What passengers really think about Victoria's PT network

 

They're improving at publicly reporting some things (eg bus reliability a few years back and  patronage more recently) but Victoria's Department of Transport & Planning still operates under the presumption that much other network performance information should be kept to itself.

This sensitivity is despite (a) the taxpayer paying the overwhelming bulk of operating costs for public transport (especially in this age of 'free' or nearly free travel for more and more trips) and (b) at least some of what the department doesn't want us to see being pretty benign, hardly embarrassing and sometimes even praiseworthy. Not that embarrassment should be a criteria for data being withheld. 

Could commercial confidentiality be an issue? 

Even arguments over commercial confidentiality due to private operators don't hold as much water any more (if they ever did). This is because pretty much every renegotiation of the public transport operating franchises (we're up to MR5) in the last 20 years has transferred risk from the franchisee (the private operator) to the franchisor (the state). Examples of risks reverting to the state include patronage and fare revenue. And low performance penalties may be capped rather than open-ended.

This may be because, as the pandemic showed, risk is extremely difficult to cost. If the government underestimates risks or costs relative to what they pay the operators then the operators either walk out (eg National Express in 2002) or perform very badly (eg Transdev for buses in 2017). In both cases the government had to intervene. Or if the government overestimates risk relative to what they pay the operators then the operators get an unearned windfall gain. In both cases taxpayers carry the bill.  

The state seems to have increasingly recognised that. As risk is notoriously hard to cost the state has kept most of it to itself. When you're as big as the state self-insurance is not a bad approach. It also reduces uncertainty for private operators.    

That should have a cash value in the sense that the state should be able to demand lower margins as operator payments are easier to calculate and modest profits are pretty much guaranteed. One hopes that DTP negotiators exploit their monopsony position to squeeze as much service kilometres per dollar as possible out of our transport operators while keeping maintenance, operating and customer service standards.

These changed circumstances also mean that DTP/PTV (a) needs to be better at service innovation, marketing  and growing patronage (as operators have few levers or incentives to do this themselves) and (b) can ease off in using 'commercial in confidence' as an excuse to deny reasonable requests for information. DTP's performance on both is debatable but that's another story. 

Key points from the report

Now back to what passengers think. 

DTP commissions quarterly surveys to track customer attitudes to public transport and its service delivery. These Klein Research reports are treated as internal documents. 

The Public Transport Users Association lodged an FOI request to see one. DTP refused.

However PTUA successfully appealed to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner . 

As a result everyone can read the CXI Quarterly Report Q3 FY24 on the Right to Know website here. 

I recommend you read it.

Below are some of the take-away messages I found: 

* Passenger safety and customer service were network strengths. Disruption information, service (in)frequency and ticketing ease were pain points.

* All regional modes met the main targets. As did Metro Trains. But Yarra Trams and (especially) metropolitan bus are performing below target.

* Metropolitan bus vies with metropolitan tram for the mode with the least satisfaction over information. One of the reasons (in my view) is we do poorly with maps and network information at interchanges compared to cities like Perth. 

* Information on delays and cancellations was lowly rated for all metropolitan modes but especially metropolitan bus. This is a particular problem as buses are (on average) the least frequent mode, often with long gaps to the next service. I've also found bus tracking on Google maps is pretty unreliable when there are delays. 

* A similar pattern regarding delay and cancellation information applied for regional modes. V/Line trains performed worse than Metro here (with similar issues to metropolitan buses with generally lower frequencies or fewer alternatives available).

* Customer satisfaction for service characteristics across different modes was graphed. Not surprisingly frequency on metropolitan buses got the lowest positive score on this cross-modal comparison.

* Also not surprisingly (due to outrageously cheap fares) the regional modes scored highest for ticketing and value. Metropolitan tram rated the lowest. Possibly as (i) you can't buy a ticket on board and (ii) fares are comparatively high for short non-CBD trips due to our nearly flat statewide fare system.  

* In a finding that some may find surprising, personal security rated well across all modes.

* Which line has the happiest Metro passengers? The answer is Sandringham. They'll have more reasons to smile when the Metro Tunnel timetable starts as they'll be getting a 10 min interpeak weekday service.

* What were the main issues with buses? Low frequency, reliability and fullness were cited in the comments.

Improvement priorities

What has this report taught us about priorities for customer experience improvements, starting with fixing the worst? 

The high level summary at the start of the report is a good guide. These points are: 

* Better and more accurate disruption information (especially for buses and regional trains)

* Better service frequency (especially for buses) 

* Better ticketing ease. Will hopefully come with Myki's replacement offering credit and debit card payment. Also political gimmicks over the last decade or more has led to a fare system that overcharges for many short trips and undercharges for long trips. A return to a more progressive fare structure could improve perceived fairness (and probably overall patronage).  

Summary

These customer experience reports give interesting perspectives on passenger views towards the public transport system. They should be a regular publication rather than something kept internally.