Go card fare structure - poll for future enhancements

[somebody]

Capping encourages maximum public transport use.  

Ozbob, that would be an unsupported assertion would it not?

All data I am aware of is that there is a low correlation between PT fares and PT use.  Low, but it is there.

[ozbob]

Assertion of course, but a logical one.  If you can use public transport that is convenient and affordable you use it.  It is part of the thinking behind the 50% discount after 10 journeys.  No real difference in a broad sense, just that capping is preferred by the majority.  But there is a move to drive public transport uptake, I agree frequency and accessibility are the main drivers, but a affordability is still a factor, and will be increasingly so as congestion, fuel and road costs escalate.  Feedback in this thread already suggests fare costs are impacting, I wouldn't say it is an unsupported assertion, it is a constant theme of feedback here and elsewhere.  Have a look here --> http://www.uctc.net/papers/681.pdf

[somebody]

The new Sydney fare system and zoning is also better than here in Brisbane.

No way.  In their system you are still punished financially for being forced to change.  This causes some bus routes to do a "Milk run" which would not be required otherwise.  e.g. the 374 which should use Oxford St rather than detour to Central and the 376 which should be canned to increase frequency on the 377.

They also have stuck with the ridiculous notion that you should pay a different rate if you are using a bus or a train for a journey of the same distance.

As for low number of zones in Sydney and Melbourne, I don't see why this is a big deal at all.

[dwb]

Hi all, a couple of posts to come, but will respond individually to comments by tramtrain, ozbob, somebody, DBL, marisue, stephenk, strek, and wbj!

@tramtrain

But I think that if someone asks "do you want caps or not?", that is a valid question and it ought to be answered rather than "other things are more important, we won't worry about that for now". A quick survey on a focus group will reveal whether the current fare system, or whatever new ideas for fares, is tolerable enough for commuters.

Actually I don't think it is necessarily valid to ask consumers the price point or the product they want to pay, it could be interesting market research but it certainly shouldn't be a poll, consultation or engagement.
They should certainly engage, but this should be done on an objectives and values basis - ie what characteristics do people value and how do they relate, ie affordability and coverage, frequency and reliability, comfort and presence of service etc etc.

[dwb]

@wbj

Let's put the issue into perspective.
Would you rather save 50c of $1 on your train trip or sit for your 40-50 minute trip rather than stand?

These tradeoffs start to get more valuable but different people still make different tradeoffs. Besides that I think it would be an error for Translink to attempt to promise people a seat, especially in peak. Personally I would prefer the geographic coverage and frequency to be much higher.  For journeys up to ~30mins I'm willing to stand... as long as there is a bus or a train when, from where and to where (or close enough) to where I want it. Seats should be secondary to the provision of the actual services.

[dwb]

@somebody

Effectively reducing fare costs (which capping does) attracts higher patronage, that is established fact in public transport, Just as it is an established fact that the degree to which this occurs is almost negligible.

That is not really accurate, at least from a strategic rather than mathematical perspective, as often people who use public transport do so only as they have no alternative, they physically can't drive, don't own a car, can't afford to park it etc. They are a trapped market, and they are usually commuters and the poor. In my vision for public transport we actually would achieve a significant modal shift to public transport for discretionary travel, which is price sensitive, particularly in relation to car use. The big problem with pricing PT is that car costs at the moment are not reflective of use and in many situations perversely encourage the use of private vehicles over public transport (fringe benefits tax, non-usage-based upfront fixed-cost road-charge etc).

[dwb]

@ozbob

Capping encourages maximum public transport use.

I agree, there is a lot of research that suggests people value being able to "fix" or "cap" their cost over a period. There are from my perspectives two ways to fix or cap people's use cost, each with different pros and cons.

The first is yours: zone and period based fixed cost that allows unlimited trips in those zones for that time period.

The second is the value based approach that I've been advocating.

The primary problem with the zone/period approach is that you have to pre-select the zones you'll travel in, and it is only viable or attractive to commuters and high users. A value based cap could however attract low users or occasional users to become more reliant on PT by still giving them a discounted avenue into such behaviours.

I'm open to a third major approach, and I don't think daily capping is it - I think that is the same as the first approach, just on a different time scale!

I note we now have > 30 responses on our poll,  significant data ...

I'd really like an opportunity to recap with you my previous research with over 100 people - the benefit being that it was values based approach and that not many of those who participated were transport enthusiasts - many were 'ordinary joes'.

