How TransLink Could Engage The Community To Produce An Equitable and Future-Focused Fare Structure

Research Topic:

“How TransLink could engage the community to produce an equitable
and future‐focused fare structure for South East Queensland’s public
transport network”.
Submitted to Paul Donohue
David Bremner n5777038
December 2009
DBP502 Thesis (building on DBP415 Research Project)
Master of Urban and Regional Planning
Criteria
‐ Quality of written and graphic communication
‐ Clarity of research question, objectives, explanation of background
‐ Rigour and appropriateness of the collection and analysis of information
‐ Connections between analysis and conclusions and question and research objectives

1 Abstract ...............................................................................................................................1
2 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1
3 Method................................................................................................................................2
3.1 Topic .........................................................................................................................................................2
3.2 Research objectives..................................................................................................................................2
3.3 Approach ..................................................................................................................................................2
3.4 Learning, analytical and consultative techniques ....................................................................................3
4 Situational review................................................................................................................5
4.1 Public Transport in South East Queensland .............................................................................................5
4.2 Formation of TransLink 2004 ...................................................................................................................6
4.3 Statutory changes affecting TransLink’s operation..................................................................................7
4.4 Implementation of smart card ticketing – February 2008 .......................................................................7
4.5 Adjustments to smart card fares – August 2008......................................................................................7
4.6 Current situation – change to fares effective January 2010 ....................................................................9
5 Practice Review .................................................................................................................11
5.1 International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) ....................................................................... 11
5.2 Urban Renewal Community Engagement Framework.......................................................................... 15
5.3 Brisbane City Council ‘customer focus’ initiatives ................................................................................ 16
5.4 TransLink Transit Authority Complaints Policy...................................................................................... 16
5.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 17
6 Interviews, discussion and feedback ..................................................................................17
6.1 Interviews with community engagement professionals ....................................................................... 17
6.2 Online discussion forum contribution................................................................................................... 17
7 Analysis – a framework approach ......................................................................................18
7.1 TransLink’s purpose, vision and organisational objectives ................................................................... 18
7.2 ‘TransLink 12’ and relevance to community engagement .................................................................... 18
7.3 TransLink’s engagement context........................................................................................................... 19
7.4 Purpose of an engagement framework ................................................................................................ 20
7.5 Commitment and principles for engaging............................................................................................. 21
7.6 Spectrum of engagement...................................................................................................................... 22
7.7 Techniques and tools ............................................................................................................................ 22
7.8 Identified stakeholders.......................................................................................................................... 23
7.9 Evaluation and review processes .......................................................................................................... 23
8 Recommendations.............................................................................................................24
8.1 Commitment by decision‐makers to engage ........................................................................................ 24
8.2 Collaborative creation and adoption of community engagement framework ..................................... 24
8.3 Application of community engagement framework to Fares Strategy................................................. 24
8.4 Research into new media opportunities for engagement .................................................................... 24
8.5 Research into regional housing and transport affordability ................................................................. 24
9 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................25
10 References.........................................................................................................................26
11 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................27
12 Appendices ........................................................................................................................28
12.1 Objectives of the Relevant Acts ............................................................................................................ 29
12.2 Interview guiding notes......................................................................................................................... 31
12.3 TransLink Fare Strategy: Community Engagement Plan ..........................................................................1

Page i

Research Project –DBP502 Masters Thesis
1 Abstract
This research seeks to build upon a wealth of knowledge and practice in community engagement and
suggests that the adoption by TransLink of a values‐based, framework approach to community engagement
will enable the development of an acceptable, future focused and equitable public transport fares structure
in South East Queensland.
It is hoped that TransLink will use the recommendations of this research to frame and undertake
community engagement. It is argued that authentic community engagement will enable improved policy,
planning and implementation outcomes to the benefit of TransLink and the community at large. This
research recommends a values‐based, transparent and consistent framework approach to community
engagement and also includes a draft engagement plan specific to the topic of fares.
The initial stage of this research involved an in‐depth policy and literature review, community consultation
and interviews with planning professionals. It produced recommendations to the creation of a fare strategy
for public transport in South East Queensland ‐ the major recommendation being that TransLink should
engage with the community in order to determine a values‐based public transportation fare policy.
During this research it became apparent that community engagement wasn’t being undertaken. The two
major reasons why this might be the case related to either: a) a lack of motivation or understanding of the
benefits of community engagement, or b) simply a lack of understanding of how to engage (the values,
processes, methods and tools needed support authentic engagement).
This research paper will address the more practical aspects of how to engage and is premised on a broadly
held theoretical perspective that it is both good to engage and that authentic engagement does actually
improve outcomes. In response to time and resource constraints the author perceives a greater benefit
may be achieved by improving local practical knowledge of how to do it effectively rather than why to do it
at all. This is especially relevant as any future decision to engage is likely to be driven top‐down (as a
political response to community backlash during the implementation of an unresponsive fares policy) and
not by improved practitioner understanding of the reasons to engage.
Public transport services are central to compact, liveable, socially just and environmentally sensitive urban
form. Although often ignored by the field of urban and regional planning, pricing and other measures are
likely to be significant determiners to the use of public transport. Given this, community engagement that
improves the quality/price and value tradeoffs of public transport are likely to result in an improved urban
outcome through increased use and reliance on public transport alternatives to private car ownership and
use.
2 Introduction
This research project will investigate current community engagement practices and build on a basis of
existing research to suggest a values‐based framework approach be taken on board by TransLink in order to
produce an equitable and future‐focussed fare strategy for public transport in South East Queensland.
This research has come about in response to the implementation of fare changes tied to the
implementation of the smart card (‘Go card’) automatic fare collection system. The initial component of
this research demonstrated the implementation was out of step with community values – both in method
and outcome ‐ and needed redress.
While undertaking this second phase of research TransLink announced significant increases to fares at a
time when changes to the consumer price index were close to zero (due to the global financial crisis). The
current price changes are to be implemented by TransLink prior to the organisation publishing any
supporting data or information. The current and previous round of changes are the result of unresponsive
policy and yet the current fares strategy was still produced without engaging the community or consulting
with consumer.

Page 1

It is very important to note that this current stage of research is not concerned over the specific dollar cost
of fares in public transport, rather the processes by which TransLink sets these fares. Indeed the previous
stage of research indicated that subject to community engagement and the inclusion of monthly ticket
products on Go card, that it may be good policy to raise ticket prices in order to expand and improve
services. As such the concerns that will be expressed in this research are thus primarily in relation to
TransLink’s processes and poor communication.
This research proposes that pricing and service quality of public transport are likely to have significant
impacts on urban form over the coming decades especially due to increasing regional population, an ageing
demographic and changing travel demands (more people travelling more often and further).
If the urban planning outcomes of local and state policy (as reviewed in stage one of this research) are to
be realised, then TransLink will need to change its approach and engage the community in its planning and
implementation policies.
3 Method
3.1 Topic
This research seeks to address the topic:
“How TransLink could engage the community to produce an equitable and future‐focussed fare structure
for South East Queensland’s public transport network”.
3.2 Research objectives
This research seeks to:
1. Build upon stage one of the research which constituted the following elements:
a) Development and analysis of community values in relation to public transport fares, specifically
in relation to the implementation of the ‘Go card’ automatic fare collection system in South
East Queensland.
b) Review and comparison of the desired policy outcomes of urban, regional and transport
planning in relation to public transport fares and the stated policy paths to achieve these
outcomes
c) Review of the contemporary implementation of Go card and formation of recommendations
including: community engagement on fare prices, products and strategy; as well as housing
affordability research for the region.
2. Examine emerging approaches to public policy development, namely practices involving community
engagement, in relation to public transport fares in South East Queensland.
3. Build on personal professional experience in community engagement and those experiences of other
professionals to determine a feasible approach by TransLink to engage with the community specifically
in relation to the five yearly fare strategies.
4. Make qualified recommendations about how TransLink could engage with the community and
interested stakeholders to produce said strategy.
3.3 Approach
Objective Method Output Analysis
– Build upon stage – Literature and policy – Research data including – Synthesis of opportunities
one of this research review understanding of best and constraints into
(row below) – Interviews with urban practice approaches, recommendations
planners and transport desired policy outcomes,
planners and current practitioners
thinking

Page 2

Objective Method Output Analysis

– Research community values in relation to public transport fares in South East Queensland
– Review desired policy outcomes of urban, regional and transport planning
– Review of contemporary implementation of Go card and changes to fares
– Stage one recommendations
– Research – Literature review of – Understanding of the fare – Analysis of community
approaches to deliberative practice, changes engagement processes
engagement for community engagement, – Understanding of reactions
policy development public participation to the fare changes within
– Research the – Situational review of the frame of stage one
recently announced past, current and future research
fare changes fare changes and – Understanding of current
– Research responses responses to these approaches to community
to fare changes engagement practice in
text, tables and notes
– Build on personal – In‐depth qualitative – Data in the format of – Analysis of qualitative data
professional interviews with recordings, transcripts, to build a more in‐depth
experience in community engagement notes, etc that develop an understanding about
community professionals about understanding of practical practical approaches to
engagement contemporary approaches to community community engagement in
– Draft a community community engagement engagement practice
engagement practice
strategy for
TransLink
– Produce research – Review and analyse data – Recommendations around – Acknowledgement of
recommendations to produce how TransLink could engage limitations of research and
about how TransLink recommendations with the community in recommendations
could engage relation to contemporary – Suggest possible topics for
changes to public transport further research
fares
Figure 1 Research approach/ objectives
3.4 Learning, analytical and consultative techniques
As outlined in the research objectives and approach above, this thesis will build upon the basis of the
research undertaken for DBP415 Research Project.
This research will utilise three main approaches to build an understanding of how TransLink could engage.
1. Review of community engagement/ participatory practice and public transport fares
2. Professional/on the job training, including:
a) International Association of Public Participation (IAP2)community engagement processes,
techniques and tools
b) Customer‐focused service training
c) Practical experience with community planning teams.
3. In‐depth qualitative interviews and informal discussions with engagement professionals and
participation in online discussion forums of transport enthusiasts and advocates in order to gauge
response to the proposed fare changes, seek out information and test concepts (this is also a key
method of research output where contributions from the author inform and educate other members of
the forum and it is also suggested as a key tool for the engagement plan itself).
Each of these methods of inquiry will contribute to the analysis and synthesis of the research and will
inform the production of practical and concrete recommendations that TransLink could rapidly adapt to:
a) Improve institutional trust in the organisation
b) Redraft its current approach to public transport fares

Page 3

c) Garner support for a more value‐responsive fare strategy.
3.4.1 Professional training
Over the period of undertaking this research the author has been exposed to significant practical training
opportunities in community engagement and hands‐on experience with community planning teams. This
training and experience has contributed substantially to this research. This is seen to be a significant
strength in that practical learning and on‐the‐job experiences have been synthesised with an ongoing
academic learning into how and why to engage. This research has not followed a traditional case study
approach due to the fact that the research has changed direction considerably throughout the process to
keep in step with publicly available information as to the Government’s approach to fares. Many of the
leanings have been developed from ongoing involvement in various cases, however a case study approach
was not utilised as ongoing employment and access to these cases had not been guaranteed at the
commencement of research.
3.4.2 A qualitative approach
It is acknowledged that significant research within the transport economics field describes an approach to
determining public transport fares that is based more thoroughly in quantitatively determined fare
“elasticities”. That approach is designed to manage travel demand and optimise transit rider‐ship and fare
recollection. It is not particularly good at encouraging decision‐makers, bureaucrats or stakeholders to
trade‐off their values against one another through discussion. It should be strongly noted that quantitative
research into fare elasticities is highly constrained in its ability to deal with, control or analyse more than
one variable at a time, for instance time‐cost, dollar‐cost, comfort, reliability, convenience or any of a string
of other variables. As it assumes ceteris paribus it is not entirely useful in real life where there are a vast
number of uncontrollable variables, not to mention the interconnected behaviours of thousands of
travellers (Vuchic, 2005).
My research, therefore, seeks to complement not reject this approach through recognising both
quantitative and qualitative aspects as inputs into a more highly value‐driven decision‐making process.
Qualitative research approaches such as in‐depth interviewing are widely accepted and used in current
academic practice. Indeed Bouma and Ling acknowledge one of the main benefits of qualitative research
approaches being that it “allows a more continuous reflection on the research in progress…, more
interaction with the participants in the research… and [allows] more room for ongoing alteration as the
research proceeds” (2004:169). This is in contrast with quantitative approaches where “there is [often]
little opportunity to alter [basic decisions about the research] in light of early findings” (2004:169).
In‐depth qualitative interviewing is seen to be an appropriate data collection method for this research. This
approach acknowledges the day‐to‐day practical experience of community engagement professionals in
achieving the occasionally lofty goals of approaches to deliberative practice espoused in theory. This is
especially true given the day‐to‐day practical constraints of working with communities from within a
bureaucracy in a democratic and highly politicised environment. According to Mason, qualitative
interviewing includes the following four key features, it:
1) Is an interactional exchange of dialogue
2) Is informal in style, often involving conversations and discussion
3) Is topically or thematically centred, designed to have a fluid and flexible structure in order to
allow the researcher and interviewee opportunities to develop unexpected themes
4) Operates from the perspective that all knowledge is situated and contextual (2002:62).
As such, participation within the online forum is considered a contemporary variation on the traditional
interview/ group discussion format. Contributions over an extended period of time allow new discourses to
open up and learning to occur for all parties involved.
3.4.3 Limitations
It is hoped that this research approach may provide a suitable contextual basis for the adaption and
implementation of the proposed community engagement framework. Implementing the framework as a

