New fare strategy - articles and discussion

[p858snake]

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.

Wasn't there a budget review or something awhile ago that showed that they get used quiet a lot? (although admittedly it was family members/children or something that were using it)

[Fares_Fair]

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.

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?

I guess you get that when the Transport Minister's seat is also located in Ipswich  

I keep detailed financial records and can collate the figures quickly from my 10 years plus of data.
The following data is from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (Financial Year).

I can tell you that my total vehicular costs for that period was $2885.36
This figure includes registration, comprehensive insurance, 2 licences, maintenance and repairs,
tyres, tolls and infringement notices.

1/07/2009 through 30/06/2010 (in Aus. Dollars)

   Category Description   1/07/2009- 30/06/2010   
      
   CARS      Zafira      
   Fuel      
   G.S.T.   110.53   
   Other CARS:Zafira:Fuel   1,106.45   
   TOTAL Fuel   1,216.98   
   Insurance      
   G.S.T.   47.72   
   Other CARS:Zafira:Insurance   477.21   
   TOTAL Insurance   524.93   
   Maint. & Repair      
   G.S.T.   37.72   
   Other CARS:Zafira:Maint. & Repair   377.18   
   TOTAL Maint. & Repair   414.90   
   Registration      
   G.S.T.   59.57   
   Other CARS:Zafira:Registration   595.68   
   TOTAL Registration   655.25   
   Other CARS:Zafira   73.30   
   TOTAL Zafira   2,885.36   
   TOTAL CARS   2,885.36   

Vehicle purchase price was just under $30,000 on 15 November 2002
The Other in the finance report above is G.S.T. which is recorded as separate costs.

I can tell you that the vehicle travelled 81,807 km - 70,385km = 11,422 km in that period.
Assume I have a life for the car of 15 years = $30,000 / 15 = $2,000/year.

Add the $2,000 + $2,885.36 = Grand Total of All Costs (incl. purchase price) $4,885.36

Divide this total by the km travelled and you get the average cost per km.
i.e. $4,885.36 / 11,422km = $0.43 c/km (rounded up)

Cost of $0.43 c/km x 200 km = $86.00 for a return trip to Brisbane from the Sunshine Coast.

I'm not sure about including the cost of the vehicle as we do not ever get to own the train ... do we ?  

Regards,
Fares_Fair.
   

[justanotheruser]

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.

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?

I guess you get that when the Transport Minister's seat is also located in Ipswich  

I keep detailed financial records and can collate the figures quickly from my 10 years plus of data.
The following data is from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 (Financial Year).

I can tell you that my total vehicular costs for that period was $2885.36
This figure includes registration, comprehensive insurance, 2 licences, maintenance and repairs,
tyres, tolls and infringement notices.

1/07/2009 through 30/06/2010 (in Aus. Dollars)

   Category Description   1/07/2009- 30/06/2010   
      
   CARS      Zafira      
   Fuel      
   G.S.T.   110.53   
   Other CARS:Zafira:Fuel   1,106.45   
   TOTAL Fuel   1,216.98   
   Insurance      
   G.S.T.   47.72   
   Other CARS:Zafira:Insurance   477.21   
   TOTAL Insurance   524.93   
   Maint. & Repair      
   G.S.T.   37.72   
   Other CARS:Zafira:Maint. & Repair   377.18   
   TOTAL Maint. & Repair   414.90   
   Registration      
   G.S.T.   59.57   
   Other CARS:Zafira:Registration   595.68   
   TOTAL Registration   655.25   
   Other CARS:Zafira   73.30   
   TOTAL Zafira   2,885.36   
   TOTAL CARS   2,885.36   

Vehicle purchase price was just under $30,000 on 15 November 2002
The Other in the finance report above is G.S.T. which is recorded as separate costs.

I can tell you that the vehicle travelled 81,807 km - 70,385km = 11,422 km in that period.
Assume I have a life for the car of 15 years = $30,000 / 15 = $2,000/year.

Add the $2,000 + $2,885.36 = Grand Total of All Costs (incl. purchase price) $4,885.36

Divide this total by the km travelled and you get the average cost per km.
i.e. $4,885.36 / 11,422km = $0.43 c/km (rounded up)

Cost of $0.43 c/km x 200 km = $86.00 for a return trip to Brisbane from the Sunshine Coast.

