Research Papers

Download details

Transport Legislation Amendment (Public Transport Development Authority) Bill 2011

Introduction

On 13 September 2011, the Transport Legislation Amendment (Public Transport Development Authority) Bill 2011 (‘the Bill’) was introduced into the Legislative Assembly by the Hon. Terry Mulder, Minister for Public Transport. The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Transport Integration Act 2010 to establish the Public Transport Development Authority (PTDA).

1. Second Reading Speech

In the second reading speech on 14 September 2011, the Minister for Public Transport specified that the Bill will establish the Public Transport Development Authority, a statutory authority, to plan, coordinate and manage all metropolitan and regional public transport services (including trains, trams and buses).[footnote 1]

Minister Mulder stated that Victoria has too many transport bodies.[footnote 2] He said that compared to better-performing public transport systems in other Australian and overseas jurisdictions, Victoria’s public transport system is fragmented and lacking in accountability.[footnote 3] Minister Mulder said that the Coalition came to office with a ‘clear plan to fix the problems in public transport’. He stated that the centrepiece of their proposal was ‘to consolidate the functions of various public transport bodies in a single coordinating authority’.[footnote 4]

Under the Bill, the PTDA will replace and incorporate the roles and responsibilities of the Director of Public Transport, Metlink Victoria Pty Ltd and the Transport Ticketing Authority.[footnote 5] The Minister stated that the object, functions and powers of the PTDA will exceed those of the current Director of Public Transport in order to better reflect key priorities. These priorities include: integrating and coordinating different modes of transport; auditing all public transport assets and publicly reporting the condition and value of these assets; promoting extensions to the public transport network; and advocating public transport as an alternative to car use.[footnote 6]

The PTDA will provide a ‘single shopfront’ for public transport for both passengers and stakeholders (including franchisees and other public transport agencies).[footnote 7] The Minister stated that the Authority, ‘will be responsible and accountable for achieving significant improvement in the reliability, efficiency and integration of public transport services across the state’. [footnote 8]

The Minister specified that the PTDA will be governed by an independent board appointed by the Minister. [footnote 9] The board will consist of a chairperson, a deputy chairperson, a community representative and up to four more directors.[footnote 10] The Authority will be required to submit reports to Parliament twice a year for the first two years and annually thereafter.[footnote 11]

The functions of the PTDA will include: being ‘the face’ of the public transport system; aiding the maintenance and construction of public transport infrastructure; managing operational public transport infrastructure; planning for the public transport system; managing the coordination of trains, trams and buses; developing and implementing polices to increase the security and safety of the public transport system; and providing and running ticketing systems.[footnote 12]

2. Background: A History of Public Transport Governance in Victoria

This section of the Research Brief provides an overview of the history of public transport governance in Victoria. The historical overview is divided into four subsections. The first subsection looks at the early history of Victorian public transport through to the 1990s. The second subsection looks at the privatisation of public transport in 1999, and the franchise agreements with private operators in 1999, 2004 and 2009. The third subsection looks at the increase in public transport patronage from 2005 and the performance of the public transport system. The final subsection looks at public transport as a key issue of the 2010 Victorian state election, the Liberal Nationals Coalition policy and Victorian Greens’ policy to establish a public transport authority, and stakeholder views on the establishment of a public transport authority.

Early History to the 1990s

Victoria’s first railways were opened in Melbourne from the 1850s by private companies. The railways progressively came under government ownership and the government’s ‘Victorian Railways’ became the principal operator of metropolitan and regional rail services from 1878. Trams were introduced to Melbourne from the 1880s and were wholly government owned by 1922 and operated by the ‘Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board’ (M&MTB). Horse-drawn and then automotive buses operated in Melbourne since the city’s founding and have been largely privately owned. [footnote 13] By the 1920s Melbourne’s public transport system was one of the most extensive of any city in the world.[footnote 14]

Public transport patronage in Melbourne peaked in the late 1940s and then declined with the rise of car ownership, development in the outer suburbs and areas between railway lines, and decreases in the population of the inner suburbs and work opportunities in the central business district. [footnote 15] Roads and freeway networks were expanded in the post-war era while the train and tram networks were relatively stagnant.[footnote 16] As late as 1955 public transport facilities handled 50 per cent of annual passenger transport in Melbourne, by 1980 the figure was 10 per cent.[footnote 17] As patronage and revenue declined and operating costs increased, Victorian Railways and, from 1970, M&MTB were dependent on increasing government subsidies. [footnote 18]

In 1983, the Cain government restructured the public transport bodies. The metropolitan train operations of Victorian Railways and the tram operations of M&MTB were subsumed by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (known as ‘the Met’). The regional train operations of Victorian Railways were taken over by the new State Transit Authority (trading as V/Line). In a further restructure in 1989, the Metropolitan and State Transit Authorities were incorporated under the Public Transport Corporation (PTC). The Met and V/Line were retained as trading names but both were operated centrally by the PTC under public ownership.[footnote 19]

In 1993, the Kennett government commenced the Public Transport Reform Program, with the aim of improving the efficiency of the PTC. [footnote 20] From 1993 to 1997 the staff and cash operating subsidy of the PTC were more than halved. There were reductions in the number of station staff and the removal of conductors from trams. Workshops and maintenance were rationalised and outsourced, and the PTC’s bus service was privatised. At the conclusion of the program of reforms the operating cost of the PTC had been reduced by almost $250 million per annum.[footnote 21]

Privatisation and the Franchise Agreements

In 1997, the Kennett government announced its intention to privatise the public transport system. In order to prepare for privatisation, the Kennett government legislated to disband the PTC and split its passenger transport services into five separate business corporations. The reform was based on the premise that the most efficient driver of cost efficiency and improved service delivery would be competition between public transport service operators.[footnote 22] In 1998, the PTC was split into the following five corporations:

§ Met Train 1 – named Bayside Trains

§ Met Train 2 – named Hillside Trains

§ Met Tram 1 – named Swanston Trams

§ Met Tram 2 – named Yarra Trams

§ V/Line Passenger [footnote 23]

Also in 1998, the Office of the Director of Public Transport was established – as part of the Department of Infrastructure – to assume the planning and performance management functions of the PTC.[footnote 24]

In 1998-99, a competitive tender was undertaken and the five corporatised passenger services were sold as individual franchises. The V/Line, Bayside Trams and Swanston Trams franchises were won by the UK transport operator National Express. The Yarra Trams franchise was awarded to a consortium led by French operator Transdev, and the Hillside Trains franchise was awarded to French firm Vivendi/Connex. [footnote 25] It was intended that re-tendering for each business would occur at the end of each franchise period, which ranged between 10 and 15 years.[footnote 26] The Kennett government’s aims for the franchising process were to improve service quality; increase patronage; minimise the cost of public transport to the taxpayer; transfer risk to the private sector; and maintain high safety standards.[footnote 27] Government subsidies to the private operators were intended to gradually decline over the time of the franchises as patronage increased and revenue grew. [footnote 28]

However, in the first two years of operation, the franchisees were not able to meet their passenger growth and cost reduction targets and became financially unviable.[footnote 29] In 2002, National Express withdrew its support from its franchises – Bayside Trains, Swanston Trams and V/Line – leaving them insolvent. The Bracks government appointed receivers to take over the operation of the three franchises and provided interim funding to keep the remaining two private firms operating. Also in 2002, the Bracks government announced that it would restructure the metropolitan passenger train and tram system in a single train franchise and a single tram franchise. It was decided to retain V/Line in public ownership.[footnote 30]

In 2003, the Bracks government began negotiating the single train and tram franchises with the remaining private firms Connex and Yarra Trams. The re-negotiated franchise agreements were finalised in 2004 and involved significant increases in government subsidies to the franchisees. [footnote 31]

During this time, the Bracks government additionally established the Transport Ticketing Authority (2003) to oversee the Metcard public transport ticketing system contract, and to procure and manage the introduction of the Myki ticketing system. [footnote 32] Metlink was then established in 2004 as a private non-profit body (owned by the two franchisees but directly accountable to the state) to provide marketing and passenger information. [footnote 33]

The franchise agreements with Connex and Yarra Trams ended on 29 November 2009 and new franchise agreements with new train and tram operators – Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM) and Keolis Downer EDI (Yarra Trams (KDR)) – came into effect from 30 November 2009. The initial franchise period for both agreements is eight years with a possible seven year extension granted on the basis of operator performance. A new Metlink Services Agreement also came into effect at this time.[footnote 34] The Department of Transport (DOT) states that the 2009 franchise agreements or ‘public transport partnership agreements’ outline the roles and responsibilities of the operators, state government and Metlink as follows:

Operators

  • Day-to-day operation of trains and trams to Government performance standards
  • Responsibility for customer service, including tickets sales, passenger security and station staff
  • Employment and management of staff
  • Maintenance and cleaning of vehicles, tracks and stations.

State Government

  • Safety regulation
  • Sustainable funding
  • Coordination of timetables between trains, trams and buses
  • Long-term network and strategic planning
  • Development of a new ticketing system.

