recommendations to the creation of a fares strategy to support improved public transport in south...

8/14/2019 Recommendations to the creation of a fares strategy to support improved public transport in South East Queensla

1/36

Research Topic:

Determining recommendations to the creation of a fares

strategy to support improved public transport in South East

Queensland.

Submitted to Paul Donohue

David Bremner n5777038

June 2009

DBP415 Research Project

Master of Urban and Regional Planning

Criteria

Quality of written and graphic communication Clarity of research question, objectives, explanation of background Rigour and appropriateness of the collection and analysis of information Connections between analysis and conclusions and question and research

objectives


2/36

Pagei

1 Abstract ...............................................................................................................1

2 Introduction.........................................................................................................1

3 Method overview.................................................................................................23.1 Research topic ................................................................ ................................................................ ..............23.2 Research aims/objectives........................................................................................................................2

3.3 Approach.........................................................................................................................................................2 3.4 Method.............................................................................................................................................................3 3.5 Analytical and consultative techniques.............................................................................................3

4 Situational Review ...............................................................................................44.1 Implementation of Translink and integrated ticketing .............................................................. 44.2 PT fares elsewhere ................................................................ ................................................................ .....5

4.2.1 London, UK..................................................................................................................................................54.2.2 Perth, Australia.........................................................................................................................................64.2.3 Melbourne (still to be implemented) ...............................................................................................7

4.3 Urban and regional planning and transport planning policy context..................................74.3.1 Integrated Regional Transport Plan ...............................................................................................8

4.3.2 South East Queensland Regional Plan ............................................................................................84.3.3 Translink Network Plan ........................................................................................................................94.3.4 Transport Plan for Brisbane ............................................................................................................104.3.5 A Community Service Obligation Framework for Public Transport in SEQ ................11

4.4 Summary......................................................................................................................................................12

5 Consultation.......................................................................................................12 5.1 Online survey ................................................................ ................................................................ ............. 12

5.1.1 Section 1 - Use of public transport and payment method ...................................................135.1.2 Section 2 - Fare Policy Principles ...................................................................................................145.1.3 Section 3 - Fare Policy Aims..............................................................................................................175.1.4 Section 4 - Actions for Implementation.......................................................................................18

5.1.5 Section 5 - Additional Open Text Question Responses...........................................................185.1.6 Survey Summary....................................................................................................................................195.2 Key stakeholder interviews.................................................................................................................20

6 Summary Analysis ..............................................................................................216.1 Key values of importance for PT........................................................................................................216.2 Decision Approach...................................................................................................................................21

7 Recommendations .............................................................................................237.1 Community engagement................................................................ ....................................................... 247.2 Housing and transportation affordability research ................................................................ .. 247.3 Creation of new products ................................................................ ..................................................... 247.4 Opportunities for immediate changes to pricing ................................................................ ....... 25

7.4.1 Fare increases.........................................................................................................................................257.4.2 Indexing.....................................................................................................................................................257.4.3 Zone based monthly travelcard on Go card...............................................................................257.4.4 Off-peak ticketing on Go card ..........................................................................................................267.4.5 Cancel frequent user scheme............................................................................................................267.4.6 Improve penalty fares approach ....................................................................................................267.4.7 Comparison of 2009 Suggested Adult Fares with 2004 and 2008 Prices.....................28 7.4.8 Summary...................................................................................................................................................29

8 Conclusion .........................................................................................................29

9 References .........................................................................................................30

10 Appendix One Summary of Interviews.............................................................31


3/36

Research Project DBP415 Research ProjectDavid Bremner n5777038

Page1

1 AbstractThis research seeks to establish a values approach to public transport fares in South East

Queensland. It is hoped that the recommendations of this research will inform fare pricing

and the drafting of a formal public transport fares strategy by Translink. This is seen to berelevant and timely research given changes afoot to fares in South East Queensland andthe ongoing claim that public transport services are central to compact, livable, socially

just and environmentally sensitive urban form.

2 IntroductionSouth East Queensland has been experiencing rapid and sustained growth for the lastseveral decades. This growth in population when tied to changes in travel behaviour in

favour of the car has resulted in significant implications for urban form and transport

planning.

Indeed, private road based travel has been one of, if not the, major shaping factor to ourcities since World War II. Recent shifts in perception about climate change, coupled with

significant increases in the price of petrol and increasing urban congestion have lead to an

increasing focus back on public transport. Public transport is seen as integral in dealingwith these challenges. It is also seen as a major community service that helps address

broad desires for social equity and access to employment and training.

It is within this context that shifts towards more integrated service planning, provision

and charging have occurred in public transport in South East Queensland.

Indeed since the initial formation of Translink in 2004 many local advancements have

been made to public transport in support of both transport, and urban and regional

planning policy. Many of these advancements have been due to enhanced regulation,integration of fares across private public transport operators and progressively more

centralised transport planning.

For over a decade transport policy has been spruiking the need to integrate both fares and

planning in order to improve service delivery of public transport, an oftencited objectiveof urban and regional planning policy. However it is only within the last 18 months that

integrated electronic ticketing (via smart card) has become a reality for South EastQueenslanders.

The smart card payment system provided by Cubic under agreement with Translink is

operational (and predominantly stable) across three local modes (rail, bus and ferry) and

eighteen operators. However despite this there are still significant barriers related to faresand charges that are preventing more widespread adoption of smart card ticketing by

public transport users and nonusers alike.

In July 2008, changes to state legislation further empowered Translink to accomplish longstated objectives regarding integrated ticketing and public transport planning and

provision. Translink must now produce and submit to the Transport Minister a fare

strategy at least every 5 years.

Translinks recent actions and statements would seem to indicate that the authority isproducing this strategy without engaging with the community. Given the significant

impacts such a strategy would have on social equity outcomes and peoples daytoday

lives, this research seeks to contribute to the unmet need for community engagement. It ishoped that Translinks own work may be informed by this research.


