected-to-rake-in-8-billion-20190603-p51u37.html

New public transport ticket system expected to rake in $8 billion
FELICITY CALDWELL JUNE 03, 2019

People will be able to pay for public transport using their bank cards or smart watches under a new Queensland ticketing system.Credit:Cubic

That equates to about $512 million a year on average.

Last year's budget estimated revenue from public transport would reach $363 million in south-east Queensland in 2021-22.

A Translink spokesman said the forecast fare revenue of $8.71 billion was based on current public transport fare revenue in south-east Queensland, factoring in future population and patronage growth.

"The estimate is conservative and does not include the likely positive impact of customers switching to public transport following investment in Cross River Rail, smart ticketing or other major investments," he said.

Mr Bailey said fare revenue would be reinvested in the public transport system.

Loading

The Queensland government has budgeted $371.1 million to design, build and implement the smart ticketing system.

Mr Bailey would not disclose the cost of operational payments to Cubic associated with the new contract or the total cost over the term of the contract, citing commercial-in-confidence.

"The overall operational cost of revenue collection will remain in line with global best practice," he said.

Cubic, the present operator of south-east Queensland's Go Card system, was awarded a 10-year contract in mid-2018, with up to seven years of operational extensions, after a multi-year tender process.

Greens MP Michael Berkman said Queenslanders would be concerned basic information about the contract with Cubic was being kept from the public.

"The fact that ticketing is privatised is no reason to keep basic information secret," he said.

Trials of the new system are due to begin in the second half of 2019.

In June 2018, Cubic Asia Pacific senior vice-president Tom Walker said when the contactless bank card upgrade was rolled out in London, there was an "extraordinary increase in patronage".

"And we would expect the same to happen in Queensland," he said.

"People are really attracted to public transport, given the convenience of using a bank card."

The technology is also used in Sydney, Chicago and Vancouver.

[verbatim9]

^^The coincidental thing I was talking to a tech about this just last week. He mentioned that the credit and debit card feature will be online prior to the end of this year. 

[ozbob]

The latest article on BT is an attempt to diffuse the Question On Notice from the Opposition and our recent attempts to shine some light on the situation. Typical response by a failing Govt and their hopeless staffers,  to cover their lack of transparency.

The lack of consultation re the new fare system is very concerning, and of course the usual lack of transparency.

Commercial in confidence my arse.  We, the citizens are paying for it we are more than entitled to know the real costs.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

4th June 2019

New fare payment system - non transparency and media manipulation

Good Morning,

We note the Question on Notice (number 820 https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/question-on-notice/online-question-on-notice ) asked by the Shadow Minister for Transport and Main Roads Mr  Minnikin on Wednesday 15 May 2019:

" Will the Minister advise the level of (a) public consultation/consumer engagement for the system,
particularly in relation to fare structure, products, and costs and (b) involvement of the Public Transport
Advisory Panel in the process? "

On the 4th May 2019 we queried what was happening with the new fare payment system ( What's the go with open payment for the go? https://www.facebook.com/RAILBackOnTrack/posts/2598841263463378) Further to this I emailed the DDG TransLink on 8th May requesting what progress had occurred and a possible briefing/update.  Further follow up emails on the 16th May 2019 and the 3rd June 2019 have not been responded to, just ignored, not even acknowledgements of receipt.

Today there is an article in the Brisbanetimes ' New public transport ticket system expected to rake in $8 billion https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/new-public-transport-ticket-system-expected-to-rake-in-8-billion-20190603-p51u37.html  This article is an attempt to quell some of the unease developing around the new fare system implementation, particularly the lack of consultation and the non transparency.  In the article it is reported that:

Greens MP Michael Berkman said Queenslanders would be concerned basic information about the contract with Cubic was being kept from the public.
"The fact that ticketing is privatised is no reason to keep basic information secret," he said.

We agree strongly with Mr Berkman.  The go card system #1 costs are known.  Why the lack of real transparency and the attempts by Minister Bailey to hide behind the commercial-in-confidence cloak of non-transparency with the new fare payment system?  We the citizens of Queensland are paying for it and we damn well are entitled to know the real costs and what is really happening.

