Action for Public Transport (NSW)

In section 2.2 the Tribunal said, "Adequate forecast data will be required by the Tribunal wherever requested fare increases exceed the increase in the CPI."

In section 2.3 the Tribunal said that it "would like its fare determinations to be able to consider an effective performance assessment regime for public buses as implemented by Transport NSW". This theme crops up many times in the determination.

In section 2.4 the Tribunal said "STA has engaged consultants to review Sydney Ferries’ cost efficiency, and the Tribunal awaits a final report on the finding of the review."

In section 2.5 the Tribunal notes that the Better Buses program "is forecast to result in a containment of costs in future years, enabling cost recovery levels to improve."

In section 3.1 the Tribunal notes that the STA "is concerned at the increase in market share of cash single ride tickets from 20 to 24 percent."

In the 2001 Determination (para 3.1, page 13) the Tribunal said that the STA is considering introducing other ticket types such as a TravelSix. This was raised again in the 2002 determination at section 3.1.

For the City to Surf Run in August 2002 the STA pre-sold what were in effect TravelOne and TravelTwo tickets, both at no discount. The first provided a single ride between Bondi Beach and the city in either direction, and the second provided a return trip between Bondi Beach and Bondi Junction. . If they can do it once (or twice now, actually) then why not all the time.

In section 3.1 the Tribunal noted that the SRA "is examining the feasibility of introducing a TravelTen type product for trips within the inner-city zone since stations in this zone do have automatic gates."

In section 3.2 the Tribunal recognised the complexity of assessing external benefits but said that it "supports increased analysis and assessment of these issues by both SRA and STA in the future."

In section 4.1.2 the Tribunal noted that the STA "is currently working with Transport NSW in a joint venture with other transport agencies on the development of a generic service charter."

In section 4.1.2 the Tribunal said that it "supports the publication of detailed service standards on a regular basis for public scrutiny. Such a publication should clearly outline the meaning of each statistic and the sampling methodology used to collect the information."

In section 4.2 the Tribunal noted that, "in the future CityRail’s performance will be monitored and audited by the Rail Regulator against a set of standards established by the Minister for Transport."

In section 4.2.1 the Tribunal noted that "SRA has not published results of customer satisfaction surveys over the past year."

In section 4.2.2 the Tribunal noted that while "on-time running is an important indicator of service standards….. it should not be the sole focus. It is sensible to have a range of indicators with which to assess performance."

It should be noted that on-time running is measured only on limited occasions (peak hours Monday to Friday) and at limited locations (Central and some terminuses). Sample time checks should also be taken at other times of the day, on weekends, and at other locations.

In section 4.3 the Tribunal noted that the operational statistics quoted in Table 4.1 "are aggregates and can mask problems in particular areas or for particular timeframes."

Also, "On-time running is measured at the point where the bus leaves the depot to begin its route. It therefore may not reflect whether the bus arrives on-time at a particular point along the route."

The Tribunal acknowledged that on-time running would be affected by general traffic flows, which STA cannot control. However, we still assert that that some on-route timing and destination timing should also be monitored, recorded and reported so that problems become known and remedial action can be taken, or at least considered.

It should be noted that waiting passengers find early running just as frustrating as late running.

It is interesting to note that the Sydney Buses web site says

On Time, Every Time
State Transit Automated Ticketing System (STATS) is not only a better ticket system, but also gathers accurate information on the use and performance of services. For example, ‘on time’ running will be monitored throughout journeys and at key points by the STATS system. We also work closely with the RTA to improve reliability and the introduction of more bus priority measures will help our reliability.

In section 4.3.1 the Tribunal noted some conflict between what the STA and the Audit Office considered to be appropriate maintenance standards. Have these different interpretations been reconciled so that in future years both parties will be talking the same language?

In section 4.3.1 the Tribunal noted that "under the PAR it is likely that STA will be required to collect information (and report on a quarterly basis) on vehicle accessibility, heating and ventilation of buses, information and signage systems, vehicle emission performance and complaint handling mechanisms."

