New fare strategy - articles and discussion

[stephenk]

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.

I would disagree. Wide and reclining 2+1 seating a waste of train capacity. It's like a 1st class only train, but without the 1st class fares. New longer distance stock should have higher density 2+2 seating of a standard similar to UK intercity trains. Door locations should match those on the current IMU/SMUs.

SMUs- 3 doors per carrige, full longitudal seating

Due to the width of QR trains, longitudinal seating may not allow for the optimum capacity on suburban stock. 2+1 seating, allowing 2 rows of standees in the aisle may offer a higher overall capacity? If platform edge doors (PEDs) are used at stations on the new tunnel, then this will affect the possible door locations on new trains. In the ICRCS it has been suggested that new suburban trains have 4 doors/car side. However it also possible for trains with 2 or 3 doors to use the same PEDs, or trains with 2 or 4 doors to use the same PEDs.

[#Metro]

From the Transport Operations (TransLink Transit Authority) Act 2008

(v) is at a reasonable cost to the community and
government;

(b) provide a reasonable level of community access and
mobility in support of the government?s social justice
objectives;

The subsidy is intended to achieve (b), and also encourage people to disperse around SEQ than all densifying in one place IMHO.
There is cheap land on the outskirts of the city (Ipswich, Sunshine Coast, Caboolture) and the Gov has planned more people to live out there (Ripley Valley near Ipswich, for instance).

I think that it is the reason why the SE Busway was constructed. Plans for the SE Busway go back to ... 1960s/1970's (IIRC). The "lassiez-faire" (i.e. "do nothing") scenario showed the surrounding inner ring of suburbs densifying dramatically (so this would be West End, Woollongabba, Kangaroo Pt etc). Was this a good or bad idea? It is hard to say either way as there are arguments for and against.

FOR
1. Cheaper land is now unlocked, makes 1st home buyers and developers happy
2. If SE Busway was not built, people would just use the SE Freeway, and that would be traffic hell
3. The inner ring contains a large number of heritage houses, increased density and development threatens them
4. People have more choice where to live
5. Expanding the area of the city preserves the option to infill at a later time (though this is only partially true, see #6.)
6. Keeps NIMBY groups happy, because they don't want any more people living near them.

AGAINST
1. The land might be cheap, but now you have created the "transport disadvantaged" class who travel long distances to work
2. If the inner ring was developed, then the trips would be quicker and less costly for everybody concerned including the government
3. Higher density makes mass transit more viable (which is why GC has Light Rail and not Bris).
4. Not only do you have to extend PT far distances (expensive) but you have to extend power, sewerage, phone and water out there too.
5. Lower density is an inefficient use of land
6. Lower density discourages community involvement because it favours the formation of "dormitory suburbs"; People who have short commutes and live closer to the city have more free time and therefore are more likely to spend that free time pursuing community or social activities (Explains why there is a strong sense of community in Paddington, West End, Highgate Hill and New Farm).

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).

Its complicated. Society can choose "suboptimal" choices (from an efficiency and sustainability view) by electing the government with the "wrong" policies. On the other hand, it is arguable that there is no such thing as a "wrong" choice. If people want to live far away from the city, then they have implicitly accepted the fact that they will simply have to pay more (time and money) for things, including through taxes, subsidies and the inefficiencies that come with all that.

[justanotheruser]

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).

There are two problems with this. One is called affordability which you did mention and the other one is called availability. The availability is not always there. I remember spending three months putting in rental applications just to be told someone had beat me to it. This was happening twice a week every week.

You also suggested telecommuting. Big problem there also. Most employers are to ignorant to allow it. For example my wife has several times worked from home for her employer but despite this when she asked if she could work from home a couple of days a week their response was sorry but your job is not the kind that can be done at home. So despite the fact that she had done the work from home before without problem they refuse to allow it. Many companies are like that. They stupidly think if you are at the office you can't possibly bludge but you can at home. Technology these days makes it very simple to see how much work a person is doing even if they are on the other side of the world.

[STB]

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

FYI, for me to get to the city by train it takes almost an hour there and an hour back.  I have stood in the past from Beenleigh to the City with no problems doing so, and will do again if I need to.  Hell, I've even done it from Nambour to the City without any problems.  I've paid for a JOURNEY from A to B, not for a seat, as long as I get there safely, then that's the main thing.  There is only one me of course and that is irreplaceable, just like every other person in society. 

I hope you aren't one of these people who would reject giving someone a seat who really needs it (pregnant, disabled etc), simply because you feel that you have paid money for the seat you sit on.

[Fares_Fair]

Absolutely not, and I end up voluntarily standing more often than I sit,
from Bowen Hills to Caboolture.

Chivalry is NOT dead.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[STB]

Excellent, fantastic to hear.  It's unfortunate that there are some out there who are the opposite and refuse to these people.

