POLL: What kind of frequent user discount would you prefer?

[Derwan]

Following on from http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6048.0

A number of people have voted in favour of bringing back periodic ticketing.  But I suspect that this is simply because it would save people money.  (People will support anything that saves them money.)

This poll asks what kind of frequent user discount you'd prefer.

For the purposes of this poll, it is assumed that both options will result in paying the same fare.  (I.e. an equivalent discount is applied.)

[Derwan]

So for 2 people so far, you'd prefer to pay hundreds of dollars upfront rather than receive the same discount over time?

Please explain...

[SurfRail]

So for 2 people so far, you'd prefer to pay hundreds of dollars upfront rather than receive the same discount over time?

Please explain...

If you can afford to give the system a good chunk of money up front, you should be entitled to a bigger discount.  I really can't see any problem with that - TransLink has your money to play with earlier, so you should get some recognition for that.

Plenty of well-designed fare systems operate on the basis that if you buy a large quantity of the system's product up-front, you should be entitled to more.  It's a good way of locking people into travelling - and cynically speaking, they get your revenue whether you travel or not.

Related to that principle is getting extra credit for buying your travel in a way that saves time for the system, which is why Transperth gives you extra credit for using auto-topup compared to buying your ticket or topping-up on-site.

[Gazza]

If you can afford to give the system a good chunk of money up front, you should be entitled to a bigger discount.

Little bit discriminatory against lower income earners though?

I prefer discounts as I go because then I don't have to go to the effort of 'loading' a pass.

[Derwan]

If you can afford to give the system a good chunk of money up front, you should be entitled to a bigger discount.

Whoa!!  You're saying we should reward the rich with discounts?  As Gazza said, that's rather discriminatory.

Related to that principle is getting extra credit for buying your travel in a way that saves time for the system, which is why Transperth gives you extra credit for using auto-topup compared to buying your ticket or topping-up on-site.

Now that's another idea.  Perhaps TransLink should offer discounts for auto-topup. 

[SurfRail]

Whoa!!  You're saying we should reward the rich with discounts?  As Gazza said, that's rather discriminatory.

No, it's entirely fair.  If I'm willing to give the system hundreds of dollars to play with, why shouldn't I be able to buy myself something more than somebody who is paying $4 a day?  Somebody like that gets the advantage of capping and saves money - I get to save more money by sharing my wealth with the system

I'm not advocating that I should be allowed 2 seats, or a drinks cart.

Others have mentioned that in some European cities, it is quite common to get monthly tickets that work out to something like 10 daily trips.  That IS value for money.  Seriously, whats the point of travelling frequently if you end up paying the virtually the same rate as soembody who travels infrequently?  We need to be rewarding people for sticking with the system, not putting the screws to them.

[colinw]

I really don't see that we need anything more complex than the capping system that the ACT MyWay card has. Let's keep it simple.

[#Metro]

KISS

and just remember... the more money you spend on freebies that you don't need, the less money you will have to spend on frequency!!!

[SurfRail]

There we will have to agree to disagree. 

Most networks around the world (including those with smart cards) offer periodicals, and they do it for a reason - they ARE simpler to understand, use and operate than capping systems.

I would be happy with either personally, I just don't see the need to introduce a complex ticketing arrangement when a periodical makes it much more legible.

[justanotheruser]

So for 2 people so far, you'd prefer to pay hundreds of dollars upfront rather than receive the same discount over time?

Please explain...

If you can afford to give the system a good chunk of money up front, you should be entitled to a bigger discount.  I really can't see any problem with that - TransLink has your money to play with earlier, so you should get some recognition for that.

Plenty of well-designed fare systems operate on the basis that if you buy a large quantity of the system's product up-front, you should be entitled to more.  It's a good way of locking people into travelling - and cynically speaking, they get your revenue whether you travel or not.

Related to that principle is getting extra credit for buying your travel in a way that saves time for the system, which is why Transperth gives you extra credit for using auto-topup compared to buying your ticket or topping-up on-site.

Some good arguments howver what if you don't have a credit card? how do you auto-topup? Also is the issue of security of credit card details. Knowing numerous people who work in data security I can assure you it really isn't that safe to put your credit card details into the system. With companies that require credit card payment I used to arrange to give them my details and select cash as a payment option (online purchases) and make a note in special requests to charge my credit card. This worked well untill I got rid of my credit card.

[Derwan]

Some good arguments howver what if you don't have a credit card? how do you auto-topup?

You can use a VISA Debit card or a Debit Mastercard.

Also is the issue of security of credit card details.

You're not responsible for transactions that you do not authorise.  If an unauthorised transaction appears, you just have to call the bank and they'll remove any unauthorised transactions as well as cancel and reissue your card.

