Public Transport Performance

Background

An effective public transport system is critical for the state’s economic prosperity and liveability. Melbourne could not function effectively as a city without the current public transport system. In 2009, on a typical weekday in Melbourne, public transport accounted for:

• 8.4 per cent of the 12.6 million journeys made
• 15 per cent of the 113 million kilometres people travelled.

Public transport has grown rapidly between 2005–06 and 2010–11. The Department of Transport (the department) expects further strong patronage growth over the next decade driven by a growing population, rising traffic congestion, high fuel prices and lifestyle changes.

The major challenges facing government and the department are how to cost‑effectively manage the expected growth in patronage while, at the same time, improving performance.

The Transport Integration Act 2010 (the Act) allocates responsibility for public transport to the Director of Public Transport, within the Department of Transport. The audit examined the effectiveness of the state’s public transport services by assessing whether agencies had:

• delivered effective public transport services
• adequately prepared to improve and then sustain performance in the future.

We assessed effective delivery by determining how well agencies had met the Act’s public transport objectives of:

• meeting public transport users’ needs by providing convenient, reliable, secure, comfortable and understandable services
• delivering a coordinated system where train, tram, bus and coach services worked as a single, joined-up system
• contributing to a more sustainable state by growing public transport’s share of journeys and improving environmental performance
• improving access to public transport for people with a disability by removing the barriers that prevent them from using public transport.

The audit included the Department of Transport and V/Line and examined the performance of public bus, tram and train services across Victoria.

Conclusions

The department was not prepared to effectively manage the rapid growth in public transport patronage that happened between 2004 and 2009. It did not have the capability to foresee this growth or fully understand the root causes of poor performance. It was therefore unable to effectively deal with the performance pressures.

Satisfaction for all public transport modes deteriorated over the past decade, and performance has mostly fallen short of government targets in the past five years. The decline was greatest for metropolitan trains. The response to this decline was partial and uncoordinated, with an incremental approach to changing timetables where complete revamps were necessary if the drivers of poor performance were to be addressed.

Over this time the department managed public transport as a collection of separate modes of travel rather than as an integrated system.

From 2008 the department started to turn this situation around by developing an in‑house capability to understand demand and the causes of poor performance, and by restructuring the metropolitan train and tram contracts.

The department now has a good, evidence-based understanding of performance issues and has developed an effective planning framework for forecasting and managing current and future performance. The benefits of this approach can be seen in the focus on coordination and the application of a rolling program of timetable updates dealing methodically with the conflicts that undermine performance.

This is a good basis for action but there is more to do. We identified:

• outstanding weaknesses in how the department measures and reports on performance
• objectives in the Act that are not being appropriately measured or managed
• partial application of the department’s improved planning approach and the need to advance all plans to the same level of preparedness
• a need to better incorporate performance outcomes into planning.

While the department has improved its performance, the future challenges are significant. We estimate that capital expenditure on public transport will have to triple over the next decade to cope with the expected growth. The department needs to benchmark the costs of operating public transport and devise a long-term plan to improve efficiency.

Recommendations

The Department of Transport should:

1. finalise its draft process for setting its State Budget targets, and apply it to contract thresholds and other targets
2. progress plans to monitor performance against accessibility, sustainability and coordination objectives, and develop rigorous plans to better manage these in the future
3. address residual gaps in its measurement framework
4. develop its plans for buses, trams and regional trains to the same level of detail it has applied for metropolitan trains
5. develop the capability to forecast the performance implications if plan components are delayed or omitted
6. benchmark public transport operating costs and devise a long-term plan to improve efficiency.

Submissions and comments received

In addition to progressive engagement during the course of the audit, in accordance with section 16(3) of the Audit Act 1994 a copy of this report was provided to the Department of Transport and V/Line with a request for submissions or comments.

Agency views have been considered in reaching our audit conclusions and are represented to the extent relevant and warranted in preparing this report. Their full section 16(3) submissions and comments however, are included in Appendix A.

