TransLink Zone Rationalisation - Comments?

[ozbob]

Mozz has again raised the idea of rationalising TL zones.

We first raised this in 2006.  Anyone got any comments please?

RAIL Back On Track Media Release 3 November 2006

Rationalisation of TransLink Zones Needed in Queensland

RAIL ? Back On Track (http://backontrack.org)  a web based community organisation for the promotion of rail throughout Australia has called on the Queensland State Government, Brisbane City Council, TransLink and transport planners to simplify the cumbersome and expensive zone system used as a basis for Translink Ticketing.

Robert Dow said that

?The present TransLink ticketing in South East Queensland has 22 zones!  This is unnecessarily complicated and makes for expensive travel from outer suburban areas where young families are often located.  In the State of Victoria  Melbourne for example has 3 zones, and looks like rationalising that down to two!?

?Consideration needs to be given to converting the 22 zones into 5 or 6.  A sensible outcome would be 5 zones only.  For example the new zone 1 would encompass the present zones 1 to 4.  New zone 2 encompass the present zones 5 to 8.  And so forth. By keeping the fares the same as for the present 5 zones, there will be a reduction in the cost of commuting for many.  Again a great incentive for residents to get out of their motor cars!?

?This would be a great incentive for residents in outer suburban areas to take public transport all the way to work.  Many drive part of the way as the outer zone fares are too expensive for many.  This causes considerable parking problems at intermediate bus and train stations. The benefits in terms of less traffic congestion, less environmental damage will far outweigh any loss of revenue. ?

?It is time real public transport initiatives were enacted for the benefit of the whole community.?

Contact:

admin@backontrack.org

Administration

http://backontrack.org

[ozbob]

Melbourne has two (2) zones  --> http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au/fares-tickets/metropolitan-fares-and-tickets/metropolitan-zones

Sydney has a complicated setup, reflecting the problems in the first failed attempt with the T Card no doubt --> http://www.131500.com.au/maps/bus/

Adelaide has directional 3 zones --> http://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/routes/timetableM.html

Perth has up to 9 zones --> http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/Default.aspx?tabid=362&id=109

Hobart has a sectional system --> http://www.metrotas.com.au/tickets-and-fares/fare-sections-explained

[Arnz]

My thoughts is that the current TransLink zones should at least be halved from 23 zones to 11 zones.  Zones 1-2 forms 1, Zones 3-4 forms Zone 2, Zones 21-23 forms zone 11, and so forth.

[Otto]

I would like to see the situation changed where a person can travel from Mater Hill to RBH for $2.40. OR Mater Hill to Cannon Hill for $2.40, BUT to travel from Woolloongabba to Southbank is $2.90.(just 2 stops)..

[O_128]

no 11 is still to many the idea of 5 zones is an excellent idea

[Derwan]

I think there should be an inner-city zone - say the current zones 1-2, then a suburban zone - say zones 3-7 (or 8 ), followed by 3 or so zones beyond that.

For those in zones 1-2, many of their trips would be within those zones.  Everything they need is usually in the city area. City dwellers tend to remain in the city and seldom venture to the suburbs.

For those in the suburbs, a cross-suburb or slightly longer journey may be common - even to get to the shops.  They shouldn't be penalised just because places are more spread out in the suburbs.  Those who work in the city would still pay the fare into the city (across both zones).

I'm not sure about other capitals, but Brisbane's public transport network covers a significant distance up and down the coast and may require more zones to cater for this.  But certainly zones 1-8 could be consolidated into 2 zones.

[Markus]

Im open to all suggestions as I see our current section system as being too cluttered. I'd be comfortable & pleased with re 11 sections at most.
Consideration given for some type of exemption for through travellers going from GC to S Coast without getting off in BNE CBD.

I also think it's very civil to have split sections at stations such as Toombul whereby its 2 & 3 sections. A small $ price to have some civility these days.

NO peak hrs fares when theres no peak frequency such as Christmas week.

[ButFli]

I beg you all to compare Apples with Apples. Melbourne's 2 zones cover the greater Melbourne area. "Brisbane's" 22 Zones go all the way to Gympie. You're comparing a city with a region.

It is highly misleading to bleat about Brisbane having 22 zones when Melbourne can get by with 2.

[Markus]

OK ButFli - yes OK I'll be careful what I ask for - in case I get it.
I was just overly keen to have a simplified system in order to avoid the mess N.S.W. Transport is in with their automated ticket system where they have spent many millions and still do not have a plan.

