Fares are too high, What should they be.

[O_128]

Im still Insulted about how expensive Public transport is to use now.As seen from today if fares are lower more people will use the services.

I propose..

1 zone = $2

Each additional zone = 50c

Its simple and easy.  

Fares set to rise at inflation

[Fares_Fair]

Im still Insulted about how expensive Public transport is to use now.As seen from today if fares are lower more people will use the services.

I propose..

1 zone = $2

Each additional zone = 50c

Its simple and easy. 

Fares set to rise at inflation

Sounds 'fare' to me.

[SurfRail]

There needs to be:

1. An enquiry and detailed audit of the cost of providing public transport, exploring what can be done more cheaply, what processes and procedures are not required, what needs to be chucked out etc.  This needs to target TransLink and every service provider, including the back-end things like Cubic and the call centre.  As part of this, there needs to be a push for better reporting standards and more transparency in things like network planning and forecasting.

2. Come up with an independently produced model to minimise waste and focus on service provision, and make that public.

3. Take the ability to set the fares away from TransLink and give it to an independent body similar to IPART in NSW so they have to justify every extra cent they ask for from the public.  (Possibly the Queensland Competition Authority could fill this role.)

Then we can have some objective basis for working out what level of fare is sustainable.  THEN, you can strike a balance between that amount, and the level of fare short of $0.00 that will get maximum patronage out of the system without overloading.

All of this is very hard to work through when the whole process is shrouded in secrecy.

[Fares_Fair]

Translink should probably be demolished and its tasks handled by Department of Transport.
It should remain a division under them.
At the moment it is used as a tool for political propaganda.
They are already duplicating the roles of ticketies checking for fare evasion (no need for them to) while QR has its own ticketies for fare evasion as well.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[#Metro]

I wouldn't want to take the fare pricing away from TL, once you can't control the revenue, you can't control the service level.
Fare increases have funded CFN improvements.

I would also caution against playing deckchair re-arranging and putting TTA back into TMR. TMR really should be more of an infrastructure and planning agency.

http://youtu.be/utUvBWgneqs

[STB]

Translink should probably be demolished and its tasks handled by Department of Transport.
It should remain a division under them.
At the moment it is used as a tool for political propaganda.
They are already duplicating the roles of ticketies checking for fare evasion (no need for them to) while QR has its own ticketies for fare evasion as well.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

I certainly wouldn't want to see a central authority taken away for PT.  But you can take the politics away from the central authority.  I don't see how anything would change if you moved all the planning back under QT (a bad idea as far as I'm concerned as then planning would become decentralised again), the politics would still get in the way.

In regards to fares, take that up with Treasury, TransLink can only do what they can with the money they get from those guys.

[somebody]

1. An enquiry and detailed audit of the cost of providing public transport, exploring what can be done more cheaply, what processes and procedures are not required, what needs to be chucked out etc.  This needs to target TransLink and every service provider, including the back-end things like Cubic and the call centre.  As part of this, there needs to be a push for better reporting standards and more transparency in things like network planning and forecasting.

Or just get competence at the top (Premier/Minister) and things could improve.  Slowing things down with an audit/inquiry doesn't necessarily seem the best idea.  In fact, don't we already have an audit report?

3. Take the ability to set the fares away from TransLink and give it to an independent body similar to IPART in NSW so they have to justify every extra cent they ask for from the public.  (Possibly the Queensland Competition Authority could fill this role.)

IPART are one of the obstacles to getting integrated fares in NSW so I would be very cautious about this one.

I would also caution against playing deckchair re-arranging and putting TTA back into TMR. TMR really should be more of an infrastructure and planning agency.

Indeed.

[SurfRail]

Slowing things down with an audit/inquiry doesn't necessarily seem the best idea.  In fact, don't we already have an audit report?

How does an audit slow anything down?  Somebody needs to go through with a broom and identify unproductive practices like welfare routing, duplication, reactive things like the Route 669 etc and work out why they keep happening.

TransLink is currently far from world's best practice, no matter what they and the Minister like to say about themselves.

The current reports only shows where the money goes and how much is involved, not how it could be saved.  The reporting requirements are also incredibly lax.

IPART are one of the obstacles to getting integrated fares in NSW so I would be very cautious about this one.