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Public transport in Victoria

An effective public transport system is critical for the state's economic prosperity and liveability. Melbourne's functioning as a city is tied to the current public transport system. The 2009 Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity estimated that, on a typical weekday in Melbourne, public transport accounted for:

• 8.4 per cent of the 12.6 million journeys made
• 15 per cent of the 113 million kilometres people travelled.

Public transport provides Victorians with an alternative to private motor vehicles when accessing their homes and the places where they work, socialise and do business. It plays a critical role in relieving traffic congestion, particularly in Melbourne.

Public transport has grown rapidly. Between 2005–06 and 2010–11:

• services grew by 35 per cent from 147 million to 198 million vehicle kilometres
• patronage grew by 34 per cent from 410 million to 550 million annual boardings
• subsidy to operators grew by 65 per cent from $0.95 to $1.56 billion.

The increase in subsidy above the rate of service growth is explained by the increased costs of maintaining the metropolitan train and tram systems, inflation and the slower growth of fare revenue when compared to costs. By 2010–11 the total cost of operating public transport services (excluding capital cost) was $2.22 billion, including subsidy and fare revenue. Fares funded 30 per cent of these payments, with the remaining 70 per cent coming from government.

Victoria's public transport network incorporates metropolitan and regional rail, route buses and the world's longest tram network. Metropolitan trains carry the greatest number of passengers, with in excess of 228 million boardings in 2010–11, and have the greatest average trip length of urban services.

1.1.2 Future challenges

The Department of Transport (the department) expects further strong patronage growth over the next decade driven by a growing population, rising traffic congestion, higher fuel prices and lifestyle changes. The government's projections predict population increases between 2006 and 2026 of:

• 31 per cent, or 1.6 million, across Victoria, from 5.1 million to 6.7 million
• 34 per cent, or 1.3 million, for Melbourne, from 3.7 million to 5 million
• 24 per cent, or 0.3 million, for regional Victoria, from 1.4 million to 1.7 million.

Updated estimates for actual population figures show that growth has exceeded the forecasts between 2006 and 2010. Around 60 per cent of Melbourne's growth is expected to happen in outer suburbs where it is more difficult to attract journeys on public transport. The remaining 40 per cent of growth is expected to affect the inner and middle suburbs where current mode share for public transport is higher and increased demand is expected to be significant, particularly for trains and trams.

The major challenge facing government is how to cost-effectively respond to the expected growth in patronage while, at the same time, improving performance.

1.2 Policy objectives and agency responsibilities

1.2.1 Transport objectives

Assessing performance involves measuring agencies' achievements against government's policy objectives. This section summarises these objectives and our expectations about performance measurement.

The Transport Integration Act 2010 (the Act) requires public transport to be managed as an integrated part of the broader transport system. Figure 1A summarises the government's vision, objectives and decision-making principles for transport as set out in the Act.

Figure 1A

Transport Integration Act—vision, objectives, principles

Source: Victorian Auditor-General's Office based on material from the Transport Integration Act 2010.

1.2.2 Public transport objectives and responsibilities

The Act allocates responsibility for public transport to the Director of Public Transport, within the Department of Transport. The Act makes the director responsible for providing, operating and maintaining public transport in a way that is consistent with the vision and transport system objectives while taking into account the decision‑making principles.

V/Line, the regional rail operator, has similar objectives defined by the Act, but is only responsible for delivering services. The director retains overall responsibility for management of the regional public transport system.

A new body, Public Transport Victoria, will replace the director in April 2012. The agency will be independent of the Department of Transport and will assume the department's responsibilities for public transport. The agency's objectives fully incorporate the objectives of the director. Figure 1B summarises objectives in the Act specific to public transport.

Figure 1B

Transport Integration Act—public transport objectives

Source: Victorian Auditor-General's Office based on material from the Transport Integration Act 2010.

