Extending Off-Peak Fares

[achiruel]

Currently off-peak discounts of 20% occur between 9am-3:30pm & after 7pm M-F & all day weekends.

I would like to suggest the following

• Increase off-peak discount to 30%
• Off off-peak travel for all services boarded before 6am weekdays
• Introduce "super off-peak" periods with 50% discount: after 9pm Mon-Sat, before 9am & after 6pm Sundays

Is this making the fare system too complicated?  Or is it a good idea to encourage more use in the least utilised times?

The only issue I could see with early morning fares is perhaps the Sunshine Coast line, where some CBD workers may well board the train before 6am.  Of course you could argue this in some way helps to compensate for the awful service that lines receives ( )

[somebody]

weekday early discounts need to be based on touch off time.

two levels of off peak is too many.

[Mr X]

You're basically applying discounts to rotten apples!
50% discount on empty vehicles running around = lots of $$$$ wasted!
Feasibly, how many workers are really gonna wait until after 9pm to go home just to save half their bus fare?

[achiruel]

You're basically applying discounts to rotten apples!
50% discount on empty vehicles running around = lots of $$$$ wasted!
Feasibly, how many workers are really gonna wait until after 9pm to go home just to save half their bus fare?

I more look at it as a discount for having to tolerate crap service (hourly buses pretty much everywhere except BUZ).

[Gazza]

You're basically applying discounts to rotten apples!
50% discount on empty vehicles running around = lots of $$$$ wasted!
Feasibly, how many workers are really gonna wait until after 9pm to go home just to save half their bus fare?

I more look at it as a discount for having to tolerate cr%p service (hourly buses pretty much everywhere except BUZ).

It would be more useful to pax if the 50% discount money was spent making these services better, rather than as a form of compo for a problem that shouldn't exist.

[SurfRail]

It's more important to focus on the interpeak, when people are still moving around and conducting their business, but just not necessarily during peak hours.  This is where the greatest gains are to be made.  Off-peak discounts are really not that relevant to early morning travel, because the trains are already full.

40% off-peak sounds about right, with the current hours but clarifying that off-peak in the evening and late at night runs from say 7pm to 5am.

[somebody]

40% off-peak sounds about right, with the current hours but clarifying that off-peak in the evening and late at night runs from say 7pm to 5am.

I'd prefer that we don't direct our efforts in this way however.  Simultaneously asking for a bigger off peak discount while also asking for more off peak services isn't going to resonate well.

[SurfRail]

40% off-peak sounds about right, with the current hours but clarifying that off-peak in the evening and late at night runs from say 7pm to 5am.

I'd prefer that we don't direct our efforts in this way however.  Simultaneously asking for a bigger off peak discount while also asking for more off peak services isn't going to resonate well.

I don't see the issue.  The LNP is saying they can provide more off-peak services and have 9 trips per week then free - not saying that is good policy, but you need to incentivise off-peak travel in both ways to make it effective.

Peak hour you can only incentivise it by providing better services because the demand already exists, pricing is largely irrelevant.

[Gazza]

I don't see why it has to be both. If TL went around an improved off peak services, but didn't discount them further, the sky is not gonna fall in....It would still be great for users.

There are too many gaps in off peak frequency and coverage for us to simultaneously pay for both more services and drastically discount them.
And I know lower fares induce demand, but not on half hourly/hourly services!

Maybe in a few years time, when most of the population has access to a decent base level of off peak frequency, then you could look at gaining that last few percent of pax by doing discounts.

I largely agree with Simon.

[somebody]

There is another angle, I guess.

If the patronage is more harmed by the fares than the poor services then why not focus on the former.  With the 2014 planned fares, it seems to be this way.

2014:
$3.24 1 zone off peak
$3.80 2 zones off peak

Ouch!

I think we have to pick which horse to back though.

[ozbob]

The present fare paradigm is a failure .... 

Failures need fixing.  Frequency needs to be improved as does the fare price.   It is time for new approach. 

I have no doubt that will be forthcoming, new Government, new TransLink CEO and Minister.

Watch this space!

[somebody]

LNP's free after 9 policy will result in more expensive fares than present in 2013 for everyone.

