New fare strategy - articles and discussion

[dwb]

@derwan

Many people are calling for capped daily and weekly fares.
Playing devil's advocate:
1.  Why should people get to take more than 2 trips per day and pay no more than those who simply travel to and from their daily destination?

Who is to say the daily cap actually has to be the cost of 2 singles, rather than say 2.5 or 3 (ie a go card daily cap doesn't necessarily have to replicate a paper daily ticket - this was implemented for simplicity rather than needing a return and daily ticket type, which would be hard to validate anyway).

2.  Isn't 50% off after 10 trips in a week a fare frequent user discount?

50% off, not really, as this assumes only commuters or higher should get some form of discount. Heavy users in single days but not for the duration of the week miss out, as do others.

3.  Are we just calling for capping because it's just what we've become accustomed to?

No, when i call it capping, I'm referring to a value cap rather than zonal cost cap, this could work just like mobile phones work now but with a bit more transparency.

4.  Is capping fair when taking into consideration the strategy to reduce the subsidy for each trip?

yes the concept of capping is fair, I don't see why the entire system should be run just for commuters who do 2 trips a day five days a week, what about wkend users who don't use the system during the week - a daily cap for them is important as often you don't do point to point and return travel.

[dwb]

@ David

That Facebook group is slightly worrying - they have been misinformed by the media once again...

Doesn't seem misinformed to me, and I've certainly read angrier posts elsewhere!!

[dwb]

@tramtrain

The facebook group-
1. Students get massive discount (50%) on top of all the other discounts there are

And so they should, just like pensioners.  There have been many many reports over the last several years indicating how financially difficult it is to study. For those students studying fulltime, even if they're on a youth allowance or newstart, life can be pretty hard financially. I think you should re-think your position if you simply think they're getting a free ride!

[dwb]

@Fairs_fare

I'm surprised that the Government is disposing of paper tickets so soon,
particularly in light of the many existing problems associated with the Go card.
Obviously they must have it all under control and will be able to stay on top of the
huge increase in demand on it's (refund due to errors and outages) helplines !!

Mark my words - it will be an absolute debacle.
...

Even the problem plagued Go card increases 20% for me anyway,
so I find the fact that the State Government Minister and Deputy Premier, Paul Lucas - claiming
that the new Go card prices are the same as paper ticket prices in July 2007 as incomprehensible!
This seemingly without any qualification.

Absolutely it will be a debacle, however half of me thinks in typical yes minister style, they've decided to take a harsh rap from the public now so they look like heroes when they back off/delay in "response" to customer wishes.

I originally made a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading regarding the advertising of the "at least 20% off" slogan to which they had revised to something along the lines of "20% or more off a single ticket".

I might make another complaint as it seems they've learnt little. It certainly will not be the same cost as 2007 for those purchasing weeklies or monthlies or those on 3,6 or 12 month QR tickets, nor for those using dailies and doing more than two trips!! Let's get things straight, most people will be substantially worse off financially! Continual dodgings of the truth do nothing to add any trust in Translink.

[dwb]

@ tramtrain

"Free transport" is not free! Running services at unsustainable prices when use is growing is unsustainable, and will ultimately lead to the run down of the system, overcrowded sardine cans, and a big deficit on the books.
You can't fit more people onto a crowded PT system when you have to get money to buy a bus or train first!

Tramtrain, pricing of PT has to have respect to competive modes such as private vehicle travel. If you jack the prices up that people find it cheaper to use the car they already own with rego already paid for than to get the bus or train you've only underminded your own fare base, not to mentioned stuffed the carrying capacity of the network. Remember buses carry far more passenger trips than trains in SEQ and are majorly subjected to congestion. A 5% shift in peak could end up in severe gridlock the likes of which Brisbane has never seen... buses included in that too. We'll see how effective the government subsidy is then at achieving a public good!

Governments and the parties know full well about the asymmetric information about how systems actually run from the government side. We lay people don't have this information, access to experts or advisors.
It's not fair that they tempt us with their illusions of some free or unsustainable cheap transport utopia, something they could never deliver, and take advantage of our lack of knowledge in how public economics works.

This is not entirely accurate, often planners and politicians don't really know that much more than consumers or the public. That is why community engagement should be a key component of policy development. I see no reason why at the very least Translink shouldn't have to publish a draft fares strategy and take and consider submissions from the public before submitting to the Minister.