Meh.  Integrated fares have been achieved and can be locked in with legislation requiring them to maintain it. 

There needs to be an independent body to force TransLink to justify its increases by having them show up with a proper network plan, including targeted dates for improvements and what the network should actually look like in 5 years time.  If they are so confident in their revenue modelling, they should be able to work this out right now.

I wouldn't want to take the fare pricing away from TL, once you can't control the revenue, you can't control the service level.
Fare increases have funded CFN improvements.

Disagree strongly.  We don't know how many CFN improvements have had to be deferred because of:
-   Lack of funding because of inefficient management practices;
-   Operators engaging in wasteful practices such as excessive dead running or buying fuel-inefficient vehicles because there is no incentive for them to improve when TTA just pays for it;
-   Nobody considered prioritising certain improvements and nobody knows about that because there is no public scrutiny of their network planning (evidenced by the fact they do not even have a network plan anymore, or if they do they keep it in the vault)

TransLink isn't responsible for setting the fares anyway – it is ultimately up to Treasury.  That is why with an independent body, TransLink would be required to come up with a network strategy and update it annually, take that off to this body and justify every cent of fare increase.  This scrutiny is completely absent at present.

I would also caution against playing deckchair re-arranging and putting TTA back into TMR. TMR really should be more of an infrastructure and planning agency.

Agree absolutely.  TTA should continue to exist.  What it should be is an authority for the entire state, like in WA, so TMR does not have people doing the same job in a different office just because their tasks relate to areas outside SEQ.

[HappyTrainGuy]

As long as there are 2 hour frequency routes and routes that compete with trains, its always going an expensive fare.

[somebody]

I don't think you are ever going to stop reactive things happening or even stop them from being the prime focus.  This is Brisbane!

If an audit blocks no brainers like the 393 re-extension while its happening then that would be a problem.  But I guess it isn't happening now.  Really, an effective opposition spokesman would have asked that question on notice while parliament was sitting.

[#Metro]

Meh.  Integrated fares have been achieved and can be locked in with legislation requiring them to maintain it.

There needs to be an independent body to force TransLink to justify its increases by having them show up with a proper network plan, including targeted dates for improvements and what the network should actually look like in 5 years time.  If they are so confident in their revenue modelling, they should be able to work this out right now.

No more money spent on more commissions, inquiries, etc! We KNOW what the issues are.
What needs to happen is TransLink needs to be brought before the parliamentary committee of inquiry on a regular basis!

[SurfRail]

No more money spent on more commissions, inquiries, etc! We KNOW what the issues are.  What needs to happen is TransLink needs to be brought before the parliamentary committee of inquiry on a regular basis!

With all respect, we don't know what all the issues are.  That's why you have somebody examine them in a forensic and logical manner – Parliamentary committees (especially in Queensland) tend not to achieve that end, even though they have their role. 

We can see the more obvious issues reflected in the design of the network, but I'll bet you couldn't tell me how TransLink itself is structured, how the contracts are managed, how many people work there, whether they are all absolutely necessary etc.  Without that, network design issues are really just symptomatic of something that is working sub-optimally in HQ, whether it is staffing quality/structural etc or whatever. 

If you want the system to work better as a whole, I'm convinced that it starts with making TransLink work better.  The point is to make them justify the fare increases, because if they can make operational and internal savings sufficient to defer them without cutting service quality, the outcome will be better patronage attracted by both better services and fares increases that are targeted at specific service delivery. 

No way of knowing just how much can be done unless somebody shines a nice bright torch in.

[somebody]

Im still Insulted about how expensive Public transport is to use now.As seen from today if fares are lower more people will use the services.

I propose..

1 zone = $2

Each additional zone = 50c

Its simple and easy. 

Fares set to rise at inflation

I think that is nearly the 2004 fare structure on the formation of Translink.  Except that it was 40c per zone.  Link: http://web.archive.org/web/20040625011020/http://www.translink.com.au/qt/TransLin.nsf/index/TransLinkNewSystemFaresZones

Not too sure about the 5 zone fare being only double the 1 zone fare, but it is slightly better than the current which is roughly 6 zones.

The consolidated rounding errors are very annoying.  Even NSW's crap fare structure manages to avoid them.