[somebody]

This information has been supplied to us by the Minister of Transport staff, and was embargoed till 11am.
...
Every cent collected from the fare changes will be pumped back into better public transport services.  Over the next year, this will deliver 301,000 new public transport seats every single week.

We will roll out:
?   201 000 seats on buses
?   83 400 seats on rail
?   17 000 seats on ferries

And

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/weekly-monthly-tickets-to-be-scrapped-20091015-gxv1.html
"For every dollar that a passenger spends on a fare, taxpayers spend three in subsidy and that ratio needs to decrease rather than increase in the next five years," Ms Nolan said.

"Public transport in SEQ currently costs $1.2 billion and our funding won't go backwards - extra money brought in through the fare box will directly fund new services."

The extra funds will be pay for 301,000 additional passengers to come with the the rail line extension to Varsity Lakes on the Gold Coast from July next year, Mr Lucas said.

"If we're going to provide even more infrastructure and more services in a growing region we need to make sure the system has a sound financial base," he said.

I've gone looking and I cannot find anywhere that Minister Nolan has promised that a single cent from extra fares will be spent on services.  In fact, just the opposite: She's repeatedly stated that this is about reducing the level of subsidy.

And yet the Acting Premier at the time and Translink, together with her own ministry's staff appear to be contradicting her.  But she has remained silent as far as I can tell.  Perhaps she knows that services will not be increased (much) and doesn't want to have a quote which can be used against her.  I personally think not correcting the error makes it virtually the same as her saying it, but it doesn't look the same on the evening news.

[dwb]

http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=66877

You've quoted it though, "extra money brought in through the fare box will directly fund new services".

[somebody]

You've quoted it though, "extra money brought in through the fare box will directly fund new services".

I thought it was unclear whether or not Mr Lucas or Mrs Nolan said that.  I thought the former though.

Oh, and thanks for digging that up, only problem is that it doesn't quite say that ALL of the extra money will fund new services.

The point here is that if all the money was to go into providing extra services, services should be increasing by 20% or so.  20% of current trips would mean an additional 36million places p.a. The announced plans are short of this by TWO orders of magnitude.

[Fares_Fair]

Hello somebody,

It would indeed be wonderful for all of the increases to go back into transport services.
The proof will be in the pudding.
It seems to me that it will disappear into consolidated revenue to offset the subsidisation of the network.

As much as we would long to see a significant increase in services, e.g. 15 min. frequencys etc.
A 20% go card increase and 40% paper ticket increase won't result in an equal %age increase in services.

That said, I really hope I'm wrong.
Most here do indeed share your frustration.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

It would indeed be wonderful for all of the increases to go back into transport services.

The point is though, that contradictory announcements have been made.  On the one hand you have the information sourced by ozbob from "Ministry of Transport staff" and this information from translink "Every cent collected from the fare changes will be pumped back into better public transport services." (link: http://download.translink.com.au/ticketing/100104_fares.pdf).  On the other, Rachel Nolan has been stating that it's about reducing the subsidy from 75% to 70%.  Of course, if the 15%p.a. increases go through then services would have to increase a lot or patronage drop a lot to keep the subsidy as high as 70%.

They can't both be telling the truth.  But I haven't been able to find an instance where the one person has been quoted as saying both things.

[dwb]

$272mx115%=$312.8m... if the subsidy stays at the current $ amount of $1014m, then 312.8/1014=30.8% or 69.2% subsidy.

It is ambitious, I think it is needed, but my concerns are lack of monthly option, overstated "convenience" from go, and not to mention that people look at their comparative costs and many people will probably find their choice reverts back to the car... they've already sunk those costs like purchase, rego, insurance, the more trips they make BY CAR the better the "value".... unlike PT where you pay every single time!

[STB]

Nick Earls, who is a prolific writer (and good mate of mine) here in Brisbane has written some thoughts in today's CM about the fare strategy and the Go Card.  I was able to gain an expanded version of what was printed in today's paper.

?For every dollar that a passenger spends on a fare, taxpayers spend three in subsidy,? Rachel Nolan, the Queensland Transport Minister, said recently when announcing some big rail fare increases for early next year. She went on to say, ?That ratio needs to decrease rather than increase in the next five years.?

Surely that way of thinking is destined only to drive people back into their cars and away from public transport, at a time when we should be doing everything we can to get people onto our trains, buses and ferries.

But it?s the first part of the Minister?s statement that caught my eye, and made me wonder about the possibility of a different solution, and one that might be a huge incentive for us all to leave our cars at home more than we do. We already pay for three-quarters of the price of each ticket with our taxes ? why don?t we pay for all of it that way?

That is, why don?t we reduce public transport ticket prices to zero? It would save loads of money on ticketing and ticketing infrastructure, since there will be no more tickets. It would significantly increase use of public transport, leading to increased frequency of services, thereby further increasing use. It would surely take thousands of cars off the roads at any time ? more than enough to make a big difference to Brisbane?s snarled traffic and our immediate need for a network of tunnels.

