RAIL - Back On Track Forum

I thought the only place that didn't have Sunday trading was Ayr/Bowen?

Sunshine Coast News --> Coast residents and tourists fare-ly excited about public transport scheme

QuoteMany Sunshine Coast locals and visitors have been making the most of the state government's cheap public transport scheme.

Patronage in the region has increased by more than 11 per cent since 50c fares were introduced on August 5.

It was initially announced as a six-month trial but both major parties have now committed to keeping the scheme for at least four years, after an uptick in usage. ...

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/is-your-bus-or-train-busier-than-2018-we-have-the-official-figures-20240917-p5kb6h.html

Quote... In the week of September 2 to 8, there were 4.06 million trips, with overall south-east Queensland patronage 5.3 per cent higher than the comparative pre-COVID week.

Bus patronage was 3.6 per cent higher than pre-COVID levels, ferry use increased 22.7 per cent, light rail was up 34.9 per cent, and rail was 1.6 per cent higher. ...

https://x.com/ozbob13/status/1836421626705088648

LinkedIn David Hayward

"The recent release of Queensland's public transport trip data for August 2024 with 50 cent fares indicates patronage increased by around 16% on 2023 results, yet is still ~12% fewer trips than the pre-COVID peak of 2018 (~1.8M fewer trips than 2018*). This appears to be a consistent demand response to global research in public transport systems and economics.
 
Provided below is an initial extension of the high-level analysis posted (link below) with August 2024 patronage data included. This largely focuses on a historical summary of boardings for the month of August from 2016-2024 for selected rail stations in Greater Brisbane, grouped by radial distance to CBD. ... "

> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/davidjhayward_tourism-lightrail-rail-activity-7251754114231984129-EiIf

Quote from: David HaywardTransit fare price elasticities
While there has been an uplift of >20% for certain trips across SEQ, mostly the demand response across Qld is learning towards inelastic levels given the 16% patronage uplift was associated with a 80-98% fare reduction.

Inelastic - very large changes in fare levels required to produce a small to moderate result.

We can extend these observations to ask what the uplift is likely to be with a 100% fare reduction (free PT). My guess would be about 20% maximum.

More interesting is whether these trips were mostly new users or existing users.

I think there are certain fares that were inelastic. Going to work, people will pay almost whatever it is. Perhaps even if it costs more than driving.
Short journeys, however, made no sense. I wouldn't go down the road or to the local shops for $5.

I think if you structured it so that zone 1 was cheaper, you would have roughly the same outcome.

As for getting pre-covid numbers -- it is a bad comparison due to work from home changes.

That's why distance charging is better. In Singapore you can go a few stops for under a dollar. Example Fortitude Valley to the City or South Brisbane should be the same.

So RBOT members guessed a ~ 17.8% increase, and the actual value is about 16%. So we are within about 2% points of the actual value so far.

Notes
Original Post
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?msg=284445

It's not about elasticity.

 It is about fairness. Why is one mode (aka driving) subsidised to the hilt and expanded first whilst public transport is charged and expanded last!

Quote from: JonnoIt's not about elasticity.

 It is about fairness. Why is one mode (aka driving) subsidised to the hilt...

I feel this is moving the goal posts. It's not a targeted welfare measure, everyone gets it regardless of income level or situation. It's before an election as well.

In terms of funding, public roads are public too and thus subsidised. That and they must exist everywhere across the state, not in just areas that are dense enough to support PT.

Quote from: #Metro on October 16, 2024, 11:51:10 AMI feel this is moving the goal posts. It's not a targeted welfare measure, everyone gets it regardless of income level or situation. It's before an election as well.

It's a blanket welfare measure - reducing the cost of living - and has always been marketed as such. While it's not specifically targeted, I would see any subsiding of public transport fares as something that by default benefits users on lower to mid incomes, who live in mid to outer suburban locations and rely on public transport to commute to work.

High income earners living in inner city enclaves I consider more likely to keep driving their BMWs or Mercs into the city to make use of their executive parking spaces.

Mid to outer suburbs have very poor PT, hence low PT use (about 5-10% mode share) and thus are not the main beneficiary from this measure.

Happy to see the stats for this, TMR would likely have them.

Its tempting to retro-justify a status quo measure that has tangible benefits to us, but we also need to consider the invisible intangible cost of this - not supplying 60 HF bus routes to areas where they are needed.

The analysis circulating in public so far have been very careful not to touch on the efficiency of this measure versus competing alternatives, even on fairness or patronage increase, and that's because if the comparison were made openly and publicly, it would very likely reflect poorly.

How many high income users are actually making use of 50c fares though?

How can we differentiate someone who needs a 50c fare from someone who wants a 50c fare might be a better question.

The fact the measure will be permanent, even if the cost of living situation resolves, and is untargeted tells you a bit about the true nature of the measure.

Someone wont vote for a measure unless it benefits them though.
Someone on a high income doesn't need 50c fares, so they probably wouldn't vote for it.

Quote from: #Metro on October 16, 2024, 12:54:55 PMIts tempting to retro-justify a status quo measure that has tangible benefits to us, but we also need to consider the invisible intangible cost of this - not supplying 60 HF bus routes to areas where they are needed.

Just because the cost of 50c fares may be equivalent to supplying 60 HF bus routes, the latter option wasn't one that was on the table at any stage. There wasn't a choice between 50c Fares or 60 HF bus routes.