[dwb]

@strek
There is nothing stopping you currently purchasing two or more unregistered go cards to lend to visitors when they come to stay. Besides, we're yet to really see the product ideas Translink and Cubic have in mind for tourists.

@Marisue

I would like to see a Day Ticket for Seniors e.g. $2.50 to travel to and from their destination.

I think this price point is rather ridiculously low considering our ageing demographic. I would suggest lobbying by state governments to federal governments to increase general pension incomes would be both more appropriate and more likely to gain traction in the current climate esp with such vertical funding imbalance between the feds and states (service providers for transport, housing, health and education).

[dwb]

@stephenk

Even as a supporter of public transport I am now using it around 20% less since the fare increases in Jan 2010.

This in itself this is not be a bad thing especially if you are:
a) combining and reducing unnecessary trips intelligently
b) switching some trips to walking
or c) cycling more frequently.

It is only negative from my perspective when it is:
d) reducing your involvement in society (for example pensioner trapped at home)
or e) switching those trips to private motor vehicle.

In the case of e, appropriate user charging for road based travel would be the best approach to counterpoint this, rather than overly subsidised public transport (not even taking into account that you could use that as a strong revenue stream to offset the cost of both road based and PT infrastructure improvement programs - eg, as in London).

[dwb]

@DBL

(2) A periodical ticket option.   Needs to reflect current paper ticket options.

From my perspective Translink are highly unlikely to do this for a host of reasons, at least from a price perspective.

(3) Fewer fare zones like occurs in Melbourne.  There are far too many here in Brisbane.  The new Sydney fare system and zoning is also better than here in Brisbane.

No thanks, I only travel 2 zones due to my life choices to locate close to work and entertainment I shouldn't have to subsidise any more heavily than I already do all those who want their McMansion on the fringe (although nor I do not support a lineal based charge on equity grounds).

(4) More outlets to sell and top up Go Cards eg. Some newsagencies have been denied the option of selling Go Cards.  I've seen several petitions by newsagencies upset about this.  Why doesn't Translink want as many Go Card outlets as possible to encourage patronage?

Absolutely - should be able to do it anywhere they sell phone recharges - think petrol stations, local convenience stores and Coles/Woolies. The shops wouldn't necessarily need the touch machines and EFTPOS, surely you could just get a voucher number than credits your account (possible problem with time lag in updating to card however).

(5) More fare gates at city stations.

Absolutely - and they need to open and close much much faster!

(7) Introduce a Go Card ombudsman

I suggest you review Translink's complaints processes, alternatively you might find benefits with the Office of Fair Trading or the Queensland Ombudsman

[dwb]

@somebody

All data I am aware of is that there is a low correlation between PT fares and PT use.  Low, but it is there.

Not low when you consider that frequency is budgetarily and politically highly reliant on fare revenue. Ie the fact that there is no money to spend on more/better services is undercutting the frequency and efficiency of PT. The maths of the elasticity may be low, but as I previously asserted I think this is more to do with the structure of pricing and ability to switch to an alternative (ie private car).

They (Sydney) also have stuck with the ridiculous notion that you should pay a different rate if you are using a bus or a train for a journey of the same distance.

I agree, free interchange is a great component of the SEQ system that enables and encourages interchange. Interchange is likely to increase more and more over time, esp as services are designed to promote this. It is not however without problems, and is part of the reason why a train trip to the Gold Coast is comparatively cheap compared to a local bus journey. At the time they established the integration, rail was much much much cheaper for government than both what it was now, and per km than bus.

[#Metro]

Actually I don't think it is necessarily valid to ask consumers the price point or the product they want to pay, it could be interesting market research but it certainly shouldn't be a poll, consultation or engagement.
They should certainly engage, but this should be done on an objectives and values basis - ie what characteristics do people value and how do they relate, ie affordability and coverage, frequency and reliability, comfort and presence of service etc etc.

I understand if you ask them "how much do you want to pay?" the reply will probably come back as "zero!!"
Seriously though, I was trying to say that how people pay (cap, value cap, periodical, daily cap etc) can't be neglected either.
I think your value cap idea is interesting and merits a closer look. Are there any known PT systems that have this or something similar?

[dwb]

I think your value cap idea is interesting and merits a closer look. Are there any known PT systems that have this or something similar?

