New fare strategy - articles and discussion

[justanotheruser]

I have purchased a GO card now as I found an outlet that I go past twice a week which did not come up in the search feature

[justanotheruser]

I think those parking in park and ride should pay... there is a cost in provision of parking that shouldn't be burdened on to those who walk to the stations.

That is a ok idea provided the option is there. In Sydney with a much larger rail network there are plenty of suburbs where walking to the nearest station is just not practical.

if a viable alternative is offered then by all means charge people for parking their cars but if not (and I doubt they ever will) then charging those who drive instead of walk is unreasonable. i know one couple who drive past five railway stations to drop their child at childcare for the day then catch the train from there. Sure they could try using a different child care centre but at the end of the day walking still wouldn't be a suitable option.

[dwb]

Could they walk their child to the childcare then get the train?

[justanotheruser]

Could they walk their child to the childcare then get the train?

It would be a 20 minute walk for an adult to their nearest train station and then a 12 minute walk from the station to childcare and back again to catch train to work. However with a two year old child these times would be longer. It would also put unreasonable strain on the family having to leave home much earlier and getting home much later.

They also would have to change trains at ipswich most likely. So no walking is not really practical.

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Why we must pay our way

Why we must pay our way
Article from: The Courier-Mail

Chris Hale

November 08, 2009 11:00pm

PUBLIC transport ticketing is artificially cheap in Brisbane and has been for decades. Against international benchmarks it's remarkable we even have transit, given the lack of funding base.

Indeed, more than the occasional international observer has said we don't actually have a true public transport system in any meaningful sense.

This is why, whether we like it or not, the Queensland Government's recently announced plan for sustained increases to the price of tickets over coming years is necessary. To put it bluntly, you can't offer better service and cheap prices.

Many people tend to have a "magic" view of transport and other government services, which all come at a cost. It is amazing how often you hear people saying that they'd like a reduction in fares because service is not good enough, and at the same time they want to see service improved. But there is no magic wand. Better service requires more funding.

When metropolitan regions reach a critical mass, planning and infrastructure need to step up a level. Southeast Queensland is evolving into a major conglomeration of some 4 million residents, and finding ways to finance and manage the sustainable transport infrastructure of the near future is a key task for today.

A list of major southeast Queensland transit proposals is beginning to look like a discussion of the infrastructure we needed last year: second river crossings and more inner-city stations; extension of rail corridors on the Sunshine Coast, to Coolangatta and through to Redcliffe; light rail for the Gold Coast (and perhaps for other locations?).

The travelling public is ready and waiting whenever the doors open on these projects. Busways to the east and north may even be obsolete if we wait another five years.

But we don't need just another plan. We need a wholesale revolution in planning ideas, the financial arrangements under which transport operates, and the posture we adopt toward urban infrastructure.

First stop is the financial structure of public transit. To take an example from overseas, the BART rail network in San Francisco requires a subsidy of 40 for every dollar of operating expenses. That's not bad, but not as good as some other systems.

In southeast Queensland, admittedly with bus services mixed in with rail, we currently need about 75 of subsidy in the transit dollar. That's not very good.

Improvement toward 70 in subsidy has been targeted by the State Government over a five-year period of change. But let's call it 15 years and up the ante. We need at least a 50/50 ticket-revenue/subsidy split for transit to be world-class in our region.

Rather than being seen as an unaffordable burden, most thoughtful public transport riders would probably welcome paying extra if it meant that service can expand and improve.

Let's then look at travel demand, at sources of revenue, and at the management of our valuable infrastructure resources. Congestion charging is successful overseas, and the time is right for early planning of a congestion-managed future - disregarding the predictable responses of transport dunces and dinosaurs.

These revolutionary but beneficial changes can only occur when the quality of analysis, planning, economics and project delivery improves. This means intensive development of knowledge within the public sector, at both state and local level, and turning around the crippling consultant-dependency of recent years.