[dwb]

@ David

Mind you, they should start slashing those excessive Translink executive salaries - it even might improve the botton line of the Translink budget. I don't even know how they jusifty their own existence - does anyone know what all those executive officers in Translink actually do?

What is with the public service bashing?!  I know it is a long time favorite of the public, but often bad results or bad decisions have been made by the politicians with little respect to the advice of the technical officers/bureaucrats/planners involved.

[dwb]

@ Paul Lucas... do you think he ever uses Google and might read this??

?This Go-Card is exactly the same system essentially that operates on the London tube,? Mr Lucas said.
?World class public transport systems have world class ticketing systems; the Go-Card is about doing that.?

Even in London after almost a decade of operation, have they not tried to remove all paper tickets!!
He should also be careful citing London because they offer travelcards on Oyster, flat fares on buses AND they dumped Cubic bc they were too difficult to work with!

[dwb]

@somebody
@ozbob

Quote from: ozbob on October 16, 2009, 09:12:39 AM
Somebody at least there will be an increase of 5% each year to make the off peak 20% in 2012.   Once they sort the system I expect we will have an early bird discount as well.
Like I already said, the phase in is not logical though.

Quote
I am not convinced that we will see 15% fare cost increase each year for the next five years either.  That may well be ambit. 
I think that too.

The initial 10% discount for offpeak travel is less than the fare rise, so really they'll be selling us offpeak tickets for more than we currently pay onpeak now ($2.07 rather than $1.92 for one zone adult single ticket). Does this make sense??

Offpeak should be substantially (in the order of 1/2-1/3) cheaper than peak tickets. Historically speaking the difference between a daily and an offpeak daily was 1/3. Why not stick with this??

[dwb]

There are some further factors to consider:

Presently only 3 to 5% of commuters travel more than 10 times per week (source Minister of Transport staff information from TransLink).  With the go card incentives more may travel > 10 trips in the future.

How do you figure this?

The new go card fares are set at the 2007 paper cost.  So relative to that there is essentially no increase.  Yes there is an increase with respect what we have been paying the last couple of years but I guess that has been a bonus discount in a failed attempt to drive go card uptake.  So I am comfortable with the pricing of the new go card fares.  The majority of people their costs are no different to 2007.  The high use users will be paying more, but not overly excessive as the 50% discount will kick in.

Not true. This is only wrt SINGLE tickets. Most people don't actually buy single tickets!

[dwb]

@tramtrain

Oh, I really don't like this at all. Politicians! rofl looking good but doing bad...

If someone comes out and says "We'll only raise fares by CPI" Angry, this will slowly but surely run down the PT system or unable to cope with the massive patronage growth that is coming.
And overcrowd the system, and put a nice big fat deficit on the book (in addition to the one we already have).
Politicians! rofl

I'd suggest reading this link, it raises some very important and pertinent points.
http://www.ptc.gov.sg/WCTR_Striking_A_Fare_Deal.pdf

[dwb]

@somebody

Also, since bus commuters are going to be paying more, are they going to get any better bus priority, in particular:
(a) Coopers Camp Rd-Caxton St for services to the Gap
(b) Coronation Drive and/or Milton Rd

Don't be silly, if there were bus priority, then we'd carry more passengers for the same cost of operation and not need fare increases!

[dwb]

@ozbob

That is what I said Stephen,  high use will pay more.  Unfortunately it seems that this fare outcome is predicated on the fact that 95% do 10 journeys or less a week.  I do more too and will be paying more as well. 
I am still hopeful that there will be further ticketing options added to the go card.  It is silly that they are not already in place.

That 5% who will be charged much more are probably the 5% who don't own a car. If these people are faced with massive hikes they may just go out and buy a car. Given the costs for car use are block charges up front, over the longer term you're converting PT dedicates to car devotees. Doesn't sound like a well thought through plan!

[dwb]

@p858snake

A nicer design that would make those gates "faster" would the old revolving door type where they were sort of a "X" designed and you walked into it and it turn around, although these would take up considerably more space but would be harder to evade the fares with these.

Having travelled a bit I've used different gates and the cross ones are about the worst possible.  Ideally you should be able to have a line of people walking at a standard tailing distance approach the gate, swipe while walking and have the gate open by the time you get to it, then close immediately after you (laser can tell when you exit) so that the person following you is sure they have validated. The ones in Sydney on old magnetic cards work like this as do the Oyster ones in London.