Also "Transport NSW will be required to assess STA’s performance. … against a set of benchmarks."

In section 4.3.3 the Tribunal noted a "particularly poor" on-time running rate in Newcastle, and that "the forecast data also shows there is unlikely to be any significant improvement in on-time running in the coming period".

In the 2001 Determination (para 4.3.1, page 24) the Tribunal said that key service improvements proposed by STA in following years include undertaking a network review following customer consultation.

Since then, the East review has been completed, the North review is current, and we understand that the South and West review is scheduled for later this year.

Information that we have seen* regarding Better Buses East shows that 68 runs were added and 106 runs were cut from the three depots, leading to an overall loss of 38 runs each fortnight. This translated to a dollar saving of $153,000 per fortnight. One wonders what was the major determinant – cost savings or service improvements.

(* Clover Moore, MP, form letter to constituents dated 22.12.02.)

In the 2001 Determination (para 4.3.1, page 24) the Tribunal said that key service improvements proposed by STA in following years include establishing a relatively senior management position to deal on a day to day basis with the management of bus priority lanes with the RTA and police.

Is this being done?

In the 2001 Determination (para 4.3.1, page 24) the Tribunal said that key service improvements proposed by STA in following years include trialling a bus that does not accept cash fares to examine the extent of improvement in on-time running.

The issue here should not be on-time running, as stated by the STA, but faster scheduled running. Such a trial would provide daily visible proof to passengers that they can get a faster ride by using pre-paid tickets. A no-cash bus will not improve on-time running for buses that accept cash fares. Other remedies need to be sought for that.

When APT raised this again in 2002, the STA responded that there had, in fact, been an "accidental" trial during a few days when drivers did not collect fares.

We reject this as a trial. A trial is a planned, organised and advertised event extending over at least a month, with defined operating conditions, measuring methods, comparison methods, evaluation criteria and reporting timetable. We would still like to see such a trial begin.

When the GST was introduced it made motoring cheaper and public transport more expensive.

What have the authorities and the state government done towards having the GST on public transport removed?

What have the authorities and the state government done towards having the GST already collected on public transport returned to the state for the benefit of public transport?

In the 2002 Determination (para 5.2.1 in footnote 41 on page 34) the Tribunal said that utilisation of the BusTripper is low, with the STA selling an average of 76 tickets per day.

This is hardly surprising, since the STA does its best not to advertise or sell the ticket.

But first, some history. In December 2000, the authorities withdrew the BusTripper, DayPass and DayRover tickets, replacing them all with a single DayTripper ticket. This is a great ticket and has many advantages – it covers all forms of government transport, it is cheap, and it is sold on buses. The downside is that with the demise of the BusTripper ticket, people who could not or would not use a train during the day still have to pay the extra for train travel. APT complained to the minister at the time, and the BusTripper ticket was restored.

In March 2001, the authorities released a large foldout guide to tickets, but failed to mention the BusTripper in it. They "forgot". The BusTripper was listed on the small leaflet issued by the STA following the July 2001 fare increases. The same leaflet issued in July 2002 omitted BusTripper, as did the large newspaper advertisements. When we complained, State Transit told us they had "limited space to convey messages in print", and that "long and complicated tables of numbers attract little attention from most users". We found this rather odd because the little 10 x 21 cm leaflet contained a table of 67 other "numbers".

The BusTripper is not mentioned on any bus timetables. It has been restored to the STA’s web site and is mentioned on the DoT’s web site. However, these sources do not mention the difficulty in buying a ticket. The BusTripper is not advertised in buses. The ticket is not sold on buses or at the STA kiosks at Wynyard, QVB and Circular Quay (the Railway Square kiosk STILL doesn’t sell any tickets at all). It is only available at "selected" agents, and very few of those. Thankfully, however, the bus ticket machines still accept it.