I've used my credit card online for years and have never had a problem.  My credit card details are stored by TransLink, PayPal, iTunes, my ISP, my web host, my health insurance provider, Weatherzone, Govia and my union.  (There are probably more.)

People get afraid of the unknown.  They're afraid to embrace technology.  They prefer to stick with what they know.  They listen to the media hype and believe the worst. 

[O_128]

Some good arguments howver what if you don't have a credit card? how do you auto-topup?

You can use a VISA Debit card or a Debit Mastercard.

Also is the issue of security of credit card details.

You're not responsible for transactions that you do not authorise.  If an unauthorised transaction appears, you just have to call the bank and they'll remove any unauthorised transactions as well as cancel and reissue your card.

I've used my credit card online for years and have never had a problem.  My credit card details are stored by TransLink, PayPal, iTunes, my ISP, my web host, my health insurance provider, Weatherzone, Govia and my union.  (There are probably more.)

People get afraid of the unknown.  They're afraid to embrace technology.  They prefer to stick with what they know.  They listen to the media hype and believe the worst. 

I agree I have never had a problem and feel safer using my card than carrying cash.

[justanotheruser]

Some good arguments howver what if you don't have a credit card? how do you auto-topup?

You can use a VISA Debit card or a Debit Mastercard.

Also is the issue of security of credit card details.

You're not responsible for transactions that you do not authorise.  If an unauthorised transaction appears, you just have to call the bank and they'll remove any unauthorised transactions as well as cancel and reissue your card.

I've used my credit card online for years and have never had a problem.  My credit card details are stored by TransLink, PayPal, iTunes, my ISP, my web host, my health insurance provider, Weatherzone, Govia and my union.  (There are probably more.)

People get afraid of the unknown.  They're afraid to embrace technology.  They prefer to stick with what they know.  They listen to the media hype and believe the worst. 

I'm not listening to media hype. I'm listening to people whose job it is to design systems that are secure. My wife works in the industry. You may have been fine but I have worked in places where their computers have been hacked and I also know people whose internet banking was hacked. It does happen. Using a visa or mastercard debit card does not solve the issue of security.
How do you prove the transaction was not authorised by you? After all with direct debits the bank assumes you have authorised any transaction for any amount on any day they feel like processing one. This is not the case such as the one direct debit I have which clearly states when and for what amount will come out but that did not stop a transaction going through.

[somebody]

I'm not listening to media hype. I'm listening to people whose job it is to design systems that are secure. My wife works in the industry. You may have been fine but I have worked in places where their computers have been hacked and I also know people whose internet banking was hacked. It does happen. Using a visa or mastercard debit card does not solve the issue of security.
How do you prove the transaction was not authorised by you? After all with direct debits the bank assumes you have authorised any transaction for any amount on any day they feel like processing one. This is not the case such as the one direct debit I have which clearly states when and for what amount will come out but that did not stop a transaction going through.

You use a statutory declaration to prove you didn't authorise it.

Bank accounts are no safer, and probably less so as money can easily come out of the wrong account due to some error for example, and the bank has no legal responsibility, I'm pretty sure, so long as it reverses the transaction when discovered.

[Derwan]

How do you prove the transaction was not authorised by you? After all with direct debits the bank assumes you have authorised any transaction for any amount on any day they feel like processing one. This is not the case such as the one direct debit I have which clearly states when and for what amount will come out but that did not stop a transaction going through.

Perhaps if you did a bit of research it might put your mind at rest.

The onus is not on you to prove the transaction was not authorised.  If you dispute a transaction the onus is on merchant to prove that it WAS authorised.  If they do not have something signed by you, they cannot prove that it was authorised.  That's right, for any internet transaction you can claim that the transaction wasn't authorised.

And you're right.  A debit card wouldn't improve security.  In fact I'd be LESS inclined to have debit card details out and about considering that if the details were used without my authorisation, the money would come out of MY account - and I'd have to wait for it to be refunded.  At least with a credit card you're not actually losing money.  Any unauthorised transactions would simply be removed from the bill.

[Derwan]

Back to the poll.  So far it is clear that the reason people voted for the reintroduction of periodicals in the other poll simply did so because it was a way of saving money and that, given the option, they would prefer to save the money through discounts that are automatically applied rather than take a backwards step.

Feel free to disagree with my interpretation. 

[dwb]

This was always the problem with the 6 and 12 month QR products, they didn't really have any positive effect on equity concerns as most people who had money issues and travelled long distances couldn't afford that lump sum payment up front! This is why it was unfair!! We were giving up to a 2/3 discount to wealthy people travelling long distances in peak to work in the CBD and have a coastie lifestyle. I strongly don't support this ideal, except for on a slight basis that it might mean less BMWs on the M1... although I doubt the cash saving would have been the primary motivation.