[dwb]

@beauboy

Why would it be to hard to put gates in the Indooroopilly subway?

Subways are used by non-customers so that they don't cross the tracks. You cannot expect or force people to need to have a go card to use them.

[dwb]

@paulg

I suppose they are trying to avoid capped fare products on the Go Card as part of a "user pays" philosophy where each additional PT trip should incur a cost.

However this fails to recognise that heavy PT users (and people commuting from the outskirts of the city) are not only paying higher fares, they are also spending more of their time commuting and are perhaps at the lower end of the income spectrum. A progressive govenrnment would seek to limit the impact on those people who can least afford fare hikes.

I was disappointed when they originally set up the zonal fare system and charged people (roughly) according to distance travelled. I think the fare structure should be much flatter, so that commuters coming in from the city fringes are somewhat subsidised (to recognise they are already paying a premium in terms of their time).

Introducing daily and weekly caps would have essentially a similar impact, relieving the very high cost increases that long distance commuters will otherwise face.

Cheers, Paul

A zonal or distance based system is one that is more equitable. Currently long distance customers do get discounts, and if you look closely on proposed 2010 fares they still do wrt single ticket prices.  The problem here is that smart long distance travellers who commute would use QR tickets which are very very cheap in comparison to alternatives and these are being removed before any sense of a value or zonally based cap is introduced.  If you look at the costs closely, there is still a heavy cross subsidy of long distance passengers by short distance passengers. If you go to the 2004 single ticket prices then it is worked out that boarding is 4/5 of the 1 zone price. Ie zones are charged at 40c on a journey fee of $1.60. If you travel 10 zones and bought a weekly then not only do you pay the same boarding fee as a 1 zone traveller, but zone 1 is much smaller than zone 9, not to mention up until the changes are introduced weekly tickets are 8x the cost of a single for up to 9 zones, but only 6.5x the cost of a single for 13. This discount is currently reflected in the 20, 25, 30 or 35% discount on current go card fares based on numbers of zones (not the actual zones) travelled.

Besides, if you overly subsidise long distance travel, all you are doing is promoting people to live further from where they work which is not a good policy outcome. Equity concerns would be better addressed through concession discounts and the like.

[somebody]

@somebody

Also, since bus commuters are going to be paying more, are they going to get any better bus priority, in particular:
(a) Coopers Camp Rd-Caxton St for services to the Gap
(b) Coronation Drive and/or Milton Rd

Don't be silly, if there were bus priority, then we'd carry more passengers for the same cost of operation and not need fare increases!

I was trying to suggest a new piece of ammunition for the bus priority besides this tired old chestnut (which does happen to be true).

The ones in Sydney on old magnetic cards work like this as do the Oyster ones in London.

Thought the ones in Sydney closed on a timer.

[dwb]

@stephenk

Last time I checked, public transport was quite different to a mobile phone. So why not just have an auto top-up on pay-as-you-go?

Not really. Mobile phone companies established caps so that people wouldn't think before calling and would be more likely to get a low cap, use it a lot and then upgrade a cap, not to mention ditch their home landline.

The approach has been highly successful and if implemented well could offer users equivalent benefit of current monthlies without undermining the userpays logic to charging for a limited resource.

If you want to think one step further, Telstra is forced to offer wholesale prices to resellers. These resellers can then tailor their products to meet different markets while still having access to Telstra's cables.  There is no reason the government couldn't separate retail and wholesale and de-monopolise the retail arm. This would likely in the mid-longer term benefit consumers and I for one and all for it.

Just like telecom, just like electicity, just like water!

[dwb]

Hi all, sorry to dominate this topic this afternoon, its been a while since I read the thread and wanted to throw as many points as I could into the discussion as possible (in a constructive way - you have to give me there is no flaming there!!). I'm amazed at the level of thought this forum has contributed, I'm really glad that Bob keeps it running and I only wish that planners/politicians would be so brave as to google the topic and stumble across it!!!

One last thing, for those interested I'd really like to get my uni research project from last semester out there, its on this very topic.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21280263/Recommendations-to-the-creation-of-a-fares-strategy-to-support-improved-public-transport-in-South-East-Queensland

and

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8001700/Fair-Fares-Survey-Analysis

[ozbob]

Thanks for your contributions dwb, always good to see you around.

Capping - daily and options for weekly, monthly and even longer are needed at equitable rates.  The more people use public transport the greater the overall savings to our community.