Not sure Tramtrain, had been developing the idea copied straight from telecom, even down the the concept that perhaps you could have multiple retailers offering individualised products from Cubic/Translink as the wholesaler.  The context and values and outcomes seemed to match the two markets perfectly.

To further our discussion re consultation/market research, I came across an excellent blog article (below) or at http://blog.ideascale.com/2010/05/05/to-ask-or-not-to-ask-that-is-the-question/ that summed up my thoughts on this debate very concisely and have more than a pearl or two of wisdom contained. I think that is pretty consistent with where you're going to. Hope you enjoy!

To ask or not to Ask? That is the question May 5, 2010

There are two broad schools of thought – "Listening to you customers is the most important activity you can do" and the proverbial Henry Ford quote – "If I asked my customers what they want, they simply would have said a
faster horse."

I came across a couple of very thought provoking ideas and discussions:

TED Conference – Malcolm Gladwell talks about Howard Moskovitz – how he changed the way Consumer Packaged Goods companies did segmentation and cluster analysis:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6449479356304659254

The final analysis from my standpoint is – Asking customers what they want vs. analyzing their needs. Obviously the latter is actually what you really want to do. In our own businesses, we come across many clients every day that want "feature x" – We also have to think hard about _why_ they need feature X – that is the larger question.

Vivek Bhaskaran
President and CEO – Survey Analytics
As head of privately held Survey Analytics, Vivek is responsible for all aspects of strategy and direction.

[#Metro]

  I love it.
How businesses (and TransLink!) can learn from Spaghetti sauce....!
I think this kind of approach would be really great.
Yes, sounds very exciting proposal dwb!!!

[somebody]

@somebody

All data I am aware of is that there is a low correlation between PT fares and PT use.  Low, but it is there.

Not low when you consider that frequency is budgetarily and politically highly reliant on fare revenue. Ie the fact that there is no money to spend on more/better services is undercutting the frequency and efficiency of PT. The maths of the elasticity may be low, but as I previously asserted I think this is more to do with the structure of pricing and ability to switch to an alternative (ie private car).

I think it was obvious that I was refering to changes in fares with the service being exactly the same otherwise.

But as for this:

@somebody

Effectively reducing fare costs (which capping does) attracts higher patronage, that is established fact in public transport, Just as it is an established fact that the degree to which this occurs is almost negligible.

That is not really accurate, at least from a strategic rather than mathematical perspective, as often people who use public transport do so only as they have no alternative, they physically can't drive, don't own a car, can't afford to park it etc. They are a trapped market, and they are usually commuters and the poor. In my vision for public transport we actually would achieve a significant modal shift to public transport for discretionary travel, which is price sensitive, particularly in relation to car use. The big problem with pricing PT is that car costs at the moment are not reflective of use and in many situations perversely encourage the use of private vehicles over public transport (fringe benefits tax, non-usage-based upfront fixed-cost road-charge etc).

And this:

@ozbob

Capping encourages maximum public transport use.

I agree, there is a lot of research that suggests people value being able to "fix" or "cap" their cost over a period. There are from my perspectives two ways to fix or cap people's use cost, each with different pros and cons.

The first is yours: zone and period based fixed cost that allows unlimited trips in those zones for that time period.

The second is the value based approach that I've been advocating.

The primary problem with the zone/period approach is that you have to pre-select the zones you'll travel in, and it is only viable or attractive to commuters and high users. A value based cap could however attract low users or occasional users to become more reliant on PT by still giving them a discounted avenue into such behaviours.

I'm open to a third major approach, and I don't think daily capping is it - I think that is the same as the first approach, just on a different time scale!

I note we now have > 30 responses on our poll,  significant data ...

I'd really like an opportunity to recap with you my previous research with over 100 people - the benefit being that it was values based approach and that not many of those who participated were transport enthusiasts - many were 'ordinary joes'.

I think you've just contradicted yourself.  First you argue that there is no point in trying to attract people to public transport as only people who have to use it will (which is clearly false anyway), then you argue that people would be attracted by lower fares.  I just hope you aren't considerring a career in PT.

I don't know why you want to disagree with almost everything that I say.  Because you couldn't answer my question: "What non-useless things have Translink done in the last 2 years?"?  Who's fault is that?

[dwb]

I think it was obvious that I was refering to changes in fares with the service being exactly the same otherwise.