Metlink

  • Representation of tram, train and bus operators across Victoria
  • Marketing of public transport across Victoria
  • Provision of customer information for services across Victoria to passengers through a website, mobile technology and call centre
  • Collection of data on patronage, fare evasion and origin-destination
  • Coordination of revenue protection activities across Victoria.[footnote 35]

Patronage Increase and Public Transport Performance

The overall decline in public transport patronage ceased in the 1980s and began to slowly increase roughly inline with population growth. Modest increases were recorded in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and from 2005 there has been a substantial increase in public transport patronage beyond levels of population growth.[footnote 36] The relevant statistics are provided in the next section of the Research Brief. It is suggested that reasons for the patronage increase, in addition to population growth, include demographic changes such as inner-city gentrification and growth in CBD employment, rising petrol prices, traffic congestion and travel time, as well as growing environmental awareness.[footnote 37]

In regard to the performance of the public transport system, the DOT sets out and monitors the performance levels that the franchisees are required to meet, primarily in terms of punctuality, reliability and customer satisfaction.[footnote 38] As illustrated in the next section of the Research Brief, there has been a steady decline in punctuality and customer satisfaction over the past decade, while reliability has, on the whole, remained constant.

In 2010, the Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Train Services and Engineers Australia published reports which assessed the performance of the Victorian public transport system. The Select Committee on Train Services’ First Interim Report and Engineers Australia’s Infrastructure Report Card 2010: Victoria both found that the public transport system is providing inadequate service. The reports found that public transport is overcrowded and that there has been insufficient strategic planning and investment in infrastructure by successive Victorian governments.[footnote 39] The Engineers Australia report noted, however, that increased investment in rail since 2004-2005 ‘should deliver improvements’.[footnote 40]

The Select Committee on Train Services found evidence to suggest that poor rail service delivery may be linked to a fragmentation of responsibility and accountability under the franchise system. The Committee stated that:

Responsibility for delivery of Victoria’s train services is fragmented across a range of Government authorities, private operators and independent statutory bodies. The Committee believes this fragmentation of responsibility may result in uncertainty in terms of factors leading to and causes of failures in the provision of train services in Victoria.[footnote 41]

The Select Committee on Train Services further found that evidence suggests that existing public transport governance arrangements in Victoria could be streamlined and improved by integration under a single authority.[footnote 42]

The Select Committee on Train Services Report included a Minority Report by the Labor members of the Committee. The Labor Minority Report stated that the Majority Report did not properly acknowledge the significant investments made by the Bracks and Brumby governments in Victoria’s rail system, including the purchase of new rolling stock and ongoing delivery of service improvements. The Labor Minority Report stated that underperformance on the train system was due to the ‘patronage boom’ which ‘has occurred on a seriously ageing infrastructure that has suffered from inadequate investment into the system by successive governments for the 55 years between World War 2 and 1999’. [footnote 43]

In regard to public transport governance, the Labor Minority Report stated that the Majority Report findings ‘ignore evidence clearly stating that the Secretary of the Department of Transport is responsible for the delivery of Victoria’s Train Services’ and that ‘Optimising service provision through a mix of public and private sector organisations is best practice in many other government funded services (eg health and education)’. [footnote 44]

The Select Committee on Train Services Report also included a second Minority Report by Victorian Greens MP, Mr Greg Barber. Mr Barber said that his Minority Report ‘confirms and extends the findings of the majority report and makes recommendations that follow logically from those findings’. [footnote 45] Mr Barber recommended that the government should ‘negotiate an end to the current franchise agreements’; create ‘an overarching metropolitan public transport authority’; and constructively engage with ‘the professional transport planning community, local government and with the general public on the future directions for public transport investment and operational reform’. [footnote 46]

In 2009, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport published a report on public transport which made similar findings to the Select Committee on Train Services Majority Report. The Senate Committee’s 2009 inquiry into the ‘Investment of Commonwealth and State Funds in Public Passenger Transport Infrastructure and Services’ found that: ‘Melbourne’s franchising out of train and tram operations since 1999 has been particularly criticised for creating a lack a clear accountability for managing the whole network’. [footnote 47] It also found that:

In evidence to this inquiry the key element of good governance was usually said to be a single regional public transport authority with the power and responsibility to plan and deliver the city’s public transport service in an integrated way under a single brand (whether or not service provision is contracted out).[footnote 48]

The Senate Committee concluded that Australian Government funding for transport initiatives should be conditional on reforms to state and territory transport and planning departments to create central co-ordinating agencies to plan and deliver integrated network service. [footnote 49]

The 2010 State Election and Stakeholder Views on a Public Transport Authority

The performance of public transport was a key issue in the 27 November 2010 Victorian state election, particularly the issues of overcrowding, train cancellations, and the roll out of the Myki ticketing system.[footnote 50] The Victorian Liberal National Coalition and the Victorian Greens went to the election with policies to establish an independent public transport authority. [footnote 51]

A number of stakeholders in the Victorian public transport debate support the establishment of a public transport authority, including Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) transport planning academic Dr Paul Mees, the Public Transport Users Association (PTUA), and the Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS).

The Bus Association Victoria Inc. (BusVic) commissioned a report by Professor John Stanley, which has made recommendations on how the authority should be established. Dr Mees, the PTUA, VCOSS, and Professor Stanley’s report for BusVic emphasise the importance of ensuring community involvement in the new authority’s planning processes. Dr Mees, the PTUA and Professor Stanley’s report for BusVic advocate learning from cities such as Zurich and Vancouver, which have successful public transport systems operated by independent public transport authorities. [footnote 52]

Institute of Public Affairs Research Fellow, Mr Richard Allsop, has questioned the assertion that the key feature Melbourne’s public transport lacks is a single overarching authority. He also questioned the idea that ‘a model from the unique Swiss political environment will automatically be a panacea in Australia’.[footnote 53]

At the time of preparing this Research Brief, the only published stakeholder comment on the Bill itself is an article in the Age reporting the views of the PTUA on the proposed legislation. The article states that the PTUA is concerned that the new PTDA will not be independent of government and will lack transparency. PTUA President, Mr Daniel Bowen, is reported as saying that ‘It’s something of a surprise to see its independence is not enshrined in the legislation’ and that ‘The danger is that it will limit what this organisation can do and the fact that it’s not obligated to put its reports out publicly … means it’s not going to be as open as people would hope’. [footnote 54]

3. Public Transport Statistics

According to the ABS, in the 30 years after World War II, public transport use in Australian capital cities ‘decreased substantially’, in part due to the increased use of private motor vehicles.[footnote 55] However, in the last 10 to 15 years, public transport networks have experienced substantial increases in passenger numbers.[footnote 56] In particular, there has been a marked increase in the proportion of adults using public transport for travel to work or study. From 1996 to 2006 there was an increase of 35.1 per cent in Victoria, 12.4 per cent in Sydney, 18 per cent in Adelaide, and 1.9 per cent in Perth. Despite a drop in both Hobart and Canberra, the overall trend in Australia was a 13.4 per cent increase from 1996 to 2006 amongst adults using public transport to get to work or study.[footnote 57]

In the report by Engineers Australia, the increase in passenger numbers in Victoria is attributed to ‘Melbourne’s increasing population, inner city growth where public transport is more accessible, rising CBD employment, petrol price fluctuations and the impact of the global financial crisis on spending patterns’.[footnote 58] As stated in the recent Select Committee report, these factors have made public transport ‘an attractive transport alternative’.[footnote 59]

Figure 1 below shows the total number of passenger kilometres travelled on public transport from 1976/77 to 2008/09 in Melbourne. After remaining relatively stable from 1976/77, there has been a pronounced increase from around 1998/99 to 2008/09.[footnote 60] A similar trend can be seen in other Australian capital cities. [footnote 61]

Figure 1: Passenger Travel on Melbourne Public Transport – 1976/77 to 2008/09.

passenger travel on melbourne public transport

Data Source: Department of Infrastructure and Transport (2011) Yearbook 2011: Australian Infrastructure Statistics. [footnote 62]

This section will review this trend in more detail across Victoria’s public transport network over the past ten years using statistics from the DOT showing passenger boarding numbers, service punctuality and reliability.[footnote 63] Appendices 1 to 4 at the back of this paper contain tables compiled using DOT data across these categories. Appendix 5 contains data showing overall customer satisfaction with the public transport network.

Passenger Boardings

In 2001/02 there was a total of 378.9 million passenger boardings on the Victorian public transport network (metropolitan and regional combined). By 2010/11 this figure had increased by over 44 per cent to 547.2 million passenger boardings. Over this period, regional passenger boardings have accounted for around five percent of the total combined metropolitan and regional passenger boardings. The trends within each of these categories will be detailed further below, and tables of the data are available in appendices 1 and 2.

Metropolitan passenger boardings

Total passenger boardings on the metropolitan public transport network have increased by over 44 per cent from 2001/02 to 2010/11. The initial few years of this period saw only modest growth over the network, however, more substantial increases occurred in 2004/05 (4.6 per cent), 2006/07 (6.9 per cent), 2007/08 (7.7 per cent) and 2008/09 (9 per cent). In the last financial year, 2010/11, there was a total increase of 4.2 per cent in passenger boardings on the metropolitan network.

Most of this growth can be attributed to the metropolitan rail network. As figure 2 below shows, in 2001/02 there were 131.8 million passenger boardings. After significant increases in 2004/05 (8.2 per cent), 2005/06 (11.2 per cent), 2006/07 (10 per cent) and 2007/08 (12.7 per cent), the total number of passenger boardings on the metropolitan rail network increased by over 73 per cent from 2001/02 to 2010/11. In the last financial year there was an increase of 4.4 per cent.[footnote 64]

Growth in passenger boardings on metropolitan trams and buses has been less substantial. As figure 2 shows, from 2001/02 to 2010/11 tram boardings have increased by 35.6 per cent, and bus boardings have increased by 15 per cent. In the last financial year there was growth of around 4 per cent for both trams and buses.

