Queensland fares

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament

https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2021/373-2021.pdf

Question on Notice
No. 373
Asked on 25 March 2021

MR M BERKMAN ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (HON M BAILEY)

QUESTION:

With reference to fare revenue from the Translink network—

Will the Minister advise (a) how much fare revenue Translink collected in November 2019,
December 2019, January 2020, February 2020, November 2020, December 2020, January 2021
and February 2021 respectively, (b) projected fare revenue expected to be collected by Translink
in the next 12 months and (c) whether the department has conducted any modelling on costs,
savings and associated risks or benefits of making all travel on the Translink network free?

ANSWER:

>> https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2021/373-2021.pdf

[ozbob]

Gold Coast Bulletin -->  Why fares are not fair on some Gold Coast rail and tram trips $

SOUTHERN Gold Coast residents are being ripped off in a public transport tax where they pay 50 per cent more in their fares for another nearby train station stop, according to a new report.

The skewed zoning system is not limited to heavy rail with the State Government being warned by council it will extend to trams in the city's south and can jeopardise the success of the $1 billion light rail extension from Broadbeach to Burleigh. ...

====

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1428459063407353857

[#Metro]

It is no more a tax than shopping at woolworths is a "shopping tax".

[verbatim9]

Possible fare discounts for the month of December 2021, as slated by the Brisbane Lord Mayor.

I reckon 50% off go card fares during all off peak periods for the month of December.

Thanks Mayor and State Government, Merry Christmas

https://youtu.be/WrVxjk46nVU @ 45secs in.

[verbatim9]

Apparently Vic is doing free travel in and out of the CBD in the lead up to Christmas and New year.

I reckon give everyone 50% off SEQ wide for the month of December and the first week of Jan.

[AnonymouslyBad]

Apparently Vic is doing free travel in and out of the CBD in the lead up to Christmas and New year.

citation required.

I reckon 50% off go card fares during all off peak periods for the month of December.

50% off is a nice gesture for those struggling around the Christmas period, so I can't oppose it, but it's missing the point if the aim is to drive patronage or increase CBD trips. You'd have to make public transport FREE to do that - FREE is a different mental category

Regardless of fares being imperfect, it's a very BCC thing to do to throw ratepayer money at that and make a big song and dance, instead of actually making the bus a more attractive option by fixing the things they do control.

[ozbob]

https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/94229

Palaszczuk Government extends public transport fare freeze
8th January 2022

Minister for Transport and Main Roads
The Honourable Mark Bailey

The Palaszczuk Government has paused its annual CPI public transport fare increase to support Queenslanders during a challenging stage of the pandemic.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Mark Bailey said it was in recognition of the emergence of the Omicron COVID-19 strain in the Queensland community.

"Public transport fares are adjusted each January in line with the consumer price index," Mr Bailey said.

"In January 2021 the Government implemented a fare freeze in recognition of the economic impact COVID was having on the life of Queenslanders.

"We did this coupled with additional bus and train services in South Eastern Queensland so that public transport passengers would know there were more seats available to allow for social distancing.

"These measures and Queensland's world leading health response have minimised the reduction in public transportation use here compared to other states.

"The emergence of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 and efforts of Queenslanders to work from home to slow the spread of virus have had a substantial impact on public transportation use.

"In recognition of this, the scheduled fare increase will be implemented in July 2022 instead, to support Queenslanders through this difficult time.

"A delay in implementing the fare increase will support Queenslanders still using public transport services.

"So far, Queensland Rail and our bus and ferry service partners have continued to deliver public transport services with minimal disruptions.

"Queensland Rail and TransLink are closely monitoring the impact of COVID transmission on bus, train and ferry crew availability and is considering a range of contingency measures.

"This may include temporarily scaling back services, as is already occurring in New South Wales and on other public transport systems worldwide."

