New fare strategy - articles and discussion

[#Metro]

But what does that have to do with the fare changes?

The justification for the increases in fares is that more frequent and new services can be put on. The problem is, there are other ways to fund these improvements too.

The article posted earlier by Chris Hale talks about our extremely poor cost recovery ratio. In other words while it is necessary to have a subsidy, he appears to argue that this alone is not enough to explain why so much subsidy is required.

There was also a question on how the opposition was going to fund their transport plans/improvements.

IMHO the fares rises would be much less and service much better if waste and duplication were removed.
That's what this has to do with fares. Commuters would likely pay less than is proposed if efficiencies were realised in the network.

[justanotheruser]

The thread sheds some light on this.

IMHO it's also unfair that other people miss out on service (BUZ 100, BUZ 375, BUZ 599/598, BUZ450) and or frequency just so that other people can get a one seat trip all the time, even when they don't need to. During peak hour, these feeders could be extended to the city to take surge capacity, in the same way that rockets and expresses all suddenly appear at peak hour to do just that.

411 is an example for demonstration only. You could imagine a 410 bus (just made this example up) going to the CBD at peak hour with surge capacity load, but then at off-peak and weekend times, a 411 would be running instead, at double frequency it is now and terminate at Toowong.

The same principles could apply to many other Western Suburb routes too.

yes ok two trips is alright as that comes under the transfer. However I don't tend to go in the city but rather through it so your suggestion is that I should pay twice for my trip as it would not be covered by the transfer limit unless they have changed the rules about how many trips make up a one way journey.

[dwb]

direction of travel and route number currently play no role in go card transfers.

the go card determines transfers based on the number of trips (components of travel from one place to another by bus, or entry exit of entire rail system, ie changing lines is NOT a transfer) and time between transfers.

yes ok two trips is alright as that comes under the transfer. However I don't tend to go in the city but rather through it so your suggestion is that I should pay twice for my trip as it would not be covered by the transfer limit unless they have changed the rules about how many trips make up a one way journey.

[somebody]

yes ok two trips is alright as that comes under the transfer. However I don't tend to go in the city but rather through it so your suggestion is that I should pay twice for my trip as it would not be covered by the transfer limit unless they have changed the rules about how many trips make up a one way journey.

I also am confused about what trips you are thinking would breach the transfer limit?

[justanotheruser]

direction of travel and route number currently play no role in go card transfers.

the go card determines transfers based on the number of trips (components of travel from one place to another by bus, or entry exit of entire rail system, ie changing lines is NOT a transfer) and time between transfers.

yes ok two trips is alright as that comes under the transfer. However I don't tend to go in the city but rather through it so your suggestion is that I should pay twice for my trip as it would not be covered by the transfer limit unless they have changed the rules about how many trips make up a one way journey.

I realise that changing train lines is not a transfer but changing modes is. Also each time you get off a bus then it is a transfer. So with what was suggested which is instead of having a bus going into the city during off-peak you should be forced to change onto train at toowong or indro. This would be a transfer that otherwise is not made. This means that for some of my trips I would be catching four modes of transport meaning I will pay two fares instead of one.

yes ok two trips is alright as that comes under the transfer. However I don't tend to go in the city but rather through it so your suggestion is that I should pay twice for my trip as it would not be covered by the transfer limit unless they have changed the rules about how many trips make up a one way journey.

I also am confused about what trips you are thinking would breach the transfer limit?

bus, train, bus, bus as opposed to the bus, bus ,bus now.

[#Metro]

There is a simple solution to this. Increase the transfer limit.
But isn't this already the case???

[ozbob]

You can do up three transfers officially (but remember we have had intrepid punters exceed that, there was a problem with the software, I think someone managed to get up to 8 or 9 in the three and half hours ...)

http://www.translink.com.au/resources/tickets-and-fares/go-card/091223-user-guide.pdf

page 15,16

Transferring between services

What is a transfer?

A transfer is the act of changing from one service or
route to another service or route to continue a journey.

What is a journey?

Travel between one or more designated stops or
stations. A journey can include more than one trip.

What is a trip?

A part of a journey between designated stops or
stations. You can have more than one trip in a journey.
What is a dual zone stop?