Page 4

part of research is unfeasible given the time, budget and personnel constraints. It should be noted that it
would be extremely difficult to genuinely carry out the implementation of the framework given the lack of
authority to act on behalf of TransLink and that participants in community engagement processes must be
able to trust that their contribution is not in vain (that is, that decision‐makers are actively listening to, and
will be informed by, the outcomes of their contributions).
This research sought to integrate engagement with TransLink professionals however this access was not
obtained and instead the research used the contribution of alternative community engagement
professionals (gained through employment with the Brisbane City Council).
It would be desirable and in the longer term highly important that the actual individuals’ whose
responsibility it may become to apply the community engagement framework and implement the Fares
Engagement Plan are themselves engaged in a collaborative process to ensure their own values are
integrated into the framework. Access to learnings from one organisation (Brisbane City Council) have been
synthesised with practical training in community engagement and translated into TransLink’s organisational
position. It is a very practically based approach but one not without problems. Indeed the author has
found himself to be constantly stuck between the differing roles of an academic, a community advocate,
and an internal professional (albeit from a different organisation).
4 Situational review
In October 2009, the Queensland Government announced significant changes to the operation and price of
public transport fares. From January 2010 (just three months after the announcement) paper fares (single
and periodical) will rise by roughly 40% in price, Go card fares will rise by roughly 20% and QR periodical
tickets will be removed from sale. By the end of 2010, paper fares are set to be phased‐out entirely, leaving
Go card the sole method of payment for travel across the network. Fares will then continue to rise by 15%
per annum to 2015. In effect this will result in the near doubling of single ticket prices from 2009 to 2015
and the entire removal of paper and periodical ticketing products across the network and all operators.
In addition, the government has stated that it aims to reduce the level of subsidy by five percent from 75%
to 70% over the years to 2015. TransLink has also indicated it needs to increase revenue in order to
continue expanding services. Service expansion is required both to meet increasing demand and to fulfil
stated community preferences uncovered through previous consultation embodied in documents such as
the TransLink Network Plan.
The research is timely and important given that TransLink has recently announced changes to public
transport fares and is likely to suffer a significant level of backlash from the community due to the lack of
engagement in this initial process.
4.1 Public Transport in South East Queensland
South East Queensland (SEQ) has been experiencing rapid and sustained growth for the last several
decades. This growth in population when tied to changes in travel behaviour (in favour of the car) has
resulted in significant implications for urban form, transport planning, government budgets and every day
life.
Indeed, private road‐based travel has been one of, if not the, major shaping factor to our cities since World
War II. Recent shifts in perception about climate change, coupled with significant increases in the price of
petrol and growing urban congestion have lead to an increasing focus back on public transport. Public
transport is recognised by many urban/transport professionals as the backbone of any policy response
designed to deal with the contemporary urban challenge of access.
Public transport including train, bus, ferry, and taxi services are an important service regulated by
Government in order to help address broad desires for social equity and to improve access to employment,
education and housing for a geographically diverse and growing population.
It is within this context that shifts towards more integrated service planning, provision and charging have
begun to occur in the transport field in South East Queensland.

Page 5

4.2 Formation of TransLink 2004
Since the initial formation of TransLink in 2004 (as an agency of the then department of Queensland
Transport) improvements have been made to local public transport services. TransLink has delivered the
following across multiple operators in a geographically large service region (mapped on the following
page):
1) Integrated ticketing across trains, buses and ferries (across the entire region)
2) Single point of contact for customer service, complaints resolution and information provision
3) Improved and more highly integrated service planning
4) Funded expansion of operator bus fleets and
5) Delivery of new railway and busway infrastructure.
Each of the above outcomes has been in support of both transport and urban planning policy. Indeed the
modest annual patronage targets have been met and exceeded with cumulative patronage growth of
almost 50% in five years (TransLink, 2009a:3). Many residents continue to prefer private car travel both
through desire and necessity (that is, lack of access to, or simply poor quality public transport service).
Despite this, over the next decade or two it is likely that public transport services will need to more than
double in order to meet demand given the continued growth in the base resident population, the
increasing frequency and distance of trips, and the practical limits for continued road based infrastructure
expansion ‐ financially, spatially and politically. It is therefore crucial that appropriate charging and
financial frameworks to support quality and rapidly expanding infrastructure and service delivery are in
place and supported by the community.

Figure 3TransLink Service Coverage
Figure 2TransLink Zone Map
Maps accessed from http://www.translink.com.au/qt/translin.nsf/index/maps

Page 6

4.3 Statutory changes affecting TransLink’s operation
Over recent years the demand for public transport has continued to rise and significantly more journeys are
now taken since TransLink and integrated paper ticketing was first introduced in 2004. Integrated fares and
significant increases to population and the cost of fuel are seen to be major drivers of this increase.
In order to meet this demand and after four years of operation, on 1 July 2008, TransLink became a
statutory authority under the Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008. This Act has
significant implications for the operation and funding of public transport in South East Queensland. The Act
implemented governance changes (for example the establishment of a Board to direct the Authority and
increased ability to acquire property) as well changes in outputs and actions required of the Authority by
the Minister.
Under Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, the TransLink Transit Authority (TransLink) must now prepare and
approve a TransLink Network Plan. This plan must outline funded improvements in mass transit services
and infrastructure and be prepared at least every four years. TransLink must now also produce a written
fare strategy for the Minister at least every five years.
TransLink’s actions are also directed by the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994. This act
sets out the primary legislative objectives and the roles of the CEO. The Transport Operations (TransLink
Transit Authority) Act 2008 sets out in further detail the functions of the organisation. These relevant
components are listed in Appendix One.
TransLink’s recent actions and statements indicate that the authority has drafted and had the Minister
approve the initial five‐year fare strategy without engaging with the community. Changes to fares are
being implemented from the end of 2009. Given the significant impacts this strategy is likely to have on
social equity outcomes and peoples’ day‐to‐day lives, this research seeks to contribute to the unmet need
for community engagement. It is hoped that TransLink may over time (and perhaps under community
pressure) adopt components of this research into its own work.
The initial stages of this research reviewed the existing policy aims of transport and urban planning
documents and consulted with members of the community and key stakeholders to determine a suitable
approach to the formation of an equitable public transportation fares policy respectful of the community’s
values. The outputs of this research indicate that the government has failed to address many of the
community’s concerns at the heart of the Go card ticketing system during its implementation.
4.4 Implementation of smart card ticketing – February 2008
In February 2008 TransLink launched a smart card ticketing/ payment system named ‘Go card’. At its
launch, Go card fares were equal to paper ticket fares. However due to the Go card technology only being
capable of charging full price (peak) single tickets, many customers (such as those using ten trip savers,
daily, off‐peak daily, weekly or monthly tickets) were price disadvantaged.
As the old ticketing equipment was failing there was a need to remove the 10‐trippers from sale, yet the
alternative of using Go card embodied a significant and unacknowledged fare rise. Although the level of
discount was pegged at the same level for commuters who did exactly ten trips Monday to Sunday
(resetting each week), many of the passengers who used ten trippers actually used them over the period of
a month or more. Therefore many users were denied both the flat 20% discount that the 10‐tripper ticket
had previously offered and the new 50% discount after six journeys Monday to Sunday which had replaced
it. Further, those passengers who travelled ten or more trips still obtained better value and could avoid the
inconvenience of tagging on and off if they purchased a weekly paper ticket (which was pegged at the same
cost as the old 10‐tripper or eight single tickets). Such a ticket gives unlimited travel for the time and zones
issued for and as such embodies a far higher level of value for users who travel more than eight times a
week than Go card.
4.5 Adjustments to smart card fares – August 2008
In order to address community concerns that Go card was still more expensive than paper ticketing
TransLink implemented a change to public transport fares on 4 August 2008. At this time, fares were

Page 7

indexed against CPI to address then spiralling fuel costs and a base Go card discount of 20% from the cost
of full priced paper singles was implemented (reflecting concerns in the community that this discount had
been removed).
The frequent user scheme was amended, remaining at 50% off, however was applied after the tenth
journey Monday to Sunday rather than after the sixth journey Monday to Sunday.
For passengers who travelled exactly ten trips Monday to Sunday the effective discount was the same as a
10‐tripper both before and after the fare changes. For passengers who travelled less than ten times a week,
it better reflected the previous 10‐tripper discount. However, frequent travellers still received a better
discount using weekly and monthly tickets as the cost remained pegged at eight single tickets (or 32 for
monthly) and yet offered unlimited journeys for that period in those zones.
Additionally, Go card single fares were amended to reflect a long distance discount that had previously
been applied to periodical (that is, weekly or monthly) ticketing. As such, travel through 11, 12, or 13 or
more zones received an additional 5%, 10% or 15% discount after the application of the 20% Go card
discount. This was advertised under the misleading Go card slogan “at least 20% off” and “as much as
67.5% off”. The 67.5% discount represented a theoretic and highly unlikely combination of the base 20%
discount, the 15% long distance discount multiplied by the 50% frequent user discount (which is applied
only after having already taken ten journeys that week). The only feasible recipient of such a benefit who
would not otherwise get a better deal would be a one to two zone commuter who then travelled to either
of the Coasts on the weekends – unlikely given the extremely inefficient rail‐bus connections at both the
Gold and Sunshine Coasts. The changes implemented effectively only represented a reinstatement of two
pre‐existing discounts on Go card.
Rail commuters travelling long distances (for instance between Sunshine or Gold Coasts and Brisbane) still
had access to a much cheaper and convenient (given no need to tag on or off) deal with either standard
periodical tickets or the QR 3, 6 or 12 month tickets (despite these being valid only for travel between the
nominated railway stations and with no modal interchange ability).
This change to pricing was policy on the run and was not (at least publicly) supported by an approved fare
strategy. It did partially address the disincentive to Go card use and extend a benefit previously only
available to Brisbane Transport, Logan, or Mt Gravatt Coaches, to passengers across the entire network ‐
that is, across all operators, zones and allowing modal interchange. It did not address the concerns of
frequent users or long distance passengers. Uses who travelled more than ten trips per week or further
than seven zones were still financially (and convenience wise) better off purchasing paper tickets such as
weeklies, monthlies or QR periodical tickets.
Since the launch of the electronic Go Card in early 2008 and the August change to fares ongoing community
activism forced TransLink to announce that it would have a fares strategy containing off‐peak ticketing and
fare reductions to the Minister for approval by mid 2009 (Cheaper fares proposal by mid‐year: TransLink,
Brisbane Times, 21 April 2009).
To my knowledge, TransLink has not engaged the community in drafting this fare strategy. The
organisation has undertaken minimal market research (conducted by ACNielsen), however the results are
not publicly available despite repeated requests to the TransLink Right to Information officer. The author’s
involvement in one ACNielsen internet survey would seem to indicate that research only examined
people’s stated preferences for different products, rather than the underlying values they held or the
trade‐offs (quality‐cost, frequency‐distance etc) they may be willing to make.
Given that TransLink is not simply providing a commercial service and instead plays an important role in
social equity outcomes of Government, I strongly believe this approach to be insufficient. As such this
paper seeks to clarify some of the community’s values and suggest innovative approaches to fares and is
designed to help prevent a continuation of TransLink’s current approach and recent actions (hidden
unconsulted fare increases and misleading advertising).

