BUS + TRAIN Integrated Contracting

[#Metro]

Hello,

I wish to propose to this forum the packaging of the Brisbane Train operations with the Brisbane area bus operations together as a single contract. The ferries could be thrown in as an option, but since they're restricted to the river, not as much benefit to be had from physical integration one contract than with trains + bus.

The purpose of this would be to give maximum impetus to physical integration between both networks. It would also give a large degree of freedom and flexibility in the event of problems with the train network - buses could easily be put on instantaneously and idle bus capacity released from bus depots to sort out problems.

This level of tight integration works well in Toronto where the Toronto Transit Commission runs both the buses and trains. However, it has never been attempted be be replicated by a private company (to my knowledge) to run both a city's buses and trains.

We have the opportunity to do something world-first with these reforms!

In Toronto, 98% of buses run to train stations and there are massive gains in efficiencies and cost recovery from this tight integration. It would also provide the opportunity, as a side benefit, to have public transport as a career with bus and train drivers being able to move between different moded without leaving the organisation.

[#Metro]

TTC --->

The Toronto Transit Commission runs buses, trains and trams... all as one operation across the entire city.

We have the opportunity to do something world first!!

[techblitz]

pfft...


http://www.citynews.ca/2013/04/05/toronto-among-most-congested-cities-in-north-america-study/

[#Metro]

http://www.citynews.ca/2013/04/05/toronto-among-most-congested-cities-in-north-america-study/

New York and London and Moscow are also very congested. But that's just because they are big cities. What are you trying to say?
The purpose of public transport isn't to reduce congestion, even the busway hasn't done that, but to allow people to bypass congestion
and make it into the CBD for work.

Even Jarrett Walker of Human Transit acknowledges this. Paul Mees has written an entire book on the TTC and how buses run to trains, trains get massive loadings, trains then run every 5 minutes all day until 1 am, every 3 minutes in the peak. Worth it I reckon.

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/what-does-transit-do-about-traffic-congestion.html

[SurfRail]

Don't support this at all.

The whole point of tendering out portions of the network is so you DON'T get lumped with a dud operator in charge of everything.

In Adelaide, Transfield recently lost part of its contract to another operator because of crap performance.  Because there are multiple contractors one was able to step in and deal with it quickly.

If Brisbane is being franchised out:
- The metropolitan rail network should be a contiguous whole
- The buses should be divided into contract areas based on depot locations and clustered together for efficiency (eg I can see a setup where Carina and Garden City depot are awarded to the same contractor, and the other depots are organised into similar groups).  Follow the Perth and Adelaide model (particularly the Perth model).

[somebody]

Agree with SR.

[#Metro]

I think it's good that there is a discussion as it is never clear from the outset what the advantages/disadvantages are.
I am keen to know the mechanisms of how the Perth operations work.

At the moment I don't really like the idea of depot by depot contracting as you lose the economies of scale - i.e. have to run the bus back to the  home depot rather than let it layover at a depot on the other side of the city. Although perhaps Simon has a better perspective than I do on buses.

I don't really look at dividing things along modal lines, although I do agree that this is often the 'default' view. I think there are advantages with bus + train contracting in that the incentive for physical integration between the two networks are aligned both at the company level and at the planning level inside TransLink. The alignment of incentives between private/government is important given the absolute refusal of BT to co-operate with the bus review.

If you give two different companies - a bus company and a train company incentives to grow patronage, then how is this any different to the competition between bus/rail we have at the moment with the QR/BT nexus??

My perspective is that instead of thinking of a "train company" and a "bus company" that we think of a "public transport company" that focuses on services, not modes.

If performance is bad, why could that not be dealt with by insertion of specific provisions within the contract that would allow the mode not being run properly to be lost and possibly re-tendered?

[somebody]

At the moment I don't really like the idea of depot by depot contracting as you lose the economies of scale - i.e. have to run the bus back to the  home depot rather than let it layover at a depot on the other side of the city. Although perhaps Simon has a better perspective than I do on buses.

I believe there are some synergies that can be extracted in this way, but it's pretty small beer.

[#Metro]

^ Wel Simon, you are the bus expert here.

[SurfRail]

If you are going to have a single rail operator (which I consider to be very advantageous), then you can't really sew up all the adjacent bus services with the same contractor.

In particular, it is important to have a single rail operator so we avoid the problems Melbourne had (eg ending up with 2 different fleets of Comengs completely unable to talk to each other and with different DOO provision, which had to be fixed later on to make them "re-compatible" again, and with 2 different types of new trains instead of 1).

If we had largely separate rail lines with different rollingstock, next to no (or actually no) physical junctions or through running, then it might be something to consider.  With a network as heavily centralised as Brisbane's there would be little point in my view.  There is of course nothing which says there have to be "rail operators" and "bus operators" and never the twain shall meet.  SBS Transit and SMRT in Singapore do both for different parts of Singapore.  However, Downtown and North-East line MRT trains don't run on the other lines so the operators can also be separated out.

Bus services are not as tightly built into the infrastructure as Australian-style suburban rail services so fragmentation will work there.  ultimately it is TransLink's* job to do the integration and planning with feedback from the operators and the public - the contractors just have to run where they are paid to run.

(* Or hopefully something more akin to the PTA of WA if they want to get serious.)

[#Metro]

If you are going to have a single rail operator (which I consider to be very advantageous), then you can't really sew up all the adjacent bus services with the same contractor.

