Article: Taxpayers in front line of fight to cut fares hike

[#Metro]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/taxpayers-on-front-line/story-e6freoof-1226325299174

TransLink confirmed long-haul trips from the Gold and Sunshine coasts were soaking up the lion's share of the subsidies, with their true cost in the vicinity of $50 each way, well above the $10 to $12 charged to commuters.

Glen Seipelt eh?

TransLink is a high fare, high subsidy, low frequency service provider. This is the worst of all worlds.
While it is true that much of the network is low density, it is also true that feeder services aren't extensive, much of the network is welfare/coverage services (even in Brisbane BCC area only 9% of the 220 or so bus routes are BUZ), we haven't got the minimum basic network (CFN) sorted out, and there are very large amounts of obvious waste (Maroon CityGliders, running everything on top of each other, rather than feeder services), plus there is a lack of driver only operation.

[#Metro]

TransLink confirmed long-haul trips from the Gold and Sunshine coasts were soaking up the lion's share of the subsidies, with their true cost in the vicinity of $50 each way, well above the $10 to $12 charged to commuters.

I have to say, I don't agree with Chris Hale at all on this one. Imagine if you turned up at Nerang or Helensvale station and were told $50 ticket to Brisbane one way. You know what would happen? NOBODY would catch the train, and in fact with fares that high, at the height of peak hour and indeed all day the service would carry air to and from the Gold Coast all day so much so that it would have to be shut down.

Better charge $10 or $20 or whatever the cost it is now than be an AirFerry.

Dr Hale said people living outside of Brisbane had to "get real'' about transport costs.

"We're subsidising these services from the Gold and Sunshine coasts which cost $10 or $20, and people are saying, 'we don't want to pay that every day','' Dr Hale said.

"The answer is 'tough'. If you live 80km away from Brisbane, then that's in proportion to the cost of servicing those trips.

"You can't expect someone living in West End to then be subsidising people to travel 20 times as far.''

[ozbob]

From  the Couriermail click here!

Taxpayers in front line of fight to cut fares hike

Taxpayers in front line of fight to cut fares hike

    by: Robyn Ironside
    From: The Courier-Mail
    April 13, 2012 12:00AM

QUEENSLAND taxpayers are paying more to prop up public transport than any other state, despite hefty fare hikes designed to reduce the cost burden.

The blowout in subsidised travel poses a problem for the Newman Government which has promised to halve the scheduled 15 per cent fare hikes, slashing revenue from public transport by $101 million over three years.

In the last three months of 2011, the average fare paid by commuters was only $1.94, largely because of the significant proportion of concession fares which account for more than 50 per cent of all tickets sold.

The low average fare receipt left taxpayers with an additional $6.62 bill for each of the 43.3 million trips taken.

Farebox revenue amounted to a mere 22.7 per cent of the cost of public transport in the quarter, well below the national average of 36 per cent. The subsidised amount has grown nearly 40 per cent from $4.75 a trip in 2008 despite promises made by the former state government that the fare hikes would help reduce the burden on taxpayers.

In the same period the average fare has risen around 30 per cent.

During the election campaign, Premier Campbell Newman said his policy of halving planned fare hikes would not come at the cost of new services.

Transport Minister Scott Emerson said they had to first get affordability right to improve patronage in order to rein in the burgeoning subsidy.

"If you have a bus that's full or half-full, it costs taxpayers the same amount of money to run the bus but in terms of the farebox we've only got half the people on it, so the subsidy paid by the Government increases dramatically,'' he said.

"That's why we're focusing on patronage.''

But Urban and Transport economist Chris Hale said the Newman Government would have to reconsider its election commitment to slash fare hikes if public transport services were to improve, and the subsidised component of fares reduced.

"What I think the LNP's done is to manipulate the issue of public transport fares as an election strategy,'' Dr Hale said.

"Now they find themselves in a position of responsibility and that includes the responsibility of providing better services, investing in the network and trying to minimise the subsidy overtime.''

TransLink confirmed long-haul trips from the Gold and Sunshine coasts were soaking up the lion's share of the subsidies, with their true cost in the vicinity of $50 each way, well above the $10 to $12 charged to commuters.

Dr Hale said people living outside of Brisbane had to "get real'' about transport costs.