Page 8

4.6 Current situation – change to fares effective January 2010
The smart card payment system provided by Cubic under agreement with TransLink is operational (and is
perceived by TransLink to be predominantly stable) across three local modes (rail, bus and ferry) and
eighteen different private operators. Despite this, there are still significant barriers (related to fares and
charges) preventing more widespread adoption of smart card ticketing by public transport users and non‐
users alike. These barriers are in addition to customer difficulties in obtaining a card, uploading credit and
utilising the technology.
4.6.1 Changes to fares and charges
The table below outlines the major cost increases that the current changes represents to all products. It
should be noted that the prices effective August 2008 prior to these current changes are already generally
inclusive of CPI increases since 2004 as CPI has been at zero and negative in many categories over the last
several quarters due to the global financial crisis, and the fact that prior increases were in excess of CPI
given the multiple effects of rounding to the nearest 10c as payment previously had to be made in cash.
Each of the rises below is therefore a real price increase beyond inflation.
Ticket type Change (range is dependent on the Notes

number of zones travelled)
Dollar increase Proportional cost
increase
Single (paper) 1‐10 zones $1.00 ‐ $2.80 34.5%‐41.7% The lower proportional increase
> 10 zones $1.50 ‐ $2.60 13.4%‐32.1% to longer distance travel is due
Daily (paper) 1‐10 zones $2.00 ‐ $5.60 34.5%‐41.7% to incorporation on single
> 10 zones $2.80 ‐ $5.20 $13.4%‐32.1% tickets of the existing long
Off‐peak 1‐10 zones $1.50 ‐ $3.60 13.4%‐32.1% distance discount previously
daily (paper) > 10 zones applied to periodical tickets.
$2.10 ‐ $3.90 13.4%‐32.5%
Weekly (paper periodical) $8.00 ‐ $49.00 38.2%‐41.7%. Products are to be removed
Monthly (paper periodical) $32.00 ‐ $196.00 38.2%‐41.7% from sale by end 2010.
Go card single $0.38 ‐ $2.48 18.4%‐21.4% This is now the primary product
on which the costs of other
products are determined.
Off‐peak Go card single $0.15 ‐ $1.01 4.7% ‐ 9.2% This is a new product to be
offered on Go card, however it
is still more expensive than the
2009 peak Go card single cost.
QR 3 month (periodical) $64.80 ‐ $419.80 27% ‐ 32.4% From Dec 31 2009, QR
or higher* or higher* periodical tickets for travel
QR 6 month (periodical) $148.80 ‐ $961.80 33% ‐ 38.7% between two railway stations
or higher* or higher* are no longer offered for sale.
QR 12 month (periodical) $336.00‐$2168.00 39.7% ‐ 45.6% The cost calculations are based
or higher* or higher* on a passenger who travels at a
rate of ten journeys per week
for 48 out of 52 weeks of the
year for the period of validity of
the ticket. If a passenger travels
in excess of ten journeys a
week, or travels for more than
48 weeks per year, the cost
increase will be higher.

Figure 4 Fare changes
TransLink is currently advertising that Go card costs the same as tickets did in 2007. This is misleading as
passengers no longer have access to the same discounts they previously did (such as the 20% 10‐tripper/
weekly discount).

Page 9

4.6.2 Pricing methodology changes
The main goals of the ticketing changes effective 2010 seem to be to:
 Achieve TransLink’s stated goal that by 2012 all users will be using Go card to pay for their travel
 Increase funding (in part to fund the announcement of 301,000 new services – yet to be detailed)
 Decrease the proportion of government subsidy from 75% to 70% of the cost of public transport.
In order to achieve this, TransLink has changed its base product from paper single to Go card single. To
calculate ticket prices it has taken (paper) single ticket prices from 2007, adjusted them to include a long
distance travel discount that was previously applied on periodical ticketing (for travel through 11‐23 zones)
and set these as the base 2010 (Go card) fares.
Prior to this change, Go card fares had been discounted from the paper single ticket. Instead from January
2010, single paper fares will be based on the Go card fare, but 45% higher in cost (seemingly a mistake that
they combined 15% annual increase with the advertised 30% price ‘levy’). This cost is multiplied through
on weekly and monthly tickets which now cost the equivalent of 11‐12x 2009 singles or eight 2010 paper
single tickets (previously the long distance discount had reduced the multiplier down from 8 to 7.5, 7, or
6.5 single tickets depending on the number of zones of travel).
From the end of 2010, paper ticket products are set to be entirely removed from the network and over the
years to 2015 fares will rise by 15% per annum.
4.6.3 Consumer difficulties
Users complain of insufficient access to tag on/off machines (including queues at railway stations), non‐
beeping machines, faded unreadable display screens, clumsy computer graphical‐user‐interfaces on the
value‐adding‐machines and slow to open and close gates at ‘closed’ railway stations. In late 2009 (mere
weeks before major fare changes are due to be implemented) these complaints have been dismissed by the
CEO of TransLink, Peter Strachan through a story on Brisbanetimes.com.au stating that “he was satisfied
the overwhelming majority of machines were working [and that] what we've got is a system we have really
tried and tested over many, many months [that] fits the purpose and the environment”. Such kind of
statement does not accurately reflect reality and users know this.
4.6.4 Overview and impact of changes
TransLink is making major changes that seem out of touch with consumer experiences and values. These
major changes are only being offset by the following minor ‘carrots’:
 Issuing 400,000 free go cards loaded with $10 credit upon registration to encourage take‐up
 Offering off‐peak go card discounts of 10% in 2010, rising to 20% by 2012 (that is less than the price
rise from 2009 to 2010, meaning off‐peak travel in 2010 will still be more expensive on Go card
than peak travel in 2009)
 Doubling the number of locations for go card purchases
 Expanding the number of go card machines at major busway stations and transport interchanges
 Rolling out a Seniors Card that will double as a go card
 Introducing a limited‐life go card suitable for occasional users and tourists available everywhere a
go card can be purchased (TransLink.com.au/fares2010).
Coverage in the media would seem to indicate consumers are highly frustrated with the changes. Go card
purchase and usage data that is selectively released by TransLink would seem to indicate that many users
still prefer paper ticketing over the perceived hassle of Go card. These frustrations are likely to both
require, and negatively impact on, future community engagement.

Page 10

5 Practice Review
5.1 International Association of Public Participation (IAP2)
5.1.1 Training
The author has undertaken three modules of training offered by an International Association of Public
Participation (IAP2) affiliate through employment with the Brisbane City Council. These modules included:
 Communication for effective public participation
 Planning for effective public participation
 Techniques for effective public participation.
These modules each represent 2 full days of small group facilitated workshop learning.
The association was founded in 1990 to deal with a rising global interest in public participation and seeks to
promote and improve the practice of community engagement by individuals, governments, institutions,
and other bodies whose actions impact on the public interest. IAP2 carries out its mission by organizing
and conducting activities to:
 Serve the learning needs of members through events, publications, and communication technology
 Advocate for public participation throughout the world
 Promote a results‐oriented research agenda and use research to support educational and advocacy
goals
 Provide technical assistance and training to improve public participation (IAP2.org).
The key learnings from the training undertaken are represented below.
5.1.2 What is public participation?
IAP2 outlines the following definition to public participation. It should be noted that community
engagement and public participation are the same thing.
“IAP2 views public participation as any process that involves the public in problem solving or
decision making and uses public input to make decisions.
Public participation includes all aspects of identifying problems and opportunities, developing
alternatives and making decisions. It uses tools and techniques that are common to a number of
dispute resolution and communication fields” (2006b:2).
5.1.3 Who is the public?
IAP2 outlines the public as:
“Any individual or group of individuals, organisation or political entity with an interest in the
outcome of a decision. They are often referred to as stakeholders. They may be, or perceive that
they may be, affected directly or indirectly by the outcome of a decision. Internal stakeholders
(individuals who work for or with the decision‐making organisation) are also part of the public. The
public participation process should reflect their needs as well” (2006b:5).
Two effective ways to identify the ‘public’ are to:
 Consider the extent to which the individual, group or other perceives they will be affected by the
problem/opportunity to be addressed
 List the people and groups that care about the decision and their interests and concerns (IAP2,
2006b:5).

Page 11

5.1.4 Why engage the community?
There are numerous reasons of why to engage the community when undertaking actions that impact on
the public interest. IAP2 identifies the following rationale:
 Effective public participation acknowledges the desire for humans to participate in decisions that
affect them
- It provides a means to incorporate the public’s values, interests, needs and desires into
decisions that affect them
- It encourages the public to provide meaningful input into the decision process
 Effective public participation facilitates understanding, thus enabling practitioners to achieve the
following outcomes:
- Clear definition of the problem/opportunity
- A forum for sharing ideas and concerns
- Development of clear, understandable information
- Incorporation of the public’s issues (fears, concerns, needs and desires)
- Decision rationale that is clear and understandable by the community
 Effective public participation improves decisions
- Decisions produced through engagement are more likely to be sustainable over the longer
term and be respected by community (IAP2, 2006b:7).
5.1.5 The foundations of public participation
Public participation should be values based, decision‐oriented and goal driven. These foundations are
explained below.
Values based:
 The public should have a say in decisions about actions that could affect their lives
 Community engagement includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the
decision
 Community engagement promotes sustainable decisions by recognising and communicating the
needs and interests of all participants, including decision‐makers
 Community engagement seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by
or interested in a decision
 Community engagement seeks input from participants in designing how they participate
 Community engagement provides participants with the information they need to participate in a
meaningful way
 Community engagement communications to participants how their input affects decisions (IAP2,
2006b:15).
Decision‐oriented:
 Input and feedback received from the community needs to impact on decision‐making and should
be structured so that engagement is focussed around the ultimate decisions and not unrelated or
unimportant material (IAP2, 2006b:15).
Goal driven:
 Engagement must have a purpose and all activities should relate to this purpose (IAP2, 2006b:15).

Page 12

5.1.6 Engagement spectrum
The table below outlines the differing levels of community engagement/ public input under the
International Association of Public Participation ‘spectrum’ (IAP2, 2006:35).
Level of engagement increasing level of public input 
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower
Goal of To provide the To obtain public To work directly To partner with the To place
community public with feedback on with the public public in each aspect of final
engagement balanced and analysis, throughout the the decision including decision‐
at each level objective alternatives process to ensure the development of making in
on the information to and/or decisions that public alternatives and the the hands
spectrum assist them in concerns and identification of the of the
understanding the aspirations are preferred solution public
problem, consistently
alternatives understood and
and/or solutions considered
Promise to We will keep you We will keep you We will work We will look to you for We will
the public informed informed and with you to advice and innovation implement
listen to and ensure that your in formulating what you
acknowledge concerns and solutions and decide
concerns and aspirations are incorporate your
aspirations, and directly reflected advice and
provide feedback in the recommendations into
on how public alternatives the decisions to the
input influenced developed and maximum extent
the decision provide feedback possible
on how public
input influenced
the decision
Figure 5 Levels of engagement
5.1.7 Steps to public participation
1) Gain internal commitment
2) Learn from the public
3) Select the level of participation from the spectrum
4) Define the process and participation objectives
5) Develop the public participation planning document (that is the community engagement plan)
(IAP2, 2006b:39).
5.1.8 Communication and Community Engagement
Undertaking authentic and effective community engagement requires good communication skills, and an
understanding of how different methods of communication support different community engagement
outcomes.
Community engagement processes require informed and meaningful participation of the public. If effective
communication does not exist between TransLink and its customers and communities, this cannot occur.
Communication skills training will not only improve TransLink’s general skills in communication – a key
aspect of customer‐focussed/ responsive service delivery but will also be a fundamental element of future
community engagement.
Strong communication skills and behaviours build and support the relationships that underpin effective
community engagement to help produce sustainable outcomes.
It is important for all organisations to remember that not communicating is communicating (IAP2, 2006a:5).
In effect, every time that TransLink is silent on an issue, it is communicating potentially contrary or negative

Page 13

messages to the community that may undermine any future engagement or policy implementation. In the
case of public transport fares, there was a long lag in any communications that occurred after a public
promise was made that a proposal for cheaper and off‐peak fares would be handed to the Minister. When
changes were eventually announced they contained significant increases to fares – an effective doubling
over four years rather than a reduction. Not only did the delay communicate the wrong messages to the
public, but it is easy to see that the authenticity of the announcement was later undermined.
5.1.8.1 Authentic communication – characteristics and underlying principles
In order for an organisation to communicate well (a pre‐requisite for good engagement), it needs to
understand the key characteristics of communication and the principles it will need to employ while
communicating.
Communication is:
 Imprecise – ideas, concepts and facts are transmitted imperfectly as ideas and concepts are
transferred, translated and impacted by the receiver’s perceptions
 Ongoing – communication is continuous, silence is itself a form of communication
 Irreversible – messages sent cannot be taken back
 Contextual and iterative – all communication is based on previous experiences and
communications
 Multi‐faceted – communication utilises information from multiple sources (IAP2, 2006a:9).