4/36


Page2

In doing this, the research will briefly review existing policy aims of transport and urban

planning documents. The research will also engage with members of the community and

key stakeholders to determine a suitable approach to the formation of an equitable public

transportation fares policy respectful of the communitys values.

Given the relationship between funding and service outcome would seem closely related,

and urban and regional planning policy heavily relies on reliable and high quality publictransport service provision, this research is relevant to this course.

Further, given that several important policy documents are currently under review (such

as the South East Queensland Regional Plan and the Integrated Regional Transport Plan)

and recent changes to legislation require Translink to determine a public transport fares

policy, the research is also highly timely.

3 Method overview3.1 Research topicAs described in the introduction, this research seeks to address the topic:

Determining recommendations to the creation of a fares strategy to supportimproved public transport in South East Queensland.

3.2 Research aims/objectivesThis research seeks to:

1. Research the existing situation in regards to public transport fares in South East

Queensland and the desired outcomes of relevant urban and regional planningpolicy

2. Determine community perspectives on fares and synthesise these with urban and

transport planning perspectives to develop an objectives/value based framework

or approach

3. Synthesise local objectives, opportunities and constraints to produce

recommendations to direct and inform the authoring by Translink of a publictransport fares strategy both in terms of approach and content (ie new fare

products).

3.3 ApproachObjective Method Output Analysis

Research existingsituation in

regards to: public

transport fares in

SEQ and relevant

urban planning

theory

Situation analysis Policy review Backgroundresearch on fares

since integration

under Translink in

2004

Review of relevantliterature/policy

such as SEQ

Regional Plan,

Integrated

Regional Transport

Plan

Understandingof opportunities

and constraints

in regards to

public transport,

specifically via

the recently

introduced

smart card

technology


5/36


Page3

Determinecommunity

perspectives on

fares

Determinedesired urbanplanning

outcomes

Determinedesired transport

planning

outcomes

Review of existingconsultation

outcomes

Online survey forusers and non

users, other keystakeholders

Semistructuredinterviews with

urban planners

Semistructuredinterviews with

transport

planners

Survey data Notes from

interviews

Creation of fareobjectives

Tables, graphs,text

Synthesis ofopportunities

and constraints

with user/non

user/ key

stakeholder andplanner

perspectives

Objectivesframework

Determinerecommendations

including furtherresearch to be

undertaken

Use theobjectives

framework toproduce

recommendations

Recommendationsin approach to be

taken toimplement

improved fares

Proposeinnovative fare

products

Testing ofproposals

against theobjectives

framework

Suggest topicsfor further

research

3.4 MethodThis research has utilised three main research approaches including: a regional policy

review; community and stakeholder consultation, and; a brief investigation into applicable

national and international case studies.

Each of these three methods of inquiry have contributed to the analysis and synthesis

within the research and have informed the production of recommendations.

Although this approach is predominantly based in qualitative approaches to data and

social research it produces recommendations to the need for further specifically focussed

quantitative research.

It is hoped that this current qualitative approach may provide a suitable contextual basisfor a more rigorous quantitative research project. It is noted however that such an

approach, given the time, budget and relative value to be gained, was not either suitable or

relevant to this component of the research.

3.5 Analytical and consultative techniquesThis research utilised an online survey and semistructured interviews as methods to

research into the values and aspirations of users, non users and planners. The use of thesetechniques is extremely widespread in both practice and theory. As community

consultation is seen as central to the development of the fares strategy this approach is

perceived to be highly relevant and appropriate.

The semistructured facetoface interviews were undertaken with urban and transport

planners and compared and contrasted with the outputs from the online survey. The

online survey predominantly included public transport users and supporters as well as

some nonusers and key stakeholders (such as operational involvement).


6/36


Page4

4 Situational Review4.1 Implementation of Translink and integrated ticketingOn 1 July 2004 Translink, then an agency of Queensland Transport, commenced operation

with the pricing and zonal integration of public transport fares in South East Queensland.This was a significant step forward with all private transport operators selling tickets

valid for travel across all modes and operators at the same cost to the travelling public.This was the first stage in offering fully integrated fares via a smart card payment facility.

Translink Zone Map Translink Service Coverage

Maps accessed from http://www.translink.com.au/qt/translin.nsf/index/maps

Since 2004 the demand for public transport has continued to rise and significantly more

journeys are now taken since Translink and integrated ticketing was first introduced.Integrated fares and significant increases in both the cost of fuel and population are seen

to be major drivers.

Therefore, after four years of operation, on 1 July 2008, Translink became a statutory

authority under the Transport Operations (Translink Transit Authority) Act 2008. This Act

has significant implications for the operation and funding of public transport in South East

Queensland. The Act implemented governance changes (for example the establishment of

a board to direct the Authority and increased ability to acquire property) as well changes

in outputs and actions required of the Authority by the Minister.


7/36


Page5

Under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, the Translink Transit Authority (TTA or simply

Translink) must now prepare and approve a Translink network plan at least every four

years outlining funded improvements in mass transit services and infrastructure.

Translink must now also produce written fare strategies every five years.

In February 2008 Translink launched smart card ticketing via the Go card payment

system. At launch the Go card fares were equal to paper ticket fares. However due to theGo card technology only being capable of charging single tickets, may customers (such asthose using 10 trip savers, daily, weekly or monthly tickets) were disadvantaged. As the

old ticketing equipment was failing there was a need to remove the 10 trip savers from

sale, yet Go card only offered these customers a significant and not acknowledged fare

rise.

In order to address community concerns that Go card was more expensive than paperticketing Translink implemented a change to public transport fares on 4 August 2008. At

this time, fares were indexed against CPI to address then spiralling fuel costs and the Go

card frequent user scheme was amended. In effect the same level of discount that paper

10 trip, weekly and monthly tickets offered was applied to the cost of single tickets (theonly product type) on Go Card. This change was policy on the run and was not (at least

publicly) supported by a fares strategy. It did however partially address the inequity

between paper and Go card fares that was highly disincentive to Go card use.