If you can afford to give the system a good chunk of money up front, you should be entitled to a bigger discount.  I really can't see any problem with that - TransLink has your money to play with earlier, so you should get some recognition for that.

Plenty of well-designed fare systems operate on the basis that if you buy a large quantity of the system's product up-front, you should be entitled to more.  It's a good way of locking people into travelling - and cynically speaking, they get your revenue whether you travel or not.

It terms of buses I can understand this principal, its why you would want Go card to be cheaper than cash fares. HOWEVER when it comes to topping up your Go card, don't forget, using auto top up means that you're paying Visa or Mastercard between 2-5% of the transaction. Translink currently wears that cost. Now of course it costs money to deal with cash too, you have to send vans around to collect the cash, count it, and bank it and with Visa you don't have to do that as visa does the accounting and security. But still, surely it should be cheaper to pay cash or EFTPOS rather than use credit!? Perhaps the AAVMs could also be ATMs and let you get cash out... that way the cash people put into the machines for credit on their Go cards could be withdrawn from others to put in their wallet?

Related to that principle is getting extra credit for buying your travel in a way that saves time for the system, which is why Transperth gives you extra credit for using auto-topup compared to buying your ticket or topping-up on-site.

[dwb]

ps i refuse to do this poll i think it is majorly flawed.

[Gazza]

Just a thing  I felt like saying, but the notion that people who would buy periodicals are  entitled to a discount because they "give the system money up front to use", is flawed.
Yeah, I actually regularly give the system $100 'up front' whenever I do a reload on the go card, but Idon't get a discount for doing so, do I?
Why do periodical supporters think they are any more special than the rest of the users who also regularly put large amounts of money into the system?

Should be a level playing for everyone...a flat percentage discount rate for frequent users, this means everybody has an equal footing to get the discount, and it's not dependent on knowing/travelling in set zones , and not dependent on having the income to pay for a periodical upfront.

[colinw]

Which brings us right back to a capping scheme that cuts in with an achievable level of frequent use ...

[somebody]

Which brings us right back to a capping scheme that cuts in with an achievable level of frequent use ...

I'm not sure how you can form the conclusion that there is something wrong with the present fare structure from this poll/thread.

[dwb]

Which brings us right back to a capping scheme that cuts in with an achievable level of frequent use ...

Or a variable cap that you gain by choosing a month in advance. The more you spend the higher the discount, but you set the discount by choosing how much you will spend that month. Any spend over the cap, you pay full price for.

[dwb]

Which brings us right back to a capping scheme that cuts in with an achievable level of frequent use ...

I'm not sure how you can form the conclusion that there is something wrong with the present fare structure from this poll/thread.

+1, more or less, and yes I'd tend to agree the future rises should be tempered, and I still personally believe offpeak discount should be greater.

[colinw]

Which brings us right back to a capping scheme that cuts in with an achievable level of frequent use ...

I'm not sure how you can form the conclusion that there is something wrong with the present fare structure from this poll/thread.

Why do you assume I have formed any conclusion based on this thread, as opposed to my opinion based on using TransLink and other public transport systems?

I am of the opinion that the current fare structure, coupled with poor service standards, is acting as a disincentive to people taking up public transport.  The sudden slowing of growth in patronage is all the evidence I need to form that opinion.

[somebody]

I think it is more the poor service levels combined with the high fares, rather than the actual structure.

[colinw]

High fares, poor service, no incentive to be a loyal "customer".  Why would you use it?

[Gazza]

But if the system were good enough, it would sell itself, and this would be the incentive to use it, not some crappy discount.

[colinw]

Thats a big "if" the way things are going at present ...

[SurfRail]

Just a thing  I felt like saying, but the notion that people who would buy periodicals are  entitled to a discount because they "give the system money up front to use", is flawed.
Yeah, I actually regularly give the system $100 'up front' whenever I do a reload on the go card, but Idon't get a discount for doing so, do I?
Why do periodical supporters think they are any more special than the rest of the users who also regularly put large amounts of money into the system?

Paying for a periodical is not the same as topping up a go card.  Go card credit is not released to the system as revenue until you actually travel.  You are not paying up-front, only converting your own money into travel credit for later use.

I will reiterate for the last time that most systems around the world, including smart-card systems, maintin periodical options for their users.  I don't believe this is something easily dismissed or poo-pooed, considering how backwards we are at most things.

[Gazza]

Except Perth.

If we were going to go down the periodical route, I want to know the cost of adding the software module to support it, and the amount of revenue forgone/gained as a result of having them, and the amount of extra trips it would generate.