ENDS

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/ozbob13/status/1479679196746027011

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/9NewsQueensland/status/1512354053052944386

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Public transport fares set to rise as people return to trains, buses

Public transport patronage has increased to more than two-thirds the level it was before COVID-19 hit.

Bus, ferry, rail and light rail patronage dropped to 20 per cent of pre-COVID levels in early 2020. Even in mid-2021, during lockdowns, it had only increased to 47 per cent of normal levels. ...

... Earlier this year, Bailey extended a suspension of the regular fare increases however that will end on July 4, meaning fares will go up by 2.5 per cent.

"Queensland's public transport is an increasingly price-competitive option for many people and we're committed to continuing to provide accessible, efficient, customer-focussed services for the people of Queensland," Bailey said.

[Jonno]

Price competitive but languishing at worst practice levels!!

[Jonno]

$30 per month: the cost of free public transit in Montreal

https://cultmtl.com/2022/05/30-dollars-per-month-the-cost-of-free-public-transit-in-montreal-taxation-climate-change-bus-metro-stm/

Charging people to take public transit during the era of the climate emergency is stupid, particularly given that we should be trying to incentivize people by whatever means necessary to stop driving their cars.

Mayor Valérie Plante's recent statement that Montreal cannot afford to provide free public transit struck me as incredibly shortsighted. She might be surprised to learn how unaffordable terminal climate change is going to be.

The idea that transit needs to cost the user something, rather than simply being a service whose cost is absorbed through taxation and shared equally as a public benefit, is an unfortunate feature of a capitalist society's tendency to try to monetize everything. There are people in this city who charge you to look at Mount Royal if they could get away with it. Charging people to take public transit during the era of the climate emergency is just as stupid, particularly so given that we should be trying to incentivize people by whatever means necessary to stop driving their cars.

As long as our city's public transit remains at least partly dependent on fares to operate, we can't reasonably expect to expand transit access or service with declining annual fare revenue. As long as the pandemic continues, the number of people using public transit will remain artificially low, and this in turn means both that transit agencies will have less money to invest in the service they provide as much as government will be disincentivized to invest in public transit operations. It's apt that such a situation is termed a 'vicious' circle.

Take a minute to consider just how perversely backwards our enlightened leaders are when it comes to transit, because Val Plante giving up before even trying is actually the least of it. Back in March, the province announced that it was going to foot much of the $6.4-billion Blue Line extension bill. Last month it was announced that the STM had to trim $2-billion from its budget for the next decade, largely as a result of pandemic-related lost revenue. The provincial government is happy to use taxpayer's money to build flashy and expensive transit infrastructure, they're just not too interested in making sure it's actually being used. Meanwhile, the $800-million the federal government gave to Montreal (which Plante then inexplicably turned over to the Montreal-phobic Legault administration) is apparently still available, just not for the city to use as it sees fit. It's apparently being held by the province for some as yet unnamed transit infrastructure development project somewhere in the metropolitan region.

So, to recap:
Free public transit is too expensive for the city
The province will pay for a politically expedient extension of Montreal's least-used metro line
The STM has to cut $2-billion from its budget because not enough people are using public transit
$800-million in federal funding meant for public transit in Montreal is being held by the province for some unnamed future project

I can't make heads or tails of this mess other than that it makes absolutely no sense for anyone in Quebec City to be making funding decisions about Montreal's public transit, but I'm not convinced the decisions being made by people at City Hall are any wiser. Transit for the city and the metro region should be planned by an organization whose funding comes directly from the people, and shouldn't be subject to the partisan whims of provincial governments.

That said, Mayor Plante's assertion that Montreal can't afford free public transit got me thinking it might be worth doing the math to see if that's true.

Here's what I came up with.

The STM's latest budget is $1.57-billion, of which approximately 42% comes from fares, representing somewhere around $660-million per annum.

If Montreal wanted to offer free or no-charge public transit, say as an incentive to encourage public transit use and lower the city's carbon footprint, it would have to come up with that amount each year. If that $660-million cost were divided among all 1.9 million residents of the island of Montreal, it would come out to an annual bill of just under $350, or $29 per person per month.