Some bus stops are on the border between two zones
and are called dual zone stops. For example, Chermside
interchange is both a zone 3 and a zone 4 stop.
You can use your go card to travel on a number of
different TransLink services (train, bus and ferry) during
one journey.

Transferring is easy, and your go card will automatically
calculate one overall fare for your whole journey.

Remember these simple steps:

• your journey must continue from within the same zone
your previous trip ended. If the stop is a dual zone
stop then you can continue from either zone

• you should continue your journey by touching on
within 60 minutes of touching off at the end of your
previous trip

• your journey may consist of a total of three transfers

• the final trip of your journey must commence within
three and a half hours of the start of your first trip

• your whole journey must end within a five hour period
from start to finish to be considered a single journey

• if you are transferring between QR services and you
don't leave the station or platform between transfers
you only need to touch on at the start of your journey
and touch off to end your journey – you don't need to
touch off between QR services unless you leave
the station or platform for any reason.

That's it! If you follow these simple steps the go card
reader will display the message 'Continuation of Travel'
when you touch on at the start of each new trip and you
will only pay for one journey.

[somebody]

bus, train, bus, bus as opposed to the bus, bus ,bus now.

That would be OK.  3 transfers (i.e. 4 sectors/legs) is acceptable.

[ozbob]

Buranda zone 2

Corinda zone 3

I touched off at Buranda and then touched on at Corinda and it was a continuation of travel ...  this should not be a continuation according to the go card user guide ...  

15-Oct-10 10:41:30 AM    Touch on transfer    Corinda        
15-Oct-10 09:42:08 AM    Touch off    'Buranda' Busway Station OB [BT010813]    

[ozbob]

Yes, that's it.  It is only a GUIDE ... 

[somebody]

I'm sure I've read somewhere that touch off in one zone and touch on in an adjacent zone is acceptable for a transfer.

[Gazza]

I thought it was a transfer if they were directly adjacent zones to each other.....Would have to be that way or all those people at Oxley, whose bus is in a different zone to the actual station (   ) would always be charged a new fare!

[ozbob]

• your journey must continue from within the same zone
your previous trip ended. If the stop is a dual zone
stop then you can continue from either zone

As I said only a guide ...

[Ianb]

Gee, has anyone found out if Translink has delivered all the extra seats / services that were promised from the January 2010 price increases ?

Or are the 2011 price increases for the same seat increases ?

And am I the only one confused by a business that says "we have to put the prices up as we have sold more product ?"

Ian

[ozbob]

Welcome Ianb!

Rail target was not reached, they claimed the bus exceeded the targets and covered the rail shortfall.

That little fact was glossed over by most including the media despite our best efforts.

More rail this year ...

[somebody]

Gee, has anyone found out if Translink has delivered all the extra seats / services that were promised from the January 2010 price increases ?

Or are the 2011 price increases for the same seat increases ?

And am I the only one confused by a business that says "we have to put the prices up as we have sold more product ?"

Ian

Thread here: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3241.0

Short answer, the total seat target was met, but they cheated. Target was pretty weak though.

As for your business putting the price up because they have sold too much, that is completely reasonable, you certainly have seen BHP putting the price of Iron Ore up because they have sold so much.  The thing is that they have arrested the increase in PT use, which had been previously growing at 5% p.a. rail & 8% p.a. bus.  I would argue that the price rises are only a minor component of this.  Who bases their PT/car choice on the PT price?

[#Metro]

I have always argued that service quality is a major factor because it drives frequency. Costs come into play for concession holders, but TransLink has the TL pass and 50 % discount and special seniors capping deals which take care of that demographic.

A business does generally increase its prices if demand increases. The effect of an increased price is two-fold: the higher price limits demand, and the gained revenue can be fed into more buses, trains, ferries to meet that demand. I don't mind a price increase so long as a) it is generally affordable and b) the money gained is used to boost frequency, connectivity and scope of hours of the PT network.

I agree that school services really shouldn't count in the seat count.

[Fares_Fair]

Or are the 2011 price increases for the same seat increases ?