Since the launch of the electronic Go Card in early 2008 and the August change to fares

ongoing community pushes have lead to the further public announcement that Translink

will have a fares strategy to the Minister for approval by mid 2009. This strategy is said to

contain recommendations about offpeak ticketing and fare reductions (Cheaper fares

proposal by mid-year: Translink, Brisbane Times, 21 April 2009).

To my knowledge Translink has not engaged the community in forming this fare strategy

except via minimal market research conducted by ACNielsen, the results of which are notpublicly available and which only examined peoples preferences for different products,

rather than the underlying values they held.

Given that Translink is not simply providing a commercial service and instead plays animportant role in social equity outcomes of Government, I strongly believe this approach

to be insufficient.

It is within this context that this paper seeks to clarify some of the communitys values andsuggest innovative approaches to fares. This is seen as highly preferable over a

continuation of Translinks current approach and recent actions (hidden unconsulted fare

increases and misleading advertising) and as such is very relevant and extremely timely.

4.2 PT fares elsewhereIn order to determine some of the tried and proven technical possibilities of integratedticketing, it is worthwhile quickly examining a few alternative implementations of the

technology. As such a short overview of London, UK and Perth and Melbourne, Australia

are included below.

4.2.1 London, UKOver the last several years under the Greater London Authoritys Transport Strategy (andthe previous Lord Mayor Ken Livingstones supervision), many improvements have been

made to public transport in London.

Many of these improvements are based upon the implementation of Oyster card, anelectronic payment system based on very similar technology as South East Queenslands

Go card.


8/36


Page6

In London, Transport for London (TfL) bus services, tube services and some overland rail

services can all be paid for using Oyster card.

Using Oyster, passengers have the option of payasyougo or travel cards (that is,

daily/monthly tickets) or a combination (that is, monthly with additional cash to pay for

travel outside each customers chosen zones of travel).

The Tube is a closed system with supervised fare gates at every station. Travel by Tube is

paid for by zones travelled and requires touching the Oyster card at entry and exit.However TfL bus services across Greater London are flat fee and only require touching on

with Oyster. This fee is extremely low and when combined with the congestionreducing

and fundraising effects of congestion charging has proved remarkably successful at

improving bus service levels.

TfL guarantees that travel by Oyster will be cheaper than any other alternative. For

instance, if a passenger is using payasyougo, the most they will be charged in one day on

public transport is the cost of the cash day travel card for that number of zones with a50pence discount. Travel that would normally cost more within those zones on that day is

free under the Oyster daily cap. Passengers that incur less than the daily travel card cost,

only pay for what they use.

Bus passengers using Oyster pay a maximum daily fee of 3pound, no matter long thejourney is (service area is only Greater London) or how many journeys are made. A single

bus journey with Oyster is 1pound, a significant discount on the cash prepurchased fare

of 2pound per journey.

Oyster card payment offers significant savings compared to cash. For example a passenger

who travels within zone one on the tube would pay only 1.50pound with Oyster but

4pound by cash. This significant difference in cost is a large incentive for passengers to use

Oyster and allows more efficient operation of tube stations, payment facilities etc.

On top of these benefits and in order to promote an accessible city to youth, under 11s

travel entirely free with their Photocard.

4.2.2 Perth, AustraliaPerth was the first system in Australia to implement smart card ticketing successfully.

Smartrider allows for travel on buses, trains and ferries in Perth across nine zones. The

card also allows passengers to access a central free travel zone. All passengers who board

and alight within the Central Business District, that is who travel within the free travelzone (FTZ) do not pay a fare. This aspect of the Perth system is most notable for this

research.


9/36


Page7

4.2.3 Melbourne (still to be implemented)The Victorian Transport Ticketing Authority established in 2003 is procuring a smart card

payment technology. This card is called Myki and is currently being implemented acrossregional bus operators in Victoria. The payment system will eventually be rolled out

across Victoria and Melbourne and be used on all trains and trams.

Myki has suffered serious delays, criticisms and budgetary issues during implementation.Metlink covers Melbourne and surrounds under two different zones. This appears much

more simple than SEQs 23 zone system, however in reality the fares regulated by the TTA

are much more complicated than in SEQ. Fares in Melbourne are calculated for either the

inner or outer zone or both, whereas in Queensland you pay for the number of zones you

travel across. Metlink also includes regional systems whereas in Queensland these arecovered under Qconnect services with their own ticketing approaches. One interesting

aspect of the Myki smart card implementation is the fact that from the beginning, Myki will

not charge more than the daily cost for multiple trips (unlike Go card in SEQ that currently

charges as many single journeys as are taken).

4.3 Urban and regional planning and transport planning policy contextState and local governments in SEQ have a broad range of existing policy in regards to

transport and public transport. This policy often reflects tensions in the broader

communitys desires to drive (perhaps the misinterpreted value of access) versus the

obviously more efficient cost effective (and in many cases more socially equitable)delivery of public transport infrastructure and services.

This research has included a review of existing government policy in an attempt to

determine where consensus exists in relation to the value of public transport services andthe influences that such services can have on urban and regional form.

Relevant policy includes:

Integrated Regional Transport Plan (currently being reviewed) South East Queensland Regional Plan and Infrastructure Plan and Program

(currently being reviewed)

Translink Network Plan (currently or shortly to be under review) Transport Plan for Brisbane (recently reviewed)


10/36


Page8

4.3.1 Integrated Regional Transport PlanThe Integrated Regional Transport Plan (South East Queensland) 1997is a twenty five year

plan to develop and manage the transport system in a way that supports the agreed plans

for accommodating the regions expected major population and employment growth

(Queensland Transport, 1997:vi).