No more money spent on more commissions, inquiries, etc! We KNOW what the issues are.  What needs to happen is TransLink needs to be brought before the parliamentary committee of inquiry on a regular basis!

With all respect, we don't know what all the issues are.  That's why you have somebody examine them in a forensic and logical manner – Parliamentary committees (especially in Queensland) tend not to achieve that end, even though they have their role. 

We can see the more obvious issues reflected in the design of the network, but I'll bet you couldn't tell me how TransLink itself is structured, how the contracts are managed, how many people work there, whether they are all absolutely necessary etc.  Without that, network design issues are really just symptomatic of something that is working sub-optimally in HQ, whether it is staffing quality/structural etc or whatever. 

If you want the system to work better as a whole, I'm convinced that it starts with making TransLink work better.  The point is to make them justify the fare increases, because if they can make operational and internal savings sufficient to defer them without cutting service quality, the outcome will be better patronage attracted by both better services and fares increases that are targeted at specific service delivery. 

No way of knowing just how much can be done unless somebody shines a nice bright torch in.

You have a point, but I'm still not convinced about your solutions.  We are about to get a new CEO and likely a new minister/premier.  I think we should wait and see if they can get any improvements.

The only point in your rant which was relevant to the topic was "taking the ability to set fares away from Translink".  My understanding of what happened was that the CEO suggested a fare rise, and the minister liked the idea so much that they wanted 5!  I am sure that any notion of "independent" fare setting will allow for the minister to overrule so what's the point of the independent authority?

[somebody]

The current fare structure and future increases is supported by both sides of govt with the aim to target I think 30% cost recovery. What amazes me is that with these huges fares, they can still only manage 30%.

They haven't even achieved that.  That's because the number of trips is not rising while costs are.  Costs seem to be rising out of proportion to services+inflation too.

But how does this compare with other similar networks, ie Perth, Adelaide or even Syd and Mel along with the actual definition of "subsidy" would be good but I don't have.

None is good.  MyZone in Sydney decimated farebox recovery by giving longer distance commuters significant discounts, while having little effect on patronage.

Back to Brisbane, I suppose the actual answer to your original post is. "At what level do we want the operating subsidy or what can the taxpayer accept?" and from there the fares are an outcome. This also takes us back to a topic I placed earlier, how to reduce the operating cost of CT and Translink?

I'm sure we can do better, and part of it is not having the rail network virtually idle for 20 hours a day.

[SurfRail]

You have a point, but I'm still not convinced about your solutions.  We are about to get a new CEO and likely a new minister/premier.  I think we should wait and see if they can get any improvements.

I'm not suggesting the first act of the new government should be something like this.  But - the TransLink network has now been operating for nearly 7 years, surely it is approaching time for some kind of assessment of their activities and performance by somebody outside government.  It should eb on the agenda long term.  I could live with just increasing the amount of public scrutiny instead of actively probing.

The only point in your rant which was relevant to the topic was "taking the ability to set fares away from Translink".  My understanding of what happened was that the CEO suggested a fare rise, and the minister liked the idea so much that they wanted 5!  I am sure that any notion of "independent" fare setting will allow for the minister to overrule so what's the point of the independent authority?

Well I didn't consider it an irrelevant rant, but anyway...

IPART is empowered to make decisions on fares independently of what the operator's agendas are, which means they can drive efficiency instead of the fares being open slather.  I'm not suggesting that NSW is a model to follow because IPART does not seem to work that well because of NSW govt structural issues, but the concept seems pretty sound to me. 

If the fares are to be increased, there needs to be a proper business case establishing why the level requested is justified.  Absent this, why not 10%, or 20%?  How has the 15% figure come around?  What measures are in place to encourage efficiency (and more importantly what efficiency measures are in the operator contracts)?

[STB]

I tend to agree with the Transport Minister on this but say that the size of the network can be it's own worst enemy with running costs and various other things that go with running PT which may contribute to higher fares than the usual integrated network.

It does seem that TL is trying to cut out the dead running (empty running is the jargon for trains - don't get them mixed up! Ie: a dead running train is a train that has broken down!), as you can see with the Northern and Eastern changes.  They have changed their planning principals in my conversations with the Planners in recent times, ie: a bus will now do many different routes instead of one or two as in the past.  Plus they are trying to tie it into the school routes as well to further cut down dead running.  And has been seen in recent times, have deleted under performing routes ala 257, 255 (although this is still controversial down my way especially with the older folks trying to get to Cleveland).