Figure 6 Basic model of communications (adapted from Claude E Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of
Communication, University of Illinois Press 1949).
Good communication is underpinned by the following principles:
 Truthful – honest and accurate
 Fundamental – looks at the real issues or the core ideas
 Comprehensive – tells the whole story
 Consistent – matches the organisations other words and actions
 Clear – uses clear simple language and is logical and well organised
 Relevant – addresses the public’s interests/ issues
 Accessible – easily found and understood (appropriate font size, language, well publicised, allows
follow up etc)
 Timely – information is communicated early enough to allow action or feedback from the
community

Page 14

 Compassionate – shows care for the public’s losses, interests, emotions and concerns
 Allows feedback – creates opportunities for discussion, feedback, and exchange (Bojinka Bishop,
Principles for Authentic Communication, 2000 qv in IAP2, 2006a:9).
5.1.9 Sharing information
Conveying information relies on three steps:
1) Identifying the audience, their needs and concerns, language/ cultural differences, level of
knowledge
2) Identifying the message that needs to be conveyed, what does the organisation need to say,
does this match the principles of authentic communication
3) Determining the most appropriate method to communicate the message to the target
audience
5.1.10 Collecting and compiling input
In order to deliver the promise that community engagement will affect the outcome of decisions,
practitioners have a responsibility to gather the public’s input and compile it in a manner that will aid the
decision‐maker to understand what the public values.
In order to gather feedback (that is, to conduct any engagement above the ‘inform’ level) practitioners and
organisations need to be able to actively listen. Active listening is important when an organisation sincerely
wants to hear and understand what the public is saying. Active listening helps to build relationships which
are critical to community engagement and can assist in producing good outcomes in emotive situations.
5.1.11 Bringing people together
In order to seek out and facilitate the involvement of members of the public potentially affected by, or
interested in a decision, and to work at the ‘involve’ level of community engagement spectrum, it is
important to use communication skills that support effective dialogue between the public and decision‐
maker and among various other publics or communities.
At this higher level of engagement the goal is to ‘partner with the public in each aspect of the decision
including the development of alternatives and the identification of preferred solutions’. The promise to the
public from the organisation undertaking the engagement should be that ‘we will look to you for direct
advice and innovation in formulating solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the
decisions to the maximum extend possible’. For further information refer to the community engagement
spectrum in section 5.1.6.
5.2 Urban Renewal Community Engagement Framework
In 2008, Brisbane City Council drafted and adopted a document entitled ‘Neighbourhood Planning in
Renewal Areas: Community Engagement Framework – a model approach’ in order to improve the
transparency and consistency of planning and community engagement outcomes of town planning
processes being undertaken by Urban Renewal Brisbane (part of City Planning, Brisbane City Council).
Urban Renewal Brisbane (URB) delivers land‐use planning in inner Brisbane. Many of the areas the
organisation has planned for have traditionally contained large tracts of old industrial land. However,
many of the ‘easy’ redevelopment opportunities have already been delivered and the organisation is now
planning the renewal and densification of established inner city areas with mature or pre‐existing
communities. As these areas are often faced with rapid and high impact change – with or without the
regulatory influence of Council – concern, distress and contention in local communities is often present. In
order to improve outcomes, address concerns and gain community support for the outcomes of planning,
Council undertakes local planning. This local planning is subject to the engagement process broadly
outlined in the URB Community Engagement Framework. The framework however requires a unique
engagement strategy to be produced for each plan area to address local issues and differing constraints.

Page 15

Each strategy is drafted from components, tools and elements of the framework and is produced in the
early background stages of planning in order to direct each planning activity and the engagement behind it.
This overarching approach has been implemented for each planning project commenced since its adoption.
The framework won professional peer recognition in the 2008 Planning Institute Australia Qld Division
Planning Awards for Excellence and ongoing evaluation of participants in the community planning teams
has established that the engagement framework has fostered a higher level of belief that the Council is
listening and responding to residents’ concerns in the local planning process. This engagement framework
is therefore recommended to inform the TransLink Community Engagement Framework.
5.3 Brisbane City Council ‘customer focus’ initiatives
Brisbane City Council is a large organisation that provides diverse services to a large geographic area home
to over 1 million residents. The organisation is currently undergoing an extensive shift towards better
delivery of customer‐focused outcomes. From an organisational perspective significant resources are being
dedicated to make the organisation more customer‐focused. Indeed the ‘Community Engagement Centre
of Excellence” (the key internal advocate for authentic community engagement processes within Council)
effectively grew out of the ongoing implementation of this strategy. It seems TransLink is similarly trying to
turn that organisation’s focus towards the customer, however it is much earlier in the implementation
process than Brisbane City Council. It is likely that any future engagement processes will be built upon
TransLink’s current customer‐focus at the strategic organisational level.
5.4 TransLink Transit Authority Complaints Policy
5.4.1 Complaints Handling Policy
TransLink is the central point of customer contact for rail, bus and ferries in South East Queensland
providing information about timetables as well as complaint resolution. TransLink therefore has a key role
in communicating with its customers. In order to improve its practices, the organisation has recently
implemented a complaints management process that aims to deal with complaints in an accountable,
transparent, meaningful and timely fashion.
The process adopted is consistent with the Office of Public Service Commissioner’s (OPSC) Directive 13/06
‘Complaints Management Systems’ and the Australian Standard ISO 10002‐2006 ‘Customer satisfaction –
Guidelines for complaints handling in organisations’ (TransLink, 2009b:1).
The TransLink Complaints Management Policy is based on the following guiding principles:
 Visibility – TransLink will provide information about how and where to complain to customers, staff
and other stakeholders.
 Accessibility – Complainants can easily access the complaints management process and
information on the process.
 Responsiveness – All complainants should receive immediate acknowledgement that their
complaint has been received. Complainants should be treated courteously, and kept informed of
the progress of their complaint through the process.
 Objectivity – Each complaint should be addressed in an equitable, objective and unbiased manner
through the complaints management process.
 Confidentiality – Personally identifiable complainant information should be available where
needed, but only for the purposes of addressing the complaint within TransLink. The complainant’s
information will be actively protected from disclosure, unless the customer expressly consents to
its disclosure.
 Customer‐focussed approach – TransLink has a customer‐focussed approach which is open to
feedback, including complaints, and should show commitment to resolving complaints by its
actions.
 Accountability – TransLink will ensure that accountability for and reporting on the actions and
decisions of the organisation with respect to complaints management is clearly established.

Page 16

 Continual improvement – The continual improvement of the complaints management process and
the quality of services will be a permanent objective of TransLink (TransLink, 2009b: 1).
The policy clearly sets out that it does not apply to feedback obtained from consultation processes,
however the principles for good communication (a fundamental component of community consultation or
engagement) are very similar. TransLink would do well (commercially and otherwise) to be more proactive
in ensuring the values of its customers are fulfilled. Early and responsive processes provide constructive
avenues for community concerns to be addressed, rather than forcing people through a complaints process
to have their concerns heard.
5.5 Summary
The Urban Renewal Brisbane Community Engagement Framework offers an approach that could be
adopted by TransLink in order to structure their community engagement. The framework is consistent with
the IAP2 approach and its principles are reasonably consistent with the basis TransLink already uses in its
complaints management policy.
6 Interviews, discussion and feedback
6.1 Interviews with community engagement professionals
This research utilised informal discussions and formal in‐depth interviews with community engagement
professionals. Some of the key outcomes are listed below. The interview question sheet that guided the
initial more highly structured discussions is available as Appendix One and the Community Engagement
Plan integrating feedback from a peer review is attached as Appendix Two).
The major concepts raised through these discussions reinforced much of the IAP2 approach. Some of these
key points are listed below, and the remainder are simply incorporated into the general content of the
framework approach of the following section of this report.
 People want to have a say in decisions that affect them ‐ this is not an unreasonable expectation in
a democratic society.
 Engagement will require a high focus on the customer (that is, a customer‐focused approach) as
well as strong communication skills.
 The sponsor organisation will need to tie the different strands together to successfully undertake
engagement including staff training, organisational commitment, strategic planning, action and
evaluation etc.
 Co‐design of engagement plans with internal and external stakeholders themselves is key to
understanding how and why they want to get involved or what benefits professionals perceive
engagement as contributing to their work – the time and energy of stakeholder contributions
should be respected.
 A framework approach should be undertaken ‐ the gap between why and how organisations should
engage needs to be a key component of an organisation’s approach. The individual implementing
engagement processes needs to understand why engagement is important and how it can aid their
workflow. Getting people to acknowledge the strengths and be sensitive to critiques of
weaknesses of engagement themselves, will achieve a better outcome than forcing engagement
processes upon them. It will also enable practitioners to acknowledge internally the specifics of
their engagement context, the value they can leverage from it and the barriers they face to
implementing authentic engagement.
6.2 Online discussion forum contribution
The author has contributed 356 posts on the Railbackontrack.org discussion forum broadly on this topic.
Many of these posts have clarified the current fare changes being implemented. This has allowed a more
deeply informed discussion with the members of the forum about their values and responses to the fare

Page 17

announcements. Railbackontrack.org is a local pressure group that receives a significant level of media
attention. The author has therefore used this avenue to promote the ongoing outcomes of this research.
For more information, search for user “dwb” on Railbackontrack.org.
7 Analysis – a framework approach
The following framework approach has been adopted as a synthesis of the outcomes from the in‐depth
interviews, the IAP2 and customer focus training, on the job experience with community planning teams
and the peer review of the engagement plan.
7.1 TransLink’s purpose, vision and organisational objectives
TransLink’s purpose is to provide public transport services to the people of South East Queensland that
enable them affordable, quick, safe, comfortable and efficient access the services and destinations that
they need via a reliable and frequent public transportation system. This system should offer a true
alternative to the car and be a valued part of people’s day‐to‐day lives giving them access to employment,
education, shopping, entertainment, and health and community facilities.
TransLink’s vision is to be the best public transport system in Australia. To do this, the organisation will
need to be an operationally excellent organisation that is trusted to deliver what it promises. Its services
will only be as good as its staff and as such the organisation will have to endeavour to be a dynamic
organisation with committed and well trained staff (TL, 2008:3).
TransLink’s actions must respond to the following organisation‐wide objectives.
 Contribute to the community and economy
 Contribute to a clean and healthy environment
 Contribute to a financially sustainable transport system
 Provide a quality journey from decision to destination
 Reduce complexity, increase customer capability
 Focus on core business
 Build partnerships
 Build and operationally excellent organisation
 Do what the organisations says it will
 Be a place people want to be (TL, 2008:5).
7.2 ‘TransLink 12’ and relevance to community engagement
Change offers challenges and opportunities to an organisation. In order to capitalise on the opportunities
and overcome the challenges of the changing environment TransLink works in, the organisation is focussing
on 12 key priorities over the next three to five years. These priorities align with the strategic plan and will
help TransLink become the organisation it needs to be to deliver the public transport network that the
community wants.
The priorities are: (1) Organisational structure; (2) Customer service strategy; (3) Delivery partnerships ‐
rail; (4) Delivery partnerships ‐ bus/ferry; (5) Planning the network; (6) Growing fare‐box revenue; (7)
Commercial opportunities; (8) External relations; (9) Gold Coast Rapid Transit; (10) People strategy; (11)
Investment and project control, and; (12) Financial control and KPI reporting.
Effective community engagement will help to deliver seven of the twelve priorities identified by TransLink
as strategic organisational commitments. Each of the priorities that could benefit from engaging with the
community is listed below:
 Organisational structure
Community engagement will require a responsive organisational structure. The organisation will

Page 18

need to be structured so as to enable development of relationships with the community and to
foster internal sharing of community engagement resources for support, advocacy and training.
 Customer service strategy
TransLink should build upon its customer‐focused strategy to deliver quality communication and
community engagement.
 Planning the network
TransLink and other government departments all prepare plans and consult at various levels with
the community. It is important to recognise what has come before, however local and region wide
changes will still require engagement with the community and provision/communication of
accurate, concise and helpful information.
 Growing fare‐box revenue
A planned approach developed through structured engagement will support the ongoing
requirement for TransLink to produce a five yearly fare structure that will help grow fare‐box
revenue whilst still meeting equity and government priorities in relation to modal shift etc.
 External relations
A community engagement framework and engagement plans will provide consistency and
transparency for when the organisation is working with community members, organisations and
stakeholders.
 Gold Coast Rapid Transit
A project of this scale will require community engagement throughout various stages of the
project.
 People strategy
Community engagement skills training provides opportunities for professional development within
the organisation and also offers broader career horizons to staff.
7.3 TransLink’s engagement context
7.3.1 Large region
South East Queensland (SEQ) covers 22,890 square kilometres, stretching 240 kilometres from Noosa in the
north to the Queensland‐New South Wales border in the south, and 160 kilometres west to Toowoomba. It
is Australia's fastest growing region. By 2031, its population is expected to grow from 2.8 million to 4.4
million people.
The SEQ region includes land covered by 11 city and regional local governments including the State capital.
Its regional landscape is a rich mix of bushland and beaches, ranges and paddocks, rivers and lakes.
SEQ’s population is heavily urbanised and is generally concentrated along the coast between Noosa and
Coolangatta – this is the area where TransLink currently offers services.
7.3.2 Multiple stakeholders
TransLink must deal with a broad range of internal and external stakeholders in order to fulfil its functions.
The term ‘community’ is used broadly and extends beyond the view of users or operators. A community
can be defined as a group of people united by at least one common characteristic such as geography,
shared interests, values, experiences, or traditions. For each project, there will be those who are more
impacted or interested than most, and these are identified as stakeholders. For each project there are also
key agencies and organisations that are essential for the development and implementation of the project,
and these are identified as TransLink partners.