The Integrated Regional Transport Plan (IRTP) includes objectives and proposals and

describes an approach to land use and transport, social justice and environmentalsustainability.

The objectives of the IRTP include (amongst others):

Developing a more sustainable transport system by increasing the proportion oftrips made by public transport, walking and cycling, and in shared rides and

reducing growth in peak commuter car travel

Restraining the growth of peak period car travel demands by reducing thepredominance of single occupant vehicle travel, increasing ridesharing, improving

public transport, eliminating unnecessary trips and better sharing of the trafficload around the network to make the most of the existing transport system

Coordinating transport and land use planning by supporting more compact,better designed urban development which supports public transport and allows

people to walk and cycle more

Ensuring social justice by a more inclusive transport system which shares thecosts and benefits of transport equitably across the region

Maintaining environmental quality by cleaner vehicles and better approaches toproviding transport infrastructure

The proposals include (amongst others):

Change the planning approach so the projects considered are more closely alignedwith the sort of transport system the community wants

Ensure there is a seamless public transport system which combines all availablepublic transport operations and provides a range of alternatives to car travel

Upgrade the traditional line haul public transport (rail and bus) systems to copewith massive peak period increases

Make public transport safer, more frequent, convenient, accessible, secure,affordable, reliable and faster

Give priority, congestionfree running to road based public transport vehicles inmajor urban areas

A key action to support these objectives and overarching proposals includes:

Integrated fares, ticketing, passenger information and marketing to ensureconvenient affordable travel

Although the IRTP talks about targets for public transport use that are realistic and

achievable it sets very low targets. By default this is making the transport task harder aslack of public transport or active alternatives is forcing passengers to use their car more,

despite growing congestion. The document therefore undermines its own objectives as it

sets a target that effectively reinforces status quo.

4.3.2 South East Queensland Regional PlanThe South East Queensland Regional Plan states that its purpose is to help manage

population growth and its associated change sustainably and to protect and enhance thequality of life in the region.


11/36


Page9

To address this aim the current draft document (20092031) refers to a number of

strategic directions of relevance including:

Sustainability and climate change Strong communities

Smart growth Economic development Infrastructure, and Integrated transport.

These strategic directions and their desired regional outcomes are overviewed in the

following chart. It is argued that those in orange are highly pertinent (while those in blue

are relevant) to this research.

4.3.3 Translink Network PlanThe TransLink Network Plan (TNP) is designed to guide the delivery of better public

transport services and infrastructure across South East Queensland.

The TNP is a 10 year plan (2004 to 2014) for developing the public transport network

that includes a rolling 4 year program of public transport service and infrastructure

improvements (200405 to 200708).

The TNP describes TransLinks purpose to be to lead and deliver an integrated publictransport system that is used and valued by the people of South East Queenslandand the

vision to be:

the best public transport system in Australia an operationally excellent organisation a trusted organisation a place people want to be

According to this document, TransLink is delivering:

Sustainabilityand climate

change

Sustainabilityprinciples

Reducinggreenhouse gas

emissions

Climate changeadaptation

Climate changemanagement

Responding torising oil prices

Strongcommunities

Social planning

Addressingdisadvantag

Healthy and safecommunitie

Building strongcommunities

Culturalheritage, arts

and culturaldevelopmen

Smart growth

Containinggrowth

Compactdevelopment

Urban characterand design

Housing choiceand affordability

Activity centresand transit

corridors

Centres thatsupport

business

Mixed usecentres

Integrated landuse and

transportplannin

Economicdevelopment

Diversifying theeconomy

Industry andbusiness

development

Innovation andtechnology

Enterpriseopportunities

Infrastructure

Supportingregional growth

Infrastructureplanning,

coordinationand funding

Managingdemand

Protecting keysites and

corridors

Socialinfrastructure

Integratedtransport

Strategictransport

planning

Sustainabletravel and

improvedaccessibility

Effectivetransport

investment

Transportsystem

eficiency

Eficient freightservices


12/36


Page10

one ticket by delivering integrated ticketing and standardised fares, zones andconcessions

one network by centrally planning and coordinating all major public transportroutes, services, connections and infrastructure

one system by marketing the system through consistent branding and passengerinformation.

Key service improvements over the initial 4 years of the program include:

Bettercoordinated services and timetables More crosstown services Restructuring services to improve efficiency A network of highfrequency services Additional peak period bus and rail services

The above vision, purpose and improvements relate to the following key strategic

directions (as can be seen each of the subpolicies is highly relevant to this research):

4.3.4 Transport Plan for BrisbaneThe Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008-2026 sets out a plan for Brisbane that claims to

achieve the following outcomes:

Public transport is the preferred mode of travel to the citys major centres. Itprovides a high level of access to all facilities and services in Brisbane, reducing the

need to use a car

A sustainable level of travel demand where the growth in traffic is less than thegrowth in population

Transport and land uses are managed to create a preferred urban form thatincreases accessibility and connectivity and supports sustainable travel behaviour

People and goods can move safely on the road network by the most efficientmodes and routes, and the impact of traffic on neighbourhoods and the

environment is minimised

Freight moves efficiently and safely within Brisbane while the livability ofresidential areas is protected

Making servicesconnect

Integrate the network

Coordinate timetables

Making servicesfast, frequentand reliable

Make services fast andfrequent

Make services run ontime

Invest in the railnetwork

Create a network ofpriority bus corridors

Filling the gaps

Meet minimumstandards for service

coverage, frequencyand operating hours

Extend the networkinto developing areas

Deliver innovativeservice options

Ensure services arewell patronised

Making it easy,comfortable and

safe

Make it easy to use andunderstand

Make it easy to access

Provide quality stationsand stops

Provide quality buses,trains and ferries

Enhance safety andsecurity


13/36


Page11

Clean and green personal transport is safe and attractive and provides a genuinealternative to driving

These outcomes are supported by the following policies:

Quality public transporto

Enhancing priorityo Improving service integrationo Providing demand responsive transport

Managing travel demand Coordinated transport and land use A safe and efficient road network Delivering the goods on time to the right place Clean and green personal transport

4.3.5 A Community Service Obligation Framework for Public Transport in SEQA Community Service Obligation Framework for Public Transport in South East Queensland

(CSO for PT in SEQ) is a framework that was produced in 2001 in response to the need fora Community Service Obligation under National Competition Policyfor services where thegovernment seeks to have commercial businesses deliver noncommercial products and

services to the community.