Granted not every resident is a taxpayer, so we can try looking at this another way. If we divided this $660-million figure by the number of private dwellings (which is about 879,000 just within the city limits of Montreal), this would come out to a per dwelling cost of about $750 per annum, or about $63 per month.

We could divide this sum a different way that would also help incentivize transit use, such as by dividing the portion of the STM's operating budget that comes from fares among the approximately two million cars registered in Greater Montreal. A transit tax applied to all cars in the metro region would come out to just $330 per year, or $27.50 per month. If you applied this to just the one million or so cars registered to people who live on the island of Montreal, it would be $660 per year, or $55 per month. With this model, the public could be incentivized to use public transit in two ways, first and foremost because, as a no-charge public service, it would always be the cheapest transport option. Second, the added (though exceedingly modest) usage fee attached to registered vehicles might make some people reconsider their need for a car.

There are obviously some variables that can be changed here. The STM serves people who don't live in Montreal, as an example, so it would make sense to spread the cost amongst the residents of Laval and Longueuil as well. According to the most recent census, there are about 1.17 million private dwellings in those three communities (and we'll round up to 1.5 million to include the West Island, which also uses the STM). In this case, the transit tax would come out to $440 per private dwelling per year, or $37 per month. Keep in mind that this is only splitting the cost evenly amongst private dwellings, not all property owners (and why not split this cost with commercial properties as well). Nor is the bill split equitably amongst all residents either, something else that would be worth advocating for, since the wealthy typically pay more in taxes anyways.

The point here isn't to advocate for any one particular method of dividing up this bill, but simply to show that for a very reasonable price, the portion of the STM's annual operating budget that comes from fares could be absorbed by the population of Montreal, providing us all with free public transit. All we need is the means to enact such a fee. According to a source, the metropolitan agglomeration council once considered a similar fee to help fund the development of public transit, but as you probably already imagined, the Quebec government prevented this from happening. This is a recurring problem: the government habitually prevents us from acting in our own best interests.

The benefits of no-charge public transit are myriad, not the least of which is that we could get rid of turnstiles and ticket booths and save all the money wasted each and every year on fare evasion related security. Funds spent on security and ticket-taking could be redirected towards expanding service and improving transit accessibility. Moreover, it's an absolute guarantee that more people would use public transit if it was essentially free to use, and of course it would be a considerable financial relief for the poorest among us. The environmental impact would be considerable as well, and this is what should be motivating us more than any other consideration. Cars are the major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and so any effort to get people to stop using them would put a dent in our city's annual emissions. Not only that, but increased public transit use means a more active and generally healthier population. It also generally means less congestion, which in turn not only further reduces emissions, it makes for a more productive and generally happier population as well.

If Mayor Plante and Projet Montréal have any genuine interest in improving the quality of life for our citizens, and making sure Montreal is a leader in the fight against climate change, no charge public transit is an avenue worthy of serious consideration, not flippant dismissal.

I would add to the calculation the offset from less driving  as we know tax-subsides per trip by car are 6x that of public transport.

Significantly reduce fares does not stand alone as a policy but MUST be paired with an acceptance that our car-dependent cities have failed!!

[#Metro]

For local context, SEQ had a fare review in 2015 initiated by Jackie Trad (Treasurer/Deputy Premier).
The zones were adjusted and the fare structure was comprehensively examined under Neil Cagney (from MR Cagney, the consultancy). Neil was also a former Divisional Manager of Brisbane Transport (BCC).

What hasn't been adjusted is the BCC bus network and train frequency on certain lines that would complement bus network changes (e.g. 15-min all day frequency on Springfield and Kippa-Ring lines so that BCC buses could feed into these stations). To keep costs down I suspect that rather than institute a politically unpalatable bus review, the creation of new BUZ routes was stopped.