[#Metro]

Can we get the frequency fixed please. 80% of people quite happily fork out $20 000+ for a car, must say something about level of service being commensurate with ability to charge...

[achiruel]

Can we get the frequency fixed please. 80% of people quite happily fork out $20 000+ for a car, must say something about level of service being commensurate with ability to charge...

I don't believe this to be the case.  A large number of people purchased used cars for substantially less than $20,000.  For those that do spend more, a car is to some extent a status symbol as well as a means of public transport.  It's pretty hard to use PT as a status symbol (unless they bring back first class )

Also, some amount of the car will be recoverable when it's sold.  And I don't believe public transport will completely replace the car in the near future.  For example, I'm on call for work, sometimes this requires me to go at the drop of a hat at 2am, public transport certainly help then.  My wife is a photographer, she uses a car to carry a lot of heavy gear around, that really wouldn't be possible to take on public transport unless she employed at least one, possibly two, assistants.

[somebody]

I don't see the issue.  The LNP is saying they can provide more off-peak services and have 9 trips per week then free - not saying that is good policy, but you need to incentivise off-peak travel in both ways to make it effective.

Peak hour you can only incentivise it by providing better services because the demand already exists, pricing is largely irrelevant.

BTW, I see the 9-then-free as doing little but reducing fare revenue.

[Jonas Jade]

I personally think frequency is more important, but they both need to be fixed.

Increasing fares for no reason other than to reduce subsidy is a cop out of large terms, especially with areas where efficiencies can be gained (route optimisation etc)!

Feasibly, how many workers are really gonna wait until after 9pm to go home just to save half their bus fare?

Btw, You're barking up the wrong tree here. What about workers who finish at 9, people going out for dinner, people going to visit friends, people who take late evening classes at uni/TAFE? That's a significant market there - all of whom would likely be driving (did everyone who is driving on the roads at that time just wait around until 9 to avoid traffic??? I don't think so.)

That said, I think introducing another level of "offpeak" fares to attract this market won't work without frequency increases on non-BUZ lines (trains esp!), so there's extra cost involved in doing this, and not really worth discounting for once you make the improvements.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I personally think frequency is more important, but they both need to be fixed.

Increasing fares for no reason other than to reduce subsidy is a cop out of large terms, especially with areas where efficiencies can be gained (route optimisation etc)!

Feasibly, how many workers are really gonna wait until after 9pm to go home just to save half their bus fare?

Btw, You're barking up the wrong tree here. What about workers who finish at 9, people going out for dinner, people going to visit friends, people who take late evening classes at uni/TAFE? That's a significant market there - all of whom would likely be driving (did everyone who is driving on the roads at that time just wait around until 9 to avoid traffic??? I don't think so.)

That said, I think introducing another level of "offpeak" fares to attract this market won't work without frequency increases on non-BUZ lines (trains esp!), so there's extra cost involved in doing this, and not really worth discounting for once you make the improvements.

Offer cheaper fares. Stop buses from running before 7am and past 6pm.  

[Gazza]

How's this for a deal. I'll accept money being spent on a bigger off peak discount, but only when the feeder bus to my local station runs more frequently than hourly.

There's what, over 100 stations on the QR network...Even excluding places like Pomona that don't warrant it, That's a lot of stations which need services ramped up.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Yep, missed my connecting bus  

Next bus departs in... 13 hours 20 minutes.... GO THE MIGHTY 338!

[Arnz]

Yep, missed my connecting bus  

Next bus departs in... 13 hours 20 minutes.... GO THE MIGHTY 338!

Next bus departs in... 23 hours 59 mins..... 314! 314! 314! 

[Jonas Jade]

Yep, missed my connecting bus  

Next bus departs in... 13 hours 20 minutes.... GO THE MIGHTY 338!

Next bus departs in... 23 hours 59 mins..... 314! 314! 314! 

[Mr X]

Yep, missed my connecting bus  

Next bus departs in... 13 hours 20 minutes.... GO THE MIGHTY 338!

Next bus departs in... 23 hours 59 mins..... 314! 314! 314!  

Oh farkkk it's Friday afternoon, the next 314 is in 71 hours and 59mins  

[HappyTrainGuy]

Bahahahaha  

Oh farkkk it's Friday afternoon, the next 314 is in 71 hours and 59mins  

You mean Friday morning?