In terms of performance monitoring and reporting, the Act requires agencies to:

• collect information on the operation and performance of the public transport system so they can address the Act's objectives
• report to government on whether passenger services meet contractual and community expectations
• provide reliable and relevant information that helps the community understand transport issues and the basis for government decisions.

1.3 Audit objective and scope

The audit examined the effectiveness of the state's public transport services by assessing whether agencies had:

• delivered effective public transport services
• adequately prepared to improve and then sustain performance in the future.

We assessed effective delivery by determining how well agencies had met the Act's public transport objectives of:

• meeting public transport users' needs by providing convenient, reliable, secure, comfortable and understandable services
• delivering a coordinated system where train, tram, bus and coach services worked as a single, joined-up system
• contributing to a more sustainable state by growing public transport's share of journeys and improving environmental performance
• improving access to public transport for people with a disability by removing the barriers that prevent them from using public transport.

This audit included the Department of Transport and V/Line and examined the performance of public bus, tram and train services across Victoria.

The audit was conducted in accordance with Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards.

The cost of the audit was $440 000.

1.4 Structure of the report

Part 2 examines how well the department has measured performance and delivered on the government's objectives for public transport.

Part 3 describes how well the department has prepared to meet the emerging and future performance challenges.

2.1 Introduction

In assessing past performance we examined how well agencies had:

• measured past performance
• delivered on the government’s objectives for public transport and responded to areas of poor performance.

We applied these criteria to the government’s objectives for:

• meeting public transport user needs for convenient, reliable, secure, comfortable and understandable services
• delivering a coordinated, joined-up public transport system
• contributing to a more environmentally sustainable state
• improving access to public transport for people with a disability.

2.2 Conclusion

The Department of Transport (the department) has not successfully dealt with all of the challenges it has faced over the past decade. It was not prepared for strong patronage growth between 2004 and 2009. Satisfaction for all modes of transport has deteriorated since 2002, with metropolitan trains experiencing the greatest decline.

From 2008 the department started to turn this situation around by developing an in‑house capability to understand demand and the causes of poor performance, and by restructuring the metropolitan train and tram contracts.

The department now has a good, evidence-based understanding of performance issues.

The department has a strong framework of performance indicators for the aspects of performance that matter to passengers, underpinned by extensive data collection. However, residual gaps remain, including that:

• important indicators are not reliably measured, including on-time running and overcrowding
• coverage is not as strong for bus and regional services
• information of public interest is collected but not published.

Performance against other public transport objectives, including accessibility, sustainability and coordination, has not been as well monitored or managed. The department is making progress, but needs to further develop its plans to both measure and deliver outcomes in these areas.

2.3 Meeting public transport users’ needs

To understand and manage performance, the department needs to:

• define relevant indicators
• set evidence-based targets
• collect sufficient, reliable performance information.

This section assesses whether agencies have achieved this essential understanding, effectively managed performance and communicated the results.

2.3.1 Measuring and reporting on performance

We assessed performance measurement by examining whether the department has, for the attributes of performance that matter most to public transport users:

• defined relevant performance indicators
• documented evidence-based targets for these indicators
• collected sufficient, reliable information to understand performance
• adequately reported on performance.

The department's measurement and reporting of performance has been mixed. While operator contracts require extensive measurement and reporting, we identified important aspects of performance that are not reliably measured, or not as well measured for each mode, and information that is collected but not published.

Attributes of performance that are important to passengers

The department surveys customer satisfaction with public transport on a quarterly basis. It analyses responses to determine which factors of performance have the strongest influence on passengers’ ratings for overall satisfaction with public transport.

Figure 2A shows the significance of each factor surveyed on passengers’ overall satisfaction, taken from the department’s survey report for the June quarter 2011. Figures represent a percentage contribution to satisfaction with that mode.

Figure 2A
Drivers of overall customer satisfaction by public transport mode

Source: Customer satisfaction survey April–June 2011, Department of Transport.