Figure 2: Total Metropolitan Passenger Boardings (million) – 2001/02 to 2010/11.[footnote 65]

total metropolitan passenger boardings

Data Source: Department of Transport (2011) ‘Annual Reports’.[footnote 66]

Regional passenger boardings

Although growth in passenger boardings has been more modest on the regional network compared to the metropolitan over the past ten years, the increase has still been significant. In 2001/02 there were 20.2 million passenger boardings on the regional network, which increased to 29.5 million boardings in 2010/11: an increase of over 46 per cent.

Over the period 2002/03 to 2004/05 there were declines in passenger boardings, attributable in part to works on the Regional Fast Rail project and consequent disruptions to services.[footnote 67] However, in the subsequent years there was strong growth in passenger boardings, including: 5.5 per cent in 2005/06; 16.3 per cent in 2006/07; 13.6 per cent in 2007/08; and 6.8 per cent in 2008/09. In the last financial year there was an increase of 8.5 per cent in passenger boardings on the regional public transport network.

Figure 3 below shows the trend in passenger boardings for regional trains and coaches, and regional buses. There has been a steady increase in passenger boardings for both categories since 2005/06, with only a slight decline on the bus network in 2009/10. The train and coach network experienced several significant increases in passenger boardings, including: 28.8 per cent in 2006/07; 23.4 per cent in 2007/08; and 12.9 per cent in 2008/09. The bus network experienced similar but more modest growth over the same period.

In the last financial year there was an increase of 7.3 per cent in passenger boardings on the regional train and coach network, and an increase of 9.6 per cent in passenger boardings on buses. As figure 3 below demonstrates, there is an almost even spread of passenger boardings between the two categories in the last few financial years.

Figure 3: Total Regional Passenger Boardings (million) – 2001/02 to 2010/11.

total regional passenger boardings

Data Source: Department of Transport (2011) ‘Annual Reports’.[footnote 68]

Punctuality, Reliability and Customer Satisfaction

The DOT Public Transport Division monitors the performance of the train, tram and bus network. Several categories are used to assess performance on the system: punctuality, reliability and customer satisfaction. A performance threshold is set for each operator as set out in the sections below, which must be met for each financial quarter. A slightly different performance threshold was in place prior to 30 November 2009. [footnote 69]

Appendices 3, 4, and 5 contain punctuality, reliability and customer satisfaction data from 2001/02 to 2010/11. [footnote 70] Below is a brief summary of some of the trends.

Metropolitan trains

Metropolitan trains are required to:

§ deliver at least 98 per cent of the timetable each month; and

§ ensure that at least 87 per cent of services arrive at their destination no later than four minutes and 59 seconds after the timetabled arrival time.[footnote 71]

In 2001/02 over 95 per cent of trains met the punctuality threshold. However, there has been a steady decline of around one per cent per financial year, resulting in 85.8 per cent of trains meeting the punctuality threshold in 2010/11, marginally above the ten year low in 2009/10 of 85.4 per cent.[footnote 72]

The reliability of trains, measured as the percentage of services that are cancelled, has been fairly consistent with fluctuations between 1.1 and 1.5 per cent from 2004/05 to 2010/11.[footnote 73]

The Select Committee on Train Services made the following finding regarding reliability and punctuality:

Melbourne’s train operators…have failed to consistently deliver metropolitan trains on-time in line with their respective performance thresholds under the franchise contracts. In particular, train punctuality and reliability has been in significant decline over the summer months in 2008-09 and 2009-10.[footnote 74]

This decline in punctuality and reliability was linked to several common issues in the Committee’s report, including: train and infrastructure faults; passenger interchange delays (dwell time) caused by large groups such as schools and delays caused by wheelchair traffic; and defective or late V/Line trains causing disruptions to metropolitan services.[footnote 75]

Metropolitan trams

For any tram monitoring point, a service is considered to be on-time if ‘it arrives no earlier than 59 seconds before and no later than four minutes and 59 seconds after the timetabled arrival time’.[footnote 76] Metropolitan trams must ensure that:

§ the average punctuality of services must be at least 77 per cent; and

§ the per cent of timetable delivered must be at least 98 per cent.[footnote 77]

Two measurements are used for punctuality of trams: the average over the route, and arrival at destination. In 2001/02, over 80 per cent of trams met the punctuality threshold when measured as an average over the route. There have been some slight fluctuations over the past ten years, but this measure has remained relatively stable finishing on 81.4 per cent in 2010/11.[footnote 78]

When punctuality is measured at the destination a slightly different trend emerges. In 2001/02 around 67 per cent of trams met the punctuality threshold. After some modest declines in 2002/03 and 2003/04, there has been a steady increase over the subsequent years. In the last financial year 71.3 per cent of trains met the punctuality threshold when measured at the destination.[footnote 79]

Reliability measured as the percentage of services cancelled has remained consistent over the past ten years with fluctuations from 0.8 to 1.2 per cent from 2001/02 to 2010/11.[footnote 80]

Metropolitan buses

Metropolitan buses must ensure that:

  • no timetabled bus services operate early at any point on their routes; and
  • no more than five per cent of all services provided on any day or ten per cent of services provided on any route of any day will operate more than five minutes late at any point on the timetable; and
  • 99 per cent of all scheduled services on any day operate and are completed.[footnote 81]

Metropolitan buses have maintained a relatively high level of punctuality. After a low of 91.9 per cent in 2002/03 there was a steady increase to a high of 95.2 in 2007/08. In the last financial year 93.6 per cent of buses met the punctuality threshold. [footnote 82]

For most of the financial years from 2001/02 to 2010/11, there has been less than 0.1 per cent of services that did not meet the reliability threshold.[footnote 83]

Regional trains

Regional trains are required to:

  • deliver at least 96 per cent of scheduled train kilometres; and
  • ensure that at least 92 per cent of services arrive at their destination no later than five minutes and 59 seconds after the timetabled arrival time for short distance services and ten minutes and 59 seconds after the timetabled arrival time for long distance services. [footnote 84]

Similar to the trend for metropolitan trains, there has been a steady decline in the punctuality of regional trains. In 2001/02, over 94 per cent of trains met the punctuality threshold. However, by 2010/11, this had fallen to 84.4 per cent. The largest single decline was from 92 per cent in 2003/04 to 87 per cent the following financial year.[footnote 85] This decline was attributed to the disruptions caused by the Regional Fast Rail project.[footnote 86]

The trend in reliability has been more stable with fluctuations from a low of 0.4 per cent in 2001/02 to a high of 1.7 per cent in 2008/09. In the last financial year 1.1 per cent of services did not meet the reliability threshold.[footnote 87]

Customer Satisfaction

The DOT commissions monthly surveys to measure customer satisfaction with the public transport network. Interviewees are asked to indicate their usual public transport usage, and state their level of satisfaction with aspects of the service on a scale of 0 (totally dissatisfied) to 100 (totally satisfied). From April 2009 a different method of measurement has been used. However, the old scale has been maintained for the ‘overall satisfaction’ question.[footnote 88]

Below is a table showing overall customer satisfaction from 2001/02 to 2010/11 over the different parts of the public transport network. For metropolitan trains, customer satisfaction peaked in 2002/03 at 71.3 on the index, which rates between ‘somewhat satisfied’ and ‘very satisfied’. A steady decline occurred in the subsequent years to a low of 58.2 on the index in 2008/09 or roughly ‘somewhat satisfied’. In the last financial year overall customer satisfaction was 60.6 on the index, or ‘somewhat satisfied’.

Customer satisfaction with trams has consistently rated between ‘somewhat satisfied’ and ‘very satisfied’. Despite a peak of 71.6 in 2002/03 and a low of 67.4 in 2007/08, customer satisfaction with the tram network has experienced only minor fluctuations. Buses have also remained fairly consistent, rating between 67 and 72 over the period 2001/02 to 2010/11.

V/Line train and coach services have ranked the highest in terms of customer satisfaction, but have been declining overall between 2001/02 to 2010/11. V/Line trains had a customer satisfaction rating of 80, or very satisfied, in 2001/02: however, this had declined to 73.4 by 2010/11. V/Line coaches demonstrate a similar declining trend. The Department of Infrastructure attributed the decline in customer satisfaction to the disruption to services caused by the Regional Fast Rail works.[footnote 89] Nevertheless, these ratings are still proximate to the ‘very satisfied’ index rating for both services.

Customer satisfaction index

§ Totally satisfied 100

§ Very satisfied 80

§ Somewhat satisfied 60

§ Somewhat dissatisfied 40

§ Very dissatisfied 20

§ Totally dissatisfied 0

Figure 4: Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Index – 2001/02 to 2010/11.

public transport customer satisfaction index

Data Source: Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record Annual Results: Customer Satisfaction 2010/11’.[footnote 90]

4. Outline of the Bill

This section of the Research Brief provides a very brief outline of the main provisions of the Transport Legislation Amendment (Public Transport Development Authority) Bill 2011.