SEQ Fare Review >> https://translink.com.au/sites/default/files/assets/resources/about-translink/projects-initiatives/fare-review/seq-fare-review-taskforce-report.pdf

Emission reduction is inconsistent with a PT network that is oriented towards coverage. There are probably more emissions from having 1 person on an empty bus than 1 person in a car. To get emission reduction, it the network needs to be geared more towards patronage.

(that said the BCC bus network has been carbon-neutral for many years due to the purchase of offsets)

It is not clear if QR has done something similar and sourced their electricity from renewables, or if trains are running around being powered by coal-fired electricity.

The other thing is that the emissions advantage PT has from cars will erode once cars switch over to electricity and alternative fuels such as hydrogen.

[Jonno]

For the review

When determining maximum fares we must decide how much of the total cost should be paid by the people who use public transport (through fares) and how much by the community as a whole (through the Government subsidy). Trade-offs inevitably exist between growing public transport patronage today via competitive fares pricing and product decisions, and ensuring sufficient funds are available for the necessary network upgrades to service a broader cross-section of the community and meet the needs of a growing population.

This link is never made for road projects. 

Why should this link even mater? Road project cost recovery is neglible!

It's a double standard!

We know the operational cost (not capital) savings from people using active/public transport rather than driving.  This is the only analysis that should be considered!   

[#Metro]

This link is never made for road projects.

Why should this link even mater? Road project cost recovery is neglible!

A previous MR called for a fare review, but we already did one. I think if we asked the minister Mark Bailey for a review, he would likely just send back the link and ask why a new one was justified. PT is already subsidised 75% in Brisbane.

Shift from '10 and free' to '9 and free' appears to have foregone considerable amounts of revenue for very little patronage gain, but may have prevented some loss of passengers from the system.

The largest 'cost' is actually the waiting time, which is about frequency. Apart from adding Toowoomba to the zone network and getting them on the ticketing systems, the fares part is more or less settled IMHO. What isn't settled is bus network reform.

[SurfRail]

I don't buy that fares are the principal reason people don't use public transport. 

My understanding of the available evidence is the vast majority of beneficiaries of free public transport are people who otherwise would have walked or cycled, not drivers.  The Melbourne free tram zone seems to be indicative of this.

If we can raise some sort of metropolitan transport levy, we can also charge reasonable fares and use the combined resources to deliver an even better network.

[Jonno]

For commuters I agree it's not key. For families and non-commute/non-peak it does play a part especially families! Fares x 4 or 5 = Drive instead.

Unfortunately the amount of free/low cost parking, too much road capacity and low-density suburbs make it a challenge to switch people from driving even with the best network/frequency.

Driving as a first thought has become ingrained in our society. I talk to people who can't imagine not driving!

I not saying it is the best lever or most important to be used but it is part of the solution to get the change we need! We need all solutions from network design to city planning, parking minimums to fares in play to get the change we need.

My gripe is that our Governments use network upgrades as a reason to have fares too high yet the main competitor is upgraded for false congestion cost or delay reasons and the tax-payer subsidies are even higher!

[#Metro]

My understanding of the available evidence is the vast majority of beneficiaries of free public transport are people who otherwise would have walked or cycled, not drivers.  The Melbourne free tram zone seems to be indicative of this.

Main beneficiaries of low-cost or Free PT would be inner-city Green Team voters... who already have some of the best PT available. Which is why Green Team love the idea just as much as Blue Team like their free multi-storey car parks at train stations.

If you wanted to be targeted, you would consider reduced fares in the outer zones and keep the inner ones unchanged. How would that be received?

IMO both policies act to reduce the transport budget to divert funds towards what I would call "non-service expenditure" (NSE).

NSE =  it doesn't put an extra bus or train on the road or rails...

Also, tinkering with fares is a minefield. Once you start with a discount here, freebie there... you risk having a proliferation of all sorts of contrived schemes/gimmicks to get a discount. Like 9 then free... fare free friday etc. It eats into walking and cycling mode share in the inner city.
We have been through this drama in SEQ already, and an SEQ Fare Review Report as well.

