Article: Govt rules out free 'early bird' travel

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Govt rules out free 'early bird' travel

Govt rules out free 'early bird' travel
TONY MOORE
October 9, 2009 - 5:22AM

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan has ruled out Brisbane introducing free "early bird" train travel for workers commuting before 7am.

Melbourne started a similar scheme in March 2008 with supporters saying it had moved around 2800 passengers out of crowded peak hour trains into pre-peak services.

Monash University Professor head of public transport studies Graham Currie told Fairfax Media last week that 2800 commuters was the equivalent of buying five new trains.

"The beauty of the project is that it actually saves the state money, while giving us lots of benefits," Professor Currie said.

Based on a new train costing $20 million and a loss of fare revenue and operating costs of $15 million, Professor Currie estimated that it would save the Victorian Government $85 million.

Earlier this year, Queensland Transport Minister Rachel Nolan estimated the loss of fares to South East at around $12 million.

Ms Nolan promised to look at free early-morning fares among other incentives.

However, last night Ms Nolan ruled out running a similar scheme in South East Queensland.

"The option was considered, but with a $12 million cost for little guarantee that people would move to free off-peak travel, it is not an option I have decided to pursue at this stage," Ms Nolan said.

"As an alternative to free off-peak travel, the government is pursuing other options to manage peak demand."
New busways are being built towards Coorparoo and Kedron.

brisbanetimes.com.au understands reduced offpeak fares are still being considered by Queensland Transport.

The State Opposition put forward a free early-morning rail plan to Queensland voters in March.

Brisbane's Lord Mayor Campbell Newman yesterday offered Brisbane City Council's support for its buses and ferries should free or heavily discounted fares be introduced.

"I think it is something that is really important. It should be looked at. It could well end up saving the State Government and the Brisbane City Council and its ratepayers money," Cr Newman said.

"So let's have a look at it, if it has worked in Victoria.

"We have a  problem in South East Queensland, where particularly in peak hours, the public transport system is over-taxed," Cr Newman said.

Rail commuter lobby group "Rail: Back on Track" has long supported free early morning fares, or discounts.

Spokesman Robert Dow asked if the 12-year Go-Card contract was giving best value for money.

"That was signed in 2003 for 12 years," Mr Dow said.

"It is now 2009 and we have roughly 35 per cent of public transport journeys on it.

"Our group believes that halfway through the contract to only have 35 per cent of your public transport journeys on the Go-Card is unsatisfactory."

Infrastructure Partnerships Australia executive director Brendan Lyon said the Melbourne scheme should encourage creative thinking in all other states.

"Congestion is a serious issue confronting Brisbane and comes at a real cost to business and the community - governments are looking at creative measures and off-peak pricing could help to reduce overcrowding on the public transport network," Mr Lyon said.

"These kinds of measures are worthy of consideration, but they don't replace the need to continue to deliver well planned, well delivered expansions to road and rail networks."

[ozbob]

Well done Brisbanetimes!  Thank you!

[O_128]

You are a complete idiot rachael nohlan and are completely out of touch with the people you are supposed to represent

[ozbob]

I think the Minister is getting some bad advice from QT and others.

Wasn't the best day in parliament yesterday for transport either ... see --> here!

[ozbob]

I would like to move that the Minister seek out some advisers that truely understand public transport and its dynamics.

Lord Mayor understands the plot.

As has been shown in the article above, QT and others are just not in the race.

Any seconders?

[david]

I second your motion Bob!

I'm surprised that the government is worried about a measly $12 million, considering the amount of money they continually waste with red-tape, Translink, expensive repetitive "feasibility studies" which end up telling us what we already know, etc. They should at least consider half-price Go Card fares or something for early-peak travel.

[Derwan]

I think Melbourne may have a long-term strategy.  Initially offering free pre-7am services provides a massive incentive for people to change their routine.  Once people are in their new routine, they're much more likely to stick to it - even if Melbourne were to adjust the "free" services to "discounted" services.  If they had started with discounted services, people may have been less likely to change their routine.

[ozbob]

Yes, they plan to have off peak and other incentives on the myki in Melbourne.

Brisbane, there is no strategy?   Despite the clear savings to be made by having incentive fares they hide behind flawed economic rationalist nonsense.  As the good Professor in Melbourne has demonstrated, they will actually end up better off.

[Derwan]

As the good Professor in Melbourne has demonstrated, they will actually end up better off.

I have a concern over the logic described in the article.  (Perhaps the full report explains it better.)  There is no timeframe mentioned for the loss in fare revenue and operating costs.  If it is one year, it would overtake the cost of 5 new trains after about 7 years (without inflation or re-introduction of fares).  This is why I figured that Melbourne has the long-term strategy to start charging early-morning travellers.