What?s the cost to business of traffic congestion? Isn?t it billions of dollars a year? As is the cost to all of us of new infrastructure to support increasing vehicle traffic.

On top of that there?s the environmental cost of forcing more people into their cars. This government regularly announces positive environmental initiatives. It would be a shame to see that work undermined by a fare hike. Last week at a climate summit, the Premier admitted that Queensland is ?one of the world?s highest per capita polluters?. It?d be nice to see that change for the better, rather than worse. There?s a lot of fuel burning needlessly in Brisbane traffic already.

Taxpayers are already paying most of the cost of every train ticket. Maybe this is our chance to be genuinely innovative.

It would take a brave government to do it, but perhaps this is an opportunity for southeast Queensland to lead the way, if enough people are prepared to get on board and push for it.


Further points I might have raised if I?d had more space:
- While integrated ticketing is a big improvement on non-integrated ticketing and many people use the Go Card, that doesn?t mean they?re loving using it. Touching-on and touching-off continues to be fraught with problems, and Go Card users will continue to pay peak rates at all times until the new fare structure comes in. That is, for off-peak and weekend travel, Go Card users have been better off keeping their Go Cards in their pockets and buying paper tickets.

- Some of my public transport use is recreational, and some is work-related. With work-related travel, I keep the tickets as tax-deductible receipts. How will I do that with a Go Card? And don?t tell me I?d need to maintain two Go Cards, one for work and one for pleasure.

- I mentioned in the article above that increased use of public transport could lead to increased frequency of services, which would make public transport more appealing to users. The ultimate benefit of this comes when services are so frequent that there is no need for passengers to think about timetables. The London Underground, for instance, is so useful for visitors partly because trains run every few minutes and timetables don?t come into play.

- What about Go Cards and tourism? I see tourists on City Cats and trains all the time. Are we going to make each tourist buy a Go Card, load it up with credits and then have some way of redeeming unused credit before they leave? I can see that extra bit of hassle faring pretty poorly in tourists? blogs. On the other hand, if we introduced free travel in the southeast, that would be talked up and would only increase the region?s appeal as a destination.

- When asked about the possibility of replicating Melbourne?s system of free public transport before 7am, Deputy Premier Paul Lucas said, ?Nothing works properly when you give it away for free.? To which I?d say, what about state schools? Public libraries? Vaccines?

[Mozz]

I love the article as it is this type of thought provoking prompting which helps to drive positive change. No city has resolved their traffic congestion issues by building more roads. Peak oil is imminent. Public transport is environmentally and fundamentally a better method of mass transportation over cars. Free public transport, congestion road taxes (ala london), additional fuel tax to specifically fund public transport and lots more initiatives need to be on the table.

Let's be world leaders in innovative public transport solutions here in queensland!!!

[STB]

One thing which I don't think has been mentioned that I only thought of this afternoon is, what will happen with Airtrain and Go Card, once paper tickets are abolished in the TransLink network.  Airtrain, not being a part of the TransLink network and only really dealing with QR, plus being a private company could say that they are not interested in having the Go Card, ie: will not sell the 'Limited Life Go Cards'.  A distinct possiblity I reckon, which could cause some headaches.  Keep in mind that the paper tickets from Airtrain's perspective is a guarenteed source of income for them, and it's possible from a commercial mindset that the Go Card would be too much of a business risk if there are failures.  And as all would know the airtrain tickets are valid for trains only, they are not integrated tickets.

[#Metro]

Free Public Transport has been floated multiple times before:

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/free.shtml (I don't always believe what the PTUA has to say though)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/20/2547054.htm

I always think that free "X" is a misnomer. It is only free at the scene, and people forget that.
The main issue is this:

It would significantly increase use of public transport[1], leading to increased frequency of services[2], thereby further increasing use.

First issue is that the idea of [2] following [1] is debatable. A quick look at the system at peak hour and a re-read of RailBOT threads will show that even though commuters pay 25% of the fares, it seems easier to squeeze blood from a stone than convince the government (a non-profit entity with a direct connection to a Treasury backed by the entire force of QLD taxpayers) still cannot manage to pay to put extra services on. The lowering of the costs to zero will make tickets cheaper, but this funding will now be unavailable for rollingstock and buses. And we need those things because our system can't fit any more people on it.

Secondly, would an increase in passengers be from a fare reduction or an increase in frequency? The frequency effect (Mohring effect) is very good at attracting passengers, perhaps better than zero-fare (and I have never struggled to pay my TL fares).

But you know what, trial it on 4 routes in different sequence somewhere in Bris (pick one) and see what happens:
Trial:
Bus route with normal fares and normal frequency  (easy, this is the current situation, just monitor)
Bus route with zero fares and normal frequency (easy, just declare that bus free)
Bus route with normal fares and increased frequency (declare it a BUZ)
Bus route with increased fares and increased frequency. (up the price for that route)

[#Metro]

...and not to mention that if it did all work out, we would still have to figure out what is behind this constant Rail Fail before people would trust using the system, at any price.