Page 19

7.3.3 High consumer service expectations
TransLink works within the transport field where consumers have very high expectations – particularly
those with access to a private car. TransLink needs to manage consumer expectations of level of service
and ability to cater to changing service demands within the cost boundaries and resources available to the
organisation. There are significant constraints outside the control of the organisation that impact on its
service delivery and these constraints are often not well understood by the community. Good
communication is thus a keystone component of good community engagement.
7.3.4 Key decisions have already been made through other government plans
TransLink delivers public transport service changes, information and planning. However it is important to
recognise that transport planning is not solely TransLink’s responsibility. Multiple levels of government
contribute to, or impact on, transport planning. In delivering public transport services TransLink must
acknowledge and respond to the planning being undertaken by the Department of Transport and Main
Roads, Brisbane City Council and other key partners.
Significantly this means that TransLink will be required to respond to the vision, policies, objectives and
plans of the soon to be released Connecting SEQ 2031 (otherwise known as the Integrated Regional
Transport Plan) in addition to documents such as Our Shared Vision: Living in Brisbane 2026.
Certain key decisions will have been made throughout the planning process that may not be able to be
changed or highly influenced by stakeholders. In these circumstances TransLink recognises its role to
educate the community, will clearly articulate the scope of engagement activities and inform the
community about what decisions have already been made.
7.3.5 History of non‐engagement and lack of coordination
TransLink appears to have struggled with the concept of community engagement since its formation in
2004. Efforts have been sporadic with the only major consultation occurring as part of the initial TransLink
Network Plan. Many of the learnings from this consultation seem to have been forgotten and the promises
made for further engagement have not been fulfilled. Over the last two years TransLink’s actions appear to
have been particularly unresponsive to community values. This is particularly obvious in relation to public
transport fares policy development. For example, TransLink has still not released any of the background
material to the fares strategy prior to its implementation, even rejecting requests made under Right to
Information legislation.
7.4 Purpose of an engagement framework
A community engagement framework would serve the following main purposes.
7.4.1 Demonstrate organisational commitment to authentic engagement
TransLink should produce a community engagement framework that represents how the organisation will
implement its commitment to deliver customer responsive service delivery via effective and authentic
community engagement processes. This will involve engaging its own staff, partners and community
representatives in developing an agreed approach.
7.4.2 Integrate community values into TransLink’s planning and service delivery
TransLink wants to become a trusted organisation that is seen to deliver its promises. It will engage with
the people of South East Queensland to determine how and what it needs to deliver in order to become
the best public transport network in Australia. This will take into account the community’s values and
TransLink will continually check back with the community to see whether the services it is delivering have
the balance right in regards to affordability, security, safety, comfort, reliability, frequency and other issues
as raised on an ongoing basis though community consultation.

Page 20

7.4.3 Maintain transparent process within a flexible framework
TransLink is only one organisation out of many delivering products, services and engagement in the
transport field. At times, TransLink will need to rely on policy developed through other organisations.
TransLink will set out a clear scope for each of its engagement projects so that the community:
 Knows how it can be involved
 Has access to the information needed to be involved
 Understands the constraints on their involvement
 Understands how what they contribute will affect the outcome/ decision/ policy/ implementation.
7.4.4 Enhance the quality and consistency of engagement process and outcomes
As an organisation, TransLink has not always had the skills or commitment to engage at an appropriate
level due to lack of managerial commitment to the processes of community engagement. TransLink should
ensure ongoing training is provided to its staff to ensure that different projects undertaken with the
community are of a consistently high engagement standard. It will also need to ensure its governance
approaches promote such an approach and that continual internal learning and development occurs.
7.4.5 Assist TransLink staff and consultants to plan community engagement activities
The development of a community engagement framework will enable TransLink and consultants to work
together to plan how they will engage with the community across the varied projects TransLink undertakes.
TransLink should commit to developing new engagement methodologies with the communities it works
with to ensure that the organisation is listening and working with the community in a way that suits not
only TransLink but the community as well.
7.5 Commitment and principles for engaging
Clearly defined community engagement principles and objectives are fundamental to the success of any
engagement activity.
The following principles and objectives should form a generic approach that is applicable for a wide variety
of community engagement activities and projects. These should be expanded upon, tailored and adjusted
within each community engagement plan.
Principles:

Figure 7 Principles of engagement
Engagement objectives
 Communicate/ provide information to the public
 Integrate community values into TransLink’s planning
 Get input from the public
 Test assumptions
 Prove legitimacy
 Build relationships with the public
 Encourage community ownership of project objectives
 Build consensus through dialogue with the public

Page 21

 Provide feedback to the public
 Improving outcomes
 Evaluate the engagement process and outcomes
7.6 Spectrum of engagement
Community engagement covers a wide range of TransLink‐stakeholder connections, involving different
levels of engagement that sit along an engagement continuum.
All levels of engagement are legitimate, depending on the project specific objectives for engaging and the
outcomes sought.
Different levels of engagement are also possible during different project stages of the same project (inform,
consult, involve, collaborate, empower). Multiple levels of engagement may be supported at different
stages by varying the techniques, facilitation style and processes. This will ensure that each stage of
engagement achieves the relevant community engagement objectives.
The engagement spectrum should be referenced in each stage of preparing a community engagement plan
and undertaking engagement activities and processes. TransLink should initially focus on the first three
levels of engagement (inform, consult and involve) in order to build engagement skills and trust with the
community. Over time it should review the results of engagement and ensure the appropriate level of
engagement is being planned for and achieved.
These levels include the following goals and promises:
Inform Consult Involve
Goal of To provide the public with To obtain public feedback on To work directly with the public
community balanced and objective analysis, alternatives and/or throughout the process to
engagement at information to assist them in decisions ensure that public concerns and
each level on the understanding the problem, aspirations are consistently
spectrum alternatives and/or solutions understood and considered
Promise to the We will keep you informed We will keep you informed We will work with you to ensure
public and listen to and that your concerns and
acknowledge concerns and aspirations are directly reflected
aspirations, and provide in the alternatives developed
feedback on how public input and provide feedback on how
influenced the decision public input influenced the
decision
Figure 8 Goals of community engagement on spectrum
7.7 Techniques and tools
There is a wide range of community engagement techniques appropriate for different stakeholders and
different project stages. Rather than providing a definitive list of techniques, a framework approach
identifies some key techniques that must be used and allows for the inclusion of additional techniques as
required on a project‐by‐project basis.
TransLink should continue to investigate and develop new and innovative community engagement
techniques particularly new media technologies via the web including social networking and new online
multimedia publishing and communication tools (issuu.com, youtube.com, vimeo.com, scribd.com etc).
Key techniques that can form part of each project community engagement model are outlined in the table
below:

Page 22

Technique Characteristics
Web‐based/ new media Online, creative, cutting edge
Community Reference More traditional format of community engagement that offers the strength of
Groups face‐to‐face discussion, workshop activities, presentations etc
Surveys Information collection/ confirmation technique – generally only applied up to
‘consult’ on the engagement spectrum
Web discussion/ wikis Online moderated discussion forum – a good way to build upon past
discussions and share information across a group
Briefings/ meetings Single or group briefings, meetings – good for consultation with key
stakeholder groups
Social networking Offers new opportunities to tap hard to reach and important stakeholder
groups including youth via services like Twitter, Facebook, Google groups,
Scribd communities etc
Figure 9 Techniques for engagement
7.8 Identified stakeholders
Community Partners Government
– Bus/ rail/ ferry/ multimodal – Local businesses (existing and – Premier, Treasurer and
– University and school students potential Go card resellers) Ministers
– Public transport users – Health organisations – CEO, CFO and Board of
o Children and pensioners – Queensland Council of Social TransLink
o Low income earners Service (QCOSS) – TransLink Transit Authority
o Families – Local governments within service staff
o City‐bound commuters area – Department of Transport
o Non‐CBD trip focussed workers – Operators and Main Roads staff
o Casual/ shift workers – Department of Infrastructure
o Late night users and Planning staff
o Entertainment/shopping users – Internal Working Groups
o Long distance travellers (interurban)
o Short distance travellers (urban)
o Single, off‐peak, weekly, monthly
paper ticket users
o QR 3, 6 or 12 month periodical ticket
holders
o Taxi users (potential audience)
o Vision/mobility/ intellectually
impaired
– Public transport advocates
– Future possible public transport users
– Community organisations
Figure 10 Identified stakeholders
7.9 Evaluation and review processes
Monitoring of community engagement activities needs to be done regularly to enable effective project
management. Within each planning project, managers should set up a monitoring and evaluation process
to ensure specific community engagement objectives are being achieved and to ascertain if new
engagement related issues arise. These reviews are designed to ensure adaptive and responsive processes.
Learnings from across the range of projects undertaken should feed into a standard review of the base
framework to occur on an annual cycle.

Page 23

8 Recommendations
This research has five key recommendations.
8.1 Commitment by decision‐makers to engage
TransLink should seek to gain internal (CEO, board members etc) and external (Minister, Treasurer etc)
decision‐maker support to engage with the community. The organisation should then commit to re‐draft its
approach to public transport fares in light of feedback and learnings from community engagement.
TransLink will need to proactively publish and share information and background studies. This in itself
represents a significant shift in mindset but provides a significant keystone for engagement.
In order to remove any doubt as to its intentions, the Queensland Government should review the Transport
Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 and the Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act
2008 in order to ensure these specifically include reference to community engagement as a method for
fulfilling the objectives of the act, the responsibilities of the CEO of TransLink and the functions of the
organisation.
8.2 Collaborative creation and adoption of community engagement framework
TransLink should internally and with a small selection of its stakeholders, draft and adopt a community
engagement framework that will structure community engagement across TransLink’s activities including
revision of the TransLink Network Plan, future service improvements and fare strategies. It is important
that the framework approach be utilised in order to ensure organisational learning as to why TransLink
should engage and how it might go about achieving its stated goals. This is more likely to be successfully
implemented from within the organisation.
8.3 Application of community engagement framework to Fares Strategy
TransLink should adapt and implement the draft recommended TransLink Fares: Community Engagement
Plan (attached as Appendix Two). The organisation should place priority on the issues and values raised by
the community through the engagement process in both re‐drafting the fare strategy and while
implementing it.
8.4 Research into new media opportunities for engagement
Additional research should be undertaken within the new media/ internet technology field to determine
which tools and tactics which could be employed more effectively than more traditional approaches. For
example this may involve the use of contemporary technologies such as blogs, discussion forums and wikis
rather than meetings, briefings or newsletters.
TransLink would also benefit from investigation into place‐based interactions/ comments/ feedback.
Mapping technologies available via the web and/or iPhone applications would seem to offer significant
opportunities in collecting route/location specific information, but also offer advanced budgetary
preference style tools that could prove useful in collecting and compiling group value‐preferences.
Social networking may provide a key avenue for TransLink to effectively tap audiences (such as youth – a
key consumer category) traditionally overlooked in many of the more traditional community engagement
processes.
8.5 Research into regional housing and transport affordability
Additional research should also be undertaken on the topic of ‘affordability’ in relation to public transport.
Given that transport costs are inextricably tied with housing costs, and the perception and impact of
changes differs on socio‐economic status and location, geographic information systems (GIS) may allow a
more sophisticated approach to be determined. This would examine how location, mortgage/rent
payments, income, household car ownership and public transport access and use can result in geospatial

Page 24

inequities across the city. Such research is likely to become more important over time as an input into
future community engagement activities especially projects reviewing public transport fares.
9 Conclusion
This research has sought to communicate a practical and pragmatic approach to community engagement
that could be rapidly adapted and adopted by TransLink. It suggests a framework approach to community
engagement be developed across the organisation that can be tailored to the different engagement and
communication requirements of different projects undertaken while still providing transparency, clarity
and ease of use.
This research has also drafted a TransLink Fare Strategy: Community Engagement Plan for the
consideration of TransLink should the organisation gain decision‐maker commitment to re‐think the current
and highly unresponsive approach to public transport fares.
This research has been developed from an extensive basis of theory, practice and research and
recommends an approach that requires deliberative decision‐making processes. At the heart of
deliberative practice is discussion about stakeholder values and the trade‐offs required. This discussion
should involve decision‐makers, professionals, stakeholders, interested individuals and affected community
members. Unlike more quantitatively based approaches such as market research or mathematical fare
elasticities research, this discursive approach is fundamentally aimed at changing value‐laden tradeoffs
rather than simply excavating the tipping points in people’s existing behaviour under existing conditions.
It should be recognised that the applicability of the outcome of the research is premised on a shift in
decision‐maker attitude within TransLink and the Government that recognises the benefits to be gained
from undertaking authentic community engagement.
It should also be noted that authentic community engagement takes time, commitment and trust.
TransLink will have to work hard to build trust within the community, and the technical and communication
skills for effective engagement long after the political and managerial commitment is made.