I'm not sure about including the cost of the vehicle as we do not ever get to own the train ... do we ?  

Regards,
Fares_Fair.
   

while it is true we do not get to own the train you can not operate a car without either purchasing one or hiring one. therefore including that cost is justified.

also having the minister for transport has nothing to do with it. the same challenge could have been thrown down before Ms Nolan became the minister but that could be behind the draft timetable!!!!

So while it is slightly more expensive for you for the majority of people PT would be much cheaper. If you lived in some places the traffic would be stop start which requires more fuel. enough that one can run out over the space of 3kms after the fuel light comes on.  After all the majority of cars would have one person in them. maybe two. well from my observations when going along (i wasn't the driver so i was allowed to look so don't panic!). For the average user the return trip would cost $21-20 compared to $86. So we are looking at about a quarter of the price for average joe to use PT rather than a car.  perhaps you should move to either newcastle, blue mountains or wollongong. The trip would cost you $15-60 return or $56 for a weekly which is equal to just over three and a half days travel. of course with sydney traffic you would be using more fuel so would be saving even more money!!!!


ps forgot to add congrats on accepting and beating the challenge even if you aren't normal! hehe sorry couldn't resist that joke

[justanotheruser]

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?

and still an opinion not an argument. it is your opinion that it should be equatible. The very fact that taxes are used show it is not equatible yet i don't see you advocating not paying through taxes.

[somebody]

justanotheruser, I would have said it was an axiom.  Roads are still subsidised by taxes, so why shouldn't PT be?  I can go along with an argument that we should be reducing these subsidies.

But we may have to agree to disagree.

[Stillwater]

Good analysis, Fares Fair, but I think you forgot to include the parking charge for stabling your car once you drove it to Brisbane for the day.  As to the other circuitous argument to is going on, perhaps a parable is in order.

Two middle-aged men are standing at the bar.  Both have elderly mothers.  One man says to the other: 'My mother got a new set of hips the other day, courtesy of the public health system.'  The other stares back and blurts: 'That's unfair!  My mother did not get a new artificial hip.  The health system has jibbed my family!'  The first man says to the second: 'But your mother is in fine health and doesn't need a hip replacement operation.'

In the case of the inner-city traveller and the other who lives some distance from town, the objective remains the same -- to convey both efficiently, safely and effectively to and from home or work.  Society's obligation to to both is to achieve the same outcome for each person, even though the cost of delivery may be different.  One buys a house at high cost to live in the city, and pays relatively less to travel to work; the other a less expensive house some distance from town and pays more to travel each day.  The Commonwealth Grants Commission makes payment adjustments of federal grants revenue to states based on a formula that equalises the cost of service delivery to every Australian.  To many, its called 'the fair go'.

Go too far the other way and, lets say, abolish household insurance so that the household that gets flooded out, or has the house burn down, has to meet the cost of replacement from its own resources.  We don't say: 'Silly buggers, they went and lived down by the creek.  MY insurance premiums are not going to help them.'

Just imagine if the person who lives some distance from the city used a car to make the work trip.  That would stuff up the lifestyle of the person living a few kilometres from town.

And cop this, young Harry -- in five year's time, after 15 per cent compounded fare increases, a person travelling daily for work to and from Woombye will be forking out $9000 a year for PT travel.  Some may say that is not fair.  Let's hope all those inner-city dwellers have a spare bedroom to rent out.

[Fares_Fair]

... and they don't get to live happily ever after either !

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Fares_Fair]

justanotheruser, I would have said it was an axiom.  Roads are still subsidised by taxes, so why shouldn't PT be?  I can go along with an argument that we should be reducing these subsidies.

But we may have to agree to disagree.

Thank you, well said somebody.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[justanotheruser]

justanotheruser, I would have said it was an axiom.  Roads are still subsidised by taxes, so why shouldn't PT be?  I can go along with an argument that we should be reducing these subsidies.

But we may have to agree to disagree.