The framework examines how best to support public transport through pricing and

regulation and examines international approaches in order to achieve the following policy

objectives:

By consideration of all the costs of transport (including external impacts), thebenefits of provision of transport infrastructure, and the relative attractiveness ofthe various modes to users, determine the most appropriate means (ie mode and

type of support provided) to deliver the specified level of public transport serviceswithin relevant budgetary constraints

Effectively achieve the outputs required of Queensland Transport at minimum costto the Government, the community and the environment

Accept the style and quality of life identified in the IRTP public consultationprocess as being the preferred lifestyle for South East Queensland

Accept the level of public transport services which has been determined within theIRTP as commensurate with the preferred lifestyle

Recognise current constraints and objectives contained within the TransportOperations (Passenger Transport) Act and other relevant legislation, and to strive

to meet the objectives of the legislation

In order to achieve these policy objectives the framework makes the followingrecommendations

Promote public transport by appropriate regulation rather than (increased)subsidies

Generally maintain real current fare levels for public transport Focus on the delivery of both rail and bus services, rather than reduced fares to

increase patronage

Expand the service delivery networks of public transport as part of the strategy forimproved service levels and increased patronage

Encourage additional private sector involvement in service delivery based oneffective regulation rather than direct subsidies (this encouragement should applyto all public transport modes equally)


14/36


Page12

Consider innovative public transport solutions to better compete against the car Adopt travel demand management measures (such as incentives, disincentives and

education to influence travel behaviour, busways and highoccupancy vehicle

lanes, etc) where appropriate, and should these prove inadequate, consider and

adopt harder measures (including parking supply adjustments, road user charging,

etc)

4.4 SummaryReviewing these documents reveals that agreement does exist on the need for improved

public transport services. This need is defined in terms of addressing growth of jobs and

population and different documents set different targets in relation to public transport

use.

Many of the documents describe the benefits to be achieved through integrated ticketing

such as improved intermodality and ease of use. However perhaps the most applicable

and interesting document to review was the Customer Service Obligation Framework forPublic Transport in South East Queensland. This policy raises many important tradeoffs

and although it was only published in 2001 is in need of review as much has changed inSEQ since then.

This research has considered the objectives from these policy frameworks. It is the role of

the research however to synthesis these objectives with outcomes from other sources of

information such as the online community survey and the key expert/stakeholder faceto

face interviews and produce recommendations.

5 Consultation5.1 Online surveyIn order to achieve greater use of public transport, less car use and the associated desiredoutcomes of urban and regional planning documents, the Government needs the full

support of the community and public transport users (and non users) in changing theirhabits.

Beyond the basic premise that we live in a democracy, given the above, it is entirely

relevant that the community is involved in the decision making process over publictransport fares. As such this research involved online consultation with members of the

public.

The survey was conducted via the internet using Questionpro.com, an online survey tool.

The survey was viewed 158 times, started 128 times and completed by 101 respondents

in May 2008. Although this research has suffered numerous delays, the researchundertaken is still extremely relevant and qualitatively useful due to ongoing changes in

fares.

The aim of the survey was firstly to educate respondents about the potential benefits of

the Go card and secondly to produce a consensus viewpoint on the need for a formal fair

fares policy and the specific objectives that would support such a framework.

The survey was conducted on the Internet and had an open URL (anyone with the URL

could respond). The link was emailed to personal associates, Translink, QR, those bus

operators with a publicly available email address (Southern Cross Transit, Hornibrook,

Kangaroo Bus Lines, Bus Link Qld, Mt Gravatt Coaches, Brisbane Buslines, Surfside andVeolia) and community organisations including Rail Back on Track (an online forum) and


15/36


Page13

Communities Advocating Sustainable Transport (an online mailing list) seeking

responses to the survey and referral to personal and professional associates.

As can be seen in the diagrams below there was a slight bias in the gender of respondents

with 61% being male and 39% female and slightly more respondents in their twenties.

5.1.1 Section 1 Use of public transport and payment methodWhen asked about the frequency of payment types 53% respondents either always or

frequently paid for services by cash. Only 14% of respondents never pay by cash. Inresponse to the same question 48% always or frequently pay by prepurchased ticket

(10 trip, weekly, monthly or other) however 48% said they never pay by Go card.

Therefore a large proportion of the survey respondents could become regular Go cardusers. Many of these people currently do not own or frequently use that method of

payment. Although not quantifiably supported, a theme of dissatisfaction with Go card

during the initial months of implementation (due to pricing and technical difficulties) was

raised in the open text responses throughout the survey. This is contrasted with agenerally positive outlook on the potentials of the Go card.

In response to the question How frequently do you use each of the following methods to payfor public transport services in South East Queensland?the following responses were

received:

Gender of

Respondents

Male

Female

Teens 20s 30s 40s 50 and

over

Age of

Respondents

Walking

Bus

Train

Car

Bicycle

Taxi

Ferry

Comparative Frequency of Method of

Travel


16/36


Page14

The following open text responses were received in response to the question What factors

contribute to your choice to use either Go card, cash or pre-purchased tickets?.

ReliabilityRespondents indicated that they were holding off using Go card while the system bugswere being resolved, and those who were currently using the system were dissatisfied

with the number of errors and penalty fees

FinancesRespondents indicated a desire to have a fixed monthly outlay or daily or weekly limits.