The general section of the Explanatory Memorandum makes some brief points about the Bill. It notes that the Public Transport Development Authority will be the single coordinating authority responsible and accountable for public transport. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill provides for the functions of the Director of Public Transport to be progressively transferred to the Public Transport Development Authority, leading to the abolition of the role of the Director of Public Transport. It also transfers the ticketing functions of the Transport Ticketing Authority to the Public Transport Development Authority, following the implementation of the new ticketing system and the dissolution of the ticketing authority. And it also transfers the customer service and information provision functions of Metlink Pty Ltd to the Public Transport Development Authority.

The Explanatory Memorandum also states that the Public Transport Development Authority will: audit and report on public transport assets; facilitate the extension of the public transport network, especially rail; and actively promote public transport as an alternative to the private motor vehicle to Victorian families.

For a more comprehensive description of the Bill in its entirety, readers are directed to the Explanatory Memorandum.

Purpose

Part 1—Preliminary

Part 1 states the purpose of the Bill and the commencement provisions.

Clause 1 of the Bill states that the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Transport Integration Act 2010 to establish the Public Transport Development Authority to—

(i) deliver more customer focused public transport services by planning, coordinating and managing the public transport system;

(ii) administer the arrangements for the provision of metropolitan trams, trains and buses and regional trains and buses;

(iii) operate as the face of public transport;

(iv) improve the public transport service experience and create a public transport shopfront for passengers and stakeholders;

and to make related and consequential amendments to the Transport Integration Act 2010, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 and certain other Acts.

Part 2—The Public Transport Development Authority

Clause 3 of the Bill inserts a new Division 1A of Part 5 into the Transport Integration Act 2010. Part 5 deals with Transport System Agencies. The new Division 1A is the Public Transport Development Authority and contains new sections 79A to 79X.

New Subdivision 1 of Division 1A—Establishment, Object, Functions and Powers

New section 79A to 79AG provides for the establishment of the Public Transport Authority its object, functions and powers.

New Subdivision 2 of Division 1A—Constitution, Procedures and Staff

New section 79B sets out provisions relating to the Constitution, procedures and staff.

New Subdivision 3 of Division 1A—General Provisions

New section 79C provides for the compulsory acquisition of land.

New section 79D sets out provisions relating to easements.

New section 79E provides that the Public Transport Development Authority may use or manage Crown lands reserved under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978.

New section 79F sets out provisions relating to the Public Transport Development Authority’s grants of unalienated Crown Land.

New section 79G provides for the acquisition or interest in land by the Public Transport Development Authority to achieve environmental sustainability.

New section 79H provides for the Public Transport Development Authority to enter land for investigative purposes.

New section 79I sets out provisions relating to the Public Transport Development Authority’s power to enter a building.

New section 79J sets out provisions relating to the Public Transport Development Authority’s powers to enter land to construct or maintain works.

New section 79K provides that the Public Transport Development Authority must develop and maintain a contingency plan for the possible exercise of a power under section 79AE(1)(i)(ii).[footnote 91]

New section 79L sets out provisions requiring the Public Transport Development Authority to conduct cost-benefit analysis of relevant rail safety projects.

New section 79M provides that the Minister may prepare guidelines for cost-benefit analysis and consultation, following consultation with the Premier and Treasurer.

New section 79N provides that the Minister may write to the board of directors of the Public Transport Development Authority requiring them to give the Minister any information that the Minister reasonably requires.

New section 79O sets out provisions for Ministerial control and direction of the Public Transport Development Authority.

New section 79P sets out provisions relating to the creation of a corporate plan.

New section 79Q sets out provisions relating to the statement of corporate intent.

New section 79R provides that the Public Transport Development Authority must act in accordance with the corporate plan.

New section 79S provides that nothing done by the Public Transport Development Authority is void or unenforceable merely because it has failed to comply with sections 79P, 79Q or 79R.

New section 79T requires the board of directors to give notice to the Minister of significant events which may affect the achievement of the business objectives or targets under the corporate plan.

New Subdivision 4 of Division 1A—Financial Provisions

New section 79U sets out provisions requiring the Public Transport Development Authority to prepare budgets.

New section 79V sets out requirements for the Minister to submit budgets.

New Subdivision 5 of Division 1A—Performance and Financial Reporting

New section 79W sets out provisions requiring the Public Transport Development Authority to provide a performance report to the Minister on the performance of the public transport system.

New section 79X sets out provisions requiring the Public Transport Development Authority to provide a monthly financial report to the Department to support the financial obligations imposed on the Secretary.

Part 3—Transfer Provisions

Clause 4 of the Bill inserts a new Part 10 into Transport Integration Act 2010.

New Division 1 provides for the purpose and relevant definitions for this Part.

New section 240 states that the purpose of this Part is to facilitate the establishment of the Public Transport Development Authority.

New Division 2 provides for matters relating to the transfer of property, rights and liabilities, and staff.

Part 4—Related and Consequential Amendments

Division 1 relates to the Transport Integration Act 2010.

Division 2 relates to Specified Acts

Part 5—Abolition or Dissolution of Transport Bodies

Schedule 1

References to the Director of Public Transport are to be changed to Public Transport Development Authority

Schedule 2

Other changes to references to the Director of Public Transport

5. Other Jurisdictions

This section of the Research Brief outlines the models of governance of public transport systems used in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are not included due to the limited modes of public transport offered in these jurisdictions.

This section also includes an overview of two international jurisdictions that have a public transport authority. They are: Greater Vancouver, Canada and Greater Zurich, Switzerland.[footnote 92]

Australian Jurisdictions

New South Wales

Under section 3C(1) of the Transport Administration Act 1988, the Director General of NSW Transport is responsible for overall transport policy and coordination. In addition, there are a number of government entities that are responsible for operating aspects of the public transport system. For example: RailCorp provides passenger rail services and owns the metropolitan rail network; the State Transit Authority is responsible for the operation of Sydney Buses, Newcastle Buses and Ferries and Western Sydney Buses; and Sydney Ferries runs Sydney’s ferry services. [footnote 93]

The NSW Parliament recently passed the Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2011. This amending Act, which is yet to commence, aims to ‘break down the silos that exist in the administration of the entire transport sector’.[footnote 94] The legislation will establish a new government agency, Transport for NSW, which will be managed and controlled by a Director General under the direction of the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Roads and Ports.[footnote 95] The objectives of the new agency will include: planning the transport system; promoting economic development and investment; providing integration at the decision-making level for all public transport modes; promoting increased efficiency in the delivery of transport infrastructure; and promoting the safe and reliable delivery of freight and public transport services.[footnote 96]

Within the new agency, ‘policy and planning experts will be brought together from all [footnote government] transport agencies to improve public transport services’.[footnote 97] Thus, other transport agencies will be ‘free to concentrate on delivering a quality service to customers’.[footnote 98] In addition, the Act will enshrine common objectives for all public transport agencies in NSW. These objectives will include: customer focus; economic development; planning and investment; coherence and integration; performance and delivery; efficiency; environmental sustainability; social benefits; and safety. [footnote 99]

Queensland

In 2008, Queensland established a statutory authority, the TransLink Transit Authority, to manage mass transit services in south east Queensland. [footnote 100] The Authority was created as a response to the high rate of population growth in the south-east corner of Queensland and the subsequent need to manage or decrease traffic congestion. [footnote 101]

TransLink was established as a statutory body under the Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008. Section 3(1) states that the main purpose of the Act is to ‘deliver in the TransLink area the best possible mass transit services at reasonable cost to the community and government, while keeping government regulation to a minimum’.[footnote 102]

Section 14 of the Act specifies the functions of TransLink. These include: operational network planning; planning, purchasing and delivering services including, for example, the coordination of the timetables of different modes of mass transit; managing, maintaining and delivering infrastructure critical for services; improving and expanding the range of mass transit services; creating a single point of contact for mass transit consumers; managing integrated ticketing; and making recommendations to the Minister regarding fare strategies and service levels.

TransLink is governed by a seven member, non-executive board (the TransLink Transit Authority Board) that reports directly to the Minister for Transport and Multicultural Affairs.[footnote 103] Of the seven board members, six are appointed by the Governor in Council. These include: the chairperson; a chief executive officer of a local government which substantially funds passenger transport services within the TransLink area; and four other members.[footnote 104] The only standing member of the Board must be the chief executive of the Department administering the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994.

Under section 34, TransLink’s chief executive officer is appointed by the Governor in Council. The CEO is accountable to the Board.

Under section 39 of the Act, the Minister has the power to issue directions and guidelines to the Authority. TransLink must comply with Ministerial directions.

South Australia

The provision of South Australia’s public transport services is currently supported by the Public Transport Division of the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. The functions of the Division include: service planning and design; administering contracts; infrastructure; and customer service.[footnote 105]

Prior to the current arrangement, the Passenger Transport Board, a body corporate reporting to the Minister, was responsible for coordinating, regulating and promoting public transport.[footnote 106] In 2003, the Passenger Transport Board was dissolved and its functions were incorporated into the Department of Transport.

The then Minister for Transport stated that there were two main reasons for the dissolution of the Board. The first reason was that the public transport network required increased investment. The Minister said that having the decision-making responsibility for advancing investment projects divided between Transport SA (the then Department of Transport), the Passenger Transport Board and TransAdelaide (the government-owned train and tram operator) was too fragmented. The second reason was to increase responsiveness. The Minister stated that feedback from people with grievances about the Passenger Transport Board suggested they felt removed from the democratic process. He stated that this feedback ‘was a perception resulting from the use of a statutory authority to distance the Minister from these matters’. [footnote 107]

Western Australia

The Public Transport Authority of Western Australia was established in 2003. According to the Public Transport Authority Act 2003, the Authority is ‘a state agency responsible for providing public passenger transport services anywhere in the state’.