Page 25

10 References
Abelson, J. et al. (2003). ‘Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public
participation processes’, in Social Science and Medicine, volume 57, pp239‐251, Pergamon Press.
Accessed from http://precaution.org/lib/06/deliberations_about_deliberative_methods.030701.pdf
Bremner, D. (2008). A critical examination of the strengths and weaknesses of participatory planning, with a view that
communities are at the heart of development and should be at the forefront of development planning and practice,
submitted to UQ May 2008 for PLAN7612 Development Planning: Theory and Practice.
Bremner, D. (2009). Research project: Determining recommendations to the creation of a fares strategy to support
improved public transport in South East Queensland, submitted to QUT June 2009.
Published at http://scribd.com/doc/21280263
Bouma, G. and Ling R. (2004). The Research Process 5th Edition, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Casey, S. (2009). ‘TransLink reads the signs on weather‐beaten Go Card machines’, on Brisbane Times, published 26
November 2009.
Accessed from http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/translink‐reads‐the‐signs‐on‐weatherbeaten‐go‐card‐
machines‐20091126‐jsgt.html.
Department of Infrastructure and Planning. (2009). South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009‐2031, Brisbane:
Queensland Government.
Accessed from http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/seqregionalplan
IAP2. (2006a). Student Manual: Communication for effective public participation, Denver: International Association for
Public Participation.
IAP2. (2006b). Student Manual: Planning for effective public participation, Denver: International Association for Public
Participation.
IAP2. (2006c). Student Manual: Techniques for effective public participation, Denver: International Association for
Public Participation.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching 2nd edition, London: Sage.
Moore, T. (2009). Cheaper fares proposal by mid‐year: TransLink, on Brisbane Times, 21 April 2009.
Accessed from http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cheaper‐fares‐proposal‐by‐midyear‐TransLink‐
20090420‐ackt.html
Nolan, R. (2009). Paperless public transport a smarter way to go, Ministerial media release 15 October 2009.
Accessed from http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=66877
TransLink. (2007a). TransLink Consultation Report, Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Accessed from http://download.translink.com.au/networkplan/consultreport.pdf
TransLink. (2007b). TransLink Network Plan: 10 year plan 2004/5‐2013/14; 4 year program 2004/5‐2007/8, Brisbane:
Accessed from http://download.translink.com.au/networkplan/complete.pdf
TransLink. (2007c). TransLink Strategic Directions 2007‐2011, Brisbane: TransLink.
TransLink. (2008). TransLink Strategic Directions 2008‐2012, Brisbane: TransLink.
TransLink. (2009a). Public transport going paperless, Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Accessed from http://download.translink.com.au/ticketing/100104_fares.pdf
TransLink. (2009b). TransLink Transit Authority Complaints Management Policy, Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Accessed from http://download.translink.com.au/about/091028_complaintspolicy.pdf
TransLink. (2009c). TransLink Transit Authority Complaints Management, Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Accessed from http://download.translink.com.au/about/091028_complaintsmanagement.pdf
Urban Renewal Brisbane. (2008). Neighbourhood Planning in Renewal Areas: Community engagement framework –a
model approach, Brisbane: Brisbane City Council.
Accessed from http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/bccwr/lib502/neighbourhood_planning_in_urban_renewal_areas.pdf
Vuchic, V.R. (2005). Urban Transit: Operations, Planning and Economics, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Page 26

11 Bibliography
Brisbane City Council. (2007). Transport Plan for Brisbane 2008‐2026, Brisbane: Brisbane City Council.
Department of Communities. (2004). Evaluating community engagement, Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Department of Communities. (2005). A guide to community engagement methods and techniques, Brisbane:
Department of Communities. (2005). Community engagement in the business of government, Brisbane: Queensland
Government.
Department of Communities. (2005). Engaging Queenslanders: An introduction to community engagement, Brisbane:
Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2001). Community Engagement Division: Directions Statement, Brisbane:
Nielsen. (2008). TransLink Customer Satisfaction Research Program, South East Queensland Report Quarter 3 2007,
Brisbane: The Nielsen Company.
Office of Urban Management. (2005). South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005‐2026, Brisbane: Queensland
Government.
Queensland Government. (2003). Engaging Queenslanders: Get Involved. Improving community engagement across
the Queensland Public Sector, Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Queensland Transport.(1997). Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland, Brisbane: Queensland
Government.
Queensland Transport. (2001). A Community Service Obligation Framework for Public Transport in South East
Queensland, Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Queensland Transport. (2007). Moving People, Connecting Communities: a passenger transport strategy for
Queensland 2007‐2017, Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Queensland Transport. (2008). Queensland Transport Corporate Plan 2008‐12, Brisbane: Queensland Government.
TransLink. (2007). TransLink Network Plan: 10 year plan 2004/05‐2013/14, 4 year program 2004/5‐2013/14, Brisbane:
Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act (Qld). 1994.
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TranstOpPasTA94.pdf (accessed March 13, 2009).
Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act (Qld). 2008.
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpTLAA08.pdf (accessed March 13, 2009).

Websites:
IAP2 – International Association of Public Participation (accessed http://www.iap2.org/)
Metlink – Your guide to public transport in Melbourne and Victoria (accessed http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au/)
Myki – its’ your key (accessed http://www.myki.com.au)
TransLink – Public transport information (accessed http://www.TransLink.com.au/)
Transperth Homepage (accessed http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/)
True Affordability and Location Efficiency: The H+T Affordability Index (accessed http://htaindex.cnt.org)

Page 27

12 Appendices

Page 28

12.1 Objectives of the Relevant Acts
TransLink must act in a manner that meets the minimum requirements as set out in various pieces of
legislation including the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 (TOPTA) and the Transport
Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008 (TOTTAA). TransLink’s behaviours must meet the
‘objectives of the act’ and ‘responsibilities of the CEO’ as laid out in the TOPTA. The ‘functions’ of the
organisation are described in further detail in the TOTTAA.
The objectives are as below (section 2, TOPTA):
(1) This Act is intended to achieve the provision of the best possible public passenger transport at reasonable
cost to the community and government, keeping government regulation to a minimum.
(2) However, this Act recognises that market entry restrictions may be needed in the public interest.
(3) The overall objectives of this Act are, consistent with the objectives of the Transport Planning and
Coordination Act 1994, to—
(a) enable the effective planning and efficient management of public passenger transport in the
State; and
(b) provide a system of public passenger transport in the State that—
(i) is responsive to community needs; and
(ii) offers an attractive alternative to private transport in a way that reduces the overall
environmental, economic and social costs of passenger transport; and
(iii) addresses the challenges of future growth; and
(iv) provides a high level of accountability; and
(v) provides public passenger services at a reasonable cost to the community and
government; and
(c) promote the personal safety of persons using public passenger transport; and
(d) provide a reasonable level of community access and mobility in support of the Government’s
social justice objectives; and
(e) provide an adequate framework for coordinating the different forms of public passenger
transport to form a comprehensive, integrated and efficient system.
The responsibilities of the CEO of TransLink are to (section 10, TOPTA):
(1) The chief executive must ensure—
(a) public passenger transport is developed in a way that—
(i) takes into account best practice and national benchmarks; and
(ii) promotes, within overall transport objectives, the safety of passengers; and
(iii) encourages efficient, competitive and commercial behaviour in the provision of public
passenger transport; and
(iv) ensures a strategic and integrated approach to the provision of public passenger
transport; and
(v) promotes energy efficiency and reduces adverse environmental impact; and
(b) public passenger transport operates to achieve—
(i) efficiency; and
(ii) cost effectiveness; and
(iii) the highest quality and accessibility of services, and effective infrastructure, consistent
with reasonable cost; and
(c) funding provided by the State for public passenger transport is applied in an efficient, cost
effective and equitable way.
(2) Each annual report of the department must include a report on how effect has been given to subsection (1)
during the year to which the report relates.
And the functions are described as (section 3, TOTTTA):
(1) The main purpose of this 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.

Page 29

(2) Other purposes of this Act are, consistently with the objectives of the Transport Planning and Coordination
Act 1994, to do the following in relation to the TransLink area—
(a) enable the effective operational planning and efficient management of mass transit services in a
way that—
(i) is responsive to community needs; and
(ii) offers an attractive alternative to private transport and reduces the overall
environmental, economic and social costs of passenger transport; and
(iii) addresses the challenges of future growth; and
(iv) provides a high level of accountability; and
(v) is at a reasonable cost to the community and government;
(b) provide a reasonable level of community access and mobility in support of the government’s
social justice objectives;
(c) provide a framework for coordinating the provision of the services under service contracts or
other contracts to form a comprehensive, integrated and efficient mass transit network;
(d) help the government achieve its congestion management priorities relating to transport.
(3) To achieve the purposes, this Act establishes the TransLink Transit Authority to manage mass transit
services in the TransLink area.

Page 30

12.2 Interview guiding notes
a. Introduction:
Review interview sheet ‐ topic, ethics as per handout
Topic: ‘How TransLink could engage with the community to produce an equitable and future‐focussed fare
structure for South East Queensland’s public transport network’”& background
“Do you have any questions or concerns you would like to discuss?”
b. Purpose of interview:
“I’d like specifically to discuss your personal experiences in relation to successfully achieving good
community engagement within government. I’d like to briefly discuss why we should/shouldn’t engage
before moving on to discuss how to engage, for instance different methods and tools that fit different
situations”
1.0 Why to engage?
1.1 So firstly I’d like to discuss your personal approach about WHY we should or shouldn’t engage with
communities?
1.2 Now I’d like you to compare and contrast this with your professional experiences as to what reasons
decision‐makers (either political or managerial) themselves, decide to engage?
1.3 What values should underscore community engagement activities/processes?
2.0 How to engage?
“I’d now like to discuss practical methods of HOW to deliver good engagement with communities.”
2.1 What tools, methods and frameworks seem to work?
2.2 How do you achieve decision‐maker support for CE processes and outcomes?
2.3 Who do you engage with when the issue is controversial and geographically widespread?
2.4 What barriers have you experienced in implementing a CE approach?
2.5 What methods do you use to overcome these barriers?
3.0 Wrap up
3.1 “I’d like to thank you again for your time and contribution to this research. Do you mind if I contact you
again to further discuss elements from today and to review a draft CE strategy.”