ConfusionSome respondents found the system in general confusing to use, and had difficultiestagging on and off as well as difficulties using the ticket vending machines

5.1.2 Section 2 Fare Policy PrinciplesThe survey proposed that Translink should create a fair fares policy that was based uponthe following four principles:

1. Fair fares2. Fares that encourage the use of public transport3. Smart fares4. Financially secure funding for improved services.

Each of these principles listed a number of components all of which had a high average

level of support by the survey respondents. In this section of the survey, respondents were

asked to indicate their level of support from Strongly Agree through to StronglyDisagree on a five point Likert scale.

Payment by

Cash (when

boarding or on

the platform)

Always

Frequently

Sometimes

Never

By Go Card

Always

Frequently

Sometimes

Never

By Pre-

purchased

Ticket

Always

Frequently

Sometimes

Never


17/36


Page15

5.1.2.1 Principle 1. Fair faresThe table below lists the statement made, the averaged score between 1 to 5 across the

participants (where 1 represents Strongly Agree and 5 represents Strongly Disagree)

and the combined percentage of respondents who chose either Strongly Agree or Agree.

Statement Score

Strongly

Agree or

Agree

Concessions for youth, students, pensioners and low income earners 1.413 95.19%

Fares offer value-for-money and are affordable to the community 1.456 87.38%

Stable fares with price increases maintained at or below CPI 1.544 89.32%

Passengers are promoted to use smart card with better deals and not

punished for using paper tickets

1.602 87.38%

The following is an overview of the open text responses to the fair fares principle:

Fare increases above CPI may be supported in certain circumstancesMost respondents indicated a high level of support for the statement that fare increases

should be kept as low as possible and no greater than the consumer price index, however

some respondents acknowledged the immense task at hand and thought that increases

above CPI may be warranted as long as these were clearly tied to service improvements.Such a rise would also need to be demonstrated within the context of an increasing

government subsidy.

Fares should encourage the use of public transport over the private motor vehicleRespondents indicated a strong desire that the historic underfunding of public transport,

and continuing overfunding of public roads should be addressed. Many respondentsindicated that the benefits of public transport are often ignored along with the hidden

costs of road usage (carbon emissions, death toll, congestion etc).

Low income people should receive concession faresStudents, youth, pensioners and low income earners should all receive concession fareswhile children should receive free fares.

Short journeys are currently too highly pricedMost journeys by car are very short, yet short journeys by public transport are very

expensive a possible solution to this could involve inner zones of free travel in the centres

of Brisbane, Gold Coast, Redcliffe etc based upon the Perth free travel zone.

Go card needs to offer equivalent discounts as current daily, weekly and monthlypaper tickets as passengers are unwilling to shift to Go card and pay higher costs

Go card should charge all equivalent paper ticket discounts such as daily, weekly and

monthly

Financial incentives are important in gaining a significant and early uptake of Gocard.

Service efficiencies on buses should pay for discounts on tickets. Users, Translink and

operators all benefit from customers using Go card, and thus significant discounts should

be used to promote users to switch to Go card.

5.1.2.2 Principle 2. Fares that encourage the use of public transportStatement Score

Strongly

Agree orAgree


18/36


Page16

A payment system that is easy to use and understand 1.308 99.04%

Discounts for higher use and longer journeys 1.398 94.17%

Price guarantee travelling by smart card will always be the

cheapest alternative

1.461 87.25%

New and improved frequent user scheme for pre-paid smart cards 1.578 81.37%

Cheaper off-peak travel 1.712 83.65%

New monthly post-paid caps and other fare packages 1.728 78.64%

Special offers 1.971 73.79%

The following is an overview of open text responses about the fares that encourage public

transport usage principle:

Go card must be cheaper than paper equivalents to promote its uptake and usage Go card requires a daily cap Go card should guarantee to be the cheapest method of payment for public

transport services

It needs to be easy for the community to use, this doesnt mean it cant offer differenttypes of product (such as daily, weekly, monthly etc)

Infrequent but consistent users should receive a discountOld users of 10 Trip Saver tickets such as students, working mothers, part time workers

who travel four to eight times a week deserve a discount yet under the initial fare

structure did not receive any discount. This has been addressed in the August 2008changes to the Frequent User Scheme that extended the equivalent discount of 10 trip

tickets to all users of Go card in effect a geographic expansion of the 10 trip discount.

System errors need to be resolved5.1.2.3 Principle 3. Smart fares

Statement Score

Strongly

Agree or

Agree

Service improvements planned with better information about

passenger demand

1.440 95.00%

An integrated system of payment across trains, buses, ferries and

in future, taxis

1.534 90.29%

A growing funding base to meet growing demands 1.578 87.25%

Smart fares promote greater community use of public transport 1.598 83.33%

A system that manages demand by giving discounts for off-peak

travel and re-allocates resources in real-time

1.693 83.17%

The following is an overview of the open text responses to the smart fares principle:

Taxis could be included in the futureThe convenience of Go card would only increase by allowing for the metered balance oftaxis in South East Queensland to be paid for by pre-paid credit stored on the Translink

Go card.

Government subsidy should continue to be the major source of revenue, not faresThe goal of public transport fares should not be to pay outright for the operation ofservices as these should be predominantly funded through government subsidy as all

users of the transport system benefit from the operation of public transport (ie those who


19/36


Page17

use cars and drive trucks benefit from those who catch the bus and as such shouldcontribute to the financial operation of public transport services)

5.1.2.4 Principle 4. Financially secure funding for improved servicesStatement Score

Strongly

Agree or

Agree

Secure funding for an improving system 1.475 93.07%

Ease of administration and reduced cash handling costs 1.696 85.29%

A stronger negotiation position with service providers 1.743 81.19%

Inter and intra-generationally responsible funding 1.792 77.23%

Reduced ticket fraud and fare evasion 1.892 74.51%

The following is an overview of the open text responses to the financially secure funding

principle:

Secure funding is important to maintain services and implement serviceimprovements

Fare evasion needs to be dealt with sensitively and not punitivelyFare evasion needs to be controlled however the method of which this occurs needs to be

dealt with sensitively. Large amounts of money should not be spent enforcing and

policing a low level of fare evasion as those funds could be better spent on serviceimprovements. Passengers do not like to be made to feel like criminals and most

recognise their responsibility to have a valid ticket.