It's also time to take a hard look at the balance of road versus transit spending. While economic calculations show new urban road proposals struggling for viability, mass transit projects are generally big winners on benefit/cost analysis in growing regions where service is lacking.

The transformation of southeast Queensland into a fully integrated economic region and a true lifestyle metropolis probably depends on urban infrastructure more than any other single factor.

Adjustments will challenge governments, the community and infrastructure professionals. But a path of least resistance is not the correct road to take.

Chris Hale is an urban economist with UQ's Centre for Transport Strategy.

[dwb]

The thing that frustrates me here is that no-one is actually talking about making transit more effective, they're just talking about how much it costs. I'll almost guarantee if you just throw twice as much money at it that it won't get twice as good! This is a major problem. We can't/shouldn't just say that revenue/subsidy should be 50/50 without looking seriously at funding, subsidy and user charges for roads. We also shouldn't conveniently ignore the fact that decision after decision that politicians make is ensuring PT in SEQ will remain an inefficient beast. With over half of trips provided by bus but no bus priority this is no wonder!  And the rail system, well if it could carry twice as many passengers like many international systems then perhaps it would have fare recovery of 50% closer to these systems Hale talks about.

Whether or not fares should rise (and I personally believe they should slightly) the actual discussion needs to be had with the community. Whether the Govt likes it or not, many people are actually dependent on PT and it does provide access (if often menial) to many people. If the cost access barrier is raised too quickly too high, then these people simply won't be able to afford it and they'll be excluded. In my (socially conscious) mind is not a good outcome.  If the govt did as I suggested and had a discussion with the community they might learn that a low income/health care card concession would be highly valued by the community and could perhaps offset these equity considerations a fair amount. Victoria for instance extends its concession discount to those holding Victorian issued Fed Gov health care cards (available to low income earners).  There is little if any reason why Qld shouldn't offer the same!  But they would also learn that people want monthly products (again rumoured to be coming but no details and presumably after the price rises), that they think a serious discount should be applied to offpeak travel, probably about 1/3 (not a measly 10%) and that services in the period described and charged as "peak" should have frequency characteristics as such! and they'd learn that people are frustrated by the inconveniences of their "excellent" go card system (such as registering, touching off, slow gates).

But what bugs me the most is that this current round of fares changes is that it is clearly a blatant cash grab, and not for public transport. Traditionally fare changes have occured over June/July however here they are implementing them over Christmas because they know people have better things to do that write letters to the government or get on talk back radio.  They also aren't introducing any of the soft measures until the same time as the hard measures... so all these extra distribution points they are promising won't come online until at the same time or after the fares change. So effectively they've just cash-grabbing in the meantime when true alternatives for many people don't exist.

Transport planners and politicians need to learn that we live in a democracy and that a level of discussion and debate accompanies that fact.  When significant changes are wrought upon people, they should be included in the discussion and have a chance for their values to be heard. Its not hard, its not expensive but yes democracy can be dangerous politically.

[ozbob]

Well said Dwb! 

[somebody]

With over half of trips provided by bus but no bus priority this is no wonder! 

Or at least very little.  I still can't believe that the council got rid of the bus/transit lane on Coronation Drive.  Doesn't that just put up the cost of them providing the buses on it?  And shouldn't the state government have intervened to stop them, even if it meant passing new legislation to do so?

[STB]

Coronation Drive is owned by the Brisbane City Council and therefore they can do what they wish to it basically.  From what I heard though the State was not impressed by BCC's moves.

But I must say though the relationship between the State in general and BCC is quite poor.

[somebody]

Coronation Drive is owned by the Brisbane City Council and therefore they can do what they wish to it basically.  From what I heard though the State was not impressed by BCC's moves.

But I must say though the relationship between the State in general and BCC is quite poor.

I'm sure state legislation has the power to override anything the council does.  Don't the council (and all councils) exist by an act of state parliament?  This was quite a shocker, and I say that they really should have pulled out the stops to step in.