The Authority is governed by a chief executive officer who is appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Public Sector Commissioner. [footnote 108] The chief executive officer ‘is responsible for, and has the necessary powers to administer, the day to day operations of the Authority’ (s 9(2)). The main function of the Authority is to ‘provide and operate safe and reliable public passenger transport services, either directly or through persons with whom it contracts’ (s 12(1)).

The Authority and the Minister, at the request of either, are required to consult regarding the operations of the Authority (s 25(1)). The Authority must consult the Minister when considering a major initiative or a course of action that is likely to be of significant public interest (s 25(2)). The Minister may also give the Authority directions and the Authority must comply (s 27).

In April 2010, the Western Australian government created a new position of Director General – Transport. This position was designed so that one person would head Western Australia’s three key transport agencies: the Department of Transport; Main Roads WA; and the Public Transport Authority. The CEO of the Authority at the time, Mr Reece Waldock, was appointed to the new Director General position. The Minister for Transport’s media release stated that the new position would ‘integrate and enhance the co-ordination of the State’s transport operations, regulatory functions and policy development processes’.[footnote 109]

International Jurisdictions

Greater Vancouver

The Greater Vancouver Regional District in British Columbia, Canada has a population of approximately 2.1 million people. [footnote 110] TransLink is Greater Vancouver’s regional transportation authority with responsibility for regional transit (including roads), cycling and commuting options.[footnote 111] It was established under the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act 1998 (the name of the legislation has since been changed to the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act 1998). TransLink delivers its services through operating companies and contractors.

The governance structure of TransLink is comprised of three main bodies: the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation; the TransLink Board of Directors; and the Regional Transportation Commissioner.[footnote 112] The Mayors’ Council consists of every mayor or head of a treaty first nation whose municipality or lands are in the region served by TransLink (s 208).

The nine-member TransLink Board of Directors is appointed by the Mayors’ Council (s 177). The Board is responsible for overseeing the management of TransLink’s affairs as well as appointing its chief executive officer (s 190). The TransLink Board is required to hold an Annual General Meeting which is open to the public. Any person in attendance at the AGM may, subject to any reasonable restrictions, address the meeting (s 13.1). In addition to the AGM, the TransLink website specifies that the Board meets regularly during the year with the agendas of each meeting published five days in advance. Time is then allocated at the beginning of each meeting to hear presentations from the public about agenda items. [footnote 113]

The Regional Transportation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners are also appointed by the Mayors’ Council (s 215). The Commissioner’s role includes: approving new fares or fare increases; approving TransLink’s customer feedback processes; and approving the proposed sale of major assets (ss 223-226).

Greater Zurich

Switzerland has three levels of government: the Confederation (equivalent to the Australian Federal Government); the cantons (equivalent to Australia’s states/territories); and communes (local governments).[footnote 114] The canton of Zurich is Switzerland’s most populous with a population of more than 1.3 million.[footnote 115] The Zürcher Verkehrsverbund (ZVV), the canton’s regional transportation agency, commenced operating in 1990. [footnote 116]

The ZVV is responsible for the strategic objectives and directions, finances and strategic marketing of the canton’s public transport system. Service provision and operational matters are the responsibility of transport operators grouped together within the ZVV. [footnote 117]

Figure 5 shows the governance structure of the ZVV. It was established under the canton of Zurich’s public-transport law and is accountable to the cantonal government and parliament. The communes are also involved in the ZVV particularly with regard to timetabling and fares. [footnote 118]

Figure 5: ZVV Governance Structure

clip_image010

Source: ZVV (date unknown) The ZVV – Zurich’s Integrated Public-Transport System – A Portrait, Zurich, ZVV, p. 10.

There are three tiers under the umbrella of the ZVV. In the first tier are the ZVV Transport Council and the ZVV’s top management. The Transport Council has representation from all three levels of Swiss government and is similar to a board of directors. The Council has responsibility for the overall business and financial management of the ZVV.[footnote 119] The top management of the ZVV oversees the three main organisational functions of the ZVV: marketing; finances; and transport planning.

Eight transport companies, which each have responsibility for operating public transport in a particular region of the canton, are on the second tier. Transport companies also have a role, for example, in converting the transport planning principles of the ZVV into the timetables of their operators so that the different modes of public transport are optimally coordinated with each other. [footnote 120]

The third tier of the ZVV consists of other licensed carriers and contract carriers. Each of the licensed carriers has an association with a regional transport company but is also contracted to the ZVV. The contract carriers all have a direct contractual relationship with the transport companies.[footnote 121]

The ZVV and transport operators agree to contracts prior to delivering services. This contract specifies the amount of service the operator must provide and how much they will be paid to deliver the service. The ZVV then collects all revenue as well as public funds and reimburses operators in accordance with the amount negotiated in their contracts. In an article for The Strategies for Public Transport in Cities (SPUTNIC) Project, Eggers commented that ZVV’s organisational model places it in a strong position in relation to operators and thus assists in establishing common quality standards.[footnote 122]


Appendices

Appendix 1: Passenger Boardings on the Metropolitan Public Transport Network – 2001/02 to 2010/11.

Financial Year

Metropolitan Trains

Metropolitan Trams

Metropolitan Buses

All Metropolitan PT

Boardings (million)

Annual Growth (%)

Boardings (million)

Annual Growth (%)

Boardings (million)

Annual Growth (%)

Boardings (million)

Annual Growth (%)

2001/02

131.8

3

134.7

2.5

92.2

0.2

358.7

2.1

2002/03

133.8

1.5

134.7

0

93.9

1.8

362.4

1

2003/04

134.9

0.8

135.9

0.8

93.6

-0.3

364.4

0.6

2004/05

146

8.2

145.3

6.9

90

-3.8

381.3

4.6

2005/06

162.4

11.2

151.1

4

78

-13.3

391.5

2.7

2006/07

178.6

10

154.9

3.6

85

9

418.5

6.9

2007/08

201.2

12.7

158.3

2.2

91.3

7.4

450.8

7.7

2008/09

213.9

6.3

178.1

12.5

99.5

9

491.5

9

2009/10

219.3

2.5

175.6

-1.2

102.1

2.6

497

1.1

2010/11

228.9

4.4

182.7

4

106.1

3.9

517.7

4.2

Data Source: Department of Transport (2011) ‘Annual Reports’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011,

< http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-reports >.

Appendix 2: Passenger Boardings on the Regional Public Transport Network – 2001/02 to 2010/11.

Financial Year

Regional Trains and Coaches

Regional Buses

All Regional Public Transport

Boardings (million)

Annual Growth (%)

Boardings (million)

Annual Growth (%)

Boardings (million)

Annual Growth (%)

2001/02

8.7

2.3

11.5

0

20.2

1

2002/03

8.1

-6.9

10.9

-5.2

19

-5.9

2003/04

7.4

-8.6

11.1

1.8

18.5

-2.6

2004/05

6.9

-6.8

11.1

0

18

-2.7

2005/06

7.3

5.8

11.7

5.4

19

5.5

2006/07

9.4

28.8

12.7

8.5

22.1

16.3

2007/08

11.6

23.4

13.5

6.3

25.1

13.6

2008/09

13.1

12.9

13.7

1.5

26.8

6.8

2009/10

13.7

4.6

13.5

-1.5

27.2

1.5

2010/11

14.7

7.3

14.8

9.6

29.5

8.5

Data Source: Department of Transport (2011) ‘Annual Reports’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011,

< http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/about-us/publications/annualreports >.

Appendix 3: Punctuality Monitoring on the Metropolitan and Regional Public Transport Network – 2001/02 to 2010/11.

Financial Year

Metropolitan Trains

Metropolitan Trams (average over route)

Metropolitan Trams (at destination)

V/Line Trains

Metropolitan Buses

2001-02

95.6

80.8

66.9

94.1

92

2002-03

95.6

78.9

64.3

94.4

91.9

2003-04

94

78.6

64

92

92

2004-05

91.4

79.3

65.5

87

93.5

2005-06

90.1

80

68.8

85.8

93.9

2006-07

89.1

79.7

68.1

86.1

95.1

2007-08

88

78.5

67.1

86.2

95.2

2008-09

87.9

79.2

67.8

85.9

94.3

2009-10

85.4

81.9

71.6

85.2

94.1

2010-11

85.8

81.4

71.3

84.4

93.6

Data Source: Department of Transport (2011b) ‘Track Record annual results: Punctuality and reliability 2010-11’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/track-record/annual-punctuality-reliability >.

Appendix 4: Reliability Monitoring on the Metropolitan and Regional Public Transport Network – 2001/02 to 2010/11.

Financial Year

Metropolitan Trains

Metropolitan Trams

V/Line Trains

Metropolitan Buses

2001-02

-

0.8

0.4

0.1

2002-03

-

0.8

0.5

2003-04

-

0.9

0.6

0.2

2004-05

1.5

1.2

0.9

2005-06

1.1

0.9

1

0.1

2006-07

1.3

0.9

1.2

2007-08

1.3

1

1.3

2008-09

1.5

0.9

1.7

2009-10

1.1

0.7

1.5

2010-11

1.3

0.8

1.1

Data Source: Department of Transport (2011b) ‘Track Record annual results: Punctuality and reliability 2010-11’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/track-record/annual-punctuality-reliability >.