Page 31

Eastern Corridor Planning Project Marketing communication plan

12.3 TransLink Fare Strategy: Community Engagement Plan

Recommended Draft
TransLink Fare Strategy:
Community Engagement Plan
1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................2
2 Background...................................................................................................................................2
2.1 Legislative Requirement for a Fare Strategy 2
2.2 South East Queensland Service Area 2
2.3 TransLink’s vision for 2012 2
3 Community Engagement Plan .......................................................................................................3
3.1 Key themes 3
3.2 Key outcomes 3
3.3 TransLink’s Engagement spectrum 3
3.4 Community Engagement & Communication Objectives 4
4 Situational Analysis/Background...................................................................................................4
4.1 Engaging within constraints 5
4.2 Increasing revenue is integral to rolling out new services 5
5 Key communication messages: .....................................................................................................5
5.1 TransLink 5
5.2 Fare Strategy 6
6 Stakeholders.................................................................................................................................6
6.1 Internal 6
6.2 External 6
6.3 Target audiences 8
6.4 Communication tools/ tactics 8
7 Communication Challenges/Issues................................................................................................9
8 Implementation plan/ Project timeline .......................................................................................11

Page 1 – Community Engagement Plan

TransLink Fare Strategy Draft Recommended Community Engagement Plan
1 Introduction
Public transport is a key public service. In South East Queensland (SEQ) improvements have been made to
the operation of public transport services since the integration of fares, planning and customer contact via
TransLink in mid 2004. In early 2008 smart card electronic ticketing equipment was launched in South East
Queensland across TransLink operators region by region. The system is called ‘Go card’ and has been fully
operational across all operators including the privately run Brisbane AirTrain service since late 2008.
Go card offers convenience and ease for passengers, improved data collection and financial accountability
for Government and operators and enhanced efficiency particularly for bus operations due to improved
passenger boarding times.
TransLink is continuing to implement the vision that by 2012 all passengers pay for their travel via Go card.
In order to reach this ambitious vision it is integral to recognise the need for community engagement,
marketing, and communications to be tied together to develop policy that addresses community concerns,
clarifies misunderstanding and promotes the Go card.
2 Background
2.1 Legislative Requirement for a Fare Strategy
The Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act requires the TransLink Transit Authority to prepare and
submit to the Minister a fare strategy at least every five years. Since mid 2009 the authority has been
working on a fare strategy. To meet government timelines the first strategy was written with minimal
community engagement. This strategy suffered significant backlash and community opposition to the plan.
For this reason the Minister has made a commitment to the community to publish the draft Fare Strategy
and has requested TransLink to review it in light of community concerns. This will ultimately improve the
plan’s responsiveness to community values and enhance community support for Go card, TransLink and the
2.2 South East Queensland Service Area
The TransLink Transit Authority is responsible for the planning and regulation of public transportation in
SEQ. The area covers several local government areas and has a resident population of around 2.6 million
people. By 2031 the area is expected to be home to in excess of 4 million residents.
2.3 TransLink’s vision for 2012
TransLink has undertaken an internal strategic planning process to develop an exciting vision for the future.
By 2012 we will be:
 The best public transport system in Australia through partnering with operators and local agencies
we will create an innovative, efficient and attractive system that people want to use
 An operationally excellent organisation – we will build professional and effective processes and
continually learn from our own and others experiences
 A trusted organisation – we will be a responsive, responsible and respectful organisation and in
doing so, have the confidence of the community and its government representatives
 A place people want to be – we will continue to be a dynamic organisation and empower our people
to live the values of:
- Making a difference
- Collaboration
- Getting things done
- Respect
- Professionalism
- Customer focus
- Enjoying our work (TTA, Strategic Plan).

3 Community Engagement Plan
3.1 Key themes
Implement a plan that addresses four key themes:
1. Encourage participation by as many members of the community as possible by providing clear, simple
information about the draft strategy and how to get involved. This will take a two‐tiered approach of
general information to a broad audience, as well as active engagement with specific target audiences.
2. Demonstrate a willingness to enter into a positive, long‐term relationship with the community by
listening to and responding/acting on their concerns and ideas. TransLink’s actions in redefining the
fare strategy are likely to colour all future consultation/engagement the organisation undertakes
including the TransLink Network Plan and future fare strategies
3. Minimise the flow‐on of negative effects and perceptions associated with changes to fares and ongoing
implementation of Go card
4. Consult and engage at key points in the project’s progress to update and inform community, with call
to participate in the next stage.
3.2 Key outcomes
The key outcomes of this Community Engagement Plan are to:
 Overcome community concerns and issues and ensure users, businesses, tax payers, community
groups, other stakeholders and the general community are kept up‐to‐date of changes affecting
them
 Ensure the community is authentically engaged in the development of the TransLink Fare Strategy
and that the resultant strategy is responsive to government, community, stakeholder and user
values
 Ensure the fare strategy is endorsed by Government and stakeholders and broadly accepted by
community and users
 Ensure that the communication of fare changes is undertaken with transparency and fairness in
order to improve community understanding of the fare strategy
 Evaluate our performance and learn from the engagement process
3.3 TransLink’s Engagement spectrum
The table below outlines the three lower levels of community engagement/ public input under the
International Association of Public Participation ‘spectrum’ (IAP2, 2006:35). Although there are five levels
of engagement, TransLink currently seeks to engage on the below first three levels. As the organisation
develops the skills and trust of the community, TransLink should seek to increase the level of public input.
Goal of To provide the public with To obtain public feedback on To work directly with the public
community balanced and objective analysis, alternatives and/or throughout the process to
engagement at information to assist them in decisions ensure that public concerns and
each level on the understanding the problem, aspirations are consistently
spectrum alternatives and/or solutions understood and considered
Promise to the We will keep you informed We will keep you informed We will work with you to ensure
public and listen to and that your concerns and
acknowledge concerns and aspirations are directly reflected
aspirations, and provide in the alternatives developed
feedback on how public input and provide feedback on how
influenced the decision public input influenced the
decision


3.4 Community Engagement & Communication Objectives
TransLink will use the feedback received from stakeholders, community and users to inform the redrafting
of the TransLink Fare Strategy.
The plan has the following S.M.A.R.T. (specific, measurable, ambitious/ achievable, realistic, timed)
objectives and the level of engagement they relate to:
Objective Level of engagement*
Engage the community in re‐drafting the TransLink Fare Strategy 
Involve the community in deciding how it is engaged 
Communicate project scope and objectives to the community 
Communicate that TransLink and the government are listening to the community’s 
concerns
Involve stakeholders, users and community (particularly public transport reliant 
members of the community) in the process
Share information as broadly as possible making use of creative new technologies 
Seek community feedback using creative new technologies  
Provide information about the project and how the community can get involved 
Work with the community to identify potential issues and solutions 
Engage the community in making trade‐offs 
Attract a targeted level of community engagement in the planning process (e.g. through   
nominations for service region Community Reference Groups (CRGs), submissions,
online discussion forum, online surveys, attendance at information sessions, etc.)
Create an understanding in the community that strong finances are integral to improved 
public transport services
Promote understanding that TransLink is planning and delivering an improved public 
transport system for the community of SEQ with benefits to the rest of the State
Help the community and stakeholders understand the reasons for implementing Go 
card and fare changes
Promote outcomes of previous community consultation such as the TransLink Network 
Plan
Promote the Fare Strategy as a key initiative in delivering the desired network as 
defined by the TransLink Network Plan and other community consultations
Effectively mitigate negative reaction to fare strategy implementation 
Evaluate outcomes and community perceptions of how well we are engaging 
Learn from and improve our community engagement process 
Figure 11 Community engagement and communication objectives
* To find out more about the level of engagement, refer to the IAP2 community engagement spectrum.
4 Situational Analysis/Background
TransLink was established in 2004 to integrate public transport fares is SEQ. Cubic is the contractor
responsible for provision of the smart card payment system named ‘Go card’ (the automatic fare collection
system).
Go card is operational (and predominantly stable) across three local modes (rail, bus and ferry) and
eighteen different private operators. Despite this, there are still significant barriers (related to fares and
charges) preventing more widespread adoption of smart card ticketing by public transport users and non‐
users alike. These barriers are in addition to customer difficulties obtaining, uploading credit and utilising
the technology.

Users complain of insufficient access to tag on/off machines, non‐beeping machines, faded unreadable
display screens, clumsy computer graphical‐user‐interfaces on the value‐adding‐machines and slow to open
and close gates at ‘closed’ railway stations.
TransLink announced significant changes to public transport fares in late 2009 including 20% increase in Go
card singles, 40% increase in paper ticketing products and removal by end of 2010 of all paper ticketing.
Consumers rejected this approach as unresponsive and inappropriate and the Government requested
TransLink undertake engagement processes to ensure the Fares Strategy is responsive to stakeholder and
community values.
4.1 Engaging within constraints
The TransLink service area is a physically large and demographically diverse community. In order to
manage interactions with the community it is proposed to undertake a multilayered approach to
communications and consultation.
High level involvement will be restricted in number. The higher level of regional Community Reference
Groups (CRGs) will actively participate in developing and reviewing the fare strategy. Information
supporting these activities and the fare strategy will be published and shared as broadly as possible by
TransLink. Numerous informal and formal, traditional and contemporary opportunities will be provided to
input to the planning process and make submissions including:
 Community reference groups/ meetings/ briefings
 Correspondence (letters/ emails/ phone calls)
 Hard and soft copy publishing (reports, collateral etc including using services such as issuu.com and
youtube.com)
 Discussion and comment forums (wikis, blogs, discussion forums, editable documents etc)
4.2 Increasing revenue is integral to rolling out new services
TransLink undertook the first TransLink Network Plan (TNP) over the period 2005‐2007. The TNP and the
associated consultation report are available from
 http://download.translink.com.au/networkplan/complete.pdf
 http://download.translink.com.au/networkplan/consultreport.pdf
The TNP is currently being reviewed and updated and a draft will be made available for public comment
shortly. The service improvements planned (and demanded by the community) require additional funding.
The Queensland Government has indicated that fare subsidy must decrease from 75% to 70% by 2015. In
order to achieve this reduction and fund additional service improvements TransLink must increase its
revenue. TransLink will investigate alternatives; however farebox revenue and general government subsidy
are likely to be the main the main sources of income.
5 Key communication messages:
5.1 TransLink
 TransLink is planning and delivering an improved public transport system.
 Access to reliable, fast and frequent public transport network will improve our lifestyle.
 Public transport will help manage population growth so that it is more economically, socially and
environmentally sustainable.
 Public transport provides mobility choices to a changing community. An aging population requires
alternatives to private vehicle travel.
 Public transport helps support diverse communities and gives important access to employment,
training, entertainment and shopping.
 Public transport helps people stay healthy and lead less stressful lives.

 Public transport connects you to family and friends, employment, training, entertainment, and
shopping.
 TransLink, the Queensland Government, and operators all share a commitment to providing
equitable access to quality public transport in South East Queensland.
 Public transport is the most efficient and cost effective method of managing growing travel
demands.
5.2 Fare Strategy
 Your involvement in this process is important
 Your feedback will affect decision‐making
 We are listening to you
 We will address your concerns as best as possible
 We are engaging the community to determine people’s differing values (for example, comfort,
safety, security, cost, speed, reliability, affordability etc).
 We want a fair (equitable) system
 Good finances are central to good public transport, the current fares are financially unsustainable
 We will use the Fare Strategy as the roadmap for the ongoing implementation of Go card and the
creation of new products – it is important to have your say
 Additional revenue raised through fares will be reinvested to improve the public transport network
 We will involve you in change that affects you
 We will consult you when certain decisions have already been made
 We will inform you why we are planning, how you can be engaged
 Affordability of access is a central goal of TransLink however this must be balanced with geographic
coverage and quality of service (frequency, capacity etc)
 We need to continue investing in public transport to deliver more frequent and reliable services
 We are planning, funding and delivering improved services
6 Stakeholders
6.1 Internal
 Premier and Treasurer
 Ministers
 Transport and Main Roads
 Infrastructure & Planning
 Health
 Members for TransLink’s service region
 CEO, CFO and Board of TransLink
 TransLink Transit Authority staff
 Department of Transport and Main Roads staff
 Department of Infrastructure and Planning staff
 Internal Working Group
6.2 External
 Lord Mayors and local governments including:
- Brisbane City Council
- Gold Coast City Council
- Ipswich City Council
- Logan City Council
- Redland City Council
- Moreton Bay Regional Council
- Sunshine Coast Regional Council

 Operators including:
- Bribie Island Coaches
- Brisbane Bus Lines
- Brisbane City Council Ferries
- Brisbane Transport
- Buslink
- Caboolture Bus Lines
- Hornibrook Bus Lines
- Kangaroo Bus Lines
- Laidley Bus Company
- Logan City Bus Service
- Mt Gravatt Bus Lines
- Park Ridge Transit
- QR (Queensland Rail)
- Queensland Transport
- Southern Cross Transit
- Sunshine Coast Sunbus
- Surfside Bus Lines
- Thompson Bus Service
- Veolia Transport
- Westside Bus Company
 Local businesses
 Health organisations
 Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS)
 Public transport users
- Bus/ rail/ ferry/ multimodal
- University and students
- Children and the pensioners
- Low income earners
- Families
- 9‐5 Monday to Friday commuters
- Casual/ shift workers (late night/ early morning, non‐standard frequency)
- Long distance travellers (interurban, >10 zones)
- Short distance travellers (urban, 1‐6 zones)
- Tourists
- Low/ infrequent users (<6 journeys per week)
- Commuters (8>11 journeys per week)
- Frequent users (>12 journeys per week)
 Public transport advocates
 Future possible public transport users
 Community organisations and representative groups
- Disabilities Council of Queensland
- Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland
- RSL
- Qld Council of Parents & Citizens Association Inc
- Council of the Ageing
- Railbackontrack.org