The administration and delivery of public transport in Queensland is in tatters.  This is a further demonstration of contempt by the Palaszczuk Labor State Government and just further erodes what little confidence is left. The DDG of TransLink is very selective in his responses to correspondence too we have found.

We look forward to Minister Bailey's response to the Question on Notice 820.  It seems the only way that proper information can be obtained sadly.

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1135571911923003392

[ozbob]

Facebook ...

[verbatim9]

New ways to pay later this year #7News reports

https://twitter.com/7NewsBrisbane/status/1135826446641852416

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1135939136454455296

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1135940055657172992

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

5th June 2019

Open payment - key questions

Good Morning,

Progress to open payment with the new fare system throughout Queensland is a good thing.

However, their is a cloak of secrecy and a distinct lack of public consultation with the new fare system.

Despite the 'good news' media yesterday there is an important question that needs an answer:

Open payment means the introduction new alternate ways to pay, including contactless debit and credit cards, smartphones and wearable devices (such as smart watches), a good thing in principle.
There some concerns that need to be answered though.

One of the problems with open payment at present is that the usual benefits associated with the smart card ticketing product such as caps, off peak discounts and so forth don't always apply.  Open payment is in fact an expensive way to regularly travel at present compared to the base card in jurisdictions that already have open payment.

For opal (Sydney) if you consistently use the same contactless card or linked device to tap on and tap off, you may qualify for Opal daily, weekly and Sunday fare caps but no other Opal benefits apply ( https://transportnsw.info/tickets-opal/opal/contactless-payments ).

Same with myki (Melbourne) - not all benefits via open payment ( https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/tickets/myki/mobile-myki/mobile-myki-frequently-asked-questions/ )

What is planned for the new payment system for Queensland?  If there is a cost disadvantage to using open payment as compared to the base go card uptake might not be as high as touted. This needs detailed clarification.

We have attempted to get answers but no response.  Is there something to hide Mr Bailey?  Mr Longland??
Without clarification we can only assume there is, hey?

Best wishes,
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

Attached:

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9891.msg223161#msg223161

https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9891.msg222087#msg222087

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1135992428903653377

[ozbob]

Letter to the Editor Queensland Times 6th June 2019 page 17

New fare system needs payment consideration

[verbatim9]

^^Casual credit debit card users touching on and off should receive the default Go card peak and off peak fare plus a daily cap of 15.00-20.00 bucks. (This will avoid rorting on long distance travel to the outer edges of the zones.) I don't think more incentives are needed for casual users. If they become frequent users of the network then a Go account linked to the credit card would be the best way forward. This will allow for further incentives for the traveller or commuter.

[ozbob]

Casual users are one thing.  But if regular travellers are actually paying more to use open payment cf. to the go card itself, they will not want to use open payment.  It is a little concerning that the Government and TransLink are remaining very secretive, and there has been no public consultation.  The Public Transport Fares Advisory Panel hasn't been heard from.

I am hoping that the system will allow a user create a user account.  You then register on that account that bank cards, and other smart devices that you wish to use, you can still use the base go card as well.  Under that framework the ticketing costs will equate with using a base go card.   People who just come along and try to use a contactless card/device not linked to an account will pay higher fares. It didn't take the punters long to work that out in Sydney and Melbourne for example.

[James]

Really, much more focus should be going on to the work which will actually save commuters money, like loadable passes, zonal capping and so forth.

Instead, so much time is being spent on open payment, which won't save anybody any money beyond the $10 cost of a go card. Open payment will only make sense for the occasional user IMHO, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[ozbob]

Question on Notice (number 820 https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/question-on-notice/online-question-on-notice ) asked by the Shadow Minister for Transport and Main Roads Mr  Minnikin on Wednesday 15 May 2019:

With reference to the Next Generation Ticketing System—

" Will the Minister advise the level of (a) public consultation/consumer engagement for the system,
particularly in relation to fare structure, products, and costs and (b) involvement of the Public Transport
Advisory Panel in the process? "

Response is due today, 14th June 2019 

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/question-on-notice/online-question-on-notice

[ozbob]

Response now available:

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2019/820-2019.pdf

Question on Notice
No. 820

Asked on Wednesday 15 May 2019

MR S MINNIKIN ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (HON M BAILEY)—

QUESTION:
With reference to the Next Generation Ticketing System—
Will the Minister advise the level of (a) public consultation/consumer engagement for the system,
particularly in relation to fare structure, products, and costs and (b) involvement of the Public
Transport Advisory Panel in the process?