Figure 2A demonstrates that:

• How well services run is the most important driver of satisfaction. Passengers are most concerned about how long they have to wait for a service and, particularly, whether they are unexpectedly delayed because of late, cancelled or full services.
• Personal security ranks as the second most important driver and includes the need to feel secure both, when travelling on buses, trams and trains and, when using stations, stops and car parks during the day and at night.
• Information provision and the amenity of vehicles round out the four main drivers of satisfaction.
• Outside of the top four drivers, stations or stops and the price of travel had smaller, uniform influences on satisfaction across each mode, while vehicle drivers affected tram and bus passengers.

Indicators

The department has defined relevant indicators for the aspects of performance that matter most to passengers using trains and trams. There are indicator gaps for buses which are being partly addressed, and a gap for regional trains which should be addressed. Our assessment of the department’s indicators is summarised in Figure 2B.

Figure 2B shows the areas of performance where there are:

• relevant indicators (R)
• no relevant indicators (NR)
• no operating indicators, but there is current work to address the gap (NO).

Figure 2B
Indicators for measuring performance

Source: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, from Department of Transport documentation.

The combination of quarterly customer satisfaction surveys and information the operators and the department collect means the department has relevant indicators for assessing the performance of metropolitan trams and trains.

Full quality and condition surveys are not undertaken for regional rail services. However, V/Line partly meets the requirements for rail by providing the department with assessments of carriages’ cleanliness. A full performance monitoring framework should be implemented for the regional operator’s system upkeep plan to address this gap and V/Line intends to do this.

For metropolitan buses the department is well on the way to introducing bus and driver quality indicators. While the department has contractual mechanisms to manage overcrowding and to address bus stops which fall below the quality and condition required, it still needs to develop and apply indicators to measure the effectiveness of these measures and report the outcomes to the community.

New regional bus contracts started in July 2011, which included indicators for on‑time running, cancellations, and bus stop quality and condition. The remaining indicator gaps are around patronage, vehicle condition and driver quality.

Targets

Meaningful targets should take into account past performance and the potential for improvement. These targets provide a reasonable benchmark for measuring success.

The department has not adequately documented the basis for contractual thresholds, departmental targets or the State Budget output targets used to assess performance. This makes it unclear whether the targets represent a reasonable measure against which to judge performance.

Over the past three years the department has adopted a clearer evidentiary basis for revised or new performance targets. For example:

• the retendering of metropolitan train and tram contracts in 2009 based contractual on-time running thresholds on recent, past performance
• targets for new patronage and customer experience performance regimes are being set using baseline data.

However, there are still contractual thresholds and Budget targets that are undocumented and unclear and the department needs to remedy this situation. Undocumented targets include:

• regional rail contract thresholds for on-time running, cancellations and customer satisfaction
• metropolitan bus contract performance benchmarks for on-time running and cancellations
• State Budget output targets.

In 2008 the regional rail operator requested a review of its on-time running threshold because it is not evidence based and was practically unachievable given the resources it had and operational constraints it faced. The department did not revisit this target when it revised the contract in 2011 but indicated that it would review it on completion of the regional rail link project in 2014.

VAGO’s 2009 audit of Melbourne’s New Bus Contracts included a recommendation to document the basis for the metropolitan bus targets. The department agreed to, but has not completed this recommendation. Furthermore, the revised 2011 regional bus contracts did not include an explanation of the basis for on‑time running and cancellation targets.

The department has drafted a process for methodically setting the basis for future State Budget targets. It needs to finalise and apply this process and systematically document the outcomes. It should also retrospectively document the basis for other contractual thresholds and targets.

Sufficient and reliable information

We assessed whether agencies had:

• assembled sufficient information to understand performance
• verified that the information was reliable, that is, accurate enough to draw clear conclusions about performance trends.

Figure 2C shows how we scored the sufficiency and reliability of the indicator information where:

• ‘1’ means there are significant limitations that need to be addressed
• ‘2’ means there are limitations but addressing them will depend on the balance between the costs and benefits of doing this
• ‘3’ means the information is both sufficient and reliable.
• An asterisk against one of these numbers indicates there is current work to improve performance information.