The whole point is the system doesn't operate in maths world where you can isolate variables. A change in price that affects usage, probably won't just eliminate that travel, it will switch it to other modes. There is a lot of research that indicates a very small change in usage (1-2%) of road based systems can actually be the kill factor where everything breaks down.

Considering more than half of journeys are road based in SEQ, by a small elasticity, which even you agree exists you can be switching enough people back to cars just to undermine the efficiency of the buses through additional road congestion.

Given that the whole point of raising fares was to raise more money, it doesn't make sense if you are actually going to end up in a downward spiral that actually undermines the efficiency of your system to operate, and hence raise revenue.

I think you've just contradicted yourself.  First you argue that there is no point in trying to attract people to public transport as only people who have to use it will (which is clearly false anyway), then you argue that people would be attracted by lower fares.

I don't think behaviour is inversable, the positive argument flipped does not result in the negative. What encourages someone to do something is not necessarily the inverse of what forces somoeone to do something.

I just hope you aren't considerring a career in PT.

I often don't agree with your ideas and I state that, and my reasoning why. I do not attack you personally and I expect the same respect.

Because you couldn't answer my question: "What non-useless things have Translink done in the last 2 years?"?  Who's fault is that?

I chose not to answer your question as I consider it a flame. If you'd like to find out my perspective's on Translink's performance as an organisation good and bad then you could start at my well publicised research which is available on the forum, or the internet.

[somebody]

Well PT fares were already very low compared to Sydney, and I think low compared to other places in Australia.  Even after the fare increases they are still inexpensive on any measure, with the exception of the very short journeys.

I think you need to face the fact that price elasticity is low and get over the fare increases.  Putting up the fares provides more money for service improvements, and even if they don't do as much of that as they have promised, they are far better than the likely alternative which is service cuts.

If you'd like to find out my perspective's on Translink's performance as an organisation good and bad then you could start at my well publicised research which is available on the forum, or the internet.

Care to provide some links?

[#Metro]

I would agree with the point that the benefits provided by better frequency, far outweigh those by slashing fares.
People are prepared to pay for quality- low floor buses, which are new, clean and air conditioned. New trains with toilets on them (yes, ALL of them), spaces for bicycles, food OK on board etc. They will not pay for transport that does not go near them, is low frequency, complaints fobbed off/shifted, gocard malfunctions (I seriously considered posting mine back at one stage, and have 2 dead ones) etc.

That said however, some thoughts need to go to serving those who might not be in a position to pay as most others are. Some thought also needs to go into what ticketing or ticket(s) (I have seen dwb's video link) and structure for that might work best for each cluster of user demographics. I think that all aspects of the TL system need to be improved, not just certain patches.

I found Sydney transport very very lacking. I still got around by PT, but it was extremely expensive and the fares were not integrated (integrated fares are different from integrated ticketing, but they didn't have that either). I did still catch it, and I did feel a bit ripped off, except when catching the train (which I can only have praise for Sydney trains) or the Light Rail. My problem with Brisbane is that they took the money, but haven't delivered what what promised yet, which has resulted in a loss of public trust and aggravated the public in a time of increasing interest rates, petrol prices, groceries, tolls, rates, etc. Although unpopular, this does not mean that it was a wrong thing to do- IMHO it was essential. In time I think they will keep their promise and come good on it by the end of the year.

As for TL, I will say that PT is much better under TL then it was without them there. (No, I will not field research requests for this one!).They do need improvement, it can be frustrating to see good ideas lay idle (like trains in the gaps or 66 + 109) but the main thing is that PT does not make money, it takes money; yes it has benefits and all that but you need money to run the system and under such operation there will always be a limit to the funds available as there are competing priorities (Education, Health etc). This however should not be taken to mean that we shouldn't push or ask for more money. We should. Raising fares along with service is one of many ways to do this.

[somebody]

I found Sydney transport very very lacking. I still got around by PT, but it was extremely expensive and the fares were not integrated (integrated fares are different from integrated ticketing, but they didn't have that either). I did still catch it, and I did feel a bit ripped off, except when catching the train (which I can only have praise for Sydney trains) or the Light Rail. My problem with Brisbane is that they took the money, but haven't delivered what what promised yet, which has resulted in a loss of public trust and aggravated the public in a time of increasing interest rates, petrol prices, groceries, tolls, rates, etc. Although unpopular, this does not mean that it was a wrong thing to do- IMHO it was essential. In time I think they will keep their promise and come good on it by the end of the year.

