Ticket price rises 2012 - 2014

[somebody]

A 32 then free monthly is completely against maximising peak revenue.  That's an axiom isn't it?

Not when you base ticket price is 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.15!

Sigh.

Completely irrelevant.

That's what I'm saying right, that the old approach was just sell the ticket as cheap as possible to everyone so that your network was at saturation in peak with excess demand requiring rationing through queuing.

I suggested in my research to lift the base fare by 10% a year for a couple of years and offer other discounts. Broadly what Translink is doing is in line with my suggestions in my research except they chose 15% per year, and they hadn't launched the other products (and still haven't) PRIOR to the raises.

Yes, well how are the current policies working?

[dwb]

A 32 then free monthly is completely against maximising peak revenue.  That's an axiom isn't it?

Not when you base ticket price is 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.15!

Sigh.

Completely irrelevant.

That's what I'm saying right, that the old approach was just sell the ticket as cheap as possible to everyone so that your network was at saturation in peak with excess demand requiring rationing through queuing.

I suggested in my research to lift the base fare by 10% a year for a couple of years and offer other discounts. Broadly what Translink is doing is in line with my suggestions in my research except they chose 15% per year, and they hadn't launched the other products (and still haven't) PRIOR to the raises.

Yes, well how are the current policies working?

But it is not irrelevant.... I'm suggesting the raises go ahead but are offset for regulars by this 32-then-free-monthly, which Translink have demonstrated could be implemented pretty much with the flick of a switch (whereas my other suggestions would likely cause Cubic programmers in addition to yourself to have a heart attack).

I don't believe the LNP, as far as I can tell from the Annual Report and the quarterly reports, and my use of the system, peak service is still full. Overall when you consider offpeak passengers are more price sensitive, go card is providing more reliable ticket data, and Brisbane is really economically depressed at the moment, I don't think the two existing fare rises have depressed patronage, at least no more than peak capacity has.

I stick to my guns that currently, peak capacity and service reliability is the main determinant of peak passengers decision making not peak PT pricing... that and of course limited road space, limited parking availability and high cost of parking.

[HappyTrainGuy]

And who says everyone that uses PT has to pay for parking at their destination if they chose to drive there. Alot of jobs offer free onsite parking. People that catch a bus to the local shops offer free parking. Remember not everyone works in the CBD.

[somebody]

And who says everyone that uses PT has to pay for parking at their destination if they chose to drive there. Alot of jobs offer free onsite parking. People that catch a bus to the local shops offer free parking. Remember not everyone works in the CBD.

Yes, and CBD parking can be had relatively cheaply in Brisbane even for the others.  This is where BCC policies fail.

But it is not irrelevant.... I'm suggesting the raises go ahead but are offset for regulars by this 32-then-free-monthly, which Translink have demonstrated could be implemented pretty much with the flick of a switch (whereas my other suggestions would likely cause Cubic programmers in addition to yourself to have a heart attack).

So you want peak hour commuters in 2012 to pay for the equivalent of 36.8 journeys at the 2011 price, and not 40+.  And you refuse to see accept that you are reducing revenue from peak hour commuters.

Are you trolling?

Your plan is dumb.

[dwb]

And who says everyone that uses PT has to pay for parking at their destination if they chose to drive there. Alot of jobs offer free onsite parking. People that catch a bus to the local shops offer free parking. Remember not everyone works in the CBD.

I didn't ever say that, I said that for many 9-5 m-f CBD central workers, the cost of paid parking is a major deterrent from driving.

[dwb]

And who says everyone that uses PT has to pay for parking at their destination if they chose to drive there. Alot of jobs offer free onsite parking. People that catch a bus to the local shops offer free parking. Remember not everyone works in the CBD.

Yes, and CBD parking can be had relatively cheaply in Brisbane even for the others.  This is where BCC policies fail.

Um no, that is where local politics fail. The policies regarding CBD parking are reasonably sufficient if not the politicians who implement them. Point in case with both current parties at Chermside.

[somebody]

And who says everyone that uses PT has to pay for parking at their destination if they chose to drive there. Alot of jobs offer free onsite parking. People that catch a bus to the local shops offer free parking. Remember not everyone works in the CBD.

Yes, and CBD parking can be had relatively cheaply in Brisbane even for the others.  This is where BCC policies fail.

Um no, that is where local politics fail. The policies regarding CBD parking are reasonably sufficient if not the politicians who implement them. Point in case with both current parties at Chermside.

