PTAG: Whatever happened to the 6 and 12 month tickets ?

[dwb]

Yes, peak hour is full, but then maybe more services are needed.  The roads are busy too, not just the trains.  Most peole really don't have that much leeway in what times they are expected to be present at work.

I agree, however peak hour capacity expansion is expensive as the system is at capacity during peak hour-- which means that an increase in PT supply can only come about buy buying more concrete (or removing seats, getting rid of express, putting in an extra door(s) in trains - I hear lots of squealing when any of these are suggested!!!).

I think some clarity would come about if we asked the question "what is the purpose of a PT fare cap?"
when we have an answer to that then the picture will become clearer.

I don't think the purpose of a fare cap should be to encourage more peak hour 9-5 commuting. That already happens and the system is loaded up to capacity without needing one.
Off-peak and weekends are a different story, but I don't really notice the price difference there. It is the travel in the off-peak that should be encouraged.

When BrizCommuter uses public transport more than twice a day, the extra journeys are outside of the peak period. BrizCommuter is sure that is the case for other frequent public transport users such as students travelling to uni and work on the same day, and tourists. Thus daily capping would attract more public transport use during the off-peak, rather than the peak.

Likewise weekly caps would encourage the use of public transport on weekends. Thanks to the current fare structure, BrizCommuter's weekend public transport use has plummeted.

That would be OK.  At least it has a reason.  What I am against is a weekly which is priced at around the price of 8 peak trips, as per the old weeklies (and CityRail).  I often qualify for frequent user on Wednesday.  I'd expect to get little out of a weekly which is priced around 10 peak trips.  I'm only saving on trips which are frequent user discount trips anyway.  Also, I make odd trips off peak or single zone (instead of my usual 2 zone) before I've qualified for frequent user, which increases the effectiveness of frequent user for me.  If you make the comparison to a daily cap, I have to make 18 journeys in a week before I am better off.  

The difference of capping vs frequent user isn't worth worrying about IMO.

More or less I agree... the old weeklies shouldn't be reintroduced on go card, at least not at the cost of 8 (go card) singles... but perhaps something more like the 10tripper SHOULD be reintroduced? People don't understand how the Frequent User Scheme works, even the people on this forum think it doesn't give them value. I know I flog it like a dead horse but that is why I'm so keen on a "value" not zonally or flat all you can eat day/week/month based cap.

We all know (all you can eat) buffet makes people eat more, so the restaurant drops the quality of the food. Or another analogy is when you go out with some friends (who you may not know all that well) and you eat a salad but someone else eats a lobster and champagne and then insists on equal splitting of the bill!

[edit for clarity]

[dwb]

It's interesting that those who travel the furthest for commuting (and thus pay the most) are the ones who most want a commuter discount ticket.  (ooh, Am I allowed to say that?)

Or in other words, live an unsustainably long distance from their work, and then want even more subsidising of their travelling habits.

Like I keep saying to those who think a rail network is for short suburb to suburb trips. 
It's NOT.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

It could be if we updated the signalling and bought trains that accelerate and decelerate faster with more door, more standing room and less seats!

[dwb]

I'm with Gazza.  You shouldn't savage your revenue (or put up the base price) just to get a handful of sporadic users to become full time users.  Putting up the base price really puts off occasional users who we need to be trying to win over.

I've thought for a while the base fare should be the offpeak fare at more or less the 2004 ticket cost (ie 2004+cpi~20%-20%prepaid discount) and then charge users a premium for peak fare. Whether that should be proportional or not to the cost of the ticket I'm not sure... part of me thinks yes (as is currently ~30x% more per zone so longer distance pay more) and part of me thinks flat peak fee (say say perhaps $1, $3, $6for travel through 1-6 zones, 7-10 zones, 11 zones or more).... although I'm thinking Simon would strongly be against this because it makes a short (say 1 zone trip) so much more expensive compared to a longer trip on one had while losing all that extra revenue that you would have earned on long distance passengers on the other hand.

Does that make sense? What do ppl think?

[dwb]

However, as iterated above, I believe capping is certainly something we need - I just don't see why when periodicals suit some people and are clearly accepted on world's best practice networks that we need to reinvent the wheel.  The myki system by all accounts works well, Melburnians attitudes to the contrary (then again fare evasion is the pastime of choice down there).

Commonality is not a criteria for best practice!

[somebody]

You'd be correct that I would be against a flat peak fee.  Other than that, there is no effective difference to your proposal than the current system.  Peak loading or off peak discount achieves the same thing.

EDIT: clarity

[dwb]

People's perception is that they got a better deal with periodicals (i.e. capped fares).  That's why the push is on for them to return.