Thank you, well said somebody.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

are you suggesting it is not ok to ask people to justify statements made as fact rather than opinion? That is what it seems like. I tried sending this via private message but it seems your settings won't allow it

I am happy to agree to disagree. Always have been and always will be. However surely the point of discussion boards is to discuss. There have been times on this board and other boards where I have had to rethink my views because of what others have said. i have also learnt about some aspects of how the railways operate in Qld where it is different to NSW which I was more closely connected to.

Not to mention the excellent way stillwater explained things. I thought that was very well worded and saw no need to repeat it. When somebody said we may have to agree to disagree I took that to mean that somebody did not wish to continue the discussion and respected that. So I am just left confused as to what you mean by your posts now.

[somebody]

When somebody said we may have to agree to disagree I took that to mean that somebody did not wish to continue the discussion and respected that. So I am just left confused as to what you mean by your posts now.

I would be happy continue if the discussion were going somewhere, but it seemed not to be.  I still don't understand your point of view; seems that you are asking for a more subsidised service than others.  Or at least that's what it appears to be.  I think such a point of view has the burden of proof in its court.

[justanotheruser]

When somebody said we may have to agree to disagree I took that to mean that somebody did not wish to continue the discussion and respected that. So I am just left confused as to what you mean by your posts now.

I would be happy continue if the discussion were going somewhere, but it seemed not to be.  I still don't understand your point of view; seems that you are asking for a more subsidised service than others.  Or at least that's what it appears to be.  I think such a point of view has the burden of proof in its court.

I wasn't saying I was confused by your posts but rather what Fares Fair was saying.  I would disagree that burden of proof would be in my court after all you made the initial claim and that puts it in your court. Your initial claim was that it was a mistake for longer trips to be subsidised by shorter trips in the changes in NSW ticketing prices.   I do agree that it was going nowhere so it was good that you suggested we stop. I still think stillwater made a very good argument though with his parable of the health system and then relating that to public transport. Stillwater was basically saying this is the objective and then asked is that objective being achieved.  Sometimes I wish I could be as good as that in phrasing and explaining things. So hopefully that clears up what I meant if not then we'll go with the agree to disagree.

[Gazza]

In the case of the inner-city traveller and the other who lives some distance from town, the objective remains the same -- to convey both efficiently, safely and effectively to and from home or work.  Society's obligation to to both is to achieve the same outcome for each person, even though the cost of delivery may be different.  One buys a house at high cost to live in the city, and pays relatively less to travel to work; the other a less expensive house some distance from town and pays more to travel each day.  The Commonwealth Grants Commission makes payment adjustments of federal grants revenue to states based on a formula that equalises the cost of service delivery to every Australian.  To many, its called 'the fair go'.

My question in all this is, at what distance would you draw the line in terms of what the government should be providing in terms of shuttling people every day?

Bit of an extreme example, but do we start providing helicopters for people that live 200km away from the city to convey both efficiently, safely and effectively to and from home or work just so they can maintain their country lifestyle?

I see travel within cities, and intercity travel as completely different travel markets, so they should be provided and priced accordingly.

[Stillwater]

The helicopter theory already applies.  Get seriously ill in the city and you get an ambulance in 10 minutes.  Get seriously ill in the outback and you get a helicopter/flying doctor.  It is cheaper for society to provide the flying doctor (even though it is more costly per km to fly the patient to hospital than it is to convey a patient to hospital in the city via ambulance.)  Otherwise, to be 'fair' to each, the government would have to build a major general hospital at Birdsville, Windorah, Longreach, Winton, etc. -- and staff and run it.

The Queensland Government subsidises all train travel.  I contest the notion that there is a sense of unfairness in the application of the subsidy, based on geography.  The argument is put on the basis of some sort of flagfall -- cost per kilometres of travel.

But it is more complicated than that.  Train travel is offered to people in the outer suburbs who travel to work in the city in order to preserve the quality of life and liveability of those living in the city centre.  In that respect, it can be argued this is a 'subsidy' not for the outer suburban traveller, but for the inner city resident.

Let's examine the flagfall debate.  It is wrong to argue just on the basis of how far someone lives from the centre of the city and the cost of a ticket to convey them home.  Into the scenario, we must add the frequency of opportunity to travel.  If you live at Albion or Nundah, QR provides 80 (guessing) subsidised trains a day to your station.  If you live at Eumundi, QR provides two return trains a day running a greater distance.