In Sydney if you want to have a CBD parking space, you need to pay an annual tax ($2000p.a.).  In Brisbane, developers are required to have a certain amount of car spaces in any development.

[dwb]

In Sydney if you want to have a CBD parking space, you need to pay an annual tax ($2000p.a.).  In Brisbane, developers are required to have a certain amount of car spaces in any development.

The policy actually sets a maximum for car provision in commercial buildings in the city centre that is reasonably low. The major overprovision of carparking in inner Brisbane is currently in residential land use, and in most cases it is where Council forces extra car spaces on development beyond  what the code actually requires.

Some investigation into the parking code and the kerfuffle around Milton TOD and Chermside might educate you on this topic.

[somebody]

In Sydney if you want to have a CBD parking space, you need to pay an annual tax ($2000p.a.).  In Brisbane, developers are required to have a certain amount of car spaces in any development.

The policy actually sets a maximum for car provision in commercial buildings in the city centre that is reasonably low. The major overprovision of carparking in inner Brisbane is currently in residential land use, and in most cases it is where Council forces extra car spaces on development beyond  what the code actually requires.

Some investigation into the parking code and the kerfuffle around Milton TOD and Chermside might educate you on this topic.

I don't believe that.  In Sydney, I can think of one residential building (the Aston) which has zero parking.  Such developments wouldn't be allowed here.

[somebody]

Some investigation into the parking code and the kerfuffle around Milton TOD and Chermside might educate you on this topic.

You aren't referring to the bit where Westfield Chermside wanted to charge for parking are you?

[dwb]

Some investigation into the parking code and the kerfuffle around Milton TOD and Chermside might educate you on this topic.

You aren't referring to the bit where Westfield Chermside wanted to charge for parking are you?

yeah I was, predominantly from the perspective that Labor ran a petition against it and wants Council to take Westfield to court. The libs won't cos they know it would be a waste of money, but effectively both parties approach isn't that different. They think private enterprise should provide free park and ride on behalf of government, and that in itself is an extension of their approach (mostly the Libs atm) that ALL landuses, wherever they are, should have OBSCENE amounts of "free" carparking... no matter how 'transit rich' they are.

from my perspective over supply of carparking is 1) expensive and 2) detrimental to desired transport policy outcomes, namely a shift towards public and active transport.

[somebody]

^ Last few posts in this thread re:parking, and the ones before re:price rises/monthly tickets are yet another example were you do not have a case, yet you continue to argue that other people are wrong with nothing to back it up.  It gets very tiresome.

[dwb]

^ Last few posts in this thread re:parking, and the ones before re:price rises/monthly tickets are yet another example were you do not have a case, yet you continue to argue that other people are wrong with nothing to back it up.  It gets very tiresome.

To be blunt simon I think you're under-informed with respect to parking controls.

However, having said that I don't your perspectives are wrong. That doesn't mean that I think they're right either, or that I don't have anything to add to the discussion. Whatever you may think I don't pour hours of my time into this forum to get a buzz p%ssing you off. I'm willing to hear you out and listen to your point of view with an open mind and all I'm asking is that you do the same to me.

[somebody]

^ Last few posts in this thread re:parking, and the ones before re:price rises/monthly tickets are yet another example were you do not have a case, yet you continue to argue that other people are wrong with nothing to back it up.  It gets very tiresome.

To be blunt simon I think you're under-informed with respect to parking controls.

The problem is that you assume that is the reason why everyone has a different opinion to you.

You actually haven't posted anything about parking controls in here, and mentioning Chermside in particular leads me to believe you don't have much of a case.  All that shows is that the culture here is of an entitlement to parking, and the CBD is not exempt.

[dwb]

^ Last few posts in this thread re:parking, and the ones before re:price rises/monthly tickets are yet another example were you do not have a case, yet you continue to argue that other people are wrong with nothing to back it up.  It gets very tiresome.

To be blunt simon I think you're under-informed with respect to parking controls.

The problem is that you assume that is the reason why everyone has a different opinion to you.

You actually haven't posted anything about parking controls in here, and mentioning Chermside in particular leads me to believe you don't have much of a case.  All that shows is that the culture here is of an entitlement to parking, and the CBD is not exempt.

I will start another thread about parking controls when I get some time, possibly tomorrow.

In the meantime, here's a little info about the BCC policy.

The city is divided into three areas, the CBD (called 'core'), the inner suburbs (places like Teneriffe, Milton, South Brisbane, Woolloongabba, called 'city frame') and the rest of the city.