Appendix 5: Public Transport Customer Satisfaction Index – 2001/02 to 2010/11.

Financial Year

Metropolitan Trains

Metropolitan Trams

Metropolitan Buses

V/Line Trains

V/Line Coaches

2001-02

71.1

71.1

70.8

80

81.5

2002-03

71.3

71.6

71.9

79.5

80.1

2003-04

68.8

70.6

70.7

79.3

81.9

2004-05

65.4

71.2

69.2

75.8

79.2

2005-06

64.4

70.3

68.4

75.9

80.4

2006-07

62.5

70.5

67.7

75.5

77.5

2007-08

59.4

67.4

66.9

76.7

80.3

2008-09

58.2

68.5

68.2

74.8

79.2

2009-10

59.6

69.4

69

74.5

75.4

2010-11

60.6

69.6

69.3

73.4

76

Data Source: Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record annual results: Customer Satisfaction 2010/11’, DOT website, viewed 5 October 2011,

< http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/track-record/annual-customer-satisfaction >.

References

Relevant Legislation

Transport Integration Act 2010 (Vic)

Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 (Vic)

Transport Administration Act 1 988 (NSW)

Transport Operations (Translink Transit Authority) Act 2008 (Qld)

Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 2008 (Qld)

Public Transport Authority Act 2003 (WA)

South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act 1998 (Canada)

Bibliography

Allsop, R. (2007) ‘Victoria’s Public Transport: Assessing the Results of Privatisation’, IPA Backgrounder, Institute of Public Affairs, vol. 19, no. 1, viewed 29 September 2011, < http://www.ipa.org.au/library/ALLSOP_Transport.pdf>.

Allsop, R. (2011) ‘Single Authority No Panacea for Victorian Public Transport’, The Drum Unleashed, 17 November, viewed 5 October 2011, < http://www.ipa.org.au/news/2240/single-authority-no-panacea-for-victorian-public-transport >.

Auditor-General Victoria (2005) Franchising Melbourne’s Train and Tram System, Melbourne, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/20050914-Melbourne's-Train-and-Tram-System.pdf >.

Auditor-General of Victoria (1998) Public Transport Reforms: Moving From a System to a Service, Melbourne, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/19980514-Special-Report-57-Public-Transport-Reforms.pdf >.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008) Australian Social Trends, Cat. no. 4102.0, Canberra, ABS, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter10102008 >.

Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2011) ‘Switzerland Country Brief’, DFAT website, viewed 27 September 2011,

<http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/switzerland/switzerland_brief.html>.

Australian Greens Victoria (2010) ‘Transport Policy’, Greens Victoria website, viewed 6 October 2011, < http://vic.greens.org.au/policies/transport>.

Department of Infrastructure (1999) Department of Infrastructure Annual Report 1998-99, Melbourne, DoI, viewed 10 October 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/38546/DOI-AR-1998_99.pdf >.

Department of Infrastructure (2005) Department of Infrastructure Annual Report 2004-05, Melbourne, DoI, viewed 5 October 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/31033/DOI_AnnualReport_2004to2005.pdf >.

Department of Infrastructure (2005) Public Transport Partnerships: An Overview of Passenger Rail Franchising in Victoria, Melbourne, DoI, viewed 29 August, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/31132/Rail_Franchsing_Overview.pdf >.

Department of Infrastructure (2006) Department of Infrastructure Annual Report 2005-06, Melbourne, DoI, viewed 5 October 2011, < http://www3.transport.vic.gov.au/documents/DOI_AnnualReport_2005to2006.pdf >.

Department of Infrastructure and Transport (2011) Yearbook 2011: Australian infrastructure Statistics, Canberra, BITRE, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.bitre.gov.au/Info.aspx?ResourceId=792&NodeId=50>.

Department of Transport (2011) ‘Annual Reports’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-reports >.

Department of Transport (2011) ‘Performance Monitoring’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/performance-monitoring >.

Department of Transport (2011) ‘Public Transport: History of Trains, Trams and Buses’, DOT website, viewed 29 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/history-and-heritage/trains-trams-and-buses >.

Department of Transport (2011) ‘Public Transport: Public Transport Division’, DOT website, viewed 10 October 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/management/whos-who-in-public-transport/public-transport-division >.

Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/track-record >.

Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record Annual Results: Customer Satisfaction 2010/11’, DOT website, viewed 5 October 2011,

< http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/track-record/annual-customer-satisfaction >.

Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record Annual Results: Punctuality and Reliability 2010-11’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/track-record/annual-punctuality-reliability >.

Dodson, J., P. Mees, J. Stone & M. Burke (2011) The Principles of Public Transport Network Planning: A Review of the Emerging Literature with Select Examples, Urban Research Program Issues Paper 15, Brisbane, Griffith University, viewed 29 September 2011, < http://www.griffith.edu.au/environment-planning-architecture/urban-research-program/publications >.

Edwards, T. & S. Smith (2008) ‘Transport Problems Facing Large Cities’, Briefing Paper No. 6/08, Sydney, NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, viewed 29 September 2011,

< http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/TransportProblemsFacingLargeCities >.

Eggers, D. (c. 2008) Customer Satisfaction Survey within ZVV for Quality Improvement and as Basics for Bonus Payments, Strategies for Public Transport in Cities (SPUTNIC), viewed 6 October 2011, < http://www.sputnicproject.eu/sputnic-products.php>.

Engineers Australia (2010) Victoria Infrastructure Report Card 2010, North Melbourne, Engineers Australia, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://issuu.com/engineersaustralia/docs/entire-report_20100716_022820/1 >.

Government of New South Wales (2010) Annual Report 2009-10, Transport NSW, Sydney, NSW Government, viewed 27 September 2011,

<http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/publications/annualreport.html >.

Government of South Australia (2010) Annual Report 2009-2010, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, Adelaide, Government of South Australia, viewed 27 September 2011, <http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/annual_report>.

Independent Public Inquiry, Long-Term Public Transport Plan for Sydney (2010)Independent Public Inquiry into a Long-Term Public Transport Plan for Sydney: Final Report 26 May 2010, submitted to and published by theSydney Morning Herald, viewed 21 July 2011, < http://www.transportpublicinquiry.com.au/>.

Lesman, B, R. Macreadie & G. Gardiner (2011) ‘The 2010 Victorian State Election’, Research Paper No. 1, Victorian Parliamentary Library Research Service.

Lonie, W.M. (1980) Victorian Transport Study: Report on Metropolitan Public Transport, Melbourne, Victorian Government.

Mees, P. (2005) ‘Privatisation of Rail and Tram Services in Melbourne: What Went Wrong?’, Transport Reviews, vol. 25, no. 4.

Mees, P. (2010) Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age, London, Earthscan.

Mees, P. (2010) ‘Fixing Public Transport’, Interview with Peter Mares, 30 April, Transcript, National Interest, ABC, viewed 5 October 2011, < http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2011/3086030.htm >.

Metro Vancouver (2011) ‘FAQs’, Metro Vancouver website, viewed 29 September 2011, < http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/Pages/faqs.aspx>.

Public Transport Users Association (2010) ‘Public Transport Development Authority: What’s Needed?’, Transport Authority Briefing Paper, viewed 5 October 2011, <http://www.ptua.org.au/files/2011/PTA_design.pdf>.

Public Transport Users Association (2011) ‘Budget 2011: Shakeup of Public Transport Planning and Management Welcomed’, Media Release, 3 May, viewed 5 October 2011, <http://www.ptua.org.au/2011/05/03/budget-2011-reaction/ >.

Scottish Executive (2003) Transferability of Best Practice in Transport Policy Delivery: Final Report, report prepared by C. Buchanan and Partners, Edinburgh, The Stationery Office Ltd, viewed 29 September 2011,

<http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/08/17895/23882>.

Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Train Services (2010) Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Train Services: First Interim Report, Melbourne, Parliament of Victoria, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/downloads/Committee_reports/TrainServiceInterimReportJune2010.pdf >.

Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (2009) Investment of Commonwealth and State Funds in Public Passenger Transport Infrastructure and Services, Canberra, Parliament of Australia.

Sexton, R. (2011) ‘Public Transport Body Not So Strong and Independent’, the Age, 11 October, p. 8.

Stanley, J. (2011) ‘A Public Transport Development Authority for Melbourne’, BusVic, viewed 6 October 2011, < http://www.busvic.asn.au/application/views/admin/javascript/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/A_Public_Transport_Development_Authority_for_Melbourne_Jan2011.pdf >.

Stone, J. (2010) ‘Turning Over a New Franchise: Assessing the Current Health of Public Transport Management in Melbourne’, Australasian Transport Research Forum Proceedings, Canberra.

The Swiss Portal (2011) ‘Canton of Zurich’, ch.ch website, viewed 28 September 2011, < http://www.ch.ch/schweiz/01116/01118/01404/index.html?lang=en>.

TransLink BC (2011) ‘About Us’, TransLink BC website, viewed 6 October 2011, < http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us.aspx>.

TransLink BC (2011) ‘Board Governance Model’, TransLink BC website, viewed 6 October 2011, < http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/TransLink-Governance-and-Board/Board-Governance-Model.aspx >.

TransLink BC (2011) ‘Public Input’, TransLink BC website, viewed 27 September 2011, < http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/TransLink-Governance-and-Board/Public-Input.aspx >.

TransLink Qld (2011) ‘Governance’, TransLink Qld website, viewed 27 September 2011, < http://translink.com.au/about-translink/who-we-are/governance>.