Congestion charging and distance based user fees are coming with electric cars so hopefully every vehicle user can pay a fair share for their trip.

[Jonno]

As long as we use the same logic for driving then I am fine with that... but we don't! It is a double standard.

6x the subsidy for driving means we need every person on active/public transport we can get! It's not about choice or balance it is about cost and impacts.

The decision to invest in network or service improvements has nothing to do with the fares (just like road improvements) unless our Govts choose to!

That's the change we need!!

PS those Green inner city people want more people on public transport partly because we have had road widening projects, tunnels and freeways with associated health and other impacts forced upon us and told just live with it!

Guess we have chosen not to live with it!

[#Metro]

Children
https://translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/concessions/children

Travel on the Translink network is free for children aged 4 years and under.

Children aged 5 to 14 years (inclusive) are eligible for a concession fare.

Children aged between 5 and 14 years travel free on the weekend when they tap on and off with an orange child go card. There must be money on the card (in addition to the card deposit), even when travelling free on the weekend.

It's already free for children up to 14 years of age. Choosing the car for a family trip might be more about keeping everyone together, flexibility, and destination than fares. Not everything is about fares...

If you wanted to be targeted, you would consider reduced fares in the outer zones and keep the inner ones unchanged. How would that be received?

^ What were your thoughts on this Jonno?

[Gazza]

Yeah I wouldn't want another fare review.
There was already a lengthy process which led us to where we are today, and Bob was on the panel.
There's not really anything majorly 'broken' with fares at the moment IMO.

It's just sucking up oxygen in the room to continually tinker with fares without dealing with more fundamental isssues of the network being usable.

[Jonno]

Yeah I wouldn't want another fare review.
There was already a lengthy process which led us to where we are today, and Bob was on the panel.
There's not really anything majorly 'broken' with fares at the moment IMO.

It's just sucking up oxygen in the room to continually tinker with fares without dealing with more fundamental issues of the network being usable.

I agree to a point.  The only reason to change fares is if comes as part of much larger paradigm shift.  Not on it own. Such as

"We recognise that we need to reverse the way our region moves and lives. So we are reprioritising our transport budgets to:

• put separated bike lanes on all our roads
• creating walkable, low-car, 15 min Neighbourhoods,
• removing car parking minimums,
• developing a BRT Network that compliments and enhances our rail network,
• making our public transport network turn up and go across the region;
• investing in Fast Rail; and
• reviewing fares to make active and public transport (they go together to make a integrated network) the first choice in how we get around"

There are some major changes in the thinking/policy. Fares is just part of the solution not the game changer.  A key element in whatever the fares are is to not link fares to service provision.  It is unfair and an a double standard.

[Gazza]

Yeah but the problem is getting a paradigm shift is such a big job in itself, and getting bogged down with a highly political process like fares is just making life hard for minimal payoff.

Already, when you read online discussions (outside of RBoT) people seem to get stuck on this simplistic thinking that if  you drop fares usage will increase and leave it at that, and we specifically need to get politicians away from that line of thinking.

Every election has had some sort of fare promise (LNP 9 then free, TTC cards etc) , barely any have had promises around 15 min neighbourhoods, so maybe we need to give these other policies some limelight for a change?

Maybe once the network has improved a bit then go back to fares.

[Jonno]

Agree Paradigm shift will mean a whole other world of discussion

[#Metro]

Green Team:

Question on Notice No. 373 Asked on 25 March 2021 MR M BERKMAN ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (HON M BAILEY)

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2021/373-2021.pdf

Will the Minister advise (a) how much fare revenue Translink collected in November 2019, December 2019, January 2020, February 2020, November 2020, December 2020, January 2021 and February 2021 respectively, (b) projected fare revenue expected to be collected by Translink in the next 12 months and (c) whether the department has conducted any modelling on costs, savings and associated risks or benefits of making all travel on the Translink network free?