Strangely, a large 24 page booklet issued by CityRail in October 2002 does mention the ticket. (It is an excellent publication in many ways.)

If the reason that the STA restricts the advertising and sales of the BusTripper ticket is to gain the additional revenue from the DayTripper ticket, then we would prefer that they be honest and say so. However, until then, we ask that the BusTripper be advertised and sold equally with the DayTripper ticket.

In its 2001 submission (Section 7, page 21) the STA described its Medium-Term Pricing Path, detailing the proposed fare increases over four years for bus operations in Sydney.

The proposed average fare increase for full-fare adults on Sydney Buses was 14.40 cents in 2001/02, 9.86 cents in 2002/03, 10.45 cents in 2003/04 and 1.29 cents in 2004/05, a total of 36 cents over four years. It is important to note that these are "cents" and not "percents".

As the STA did not receive the fare increase it sought in 2001, we presume that the figures in this Pricing Path will have changed. We would like to know whether the goal is still 36 cents over four years, or some other figure, and what the proposed steps are towards that goal.

In our response to the STA’s 2001 submission, we said that some figures were presented in a cryptic manner, and it was difficult to find the data needed to make valid comments.

For instance, there were many references to proposed average increases of so many cents (not per cent) per trip. However, there was no average absolute price per trip (so that we could work out a percentage) or find the percentage increase (so that we could work out the base price).

It was also very difficult to find any simple statement about just how much capital funding State Transit needs from whatever sources to achieve what it wants to do.

We ask that State Transit makes the statistics more clear in its submissions.

We note from the newspapers on 23rd January that the CPI rose 3.0 % over the previous twelve months and is expected to rise 2.5 % during 2003.

Once again, we raise the fact that the cost of the Pensioner Excursion Ticket has not risen (except for GST) for many years. The ticket price was increased from $1.00 to $1.10 in 2000 for GST. The previous increase from $0.60 to $1.00 was in 1988.

The ticket is far too cheap, and leads to unreasonable expectations and demands both from those who do and those who do not enjoy the facility.

The single age pension in 1988 was $120.05 per week. The single age pension in January 2003 is $214.70 per week (and will go up again in July 2003). This is an increase of $94.65 or 79% over 15 years, or 5.3 % per year.

We consider that a price increase to $1.50 or $1.60 would be reasonable, a view shared by many senior citizens. While this is a 50% increase now, it is less than 4% per year spread over the past 15 years. Even an increase to $2.00, while being perceived as an 82 % increase, would in fact be only 5.5% per year over 15 years.

The half fare concession on short single trips could mean that not every pensioner would have to pay $1.60 or $2.00 to go out.

We realise that this increase would be revenue neutral to the SRA and STA, as each additional cent raised by fares from a concession passenger is a cent not received by way of government reimbursement. However, if a promise could be given as to how the additional fare box money might be spent, perhaps the users might be more willing to pay it. We recognise that concession pricing is a matter for the NSW Government, but we suggest that the Tribunal recommend such action to the Government.

The ticket covers only CityRail and STA transport. To be equitable, the availability of the ticket needs to be expanded to include private buses (and private ferries). If this is too generous, perhaps different priced tickets could be sold for different areas or zones.

In general debate, the terms Pensioner Excursion Ticket and pensioner concession ticket are often confused. The latter are half-fare tickets available, as far as we know, on all buses and ferries, trains, trams and monorails – just about everywhere, in fact, except the Manly jetcats.

In this debate, it is also often said that people who live in western Sydney cannot make use of the Pensioner Excursion Ticket. This is true, but only in relation to travel on private buses in that area. Once the person gets to the railway station, the ticket is available for travel all over the inner suburbs. It might similarly be said that a person who lives in the inner suburbs cannot use the ticket to go to Bonnyrigg or Castle Hill.