[dwb]

Ok but its not only BCC who don't give buses priority... for example there are lots of main roads (controlled by dept of transport & main roads) that don't have bus priority and surely also other local roads in other local government areas.  My main point was about effectiveness of the investment we are currently paying.

Has everyone seen http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2988.0?? It is the Translink Annual Report and has some figures in it that I think we should all be questioning, for instance, and I know this is a rail forum, but why does QR seem to get 65% of the funding pie to operate only 36% of the services while Brisbane buses only get 17% of the state funding pie to operate 40% of the services?!

[somebody]

Has everyone seen http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2988.0?? It is the Translink Annual Report and has some figures in it that I think we should all be questioning, for instance, and I know this is a rail forum, but why does QR seem to get 65% of the funding pie to operate only 36% of the services while Brisbane buses only get 17% of the state funding pie to operate 40% of the services?!

Partly that comparison is unfair, because a train service has the potential to convey about ten times the pax of an average bus service.  Partly rail's cost per service is high due to running so few services off peak: this means the fixed costs are paid by less services.

Mostly, buses give you much better bang for buck than trains, especially when there is a busway and the priority point is resolved.  Sorry, ozbob.

[#Metro]

Partly rail's cost per service is high due to running so few services off peak: this means the fixed costs are paid by less services.
Mostly, buses give you much better bang for buck than trains, especially when there is a busway and the priority point is resolved.  Sorry, ozbob.

The number of trains QR holds is based on service during the peak. During the off peak, trains become surplus, and presumably sit idle for a few hours. So QR does have the trains to do 15 minute runs. It probably would not need to buy any extra ones to do this either.

The extra cost to do this would be
- to run the train (electricity)
- paying the driver and the guard for extra hours
- perhaps a little more wear on the track from increased use.

But these are all marginal when compared to the number of people who would catch the services.
It does not have to be all lines to everywhere either. Just start with the Ipswich line as a trial and see if it works.

[somebody]

But these are all marginal when compared to the number of people who would catch the services.
It does not have to be all lines to everywhere either. Just start with the Ipswich line as a trial and see if it works.

They already have as far as Corinda, and I call it a huge success.  Imagine the overcrowding if they went back to 30 minute off peak week day frequency!

This should be extended, both in duration, distance, and the number of lines covered (currently 1).  Are they worried that if they provide more services too many people will catch them?

[ozbob]

Mostly, buses give you much better bang for buck than trains, especially when there is a busway and the priority point is resolved.  Sorry, ozbob.

No, not necessarily.  Perth rail is showing a much lower cost.  Even on the figures from the TTA rail is more than competitive with bus.  Using the modes fit for purpose is the key.  Buses are not trains, nor trains buses.  We are long past which mode is the best game, it is a matter of which is best fit for the purpose.  Most of the great transport systems in the world use rail, light and heavy as part of the transport mix, simply because of the economy of scale of rail. As the rail network is properly expanded here the same benefits will accrue.

We will soon see modern light rail on the coast, that will be interesting costing.

Cheers!

[somebody]

Mostly, buses give you much better bang for buck than trains, especially when there is a busway and the priority point is resolved.  Sorry, ozbob.

No, not necessarily. 

I did say "Mostly".

Stopping all stations, when stations are 1-2km apart does tend to make it hard for rail to compete with road based transport though.  Perhaps we need trains with greater accelleration and braking.  Even on the Gold Coast line, if the feeder buses ran up the freeway then the busway to the city, I do wonder how the service would look as compared to the current service.

[#Metro]

Chris Hale wrote a very well considered piece.
Though I was looking about today, there is a party promoting light rail systems do do the "distributor" and "infill" work between train lines. (I have decided to be non-partisan, so I will not mention name here). It might even be tram-trains seeing that they appear to run straight off the rail lines.

Anyway, I agree with OzBob. Pick the right mode for the job at hand. And it is not always cost. Certain parts of Brisbane are hilly (CBD-Kelvin Grove-Paddington-The Gap axis) which makes rail less attractive than the alternatives.