Rough calculation is 30 million/month x 12 months = 360 million (probably would be higher without COVID19) around say $400 million.

Response:

Fare revenue plays a vital role in ensuring public transport services can continue to increase and attract more passengers. Revenue is invested into transport infrastructure, such as station upgrades and park 'n' ride facilities, and the improvement of services for all users— such as increasing frequency of services, adding new services into growing areas and expansion of hours of services. As a matter of policy, the Palaszczuk Government does not support free travel, to ensure a focus on fairness and the sustainability of public transport services for all Queenslanders, not just those in South East Queensland

^ Its a fair point that not all Queenslanders have public transport. E.g. Someone in Cairns or Toowoomba will be paying for free PT in Brisbane.

If the revenue is only about 25% of the true cost, then the total amount is 100% x (360m/25%) = 1440 million per year or $1.4 billion.

So, if $360 million is fares, for every 10% general fare cut, $36 million would have to be found. And that would be before any improvements to bus or train services (extra service cost more on top of this). Generously, if a BUZ route is $4 million p.a. to run, we would have a choice:

1. Get a 10% general fare cut, OR
2. Get about 9 new BUZ routes

These are tangible financial costs, and I accept that they don't consider things like avoidable road deaths etc from reduced car use, emissions etc,
but that all links back to bums on seats - patronage.

(Coming to think of it, this implies that BCC's network of mostly coverage routes is probably injuring or killing people through avoidable accidents and injuries that otherwise would not happen if PT service were better and patronage were higher.)

[#Metro]

Berkman mentioned Estonia somewhere, results:

Estonia's free county public transport did not fulfill goals
https://www.eltis.org/in-brief/news/estonias-free-county-public-transport-did-not-fulfill-goals

The National Audit Office of Estonia have been investigating the free public transport introduced in Tallinn, including the free bus and tram travel for local registered people. Analysis included studying whether economic feasibility as well as the mobility needs of people had been taken into account when deciding to cut payment by users.

Results on the county model were that free public transport has not reached its goal to reduce car journeys. Whilst public transport use numbers have increased, still more than half of all trips to work are done by car.

Might be interesting to see that Audit Report...

[#Metro]

Estonia Free PT Audit Report -  (they have it in English)

Landing Page > https://www.riigikontroll.ee/Suhtedavalikkusega/Pressiteated/tabid/168/ItemId/1311/amid/557/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Summary Document>
https://www.riigikontroll.ee/DesktopModules/DigiDetail/FileDownloader.aspx?AuditId=2521&FileId=14887

Free public transport has increased the demand for travel, but the number of commuters to
work has not increased; rather, the number of repeat passengers has increased. Passenger
numbers have increased by approximately 15% in 2019 compared to 2018. According to the Road
Administration, the increase in the demand for travel has mainly been due to earlier passengers,
not new users. The goal set in the National Transport Development Plan for 2014–2020 to
increase the share of public transport users to 25% of those commuting to work has not been met.
According to Statistics Estonia, 20.6% of people used public transport to commute to work in
2019.

So in other words, the benefits went to existing PT users making more trips rather than former car users. The network needs to be redesigned because non-users find it difficult to join the network (low or no service).

[Gazza]

It makes sense it increased repeat users....If someone already found PT usable, it would mean they could easily do more of the same trips.

[Jonno]

Shows that it can not be a leading/sole initiative.  It needs to be the last in a long list of changes once the city, the network and the services are provided and integrated correctly.

Trying to increase public transport using fares alone without a properly designed/planned city (including active transport infrastructure), network and services is putting the horse before the cart.  Lower fares is an indicator to take notice of the great city (including active transport infrastructure), network and services that has been created... or a reward for supporting the change.

[minbrisbane]

Agree, fares are but one piece of the PT reform pie.  And not a really significant piece of it.