As I understand it IanB,
The 15% annual regular cost increases until 2014, to fares is purely to reduce the subsidisation of the network by the State Govt. from the current $1 commuter : $3 State Govt contribution to $1 commuter : $2 State Govt. contribution.
i.e. changing the levels from current 25% contribution up to 30% contribution by the hapless commuter. [Red bold figure corrected from 33% 30.11.2010]

Silly me, I thought that this was what our taxes were for.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

Fares_Fair, I am fairly sure you would agree that the Coasts get the most subsidised service by far.  Get a 199 from West End and you are paying over $2 for only a few kms, but from either coast you are paying $10 for >60km.  Where's the equity in that?

[Fares_Fair]

Hello somebody,

I mean subsidisation as a policy of Government, not the inequitable (I agree) example of cost that you mention.
My point is that the money is used to subsidise PT generally.

I do not think that this subsidisation is represented by the fares that you mention for the bus.
That is a product of the pricing schedules produced by TRANSlink and it bears no correlation to the policy of Government subsidisation that I refer to 2 comments up.

Whilst everything is becoming user pays, be it water, electricity, PT etc.
IMHO it will become more expensive.
PT is a service that is provided to all constituents and should be funded accordingly, by ALL constituents who can - if they choose - utilise it or they may choose not to.

The cost is shared amongst a larger group of people for starters and this would mean cheaper prices.
I hope I have clarified my point for you.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

I'm still confused.  Only thing I can gather from your last couple of posts is that you aren't very happy to have to pay more (Der).

One point though, the official policy is to move to a 70% subsidy, not 66.67%.

[Fares_Fair]

noted, and noted.

My apologies somebody, I do not mean to.
What part confuses you ?

We wouldn't mind if our services improved but they don't really look like doing that until duplication or more stabling occurs on the Sunshine Coast line.
They are removing our 5:16pm ex-Central service home, and moved it to 5:04pm where no 5pm office worker can catch it (unless you work for QR located directly above central station). {You don't do you?} 

The next service is now later again than the current one such that there is an 45 minute wait between these 2 services.

Similar occurs in the mornings where our services arrive into Central too late for us to get to work.
Our day is guaranteed to get a minimum 1/2 hour longer.
And we should be happy to pay more?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

So, what you are trying to say here is that the proposed Sunshine Coast timetable is more of a disgrace than the current timetable.  I 100% agree with that point.

Hopefully, the notion of all stopping Bowen Hills-Northgate can be stopped, even if it increases conflicting moves.  One option is to have some trains cross to the suburbans after the FG flyover and all stop along there while having the others run through Northgate #4.  Does increase conflicting moves, but I think the real underachievement has been not bringing the Shorncliffe line along for the ride and making a tiered service.  Note also that the current timetable still has conflicts at Northgate in the PM peak, and also at Petrie with the bizarre platform allocations.  Doesn't it make sense to have the terminators use the middle platform?

[Fares_Fair]

You are definitely not confused about that message !! 

I must confess that I am no expert on the overall track system and lines and their interactions, and do not fully understand it's detailed workings to the level that you do. Can't honestly answer you there.

But if my enemy's enemy is my friend. (i.e. common disdain of the draft 2011 timetable) then on your advice I'd say yes.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

Even if there are track capacity issues, I see no reason have any more shuttles.  These use up just as much capacity on the single track, and just should be converted into through services.

[ozbob]

From the City News 25th November 2010 page 9

Go cards just keep going up



I of course said periodical ticketing options.

The other confusing thing of course is the inter changeability for some of the terms trips and journeys.

The capping for Seniors and some other groups is only after two completed JOURNEYS ...

[ozbob]

http://www.translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/fares/changes-to-fares-and-ticketing-in-2011

Changes to fares and ticketing in 2011

From Monday 17 January 2011, a number of changes will be introduced to fares and ticketing.

The changes include:

    * New daily go card cap on fares for Seniors, Pension Concession Card holders and Repatriation Health Care Card (Gold Card) holders - after two journeys are made in one day all additional journeys are free.

    * Increase in the go card off-peak discount from 10 to 15 per cent providing more incentive to travel during the day and on weekends or public holidays.

    * go card fares and single paper ticket fares will increase by 15 per cent - a go card fare will still be 30 per cent cheaper for a single journey.