We are aware that such a scheme is being developed. However, we do not want any of our current requests delayed with the excuse that they will be included in the new arrangements. This is "never-never" land. We want action now.

This group and other commuter organisations have very serious concerns about the lack of true consultation with the groups by the project owners and designers.

In the three or four years of the life of the project there have been only two or three meetings with commuter groups. Even then, the commuters were not treated as true stakeholders in the project, but were merely told what was going on or were invited to ask questions. We have had no proper input.

When we ask questions, such as "Will the system be able to provide this or that?" the answer is always, "Yes, it can do that," but not "Yes, it will do that."

We fear that the system is being provided for the benefit of the operators and the bank holding the prepayments, but not for the traveller.

We request the immediate, formal and continuous involvement of commuters in all aspects of the system development life cycle.

The Public Transport Users Association (PTUA) in Melbourne has a similar complaint. In the September 2002 journal they said, "The Minister has refused to appoint consumer and public interest representatives to the Ticketing Taskforce, which is made up entirely of DoI (Department of Infrastructure) bureaucrats and representatives from the private operators." Also, "The PTUA is concerned that the Taskforce is operating as a closed shop, and its members neither know nor care what passenger want."

It is true that a rider may need only one ticket to travel from Bonnyrigg to Bondi Beach by private bus, train and government bus, but we fear that the fares will not be integrated. The rider will probably have to pay the flagfall and the distance cost three times.

We request an assurance from the authorities that this will not happen.

We request an assurance from the Tribunal that you will prevent it from happening.

We fear that the discounts provided by many or all multi-ride tickets will disappear if each ride is charged separately as mentioned in the previous paragraph. This could include TravelTens, weeklies and TravelPasses. Many people keep both a Blue and a Brown TravelTen in their pocket for different length journeys. It is difficult to see how both can be stored on a smart card and the correct one chosen by the machine.

We request an assurance from the authorities, especially State Transit, that the proposed smart card will still give discounts on TravelTen tickets, or, if not, that the current magnetic stripe tickets will still be freely available and acceptable.

We request an assurance from the Tribunal that you will prevent any loss of current facilities.

We propose that large increases be applied to cash bus fares this year, and minimum or zero increases to rail and multi-ride tickets. This is partly an attempt to reverse the trend towards cash fares on buses. It is also to redress the trend where those cash fares have increased by 25-36% over seven years, TravelTens by 41-47% and TravelPasses by 50-58%. These figures refer to the most popular two or three low order bands.

The authorities, and State Transit in particular, have long complained about the alleged "excessive discounts" given to TravelPass holders. They say that holders make many "trips" and the authorities calculate a value for each of these trips, then add the relevant fares to get a "value". This ignores the fact that, to a TravelPass holder, three "trips" on a bus, a train and another bus only make one "journey". CityRail recognises this factor. A journey from Ashfield to Arncliffe is not charged as a trip from Ashfield to Redfern plus a trip from Redfern to Arncliffe. It is charged as one journey.

We do not have the sophisticated data collection and analysis methods of State Transit, but our rough estimate of the weighted average increase of our fare proposals is 1.0 %, calculated as follows:

We would hope, however, that the large price increase in the single cash fares, combined with other initiatives, would reduce the number of people buying cash fares, and so reduce the weighted average in the long run.

Unlike CityRail, State Transit does not have any discounted off-peak tickets for buses or ferries. (There used to be a discounted lunch-time ferry fare, but that has long since gone.) We would be interested to learn of any proposals for such fares.

We do not have statistical evidence of the latest trend regarding the proportion of travellers who buy cash fares, but from observation it does not seem to have reduced. Amongst the worst, or the most noticeable groups of "offenders" are (i) tourists, (ii) people going up and down George Street for lunch or drinks, and (iii) young people going out for the night.

Apart from adjustments to fares, what other strategies does the STA have to halt the trend? Vending machine? Street ticket sellers? Advertising? Leaflets on buses?

What is the defined acceptable percentage target for cash fares?