[ozbob]

Agree, fares are but one piece of the PT reform pie.  And not a really significant piece of it.

Nailed it !

[Jonno]

As long as Governments don't continue to argue that unless we increase fares we can't increase services! Then it becomes a significant part of the puzzle as it is being used as an excuse!!

[SurfRail]

I don't think that argument is really made here though.

[ozbob]

https://translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/fares-and-zones/new-SEQ-fares

New fares for SEQ - July 2022

On Monday 4 July 2022, fares will increase on our services across South East Queensland (excluding Toowoomba and Sunshine Coast Hinterland).

Adult and concession fares will increase by 2.5 per cent, in line with the Government Indexation Rate (GIR).

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

New fares for SEQ - From 4 July 2022

1st July 2022

Greetings

On Monday 4 July 2022, fares will increase on public transport across South East Queensland (excluding Toowoomba and Sunshine Coast Hinterland).

Adult and concession fares will increase by 2.5 per cent, in line with the Government Indexation Rate (GIR).
Details > https://translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/fares-and-zones/new-SEQ-fares

Best wishes,

Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track https://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Queensland Parliament

https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2022/903-2022.pdf

Question on Notice
No. 903
Asked on 31 August 2022

MR R STEVENS ASKED MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (HON M BAILEY)

QUESTION:

Will the Minister detail any changes made to public transport discounts during the 2021–22
financial year and any planned for the 2022–23 financial year?
ANSWER:
I thank the Member for Mermaid Beach for the question.

Translink provides a range of concessions for access to subsidised public transport to ensure
public transport is affordable for those who need it. Concessions fares are issued to children,
secondary students, pensioners, veterans, seniors, tertiary/post-secondary students, job seekers
and asylum seekers.

In the 2021–22 financial year, the Department of Transport and Main Roads' Translink Division
(Translink) offered a range of discounts and incentives for customers travelling on the public
transport network. Translink offered a 30 per cent discount when using go card, 20 per cent
discount when travelling in off-peak, the '8 and 50 per cent' frequent user scheme—which
provides half price travel after eight paid journeys in a week—and the 'One, Two, Free for Senior
go card holder' who use their go card for two paid journeys in one day, travel free for the rest of
the day.

Free travel is also provided to customers who have a Gold Veteran Card embossed with TPI/EDA,
Vision Impairment Travel Pass holders and eligible customers who apply for a Translink Access
Pass. These discounts and concessions will not change for the 2022–23 financial year.
Brisbane City Council (BCC) and Gold Coast City Council offered Seniors Free Off-Peak Travel
for eligible residents for the 2021–22 financial year on bus services and ferry services (BCC
residents only). These council funded initiatives will remain in place for the 2022–23 financial
year.

Noosa Shire Council offer free weekend public transport on routes 626, 627, 628, 629 and 632.
This council funded 12-month trial began on 12 February 2022 and will run until 12 February
2023.

[ozbob]

Public transport pricing
Research paper Australian Government Productivity Commission

https://www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/public-transport/public-transport.pdf

[ozbob]

As I have reported before, the free off peak travel on a BCC bus for Seniors counts as ' paid journey ' ...

Recent travel by the Mrs (switched. right. on.)

28 Dec 2022
06:40 AM   Goodna   07:45 AM   Fortitude Valley   $ 2.11          
08:50 AM   Brunswick Street - Stop 202   
08:59 AM   Adelaide St near Albert St (Stop 42)   $ 0.00       
10:04 AM   Central   11:04 AM   Kingston   $ 0.00          
11:57 AM   Kingston station   12:39 PM   Pacific Hwy at IKEA   $ 0.00       
02:40 PM   Pacific Hwy at IKEA   02:58 PM   Woodridge station   $ 0.00       
03:00 PM   Woodridge   04:26 PM   Goodna   $ 0.00

 

[verbatim9]

https://twitter.com/ljstone09/status/1614875851618914305