    * go card will replace all multi-trip paper tickets - including all daily, weekly, monthly and Queensland Rail one-third student paper tickets.

    * Single paper tickets will remain for sale to ensure infrequent users and tourists are able to easily access public transport.

These changes will help ensure we are well placed to continue to deliver a world-class public transport network and address the challenges of a rapidly growing population and record patronage.

[Fares_Fair]

Do Gold Card holders include former or long-serving politicians ? 

Regards,
Fares_Fair

[ozbob]

No, the Gold Card is a health entitlement card for disabled veterans and some widows/widowers of veterans.  It is not a political 'gold pass'  for free rail travel which retiring politicians can obtain after a qualifying period.  Another perk for politicians of course, but not sure how many would use it.

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/entitlements.asp

Rail Travel - Railways of Australia Gold Pass
Purpose and Description
Former Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly who had served the
following qualifying period shall be eligible for the issue of a life Gold Pass over
the Railways of Australia:-
Premier One Year in Office
Minister Three Years in Office
Speaker Three Years in Office
Leader of the Opposition Six Years in Office
Member Twenty years Service

Rail Travel - Queensland Rail Gold Pass
Purpose and Description
Former Members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly who have not
qualified for the Railways of Australia life Gold Pass but who served the
following qualifying period shall be eligible for the issue of a life Gold
Pass over Queensland Rail:
Minister, Speaker, Leader of the Opposition:
Three Years in Office or one Term of Parliament, whichever is
the lesser
Member:
7 Years service or three terms of Parliament, whichever is the
lesser

[Fares_Fair]

Thank you for the clarification there Bob,

On a GoCard note, I received a free one this afternoon, complete with a plastic holder and a note telling me my 12 month ticket would not be available next year and extolling the cheapness of travel if I use the GoCard compared to paper tickets.

It is even cheaper compared to a brand new Mercedes!     Wow 

I already had applied for 6 and received 4 when they were giving them away via the email requests. We now have 5.
We are a family of 6 so it is most welcome not to have to pay for the thing and at least the kids and mum are covered now
should the need arise to travel.

This time it came with $20 credit on it.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[justanotheruser]

Fares_Fair, I am fairly sure you would agree that the Coasts get the most subsidised service by far.  Get a 199 from West End and you are paying over $2 for only a few kms, but from either coast you are paying $10 for >60km.  Where's the equity in that?

Be thankful you don't live in sydney. Ashfield to central (10 minute trip) is $3-20 one way and kattomba to central (2 hour trip) is $7-80!

Of course if you want equity then we should really pay 100% of the cost. After all where is the equity for the person who needs a car to do their job and pays for PT through taxes plus car costs versus the person on PT who is paying a fraction extra. 
Another point might be that the bus won't be able to get from west end to the city when all the people from the coast find it cheaper to drive and due to lack of parking start blocking streets that buses use.

[somebody]

That would only be equitable if the car user also paid 100% of costs, including the burden on the health system.  There may be a case for that.

In Sydney, MyZone went in the complete wrong direction, in putting down the price for long distance bus users.

[Fares_Fair]

Of course if you want equity then we should really pay 100% of the cost. After all where is the equity for the person who needs a car to do their job and pays for PT through taxes plus car costs versus the person on PT who is paying a fraction extra.  

Justanotheruser,

No offence, but that sounds very much like a government / public servant type response.
We do pay through our taxes, that is what they are for. Providing services for us, the public.
It spreads the financial burden across the many when the few would not be able to support it financially.

A person on PT paying a fraction extra, you must be kidding.
It costs my family almost $90 to travel to Brisbane and return via the train.
It costs less than half of that for them to drive to Brisbane, and it's usually quicker.

Motor vehicle users don't pay 100% of costs either and the example you cite with the work car still has access to PT for his family during the week and himself on week-ends if he so chooses.
Of course it all depends on where the services are and how good, bad or accessible they are for both scenarios.

Which scenario is the right one? is there a right one?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[justanotheruser]

That would only be equitable if the car user also paid 100% of costs, including the burden on the health system.  There may be a case for that.

Ok I know this is a PT forum but lets be honest. Often the point of the cost on the health system of roads is mentioned. But why is the cost to the health system of PT never mentioned? So we can cancel out the cost of various transport methods on the health system and get back to the discussion. With all due respect this argument is just smoke and mirrors.