"We're subsidising these services from the Gold and Sunshine coasts which cost $10 or $20, and people are saying, 'we don't want to pay that every day','' Dr Hale said.

"The answer is 'tough'. If you live 80km away from Brisbane, then that's in proportion to the cost of servicing those trips.

"You can't expect someone living in West End to then be subsidising people to travel 20 times as far.''

A Translink spokesman said the size of the network, the low-density nature of much of the network and the drive for affordability to increase patronage had contributed to the growth in the subsidy.

"Our network covers a larger area than Melbourne or Sydney and services many low density areas such as north of Nambour and west of Ipswich,'' he said.

Translink CEO Neil Scales said all revenue collected from public transport fares was invested into new infrastructure and services, with $84.2 million generated from October to December  subsidised by $286.6 million from taxpayers.

Glen Seipelt, from commuter advocacy group Back on Track, said the figures were "damning''.

"They suggest there is a large disconnect between the type of services provided, and what the travelling public wants,'' he said.

Dr Hale said: "The truth is you get what you pay for, and if you pay nothing, things like reliability, efficiency and safety go by the wayside.''   

[Jonno]

But our road users are getting an even greater subsidy!

[Fares_Fair]

What is a rail network for, oh that's right, it's for short trips around the suburbs?
He's lost credibility on this one.

As an academic one would think they have time to think things through. Apparently not.
Maybe we Gold and Sunshine Coasters should all head on to the roads one day and visit Brisbane.

[Gazza]

What is a rail network for, oh that's right, it's for short trips around the suburbs?

Being serious now....

The fundamental reason why its hard to change anything here in Aus is because all land transport is subsidised, so it's over demanded, and under supplied.

Obviously fares to the GC/SC etc cant be set at real levels, because everyone would just spill over onto the roads instead, which are "free" because they are heavily subsidised too.
We cant do it, because its not a level playing field.

I mean, when was the last time anyone paid the true price of anything?

I don't have a problem with subsidised fares to the GC/SC... connectivity across the region is important, but what I wouldn't mind is.

-GCers/SCers to at least finally stop complaining now that they pay too much. No you don't, and I feel more sympathy for the New Farmers....They pay too much.

-If fares were a bit higher, but this money went into providing a service that would grow demand in other ways...The CoastLink tilt trains, namely. And I think there definitley is a market for a better service along side a cheaper one...It's why Heathrow Express can compete with the Picadilly Line.

-If things were properly equal price wise between roads and rail.
You'd find things would really equalise then. Travel would become a bigger part of the household budget. When that happens people suddenly start building denser housing, housing out at whoop whoop drops in value because its not economical to live there, people might hop on their bike for a 2km trip to get the Sunday paper and milk rather than driving etc etc.

[#Metro]

"You can't expect someone living in West End to then be subsidising people to travel 20 times as far.''

Well yes you have to, it is called Equity/Coverage/Welfare. The government would be kicked out if fares rose to $50 per day on the train!

[somebody]

"You can't expect someone living in West End to then be subsidising people to travel 20 times as far.''

Well yes you have to, it is called Equity/Coverage/Welfare. The government would be kicked out if fares rose to $50 per day on the train!

I think it is called politics.

[SurfRail]

Chris is normally pretty reasonable, but I don't think he is entirely on point here.  The issue is waste and the high fares paid for short trips which deter them being made.  Lots and lots of ways to bring overheads down without compromising on service quality, and the railways and BCC don't want to hear a bar of it.

[Gazza]

That too, i mean $50 per head to go 80km on a train?

[somebody]

That too, i mean $50 per head to go 80km on a train?

That sounds pretty reasonable to me.  Given the waste, peak focus and low overall patronage.

[Gazza]

Is there a full year line by line patronage figure available (Not a daily one)
Would make running the numbers easier.

[somebody]

Is there a full year line by line patronage figure available (Not a daily one)
Would make running the numbers easier.

Not to my knowledge.  The only info I am aware of is the passenger load survey + the PT use survey of 2010.  The latter had a graph of station entries 5:30am-20:30, and counts of entries 9am-3pm.  But that only covered weekdays.