There is some great stuff being posted all over I agree dwb.  Makes the effort worthwhile. We don't all have to always agree but marvellous different points of view are out there and in the search engines! 

[somebody]

If you look at the costs closely, there is still a heavy cross subsidy of long distance passengers by short distance passengers. If you go to the 2004 single ticket prices then it is worked out that boarding is 4/5 of the 1 zone price. Ie zones are charged at 40c on a journey fee of $1.60.

Pretty sure I've already posted on this.  I think a flagfall of more like 20-50c is appropriate, with a per km as the crow flies charge on a declining scale.  i.e. if the first 10km are charged at X per km, the next 10km could be changed at 0.9X per km and so on.  Not completely sure of the exact rates, but you get the general idea.  You also obviously need to prevent people getting a refund for "connecting" and then backtracking back home.

[O_128]

If you look at the costs closely, there is still a heavy cross subsidy of long distance passengers by short distance passengers. If you go to the 2004 single ticket prices then it is worked out that boarding is 4/5 of the 1 zone price. Ie zones are charged at 40c on a journey fee of $1.60.

Pretty sure I've already posted on this.  I think a flagfall of more like 20-50c is appropriate, with a per km as the crow flies charge on a declining scale.  i.e. if the first 10km are charged at X per km, the next 10km could be changed at 0.9X per km and so on.  Not completely sure of the exact rates, but you get the general idea.  You also obviously need to prevent people getting a refund for "connecting" and then backtracking back home.

usually capped rates on mobiles are more expensive to compensate for more calls.

[david]

@beauboy

Why would it be to hard to put gates in the Indooroopilly subway?

Subways are used by non-customers so that they don't cross the tracks. You cannot expect or force people to need to have a go card to use them.

I think the intention was to have fare gates at the top of the stairs going to/from the subway. People who need to change platforms would simply go up to the concourse (which wouldn't be gated) and change as necessary. If this would cause too much commuter backlash, just leave the gates open (like at Toowong). The reason why this idea was floated was to allow more than just 2 people (assuming one machine on each side of the stairs) to touch off, keeping in mind the high passenger volumes at Indooroopilly and the expected increase in go card users from 2010.

Just slightly off-topic, when will the next Translink Network Plan be released? It would be nice to know what we are forking more out for...

[#Metro]

Dwb, thanks for the posts. Apologies for the length of my, considered reply.  

Tramtrain, pricing of PT has to have respect to competive modes such as private vehicle travel. If you jack the prices up that people find it cheaper to use the car they already own with rego already paid for than to get the bus or train you've only underminded your own fare base, not to mentioned stuffed the carrying capacity of the network. Remember buses carry far more passenger trips than trains in SEQ and are majorly subjected to congestion. A 5% shift in peak could end up in severe gridlock the likes of which Brisbane has never seen... buses included in that too. We'll see how effective the government subsidy is then at achieving a public good!

This is true, but it is not the only factor. The state of the state's finances, the current administration's political and financial ambitions, and the need to finance a growing share of PT and improvements also should factor in.

7.4.1
It seems obvious that the only method of improving capacity, reliability and frequency (in addition to reduced urban congestion) is that an overall increase in the funding base for public transport is required.
There are of course a number of options to achieve this?.
? however it is likely that increasing user charges will play a crucial role in combined (sic) with any other alternatives.

and again (p23):

Decrease

- could minorly drive demand
- Peak services are already at capacity, and reduced fares would simply undermine revenue
- reduced revenue would reduce quality further
- could drive off peak demand, and increase revenue from these currently underutilised services.

Your work is very well researched and written. I am a big fan of proper research, and I wish Translink actually did this and made it public. Like in the Singapore paper you referenced, there could be some agreed model on how prices are set.
At the moment there is no transparency in this. However, that particular paper did cite the introduction of smartcards as one of the reasons for its successes. Multi-door boarding, which can increase PT efficiency substantially, would also be harder to implement with a paper ticket. And importantly, Singapore has a good PT network. We had an awful one, which we are now fixing. Different circumstances- different solutions.

Pricing also must include the consideration that the network must be radically expanded, requiring large increases in cash and public borrowing/loans. The affordability of taxpayers to bear charges also must factor in, because they too are a party to this arrangement. 100% of the PT cost falling on users seems unfair, but so does 100% falling on taxpayers. Even 75% doesn't look good. The government's political survival also factors in, subtly, because they have a big hole on their books and getting rid of that, or at least getting that down in the eyes of the electorate also factors in. I know many would rather not think about this, but someone needs to say it.