But there is little argument that the number of trains required is determined by peak demand.  If you reduce the peak demand by spreading it over a longer period, the number of trains required is reduced.  However at the same time, you may increase the number of services required outside the traditional peak period, which increases operating costs.  Of course you can add capacity requirements to the equation.  Spreading peak demand delays the requirement for additional track capacity.

There are many arguments for providing incentives for people to change their routines and spread the load over a longer time people.  It's time for the government to act.

[Jon Bryant]

I propose a hostile take over bid of QT by Back on Track.  They are out of touch and basing thier ideas on very old theories.  The 12 million revenue they are "keeping" will be small change compared to the investment they will happily sepnd on more roads to "fix" congestion.  Sheer madness and quite disheartening. 

[ozbob]

This was in the original article in the Melbourne Age.

From the Melbourne Age click here!

Sleepy commuters doing bit to save state $85m

Sleepy commuters doing bit to save state $85m
REID SEXTON
September 27, 2009

''EARLY-BIRD'' travel on Melbourne's trains - where passengers can travel free before 7am - has been a huge success, according to a new study, and extending it to 7.30 would further reduce overcrowding and potentially save the Government more than $100 million.

The report, by leading transport expert Professor Graham Currie, found that early-bird travel, launched in March last year, moved up to 2600 passengers each day out of the peak travel times and on to trains that were previously almost empty.

It showed the cost benefit to the network of so much earlier travel is the equivalent of buying an extra five trains - a capital saving of $100 million - because it eases pressure on peak services that run around 7.30am. Taking into account reduced fares and operating costs, the scheme saved the Government up to $85 million.

Professor Currie, from Monash University is urging the Government to consider extending the scheme to allow free travel up to 7.30am.

Calculations he made for The Sunday Age show extending the scheme would divert an extra 2000 to 4000 passengers each day from the worst period of the morning peak around 8am and beyond and save the Government up to $128 million.

Professor Currie's study outlines what the scheme - which is available to anyone travelling on services that reach their destination before 7am - has delivered so far.

It shows that in the seven months before October 2008, the free travel deal diverted 2600 passengers daily away from peak travel times, which significantly offset record overcrowding on the network by creating a more efficient spread of travellers.

Record patronage growth of almost 60 per cent over five years has fuelled overcrowding, particularly during the ''peak of the peak'' from 7.30 to 8.30am, creating delays as trains wait longer at stations and risking commuter safety.

However, the Transport Department's latest patronage survey found that, on average, not one pre-7.30am train service was overcrowded.

''The beauty of the project is that it actually saves the state money while giving us lots of benefits,'' Professor Currie said.

''Extending it is certain to attract more people because more people travel at this time.''

Targeting the most overcrowded times through an extended early-bird scheme would also improve running times and passenger comfort while reducing road congestion.

Professor Currie's study shows that even the most conservative estimates of the early-bird scheme's success reveal that financially it has almost broken even but delivered knock-on effects and significant reductions in overcrowding - something that would be repeated if it was extended.

''Authorities facing these problems have no choice but to consider programs of this kind,'' he said. ''No other method can as quickly act to ease impacts of overloading.''

The plan has won mixed support from other public transport experts, with RMIT public transport advocate Paul Mees saying that extending the scheme to 7.30am would be more effective because it would reduce overcrowding when it was needed.

But Dr Mees, a long-time critic of government policy, said the scheme had failed to deliver benefits because the patronage shift it created only moved people away from services that were not seriously overcrowded.

Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder said early bird travel had acted only to reduce revenue and expressed reservations about it being extended. ''If passengers shifted en masse to earlier trains they would rapidly become as overcrowded as Lynne Kosky's sardine cans at the current height of morning peak.

''This would be compounded by the fewer trains that arrive in the city before 7.30am compared with the current busiest morning peak periods,'' Mr Mulder said.

Public Transport Users Association president Daniel Bowen said the early-bird extension plan should be investigated. He said running more trains in off-peak periods would shift patronage there without costing the Government revenue.

Professor Currie conceded that stretching the scheme to 7.30am meant the risk of losing revenue could outweigh the benefits of reducing overcrowding. But this was unlikely given the success of the scheme so far and the ''virtual certainty'' that large amounts of capacity would be freed during the day's busiest time.

''New trains commonly cost up to $20 million and often require a procurement period of up to five years,'' he said. ''New lines can cost billions. Cheaper, shorter-term solutions are needed.''

Earlier this month, Transport Department chief Jim Betts said the new myki ticket system would allow government to capitalise on the success of early bird travel by offering more incentives for off-peak travel.

