Fares comparison vs 2004 fares

[somebody]

See attached.

Heavily discounted long distance periodical tickets have been removed.

Why are the lines not straight?  Consolidated rounding errors up to zone 10, and discounts to the base fare for people beyond that have been added.

[Mr X]

Very good point. Why are people in shorter journeys subsidising longer journeys and absorbing more of the increase? 

[dwb]

Very good point. Why are people in shorter journeys subsidising longer journeys and absorbing more of the increase? 

That is an equity decision made by government.

It is also one that looks at prior costs before Translink (rail was cheaper than buses).

Longer distance trips more readily get out of cost comparison with switching to car mode.

[brismike]

Very good point. Why are people in shorter journeys subsidising longer journeys and absorbing more of the increase? 

Probably because there are more of them and therefore the rate of return is higher?

[Mr X]

Very good point. Why are people in shorter journeys subsidising longer journeys and absorbing more of the increase? 

Probably because there are more of them and therefore the rate of return is higher?

That's not the point. You'd think the proportion of increase would be applied across the board uniform. Apparently not, if this data is correct.

[dwb]

Very good point. Why are people in shorter journeys subsidising longer journeys and absorbing more of the increase? 

Probably because there are more of them and therefore the rate of return is higher?

That's not the point. You'd think the proportion of increase would be applied across the board uniform. Apparently not, if this data is correct.

No the point is:

- equity
- price integrating rail and bus at same fare
- an attempt to keep longer distance travel still competitive via rail

But you seem to have completely ignored my previous post... why? if you don't think these are accurate or valid, please tell me why

[somebody]

That is an equity decision made by government.

Where's the equity in that?

Might be more of a populist decision.

[Mr X]

Why is it equitable for those who decide to live far from work to then expect everyone else to pick up the slack? What has equity got to do with anything. Sure there are fewer people going long distance than short distances but that doesn't mean that they're of a special status. I'm not asking for us to completely gauge those travelling excessive distances, just have a fair system for all.

If you want to talk about competitive against cars, consider the excessive price it now costs people in inner Brisbane just to go 1km by PT, compared to how it was in 2004/2005.

[BrizCommuter]

The current fare structure penalises those who live closer to their place of work, and encourages those with have an environmentally unsustainable lifestyle of living miles from where they work.

[HappyTrainGuy]

BRING ON PAY PER METRE!

[dwb]

That is an equity decision made by government.

Where's the equity in that?

Might be more of a populist decision.

I didn't say I fully agreed with the decision, but it's a factor, and it is in urban research program from GU too... think Vampire.

I don't think it is "populist" per se as I believe there'd be many more shorter distance passengers than longer distance passengers in the network.

[dwb]

BRING ON PAY PER METRE!

I seriously believe something based on as the crow travelled distance should be evaluated in the future.

It won't be a flat line of course, and nor should it as shorter distance trips are proportionally more expensive.

[somebody]

I don't object to the notion of a flagfall, but the 2004 fares had a $1.60 flag fall, and 40c per zone???  You have to travel approximately 15km before the distance charge equals flag fall.  Even the higher after midnight flag fall in a cab equals the distance charge after about 3km. Link: http://www.taxifare.com.au/rates/australia/brisbane/

[Stillwater]

I am sure people who live in the 'outer regions' would be prepared to consider paying more for public transport provided the equity considerations also locked in frequency equity.  If the equity argument is to be persued, it must address the frequency side of the coin also.  Yes, it could be argued, people living Caboolture to Nambour should pay more, provided they enjoyed the same level of service as someone living Darra-Northgate -- a train every 15 minutes.

[Fares_Fair]

I am sure people who live in the 'outer regions' would be prepared to consider paying more for public transport provided the equity considerations also locked in frequency equity.  If the equity argument is to be persued, it must address the frequency side of the coin also.  Yes, it could be argued, people living Caboolture to Nambour should pay more, provided they enjoyed the same level of service as someone living Darra-Northgate -- a train every 15 minutes.

Agreed, +1
People on the Sunny Coast line say they would be prepared to pay more for better (read more frequent and more express, shorter) services.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Mr X]

Compared to what the GC gets, Sunshine Coast services are an absolute disgrace. Railbuses? Train every 90mins on weekends (could be back in Brisbane by the time the train arrives!!) with a forced change to an allstopper at Caboolture on some services. Delays, track failures...

Compared to driving on a nice motorway in the comfort of a car for a few dollars more, why bother with the train???

What year is this, 1788?

At least my bus has been improved in 2011 and I am happy to pay more for it, but jeeze intercity transport SUCKS.

[SteelPan]

The current fare and zone structure is simply not sustainable - last week I posted an excellent blueprint for a simplified, fairer and much more workable fare structure for SE Qld.

Hopefully in due course such visionary thinking will be embraced by the powers-that-be, which thankfully will likely get a long overdue shakeup soon.

Humble comment complete.  

(and if you don't like my fare/zone plan -  )

[SurfRail]

Nothing wrong with the structure.  Just lower the flagfall for shorter fares, increase off-peak incentives and remove the grand-fathering arrangements from 2004 which create all the anomalies with buses and trains being in different zones in the same location.

[somebody]

I think they should also go back to a 50% FUD.

And close the loophole design flaw where longer distance commuters can get the FUD applied to longer journeys while the full price journeys are shorter distance.  Same for peak/off peak, I guess.

[dwb]

Nothing wrong with the structure.  Just lower the flagfall for shorter fares, increase off-peak incentives and remove the grand-fathering arrangements from 2004 which create all the anomalies with buses and trains being in different zones in the same location.

generally agree, but then, i'm not so concerned about lowering fares, i think the ground has shifted. i don't think they should keep going up, not at 15% anyway, with further improvements to subsidy ratio to be got from efficiencies.

I think higher singles also gives Translink "room" to move with regards to other products, and I think this is a good thing.