[somebody]

Chris is normally pretty reasonable, but I don't think he is entirely on point here.  The issue is waste and the high fares paid for short trips which deter them being made.  Lots and lots of ways to bring overheads down without compromising on service quality, and the railways and BCC don't want to hear a bar of it.

Besides DOO and the points I bang on about like dead running, city stop locations etc, what are you thinking of?

I agree, Chris Hale has gone off on a tangent here.  More important to bring down the short distance fares than increase the long distance ones.  Perhaps it is only part of what he said.

[O_128]

How bout an article on the true cost of roads? How much would Rego be if it wasn't subsidised

[SurfRail]

Besides DOO and the points I bang on about like dead running, city stop locations etc, what are you thinking of?

Small target stuff, like:

- Making TransLink responsible for all timetabling and network decisions outside of actual operational matters andf thereby reducing staffing costs.  Ostensibly they are, but that cannot be true while BCC and QR still employ people for that purpose...
- Consolidating similar/adjacent routes
- Seriously looking at why we need bus stops every 200 metres when 500-600 metres would generally do
- Bus lanes and priority signalling on a more widespread basis

A lot of these are directed at making things run faster with the same resources, so fewer vehicles are needed to do the same thing.

[Gazza]

A Translink spokesman said the size of the network, the low-density nature of much of the network and the drive for affordability to increase patronage had contributed to the growth in the subsidy.

"Our network covers a larger area than Melbourne or Sydney and services many low density areas such as north of Nambour and west of Ipswich,'' he said.

Bit of a red herring, this size of the network is often referenced by TL, but they run so few services to the areas referenced that it should only represent a fraction of the budget.

Nope, I think the blame squarely lies with they way the other 95% or whatever of services get run.

[HappyTrainGuy]

They still run to few services in Brisbane... 

[Jonno]

I am happy to subsidise GC fares otherwise they all drive and my families air quality and quiet enjoyment of our city are ruined.

[dwb]

Looks like 9 news is doing a story on "Translink Go card ripoff" tomorrow at 6pm... ad looked like a massive beat up lol

[Golliwog]

Looks like 9 news is doing a story on "Translink Go card ripoff" tomorrow at 6pm... ad looked like a massive beat up lol

Yeah saw that ad as well. 

[Fares_Fair]

What was the gist of the story?
Did they say?

Maybe it is on the cost of short zone fares perhaps ... or fixed fares (one is guilty until proven innocent under the go card system) ...

[dwb]

Sounded like technical glitches meaning people cop fixed fares... in most cases, it is like when the home computer doesn't work... user error!

[#Metro]

dwb! We have not heard from you in ages.

Have a muffin! 

[dwb]

dwb! We have not heard from you in ages.

Have a muffin! 

Thanks tramtrain! hehe

[STB]

I should mention that one user error I spot quite frequently is that an eagar passenger will touch the card to the reader while asking the driver to top up their card.  The driver will then tell them to touch their card after hitting the buttons on the DCU, the passenger complies, the driver then takes the money and asks the passenger to touch again to top up their card and print the receipt, which the passenger complies and then the driver tells them to touch the card again for the journey, which the passenger does so. 

That's four touches, the passenger has inadvertently cancelled their journey, and of course they will touch again before they get off the bus, meaning that they've actually touched on, and then get a fixed fare next time they touch a card to the reader. 

All this time both passenger and driver are oblivious to the card touches and in the case of the passenger, the message on the reader.

[somebody]

I should mention that one user error I spot quite frequently is that an eagar passenger will touch the card to the reader while asking the driver to top up their card.  The driver will then tell them to touch their card after hitting the buttons on the DCU, the passenger complies, the driver then takes the money and asks the passenger to touch again to top up their card and print the receipt, which the passenger complies and then the driver tells them to touch the card again for the journey, which the passenger does so. 

That's four touches, the passenger has inadvertently cancelled their journey, and of course they will touch again before they get off the bus, meaning that they've actually touched on, and then get a fixed fare next time they touch a card to the reader. 

All this time both passenger and driver are oblivious to the card touches and in the case of the passenger, the message on the reader.

I know someone that did this too.  At least he noticed he received a fixed fare getting off the bus.

Probably needs better driver training.

[Gazza]

Could be as simple as all drivers asking the user "Have you touched on yet?".