[#Metro]

"The option was considered, but with a $12 million cost for little guarantee that people would move to free off-peak travel, it is not an option I have decided to pursue at this stage," Ms Nolan said

I don't agree or believe this statement.
One thing I have learned is that there can be no talk of costs without the corresponding benefit to the public being quantified in a number as well. We have only half that information in this statement, so I can't make a judgement here. As for a guarantee, since when has the government done anything that required a guarantee from anyone? There can be no such thing. And finally, Brisbane can run its own small scale and limited trials (for example, a month with the scheme operating on, say, the Ipswich line).

Of course, if one believes that the roads are saturated with congestion at peak hour, you could get the same effect by raising fares for peak hour travel on PT. Which would, maybe, get them more funds for that. But they are not proposing that, and I am sure why- it would look bad politically.

This state of affairs (congested roads/congested trains/a pricing scheme that appears to be based on political expediency and not economic rationale) can't continue forever. Commuters will be fed up, or the PT money will dry up or both. Perhaps this is the situation we have now?

Despite the clear savings to be made by having incentive fares they hide behind flawed economic rationalist nonsense.

There is no rationale. This is economics irrationale. Never let a politician set prices, because they get set according to political rationales and not economic ones.

I propose a hostile take over bid of QT by Back on Track.

[somebody]

As the good Professor in Melbourne has demonstrated, they will actually end up better off.

I have a concern over the logic described in the article.  (Perhaps the full report explains it better.)  There is no timeframe mentioned for the loss in fare revenue and operating costs.  If it is one year, it would overtake the cost of 5 new trains after about 7 years (without inflation or re-introduction of fares).  This is why I figured that Melbourne has the long-term strategy to start charging early-morning travellers.

Good point.  In fact, if only 2600 people per day have swapped to the early bird services, I fail to see how that would save more than about 5 peak services, MAX!  Most trains can achieve more than one service in the peak hours, unless the line is long.  I think the success of this scheme is over hyped.

But there is little argument that the number of trains required is determined by peak demand. 

Huh?

[ozbob]

Never been keen on the free early bird for rail, better to have an inclusive scheme for all modes. Looks like the off peak etc. still under consideration.

Media Release 21 April 2009

SEQ:  Free rides for a few or improved public transport options for all?

RAIL Back On Track (http://backontrack.org) a web based community support group for rail and public transport and an advocate for public transport commuters has congratulated TransLink on their commitment to put forward further fare strategies for the Go card (1).

It is essential to add off peak fares, and early and late peak incentive fare discounts to the fare structure for the go card, together with capping options that makes the go card equal or better than any paper ticket.  Off peak and incentive fares will encourage use of public transport when there is plenty of capacity and in turn help ease the congestion on struggling peak public transport services.

A high uptake of the go card will allow the seamless collection of meaningful real time load data with the outcome of better matching of services with demand.  Improvements in public transport efficiency, particularly reduced loading times on buses will also occur.

An option of capped fares to match daily, weekly and monthly ticket options will further encourage Go card uptake amongst those commuters who take more than the standard journeys in their paper ticketing period.

Robert Dow, spokesman for RAIL Back On Track said:

"The present paper ticketing on the TransLink network has an off peak option (2).  This encourages travel at less congested times and is helpful to retired pensioners, parents and others who can take trips during the off peak periods.  It encourages citizens to use public transport and reduce environmental impacts. It encourages people to travel outside peak times."

"Presently, off peak ticketing is available for unlimited travel between 9am and 3.30pm and after 7pm on weekdays, and all day on weekends and gazetted public holidays ."

"The go card provides a simple means of implementing an off peak fare and incentive fare structure. All go card journeys that commence (touch on) before 6.30am , touch on after 9am and touch on before 3.30pm and touch on after 7pm Monday to Friday  could be given a flat off peak discount of 30%."

"Although free early bird travel sounds attractive, it is not sustainable financially and too narrow in its focus.  Far better to drive maximum utilisation of our public transport, and in turn actually increase revenue, whilst giving all commuters; bus, ferry and rail the choice of early, late, and off peak discounts."

"It would be a simple matter to give all go card journeys on weekends and gazetted public holidays an off peak discount too.  This is only replicating present ticketing practices."

"The addition of off peak and incentive fares to the go card, together with a capping option, will go a long way in overcoming the remaining public transport commuter resistance to the go card."

"It is time to GO forwards!  Reduced congestion, improved environmental outcomes, safer commuting and better utilisation of the public transport asset will result."

References:

1.  http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/qld-news/cheaper-fares-proposal-by-midyear-translink-20090420-ackt.html

2.  http://www.transinfo.qld.gov.au/qt/TransLin.nsf/index/ti_main

Contact:

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

[Derwan]

Huh?

I'll explain my statement and logic. 

The number of physical trains (rolling stock) required is determined by peak demand.

During off-peak, there are trains to spare, so it's only during peak times that there will be issues caused by a lack of trains.