The study below suggests that there are mixed results, and that it really depends on context:
Subsidies in Public Transport

We conclude that in some cases free public transport does contribute to the purposes
that have been formulated, but in other cases the plan failed (see for example the
Leiden-the Hague pilot). In the case of Hasselt there is a very large response from the
demand side, but here the initial supply of transport services was poor. The effect
observed is not only the consequence of free public transport, but also of the increase in
frequency and network size.

In the case of the Leiden-The Hague pilot on the other hand
the supply remained almost stable and additional demand was limited. Thus, the issue
whether free public transport will lead to a large increase in travel demand depends
strongly on the context.

The cases studied here demonstrate that for many persons the
overall quality of public transport remains low compared with that of other modes, so
that they will not shift transport mode even when public transport would become free.

[STB]

Hmm, just have had a slight brain fart, not sure if this is a good thing or not, ie: open to criticism, but thinking about the fare structure.  Perhaps the following might be a compromise between those who want free travel and the Government who wishes us to cover the 25% of the subsidy for supplying it.

Perhaps for those who travel no further than 3 zones and/or within the city boundary (Bowen Hills to South Brisbane and no further south than Toowong) could be no fare involved, aka, it's free.

Those who travel between 4 and 8 zones pay a flat fare of a specified amount, in this example say $4 one way.

Then just double per 4 to 5 zones covered, eg: as follows.

9 to 14 zones, say $8 flat fare one way.

15 to 19 zones, $12 flat fare one way.

20 to 23 zones, $16 flat fare one way.

With weekly and monthly options available.

So, if you travel 5 zones everyday, twice a day, assuming you get say a weekly option on the Go Card, you would get the last two trips for free, which totals, $32.  And if you only make local travel on the weekend (at least stay within 3 zones of your home zone), it's no extra cost.

EDIT: I think I fluffed up the maths on the last part, but the idea stands on that overall.

EDIT 2: The City boundary would be a zone within itself, the Zone 1 would probably disappear on that idea.

[#Metro]

System wide flat fares might be an idea... but if it turns out to be $5 flat fee, then people in zone 1 and 2 might be irate (though they do have walking and bicycle as choices).

STB the fare schedule you have above sounds good, but could you clarify... for say people in Ipswich, Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast who might only travel in zones in their local region. Would this mean a 3 zone trip (say zone 13,14,15) would be free too?

[STB]

Re-read it .  Say if you lived in zones 1 or 2, it would be free...or at least travel no more than 3 zones anywhere in the network, it would be free.

It's coming to a point now, that it obviously can't be completely free, and there is some bitterness at the cost of it, especially if you travel from a fair way away.  So, there would need to be a compromise to attempt to satisfy both parties.

[STB]

System wide flat fares might be an idea... but if it turns out to be $5 flat fee, then people in zone 1 and 2 might be irate (though they do have walking and bicycle as choices).

STB the fare schedule you have above sounds good, but could you clarify... for say people in Ipswich, Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast who might only travel in zones in their local region. Would this mean a 3 zone trip (say zone 13,14,15) would be free too?

Yep, that is correct.  The Go Card should be able to work that out, if you travel no more than 3 zones as you've just described, it's at no cost to you.

And if you travel from say Loganlea (Zone 6) to Strathpine (Zone 5) - Zone 1 to 6 ticket, then it's a flat fare of $4 one way, $8 return.

[#Metro]

... why not ditch fares and just charge road tolls. (Controversial)

[STB]

Highly controversial, and would be damaging to any Government in power.

I suppose the positives is that the fare system would be simpler and would encourage short term travel, ie: would get cars off the road who are only going a short distance.  But, like I said, it's only an idea that popped into my head, and I'm not saying that should be the system used.  Plus am open to criticism of it.  But that sort of idea could probably still help with the closing of the gap with how much the user pays and how much the Government pays, while providing a tasty morsel as a dampener for those who are upset over the price rises.

EDIT: Fixed spelling.

[Emmie]

If demand is greater than supply (of anything - bread in Soviet Russia, say, or PT seats in Brisbane) - then there are two ways of distributing it:

A. use price as a mechanism or B. use queues as a mechanism - but either way, there will never be a perfect match between supply and demand without SOME mechanism.

Free transport sounds fine in theory, but I fear that we would be into the queuing principle as a result - and that might well mean hugely overcrowded transport.  Nick Earls' argument seems to be based on current PT figures (how valid they are is another question) - that is, a 75% subsidy on current levels of PT.  But if it all became free, there would have to be a lot more PT to meet increased demand OR a lot more crowding in present levels of service.

[#Metro]

A good insight.
It is a not lack of demand (i.e. Passengers), it is lack of supply (trains, buses, ferries) that is the problem.
You don't need to make transport free in order to increase frequency; why can't the gov simply put more services on under the current farebox/subsidy philosophy?