I am sure active minds here can do the sums -- a two zone fare versus km/day/ number of train services offered, calculated by distance multiplied by the number of trains available to catch -- then do a separate calculation based on a 21 zone fare versus Eumundi's km from central multiplied by 4 trains a day.  A Nambour calculation may have more meaning.

Divide the fare into a figure calculated by the distance of the station from central multiplied by the number of train services running to that station each day.  Then do the comparison.

[somebody]

I think I see your argument there.  While the train at Nambour may be 98% subsidised, and the train at Albion might be 20% subsidised, given that there is much more money being spent in Albion than Nambour, that 20% * the number of services may well add up to more than the money spent on the Nambour service.

I wonder if population density should come into it.  I think so, as it is really the tax dollars being extracted from the relevant residents and being spent elsewhere which is the issue.

I'm going to have more of a think about this, but I don't agree with your argument that the city residents get a benefit from people living outside of the city, i.e. making the city smaller.  If they wanted a smaller city, couldn't they live in Adelaide?

[Stillwater]

Well, then you start to get into the area of job location and availability.  If you are saying that the government should encourage more businesses and manufacturing jobs etc to Ipswich, Logan City, Sunshine Coast etc, I totally agree.  That would cut down on the need for people to travel some distance in order to get to work.  More businesses are being attracted to these areas.  YouI Insurance has its national HQ on the Sunshine Coast, for instance.

We must accept the fact that some poor town planning decisions in the past means we all live, not in Brisbane, Ipswich, Logan etc, but in 'Noosagatta' -- a city 200 km long from Noosa to Coolangatta.  That's the distance from Canberra to Campbelltown.  What a nightmare when you are seeking to connect that up with PT!

[justanotheruser]

Well, then you start to get into the area of job location and availability.  If you are saying that the government should encourage more businesses and manufacturing jobs etc to Ipswich, Logan City, Sunshine Coast etc, I totally agree.  That would cut down on the need for people to travel some distance in order to get to work.  More businesses are being attracted to these areas.  YouI Insurance has its national HQ on the Sunshine Coast, for instance.

Of course I think it is unfair to say people should quit their jobs simply because they can not afford to live in a certain area anymore. For example I got my job when I lived at toowong paying $270 a week rent (for a house!). I did not use public transport as I rode my pushbike to work and elsewhere or walked. I even rode to chelmer and refereed four games of touch football and then rode home again. We were forced to move due to property redevelopment. The cheapest house in the area was $550 a week. Well out of our budget. Hence we moved to bundamba. Why should I give up my job with a good boss for another job simply because I've been pushed out of the area by cost of living? That is what those who are against people travelling long distance to work are saying. They just don't realise it.

[Fares_Fair]

Hello justanotheruser,

I'm not trying to confuse you, what I am trying to say is this ...
Government, good government is all about providing services to the community.
I don't know of any jurisdiction in the world where their public rail transport runs at a profit.

Government is about using our taxes to provide us, the taxpayer with services and this cost burden is made possible by sharing the load among many, so to speak. It's NOT about making money, it's NOT about user pays, even though governments are trying their best to persuade us otherwise -they reap a double benefit from us as taxpayers and as users.
It's about providing a service for all constituents, regardless of where they are, or who they are, or why they are there.

I disagree with the asset sales for the same reason, they should have kept the money making ventures to offset the cost of the money loss ventures, in this case passenger services.
This whole user pays thing is a furphy IMHO.
It's the underlying principle.

At the end of the day - that will fail as there will be nothing left to sell for the next crisis.
That is the point I am trying to make, and, like somebody, we may have to just agree to disagree.
Have I (politely) made it clear for you? Does that clarify things?

Regards,
Fares_fair.

[Stillwater]

Here's some further info about the Commonwealth Grants Commission and how it seeks to carve up the cake in a federation to achieve a 'fair outcome'.

http://www.cgc.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0018/18351/2010_Review_media_release.pdf

[somebody]

I'm thinking about the imminent fare rises, and it seems almost impossible to escape the conclusion that they are trying to stem demand by increasing the price, and thus they will be able to defer Cross River Rail until it is federally funded.  It also concerning that as the fare per trip is rising, so is the subsidy per trip.  One could conclude that it is likely that the rail system is still costing about the same, but is providing less trips which is pushing up the subsidy required.