For the record, the following figures are taken from the December 2002 Bulletin of the Transport Data Centre. They show the proportion of bus trips by ticket type for an average weekday in 2000.

TravelTens and FerryTens may legitimately be used by more than one person boarding the bus or ferry at the same time. The first person, after inserting the ticket in the machine, may pass it to a second person, and a third and so on.

However, this facility is not widely advertised. For instance, it is not mentioned on bus timetables, and it is not mentioned in the 24 page CityRail booklet quoted above. It is mentioned on State Transit’s web site.

If this aspect were more widely known, especially in relation to buses, groups of people might well be persuaded to use TravelTens instead of paying individual cash fares. It is cheaper and quicker.

The main feature of our proposal is a large increase in the most popular short distance fares, not so much to raise revenue, but to reduce the proportion of cash fares.

The increases here are low, ranging from zero to 2 percent, in an attempt to draw users away from single cash fares.

No increases are proposed this year because users have borne heavy increases over the past years.

No increases are proposed this year because users have borne heavy increases over the past years.

The deletion in 2002 of the outer zone Brown TravelPass, and the addition a few years ago of the short distance Brown TravelTen ticket offers an opportunity to create a new Brown TravelPass zone in the inner suburbs. It also offers the opportunity to bring the order of the colours into alignment in both tickets. We realise that the tickets bear no relation to each other, but there is some memory of the sequence in the public mind.

The proposal is to create a new Brown TravelPass zone that would partially overlap the Red Zone. The Brown Zone would cover all bus and rail in the eastern suburbs, and in the western suburbs as far as Strathfield, Rhodes, Campsie, Bardwell Park and Rockdale. It would not cover anything north of the harbour, including ferries. The price would be the same as the Red TravelPass.

The Red TravelPass would stay unchanged in area and price.

In 2002, we requested an extension of the Red TravelPass from Croydon to Burwood and Strathfield and from Canterbury to Campsie, on the grounds that these were major retail and employment centres for inner-west residents. The authorities declined our request on the grounds of loss of revenue, which is understandable.

To protect the revenue, therefore, we propose that in return for adding on the Burwood, Concord and Campsie areas, the bus and rail authorities could delete the area north of the harbour in a new Brown TravelPass Zone.

No doubt, many refinements of this proposal could be offered and we would be happy to discuss them, but we would like genuine consideration to be given to the basic idea. We don’t want to know why it won’t work – we want to know how it can work.

It is still too early to determine the final impact that the Sydney Waterways enquiry will have on Sydney Ferries’ "efficient costs".

The current cash fares are expensive and do discourage casual use of the ferries. In some cases it’s only half the price to take the bus. A big increase may see both the patronage and the cash take fall. We understand that ferry patronage fell 4% last year. Sydney Ferries need to maximise revenue, and a cut in the fares may achieve this goal by increasing patronage. It is important to note that if the ferries charge very high fares and still lose money there will have to be an inquiry. Sydney Ferries vessels are all quite large and they need to be kept full to make money. It not worth running a ferry with just a few passengers no matter what fare they pay.

We therefore propose only a nominal increase in the cash fares. We recommend no increase in the Jetcat fare because of greatly reduced fuel costs. State Transit needs to develop a market for non-commuter travel to make full use of these vessels.

We propose no increase in order to increase the level of discount over single fares. State Transit should fit Green Machines to ferries for validation of multi-ride tickets.

Some years ago, the STA charged reduced fares on intermediate ferry services that did not go to Circular Quay, such as Greenwich to Birchgrove, Cremorne Point to South Mosman, and Milsons Point to Balmain. These fares are no longer available and passengers are charged the full $4.30 for the short trips.

We request that these intermediate fares be re-instated at a price of approximately half the full fare to and from Circular Quay.

We understand that State Transit is planning a "Better Ferries" program, along the lines of Better Buses East, North etc. We would be interested to learn what State Transit’s brief will be for this program, that is, what it is setting out to achieve.