Well these criticisms are true, and Sydneysiders largely hate CityRail.  They are inefficient and waste a huge amount of resources and at least some of this is due to pure laziness by the staff.  They have some idiotic stopping patterns, although these have been on the improve.  Also, slowing down all the trains a few years ago to improve on time running has annoyed a few people.  Express trains which just run slow between the stations is also very annoying.  One particular example is the so called "Penrith Express".  These trains after leaving Redfern are non-stop until Parramatta, a distance by rail of 21km.  This used to be timetabled at 21mins, now 22mins, which is not as bad a slow down as some.  Back when I was a regular user of this service, it was still at the 21min time, which is an average speed of 60km/h.  p%ss poor.  Worse, it was frequently delayed after leaving Redfern more or less on time, not by a couple of minutes, but by more like 10mins.  This makes the average speed ~40km/h.  Well, I already said 60km/h was p%ss poor.  Newcastle trains are far worse than the 60km/h I believe.

[#Metro]

We might talk about this in another, later thread

[somebody]

I often don't agree with your ideas and I state that, and my reasoning why. I do not attack you personally and I expect the same respect.

I'm not convinced of that.  For instance, you never answered the question that if the P374 was put in KGSBS what routes should be left outside.  And then you accused me of naiveity in relation to periodical tickets.

I chose not to answer your question as I consider it a flame.

Well you can consider it that way if you wish.  But I've prodded you on quite a few occasions and haven't gotten a response.  What am I supposed to think?

[somebody]

Assertion of course, but a logical one.  If you can use public transport that is convenient and affordable you use it.  It is part of the thinking behind the 50% discount after 10 journeys.  No real difference in a broad sense, just that capping is preferred by the majority.  But there is a move to drive public transport uptake, I agree frequency and accessibility are the main drivers, but a affordability is still a factor, and will be increasingly so as congestion, fuel and road costs escalate.  Feedback in this thread already suggests fare costs are impacting, I wouldn't say it is an unsupported assertion, it is a constant theme of feedback here and elsewhere.  Have a look here --> http://www.uctc.net/papers/681.pdf

Are you refering to the paragraph in that link on p11 starting "Kain and Liu (1996) ..."?

This agrees with what I have posted so far, in that there is a link, but it's less strong than the link between patronage and service quality.  Perhaps it's different in the strength of how it puts it.

[ozbob]

It is variable, some studies prices is a sensitive factor, others less so.  My own view is that the frequency and accessibility are the most important overall, then fares.  Although for some fares are the critical determinant. 

[dwb]

you never answered the question that if the P374 was put in KGSBS what routes should be left outside

The assertion that KGS is "full" at the moment, which was BT's response to me is from my perspective unjustified. I do however agree with the implication from your above statement that obviously not all routes could go in KGS, some from pure routing issues and some from capacity issues and some from the desire simply not to have all services ending in the same place.

The point remains though that 385 is half full by Bardon, which if you amended the P374, could improve the case for both those short transit passengers and The Gap passengers. My statement therefore was directed at co-locating strongly related routes. In this case, the P374 would be a "short" 385 and I proposed it should leave from the same stop. The reason for this is that significant numbers of passengers are attracted to KGS for the 385 currently, deserting both the 375 and P374 which frequently run half empty upon leaving the city due passengers preference for the 385.

If you can present such strong relationships for other routes I'll be pleased to read those and comment. I did such on your very long and indepth proposed shakeup of QSBS.

[dwb]

Yes indeed Tramtrain, I am a chunks kind of spaghetti guy! Are you a thin sauce man??

Although I had presented the link there, I had actually been highlighting the need not to ask people what they want versus analysing people's needs, and I had not watched the video until last night. It concords with my assertions however that Translink needs to recognise it is planning for different people with different needs and desires.

As a flow on, these different groups are likely to have highly differing responses to price elasticity. For example, a M-F commuter who's wife needs the family car to look after the kids, who doesn't have a second car, nor who can pay for parking, and doesn't have the flexibility to ride (no showers at work), nor walk (too far), nor who has access to flexible work hours, has little choice but to continue using the train/bus/ferry despite an increase. This same person on a weekend however could be highly price sensitive to PT use on the weekend! You can't and shouldn't average it out to one number and think that is going to get you anywhere.