Another concern is that they have completely stemmed the growth in patronage.  It was running at around 8% p.a. compounding over a 5 year period, but has now stagnated.  This is since TTA has been formed, and implemented the new fare strategy.

I think that the new fare strategy is a failure.  The only thing which can reduce the subsidy per trip is generating more rail trips on the existing network, especially off peak.  If things turn around a little in 2011, I expect that is largely due to the big improvement in off peak frequency on the Ipswich line as far as Darra.  This is also the only thing which will reduce the subsidy overall, although this is more difficult to reduce.  Bus improvements will never have a large impact as it is rail which is the expensive part of the system to operate.

[#Metro]

Do you have information about the subsidy per trip rate over time?  

AIUI the rail network patronage has been more or less stagnant over the past few years (within population growth and variation).
It really makes me incensed to catch a train in the evening and see almost nobody on it. It is nothing to do with the mode itself, it has
everything to do with the service frequency and the fact that buses are not feeding trains and trains are not frequent. Building bigger roads
parallel to PT infrastructure is also counterproductive (that freeway parallel to the Richlands line, and possibly airport link are
examples; northern link can be added to that list too).

Duplication, inefficiency and waste cost money.
Running empty trains costs money.
Having buses sit in traffic because priority was given to the car (a la Coronation Drive) costs money.

Public transport should show decreasing subsidies per trip/pax etc
as patronage rises (we can see this with the WA data, which is openly published on their website, but again the
TL financial metrics are a bit obscure)

What kind of business ever made money from selling rotten apples or making it extremely hard to access their store?
None! They all went broke.

[Stillwater]

It seems incongruous that, at the same times the fares are increasing, no attention is being paid to the 23 fare zones.  Maybe these could be rationalised.  One consequence would be that people would be able to travel more widely within a single (enlarged) zone on a single zonal fare, albeit a higher fare than applies now, thus making PT travel more attractive.

There are those who would say that 8-10 zones would be appropriate, but a two-tier rationalisation of zones may be an easier path.

In the first instance, Thirteen zones could be achieved by retaining Zone 1 as is, making a new Zone 13 for Traveston and Gympie (the 'outer limits'), then, in between merge current Zone 2 with Current Zone 3 to become a new Zone 2, zones 4-5 merge, 6-7, 8-9 and so on.

In discussions here, the focus has been on getting something for the fare increase, namely higher frequency.  A fare zone rationalisation may be the sweetener the government and translink could bring about so that people wouldn't mind if they paid a little bit more within an enlarged zone.

[somebody]

It seems incongruous that, at the same times the fares are increasing, no attention is being paid to the 23 fare zones.  

There has been a poll on this, here: http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=4763.0
"Lower number of zones" only scored 2 votes out of 20.  I don't have a problem with the number of zones.  You don't have to think about.  Go card works it out.  Although it isn't difficult to look it up if you really want to know.

What's the big deal with the 23 zones?

Do you have information about the subsidy per trip rate over time? 

Yes.

It's in the latest Translink Tracker, p5: http://www.translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/2010-11-quarterly-report-jul-to-sep.pdf
There is a notable jump from Q2 2009-10.  Although this did kick in even before the fare rise, which is strange.  Could be a mistake, or perhaps just an anomoly.  The other possibility is that when people found out about the fare rises which were to start they started abandoning PT even before the fare rise.  The last theory suits my argument the best.

The other point is that if pre-2008 growth rates were to apply, that would work out to around 3 million more rail trips and 9 million more bus trips p.a.  Weekly, that would be 57 000 more rail places being required, and 173 000 more bus places.  The 305 000 weekly seats only just gets ahead of growth in public transport use.

[#Metro]

The average fare per trip paid by customers was $1.64, the same as Q4 2009–10 and 9.3 per cent higher than Q1 2009–10. The average Queensland Government subsidy was $5.03 or 75.5 per cent of the cost of each trip on the network.