The Transport Access Parking and Servicing "TAPS" Code and Planning Scheme Policy set out most of the requirements for the quantum and layout of car-parking as well as general site access (for residents, visitors, workers, servicing/refuse collection, bicycles and pedestrians) across the entire city. It approaches the core, the frame and the rest of the city differently.

The Code and Policy are part of the Brisbane City Plan 2000, which is the main document that controls land use planning in Brisbane (ie what you can build and where - as most things that you build or change require approval from Council to do so). The City Plan refers to the Transport Plan for Brisbane 2026 which outlines the road hierarchy and proposed transport investments.

Council is currently advertising a reviewed TAPS Code and Policy available for submissions on Council's website. The review looks at - changing specific rates of car-parking provision, proposes changes to city frame rates and changes to MUD (multi unit dwelling) provision. I'm not really that up to speed with the review but I believe it is a bit of a tinker, not a major revamp as it is such a controversial policy area, for example I don't believe the frame area has been extended at all (yes I am implying that I think it should be).

I think (although I haven't found all the references just now), content wise, the main gist of the TAPS code/policy (from the sole perspective of parking quantum) is this:
- core areas have MAXIMUM 1 space per 200sqm non residential GFA (gross floor area - a complicated term for what is more or less the internal space of a development)
- frame areas have MAXIMUM 1 space per 100sqm non residential GFA
- development across the rest of the city provides sufficient capacity to meet PEAK parking requirements without onflow on to surrounding streets
- residential has basically 1-2 space requirement MINIMUM per dwelling irrespective of location (including spaces for the tenant, visitors and then some!)

Generally, the carparking should be provided on-site, and be accessible as per Council's standard drawings and a whole bunch of other engineering specifications, but if no on street parking is available, a developer may have to provide even more spaces.

The policy also goes into nitty gritty MINIMUM specifications about provision rates for various land uses particularly MUD and "centres" (ie development in areas zoned as 'multipurpose'). For example, a restaurant may require a certain rate of provision but a swimming pool another, and if you build both together you have to provide the combined number of spaces for both uses. AFAIK this is overridden in the core and frame areas by those specified maximum overall rates of provision - hence whether a major development is within or outside the frame could have a significant impact on how many car spaces will need to be provided.

From my personal perspective the major weaknesses of the existing policy and code (note, I'm specifically NOT talking about the application of it) include:
- the delineation of core, frame, other areas
- the fact that outside the frame it is a minimum level not a maximum, or even a min/max range
- that there is no support for carshare whatsoever... I believe Vancouver gives a reduction to overall requirements if certain spaces are defined as carshare (cheaper for developers, apartment purchasers, and supportive of carshare, pt etc)
- that all residential uses are over provided for
- that land use is more important than parking in the city... it is a city, not a carpark afterall
- that often ped/bike/pt access is lip-serviced

BUT, having said that, core and frame areas have pretty tight restrictions aiming to minimise provision of carparking (something I believe you and I both conceptually support).

However AFAIK every politician, irrespective of creed or colour, wants developers to provide even more spaces (in case you've misunderstood my own personal perspective I think this is a bad thing), this is publicly visible in their press releases about places like Chermside... and that is the only reason I brought up Chermside!

Just in case it is not obvious, as per always this post refers to my own personal opinion, and it isn't town planning advice.

If you'd like to read up then:
Brisbane City Plan 2000 - http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/tools-forms/city-plan-2000/index.htm
TAPS Code - http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/tools-forms/city-plan-2000/city-plan-2000-document/chapter-5-codes-and-related-provisions/index.htm
TAPS Policy - http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/planning-building/tools-forms/city-plan-2000/city-plan-2000-document/appendices/index.htm
TAPS Code on advertisement - http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/2010%20Library/2009%20PDF%20and%20Docs/2.%20Planning%20and%20Building/2.10%20Tools%20and%20forms/00138_TAPS_Code_document.pdf
TAPS Policy on advertisement - http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/2010%20Library/2009%20PDF%20and%20Docs/2.%20Planning%20and%20Building/2.10%20Tools%20and%20forms/00138_TAPS_Policy_document.pdf

[dwb]

May I suggest the carparking discussion moves here:
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6916.0

[O_128]

Simple. BT has no where near as much rollingstock, infrastructure, staff and assets to look after and maintain. Having a fixed permanent route would be a big issue too. Busses can spread out and cover more areas compared to trains which covers more distance along a fixed path. Comparing busses to trains is like comparing apples to oranges.