Why not? Toronto does it - the TTC runs trams, trains and buses all together as one, all controlled by a commissioner. The cost recovery is ~ 70% from fares. Now imagine that we replace the commissioner with a company CEO and board, and tell me exactly what is so impossible about this picture? Instead of TransLink talking to a bus company(s), a ferry company, a train company, it just talks to one for the city of Brisbane.

I daresay you could call the new public transport company, Brisbane Transport (lol)

I agree not all the buses could be sewn up, for example, gold coast and sunshine coast buses could be different.

I agree that we should have a single rail operator, with the exception of long distance country services. V/Line / Metro does work so consideration given to that.

What is the justification for running things along modal lines? That's what I'm asking...

[SurfRail]

I think it's good that there is a discussion as it is never clear from the outset what the advantages/disadvantages are.
I am keen to know the mechanisms of how the Perth operations work.

Absolutely agree with point 1.  There could in fact be some advantages I am not seeing, but from my point of view getting somebody like Transdev, Transit Systems, ATE etc involved in the bus network would be a good starting point, with somebody with a bit more rail experience and clout (like MTR) eventually running the railways.

While it is proper to think of transit planning along non-modal lines, I wouldn't assume that you can run a railway the same as a bus operation.  There are significant functional differences in how they work and it may be best to track down an operator with good rail experience and operators with good bus experience.  (It could be the case the rail network operator also runs some of the buses too, but I wouldn't give them all of the BCC area.)

Likewise, I wouldn't be in a rush to give GoldlinQ access to any Gold Coast bus services.

The Perth system relies on a number of contract areas based around depot locations and routes (currently 3 contractors running different areas, some contiguous with others and some not), with the trains being operated in-house by the PTA.  Adelaide's network is also based around a lot of through-routing (eg they have an east-west contract, an outer north and outer south contract etc), which gets around some of the issues with dead running although can potentially create issues with timing and late running.

[#Metro]

While it is proper to think of transit planning along non-modal lines, I wouldn't assume that you can run a railway the same as a bus operation. 

Nobody has assumed this, and as I pointed out, if the TTC can do it, I can't see why a consortium can't be formed composed of a bus operator, rail operator and maintenance company to make it all run. You'd call for tenders of these consortia worldwide. Anyway, I'm sure the public servants at TMR and Treasury will nut out the details as such. Just take the public model, replace commissioners/bureaucrats with CEO and a board and voila. 

Likewise, I wouldn't be in a rush to give GoldlinQ access to any Gold Coast bus services.

It is certainly an option. It would align TransLink's desire to have connections to LRT with the company's desire to maximise patronage by making buses feed it.

[SurfRail]

While it is proper to think of transit planning along non-modal lines, I wouldn't assume that you can run a railway the same as a bus operation. 

Nobody has assumed this, and as I pointed out, if the TTC can do it, I can't see why a consortium can't be formed composed of a bus operator, rail operator and maintenance company to make it all run. You'd call for tenders of these consortia worldwide. Anyway, I'm sure the public servants at TMR and Treasury will nut out the details as such. Just take the public model, replace commissioners/bureaucrats with CEO and a board and voila.

The point is to have multiple operators involved to cover the different sub-regions so you aren't beholden to crap performance from somebody who is running the whole shebang. 

The system does not always work (eg the failure of Transfield in Adelaide to perform as required), so you need to have flexibility to shaft somebody who is not working out and replace them.  It isn't something you can do overnight, particularly if there is nobody else running in the area.

[#Metro]

I accept your point is a valid point. Just thinking about all options.

[ozbob]

Interesting times ...

A revamped Queensland Rail can work.  As suggested by the Premier today.   It will really be up to them in the end.  MTR and others will also be keen to have a go I reckon ...

Bus - interesting indeed.   There are some sharp operators around with recent experience in competitive tending. The BCC bus review and plan  simply will not stand up to a competitive tender process IMHO.  Pity they didn't cooperate with TL with the original review. Outcomes might have been very different.

I think it might be too much for a single operator as such that is all bus and rail.  I would expect the Government will stick to rail and the various bus regions, but you never know.  This thread has certainly opened up new directions as well.  Costs will be managed better overall by having a much more integrated network, as proposed by TransLink.   

Karma is a good thing ... 

[#Metro]

I fully expect TransLink to shred the BT bus franchise proposals..

[#Metro]

And further to the above, contestability doesn't exclude public operators in other jurisdictions from competing either. For example, we could well end up with Grenda's or Ventura running the buses and TransPerth Trains running Queensland Rail and V/Line running the Tilt Train.

It's enough to make your head spin

[ozbob]

I fully expect TransLink to shred the BT bus franchise proposals..

Little doubt of that now IMHO.   The proposed BCC network does nothing to address the systemic issues identified in broad concept as cost by Costello et al.  A gun operator is going to use the TL proposal as the basis of a tender, why?  Because it maximises patronage, fare box and better supports an integrated network.

I wonder if BCC have started to rewrite their bus review ...

[ozbob]

I have always liked Ventura, expected of course as I remember the trips on them when very young with my Grandfather .. but they have been a very solid operator for a long long time ...



And when I visit Melbourne and see the blue buses,  it is always a nice moment and happy memory ...

[HappyTrainGuy]

And further to the above, contestability doesn't exclude public operators in other jurisdictions from competing either. For example, we could well end up with Grenda's or Ventura running the buses and TransPerth Trains running Queensland Rail and V/Line running the Tilt Train.

It's enough to make your head spin

Rollingstock mtce would be a single contract for both CityTrain and TravelTrain as the same guys that work on the EMUs work on the Tilts and Lander services with the same facilities all over the area.