In Sydney, MyZone went in the complete wrong direction, in putting down the price for long distance bus users.

and what makes your opinion right and people who disagree with you wrong?  Sorry but you are really coming across as arrogant.  You have not explained why other than you think itis unfair for people who make shorter trips to subsidise longer trips. Sorry but that is hardly compelling evidence.  How familiar are you with the system in Sydney say 10 years ago? Do you think that was fairer than the system now. Do you think the system in sydney 20 years ago was fairer still or worse and also 30 years ago was that fairer or worse? Why or why not?

[justanotheruser]

Of course if you want equity then we should really pay 100% of the cost. After all where is the equity for the person who needs a car to do their job and pays for PT through taxes plus car costs versus the person on PT who is paying a fraction extra. 

Justanotheruser,

No offence, but that sounds very much like a government / public servant type response.
We do pay through our taxes, that is what they are for. Providing services for us, the public.
It spreads the financial burden across the many when the few would not be able to support it financially.

A person on PT paying a fraction extra, you must be kidding.
It costs my family almost $90 to travel to Brisbane and return via the train.
It costs less than half of that for them to drive to Brisbane, and it's usually quicker.

I challenge you to drive from ipswich to the city in peak hour quicker than the train. People I work with have all found it slower and changed to PT. They still drive when working outside of peak times.
It is soon to become even faster by train with trains running express from darra to milton.

As part of my work I have looked at the cost of using a car for a year vs using PT for a year. PT was way cheaper as in just over half the price.
If we also factor in the cost of the car well that makes it even more of a difference. As the car ages repair bills will go up or you get a new car. So even if we average it out over a number of years the car will still be more expensive.

Lets also be honest. You would be the exception not the rule. Most cars are carrying one person not a family when heading into work on typical monday to friday job. Of course if your a mechanic you can reduce the cost of repairing the car but most people aren't. Not to mention car makers are deliberately putting in parts to prevent people from doing simple tasks like changing the oil themselves so you then need to pay for simple jobs like that now.

So lets work this out to see which is cheaper for you. Based on a petrol price of 128.9 cents/litre how much do you spend on petrol for the return trip?
Then the following costs per year
How much is insurance (third party and comprehensive)
How much did the car cost
How much in srvicing/repairs
How much in wear and tear eg tyres
How much in rego

What is the total?

Motor vehicle users don't pay 100% of costs either and the example you cite with the work car still has access to PT for his family during the week and himself on week-ends if he so chooses.
Of course it all depends on where the services are and how good, bad or accessible they are for both scenarios.

So the person who has no choice should get a tax rebate then if we are going to be equitable like suggested it should be. That way their taxes are only paying for the time where public transport is an option.  See I don't think that would be reasonable but I also think itis reasonable to subsidise long trips with the shorter ones. While at the moment I do make a longer trip I did for years live close to the city and therefore was one of the people subsidising the longer trips and I can honestly say I have no problem with that.

[somebody]

Ok I know this is a PT forum but lets be honest. Often the point of the cost on the health system of roads is mentioned. But why is the cost to the health system of PT never mentioned? So we can cancel out the cost of various transport methods on the health system and get back to the discussion. With all due respect this argument is just smoke and mirrors.

No, it isn't.  The burden on the health system for PT is hardly worth mentioning, although if we are going to a full cost recovery model, of course PT should pay the amount of costs it causes.

In Sydney, MyZone went in the complete wrong direction, in putting down the price for long distance bus users.

and what makes your opinion right and people who disagree with you wrong?  Sorry but you are really coming across as arrogant.  You have not explained why other than you think itis unfair for people who make shorter trips to subsidise longer trips. Sorry but that is hardly compelling evidence.  How familiar are you with the system in Sydney say 10 years ago? Do you think that was fairer than the system now. Do you think the system in sydney 20 years ago was fairer still or worse and also 30 years ago was that fairer or worse? Why or why not?

That would be one more argument than you have put forward!  I'll give you another one.  I do not think it is a good policy to encourage people to travel long distances every day.