[dwb]

A zonal system is better (more equitable) than a flat fare system especially for large geographies as otherwise shorter distance passengers heavily subsidise long distance passengers.

As it is (now) those travelling 13 or more zones get a 35% discount (or 15% more than 1-10zone passengers). After Jan 4 they will get a flat 19% discount (and 1-10 zone passengers won't get any) *on Go.

The concept of "free" has opportunities in 2 regards, but neither of these apply to peak hour public transport.
1) offpeak - why can't this be free? little loss of revenue, possibly larger shift in demand from other modes such as car
2) similar to STB 1-2 zones of travel, ie a "local" trip to all passengers...

[dwb]

@tramtrain

why can't the gov simply put more services on under the current farebox/subsidy philosophy?

There are physical limitations to the amount of stock you can have running currently... we clearly need new infrastructure and new technology.... but to simply think we could double the services overnight by funding them (ie no change to infrastructure) is quite naive. I'm sure you know this, but others reading your comment might think otherwise!

[#Metro]

There are both physical and operational constraints.
I know BT has 1000 + buses and is aggressively building more and more.
How many trains are in the QR Fleet? 
http://www.citytrain.com.au/about/fleet/fleet.asp

There must be some capacity left, with Ipswich line and Beenleigh line projects coming on line.
And there should be some trains left (how else did two rail services paid for by the BCC manage to get put on?).

[dwb]

But those 1000 buses run on a set amount of road that is shared with disproportionally large numbers of private motor vehicles then they stop in the city at a limited number of bus stops and have to get through a limited number of traffic cycles at intersections.

Trains are the same, the track they run on is limited, as are the crossovers and flyovers, and platforms they stop at, especially in the city which is where they peak/centralised demand is.

There is also limited space in the overall sense to keep building new railways and buslanes/ways, and limited space to store them.

Of course there is *some* spare capacity (ie buses, trains, track, roadway, platforms, stops, space etc) but there needs to be otherwise the whole system would be massively inflexible and generally the more inflexible something is the more likely it is to catastrophically fail... it is smart to run it efficiently, but efficiency always has some 'spare' margin.

[STB]

I have put together a bit of a response to that article that was posted by Nick.  I haven't responded to everything he said, and am happy for it to be debated, knocked on the head, thumbs up etc...

Please note there is probably some typos in there, my spell checker in Open Office isn't working for some reason.  Responses in Italiac.  I'll be forwarding him the below text, and he can do what he wishes with it.

?For every dollar that a passenger spends on a fare, taxpayers spend three in subsidy,? Rachel Nolan, the Queensland Transport Minister, said recently when announcing some big rail fare increases for early next year. She went on to say, ?That ratio needs to decrease rather than increase in the next five years.?

Surely that way of thinking is destined only to drive people back into their cars and away from public transport, at a time when we should be doing everything we can to get people onto our trains, buses and ferries.

But it?s the first part of the Minister?s statement that caught my eye, and made me wonder about the possibility of a different solution, and one that might be a huge incentive for us all to leave our cars at home more than we do. We already pay for three-quarters of the price of each ticket with our taxes ? why don?t we pay for all of it that way?

That is, why don?t we reduce public transport ticket prices to zero? It would save loads of money on ticketing and ticketing infrastructure, since there will be no more tickets. It would significantly increase use of public transport, leading to increased frequency of services, thereby further increasing use. It would surely take thousands of cars off the roads at any time ? more than enough to make a big difference to Brisbane?s snarled traffic and our immediate need for a network of tunnels.

This is a debate that has been going on for some time now and there is no clear answer on it's impacts if it was to be put in, some will tell you that it's a good thing, other people will tell you it's a bad thing.  There can be some social benefits and drawbacks (Passengers), and some benefits and drawbacks equally from the providers (Government).  It would have to be covered by taxes, so you are still paying for it technically and the level of taxation on it would need to be worked out correctly and would probably need to be progressively increased to assist with the funding of extra services.

What?s the cost to business of traffic congestion? Isn?t it billions of dollars a year? As is the cost to all of us of new infrastructure to support increasing vehicle traffic.

On top of that there?s the environmental cost of forcing more people into their cars. This government regularly announces positive environmental initiatives. It would be a shame to see that work undermined by a fare hike. Last week at a climate summit, the Premier admitted that Queensland is ?one of the world?s highest per capita polluters?. It?d be nice to see that change for the better, rather than worse. There?s a lot of fuel burning needlessly in Brisbane traffic already.

Brisbane overall is still cheaper than other cities on public transport prices compared to fuel prices. It really depends on your travel habits and to work out the costs properly needs to be done by the indiviual as it can vary person to person, sometimes by quite a high margin.

Taxpayers are already paying most of the cost of every train ticket. Maybe this is our chance to be genuinely innovative.

Incorrect, taxpayers pay a quarter of Public Transport overall cost which is less than other cities, keep in mind too that the tickets you buy are valid for all 3 modes, so there would naturally be a slightly higher cost to you regardless of what you use that ticket for.