Not entirely, Considering we seem to be pretending that busways are rail line.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Simple. BT has no where near as much rollingstock, infrastructure, staff and assets to look after and maintain. Having a fixed permanent route would be a big issue too. Busses can spread out and cover more areas compared to trains which covers more distance along a fixed path. Comparing busses to trains is like comparing apples to oranges.

Not entirely, Considering we seem to be pretending that busways are rail line.

How much to retrofit busses with a couple extandable bogies at the front and back? 

[dwb]

Simple. BT has no where near as much rollingstock, infrastructure, staff and assets to look after and maintain. Having a fixed permanent route would be a big issue too. Busses can spread out and cover more areas compared to trains which covers more distance along a fixed path. Comparing busses to trains is like comparing apples to oranges.

Not entirely, Considering we seem to be pretending that busways are rail line.

Yep, but busways are owned and maintained by TMR, not BCC. BT just gets the pleasure to drive on 'em and they help manage through BMTTCC or whatever it's called.

[somebody]

dwb, thanks for all that info.  You remember that announcement shortly after Cr Quirk became mayor that they would increase the parking requirements.

Sydney City Council has removed parking requirements even for residents.

[dwb]

dwb, thanks for all that info.  You remember that announcement shortly after Cr Quirk became mayor that they would increase the parking requirements.

Sydney City Council has removed parking requirements even for residents.

Sydney City is also really supportive of carshare, and gives carshare road spaces!

But.... Sydney City is only the heart of Sydney, and can be more radical.... Brisbane, due to it's large political base and popularly elected mayor is (always?) going to be more conservative and road based - its what all those outer suburban residents keep voting for

[colinw]

its what all those outer suburban residents keep voting for

Speaking as an outer Brisbane suburban resident myself (Karawatha ward, right on the boundary of Logan), I'm cannot agree with that. I know it is the stereotype, but the reality is that out here in the 'burbs we want public transport just as much as anyone does. We had to lobby for YEARS to get even a basic bus service to Kuraby. It was constantly blocked by our local councilor. "No demand" she said, and refused to even propose a service on our behalf. Well of course not, there was no service to generate demand. But every time there was a road proposal she was very vocal in favour of it.

The tune changed on buses when the Greens ran a very strong candidate on a pro-bus agenda, and she got a fright. We got our bus, and surprise! - people are using it. But, lets be clear - it was the council & Brisbane Transport blocking us (this was pre-Translink), not the views of the local residents. Brisbane Transport NEVER came to the party, even though we are in Brisbane we were given a Clarks Logan City route. I believe the Kuraby Station short workings of the 554 are the only Clarks routes that run entirely within the BCC boundary.

The outer suburbs need & want public transport just as much as the inner suburbs, just with a slightly different emphasis on the role of the routes.  Rather than buses to the CBD, what we need more is feeders to rail/busway or to local activity centres like Springwood or Garden City.

[Set in train]

I'm sure the regular commuters that have seen the constant escalation in their ticket price are desperate to see an alternative put forward by any alternative governing party. The LNP say that they want to reduce the cost of living. In typical opposition style, they keep their policy powder dry until the campaign proper (or maybe they're still working on it). Thing is, will they really reduce fares and stop the escalation? I'm cynical of all the parties, ALP has raised the prices, but will the LNP really put its money where its mouth is?

[mufreight]

I'm sure the regular commuters that have seen the constant escalation in their ticket price are desperate to see an alternative put forward by any alternative governing party. The LNP say that they want to reduce the cost of living. In typical opposition style, they keep their policy powder dry until the campaign proper (or maybe they're still working on it). Thing is, will they really reduce fares and stop the escalation? I'm cynical of all the parties, ALP has raised the prices, but will the LNP really put its money where its mouth is?

With the passing of time it is more probable that the LNP lacks any public transport policy or their policy if they have one is so bad that they do not want voters to have sufficent time to consider how weak and pathetic their policy is.
Now who is joining with the Mad Katters Party.

[dwb]

I'm sure the regular commuters that have seen the constant escalation in their ticket price are desperate to see an alternative put forward by any alternative governing party. The LNP say that they want to reduce the cost of living. In typical opposition style, they keep their policy powder dry until the campaign proper (or maybe they're still working on it). Thing is, will they really reduce fares and stop the escalation? I'm cynical of all the parties, ALP has raised the prices, but will the LNP really put its money where its mouth is?

At the very most they might prevent a further raise, but I'd doubt it.

I reckon they'd also stop delivering any new seats too.

And no CRR, and no bus priority, and all of a sudden Campbell would actually have to start paying for all those new buses he delivered at Council and I think you'll find that commitment would dry up pretty quick.