Pretty familiar with Sydney's ticketing system for a number of years, but I wouldn't say 30.  Really, the only change in MyZone is private buses came into the same system as the Sydney Buses, and the longer trips got cheaper.  It used to be there was a 1-2 section, 3-5, 6-9, 10-15, 16+ tickets.  Now there are 1-2, 3-5, 6+.  Similarly with the multi mode weekly tickets, there are less different types.

[justanotheruser]

Ok I know this is a PT forum but lets be honest. Often the point of the cost on the health system of roads is mentioned. But why is the cost to the health system of PT never mentioned? So we can cancel out the cost of various transport methods on the health system and get back to the discussion. With all due respect this argument is just smoke and mirrors.

No, it isn't.  The burden on the health system for PT is hardly worth mentioning, although if we are going to a full cost recovery model, of course PT should pay the amount of costs it causes.

In Sydney, MyZone went in the complete wrong direction, in putting down the price for long distance bus users.

and what makes your opinion right and people who disagree with you wrong?  Sorry but you are really coming across as arrogant.  You have not explained why other than you think itis unfair for people who make shorter trips to subsidise longer trips. Sorry but that is hardly compelling evidence.  How familiar are you with the system in Sydney say 10 years ago? Do you think that was fairer than the system now. Do you think the system in sydney 20 years ago was fairer still or worse and also 30 years ago was that fairer or worse? Why or why not?

That would be one more argument than you have put forward!  I'll give you another one.  I do not think it is a good policy to encourage people to travel long distances every day.

Pretty familiar with Sydney's ticketing system for a number of years, but I wouldn't say 30.  Really, the only change in MyZone is private buses came into the same system as the Sydney Buses, and the longer trips got cheaper.  It used to be there was a 1-2 section, 3-5, 6-9, 10-15, 16+ tickets.  Now there are 1-2, 3-5, 6+.  Similarly with the multi mode weekly tickets, there are less different types.

I didn't see your first argument. Just stating something was a mistake is not an argument.

As to travelling long distance that is a reality of where we live. Sure government can decentralise but not everybody works for the government. Many private companies want to be as close in to the city as possible so unless you are saying people should only be accepted into certain uni courses based on where they live then you need to accept people will have to travel long distances to get to work. (no point doing a uni course if there is no job in the area you live)   I know plenty of people who purchased property in certain areas of sydney because it was cheap. These days they are amongst the most expensive suburbs in sydney.

[Gazza]

I don't get why people have to stay living in the outer suburbs though. If uni students on limited incomes can afford to live in inner suburbs and make it work, then surely people with steady CBD jobs can do the same.

[somebody]

I didn't see your first argument. Just stating something was a mistake is not an argument.

FWIW, it's here:

Fares_Fair, I am fairly sure you would agree that the Coasts get the most subsidised service by far.  Get a 199 from West End and you are paying over $2 for only a few kms, but from either coast you are paying $10 for >60km.  Where's the equity in that?

[Stillwater]

There is another way to look at this, and the way health treatment works is a useful guide, or the postal service.

The health system guiding principle is that everyone, irrespective of status or location, shall receive a safe and efficient standard of care.  In some cases, because of the impracticality of putting a general hospital at Birdsville, remote Queenslanders have the service of the Flying Doctor.  The objective is to get people from where they are sick to where they can be treated, efficiently and effectively.  The Flying Doctor costs more than a 10-minute ambulance dash to a city hospital.  The standard letter rate applies across Australia, even though it might cost 20c to deliver from Greenslopes to Nundah, but $5 perhaps from Brisbane to Birdsville.

Now, substitute passengers for letters.  Is the objective to get people from home to work and back again effectiveless and efficiently, or merely to work public transport like a taxi?  The reality is a bit of both, otherwise all those people from outer suburbs heading for the city will clog up the Greenslopes and Nundahs of this world.  There is a social welfare component and a practical component that has to do with the liveability of cities.  Do we want Brisbane to be like Hong Kong?

Consider this sobering thought --with fare increases of 15 per cent year on year for five years, a daily commuter from Woombye will, at the end of five years, be paying $203 a week, or more than $9700 a year, to commute to Central every day.  An inner suburb traveller currently paying a fare of $3.20 will, at the end of five years, be paying $65 a week, or $3090 a year.