It would take a brave government to do it, but perhaps this is an opportunity for southeast Queensland to lead the way, if enough people are prepared to get on board and push for it.

Probably, but research (and it's available online if you do a search for it) has found that the majority of people are placid to fare rises as they need to happen year by year regardless, as with everything else to keep in line with the CPI.  Most people wish to have more direct and frequent services and people generally wish to pay for it if it's provided.


Further points I might have raised if I?d had more space:
- While integrated ticketing is a big improvement on non-integrated ticketing and many people use the Go Card, that doesn?t mean they?re loving using it. Touching-on and touching-off continues to be fraught with problems, and Go Card users will continue to pay peak rates at all times until the new fare structure comes in. That is, for off-peak and weekend travel, Go Card users have been better off keeping their Go Cards in their pockets and buying paper tickets.

It depends on the user, some users have had savings, others have had increases in costs.  Some of my trips have been cheaper, while others have been higher.  There are some tricks that passengers can use to obtain cheap trips that can't be done on a paper ticket, such as alternating a return trip, eg: I travelled from Garden City to home and since I missed the bus back to Capalaba by a couple of minutes, instead of having to wait, then a new journey kicking in on my Go Card.  I took a 598 bus to Carindale then, made a connection there, thus keeping my overall journey valid, as the card had already deducted the fare for the zones I had travelled in on the 598 so the trip to Carindale was free.  The only extra cost was to go from Capalaba to home at $1.92, as I had used up my 3 transfers by the time I got back to Capalaba.  Regardless it did end up being a cheaper trip for me. If I had not of done that the total cost would've been $2.72*2 - $5.44, but as I allowed myself to keep the journey going on the card so to speak and in the end I saved 80c, by doing so (and saved myself waiting for the next bus to Capalaba from Mt Gravatt.).  Another way is if you make a return trip within an hour it will cost no more than the trip you made to get there, it has been like this since it first started.  An example is if I travelled from Central to Fortitude Valley to have some lunch ($1.92 trip), then touch on again on within the hour to head back, then it will be at no additional cost.  The current fare structure was meant to replace the 10 trip saver tickets and nothing more, ie: it was built around that market who simply make the 5 trips a week to and from work and nothing more.  It is equivlant to having a 10 trip saver ticket and any extra trips are charged in this manner.  I have been reliably informed that Capping, Weekly and Monthly options are been worked on and I suspect will be brought in some time next year.  The majority of users who have had errors and extra charges on their cards have been through their own error in using it.  Some penalty fare has to be built in to prevent fare evasion and to generate a change in passenger behaviour in touching on and off and can be recovered if it's proven that you did not fare evade on purpose.  There does need to be some tightening up of the process to regain lost money through this, currently takes 10 working days to do so.  There are several important things that gives the Go Card credit.  Firstly, the flexiblity, I do not have to worry about which zones I travel in, secondly, it  allows faster boarding times on buses, in particular, and thirdly, it provides vital information to Transport Planners on people's journey habits which allows them to more accurately pinpoint hotspots and better allocate resources to tend to that and to better plan for the medium to long term.

- Some of my public transport use is recreational, and some is work-related. With work-related travel, I keep the tickets as tax-deductible receipts. How will I do that with a Go Card? And don?t tell me I?d need to maintain two Go Cards, one for work and one for pleasure.

That certainly requires some thought and is a valid argument.  I'm not sure what you will do there, but I can suggest that you do a print out of your trips and highlight the trips that you made that was work related and those trips that was recreational.  Although I'm unsure if this would be accepted when it comes to doing your taxes.  I'd recommend taking this up with the local MP or TransLink to obtain an answer on this as you obviously will not be the only one with this problem.

- I mentioned in the article above that increased use of public transport could lead to increased frequency of services, which would make public transport more appealing to users. The ultimate benefit of this comes when services are so frequent that there is no need for passengers to think about timetables. The London Underground, for instance, is so useful for visitors partly because trains run every few minutes and timetables don?t come into play.

First off, the London Underground does have frequent services, and they are equally highly patronised however, in response the trains are often overloaded over there.  Public Transport is a lot more expensive then meets the eye, one bus route for example can cost up to $400,000+ a year, depending on the number of trips on it, how long the route is, among many other things.  And so frequency is something that will take time to build on, plus there can be a catch 22 situation with frequency where if a service isn't loading it can be very difficult for Transport Planners to justify running extra services (higher frequency) along that route, yet if it does run at a higher frequency then it can attract new users.  The minimum amount of passengers to justify running a local route is 7 passengers on every trip, and city routes, a minimum of 14 passengers on every trip.  If the average is below that then the justification for Transport Planners to up the frequency becomes more difficult to do.  They also need to factor in other things too such as does the route service a high density corridor, what attractors it would service, among other things.  If there isn't a suplus in budgeting then the service runs static and no extra services can be put on.  The Governement who are currently in the black on budget at the moment means that they are unable to give funding to TransLink to put on extra services.  TransLink is currently operating cost-netural, so any service changes must not cost anything extra than what it is already costing to run the service in the first place. 