We have no proposals for general changes to CityRail’s fare structure or fare levels. An increase similar to last year’s of around 2.0% would be acceptable.

We think that CityRail should explain more clearly and perhaps more forcefully what happens when small increases are not passed on to short distance fares. There was a perception in some places last year that short distance riders had escaped a fare rise that other users had to suffer. It should be made plain that eventually, short distance users will bear a once-off 10% increase while longer distance riders will still have their annual one or two percent rises.

It should also be emphasised that the zero rise affects not only inner suburban people who travel to the city, but anyone who travels a short distance. Thus, instead of giving the example of "Burwood to City – no increase", the press release could say "Parramatta to Blacktown – no increase". Both journeys are about the same distance.

Until about 10 to 15 years ago, the return portion of all return tickets (full fare or Off-Peak Return) was valid on the next day, or on the Monday after a Friday, or even a Tuesday after a long weekend. Now, return tickets are only valid until 4 a.m. the next morning.

We request that the former facility be restored on all return tickets for longer distance journeys, say over 100 kilometres (that is, 100 km one way, or 200 km return). This would enable people travelling between Sydney and such places as Wyong, Katoomba, Mittagong, Dapto and beyond to have a reasonable time at their destinations without having to rush to catch an afternoon or evening train.

We recommend that the BusTripper ticket be retained and the price increased from $9.70 to $10.00, an increase of 3.1 %. We also recommend, as always, that the ticket be more widely advertised and more widely available for purchase.

We recommend that the price of the DayTripper ticket be increased from $13.40 to $14.00, an increase of 4.5 %. At this price the ticket is still very good value, and very convenient (especially for avoiding the queues for Manly Ferry tickets at Circular Quay). On current fares, an off-peak return rail ticket from Petersham Quay is $3.00, or a return bus fare from Leichhardt is $5.20, and a return ferry trip to Manly is $10.80, so a day tripper with a DayTripper is in front already.

At present, students are not allowed to buy TravelPass tickets for periods longer than a week. We consider that student concession TravelPasses should be available in the same quarterly and yearly periods as for adult TravelPasses, or perhaps for periods aligned to university terms.

The School Term Pass for primary and high school students is available for periods of one, two, three or four terms.

Our group is not close enough to the situation in Newcastle to offer any detailed suggestions regarding fares and tickets in that city.

One point that we would like to raise concerning Newcastle, however, is the provision of an all-modes all-day ticket. There used to be a Day Rover in Newcastle, but it was discontinued along with the Sydney one several years ago.

The current time-based fares include an all-day ticket for $7.60, which gives unlimited bus and ferry travel for 23 hours (yes 23) from the time of purchase (e.g. 6pm today to 5pm tomorrow). This is rather unusual. The base 1-hour fare is $2.50, so the 23-hour ticket is probably fairly priced, but it gets very little use. There is no equivalent to the Sydney DayTripper train-bus-ferry ticket. We recommend the introduction of such a ticket priced at around $8.00 or $9.00. The Sydney price of $13.40 would be too dear for the Newcastle market.

It should be designed so that it can eventually be extended to cover the private buses

In its 2001 submission (Section 3, page 7) the STA described its involvement in the continuing development of the ITIS system

We would be interested to know what further progress has been made in this area.

If the Integrated Ticketing system ever gets going, what power will IPART have over the private bus (or ferry, tram or monorail) component of the tickets?

If IPART will have some power over the private component of an integrated ticket, will it be given the same power over the cost of an non-integrated private ticket?

In 2002 the submissions from both authorities were received four weeks after the due date. They are late every year, though never so late as that and we are at a loss to understand why. The need for the submissions could hardly have been a surprise, as they have been requested at this same time for about the past ten years. Even if there were no IPART enquiry, surely the authorities would need to go through a similar process in submitting requests for fare changes to their own department heads.