Figure 2C
Criteria for sufficient and reliable information

Source: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office.

Figure 2D shows our assessment of the sufficiency and reliability of performance information. We found mixed performance with indicators divided between the fully, partly and not met categories.

Figure 2D
Assessment of performance information

Source: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office assessment of Department of Transport documentation.

The most important areas for improvement, taking into account the adequacy of current information and the significance of the indicators, are:

• delivery of timetabled train and bus services
• metropolitan train and tram overcrowding.

The department needs to improve the coverage and reliability of these measures.

The customer surveys show that the main drivers of satisfaction are around how well timetabled services are delivered and how long passengers have to wait. Overcrowding matters to passengers not only because of travel comfort but also its impact on service delivery. When trains are very crowded passengers are unable to board and have to wait for the next service.

Delivering timetabled train services

Measurements of timetable delivery on metropolitan and regional trains partly met our sufficiency and reliability criteria but need to improve.

For metropolitan trains, the operator records the time each train starts and ends its journey and provides this information to the department. The department periodically audits the destination arrival times with a focus on assuring that operator incentive payments reflect performance.

We examined these comparisons and found a high correlation between the operator’s and the audit’s observation. However, we detected an emerging trend of increased under‑reporting of trains classified as ‘late’—defined as more than 4 minutes 59 seconds later than the scheduled arrival time. We found that:

• in the first quarter of 2010 the operator’s and audited times gave the same percentage of services arriving ‘on time’
• by the June quarter of 2011 the operator’s estimate of the on-time proportion was nearly 1.5 per cent higher than the audit’s.

The department wrote to the operator in early December 2012, confirming that the June quarter results should be amended and describing the actions required to improve measurement accuracy.

The audit data also highlights that the train operator does not record trains that arrive at their destination early. Early arrivals should be recorded as one means of detecting trains that have missed stations where they are scheduled to stop.

For metropolitan trains, an imminent system upgrade will allow for the automatic recording of train arrival and departure times at multiple points along each route. This will lift the reliability and coverage of the data.

For regional trains, arrival times are recorded by station and signalling staff. A V/Line employee is then responsible for collating this material, solving any discrepancies and providing the information to the department. While there is a degree of internal scrutiny, there is no independent audit and the department does not verify V/Line’s internal checks.

Measuring metropolitan train and tram loadings and overcrowding

Train and tram loadings are surveyed for one week every six months. For trains the survey happens at stations forming a cordon around the CBD. Trams are surveyed at various locations where overcrowding has been observed.

These surveys give a snapshot of overcrowding but are insufficient to measure passengers’ day to day experience of crowding.

In addition, the train loading surveys are not focused on assessing performance from the user perspective but are designed to inform operational decisions. They determine the level of crowding if the timetable is delivered as expected. If services are disrupted then those trains still operating often have an unusually high or low loading, but the survey filters out these measurements. The survey report therefore does not indicate the conditions experienced by passengers using trains that are crowded because of service disruptions.

Patronage growth is likely to increase overcrowding and, if not well managed, leave more passengers who cannot board a crowded train or tram. The department collects information to understand where this is a priority and to measure the impact of measures to improve crowding. However, it does not systematically measure and report crowding across the network, or where passengers cannot board services.

The full implementation of the myki ticketing system and the upgraded train control system will provide additional information on how and when people use metropolitan trains. The department should make use of this data to better measure and report on the impact of increasing demand on train loadings, overcrowding and travel times.

The department has determined that the best way to improve its understanding of load constraints on trams is to introduce automatic passenger counters for a proportion of the fleet and is preparing a business case to apply for the funding to do this. The department could then use the information to measure and report on this aspect of performance.