But there are a whole bunch of other perceptual type things, and things people 'want' too...

....Express to their stationitis,  don't want to transfer, don't want the timetable to ever change (Did anyone see those comments from people on the CM website who thought that we shouldn't alter existing services, but rather add new ones between them!), dont want to walk far (has to go down their street, so long as the bus stop isn't in directly in front of their house) don't want CRR since they'd rather have new suburban extensions to their sprawlsville suburb built first (System wont work if you did that mate), want unlimited free parking at stations because they don't like feeder buses, expect that even in the height of peak they will never have to stand  etc etc
Point is, if we want the system to 'grow up' there's a line in the sand you have to draw, where you start resisting old mindsets such as these, and just run the damn network properly.

To me, wanting to go back to old style periodicals, and not just having an even playing field of set capping for all, is in this mindset. So what if it's what 'people' want, when it isn't the most effective method. As far as I'm concerned, blowing holes in the revenue collected from all (which costs money) to attract a fickle minority more is up there with building park and rides as the most cost inefficient method of building patronage.

but you can't change people's perceptions - and people's perceptions influence the way that they vote.

This is what has paralysed progress in PT.

Completely agree Gazza!!

[dwb]

You'd be correct that I would be against a flat peak fee.  Other than that, there is no effective difference to your proposal than the current system.  Peak loading or off peak discount achieves the same thing.

EDIT: clarity

Sorry let me repeat. I suggest taking the EXACT fares from 2004 and using them as the off peak fares.
Then I suggest ADDING a peak surcharge to that zonal fare... for example:
_ $1 for travel through 1-6 zones (6 zones is max extent of regional bus trip)
_ $3 for travel through 7-10 zones (10 zones is the 2004 gap from 40c to 80c zone increments)
_ $6 for travel through 11 zones or more

[SurfRail]

No to peak surcharges.

Nobody should be paying more than CPI price increases for woeful services.  Farebox revenue doesn't pay for improvements - it only defrays the cost to government of funding them.  This is not a chicken and egg argument - improvements have to start with the government and come out of consolidated revenue.

Attracting new users to the system with a good level of service at a competitive price is more important than extracting revenue from existing users.  Peak commuters use more system resources, but there are a LOT more of them to pay for it.  So, we should be discounting off-peak travel instead to displace air off the system when there is plenty of it about.

I'm over the periodical vs capping argument insofar as it applies to us - capping would be fine, and the debate should now be about what sort of period or tiering is involved.  But, I am opposed to any move to charge people more on a flimsy, tacit understanding that services will improve because of it.  Kindly tell me where the correlation is between Sunshine Coast commuters increased fares as of January and improved services, and where the increased revenue is now being applied to their needs - indeed anywhere on the system for that matter - and I might have a different view.

[somebody]

You'd be correct that I would be against a flat peak fee.  Other than that, there is no effective difference to your proposal than the current system.  Peak loading or off peak discount achieves the same thing.

EDIT: clarity

Sorry let me repeat. I suggest taking the EXACT fares from 2004 and using them as the off peak fares.
Then I suggest ADDING a peak surcharge to that zonal fare... for example:
_ $1 for travel through 1-6 zones (6 zones is max extent of regional bus trip)
_ $3 for travel through 7-10 zones (10 zones is the 2004 gap from 40c to 80c zone increments)
_ $6 for travel through 11 zones or more

Why make it more complicated than it needs to be?

$3 for a 1 zone peak trip. $5 for a 6 zone peak trip.

But, I am opposed to any move to charge people more on a flimsy, tacit understanding that services will improve because of it.  Kindly tell me where the correlation is between Sunshine Coast commuters increased fares as of January and improved services, and where the increased revenue is now being applied to their needs - indeed anywhere on the system for that matter - and I might have a different view.

A few places have improved since Feb 2010, most notably Chelmer-Darra, 120 & 196 routes.  IPS line peak, 761.  Little else though.  88 is pretty dubious.

[dwb]

No to peak surcharges.

Nobody should be paying more than CPI price increases for woeful services.  Farebox revenue doesn't pay for improvements - it only defrays the cost to government of funding them.  This is not a chicken and egg argument - improvements have to start with the government and come out of consolidated revenue.

Attracting new users to the system with a good level of service at a competitive price is more important than extracting revenue from existing users.  Peak commuters use more system resources, but there are a LOT more of them to pay for it.  So, we should be discounting off-peak travel instead to displace air off the system when there is plenty of it about.