[somebody]

I found a few years back Cityrail was at 25% farebox return and average for Australia's PT was 33%.

I've seen values from around 25% up to 40% for Cityrail.  Post MyZone farebox would undoubtedly be worse.

[somebody]

I tend to agree with the Transport Minister on this but say that the size of the network can be it's own worst enemy with running costs

Sounds like an excuse for mediocrity to me.

It does seem that TL is trying to cut out the dead running

Then what is with the failure to put the out of service buses on the northern busway into service?

[STB]

It does seem that TL is trying to cut out the dead running

Then what is with the failure to put the out of service buses on the northern busway into service?

Geez, give TL a break, they don't have a magic wand where they can bow to people's suggestions in one go.  Like I said, it's only in recent times that they've started to look at the network in this way, but I would suggest that BT/BCC still have a significant say in the network design and operations, despite TL, which is unfortunate.

[#Metro]

IPART is empowered to make decisions on fares independently of what the operator's agendas are, which means they can drive efficiency instead of the fares being open slather.  I'm not suggesting that NSW is a model to follow because IPART does not seem to work that well because of NSW govt structural issues, but the concept seems pretty sound to me.

If the fares are to be increased, there needs to be a proper business case establishing why the level requested is justified.  Absent this, why not 10%, or 20%?  How has the 15% figure come around?  What measures are in place to encourage efficiency (and more importantly what efficiency measures are in the operator contracts)?

I'm against an outside entity setting fares. If there is waste and that, why can't it be exposed at a parliamentary committee? Nothing worse than having an independent (read: couldn't care less about PT) agency set fares with little or no regards to what the goals of the organization is. Yes, fares went up, but we also had major major improvements to the network as a result of those fare increases. If you want cheaper fares, stay off the BUZ 412, BUZ 180, BUZ 222, BUZ 196, 29, etc etc.

[somebody]

It does seem that TL is trying to cut out the dead running

Then what is with the failure to put the out of service buses on the northern busway into service?

Geez, give TL a break, they don't have a magic wand where they can bow to people's suggestions in one go.  Like I said, it's only in recent times that they've started to look at the network in this way, but I would suggest that BT/BCC still have a significant say in the network design and operations, despite TL, which is unfortunate.

I don't see why they should get a break.

It is startling how incompetent they are.  You have:
(1) Poor to Mediocre service counter peak at activity centres like Toowong, Milton and Ipswich (June11 timetable upgraded from poor to mediocre at the first two)
(2) Consistent failure to meet demand on the northern busway
(3) DUMB DUMB DUMB city stop locations.  I know you can't see this issue, but it is real.
(4) more

[STB]

It does seem that TL is trying to cut out the dead running

Then what is with the failure to put the out of service buses on the northern busway into service?

Geez, give TL a break, they don't have a magic wand where they can bow to people's suggestions in one go.  Like I said, it's only in recent times that they've started to look at the network in this way, but I would suggest that BT/BCC still have a significant say in the network design and operations, despite TL, which is unfortunate.

I don't see why they should get a break.

It is startling how incompetent they are.  You have:
(1) Poor to Mediocre service counter peak at activity centres like Toowong, Milton and Ipswich (June11 timetable upgraded from poor to mediocre at the first two)
(2) Consistent failure to meet demand on the northern busway
(3) DUMB DUMB DUMB city stop locations.  I know you can't see this issue, but it is real.
(4) more

I never said TL was perfect .  Yes, there are plenty of issues, but as TT also pointed out they have also done some decent things in recent years as well.  At the end of the day it comes down to money and if that isn't flowing through to TL, they can do diddly squat.  Similar problems can come from the internal politics between TL and BCC, as has been quite obvious in some cases. Heck, us Eastern Regioners still have the problem of the lack of Sunday services, and so far any suggestions of adding new Sunday services to the local routes have been frustratingly resisted.

In regards to city stop locations, you can only have so much kerbside capacity, my suggestion, keep the streets for all stop and rocket services, and the major stops eg: KGSBS, QSBS for the flagship BUZ and all day express routes.  I highly doubt that you could throw in all those rockets into QSBS and KGSBS, it just simply wouldn't fit.