To continue with the video analogy, I want my pepsis please!

[mch]

My suggestion is for a graduated discount.
After 8 trips in a week, a 20% discount applies and then after 10 the 50% discount cuts in as is does currently.
Most commuters use public transport to go to and from work and for them they get no benefit out of the current scheme.  By having the smaller discount after 8 trips, they will at least get some incentive for using Go Card.
There are still people who will not use it and this extra incentive may bring them over to Go Card.

There are still issues that I have noted with delays at stations to touch off and some people having troubles clearly seeing the messages on the screen.

[somebody]

The assertion that KGS is "full" at the moment, which was BT's response to me

Did they really say that?  There's a completely unused stop in each direction.

If the 444/443 go back to QSBS, that would free up space in KGSBS for the 374, 375 (Bardon Part), 350-2, 357, 359, 390.  Perhaps.

My own view is that the frequency and accessibility are the most important overall, then fares.  Although for some fares are the critical determinant. 

Well, I don't think anyone can disagree with that one.  Those that find fares a critical determinant would be not travelling then, I guess.

[dwb]

Did they really say that?  There's a completely unused stop in each direction.

Yes they did say that, and I'm not sure if it is cos they already have other plans in their mind, but still I thought the outright rejection was a little negative.

If the 444/443 go back to QSBS, that would free up space in KGSBS for the 374, 375 (Bardon Part), 350-2, 357, 359, 390.  Perhaps.

It is rather difficult to get the 375 in the KGSBS unless you decide to make it turn left and go down Elizabeth to the Valley. I'm not sure which way you'd then bring it back to Bardon, Charlotte St is a nightmare with Eagle St, so Ann St would be the other alternative, but then you could only access KGS at Roma St via the Turbot St portal, meaning the inbound and outbound stopping locations are different. For a through route such as this I think that would cause too much confusion.

[mufreight]

The Perth system has fee travel for pensioners off peak and weekends, it may be concidence but since the introduction of that scheme there has been a quite significant increase in loadings most of which would undoubtedly be pensioners who would otherwise not be traveling.
Surely the same argument would apply to capped fares for the average commuter with any costs offset by reducing the numbers of people using private transport rather than than public transport.
Also with the increased numbers of commuters encouraged to use public transport there would be an increase in fare box revenue up to the point where the capped fares cut in.
The discounted air fares concept extended, increase the volume and lower the costs.

[somebody]

It is rather difficult to get the 375 in the KGSBS unless you decide to make it turn left and go down Elizabeth to the Valley. I'm not sure which way you'd then bring it back to Bardon, Charlotte St is a nightmare with Eagle St, so Ann St would be the other alternative, but then you could only access KGS at Roma St via the Turbot St portal, meaning the inbound and outbound stopping locations are different. For a through route such as this I think that would cause too much confusion.

You would have to split it into two routes.  But that probably should be done anyway.

Did they really say that?  There's a completely unused stop in each direction.

Yes they did say that, and I'm not sure if it is cos they already have other plans in their mind, but still I thought the outright rejection was a little negative.

Do they not have a code of conduct which forbids statements like this?

If they had other plans for it, they could have at least said that.

[somebody]

Charlotte St is a nightmare with Eagle St

What do you mean by this comment?

[dwb]

Charlotte St is a nightmare with Eagle St

What do you mean by this comment?

I just mean that routing via Charlotte St would require using Eagle St, or making a left right turn combo. Eagle St doesn't seem like a route where you could do anything to guarantee bus travel times.

You would have to split it (the 375) into two routes.  But that probably should be done anyway.

Perhaps it should be done, perhaps not. I think many members of this forum already think too many routes terminate in the CBD, rather than running through. Given running through is a bit more efficient with stops/kerb space it's probably undesired to chop this one in two - they already launched the 376 for instance.

It is also really important, from my perspective, to not have to change in the city/roma st to get to the valley... if the train between Roma St + Valley was every 5mins, that might be a different story, but for now being able to go from Bardon to Valley is useful for many, something which would disappear if you chopped it in two.

[somebody]

It is also really important, from my perspective, to not have to change in the city/roma st to get to the valley... if the train between Roma St + Valley was every 5mins, that might be a different story, but for now being able to go from Bardon to Valley is useful for many, something which would disappear if you chopped it in two.

