Introducing Quality of Supply Targeting

Research and Articles
,
1

From the BTQ 2025 Policy Platform (Page 2 and 3):

The Vision and Validate Approach

BTQ understands that transport mode share targets have been part of SEQ regional planning for the last 30 years. However, we also note that during this time, the mode share targets set have never been met. Given this reality, BTQ now believes that a different approach is required. BTQ therefore advocates for the abolition of mode share targets in favour of adopting service quality supply targets instead.

The new public transport authority should create a vision for improving service quality (e.g. frequency, reliability, speed, service span), a plan to implement it (e.g. action items and timelines), and use metrics to demonstrate progress (e.g. by showing increases in absolute or relative patronage levels, the number of bus stops or train stations with all day 15-minute service frequency, or the expansion of 30-minute or 15-minute access isochrone areas).

For example, key bus routes and train lines in SEQ could be upgraded in frequency so that 80% of residents and workplaces are within 400m of a bus stop or 800m of a train station that offers at least 15-minute all-day frequent service.

We believe that setting specific service quality supply targets will be more effective and achievable than setting general mode share targets. Research has shown that improving service quality is the single largest contributing factor to increasing patronage. By focusing on the service quality of supply, an increase in mode share will naturally follow.

Notes

1 Like
2

Looks like Singapore have implemented something along the lines of a Quality of Supply based transport plan. Interesting content in this plan.

image
image1536×1024 202 KB

Most cities publish transport plans that sound impressive but deliver nothing. Singapore is different.

I’ve spent months reading transport strategies from around the world this year.

Most were full of fancy words and vague promises.

They talked about “world-class systems” and “sustainable futures” without anything tangible.

Singapore’s plan was different.

They said exactly what they’d build. They set clear deadlines. They told you how to measure success.

Here’s what Singapore said:
:round_pushpin: 9 in 10 peak trips under 45 minutes by 2040
:round_pushpin: 80% of homes within 10 minutes of a train station by 2030
:round_pushpin: Double their rail network from 182km to 360km

These aren’t vague virtue signals. These are promises you can check.

Most cities avoid this kind of clarity on purpose.

Vague plans let leaders off the hook when nothing gets built.

“We’re working toward better transit” sounds good but means nothing.

Singapore’s approach is bold because it’s specific.

You can actually tell if they failed or succeeded.

That’s scary for most governments. It means real accountability.

But here’s the thing about Singapore’s targets.

They’re not just ambitious. They’re also realistic for their context.

Singapore is dense. Your city probably isn’t. That’s okay.

The lesson isn’t to copy Singapore’s numbers.

The lesson is to set targets that are both bold AND specific for YOUR place.

Whether that’s bus service, bike lanes, or something else entirely. :bus::person_biking:

Does your transport strategy have clear targets and objectives?

If not, what should they be?

Want to read the full analysis of Singapore’s plan and what it means for other cities?

I break down transport strategy and planning from around the world in my newsletter.

Subscribe at transportlc.org/subscribe

From Singapore’s Plan:

Mean Kilometres Between Failure - seems like a useful metric

Our rail system has also become more reliable. Our Mean Kilometres Between Failure (MKBF) was 690,000 train-km in 2018, more than three times of the 181,000 train-km in 2017.

Image from the plan shows that Singapore has set a speed target as well. In Queensland speed has been traded for reliability, which has led the rail network to become progressively slower over the decades.

If the train is slower, then not only is the journey time longer, but slower journeys mean the time gap between car vs PT is larger, tilting passengers away from taking PT.

image
image1122×1288 215 KB

Notes

Russell King LinkedIn Post

Singapore National Land Transport Plan 2040

3 Likes
3

I found this comment interesting. For example, New York’s subway could be considered world class because of the transport task it performs. However, it is widely acknowledged to be underfunded, full of major challenges, and operating on obsolete technologies.

If this is the case, then in principle, any transport network that services a large city - whether in good fitness or not - can be considered ‘World Class’. Instead of using this label, why not talk about specifics:

  • Speed of service for average journeys
  • Network length
  • Service hours
  • Population Percent accessibility within x minutes

and so on. These are objective measures that can be used to compare between cities.

CBTC: Communications-Based Train Control

1 Like