I do wonder about why PT costs so much though. I know that just building and maintaining the network itself costs heaps, and there are non-monetary and diverted costs etc. But still. How is it that taxis and surprisingly, even private car pools can break even but a train carrying 750pax or a bus carrying 100 pax can't?

BTW, TransLink Canada promotes car-pool for those who are car-addicted.
http://www.translink.ca/en/TravelSmart/Car-Sharing.aspx

[O_128]

But these are all marginal when compared to the number of people who would catch the services.
It does not have to be all lines to everywhere either. Just start with the Ipswich line as a trial and see if it works.

They already have as far as Corinda, and I call it a huge success.  Imagine the overcrowding if they went back to 30 minute off peak week day frequency!

This should be extended, both in duration, distance, and the number of lines covered (currently 1).  Are they worried that if they provide more services too many people will catch them?

Of course they are that is why fares are going up they want to discourage popel as they cant upgrade the network due to lack of funds/motivation

[#Metro]

Even every 20 minutes would be good!

[somebody]

I do wonder about why PT costs so much though.

Perhaps the cost of providing the service when it's not busy is high.

With rail, I think things like station staff, signallers and rail maintenance probably add up to quite a bit.

[#Metro]

Perhaps the cost of providing the service when it's not busy is high.

I don't think this is the reason. I know that it's always pie-in-the-sky figuring out these things.
The info isn't out there so one is left to guess.

With rail, I think things like station staff, signallers and rail maintenance probably add up to quite a bit.

I think this is probably why. Safety,(new)  stations, maintenance, track work, new tracks, training, replacement, equipment etc. These are more or less fixed costs I think. If these costs are more or less fixed, then operating a train itself (variable cost) is probably on the cheaper end of the scale. It would roughly be (wages + how much power the train ate up for 1 trip) times 24 additional services/day. And if my power bill is anything to go by, power is cheap!

If this were true, then the higher the patronage the more passengers there would be to dilute these more or less fixed costs of simply providing the network. Which I think is a case to increase the frequency, because we know that the more frequent the service is, the more likely passengers are going to use that mode of transport. And the cost of providing that extra train service is comparatively small.

15 minutes off peak, 5 minutes peak; Perth does it. Let's see it for the Ipswich to Central stretch.

[O_128]

I remember reading it costs $3000 to run a train to ipswich

[somebody]

I remember reading it costs $3000 to run a train to ipswich

That may be, but what's it broken down into the fixed and variable costs?  I really struggle to believe it's that much in variable costs OFF peak.  You already need to have bought the set to cover your peak services, so all you are paying for is wear on the set and tracks, the electricity and the wages.

If that sort of figure is presented to the decision makers, it's easy to see why they are so tight with the rail services.

[ozbob]

Here is a poster from Feb 1993.  How fares once were ..

[#Metro]

I think O_128 is in the correct ballpark. I have done my own estimates for variable costs (a later post).
The main variable cost is electricity. If QR could source cheaper power (Ipswich Power Station?) and if it could use more energy efficient trains (or run 3 car units) and do less dead running then that might be translated into higher frequency.

And, also a sense of proportion, so is $3000 per run "expensive"? How low should cost before it would be worthwhile? And what should we compare it to- the TransLink Budget, the benefits or the money (billions!) spent to upgrade Ipswich Motorway?
Or would it be more worthwhile because more passengers mean lower costs/passenger overall?

We would need about 24 additional services per day to get 15 min frequency.

I was thinking today about the billboards that went up on the Ipswich Motorway pre-election which basically communicated "vote for me and I will spend more $$$ on Ipswich motorway". Not that it doesn't need upgrading, but I couldn't help but think you never see a billboard like that hanging over the Ipswich Line with pollies in cheesy grins saying "Vote for me and I'll put trains on every 15 minutes" (which could get so many cars off that road, so much more effectively). Clearly, if they considered a really expensive freeway bypass to serve basically the same corridor, then there is a transport issue, and the rail solution should be evaluated.  