I'm over the periodical vs capping argument insofar as it applies to us - capping would be fine, and the debate should now be about what sort of period or tiering is involved.  But, I am opposed to any move to charge people more on a flimsy, tacit understanding that services will improve because of it.  Kindly tell me where the correlation is between Sunshine Coast commuters increased fares as of January and improved services, and where the increased revenue is now being applied to their needs - indeed anywhere on the system for that matter - and I might have a different view.

Well it is not going backwards like other jurisdictions around the world where fares are going up while they're CUTTING services. The fare raise is not tied geographically with those users, it was never promised as such.

I agree Govt needs to stump up the funds, but until the decision to seek to lower subsidy from 75% to 70% by the government, then Translink has no other remit. I do believe they need to be smarter though, off peak fares are far too expensive and like others on here have identified, a peak resource should more or less have a peak charge. People like Virgin Blue cos you can get low fares for certain travel, but try booking the day before a peak hour commuter service between Sydney and Melbourne, you won't be getting a free ride I promise you.

[dwb]

You'd be correct that I would be against a flat peak fee.  Other than that, there is no effective difference to your proposal than the current system.  Peak loading or off peak discount achieves the same thing.

EDIT: clarity

Sorry let me repeat. I suggest taking the EXACT fares from 2004 and using them as the off peak fares.
Then I suggest ADDING a peak surcharge to that zonal fare... for example:
_ $1 for travel through 1-6 zones (6 zones is max extent of regional bus trip)
_ $3 for travel through 7-10 zones (10 zones is the 2004 gap from 40c to 80c zone increments)
_ $6 for travel through 11 zones or more

Why make it more complicated than it needs to be?

$3 for a 1 zone peak trip. $5 for a 6 zone peak trip.

For my clarity, you're not arguing for removing the zonal system altogether and implementing a 2 zone regional system are you?! I don't think you are but that means that you don't necessarily dislike my peak surcharge concept... which I expected you to!

[dwb]

Bottom line is that people are a lot more price sensitive than some forumers here take them for. 

Perhaps we have two separate debates going on in this thread, about the specifics of when caps should kick in.

I'm cool with people getting incentives to travel offpeak, weekends etc.

But my fundamental view is that for everybody, the first 10 trips need to be full price to avoid subsidising regular work commutes. Once you push beyond 10, by doing an evening trip, weekend trip etc, then discounting is fine by me.
But this is more or less what happens anyway, the frequent user discount kicks in after 10 trips.

Of course, we can have a debate about whether the current frequent user discount is enough (or even if it should just be free after 10 trips)

But, when you start talking about ideas of discounting earlier than 10 trips, you then start losing revenue you otherwise would've gotten (from all the people that travel to work every day irrespective)
When this happens, do you substitute the lost revenue by...
-Taking it away from making higher frequency services more widely available.
-Raising the base price to cover the loss (In turn making individual trips costly for less regular users)

I don't disagree on your other points though, the price rises seem to be about paying for TLs inefficiency.

You are falling into the same trap as thinking that anyone who uses PT ever, or should be promoted to use PT ever, will ALSO be a 9-5 M-F commuter. This is clearly false.

If you restate your opinion that the discount for PEAK trips should come in after 10 PEAK trips, and that any other discount is always or earlier implemented then I would tend to agree. BUT there is a big difference between these two statements!

[somebody]

For my clarity, you're not arguing for removing the zonal system altogether and implementing a 2 zone regional system are you?! I don't think you are but that means that you don't necessarily dislike my peak surcharge concept... which I expected you to!

No, I certainly wouldn't like to see a reduction in the number of zones.

I don't dislike the notion of a peak surcharge, but I'd still rather a % than having a different system (no of zones) for the surcharge as compared to the base fare.

[Arnz]

BT buses pre-TransLink used to designate all "peak direction" buses as "Full Fare only" buses.

The only way to claim a concession on those buses was to buy a "Concession" 10 trip saver, though IIRC the driver would ask for those with concessions to show their cards.

[dwb]

No, I certainly wouldn't like to see a reduction in the number of zones.

Phew!

I don't dislike the notion of a peak surcharge, but I'd still rather a % than having a different system (no of zones) for the surcharge as compared to the base fare.

Yes, I originally thought this too.... but for long distance passengers that has meant a very significant rise in fares... which may be equitable but is unpopular.... I believe you and I have both argued that short distance passengers shouldn't have to significantly subsidise longer distance passengers.... but it is a balance act right?

[dwb]

BT buses pre-TransLink used to designate all "peak direction" buses as "Full Fare only" buses.

The only way to claim a concession on those buses was to buy a "Concession" 10 trip saver, though IIRC the driver would ask for those with concessions to show their cards.

I still have all my used ten trip and weekly magnet BT cards from school (yes I'm kind of strange), and I seem to remember being able to buy a student fare on the bus too. Are you sure?!