How is this possible? Just $1.64? What is going on here?
The number of transfers on the network, I would expect, would be extremely low to be negligible.
So how are people, on average, paying $1.64? per trip?
The absolute minimum fare possible within the TL network is $2.07 for adults and a child is half this. (this is for one zone!)

I don't know, but something really does not make sense here. Unless the entire TL network is carrying adults a maximum of just
one zone or has the majority of its customers as children travelling 3-4 zones, it doesn't really make much sense.

The other possibility is that there low patronage being carried on the (rail?) system (perhaps during off peak) and when you divide farebox revenue
by actual trips (which might not be many) then you get numbers like that above, which would make sense.

Wow, we really must improve off peak services. And look at the subsidy level! 75%!
IMHO something really is unhealthy with numbers like that.

http://www.translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/fares/current-fares

[somebody]

IMHO something really is unhealthy with numbers like that.

Indeed.  It just comes back to the off peak patronage IMO.  Systems with good farebox recovery, like Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore all have peak patronage around 25% IIRC, but certainly less than 50% of total patronage.  CityRail are about 61% peak patronage, but they are disgustingly inefficient.  CityTrain is over 70% peak patronage.

London Underground, Paris Metro and other European systems all have good off peak patronage and good cost recovery AIUI.

[#Metro]

Here are some selected farebox ratios from NZ:
I have chosen NZ because they have cities similar to Australian ones:
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/farebox-recovery-policy/index.html

Auckland: 43.6% recovery / 56.4 % subsidy
Wellington: 51.5% recovery / 48.5% subsidy
Otago:: 40.5 % recovery / 59.5 % subsidy

Brisbane-SEQ (TransLink) 24.5% recovery / 75.5 % subsidy

There will always be a need for some subsidy IMHO to provide coverage services, I don't dispute that
However, the high level of subsidy could also indicate that something is wrong because pax are not really being attracted to services
for the amount of money being put in.

[Golliwog]

As for how they get the average fare paid per trip by a commuter of $1.64, transfers would be a significant part of that. It says trip, not journey. So my trip from FG to UQ while being a 3 zone concession fare, consists of 2 trips each way. And I think it would be wrong to think only a small number of people are transfering. Most people going to UQ (IIRC the largest trip generator outside the CBD) transfer (Toowong, Park Rd, Buranda or to the 412/109 in the city). What about all the people who catch a bus to a train station?

[#Metro]

I don't have figures for how people got to PT, but I would be surprised if the level of transfers
were any greater than 10%. I also suspect, given the frequency of buses going to rail stations
that pax carried by the rail system who used bus to get to the station is also low as well (10-15%?).

Not sure where to find info on that.

If anyone has figures, please post :-)

[#Metro]

As for how they get the average fare paid per trip by a commuter of $1.64, transfers would be a significant part of that. It says trip, not journey. So my trip from FG to UQ while being a 3 zone concession fare, consists of 2 trips each way. And I think it would be wrong to think only a small number of people are transfering. Most people going to UQ (IIRC the largest trip generator outside the CBD) transfer (Toowong, Park Rd, Buranda or to the 412/109 in the city). What about all the people who catch a bus to a train station?

I've done a quick back-of the envelope calculation based on Perth's figures (they publish everything on their websites) and I get something similar.
Interesting...

[somebody]

One thing about NZ, is that a quick check shows quite high fares.  Some of this would be due to the NZ$, but not all, I think.

In addition to the points about transfers, I'd suggest that the data implies a lot of people are travelling on less than full fare.  Unfortunately.  And there are also journeys involving more than two legs.

I'd be surprised if less than 10% of journeys involve a transfer.  Certainly a large portion of mine do.  But not all.

[justanotheruser]

I'm thinking about the imminent fare rises, and it seems almost impossible to escape the conclusion that they are trying to stem demand by increasing the price, and thus they will be able to defer Cross River Rail until it is federally funded. 

Could one not conclude that they are putting the fares up just like they said they would one year ago?