Granted, there is now projects on this line that will increase capacity, and they want to be sure there are benefits. The BCC putting on extra trains on this line might go some way to answering this question. A trial (2-3 months) would answer many questions. It works for BUZ, will it work for trains? I think it would.

[#Metro]

http://www.mainroads.qld.gov.au/en/Projects/A-Z-Search/F-J/Goodna-Bypass.aspx

The Goodna Bypass.The business case report says that the motorway is reaching capacity, and that the expense to relieve it would come in at around $1.1 billion. The for every $1 spent on the road, it was estimated that $1.30 of benefit would return to the community. (This particular project was not followed through, corridor is preserved).

For the case of rail, being able to increase freight capacity would be a bonus that road does not have.
And also you can fit more people in a train.

[somebody]

And, also a sense of proportion, so is $3000 per run "expensive"?

I think so.  It takes an hour to run between Bowen Hills and Ipswich for an all stopper.  A 2 man crew: Let's say they are earning $40/hour each and cost QR $60/hour each, and that turn times are 8 mins at Ippy and 22 mins at the BH end.  That means labour costs are $180 for crew.  A six car set has 16x 180kW motors., less if it's an EMU.  Running those motors flat out for the whole service run means 2880kWh are used.  At 15c/kWh, that's $432.  So wear on the set + tracks would have to be worth $2388 for the variable cost to be worth $3000 unless I am missing a variable cost.  Of course, I am assuming no increased station manning or signallers etc.

[#Metro]

I did similar calculations.
Assumptions:
1 hour running on a IMU 160/SMU 260 Class (the new ones)
Six car train, Commercial rates of electricity $0.35/kwh

Code Select Expand


8 motors x 198 kw x 2 units x one hour of operation = 3120 kwh

3120 kwh x $0.35 = $1111.96, round up to nearest $500 to take in labour and sundry costs
is about $1500 per service ("High expensive electricity scenario").

Assume 25% train capacity (180 passengers) at all times x $2.50 =$450.00
Balance: $1050 (High Scenario)
For a 3 car unit, it would be even cheaper.


QR must be using some really expensive electricity...

Disclaimer: Calculations are not fit to be used for any purpose.
Power price estimates: http://www.energy.com.au/energy/ea.nsf/Content/NSW+TOU+Res+FAQ
Technical Specifications: http://www.downeredirail.com.au/Default.aspx?aCateId=998

[dwb]

I've created a new thread on the positive side of the fare rises.... 301,000 new seats per week in 2010
http://backontrack.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3003.0

Re-reading and re-reading the fares brochure, it makes some pretty heavy commitments... now whether the pollies stick to these or not is yet to be seen, but from my reading they expect additional 2010 revenue to go into new services, 301,000 new seats per week to be exact, then its not until the following years additional fares raised are reducing the revenue/govt investment ratio.

NB i'm calling it "government investment" because that is exactly what it is!

[p858snake]

is that 301,000 physical sets or 301,000 standing spaces for people (eg: seats, the standing areas near the doors)?

[dwb]

is that 301,000 physical sets or 301,000 standing spaces for people (eg: seats, the standing areas near the doors)?

The other thread answers that question.

Personally however I don't see why a "seat" in many cases is needed.  We all talk of the fabled systems of the world's major cities... however ALL of these systems focus on metro style operation... which centrally includes carrying more passengers through standing.

And before you go off the handle, I realise travelling all the way from Nambour, Robina or Ipswich may mean that you want a seat, but not all services need to be like this, nor should we expect them to be so!!

[STB]

And of course a ticket buys you a journey not a seat...but you can never convince a passenger of this.

[#Metro]

Er, an odd idea. If people want seats then should they get their own carriage and pay more?
Might as well throw in morning coffee for commuters and a newspaper as well.