[somebody]

It's not entirely clear why so many other jurisdictions keep periodicals.  Probably to avoid having this conversation.

[dwb]

Paying for a periodical is not the same as topping up a go card.  Go card credit is not released to the system as revenue until you actually travel.  You are not paying up-front, only converting your own money into travel credit for later use.

Sorry how is that different? Translink has the money to do with it what it wants.

I will reiterate for the last time that most systems around the world, including smart-card systems, maintin periodical options for their users.  I don't believe this is something easily dismissed or poo-pooed, considering how backwards we are at most things.

If everyone one else jumps off a bridge does that make it a smart thing to do?

[dwb]

It's not entirely clear why so many other jurisdictions keep periodicals.  Probably to avoid having this conversation.

Exactly, but again that probably just means they're lazy.

What I'd like to know is how many of these world class systems with periodicals are facing service cuts + fare hikes because they're not financially sustainable? Chicago comes to mind... (At least here we're getting new infrastructure + new services + new buses + new stops)

[SurfRail]

Except Perth.

If we were going to go down the periodical route, I want to know the cost of adding the software module to support it, and the amount of revenue forgone/gained as a result of having them, and the amount of extra trips it would generate.

Same for capping please.  I've seen no data from the proponents for that.

[SurfRail]

Sorry how is that different? Translink has the money to do with it what it wants.

How?  The money is held and banked centrally and can't be accounted for until the credit has actually been expended.  If I pay for a periodical, the money goes straight into revenue, all at once.

If everyone one else jumps off a bridge does that make it a smart thing to do?

Do you want to explain how that is relevant to what we are discussing?  Jumping off a bridge is a one-time affair (generally speaking), hundreds of transit agencies maintaining a system of periodical ticketing is something else.

Exactly, but again that probably just means they're lazy.

Oh please.  You're telling me that organisations like the ZVV are "lazy" for maintaining season tickets and that we aren't?  Give me some of what you're smoking, champ!

[Gazza]

I'd say it's more political reasons systems still retain periodicals than anything, or the fact they are still on paper, and want to cut down on transactions.

[Derwan]

It's not entirely clear why so many other jurisdictions keep periodicals.  Probably to avoid having this conversation.

Because they're stuck in the past.

[Gazza]

Further to that, flat fares no matter the distance are something a LOT of juridstictions still have, so should we go adopt that because "everyone else is doing it"?

[Gazza]

The more I think about, the less and less enthusiastic I am about subsidising further with periodicals.

I really only see two main problems with fares in SEQ.
-1, 2 & 3 Zone tickets cost more than the full costs of driving the same distance.
-The Go Card technology prevents an early bird discount being provided in an effective manner (for peak demand management) due to calculations being done at the touch on stage.

At this stage, the government doesn't give much to PT overall, so we need to be selective about what is crucial.

Of course, the response to that is that the government needs to give extra funds, so we can have both good quality services, and have them cheap.

But to that, my response is if the pot of money to use becomes even bigger (The government may come to its senses), then we should still be using 100% of it to drive service improvements, not worry about fares, and continue down this road until we've done as much as we possibly can.
Why bother even saying "Oh we'll give this much to making fares cheaper, and this much to service improvements".

When we are at a stage that the majority of SEQ with reasonable density sits within the coverage area of a high frequency bus/train/ferry, and more cross country routes exist, and average speeds are at decent levels, then we can start going "fine grain" to win passengers with special fare strategies.
But we are a long way off that stage, and the extent of high frequency services is just a small handful of lines in a starburst shape on the map. This needs to change.

The common quote is "We pay high fares for crap service".

But can somebody find me a quote from any public transport user on the internet where somebody has said "We are forced to pay high fares for a great service!"
(The internet is a pretty big place with lots of blogs and message boards, so it shouldn't be hard right?)

The fares are just a distraction.

As I've said before, 93% of trips don't use Public Transport and the system is only recovering under 1/3 of its costs. ...That's terrible, and saving a select few users Y% on their tickets won't be the thing that saves us.

[ozbob]

The problem at the moment is that the fare structure is not increasing the fare box, despite the rhetoric suggesting that the fare increases are designed to do that.  Better ticketing options will improve the fare box and in so doing provide more for services and improvements. TransLink has the tools to do the modelling and so forth.  The evidence is clear, further enhancements to the go card fare structure are needed, and the Government and TransLink have broadly indicated just that.

Forget periodical tickets as we have known, they are gone.  The last thing anyone really wants is those tickets brought back.

What the actual fare enhancements will be is something that TransLink and Government are wrestling with and I am sure are not far way.