- What about Go Cards and tourism? I see tourists on City Cats and trains all the time. Are we going to make each tourist buy a Go Card, load it up with credits and then have some way of redeeming unused credit before they leave? I can see that extra bit of hassle faring pretty poorly in tourists? blogs. On the other hand, if we introduced free travel in the southeast, that would be talked up and would only increase the region?s appeal as a destination.

There is a 'Limited Life Go Card' planned for tourists and infrequent users.  How this will work is yet to be revealed but if you are planning on using public transport when you head on a holiday in another city then one would think that you would study on what you are required to use before you arrive there.  Just as I had to do when I travelled to Melbourne.  I did my research before I went and got the right ticket needed to transport myself around, and ensured that I used up my trips before I left.

- When asked about the possibility of replicating Melbourne?s system of free public transport before 7am, Deputy Premier Paul Lucas said, ?Nothing works properly when you give it away for free.? To which I?d say, what about state schools? Public libraries? Vaccines?

State schools do cost parents to use, including, uniforms, text books etc.  It's not a free services per se.  Libraries are run by local councils, not by the state governement (exception to the State Libray of Queensland), and even then there are certain services there that are not free to use.  Vaccines are generally funded by the Federal Government, not by local or state governement, and even then it's only free to certain people.  I need to pay for my yearly flu vaccine and all my medications, as it's only partly subsidied by the Government.  The swine flu vaccine was given out for free as it fell under a pandemic sitution, which I am assuming falls under certain legislation, although I haven't had time to look for it.

There is still some debate needed to be done on the free early bird travel, and I can see it being discrimintory to some users who have no choice but to leave at a certain time, you have to remember that free early bird travel is more to do with spreading the patronage loads, than providing people with cheaper alternative travel.  I would probably suggest that if free travel is given then it should probably be given to those who travel within a certain number of zones at all times, rather than at a certain timeslot of the day.  An example would be if you travelled no further than 3 zones anywhere in the network at all times to all users.  However, the cost of travelling a greater number of zones would need to cover that loss of income.

[#Metro]

There are some tricks that passengers can use to obtain cheap trips that can't be done on a paper ticket, such as alternating a return trip...

There are so many loopholes in GoCard. Like the time it was mentioned that you can get a free trip home on a train from the Valley as long as you don't take more than a certain amount of time..

I call them GoTricks. It could be made into a small pocketbook...

[STB]

Doesn't have to be the Valley, can be from any location.

Today I spotted school kids touching on at the front then touching off at the back before the bus even moved.  Definate fare evading, but unsure on how that could be policed.  However, it's obviously another little Go Card trick that the kids have picked up on, despite being a rather dirty (and illegal for that matter) way of getting cheap/free trips.

[#Metro]

Today I spotted school kids touching on at the front then touching off at the back before the bus even moved.  Definate fare evading, but unsure on how that could be policed.  However, it's obviously another little Go Card trick that the kids have picked up on, despite being a rather dirty (and illegal for that matter) way of getting cheap/free trips.

Design flaws being discovered slowly but surely- another one for the list...
Each reader should have its own identity. To cancel you could limit that function to only the same reader...
And repeated touch on/touch offs (lets call it GoRorts) should alert the system and say "something isn't right".
Then their deposit can be taken away or frozen pending explanation to TL.

[ozbob]

The problem of early touch off has been reported before.  Some students have been noted doing it at some rail stations as well although it is more difficult but possible.  The major issue does seem to be on buses.  Early touch off is listed as an offence in terms of fare evasion.

It should be identifiable on the system.  Some people do touch on, but for various reasons may cancel and not proceed on journey.  But clearly,  a history which is just essentially touch on and then cancellations or no travel should be cause for investigation.

Continuation travel within zones is just a feature of how the go card fare structure is set up with regard to our zonal system.  I don't see that as a trick but rather a benefit (perhaps not directly intended but a consequence of our zones).  For those not clear what we are on about if for example you travel from a zone 3 station to the Valley (3 to 1) and touch off at the Valley, you are correctly debited with the zone 3 fare.  If you touch back on within the one hour transfer time limit and say travel again to a station within zone 3 the system sees that as a further extension of your original zone 3 travel and no charge.  If you travel under such circumstances say to a zone 5 station your fare on touch off is the equivalent of the zone 4 to 5 extension.

[dwb]

TransLink is currently operating cost-netural, so any service changes must not cost anything extra than what it is already costing to run the service in the first place. 

Given that they've upped fares and promised 301,000 new seats from it, I expect that they won't then take credit for how much money they're spending on the service improvements!