Seriously, one has to wonder who is running Translink these days. But then I remember the 639.

[Mr X]

In all seriousness, what are the loads on the 314 actually like?

I just looked up the 639. WTF, one bus does five different loops 

[SurfRail]

In all seriousness, what are the loads on the 314 actually like?

I just looked up the 639. WTF, one bus does five different loops 

The 639 is actually a pretty reasonable compromise with limited resources for a semi-rural town like Nambour.

The 314 is emblematic of everything wrong with the network really.

[achiruel]

I really wonder if Nambour wouldn't be better served with a demand-responsive service e.g. FlexiLink that one bus route that tries to go everywhere?

[SurfRail]

I really wonder if Nambour wouldn't be better served with a demand-responsive service e.g. FlexiLink that one bus route that tries to go everywhere?

Why?  Flexilink would be harder to use and more expensive.

[Fares_Fair]

In all seriousness, what are the loads on the 314 actually like?

I just looked up the 639. WTF, one bus does five different loops 

The 639 is actually a pretty reasonable compromise with limited resources for a semi-rural town like Nambour.

The 314 is emblematic of everything wrong with the network really.

Nambour had a population of 14,739 in September 2010, according to ABS figures for the region.

[SurfRail]

In all seriousness, what are the loads on the 314 actually like?

I just looked up the 639. WTF, one bus does five different loops 

The 639 is actually a pretty reasonable compromise with limited resources for a semi-rural town like Nambour.

The 314 is emblematic of everything wrong with the network really.

Nambour had a population of 14,739 in September 2010, according to ABS figures for the region.

Places like Taree and Gympie are bigger, and I can guarantee you they do not have better bus services!

[Fares_Fair]

In all seriousness, what are the loads on the 314 actually like?

I just looked up the 639. WTF, one bus does five different loops 

The 639 is actually a pretty reasonable compromise with limited resources for a semi-rural town like Nambour.

The 314 is emblematic of everything wrong with the network really.

Nambour had a population of 14,739 in September 2010, according to ABS figures for the region.

and I can guarantee you they do not have better bus services!

The services are NOT adequate.
Places like Taree may be bigger, but why include a NSW town for these statistics I don't know.
Gympie isn't ..
The population of Gympie on January 1st 2011 is approximately 10,187. (Extrapolated from a population of 16,454 on May 24th 2008 and a population of 10,933 on June 25th 2011.)

But do they also contribute extra to public transport via a levy, as does the entire Sunshine Coast Regional Council?

[Arnz]

They need to remove the Woombye diversion off the 610, and merge the Woombye bit with Palmwoods in their own dedicated route (see my Route 638 proposal in the TT forums).  The Palmwoods bit on the 639 can be re-allocated to the other loops. A bit of steam ironing on the 610 is needed, as the 610 is a "trunk" route linking major centres.

Alongside with the 620 which needs a upgrade from 30mins > 15mins, I personally think the 610 also needs to be every 15 mins 5:30am-7pm, then half-hourly until 9:30pm Monday-Friday, the Weekend (Sat/Sun) timetables should be every 15 mins 6am-5:30pm, then half hourly till 8pm.

[Fares_Fair]

They need to remove the Woombye diversion off the 610, and merge the Woombye bit with Palmwoods in their own dedicated route (see my Route 638 proposal in the TT forums).  The Palmwoods bit on the 639 can be re-allocated to the other loops. A bit of steam ironing on the 610 is needed, as the 610 is a "trunk" route linking major centres.

Alongside with the 620 which needs a upgrade from 30mins > 15mins, I personally think the 610 also needs to be every 15 mins 5:30am-7pm, then half-hourly until 9:30pm Monday-Friday, the Weekend (Sat/Sun) timetables should be every 15 mins 6am-5:30pm, then half hourly till 8pm.

Sounds good to me.

[ozbob]

Melbourne has very reasonable fares on the weekend particularly, and they are ramping frequency on major lines to 10 minutes!

They understand the dynamic ...  --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4072.msg89778#msg89778

The mind set needs to change here in SEQ, absolutely.