How about we make you Simon the be all and end all of the Public Transport network planning as you seem to 'know' all the various knick knacks of running and planning for 10,000 square KMs of bus, train and ferry routes.  Don't forget to include all the legal mumbo jumbo of crewing hours, depot space, available buses, oh and balancing the books, etc etc etc etc.    Remember, I did this sort of work for nearly 5 years (about 4 at TL and .5 of a year at QR - I round off nowadays to make it easy for myself) with a small team of Planners and Contract Managers, and we got just as frustrated as you are getting at times.  Having two regions was a hell enough of a job, let alone all the regions across SEQ.

[somebody]

In regards to city stop locations, you can only have so much kerbside capacity, my suggestion, keep the streets for all stop and rocket services, and the major stops eg: KGSBS, QSBS for the flagship BUZ and all day express routes.  I highly doubt that you could throw in all those rockets into QSBS and KGSBS, it just simply wouldn't fit.

Given how many times this has been discussed, and the (several) solutions to the problems you are referring to having been put forward, I don't see much point in going over that ground again.

Suffice to say, that your suggestion is to stick with a failing plan.

How about we make you Simon the be all and end all of the Public Transport network planning as you seem to 'know' all the various knick knacks of running and planning for 10,000 square KMs of bus, train and ferry routes.  Don't forget to include all the legal mumbo jumbo of crewing hours, depot space, available buses, oh and balancing the books, etc etc etc etc. 

Anything you'd like me to do with my other hand?

[STB]

How about we make you Simon the be all and end all of the Public Transport network planning as you seem to 'know' all the various knick knacks of running and planning for 10,000 square KMs of bus, train and ferry routes.  Don't forget to include all the legal mumbo jumbo of crewing hours, depot space, available buses, oh and balancing the books, etc etc etc etc. 

Anything you'd like me to do with my other hand?

Sorry, off topic but...LOL 

[SurfRail]

I'm against an outside entity setting fares. If there is waste and that, why can't it be exposed at a parliamentary committee? Nothing worse than having an independent (read: couldn't care less about PT) agency set fares with little or no regards to what the goals of the organization is. Yes, fares went up, but we also had major major improvements to the network as a result of those fare increases. If you want cheaper fares, stay off the BUZ 412, BUZ 180, BUZ 222, BUZ 196, 29, etc etc.

What you are suggesting is effectively the same thing except with more political interference.  The idea is that instead of some Treasury clown making the decision virtually in secret, that there is a bit more public accountability in the process.

I don't care if the fares never come down.  What's important is the justification for the increase.  I'm more interested to know how many things we are NOT getting when we know what a shambles the network's cost recovery position is.  It's also hard to tell a coherent narrative about what you are doing without a basic plan, which every other system in Australia seems to have in some shape or another.

Nobody said they were useless, but they aren't saints.

[STB]

I don't care if the fares never come down.  What's important is the justification for the increase.  I'm more interested to know how many things we are NOT getting when we know what a shambles the network's cost recovery position is.  It's also hard to tell a coherent narrative about what you are doing without a basic plan, which every other system in Australia seems to have in some shape or another.

I kept asking the question, how much have you got to spend on the Eastern Region, 3 words came to me (paraphrasing), commerical-in-confidence.  Sigh.    It's no different to what you are asking, you'd get the same and/or similar response, sadly.

[ozbob]

There has been some interesting discussion in the media the last few days on fares and the notion of free public transport all the time.

Free public transport is not going to happen basically because the system couldn't cope, apart from the funding considerations.

Putting that aside, there is clearly a lot of community dissatisfaction with the current fare price.

An astute talkback caller to 612 ABC Brisbane actually highlighted the high flagfall for fares this afternoon.  I agree. 

I would not be surprised to hear of further initiatives with respect to fares during the remaining weeks of the election campaign.

Simply adjusting the all zone fares by a reduction of say $1.50 (adult go card fares, others proportionally) would better rebalance zone 1 etc.  I think there should be an increase in the off peak discount, at least 30% but better at 40%.  Easy to implement and I think would drive significant patronage increases out of peak where there is plenty of capacity.

I would also like to see any data that is available in terms of the effect of the 10 journey cap, has it increased the fare box ( I think it will)  - the average journeys / active go card will probably increase.  Early data should be available.