6.3 Target audiences
 Users (as described above)
 Residents of SEQ
 Community organisations (sporting clubs, social welfare groups, schools etc.)
 Motorists (commercial users, commuters, short distance trips)
6.4 Communication tools/ tactics
For duration of the project:
Tactic/Tool Objectives Target Audiences

Website including – Inform community throughout the planning and – General enquiries
additions for online implementation of the fares strategy – Complaints
publishing, surveys, – Provide updated project information/next steps etc – Affected/ Interested
discussion forum, – Capture feedback from the community via online surveys, users
embedded video etc discussion forum etc
– Promote ease of access to information and public response
– Promote transparency of processes/ information
– Promote key messages through project
Call centre – Respond to enquiries about fares from the community – General enquiries
– Develop trust and good relationships to promote the plan and – Complaints
TransLink as an organisation – Affected/ Interested
– Promote transparency of processes/ information users
– Ensure calls and enquiries coming in to Customer Contact
Centre are effectively managed to manage communication
risks proactively
Briefings – Provide strategic direction and respond to key stakeholders/ – Internal stakeholders
community groups for duration of process for example, QCOSS – External
– Develop trust and good relationships with target audience stakeholders
– Promote transparency of processes/ information – Community
stakeholders
Word of mouth – Develop key relationships that enable access to a broader – Users
audience through word of mouth relationships

As required:
Tactic/Tool Objectives Target Audiences
Media releases – Promote broad awareness of the project and opportunities to – Community
get involved
Helping hands and Talk – Inform community about the reasons for changes to fares, – Identified
to TransLink information what has been happening so far, what changes can occur and stakeholders
sessions the process to get involved
CRG meetings/ briefings – Workshop ideas – Cross section of
– Inform, consult and involve relevant
– Develop trust communities
Online survey – Facilitate easy community feedback to the project team – General community
Newsletters/ emails/ – Communicate information about project – General community
info sheets – Seek feedback within service area
– Promote key messages – Update subscribers
Posters – Communicate updates to public transport users – PT users
– Promote feedback
Letters to CRG members – Keep the CRG involved and up to date – delivering on intention – CRGs
to maintain trust and involvement of CRG
Quest newspaper – Promote the website – Local community
advertisements – Communicate key messages
– Broaden communication base especially towards pensioners/
low income people and other groups who are less familiar with,
or choose not to use the internet

7 Communication Challenges/Issues
Affected Target Mitigation Measures/key
Issue Impact/Implication
Audiences message
Higher fares represents a – SEQ residents – Affordability of – Go card single fare cost
broader increase in the cost of – Low income people transport compromised represents an adjusted
living – users are feeling – Pensioners – Financial barrier from 2004 price with
pressured by GFC and other access to services no/minimal real price
unrelated cost of living – Negative press change
increases such as removal of – Negative consumer – Monthly style ticket to be
fuel subsidy, registration reaction introduced
increases, electricity, water and – Listen to and address
gas price increases community concerns
– Promote benefits of
increased fares ‐ better
services, better finances
– Promote benefits of off‐
peak pricing on Go card
and concession discounts
– Emphasise that Go card
offers an alternative
Negative sentiment exists as a – Users across the – Negative sentiment – Emphasise some decisions
result of the announcement of spectrum particularly overflows to all other have been made but that
the changes without QR 3,6,12 month TransLink activities there is room to adjust
consultation and the perception ticket holders, including future – Communicate overall
that TransLink is not listening to monthly, weekly, planning and service benefits of fares approach
the community or delivering on daily and off‐peak delivery – Work closely with
its promise to be a responsive daily customers – Institutional trust is community to ensure
and trustworthy organisation undermined present and future values
and needs are considered
Media coverage may be hostile – Media – Potential for negative – Promote feedback/
to future communications – Journalists sentiment overflow consultation process
approaches – Editors – Regular communication
with community, including
sharing feedback results
Community perception that Go – Non Go card users – People’s early negative – Investigate improvements
card is difficult to use and/or – Early adopters who experiences will be – Communicate changes
does not function correctly rejected the card difficult to overcome – Educate the community
Community is sensitive to – Local businesses – Potential loss of – Liase with businesses
number of distribution points – General population business to – New distribution is being
and feels Go cards are too convenience stores added to the network
difficult to obtain despite who don’t have access
distribution by to Go card
mail/telephone/internet – Uneven geographic
distribution of sales
points
– Lack of internet access
within some
communities/ age
groups
Unregistered cards are difficult – Go card users – Privacy implications – Liase with privacy groups
to monitor in regards to penalty – Privacy groups – Workshop solutions with
fares. Some users do not wish CRGs
to register cards for privacy
concerns.

Affected Target Mitigation Measures/key
Issue Impact/Implication
Audiences message
Ambitious project – scope and – All users – Level/extent of – Acknowledge scale of
scale of change in such a short – Bus users disruptions/ project and solicit
period experiencing delays inconveniences community support/
disembarking experienced as a result participation at all
– Rail users having of works available opportunities
trouble touching off – Perception of project – Acknowledge users values
“dragging on” and address these through
– Perception of no ongoing implementation
progress project
– Perception that Go – Manage expectations
card is less convenient throughout of scope, scale
than paper tickets and timing of project
Size of area designated for – Local residents – Potential to miss large – Ensure
consultation is large – Local businesses parts of affected media/communications
– Workers/students community coverage with entire
geography especially
based on services (that is
on board buses, trains and
at bus stops and railway
stations)
– Run regional CRGs
– Utilise new media
technologies such as
discussion forum, iPhone
applications etc to
overcome geographical
difficulties and give a much
larger number of users
access
Current perceptions of public – Users, particularly – Future users may be – Acknowledge that service
transport service quality and those “hostage” further discouraged quality is not always as the
convenience differ widely – users who have no from trying or community wishes it to be
users and non users alike may alternative permanently switching but that improved finances
hold extremely negative to public transport will allow TransLink to
perceptions and be unwilling to – Some users may switch invest in new and
pay more for service back to private modes improved services
of travel
Rapid increases to the cost of – Users who are – Increasing congestion – Fare rises will need to be
public transport (even if long vulnerable to switch results from users tempered with solutions
overdue) may promote some to alternative modes switching modes, developed in partnership
consumers to switch to an reducing efficiency of with the community
alternative such as car travel bus services,
undermining revenue
increases
– Political frustrations
Lack of acknowledgment of – Frustrated users – Further mistrust of – Make clear and accurate
historic problems undermines TransLink’s intentions statements
trust in future actions and and future actions
statements undermined

8 Implementation plan/ Project timeline
Community
Stage Timeframe
Involvement
Background Gathering Information & Reviewing Background Studies Undertaken
study/ review – Undertake background studies
o Market research
o Economics
– Inform & update:
o CEO, Board
o Minister, Premier, Treasurer
– Draft fare strategy approved and media release about changes 15 October
09
Reaction to Plausible scenarios requiring change of direction February/

implementation – Community/users react negatively to fare changes March 2010
of changes – – Go card system fails under high use/ rail delays cause issues
stimulus for Significant increase of complaints and errors at return of university after the
change of policy Christmas break when many users only first become aware of how the cost and
direction technology changes are directly affecting them
Government Premier and Minister direct TransLink to re‐draft the Fare Strategy using Early to mid

commitment to community input to ensure it is responsive to the community’s values 2010
engagement – Analysis of correspondence, complaints received, media coverage etc
Working Establishing priorities – Community &TransLink Mid 2010

Together to – Announce delay in changes to fares and launch of ‘your say’ feedback on draft
produce a Vision strategy
– Launch fares strategy page on TransLink website
o Include overview
o Background to fares strategy
o Summary of market research, economics reports
o Where to from here – establish CRGs and draft Vision
o Accept online expressions of interest in becoming a member of a CRG, or
the Information Group (to receive updates about TransLink’s planning)
– Ad campaign on buses and trains to advertise draft strategy for comment
– Inform complainants/ those who have written to the Minister regarding fares that
the draft strategy is available to review and to make a submission for or against
– Form regional Community Reference Groups
– Hold CRG Meeting #1:
o Introduce project, strategic analysis & terms of reference
o Visioning exercises to confirm draft Vision from TransLink Network Plan
consultation
o Determine relevant planning issues to be addressed in future consultation
– Update TTA website – CRG#1 feedback:
o display draft Vision (refined with CRG feedback)
o survey general public on this draft Vision
o Include CRG Meeting #1 minutes
Working Developing the Ideas and Options – Community, TransLink and Consultants Mid‐Late

Together to – Prepare revised draft Fare Strategy options – incorporating Vision, issues, ideas 2010
produce Ideas & and values uncovered in CRG Meeting #1 and from discussion forum/ letters to
Options the Minister
– Hold CRG Meeting #2:
o Continue to explore values, issues, ideas and priorities to inform drafting
o Develop options for fare changes (for example, land tax levy, no change,
raised etc)
o Discuss role of funding in developing the quality public transport the
community needs

Working Determining trade offs of options – TransLink and Community Late 2010

Together – Hold CRG Meeting #3
o Present revised options and review process to date
o Take feedback on options
– Survey on web
– Fare Strategy drafting
o Incorporate CRG Meeting #3 feedback into drafting
– Update website to reflect consideration by government of strategy
Internal process Revised draft submitted to the Minister Early 2011

to approve draft – The revised draft Fare Strategy is submitted to the Government for approval to
strategy for publicise with explanation as to how community input has helped shape/ amend
publication the strategy
Feedback from Gaining Community Feedback ‐ Community Mid 2011

community – Media release of revised draft Fare Strategy
taken as revised – Fare Strategy published on website, made available by post on request
draft Fare – Summary of changes publicised to email subscription database
Strategy is – TransLink website updated
published o including full draft Fare Strategy ‐ make full document available as PDF
o online survey general public (names and addresses required for each
submission)
o Include CRG Meeting #2 minutes
o where to from here – refine draft Fare Strategy following public
submissions
o survey summary available online and send to submitters
– Distribute ‘tags’ and posters at point of use publicising fare changes as well as the
TransLink Network Plan
o On buses, trains and ferries, at stations and stops
– The community are able to make formal submissions about the draft strategy
which will be considered by TransLink
– Letter/email to info list to advise draft Fares Strategy is available for comment
– Publicly display draft Short Term Fares Strategy
– Update website (include an explanation about how to make a submission).
– Talk‐to‐TransLink sessions
o Quest Newspaper advertisements
Revised draft submitted to the Minister Late 2011
– The revised draft Fare Strategy is submitted to the Government with explanation
as to how community input has helped shape/ amend the strategy
Closing the loop Closing the loop Late 2011

with the – CRG Meeting #4 (tentative)
community and o Provide feedback on the draft Fare Strategy
option of o Update on amendments to draft Fare Strategy
translation into o Update on process of ‘Where to from here?’
TNP CRGs etc. o Thank CRG members for their valuable contribution
– Report back to submitters
– Publish submissions on website
Implementation Finalising the process January

– Fare Strategy is implemented and advertised 2012 / prior
– Ongoing implementation is reviewed regularly to next
o Market research review of success of implementation State
o Complaints and correspondence review Government
election


How TransLink Could Engage The Community To Produce An Equitable and Future-Focused Fare Structure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How TransLink Could Engage The Community To Produce An Equitable and Future-Focused Fare Structure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Topic:

Objective Method Output Analysis

Ticket type Change (range is dependent on the Notes

Tactic/Tool Objectives Target Audiences

Reaction to Plausible scenarios requiring change of direction February/

Government Premier and Minister direct TransLink to re‐draft the Fare Strategy using Early to mid

Working Establishing priorities – Community &TransLink Mid 2010

Working Developing the Ideas and Options – Community, TransLink and Consultants Mid‐Late

Working Determining trade offs of options – TransLink and Community Late 2010

Internal process Revised draft submitted to the Minister Early 2011

Feedback from Gaining Community Feedback ‐ Community Mid 2011

Closing the loop Closing the loop Late 2011

Implementation Finalising the process January

You might also like