Potential bus congestion could be mitigated with priority measures and busways. People are willing to bear some short term disadvantage/inconvenience for long term benefit. I would rather the money be used for the network upgrades and expansion, than reduce the cost of fares for people who would use the service anyway at a higher user charge. PT is very affordable by any standard, especially when compared to Melbourne, Sydney, and crucially, driving a car. It would also be a logical extension to
(a) subsidise bicycle travel in some form, as this is perhaps the mode of transport that has the absolute highest benefits in terms of health, congestion, and minimising drain on public financial resources.
(b) toll cars
Why these two things are not done given all the justifications advanced so far, is beyond me.

I must commend you though on something you didn't explicitly write about, but nevertheless came through in your work. That transport should not be viewed as a "Car vs PT", but that it should be viewed as a unitary system- that those who catch buses free up spaces for cars, and thus have a positive externality on those users- and therefore justify a subsidy. That was really good I thought.

However, this does not say anything about how the burden of cost should be divided amongst taxpayers and users.
And as PT systems which have no or highly reduced subsidy exist (Transmillenio in Bogota, MTR in Hong Kong, Japan Railways) while still retaining the high public benefit the PT brings, does demonstrate that the identification, elimination or reduction of operational inefficiencies are also highly important. Density and development policies also factor here.
The question as to why a bus of 50 people, or a train carrying 900 passengers is apparently more costly to run than a car with one person, prima facie, needs to be explained, not explained away.
(I understand this is outside the scope of your work).

Indeed you appear to realise this:

Absolutely, raised fares are a good start to better quality PT... but not only does more money need to be spend on PT, and probably coming from less being spent on roads, but additionally we need to get smarter about how we invest it, for instance we could make the cost per bus passenger km MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper, simply by having some real bus priority on the road network and that in itself (although unpopular with drivers) would itself be very cheap

If PT subsidy levels were closer to the 50% level that roads have (and I know there are all sorts of arguments about the derivation of the numbers- but I am working on a "how the government actually behaves" model here) then re-directing road funding to PT would become a real possibility. (Of course there are lots of barriers and issues to getting there, but just think how competitive that would be).

It may be that routes are not optimised, buses do not have priority, the network is designed with too many conflicts, a lack of previous capital investment, buses are not big enough, there is large dead running etc. While Brisbane needs subsidised PT, this should not preclude it from moving closer to that goal.
A PT system that is financially self-sustaining while benefiting the public and environment at large is a win-win situation for all parties concerned.

[#Metro]

@tramtrain

Quote
The facebook group-
1. Students get massive discount (50%) on top of all the other discounts there are

And so they should, just like pensioners.  There have been many many reports over the last several years indicating how financially difficult it is to study. For those students studying fulltime, even if they're on a youth allowance or newstart, life can be pretty hard financially. I think you should re-think your position if you simply think they're getting a free ride!

This is a straw man argument. I don't think students are getting a free ride (by definition they are paying half!) so any assertions that are based on such assumptions are invalid. What I was trying to say was that giving such individuals a free ride is not a solution that maximises community or environmental benefits when compared to the alternatives.

[O_128]

where was the community consultation? this is a goverment owned company not a private one and as such there should have been drafts and public consulation

[#Metro]

Don't get too attached to London fares. Theirs are going up by ~12% too.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1bb70084-b9eb-11de-a747-00144feab49a.html

[ozbob]

Interesting article Tramtrain.  Underground up by 3.9%  bus 12.7%.   Note the congestion toll up to 10 pounds (from 8 ) but option for 9 pound for auto payment.  How long before a congestion toll in Brisbane?  I think it is inevitable, despite the political rhetoric.  Might be become a big battleground between BCC and State Government ...  the toll on the tunnels etc.  might become a sticking point.

London have a range of fare options (oyster card) that do encourage public transport use.  As it is with our new fare strategy it is too savage an increase for many.  I am confident that we will see further options for the go card.

[ozbob]

Hey check out this --> http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2895.msg15293#msg15293

This will put some pressure on TransLink and the Queensland state government I expect ....

[justanotheruser]

Thought the ones in Sydney closed on a timer.

The ones in Sydney use laser. I have been shown by railway staff how to do that (unofficially). With the family tickets in Sydney there is always someone who doesn't have a physical ticket in their possesion and many think they have to go through the automatic gates instead of the manual gates. It is in situations like this where it is handy to know where the sensors are as covering it prevents the gates closing on the head of a child which I have seen happen.