Many routes already require you to do this.  Putting the Bardon side of the 375 with the 385 in KGSBS, and the 374 joining them is a great reason to remove the Valley service.  I don't think there would be too many complaints because the current Herschel St/Saul St method of getting in to the city for the 375/374 is poor.

As for your train service point.  It isn't too bad before 10pm or so, with 10tph between Roma St & Fortitude Valley 7 days.  Of course, it isn't evenly spaced.  The train gets to the Valley from Roma St probably faster than the current 375 route, even with the recovery time at Central, so I don't know that this point is too much of a problem.

EDIT: Just to qualify these remarks, I would only support putting the 374 in KGSBS if: the 325, 350-2, 357, 359, 390 all have their crumby CBD routings improved, possibly by putting in to KGSBS and the 375 is moved with the 374.  I'm not sure if there is enough room in KGSBS for all this.

[#Metro]

Just a thought on DWB's cap plan idea. IF the ticketing were to be tweaked, then:

1. The current ticketing scheme (pay-as-you-go) should remain (this being similar to Myki Money etc).
2. The 10+ trip discount scheme is removed (I've heard hardly anyone uses it anyway)
3. A cap scheme (opt in?) based on Dwb's cap idea is introduced. The purpose of the cap scheme is to give regular users a cheaper fare. (see note 1).

Example marketing:

Enjoy freedom of travel with TransLink's new caps.
Travel anywhere, anytime on any bus, train or ferry (See note 2) for $[insert amount] per [insert time period].

The cap would be calculated as follows:
price =  cost - X
where X is a bulk discount amount. So a monthly is just the sum of daily tickets discounted by an X factor.
The beauty of the system is that if you like the current system, you can keep it. If you want caps, then you too can have it.
It's keeping with Dwb's idea that there is no such thing as the right ticket. There are only right tickets.

Note 1: Do we even need a discount? A regular user discount is based on the idea that a person is more likely to make one extra trip if the price is lowered. Without the discount, the trip might not be made at all. There is something interesting here. Up for discussion is whether no discount should apply so that trip should not be made at all (saves gov money; but then would it be made anyway and by car?) or the money saved be put into more frequent PT which attracts more people than fare cuts ever did?

Note 2: In time I would like to see GoCard extended to the bay islands ferry and other private operators (such as Airport Shuttle buses) as a general transportation value card, rather than just something for TL services only. Buying coffee at the station/bus stop on your GoCard should be allowed too. Possibly even nation wide coverage- you could take your card and use it in Melbourne, Hobart, Perth or Sydney!

[brad C]

Why is there a broad brush assumption that people would be more appreciative of more regular service than cheaper fares?
If that were applied to other commodities, no one would queue for petrol at discount petrol outlets on the dip in the price cycle. Families are hurting out there - another electricity hike announced today.
As a go card user, I want a system equivalent to the former weekly ticket where I pay the equivalent of 4 days' return fares and receive the equivalent of 7 days travel. Anything short of this is a rip-off, particularly when Government so carefully packaged the increases in a statement that read - "Public Transport Fares are Changing".
What about other incentives that QR used to give its passengers - 4 for 1 tickets during school holidays, 30% off peak travel, ALL day after 9:00am, and gold coin Saturdays, not to mention the additional day on weeklies when a public holiday fell in the week. How quickly the populists forget.

Now we receive a miserable 10% off peak, a 'generous' discount of 50% conveniently applied only after the majority of city commuters return home on a Friday evening, and wait for it, continued fare increases up until 2014.
All this whilst timetables stall in the 1990s.

If the opposition can't come up with some decent PT policies that put an end to the current oppressive system, then they really have a credability crisis.

[#Metro]

Why is there a broad brush assumption that people would be more appreciative of more regular service than cheaper fares?

I'd rather have more frequent PT than cheap or free transport. Just my preference. Its up for discussion though.
If the goal of the frequent user discount is to generate extra trips, would that be best done by cutting fares or increasing frequency?
Just a thought.

[somebody]

Why is there a broad brush assumption that people would be more appreciative of more regular service than cheaper fares?
If that were applied to other commodities, no one would queue for petrol at discount petrol outlets on the dip in the price cycle.

Could it be because that's what (I think) every single study into this has found?

I do have to laugh at the comparison with petrol.  Still the same amount of petrol is consumed, almost regardless of price.  They just want to pay less money for it.  That's why they queue.  PT isn't like that as there is only one provider.