The new trains are excellent, and I'm glad that there are more coming in the pipeline.
They must be a dream to drive.

[Fares_Fair]

If that is true STB, then why do they have seats on trains at all ?

You no doubt don't travel very far (if at all on PT), but my commute is almost 2 hours.
That's a long time to stand !

Regards,
Fares_fair

[dwb]

but my commute is almost 2 hours

Personally I wonder why you expect to be able to commute (irrespective of by car or train) such a distance subsidised by the rest of us. However you will note that in my original post I separated the majority of travel which is quite short, from the remainder which is interurban.

The UK is a good demonstration of the two levels and costs of service for different types of travel. I believe something similar could apply here. IE longer distance interurban services are more "luxurious" with desks, wireless, more comfortable seats, toilets etc and urban/ metro style operations have more doors, wider aisles, less seats, more standing room and more standing hold points, no toilets etc.

[ozbob]

Just a comment:  At the recent focus group on rolling stock design, the group I was with did make the point about having two standards.  A high capacity minimum seat train for the short haul commuters and a true interurban design for the long haul (better than IMU).  Melbourne is a good example with the VLocity trains for the longer runs and the normal suburban trains for the shorter commutes.   We just might see this in SEQ yet.

[O_128]

I have been saying this since i joined.

IMUs - Same as current though in future models add desks in the backs of seats as well as reversible seating.

SMUs- 3 doors per carrige, full longitudal seating

[somebody]

I have been saying this since i joined.

IMUs - Same as current though in future models add desks in the backs of seats as well as reversible seating.

SMUs- 3 doors per carrige, full longitudal seating

Got to say, I hate the idea of less seats.  Standing to Ipswich, Caboolture, Beenleigh or Cleveland or near to it doesn't sound like fun to me.  I might be encouraged to use the buses more and the trains less.

[Fares_Fair]

Personally I wonder why you expect to be able to commute (irrespective of by car or train) such a distance subsidised by the rest of us. However you will note that in my original post I separated the majority of travel which is quite short, from the remainder which is interurban.

Well, I do not EXPECT to be subsidised by the "rest of you" or anyone else,
and last time I checked it was a free country.
But I pay my taxes and for that I do expect Government services, one of which is PT.
or are you suggesting we only have PT for those within walking distance of their destination ?

Regards,
Fares_fair.

[dwb]

Well, I do not EXPECT to be subsidised by the "rest of you" or anyone else, and last time I checked it was a free country.

Good you'll be fine with paying the true cost for your ticket of provision of your service at a similar level of subsidy as others receive to their service then.

But I pay my taxes and for that I do expect Government services, one of which is PT.

Yes I'm sure you pay your taxes, so do I, but actually haven't you noticed income tax + gst + stamp duty still is less than cost of provision of all these services now and into the future you want. Just because a road or railway is there on the ground doesn't mean it is paid for and free and requires no new maintenance.

or are you suggesting we only have PT for those within walking distance of their destination ?

100kms is not exactly a short distance and no, if you look at the overarching threads of ALL my posts I clearly demonstrate an overarching concern for quality PT to those within what would now be defined as the 'urban footprint'. However, my main concern here is from an equity standpoint that for instance a lower income family that is forced to live perhaps at say Beenleigh and one income earner has employment on the Gold Coast and the other in Brisbane should be able to access reasonably priced public transportation that supports their employment and access to education etc.  If both income earners had stable employment in the same location I'd expect them to seek a home as close as they could afford that meets the needs of their family. OR alternatively seek options such as tele-commuting which of course doesn't fit all job types.

I do NOT think that it is the community as a whole's responsibility to accommodate large numbers of people living vast distances for amenity and/or other reasons from where they work. It is not a socially, environmentally or economically sustainable behaviour and I believe the individual has a responsibility back to the community to improve their own behaviours (ie the VERY democratic concept that individual freedoms are reigned in when they cause a negative impact on others' rights in the community).