[dwb]

It is no surprise Boris is hiking fares in London... this was the situation prior to Ken Livingstone that allowed him to actually become so popular and reform the system so greatly from the complete mess that Thatcher left. Not saying its all rosy right now, but certainly bus travel has markedly improved under Livingstone.

[dwb]

@tramtrain

Dwb, thanks for the posts. Apologies for the length of my, considered reply.  thumbs_up

I agree with practically everything you've written. We only differ in slight perspective in the tipping points of various different issues, for instance I tend to think that 75% subsidy isn't particularly bad, esp when govt is in the regulatory position to be able to reduce this through efficiency rather than fares.

But having said that, you'll note in my research I proposed a 10% real fare rise per year for three years on top of an assured CPI adjustment from 2004 (which could be downwards).  There would need to be more research undertaken to work out half the dividend approach that Singapore applied, but something along this line would seem appropriate, especially as it would seem that the government is paying operators for services that haven't in the past, or routinely don't actually run (altho again how much is this the fault of bus operators when denied bus priority by govt??).

[dwb]

@o_128

usually capped rates on mobiles are more expensive to compensate for more calls.

Yes, often a cap calling rate has a higher per 30sec fee than a post paid bill, but this doesn't necessarily have to be so... they just do it so they can exagerate the "free" component of the cap.

There is little reason in my mind why the go card prepaid and go card post pay value based cap that I'm suggesting couldn't use the same 'calling' (travel) rates, but then again perhaps they needn't be the same either??

I would tend to think that prepaid should only be prepaid, and that monthly should come in the form of value based (and zonally independant) caps.

[justanotheruser]

I am also quite concerned as to how the CBD stations (Roma St, Central, Fortitude Valley) will cope with so many more people using fare gates. I can already imagine lines stretching from the fare gates to Platforms 3/4 at Central. The gates are too slow to open and slow to close (not to mention that they take some time to think!). Plus they need to put more gates in where the old paper ticket only entry was on the Creek St side of Central. As for FV - well...there's no space left! I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there in AM peak! Other choke spots will be South Brisbane and Toowong.

It is all stations that will need more machines. I can cross from one platform to the other at my local station using the subway and the same people are still lining up to touch off!
So much for the adds that say "keep moving with GO card"

Bob maybe you can use the heading line up with GO card for a release.
Others should contact the minister for transport and local members to point this out. If enough do they should realise that they will face problems.

[justanotheruser]

2010 is the start of a new decade.
Smartcards, paper tickets abolished, more machines than people, more people, tunnels, Translink on facebook, twitter and iphone, pre-paid buses, bendy buses, super buses.

Maybe we will see automatic trains, and 24 hour services too...

Hmm. With all these improvements to let more people use PT and speed things up, wouldn't you expect the cost to put another person on PT to go... down?

In Sydney when the automatic vending machines were introduced it lead to more jobs and therefore more expense not a decrease in expense.

[dwb]

@somebody

Pretty sure I've already posted on this.  I think a flagfall of more like 20-50c is appropriate, with a per km as the crow flies charge on a declining scale.  i.e. if the first 10km are charged at X per km, the next 10km could be changed at 0.9X per km and so on.  Not completely sure of the exact rates, but you get the general idea.  You also obviously need to prevent people getting a refund for "connecting" and then backtracking back home.

Yes I agree, and would be possible to use linear distance based on GPS tag on tag off locations and get rid of zones altogether... except with a little more thinking on the specifics for the amounts and distances.  I had considered the following idea in relation to flagfall to stick with the telephony angle (aka boarding fee): that users travelling under 2 zones (think 5km) out of peak got a free trip (convenience trip).  This would presumably have little impact on the network/funding as a whole, but promote a large shift.  Some massive proportion of trips by car are under this distance.  It would be similar to Perth's free zone in the city centre, except also allow those travelling locally out of peak in Noosa, Gold COast, Ipswich, Logan, wherever to access a similar 'benefit'.

[#Metro]

It is no surprise Boris is hiking fares in London... this was the situation prior to Ken Livingstone that allowed him to actually become so popular and reform the system so greatly from the complete mess that Thatcher left. Not saying its all rosy right now, but certainly bus travel has markedly improved under Livingstone.