Measuring bus performance

Bus performance information currently falls short of our expectations for sufficiency and reliability. For metropolitan buses, the department is rolling out an automated bus tracking system, surveys of bus quality and condition, and detailed surveys of passengers’ experiences of bus drivers. These should address issues with the reliability of metropolitan bus information.

These systems will not apply to regional buses and the department will face the same verification issues highlighted for metropolitan buses in VAGO’s 2009 audit of Melbourne’s New Bus Contracts. While the department has introduced a rolling program of audits of contractual compliance for metropolitan buses, it has not followed VAGO’s previous recommendation to use its contractual rights to examine and verify operators’ records of on-time running. The department should apply this recommendation to regional buses.

The department needs to design a system for checking the reliability of the information that will soon be reported by regional bus operators.

Reporting on performance

The department has not published enough of the performance information that it and the public transport operators collect, however, it is moving to address this. An early sign of this is the publication of a summary of the latest metropolitan train load surveys. The department has developed a plan for the rolling release of more performance information and needs to implement this.

It should work to maximise the information provided to the community to help them understand public transport performance including:

• releasing the performance publications it compiles
• providing access to more detailed performance data, for example, the breakdown of on-time performance and cancellations by time period for all modes and, by route, for metropolitan buses.

The department also needs to periodically check that the indicators used are relevant. For example, delivering timetabled services as planned becomes a less relevant indicator where services are very frequent because if they fall behind it is only a short wait for the next service. Of more relevance is whether passengers are able to board a disrupted service because of a concentration of passengers from a cancelled service.

2.3.2 Managing performance

Performance

This section assesses performance against the government’s targets for customer satisfaction, on-time running and cancellations, which the department is responsible for achieving. The operators are responsible for achieving contractual thresholds which have not been fully consistent with the government’s targets. For example, V/Line has consistently met its contractual threshold for customer satisfaction but fallen short of the higher government target for 13 of 20 quarters to September 2011.

Past performance has mostly fallen short of the government’s targets and the community’s expectations. The largest decline occurred for metropolitan trains where the combination of rapid growth and system problems combined to significantly lower performance.

Customer satisfaction has deteriorated for all modes since 2002. The largest decline has been for metropolitan trains. Both regional and metropolitan rail punctuality have deteriorated significantly over this period, with more than 94 per cent of these services on time in 2002–03, but less than 86 per cent on time in 2010–11.

Punctuality has been steadier for metropolitan bus and tram services, and satisfaction with these services, as well as for regional rail, has not declined to the same extent as metropolitan rail.

Figure 2E shows that public transport operators have struggled over the past five years to meet government targets for customer satisfaction and on-time performance. Only trams exceeded the targets in more than half of the 20 quarters between October 2006 and September 2011 for either of these indicators. No mode has consistently met customer satisfaction targets.

Figure 2E
Per cent of quarters (out of 20) where performance met State Budget targets – October 2006 to September 2011

Source: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, sourced from Victorian State Budget papers and Track Record, Department of Transport.

Addressing performance issues

The way the department has managed performance has improved significantly since the middle of the last decade because it has:

• adopted a more methodical, evidence-based approach and invested in the capability to better forecast growth and understand the root causes of poor performance
• developed better partnerships with the metropolitan train and tram operators
• transformed the approach to timetabling services.

Figure 2F describes how the department has improved the way its sets metropolitan train timetables. In addition, the restructuring of the metropolitan train and tram contracts represented a significant improvement.

Current metropolitan train and tram contract measures include:

• introduction of regular, high-level ‘network development partnership’ meetings with each operator to discuss performance issues, progress and emerging issues
• improved strategic planning mechanisms
• ‘cure plan’ requirements for operators to submit plans to address flagging performance
• annual flexible performance benchmarks which the department uses to target emerging issues.

Figure 2F
An improved approach to timetabling

Source: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office.

2.4 Delivering a coordinated, joined-up system

The department had not adequately measured or managed coordination until recently. It has now started to address this gap.