Victorian Council of Social Service (2011) ‘Transport Analysis: State Budget 2011-12’, viewed 6 October 2011, < http://vcoss.org.au/documents/VCOSS%20docs/mediaReleases/2011/NOT_110503_Transport%20ANALYSIS_draft.doc >,

Victorian Liberal Nationals Coalition (2010) ‘Coalition to Rebuild the Basics of Vic Public Transport Network’, Media Release, 14 November 2010, viewed 4 October 2011, < http://library.parliament.vic.gov.au/MRpdfs/auto/2010/coa141101.pdf >.

WA Minister for Transport (2010) New Transport Boss Appointed, Media Release, 21 April, viewed 27 September 2011, < http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Results.aspx?ItemId=133370&search=reece+waldock&admin=&minister=&portfolio=&region= >.

ZVV (date unknown) The ZVV – Zurich’s Integrated Public-Transport System – A Portrait, Zurich, ZVV, viewed 28 September 2011, < http://www.zvv.ch/export/sites/default/common-images/content-image-gallery/unternehmen-pdfs/Broschuere_Portrait_E.pdf >.

© 2011 Library, Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliament of Victoria

Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Department of Parliamentary Services, other than by Members of the Victorian Parliament in the course of their official duties.

Research Service

This paper has been prepared by the Research Service for use by Members of the Victorian Parliament. The Service prepares briefings and publications for Parliament in response to Members, and in anticipation of their requirements, undertaking research in areas of contemporary concern to the Victorian legislature. While it is intended that all information provided is accurate, it does not represent professional legal opinion.

Research publications present current information as at the time of printing. They should not be considered as complete guides to the particular subject or legislation covered. The views expressed are those of the author(s).

Authors

Dr Catriona Ross, Bronwen Merner, Bella Lesman and Adam Delacorn.

Research Officers

Victorian Parliamentary Library

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank their library colleague, Robin Gallagher for his assistance with the graphics used in the other jurisdictions section of this paper.

Enquiries

Enquiries should be addressed to:

Bella Lesman

Statistical Research Analyst

Victorian Parliamentary Library

Parliament House

Spring Street, Melbourne

Telephone (03) 8682 2792

Facsimile (03) 9654 1339

Information about Research Publications is available on the Internet at:

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au



[footnote 1] Victoria, Legislative Assembly (2011) Debates, Book 13, 14 September, p. 3210.

[footnote 2] ibid.

[footnote 3] ibid.

[footnote 4] ibid.

[footnote 5] ibid.

[footnote 6] ibid., p. 3211.

[footnote 7] ibid., pp. 3210-11.

[footnote 8] ibid., pp. 3210.

[footnote 9] ibid., p. 3211.

[footnote 10] ibid.

[footnote 11] ibid.

[footnote 12] ibid., pp. 3211-12.

[footnote 13] R. Allsop (2007) ‘Victoria’s Public Transport: Assessing the Results of Privatisation’, IPA Backgrounder, Institute of Public Affairs, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 2, viewed 29 September 2011, < http://www.ipa.org.au/library/ALLSOP_Transport.pdf>; Department of Transport (2011) ‘Public Transport: History of Trains, Trams and Buses’, DOT, viewed 29 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/history-and-heritage/trains-trams-and-buses >.

[footnote 14] Allsop (2007) op. cit., p. 3.

[footnote 15] Department of Infrastructure (2005) Public Transport Partnerships: An Overview of Passenger Rail Franchising in Victoria, Melbourne, DoI, p. 5, viewed 29 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/31132/Rail_Franchsing_Overview.pdf >; Allsop (2007) op. cit., pp. 3-4; W.M. Lonie (1980) Victorian Transport Study: Report on Metropolitan Public Transport, Melbourne, Victorian Government, pp. 1, 16.

[footnote 16] DoI (2005) op. cit. The main expansion of the public transport system during this period was the construction of the city loop, begun in 1971 and opened in the early 1980s.

[footnote 17] Lonie (1980) op. cit., p. 1.

[footnote 18] Allsop (2007) op. cit., pp. 3, 5.

[footnote 19] DoI (2005) op. cit., p. 5; Allsop (2007) op. cit., p. 5.

[footnote 20] P. Mees (2005) ‘Privatisation of Rail and Tram Services in Melbourne: What Went Wrong?’, Transport Reviews, vol. 25, no. 4, p. 435.

[footnote 21] Auditor-General of Victoria (1998) Public Transport Reforms: Moving From a System to a Service, Melbourne, p. 3, 31, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/19980514-Special-Report-57-Public-Transport-Reforms.pdf >; Mees (2005) op. cit.; DoI (2005) op. cit., p. 5.

[footnote 22] Auditor-General of Victoria (1998) op. cit., p. 20.

[footnote 23] DoI (2005) op. cit., pp. 5-6.

[footnote 24] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Public Transport: Public Transport Division’, DOT website, viewed 10 October 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/management/whos-who-in-public-transport/public-transport-division >; Department of Infrastructure (1999) Department of Infrastructure Annual Report 1998-99, Melbourne, DoI, p.31, viewed 10 October 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/38546/DOI-AR-1998_99.pdf >.

[footnote 25] Mees (2005) op. cit., p. 436.

[footnote 26] DoI (2005) op. cit., p. 7.

[footnote 27] ibid., p. 6.

[footnote 28] Auditor-General Victoria (2005) Franchising Melbourne’s Train and Tram System, Melbourne, p. 25, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://download.audit.vic.gov.au/files/20050914-Melbourne's-Train-and-Tram-System.pdf >.

[footnote 29] For further details see ibid., pp. 18-19.

[footnote 30] ibid., pp. 19-20; Mees (2005) op. cit., p. 439. Also see DoI (2005) op. cit., pp. 8-16.

[footnote 31] For further details see Auditor-General Victoria (2005) op. cit., p. 25.

[footnote 32] Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Train Services (2010) Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Train Services: First Interim Report, Melbourne, Parliament of Victoria, p. 32.

[footnote 33] DoI (2005) op. cit., p. 41.

[footnote 34] Department of Transport (2011) Department of Transport Annual Report 2010-11, Melbourne, DOT, p. 72, viewed 4 October 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/44276/DOT-Annual-Report-2010-11.pdf >.

[footnote 35] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Public Transport: Public Transport Partnerships Agreements’, DOT website, viewed 4 October 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/management/public-transport-partnership-agreements >.

[footnote 36] Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Train Services (2010) op. cit., p. 49; Engineers Australia (2010) Infrastructure Report Card 2010: Victoria, North Melbourne, Engineers Australia, pp. 29-30; J. Stone (2010) ‘Turning Over a New Franchise: Assessing the Current Health of Public Transport Management in Melbourne’, Australasian Transport Research Forum Proceedings, Canberra, pp. 9-10.

[footnote 37] Engineers Australia (2010) op. cit., p. 29; Stone (2010) op. cit., p. 19.

[footnote 38] Engineers Australia (2010) op. cit., p. 32.

[footnote 39] Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Train Services (2010) op. cit., pp. 8, 46; Engineers Australia (2010) op. cit., pp. 30, 33, 36.

[footnote 40] Engineers Australia (2010) op. cit., pp. 25, 30, 35, 36.

[footnote 41] Select Committee of the Legislative Council on Train Services (2010) op. cit., p. 39.

[footnote 42] ibid., pp. 36, 39.

[footnote 43] ibid., p. 155.

[footnote 44] ibid., p. 157.

[footnote 45] ibid., p. 161.

[footnote 46] ibid., p. 162

[footnote 47] Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (2009) Investment of Commonwealth and State Funds in Public Passenger Transport Infrastructure and Services, Canberra, Parliament of Australia, p. 40.

[footnote 48] ibid.

[footnote 49] ibid., p. 41.

[footnote 50] See B. Lesman, R. Macreadie & G. Gardiner (2011) ‘The 2010 Victorian State Election’, Research Paper No. 1, Victorian Parliamentary Library Research Service.

[footnote 51] For policy details see Victorian Liberal Nationals Coalition (2010) ‘Coalition to Rebuild the Basics of Vic Public Transport Network’, Media Release, 14 November 2010, p. 1, viewed 4 October 2011, < http://library.parliament.vic.gov.au/MRpdfs/auto/2010/coa141101.pdf >; Australian Greens Victoria (2010) ‘Transport Policy’, Greens Victoria website, viewed 6 October 2011, < http://vic.greens.org.au/policies/transport>.

[footnote 52] See P. Mees (2010) Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age, London, Earthscan; P. Mees (2010) ‘Fixing Public Transport’, Interview with Peter Mares, 30 April, ABC, National Interest, Transcript, viewed 5 October 2011, < http://www.abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest/stories/2011/3086030.htm >; Public Transport Users Association (2011) ‘Budget 2011: Shakeup of Public Transport Planning and Management Welcomed’, Media Release, 3 May, viewed 5 October 2011, < http://www.ptua.org.au/2011/05/03/budget-2011-reaction/>; Public Transport Users Association (2010) ‘Public Transport Development Authority: What’s Needed?’, Transport Authority Briefing Paper, viewed 5 October 2011, <http://www.ptua.org.au/files/2011/PTA_design.pdf>; Victorian Council of Social Service (2011) ‘Transport Analysis: State Budget 2011-12’, p. 3, viewed 6 October 2011, < http://vcoss.org.au/documents/VCOSS%20docs/mediaReleases/2011/NOT_110503_Transport%20ANALYSIS_draft.doc >, J. Stanley (2011) ‘A Public Transport Development Authority for Melbourne’, BusVic, pp. 11,14, viewed 6 October 2011, < http://www.busvic.asn.au/application/views/admin/javascript/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/A_Public_Transport_Development_Authority_for_Melbourne_Jan2011.pdf >.