[somebody]

Simply adjusting the all zone fares by a reduction of say $1.50 (adult go card fares, others proportionally) would better rebalance zone 1 etc.  I think there should be an increase in the off peak discount, at least 30% but better at 40%.  Easy to implement and I think would drive significant patronage increases out of peak where there is plenty of capacity.

Maybe I should stop be so retentive, but I'd really like them to get rid of the consolidated rounding errors too!

I would also like to see any data that is available in terms of the effect of the 10 journey cap, has it increased the fare box ( I think it will)  - the average journeys / active go card will probably increase.  Early data should be available.

How would it improve the fare box?

[HappyTrainGuy]

People being forced to make the mandatory 10 journeys.

[ozbob]

If you lift the average journeys say from 5.5 to say 7.5 that clearly improves the fare box (130,000 active go cards).  It matters little that revenue is forgone for the those over the 10 journeys.  In most cases they wouldn't do them if they were paying anyway.  You are actually getting more people actually do more paid journeys.

[Gazza]

Re PT free all the time, to quote the Human Transit book,there's not a single big city PT system with free fares, because nowhere has the financial resources to cope with the loss of fare revenue, and the resulting overload in usage that free PT would bring about.

It cost 1 million to run PT free yesterday. I might guess weekends cost say $500k per day, so say $312 million per year in lost revenue.

$9 mil per year is what it costs to bring the FGY line up to higher frequency, partially. To do all the lines would still only be part of the $312 mil figure above.

That's the choice. Free fares, or more services

[#Metro]

I think we should see data before any decisions are made.
I'd also like to see legacy routes and waste cut. Why is P88 still running around? 203? 416? 476? etc.

[somebody]

If you lift the average journeys say from 5.5 to say 7.5 that clearly improves the fare box (130,000 active go cards).  It matters little that revenue is forgone for the those over the 10 journeys.  In most cases they wouldn't do them if they were paying anyway.  You are actually getting more people actually do more paid journeys.

Not if it is from people who were already doing the 10 journeys!

To get a fare box increase, there has to be people who were doing <10, now >=10.

[ozbob]

To get a fare box increase, there has to be people who were doing <10, now >=10.

Exactly, that is what is above.   The data will be very interesting.  The carrot may well work.

[ozbob]

Media release 2 March 2012

SEQ: Public transport fare price sensitivity

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport passengers has said the strong response to the free travel day on the 29th February 2012 has highlighted community concerns with public transport fare prices (1).

Robert Dow, Spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"Public transport is subsidised, but so are other transport modes, particularly car transport and at a higher level than public transport.  A balance between optimum public transport use and fare cost must be found.  Broad discussion in the community and media this week has again suggested that the present fare prices are too high. We must find the right balance to drive maximum public transport use around the clock to ensure the broader economic benefits of reduced congestion, lessened environmental impacts and lowered road trauma costs are achieved.  The 2011 RAIL Back On Track Public transport Passenger Survey also confirmed this price sensitivity (2). "

"Discussion on making public transport fare free permanently has also been a hot topic, but it is not realistically achievable.  The system would not cope and funding of services would become more problematic (3)."

"There is not a single big city public system with overall free fares, because nowhere has the financial resources to cope with the loss of fare revenue, and the resulting overload in usage that free public transport would bring about."

"Many have raised the high flag-fall component of the present fare price table.  Simply removing a fixed quantum, say $1.50 from all adult go card fares, other fares proportionally and increasing the off peak discount to 40% would correctly reposition the relative zone fare costs.  There is plenty of capacity on the public transport out of peak and improvements as outlined, together with service frequency increases would transform the network and in fact improve the fare box."

"As was evidenced this week, if the price is right, public transport patronage will soar.  A win for us all."

References:

1. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7766.0

2. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7144.0

3. http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7776.0

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[somebody]

To get a fare box increase, there has to be people who were doing <10, now >=10.

Exactly, that is what is above.   The data will be very interesting.  The carrot may well work.

I'd be surprised, but you never know.

We definitely won't have it in Tracker before the election though.

[ozbob]

Twitter

mXBrisbane ‏ @mXBrisbane

Head to Facebook now to tell us whether you think your public transport ticket is too expensive:
https://t.co/lnn5CbJz