2.4.1 Measuring and reporting on performance

The department has not measured how well public transport has served passengers making journeys using more than one mode of travel. This has been a significant blind spot over the past decade which the department is now addressing.

The department has initiated a coordination program to understand current performance, develop and apply a systematic approach to improving performance and objectively measure the outcomes.

In terms of progress, the department has:

• completed a review of levels of service coordination based on current timetables
• started a program of research to better understand demand
• identified barriers to greater cross-modal travel at key interchange locations
• prepared for a customer satisfaction survey focused on coordination, expected to begin in the first quarter of 2012.

In the past year the department has made solid progress addressing its deficiencies in measuring coordination performance. It now needs to:

• apply the survey of customer satisfaction with coordination, and report the full results
• develop, measure and report on indicators that reliably convey the level of intended and actual coordination across different public transport modes.

2.4.2 Managing performance

The department has not adequately managed public transport as a joined-up system over the past 12 years of privatised metropolitan rail and tram operations. This is now changing, with the department developing and resourcing a program to understand and improve travel across different modes of public transport.

It is not feasible to provide direct public transport services using one mode of travel for more than a small proportion of potential journeys. Making travel across multiple modes more convenient, understandable and comfortable greatly increases the ‘reach’ and attractiveness of public transport.

In the past, there has been insufficient attention paid to coordination. Contracts have set incentives and penalties based on delivering services for a single mode of travel that have not supported coordination—for example, if a driver delays a bus to wait for a delayed train, this may adversely impact on the operator’s performance result. The department has now taken a lead in better managing coordination.

Past performance

The department has found that:

• current service levels are inconsistent and irregular between modes, and do not promote consistent, reliable coordination across the public transport system
• it needs to be a catalyst for improving coordination.

The review of service coordination found variable performance and significant room for improvement, including:

• variation in the percentage of weekday bus services connecting with trains between the commuting peak periods. Less than 60 per cent of buses connected with a train service on 14 of the 22 train lines surveyed
• a range of network improvements where cheap options existed to facilitate interchange by reducing walking distances between buses and trains (see Figure 2G).

Figure 2G
Walk distance reduction initiatives—prioritised interchange facilities funding

Source: Walk Distance Reductions Research Summary, Department of Transport.

Managing performance

The department has recently applied an improved approach to coordination by:

• understanding current performanceby defining and measuring performance
• developing a strategy to better align services and define the standards that should be applied to timetable changes in future
• incorporating the need for early communication between operators into updated timetable processes, enabling better service coordination.

This early work has formed a good basis for progressively improving coordination. The department now needs to formalise, measure and report on performance.

2.5 Contributing to a more sustainable state

2.5.1 Measuring and reporting on performance

The department has not in the past fully measured public transport’s contribution to this objective. This situation has worsened because its 2011 corporate plan update has dropped the one indicator that provided information on this objective.

However, the department’s draft report, Victorian Public Transport Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (November 2011), recommended steps for better managing and measuring public transport’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The department now needs to decide how to best measure these impacts and document a costed, timed implementation plan to do this.

The Transport Integration Act 2010 requires the department to manage the public transport system in a manner which supports a sustainable Victoria by seeking to:

• increase the share of public transport trips as a proportion of all transport trips
• improve the environmental performance and minimise the adverse environmental impacts of the public transport system.

The 2010–11 and 2011–12 Public Transport Division business plans included long‑term measures for reducing carbon emissions per passenger kilometre and for calculating the emissions avoided because of the increased use of public transport. However, the department has not yet quantified and reported on these measures.

The department’s 2010 corporate plan update included two indicators of mode share. One tracked the proportion of all personal, motorised trips in Melbourne that are made on public transport and the other tracked the proportion of all transport trips that use a sustainable mode—public transport, walk or cycling. The plan targeted increasing public transport’s share of all motorised journeys to 20 per cent by 2020.

The department’s 2011–12 plan has dropped the 20 per cent target and no longer reports public transport’s share of motorised trips in Melbourne, although this is monitored internally.