ANSWER:
I thank the Member for Chatsworth for the question.

The Palaszczuk Government's $371.1 million new Smart Ticketing system will commence
delivery this year with a number of trials ahead of being fully implemented in 2022.
The delivery of Smart Ticketing is part of the Queensland Government's ongoing customer
improvement recommendations from the implementation of Fairer fares for South East
Queensland.

Smart Ticketing is focused on delivering an account-based ticketing system to replace the existing
go card system. The project team is currently undertaking detailed design of the new system
which will provide customers with more payment choice, and greater flexibility to respond to
customer needs in the future.

The specification has been informed by customer research and the Palaszczuk Government will
continue to seek out opportunities to engage with customers during the design and delivery of
the project. At present, the project is engaging with accessibility groups around the design of
ticketing infrastructure. User testing will also be undertaken for project components, ensuring the
project delivers an accessible and inclusive solution for all Queenslanders.

Mr Paul Low has been appointed as the Chair of the Public Transport Fares Advisory Panel ahead
of the first meeting next month. The Panel will provide independent expert advice to the
Queensland Government on any proposed changes to public transport fares, products and
ticketing in the future, including the Smart Ticketing project.

[ozbob]

So no public consultation with respect to ticketing products etc.

The PTFAP has not even met yet ...  the PTFAP was a government response to Fairer Fares December 2016.  The only reason it got pushed a long a little was that the opposition asked a question about the PTFAP in estimates 2018 (that is when the Cabinet doc. appeared).  It again dropped off the radar.  They really don't care a great deal does the Govt?

Another cluster-fuk on the way ...

[ozbob]

According to 

https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2018/Jul/ApptFaresPanel/Appointments%20to%20Public%20Transport%20Fares%20Advisory%20Panel.docx

The PTFAP was to be formed with the nominees listed below:


Dr Kellie Nuttall Chairperson

Associate Professor Matthew Burke Board member

Ms Julie Castle Board member

Ms Adrienne Ward Board member

Mr Blaise Itabelo Board member

Ms Gail Ker Board member

==============

Seems that a Mr Paul Low is now the Chair of PTFAP according to the Minister's answer to QON 820.

This might be is Mr Low  https://au.linkedin.com/in/paul-low-13301635?trk=public_profile_samename_mini-profile_title

No idea who is on the rest of the panel.

[ozbob]

 

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2019/6/14/chair-appointed-to-lead-palaszczuk-government-public-transport-fares-panel

Media Statements
Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Mark Bailey

Friday, June 14, 2019

Chair appointed to lead Palaszczuk Government public transport fares panel

One of Australia's leading public transport minds has been appointed to chair the Palaszczuk Government's new Public Transport Fares Advisory Panel.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Mark Bailey said with more than 20 years' experience in major infrastructure projects and public transport, KPMG's National Lead Partner Infrastructure, Government and Healthcare Mr Paul Low would lead the independent panel and provide expert advice on transport fares, products and ticketing.

"The Palaszczuk Government's Fairer Fares Policy has slashed how much it costs to take public transport, saving Queenslanders more than $153 million and leading to a record 182 million trips last year," Mr Bailey said.

"As we head for another record in patronage and invest more than $370 million for Australia's first smart ticketing system, Paul Low and the panel will provide valuable and specialised knowledge to look at additional ways we can make the public transport experience even better.

"Our smart ticketing project will mean all Queenslanders will have access to innovative public transport technology, unlike the traditional GoCard, which is currently restricted in where it can be used.

"The Palaszczuk Government will deliver more than $23.1 billion in roads and transport infrastructure over the next four years, supporting more than 21,500 jobs, and I look forward to working with Paul and the panel to make the most of Queensland's public transport."

The remaining expert panel members are expected to be appointed within coming weeks ahead of the first meeting of next month.

ENDS

====================

" The remaining expert panel members are expected to be appointed within coming weeks ahead of the first meeting of next month. "

[ozbob]

Facebook ...