5.1.3 Section 3 Fare Policy AimsRespondents to the survey were asked to rank in order of importance the following aimsof any public transport fares policy. The aims are listed below in the overall order ranked

by respondents. The online survey tool randomised the list for each different respondent,so what was at the top of the page for one respondent could have been at the bottom of the

page for the next respondent. Thus there is no bias from respondents simply numberingthe boxes in order displayed on the page.

Rank Public transport fare policy aim Averaged

rank from 1

to 8

1st Provide affordable and financially equitable access to public transport

services

3.16

2nd

Promote public transport as a viable alternative to private motor

vehicle travel

3.51

3rd Improve service quality, efficiency and reliability (particularly ofbuses) via cashless boarding

3.70

4th

Deliver integrated ticketing across all modes of public transport

including trains, buses, ferries as well as metered taxis

4.56

5th Achieve radical gains in the mode-share usage of public transport 4.88

6th Secure a stable and growing revenue base to fund an improving public

transport network

5.07

7th Achieve user input in policy formation and service improvements (eg

community consultation regarding 'fair fares')

5.35

8th

Improve the quality of customer service via internet, phone and other

methods to improve community perceptions of public transport

5.66


20/36


Page18

5.1.4 Section 4 Actions for ImplementationThe following table includes the actions that were suggested for implementation of the

fares policy. Each of these actions was listed by the survey and has come from either

existing policy documents or obvious problems with the initial implementation and fare

structure on Go card. The survey sought to determine which actions supporting the

previously discussed principles had the most support. As such they have been rankedbelow from most highly supported to least. The list of these actions was randomized by

the online survey tool and as such this order accurately reflects the consensus view point

of the survey respondents without bias. It should be noted that a score of 3 is neutral, 1 is

Highly Supported and 5 is Highly Opposed.

Rank Actions that should be considered for implementation by

Translink

Averaged

level of

support

from 1 to 5

1st

Reduce the cost of travel for smart card users with further discounts

for high-use and off-peak passengers

1.480

2nd

Install smart card top-up and balance machines at all buswaystations and major interchanges

1.551

3rd

Develop and offer for sale a larger range of fare packages on smart

card

1.571

4th

Explore options for free fares where the service arrives significantly

late

1.612

5th Integrate Airtrain payment with Go card (either at existing cost or

preferably renegotiate contracts to allow integration with the zonal

system perhaps at zone 17 or 18)

1.649

6th Implement a daily travel cap on smart card based on the zones and

journeys travelled that day

1.729

7th

Maintain equitably priced paper tickets until smart card is broadly

accepted by the community, functioning at the required level andoffering a suite of products that match current and future user

demands)

1.732

8th Maintain paper ticket price increases close to or below CPI 1.765

9th

Implement a refund and contact process via the web portal and

ensure all valid refunds are processed within 15 business days

1.806

10th

Improve usability of the 'value adding and ticket machines'

especially for use by bus passengers

1.823

11th

Allow the sale of weekly paper tickets via the 'value adding and

ticket machines'

2.062

12th Expand Go card payment across all regional Qconnect public

transport networks

2.031

13th Rapidly develop and implement a post-paid monthly 'cap' option

(this could be based on mobile phone caps where a user selects their

cap value and receives a bigger discount the bigger the value, as

such this would not be zone dependant)

2.156

14th

Introduce smart card (Go) payment for metered taxis in the

Translink coverage area

2.505

5.1.5 Section 5 Additional Open Text Question ResponsesHow can Translink promote users to switch to Go card over the next 23 years

Daily Caps Weekly, Monthly travel cards or caps Discounts for regular but intermittent users


21/36


Page19

Go card needs to be attractive in terms of cost, not just convenience to users to bewidely accepted

Additional comments about Translink and the quality of services in the region

Translink must progress the existing planned busway network as quickly aspossible. If this means funding is diverted from road construction then that should

occur.

Translink needs to fund additional and new rolling stock for the railways andprogress extensions to the rail network

Translink must purchase and operate more buses Translink needs to communicate with the community more clearly and needs to

respond quickly and accurately to complaints and comments

Translink needs to improve late night services so that users do not need a car The issues of unreliability, infrequency and overcrowding need to be dealt with

promptly

Community desire to see light rail in the inner city Government needs to recognise public transport as an investment rather than cost

and needs to prioritise funding for public transport over roads

Translink needs to engage the community when forming policy that affects them5.1.6 Survey SummaryThe survey indicates a high level of support within the community for the need to resolve

all outstanding issues with the Go card implementation and to formalise via communityconsultation, a formal Translink Fair Fares Strategy.

This survey was limited in extent and is likely to have various biases either in the socioeconomic status, interest or geographic location of respondents. If these biases exist they

do not invalidate the qualitative value that may be gained from the survey data. Indeed no

community consultation activity is ever fully representative and instead this surveysought to elucidate qualities or thoughts that may apply across various people.

It would therefore be relevant to undertake broader community engagement indeveloping a fares strategy to ensure that any proposed changes to fares respond to issues

of social equity not in some vague sense, but in the everyday application of policy and the

price levels at which fares are set. It is clear to the community that the initial and ongoing

implementation of Go has seriously failed this criterion. The original stealth fare increasesof 25% to 30% clearly did not constitute a fair implementation of a payment system that

should bring about significant savings to both users and government. When combined

with the misleading advertising approach undertaken by the organisation this did littlebut undermine trust the community has in the institution.