The change in public transport’s mode share provides a relevant, but partial indicator of its contribution to more sustainable travel. There is scope to better represent performance by estimating kilometres travelled by different modes and, in particular, the kilometres saved through changes in public transport use.

Improving the environmental performance of public transport is a legislated objective and the department needs to measure and report on the outcomes. The department has started to do this through a draft report on these issues and needs to finalise a plan to measure these impacts.

2.5.2 Managing performance

Figure 2H shows changes in the indicators relating to sustainability and public transport for the two years where the department measured and reported this information.

Figure 2H
Indicators on public transport and sustainability

Source: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office based on Department of Transport annual reports.

The reported information shows a small reduction in the percentage of trips using public transport. We do not have information to assess whether the environmental performance of public transport has improved.

2.6 Improving access for people with a disability

2.6.1 Moving from a compliance-based approach

The Transport Integration Act 2010 requires the department to improve access to the transport system by:

• minimising barriers to access so transport is widely available
• providing tailored infrastructure, services and support for persons who find it difficult to use the transport system.

The 1992 Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act specifically requires that states improve public transport to eliminate discrimination.

The legislation defines minimum design standards for public transport vehicles, stations, stops and interchanges by 2032 and intermediate compliance targets in 2007, 2012, 2017 and 2022 as milestones towards full compliance in 2032. The Accessible Public Transport in Victoria—Action Plan 2006–2012 sets out the government’s medium-term plan.

VAGO’s 2009 audit on Making Public Transport More Accessible for People Who Face Mobility Challenges found that the department had:

• measured compliance with the standards and published this information
• not measured how much easier it was for people with a disability to use public transport and how the standards had affected their levels of use and satisfaction.

VAGO included a recommendation to evaluate and report on these outcomes.

Since then, the department has changed its approach. While recognising the role and importance of compliance, it now emphasises improvements to accessibility and achieving the outcome of making public transport useable for as many people as possible.

This reorientation to focus on outcomes aligns with VAGO’s 2009 audit conclusions. The department has more actively engaged with a broad range of stakeholders, including people with a disability, to better understand the barriers to accessibility and to incorporate their views in infrastructure and service designs.

This change now needs to be backed up by the type of evaluation framework that will adequately capture and report on accessibility outcomes.

2.6.2 Measuring and reporting on performance

In the past the department measured compliance with the minimum disability standards and reported on these annually.

The department stopped reporting detailed compliance measures after 2008 because:

• they do not accurately reflect changes in accessibility as perceived by existing and potential public transport users
• their consistency and accuracy is uncertain, particularly for the metropolitan and regional rail systems.

The department is part way through a program of independent audits of compliance with the disability standards for the public transport system. It has completed a tram audit, is currently auditing metropolitan buses and will commission audits for metropolitan and regional rail.

The department needs assurance that the standards have been interpreted consistently. It also needs a basis to understand how to prioritise future works to gain the maximum improvement in accessibility.

Figure 2I illustrates the interpretation and reporting issues in rating compliance with the disability standards. The department intends to independently audit compliance to get a consistent baseline and to better understand the key constraints so it can prioritise upgrade works to make the most difference to accessibility.

Figure 2I
Measuring compliance for Richmond Station

Source: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, based on Department of Transport documentation.

The department needs to develop and apply an evaluation framework that measures and reports on its progress in making public transport accessible for those who want to use the system by:

• completing independent audits of compliance
• developing an evaluation framework to measure and track accessibility outcomes
• defining new operator planning and reporting requirements
• developing its 2012–17 strategy for achieving greater accessibility through customer service improvements and infrastructure upgrades.

Recommendations

The Department of Transport should:

1. finalise its draft process for setting its State Budget targets, and apply it to contract thresholds and other targets
2. progress plans to monitor performance against accessibility, sustainability and coordination objectives, and develop rigorous plans to better manage these in the future
3. address residual gaps in its measurement framework.