[justanotheruser]

Design flaws being discovered slowly but surely- another one for the list...
Each reader should have its own identity. To cancel you could limit that function to only the same reader...
And repeated touch on/touch offs (lets call it GoRorts) should alert the system and say "something isn't right".
Then their deposit can be taken away or frozen pending explanation to TL.

I am against this idea because innocents like me would get caught up. I travel on a bus route two days a week and it has never charged me once for the trip. It lists it as cancelling my touch on despite my getting off at a different stop seven minutes after getting on. Considering they have decided it is buyer beware with the go cards I have no problem with this happening. As it stands now I don't get a free ride because I then change to another bus and am always charged on that trip. Next year as far as I'm concerned not my problem if I get a free ride as I will use the go card on weekends (at the moment I buy a paper ticket on weekends). In any case they would not be able to get me for fare evasion as I have correctly touched on and off and I have plenty of credit on my card. I also have in writing that they realise this does happen and is not my fault.

[dwb]

I'm also against limiting cancel touches to the same machine as for instance I might walk into a railway station on the eastern side and leave via the western side, either by choice (travelling through the station with no intention to ride ie roma st, or alternatively my train might be delayed or cancelled and i might leave. on buses the same could occur, people have been known to get on board the wrong bus, then jump straight off the back once they realise or if they see a friend waiting, they shouldn't be penalised for this. the current level of fare enforcement with possible inspection, and required tag-on inspection under the eye of the driver is sufficient.

[ozbob]

For interest the Melbourne myki fare structure ...

--> http://www.myki.com.au/Fares/default.aspx

Fares

If you have a myki and touch on and off correctly, you will always pay less than using short term tickets.

For example, a Daily Zone 1 Full Fare Metcard costs $6.80, but with myki money you only pay $5.88. That is a saving of 92 cents for each day of travel.

Note: Fares do not include the one off price for the myki card  ($10 for an adult myki,  $7 for a concession myki).

myki money fares

    * 2 hour (unlimited train, tram and bus travel for 2 hours)
    * Daily (unlimited train, tram and bus travel for the day)
    * City Saver (within the designated City Saver area)
    * Sunday Saver (travel in Zone 1 and 2 on Sunday for $3.00). This has been extended to Saturdays, so the maximum a full fare and concession myki holder will pay on a Saturday or Sunday is $3.00.
    * Early Bird Travel ? free travel on electrified Melbourne train services when you touch on and off before 7.00 am on business days.
    * Seniors Daily ? Seniors myki holders will pay no more than $3.30 per day for travel within zones 1 and 2.

myki money fares are based on the Value Metcard (bulk) rates, rather than individual ticket rates. For example, a Zone 1, 2 hour fare is $2.94 (1/10 of $29.40) rather than the individual ticket cost of $3.70.

myki money fares table

myki pass fares

myki pass is based on the current periodical ticket pricing.  You can select between 7 consecutive days or between 28 and 365 days. When you choose 365 day pass you only pay for 325 days. You can even use your myki money to buy a myki pass.

myki pass fares table

Short term ticket fares

Short term ticket prices are priced the same as 2 hour and Daily Metcards (full fare and concession).

Using myki money is always cheaper than buying short term tickets ? as long as you always touch on and touch off.

Short term tickets may suit travellers who are in Victoria for a brief time only.

[Derwan]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the idea of periodical ticketing is outdated.  Sure, it makes things easy if the only option is paper tickets, but with smart card technology there shouldn't be a need to pay in advance for specific zones and a specific period.  You might as well stick with paper tickets!

A true "smart" card system should be able to accept any top-up amount (or allow automatic top-ups), be used for everyday travelling and apply frequent user discounts as the commuter becomes eligible for them.

The idea of "capping" was introduced simply because of the comparison between smart cards and paper tickets.  But to be fare and encourage take-up, any smart card system should be no more expensive than paper ticketing, which means that either capping must be introduced - or the price structure needs to be adjusted to make the smart card more attractive.

Melbourne has gone with capping.  Brisbane has gone with a price adjustment.

A big problem with Brisbane's implementation is that they've also chosen to raise prices significantly at the same time.  This has created a direct association between increased prices and the Go Card, resulting in even greater negativity towards the already unpopular Go Card.

Hindsight is a great thing, but the pricing strategy should have been introduced years ago - with increases in paper tickets commencing prior to the roll-out of the Go Card.  Once the Go Card was introduced, the significant discounts could be introduced immediately, creating the perception that the Go Card was the "saviour" to the price increases.

I personally don't agree with capping.  Why should someone who does 3 or 4 trips a day pay the same as someone who does 2 trips?  It made things simple for paper ticketing, but I think we need to move forward and use technology to make the public transport system fairer.

[ozbob]

The periodical ticketing for myki is excellent.  Unlimited travel in zones and seamless travel outside zones, system just charges the extra fares etc.

The Melbourne fare structure, which is similar to most other jurisdictions encourages public transport use.

The go card fare structure needs enhancement, and I would not be surprised if further options are added eg. monthly and capping.