[footnote 53] R. Allsop (2011) ‘Single Authority No Panacea for Victorian Public Transport’, The Drum Unleashed, 17 November, viewed 5 October 2011, < http://www.ipa.org.au/news/2240/single-authority-no-panacea-for-victorian-public-transport >.

[footnote 54] R. Sexton (2011) ‘Public Transport Body Not So Strong and Independent’, the Age, 11 October, p. 8.

[footnote 55] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008) Australian Social Trends, Cat. no. 4102.0, Canberra, ABS, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter10102008 >.

[footnote 56] See Department of Infrastructure and Transport (2011) Yearbook 2011: Australian Infrastructure Statistics, Canberra, BITRE, viewed 30 September 2011, pp. 61-73, < http://www.bitre.gov.au/Info.aspx?ResourceId=792&NodeId=50 >.

[footnote 57] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008) op. cit.

[footnote 58] Engineers Australia (2010) op. cit.

[footnote 59] Select Committee on Train Services (2010) op. cit., p. 47.

[footnote 60] ibid.

[footnote 61] For other Australian jurisdictions see: Department of Infrastructure and Transport (2011) op. cit., pp. 61-73.

[footnote 62] ibid. p.62.

[footnote 63] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Annual Reports’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-reports >; Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/track-record >.

[footnote 64] ibid.

[footnote 65] For data source see ibid.

[footnote 66] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Annual Reports’, op. cit.

[footnote 67] Department of Transport (2004) op. cit., p. 118.

[footnote 68] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Annual Reports’, op. cit.

[footnote 69] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Performance Monitoring’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/performance-monitoring >.

[footnote 70] See Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record Annual Results: Punctuality and Reliability 2010-11’, DOT website, viewed 30 September 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/track-record/annual-punctuality-reliability >.

[footnote 71] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Performance Monitoring’, op. cit.

[footnote 72] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record Annual Results: Punctuality and Reliability 2010-11’, op. cit.

[footnote 73] ibid.

[footnote 74] Select Committee on Train Services (2010), op. cit., p. 46.

[footnote 75] ibid., p. 42.

[footnote 76] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Performance Monitoring’, op. cit.

[footnote 77] ibid.

[footnote 78] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record Annual Results: Punctuality and Reliability 2010-11’, op. cit.

[footnote 79] ibid.

[footnote 80] ibid.

[footnote 81] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Performance Monitoring’, op. cit.

[footnote 82] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record Annual Results: Punctuality and Reliability 2010-11’, op. cit.

[footnote 83] ibid.

[footnote 84] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Performance Monitoring’, op. cit.

[footnote 85] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record Annual Results: Punctuality and Reliability 2010-11’, op. cit.

[footnote 86] Department of Infrastructure (2005) Department of Infrastructure Annual Report 2004-05, Melbourne, DoI, p. 145, viewed 5 October 2011, < http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/31033/DOI_AnnualReport_2004to2005.pdf >.

[footnote 87] ibid.

[footnote 88] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Performance Monitoring’, op. cit.

[footnote 89] Department of Infrastructure (2006) Department of Infrastructure Annual Report 2005-06, Melbourne, DoI, p. 267, viewed 5 October 2011, < http://www3.transport.vic.gov.au/documents/DOI_AnnualReport_2005to2006.pdf >.

[footnote 90] Department of Transport (2011) ‘Track Record Annual Results: Customer Satisfaction 2010/11’, DOT website, viewed 5 October 2011,

< http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/pt/facts-and-figures/track-record/annual-customer-satisfaction >.

[footnote 91] New section 79AE(1)(i)(ii) deals with operating passenger services and other ancillary or incidental transport services.

[footnote 92] As cited in: J. Dodson et al. (2011) The Principles of Public Transport Network Planning: A Review of the Emerging Literature with Select Examples, Urban Research Program Issues Paper 15, Brisbane, Griffith University; Independent Public Inquiry, Long-Term Public Transport Plan for Sydney (2010) Independent Public Inquiry into a Long-Term Public Transport Plan for Sydney: Final Report 26 May 2010, submitted to and published by the Sydney Morning Herald; T. Edwards & S. Smith (2008) Transport Problems Facing Large Cities, Briefing Paper No. 6/08, Sydney, NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service; Scottish Executive (2003) Transferability of Best Practice in Transport Policy Delivery: Final Report, report prepared by C. Buchanan and Partners, Edinburgh, The Stationery Office Ltd.

[footnote 93] Transport Administration Act 1988 , ss 6, 21-22, 35C. See also, State Transit Authority (2011) ‘State Transit Authority of New South Wales’, STA website, viewed 6 October 2011, <http://www.statetransit.info/> .

[footnote 94] New South Wales, Legislative Council (2011) Debates, 23 August 2011, p. 4365.

[footnote 95] ibid., p. 4368.

[footnote 96] Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2011, s 8.

[footnote 97] New South Wales, Legislative Council (2011) Debates, op. cit., p. 4366.

[footnote 98] ibid.

[footnote 99] Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2011, s 2.

[footnote 100] The Queensland government retained responsibility for integrated regional transport planning, strategic planning and corridor planning. Queensland, Legislative Assembly (2008) Debates, 29 April, p. 1239.

[footnote 101] ibid., p. 1237.

[footnote 102] Mass transit services are defined in schedule 2 of the Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008 as ‘general route services for the carriage of large numbers of passengers’.

[footnote 103] TransLink Qld (2011) ‘Our Board’, TransLink Qld website, viewed 27 September 2011, < http://translink.com.au/about-translink/who-we-are/our-board>.

[footnote 104] Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008, s 19. Section 21 of the Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act provides that appointment as an appointed member can only occur if the person meets specific criteria. These include that the person has extensive knowledge of and experience in one or more of the following areas: representation of public transport consumers’ interests; representation of public transport sector employees interests; transport coordination and operational planning; public transport network planning; law, economics or accounting; social policy; customer relations; commercial and marketing development; or other skills the Minister considers appropriate.

[footnote 105] Government of South Australia (2010) Annual Report 2009-2010, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, Adelaide, Government of South Australia, p. 43, viewed 27 September 2011, < http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/annual_report>.

[footnote 106] The Passenger Transport Board operated between 1994 and 2003. Prior to the Board’s establishment, the State Transport Authority (STA) had been responsible for public transport planning and service delivery from 1974. In 1994, the policy and service delivery functions of the STA were separated. The policy functions were transferred to the newly-created Passenger Transport Board and the service delivery functions were transferred to the government-owned public transport operator TransAdelaide. South Australia, House of Assembly (1994) Debates, 20 April, p. 849.

[footnote 107] South Australia, House of Assembly (2003) Debates, 19 February, pp. 2331-32.

[footnote 108] See Public Transport Authority Act 2003, ss 7-9 & Public Sector Management Act 1994, s 45.

[footnote 109] WA Minister for Transport (2010) New Transport Boss Appointed, Media Release, 29 April, viewed 27 September 2011, < http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Results.aspx?ItemId=133370&search=reece+waldock&admin=&minister=&portfolio=&region= >.

[footnote 110] Metro Vancouver (2011) ‘FAQs’. Metro Vancouver website, viewed 29 September 2011, < http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/Pages/faqs.aspx>.

[footnote 111] TransLink BC (2011) ‘About Us’, TransLink BC website, viewed 6 October 2011, < http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us.aspx>.

[footnote 112] TransLink BC (2011) ‘Board Governance Model’, TransLink BC website, viewed 6 October 2011, < http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/TransLink-Governance-and-Board/Board-Governance-Model.aspx >.

[footnote 113] TransLink BC (2011) ‘Public Input’, TransLink BC website, viewed 27 September 2011, < http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/TransLink-Governance-and-Board/Public-Input.aspx >.

[footnote 114] Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2011) ‘Switzerland Country Brief’, DFAT website, viewed 27 September 2011, < http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/switzerland/switzerland_brief.html>.

[footnote 115] The Swiss Portal (2011) ‘Canton of Zurich’, ch.ch website, viewed 28 September 2011, < http://www.ch.ch/schweiz/01116/01118/01404/index.html?lang=en>.

[footnote 116] ZVV (date unknown) The ZVV – Zurich’s Integrated Public-Transport System – A Portrait, Zurich, ZVV, p. 8, viewed 28 September 2011, < http://www.zvv.ch/export/sites/default/common-images/content-image-gallery/unternehmen-pdfs/Broschuere_Portrait_E.pdf >.

[footnote 117] ibid., p. 9.

[footnote 118] ibid., p. 10.

[footnote 119] ibid., p. 11.

[footnote 120] ibid., pp. 11-12, 14.

[footnote 121] ibid., p. 17.

[footnote 122] D. Eggers (c. 2008) Customer Satisfaction Survey within ZVV for Quality Improvement and as Basics for Bonus Payments, Strategies for Public Transport in Cities (SPUTNIC), viewed 6 October 2011, < http://www.sputnicproject.eu/sputnic-products.php>. The SPUTNIC Project was an initiative of the European Community and ran from 2006 – 2009.