It should be noted that Translink has made positive (if limited) changes to the application

of fares since this survey was first conducted. These changes have reinstituted the

discount that had effectively been removed without warning. There is still a need toprovide offpeak and monthly ticketing on Go card.


22/36


Page20

An overview of some of the key points raised in the survey is available in the chart below:

5.2 Key stakeholder interviewsSeveral town planners and transport planners were interviewed to seek their response to

questions about public transport. Some of the key outcomes are listed below. These

outcomes were determined from short conversations with a range of professionals. The

interview question sheet that guided these discussions is available as Appendix Two.

The key issues raised included:

Public transport is an important community service that is essential in any city tosupport the growth of the city and ensure that all people regardless of age or

physical disability have access to work, education, entertainment and social

activities.

Public transport is more efficient than roads and cars at moving large numbers ofpeople cheaply, quickly and in a manner that is environmentally sensitive. Given

that cities have limited space and funds to invest in transportation systems, the

costeffectiveness of public transport should not be overlooked.

Demographic shifts in our community mean that more and more people will beunable to access private forms of travel. To ensure these people have freedom of

movement it is important that we build the systems that will support mass transit.

Public transport should cover all urban areas and offer a higher level of servicethat is related to the density and mix of use of that location. For denser more

populated areas service level should be higher.

Public transport has immense possibilities to positively influence urban outcomes.Public transport must therefore be planned into our communities along with

walkable neighbourhoods so that people can easily access transit. Offering truewalktransit combinations may well have extremely positive health impacts on our

community.

It is highly important that public transport offers a level of service that cancompete with private modes. Currently transit only captures a small section of themarket and this is why it is failing. People are unable to use public transport if it

does not go to where they need or if it is full.

Fair fares

Concessions for youth,students, pensionersand low incomeearners

Fares offer valueformoney and areaffordable to thecommunity

Stable fares with priceincreases maintainedat or below CPI

Passengers arepromoted to use Gocard with better dealsand not punished forusing paper tickets

Fares that encourageuse of public transport

Fares should be easy tounderstand and payMore frequent users

and longer journeysshould get discounts

Price guarantee travelling by smartcard will always be thecheapest alternative

Offpeak travel shouldbe cheaper than peaktravel

Monthly travelcardsand caps are desiredalong with other farepackages

Special offers could begiven with Go card

Smart fares

Service improvementsplanned with betterinformation aboutpassenger demand

An integrated system ofpayment across trains,buses, ferries and infuture, taxis

A growing funding baseto meet growingdemands

Smart fares promotegreater community useof public transport

A system that managesdemand by givingdiscounts for offpeaktravel and reallocatesresources in realtime

Financially securefunding for improved

services

Secure funding for animproving system(price rises above CPImay be supportedgiven demonstrableimprovements inservice)

Ease of administrationand reduced cashhandling costs

A stronger negotiationposition with serviceproviders

Inter and intragenerationallyresponsible funding

Reduced ticket fraudand fare evasion


23/36


Page21

More services to meet demand need to be provided. Services should be fast andreliable. The provision of more services will require more road space and or

alternatives.

Public transport must be affordable to the community. This is not just in relation tofares but also in external costs. It is difficult to articulate many of the benefits of

public transport as they are not always easily quantified into a cost benefitanalysis. This does not make these benefits of little value. Similarly, many other

modes externalise costs that public transport internalises and this makes it hard to

make a cost comparison.

It is important for the community to be involved in a bottom up approach thatdemands better service provision and governance. This movement should be

assisted by professionals.

Public transport has limited budgets and is likely to need innovative approaches todeliver outcomes. Raising fares may offer an opportunity to increase revenue butmay also reduce demand given no change in quality of service. People will

ultimately weigh up their own values and make their own decisions. Lower fares

may well drive small increases in use, however at peak hour the system is already

at capacity and cannot take more passengers. It will be important to consider

equity implications of both service and fare levels.

Development and private finances should contribute to the cost of providing publictransport infrastructure. Government could make this more attractive to industry

however it will be important to weigh up the intricacies that this will add to

capturing public versus private benefit

6 Summary Analysis6.1 Key values of importance for PTThe consultation and research undertaken for this paper has revealed the same issuesoften addressed in either planning policy or literature. These key issues relate to the need

for additional capacity, improved reliability, and the need for services to be affordable yet

high quality. Other issues that were consistently raised included the need for highfrequency and quick services.

This research did not seek to determine exactly how affordability is defined, indeed this isa highly complicated question as it is intrinsically linked with issues such as housing

affordability.

6.2 Decision ApproachThe following two diagrams overviews the decision and option evaluation approach takenin developing the recommendations:


24/36


Page22

Further details about the possible choices in relation to fares and taxes are available in thechart below:

!

!"#$%&'

)&*+,-',./01,#2%+34

',+5$*,'

)6"+%5,0',+5$*,'7

1+,-#,+'%*$-8,9/$#:7

8,''*%&1,'#$%&7.,##,+

*%'#,22,*#$5,&,''

"#$%$&'(#)*+,%-

./0(%+-%*+,%-

1%/%(+$$&

2%1+*34%

0#))5/3*&

(%+0*3#/*#

3/0(%+-%6*+,%-

./0(%+-%78

0#)9#/%/*#'

%,3-*3/1*+,%-:%1

'(#)(#+6-;'5%$

-5+(1%-

?#5$6(%650%6%)+/6

+663/1)#(%0#/1%-*3#/

#(+$$#@+663*3#/+$

3/4%-*)%/**#3)9(#4%

A5+$3*&+/63/0(%+-%

6%)+/6;0#5$6>+4%

/%1+*34%-#03+$%A53*&

0#-*-#(

recommendations to the creation of a fares strategy to support improved public transport in south...

Documents