[Mozz]

Less zones definitely. One tangible example I raised to Translink - Oxley railway station is zone 3. Oxley bus station is zone 4. To travel from my suburb to a large shopping centre in Inala (adjacent suburb) it's a zone 4-5 trip. Fare wise it's $3.40 to travel into the cbd or $2.90 to go from one suburb to the next. TL response was along the lines that the complexity of the zoning system meant that anomalies like this would always occur.

[mufreight]

Mozz has raised a pertinent point, if such anomilies are a consequence of the complexities of the system then it would be logical that on that point in itself the system is flawed by being overly complex, logic would then indicate that a more reliable and equatible system would be one that was simpler and that simplification of the system is needed not only to make it more reliable but also more equitable.
Mozz

[Derwan]

Oxley railway station is zone 3. Oxley bus station is zone 4.

Boondall is the same (zone 3/4).  One deterrent to catching buses (other than the lack of them) to the station is that it is an additional zone even if you're 2 blocks away.  If it was the same zone, the bus fare to the station would essentially be free.

Once we're in the car to get to the station, we might as well travel a few more minutes down Sandgate Rd and catch a train from Northgate - where there are more services to choose from and the fare is even cheaper (zone 2).  Hence the parking problems at Northgate.

So many issues are interlinked!

[SteelPan]

I have no doubt, the Zone Issue and Fare Evasion are interlinked, the simpler you can get your fare structure (ie, zones travelled in), the easier it is to enforce.  Obviously, our current level of zoning is rideculous, but represents the compromise needed for integrated ticketing to work in SEQld.  I too encourage Translink to explore zone simiplification. 

[dwb]

NO WAY! I live in zone 2 and I already subsidise passengers travelling from the Gold Coast. To a certain extent this is fair, as many people are forced to live far from where they work, however to the extent you are proposing is ridiculous.

The 23 zone system is actually quite simple considering it covers three modes and 18 operators all presumably with different cost models (historically and current contract wise).

When TL integrated fares in 2004 bus and rail changed to be equal. This meant in certain circumstances bus fares went down where train fares went up, to make them equal.  Due to changes in this cost, ie the fact the zone cost was going up, they left certain rail stations at certain zones when buses right near them were higher. This reflects a slight historical quirk that was required in order to integrate the modes.

If you look at a fare table from 2004 the fair is structured as such:
boarding fee $1.60 + ($0.40x sectors travelled).  For the inner zones, one zone equals one sector, however for long distance travel ie above 9 zones of travel, each zone is in fact 2 sectors.  This does not mean for zone 10, 11, 12 etc, this means for travel in more than nine different zones, ie it could be zone 19 to 9, it could be 5 to 18 etc.

Since 2004 fares have been adjusted a couple of times, applying CPI, then rounding up to nearest 10c increment for cash fares. this has created rounding errors especially for shorter journeys, meaning I'm subsidising long distance travel more than I was in 2004.

If any changes to fares occur this year, it should be re-adjusting fares from the 2004 price on CPI increase since 2004, plus an 'affordable' rise to allow more services to be funded. This would be CPI of about 15% and 10% on top of that could broadly be described as affordable. A general price rise of 25% from 2004 prices for 2009 would only equate to a a real rise of about 2%per annum over that period.

Reducing the number of zones simply means that you have a larger number of passengers subsidising other passengers, unfairly!

With Go card, it is not complex at all for the customer. They tag on, they tag off and it charges the fare. Simple. They don't even have to know which zones they travelled in!  If you reduced the number of zones you would still have issues with bordering zones, although the issue would be greater because the cost differential would be greater.

If you look at Melbourne, then a daily for zone 1 ie inner Melbourne is $6.80, in Brisbane a one zone daily is $4.80 (this could be in zone 22, zone 14, zone 6, zone 1).  You could try and argue that a TL zone 3 daily is only the cost of an inner Melb ticket, however there are a lot of people who only travel 1 or 2 zones in distance (ie not IN zone 1 or 2 itself - think Broadbeach to Southport!). Remember Melbourne doesn't charge you for the number of zones you travel, but whether it is the inner zone, the outer zone or both.  In SEQ, passengers generally only contribute to the cost of travel directly for the service they use, AS IT SHOULD BE.

In future, I would hope that any changes used GPS coordinates and charged a linear distance based fee from commencement to end, however until we're full go card this isn't possible.