Quote from: nathandavid88 on October 16, 2024, 14:42:44 PM

Quote from: #Metro on October 16, 2024, 12:54:55 PMIts tempting to retro-justify a status quo measure that has tangible benefits to us, but we also need to consider the invisible intangible cost of this - not supplying 60 HF bus routes to areas where they are needed.

Just because the cost of 50c fares may be equivalent to supplying 60 HF bus routes, the latter option wasn't one that was on the table at any stage. There wasn't a choice between 50c Fares or 60 HF bus routes.

Nor is there ever a choice put forward between paying for road usage and expanding roads to improve "service levels" They just get improved irrespective of cost.

Quote from: Nathandavid88There wasn't a choice between 50c Fares or 60 HF bus routes.

Well, that might be because there was an election coming soon. The principle is the same, scrapping 50c fares would release $300 million p.a. and likely achieve the same or higher patronage uplift. It would also be far more equitable too as finally some LGAs outside BCC would get HF bus service, and a tonne of it.

Quote from: JonnoNor is there ever a choice put forward between paying for road usage and expanding roads to improve "service levels" They just get improved irrespective of cost.

Voters get a choice every election on these policies, but with 80% of trips done by motorists they are a large and powerful constituency. This might change with electric cars, but the basic issue remains - policy and planning must be rational, whatever the mode involved.

The network is really f%cking p%ss poor. Providing 60 hf routes is not the right thing to do. And that 60 would be state wide. Not just for BCC as metro loves to harp on about. And who will be driving these 60 hf bus routes state wide? Do we start to take that out of the 60 hf funding? What about buses? Does the acquirement and manufacturing of extra translink buses now come out of the 60 hf route funding? What about areas that only have 60 minute frequencies? What about those areas with 60 minute peak frequencies? Are additional services for them going to come out of the same funding? C'mon. Let's put some cards on the table and analyse it rather than quote cost break downs. Should we hf the 314? Should we hf that coottha loop bus?

That 60 figure can be eaten up very quickly making it a moot point to effectively argue over when we have expenditure such as Gympie road having 24bph at 10pm on a Tuesday night. It creeps up even more if you want to include the 370.

Part of the debate being ignored here is immediacy.  You can't magick up the buses, drivers and planning work needed for the network overhauls this $300m would be allegedly paying for in the timeframes involved.  The patronage uplift needs to be viewed in the context of what was actually doable before the government went into caretaker mode.

I hear you but it doesn't then justify making 50c fares a permanent measure.

And we do need those services. We can start with boosting off—peak frequencies and topping up existing routes with additional infill services.

Plenty of buses in the off-peak sitting in depots, yes drivers may be limiting but that is a solvable thing IMO.

Both the QLD Government and BCC have known about the desire for more bus service across SEQ and beyond for 10+ years. It's not like they only became aware of it recently.

A big hint was Green Team's Brissie bus boost.

I'm curious to know how the ridership uplift splits between peak and counter-peak services.

My commute involves a peak service into town then a counter-peak service out to my office in the inner ring.  Anecdotally, the ridership increase on the peak service has been marginal at best.  Getting a seat has been a bit more hit and miss but the buses don't feel that much more crowded.

The counter peak service though, the change has been stark.  Before 50c fares, I would be one of at most two people on the service who was dressed for work.  Since August, that number has gone up to at least five or six people every day. Admittedly, it's still a small number, but it is quite a big percentage.

For me, if 50c fares are leading to a substantial increase in counter-peak travel, that's a good thing.  The more people who travel to suburban work places by public transport, the more political will there is to improve public transport into those suburban places.  And to me, that seems like a win.

I have noticed this as well. Off-peak and short trip usages appears to have increased. Peak usage is relatively the same. Simple reason that the people who travelled in peak, generally had to anyway.

The problem I see with this is if peak is unaffected, then technically roads would be unaffected and the government will continue spending billions to add a lane here and there.

Quote from: SilverChased on October 17, 2024, 15:55:36 PMThe problem I see with this is if peak is unaffected, then technically roads would be unaffected and the government will continue spending billions to add a lane here and there.

That's not necessarily the case (though I don't deny it could be correct) because our road system is integrated and not radial. So while the worst traffic is in a specific direction many of those drivers are driving across main roads or joining them briefly to exit at another point. So a 1% drop in traffic driving the length of Gympie Rd makes little difference but a 5% drop in cross traffic or those using a small section of the road will have a significant impact.

Quote from: #Metro on October 17, 2024, 11:12:39 AMI hear you but it doesn't then justify making 50c fares a permanent measure.

And we do need those services. We can start with boosting off—peak frequencies and topping up existing routes with additional infill services.

Plenty of buses in the off-peak sitting in depots, yes drivers may be limiting but that is a solvable thing IMO.

Both the QLD Government and BCC have known about the desire for more bus service across SEQ and beyond for 10+ years. It's not like they only became aware of it recently.

A big hint was Green Team's Brissie bus boost.

Which is where a network wide review is required for the bcc area (cutting routes such as the 340 buz and not that pissy Southside review done for metro) but instead we get political games, random new bcc bus routes/extensions (such as extending the P332 rocket to reduce peak congestion at the Chermside interchange) and a bus called a train. I only reference bcc in this as they are the only one with a lot of buses sitting around at depots in off peak. Outside of that most buses sitting around at other depots aren't actually capable of running services such as high floor buses/don't have the fleet size/are reserved for school excursions or charter buses.

But just because it's in a depot doesn't mean it's available for running. Remember bus mtce facilities aren't 24/7 operations as the railways are. If there is a fault it's done during the week between specific hours.