[Arnz]

BT buses pre-TransLink used to designate all "peak direction" buses as "Full Fare only" buses.

The only way to claim a concession on those buses was to buy a "Concession" 10 trip saver, though IIRC the driver would ask for those with concessions to show their cards.

I still have all my used ten trip and weekly magnet BT cards from school (yes I'm kind of strange), and I seem to remember being able to buy a student fare on the bus too. Are you sure?!

As I said, this was pre-TransLink,  10 trip savers also came in Pre-TransLink.  You may have brought a concession in peak shortly after TransLink was formed.

[Gazza]

You are falling into the same trap as thinking that anyone who uses PT ever, or should be promoted to use PT ever, will ALSO be a 9-5 M-F commuter. This is clearly false.

If you restate your opinion that the discount for PEAK trips should come in after 10 PEAK trips, and that any other discount is always or earlier implemented then I would tend to agree. BUT there is a big difference between these two statements!

I guess "9-5 M-F" was a snappy way of stating the stereotype, of course, not everyone works those hours. but what matters is that not many people work 6 days a week, a lot of people work 5 days a week, a few work 4 days a week and so on. So heavy discounting shouldn't kick in until those 10 trips are done so you capture the maximum amount that people will pay.


So what are you proposing?...That they system will count peak and off peak differently when calculating a cap?

[somebody]

Yes, I originally thought this too.... but for long distance passengers that has meant a very significant rise in fares... which may be equitable but is unpopular.... I believe you and I have both argued that short distance passengers shouldn't have to significantly subsidise longer distance passengers.... but it is a balance act right?

Call it a balance act if you like, but are you saying it is a good policy to give very high subsidies to people travelling the furthest?

[Zoiks]

I think its been demonstrated very well that in terms of km travelled our long distance commuters get a very good deal

[Fares_Fair]

... and here I was about to add you as a friend (from afar of course) 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[dwb]

Yes, I originally thought this too.... but for long distance passengers that has meant a very significant rise in fares... which may be equitable but is unpopular.... I believe you and I have both argued that short distance passengers shouldn't have to significantly subsidise longer distance passengers.... but it is a balance act right?

Call it a balance act if you like, but are you saying it is a good policy to give very high subsidies to people travelling the furthest?

Refer bit in bold.

[dwb]

You are falling into the same trap as thinking that anyone who uses PT ever, or should be promoted to use PT ever, will ALSO be a 9-5 M-F commuter. This is clearly false.

If you restate your opinion that the discount for PEAK trips should come in after 10 PEAK trips, and that any other discount is always or earlier implemented then I would tend to agree. BUT there is a big difference between these two statements!

I guess "9-5 M-F" was a snappy way of stating the stereotype, of course, not everyone works those hours. but what matters is that not many people work 6 days a week, a lot of people work 5 days a week, a few work 4 days a week and so on. So heavy discounting shouldn't kick in until those 10 trips are done so you capture the maximum amount that people will pay.


So what are you proposing?...That they system will count peak and off peak differently when calculating a cap?

I think we should think about the objectives of any fare policy before throwing ideas around.

Primarily I'd suggest that encouraging people to change their travel patterns to substitute more trips by public transport would be a worthy goal, of course balanced by not incentivising people to also swap out short walk/cycle trips with bus/train.

[somebody]

I think its been demonstrated very well that in terms of km travelled our long distance commuters get a very good deal

In cost perhaps, but not in quality of service, except the Gold Coast Line.  Maybe they get what they pay for.

[Zoiks]

Which brings me to the question of would they be willing to pay more for a more frequent service?

[Arnz]

Which brings me to the question of would they be willing to pay more for a more frequent service?

Not possible to provide more services reliably under current infrastructure due to various chokepoints with knock-on effects if trains are delayed.

If it's not integrated with the go card and/or other bus companies under TransLink, then more people will likely drive (cheaper to drive the car in this case).    Why not just call for those beyond the BCC boundaries (or just Sunshine Coast, seeing how much you dislike the place) and move them to Qconnect while you're at it.

[somebody]

Which brings me to the question of would they be willing to pay more for a more frequent service?

Or a faster one.  A good question.

Which brings me to the question of would they be willing to pay more for a more frequent service?

Not possible to provide more services reliably under current infrastructure due to various chokepoints with knock-on effects if trains are delayed.

If it's not integrated with the go card and/or other bus companies under TransLink, then more people will likely drive (cheaper to drive the car in this case).    Why not just call for those beyond the BCC boundaries (or just Sunshine Coast, seeing how much you hate the place) and move them to Qconnect while you're at it.

It's a fair question.