When deciding how many trains to buy, the Government really only needs to ask the question, "How many trains do we need during peak?"

If the requirement is reduced because the peak is spread over a longer period, we don't have to buy as many trains.

Hope that made sense.

[somebody]

Hope that made sense.

That made sense, but it contradicted your previous statement, unless I misunderstood.

[Derwan]

My previous statement meant that there is little argument against the fact that the number of trains required is determined by peak demand.

[somebody]

My previous statement meant that there is little argument against the fact that the number of trains required is determined by peak demand.

Well, that's what you meant to say anyway.

[Jon Bryant]

Cheaper early bird travel on all public transport (bus, rail, ferry) should not been seen as simply an attempt to reduce the peak demand.  As public transport usage is supply driven (of both public transport and the alternatives) then if some of the existing pasengers move outside the peak then we will see a mode sh%t to fill the capacity they created.  We see this with every new service added...however infrequent.  Reducing traffic congestion has countless benefits and should not bee seen as a loss of revenue becuase the revenue that is shited is also replaced by new revenue the system never had.

[stephenk]

You are a complete idiot rachael nohlan and are completely out of touch with the people you are supposed to represent

Mature comments are always good 

[#Metro]

Trial, Trial, Trial! 

[stephenk]

Sorry, but I think that money that would be "lost" on cheaper early bird fares is better spent on improving frequency when people actually want to travel.

[O_128]

well if myki turns out to be a success possibly they might go for the contract here when it expires

[Derwan]

Sorry, but I think that money that would be "lost" on cheaper early bird fares is better spent on improving frequency when people actually want to travel.

If you provide incentive to travel a bit earlier, people may just WANT to travel at that time.

The notion that people must arrive at work at 9am and leave at 5pm is outdated and impractical.  It places an unnecessary burden on infrastructure and the systems/people running it.  As previously mentioned, we spend millions of dollars (soon to be billions) to make sure we have the trains and infrastructure required for just a few hours of the day. 

Spreading peak load makes sense.  It reduces the overall requirements and makes travelling to and from work a bit more comfortable.  Of course growth will continue and we will still need to spend the money on infrastructure at some stage in the future, but it will be money better spent if is to cater for a larger portion of the day.

[#Metro]

The problem is that the peak is too sharp.
For only 2 hours or a mere 8% of the day (am and pm peaks) there is a mad rush.
For the other 92% of the time, there is low or no demand at all.

There are no easy, fast or perfect solutions. I travelled on the weekend, and paid very little for train trips. Which was good for me, but made me think "this is financially unsustainable- who is going to pay for all the extra PT stuff and upgrades we need?"
Not that I want it to, but whatever option is chosen, its going have one or more of these: expensive, politically unpopular, lengthy, ugly, or inconvenient. Maybe peak hour fares should go up.

Long term, I like a metro style system. We have the tunnel equipment.
This could be done by changing the system we have, or building a new one. And it only has to be metro-style, I haven't said anything about the vehicle, which could be trams, trains, metro vehicles, or even buses.

* Proper, state of the art control allowing short headway
* Automatic or semi-automatic features built in
* Fully grade and segregated service
* High capacity vehicles, and get the rail gauge/number of lanes right
* Decentralised network, with no central station, or at least routes that do not use it. See London or Berlin. Brisbane's compact CBD might be a problem.

Just ideas-and there will be problems in them. It *might* be easier to start over than pile fixes upon fixes on old mistakes.

[ozbob]

I regularly travel outside the 'peak' times and the usage is quite surprising.  Last Sunday afternoon the train from Roma St was half full.  Even the first service from Rosewood to the City each work day morning  has a good loading.  

Incentive ticketing (making peak a premium cost if you like) will result in higher revenues as higher loading outside peak but also makes premium space available at full price, which will fill.

I like to think that we make public transport first choice, not last choice.  Mufreight summed it up well when he wrote:

Proven points with public transport,

1. Keep it simple, consistent routes and stopping pattens.
2. operate reliably
3. Provide good service frequency
4. Keep it clean
5. A reasonable, simple and affordable fare structure.

That should be TL's mission statement ...

[somebody]

I regularly travel outside the 'peak' times and the usage is quite surprising.  Last Sunday afternoon the train from Roma St was half full.  Even the first service from Rosewood to the City each work day morning  has a good loading.  

I agree as for the trains on the Ipswich line.  The first inbound service on weekends isn't exactly empty, last outbound services are far from empty.  Only poorly used service is the Nightlink one.

A bit over a year ago they added a 9:35pm Ipswich service (time is ex-Central).  It was busy enough that I can remember wondering how they coped without it.  I think there were just a lot more people on busses.

I've always thought that they are exceedingly tight with service increases.