I know this was an offhand comment, but I found some interesting info that might explain this a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone

Venezuelan oil deal

In February 2007, Ken Livingstone signed a deal with Venezuela to provide cheaper oil for London buses. In return, the Greater London Authority advises Venezuela on recycling, waste management, traffic and reducing carbon emissions. This deal came under criticism from the London Assembly Conservatives including Richard Barnes, who stated that the "money would be better directed at the poor of Venezuela,"[77] and journalist Martin Bright, who said that the deal "effectively takes from the poor of Latin America to give to one of the richest cities in the world."[78] Prices have been slashed by 20%; following this, half-price bus travel became available to Londoners on income support. Livingstone stated the plan "rises on the suggestion of President Hugo Ch?vez and builds on the work his government is doing around the world in tackling the problems of poverty,"[79] and also said, "This will make it cheaper and easier for people to go about their lives and get the most out of London. The agreement... will also benefit the people of Venezuela, by providing expertise in areas of city management in which London is a world leader."[80]

The deal was discontinued by incoming mayor Boris Johnson (effective from September 2008), saying third world nations shouldn't subsidise rich ones.[citation needed]

a very unique solution indeed.

[dwb]

@tramtrain

Pricing also must include the consideration that the network must be radically expanded, requiring large increases in cash and public borrowing/loans. The affordability of taxpayers to bear charges also must factor in, because they too are a party to this arrangement. 100% of the PT cost falling on users seems unfair, but so does 100% falling on taxpayers. Even 75% doesn't look good. The government's political survival also factors in, subtly, because they have a big hole on their books and getting rid of that, or at least getting that down in the eyes of the electorate also factors in. I know many would rather not think about this, but someone needs to say it.

One thing I forgot to say, in relation to the above was that I don't think we should necessarily be looking to pay infrastructure capital costs off in 5years. I think this is an unreasonable perspective.  Therefore it is almost moot how much the govt spent on capital costs recently as this is addressing unmet long term needs both now AND into the future.

Another way to look at infrastructure costs is this, if you worked out how much more than currently it would cost to get the same benefit without the infrastructure (think more buses), then the interest bill for the capital investment should be lower (note, not the cost of the infrastructure)!

Railways, busways etc will be around and paying dividends to community for 50, 80, 100 years or more and thus should be paid for over longer terms than 5, 10, 20 years.

[somebody]

One thing I forgot to say, in relation to the above was that I don't think we should necessarily be looking to pay infrastructure capital costs off in 5years.

Certainly you wouldn't see any toll roads paying themselves off in 5 years, even with a subsidy (usually in the form of a lump sum cash injection during construction).  Are there any unsubsidised toll roads being built?  I don't think Sydney did any.

[O_128]

@somebody

Pretty sure I've already posted on this.  I think a flagfall of more like 20-50c is appropriate, with a per km as the crow flies charge on a declining scale.  i.e. if the first 10km are charged at X per km, the next 10km could be changed at 0.9X per km and so on.  Not completely sure of the exact rates, but you get the general idea.  You also obviously need to prevent people getting a refund for "connecting" and then backtracking back home.

Yes I agree, and would be possible to use linear distance based on GPS tag on tag off locations and get rid of zones altogether... except with a little more thinking on the specifics for the amounts and distances.  I had considered the following idea in relation to flagfall to stick with the telephony angle (aka boarding fee): that users travelling under 2 zones (think 5km) out of peak got a free trip (convenience trip).  This would presumably have little impact on the network/funding as a whole, but promote a large shift.  Some massive proportion of trips by car are under this distance.  It would be similar to Perth's free zone in the city centre, except also allow those travelling locally out of peak in Noosa, Gold COast, Ipswich, Logan, wherever to access a similar 'benefit'.

Yes convienience trips are a great idea. but what about lines where it doubles back such as the cleveland line where it would be cheaper to travel to manly than to wynumm north for example

[dwb]

Yes convienience trips are a great idea. but what about lines where it doubles back such as the cleveland line where it would be cheaper to travel to manly than to wynumm north for example

Does this necessarily matter? Over the longer term it would promote more responsive infrastructure pattern, for example Elleanor Schonell made many trips to UQ much more efficient. If passengers had never been "paying" for that extra distance the operators/infrastructure planners may have needed to be smarter about it earlier. I realise this will probably cause some consternation, but another way to implement something similar could be route distance... but then the passenger gets penalised for silly routes that double back on themselves.