I think that the new fare strategy is a failure.  The only thing which can reduce the subsidy per trip is generating more rail trips on the existing network, especially off peak.  If things turn around a little in 2011, I expect that is largely due to the big improvement in off peak frequency on the Ipswich line as far as Darra.  This is also the only thing which will reduce the subsidy overall, although this is more difficult to reduce.  Bus improvements will never have a large impact as it is rail which is the expensive part of the system to operate.

any data to back up the bolded part? After all zone 1 on the train is far larger than zone 1 on the bus. For example with a train zone 1 ticket you can get almost to what would be zone 3 on the bus.  That to me suggests that buses are more expensive. If not is there some reason that you can travel further on the train for less that even translink staff who helped develop the zone boundaries aren't aware of? 

[justanotheruser]

As for how they get the average fare paid per trip by a commuter of $1.64, transfers would be a significant part of that. It says trip, not journey. So my trip from FG to UQ while being a 3 zone concession fare, consists of 2 trips each way. And I think it would be wrong to think only a small number of people are transfering. Most people going to UQ (IIRC the largest trip generator outside the CBD) transfer (Toowong, Park Rd, Buranda or to the 412/109 in the city). What about all the people who catch a bus to a train station?

and don't forget the large numbers of people going to QUT kelvin grove.  There are some very crowded buses going there in the morning. Do we really conclude that all those passengers came from limited location especially considering the 66 starts at wollangabba.

[somebody]

I'm thinking about the imminent fare rises, and it seems almost impossible to escape the conclusion that they are trying to stem demand by increasing the price, and thus they will be able to defer Cross River Rail until it is federally funded. 

Could one not conclude that they are putting the fares up just like they said they would one year ago?

Yes.  But why?  Partly to reduce the subsidy as they have stated, but my conspiracy theory is that they are also using the fares to reduce the peak patronage and therefore the capex required.  Although I could be being paranoid there.  Either way, I'm not happy with the policies.  If they increased fares and put in a reasonable train frequency, that would be one thing, but what they are doing is increasing fares and then not upgrading the train frequency any more than what they have to.  It's just not good enough.

I think that the new fare strategy is a failure.  The only thing which can reduce the subsidy per trip is generating more rail trips on the existing network, especially off peak.  If things turn around a little in 2011, I expect that is largely due to the big improvement in off peak frequency on the Ipswich line as far as Darra.  This is also the only thing which will reduce the subsidy overall, although this is more difficult to reduce.  Bus improvements will never have a large impact as it is rail which is the expensive part of the system to operate.

any data to back up the bolded part? After all zone 1 on the train is far larger than zone 1 on the bus. For example with a train zone 1 ticket you can get almost to what would be zone 3 on the bus.  That to me suggests that buses are more expensive. If not is there some reason that you can travel further on the train for less that even translink staff who helped develop the zone boundaries aren't aware of? 

I'm pretty sure it's contained in the QR and Translink annual reports.  Although it could be clearer.  Basically rail sucks up something like 2/3 of the funding while providing only 1/3 of the patronage in "trip" terms.  These figures are IIRC and ball park at best, but I think QRP costs something in range $500m-$1b p.a. to run.  The bus system which carries more trips doesn't cost anything like that.  Although the pax-km on rail is alegedly greater.  It certainly would be interesting to see figures on the pax-km of the bus vs rail!

I don't have the reports at hand as I'm not at home, but if you are still interested next week I could have a bit of dig.

[#Metro]

One thing about NZ, is that a quick check shows quite high fares.  Some of this would be due to the NZ$, but not all, I think.

A lot of things in NZ are more expensive AIUI. I'm not even sure they have integrated ticketing and fares yet either.

In addition to the points about transfers, I'd suggest that the data implies a lot of people are travelling on less than full fare.  Unfortunately.  And there are also journeys involving more than two legs.

Hmm. This is bad news IMHO. Cross-town travel, general purpose and off-peak I suspect is not attracted.

[#Metro]

As each day goes by I get more and more frustrated at what I see as a perfectly good rail system just go to waste.
For ages people have been asking for more trains and better frequency. I have seen every improvement under the sun
on the rail network, from new station, new tracks, new screen displays, new logos, multiple name changes, new vehicles, the quiet carriage- everything but more trains!!!

15 minute trains cannot come soon enough.

I'm sorry, but this government has lost my vote. What are the chances that the latest tally of services is going to show all bus improvements (and maybe school buses   to stuff the gap).

Its wrong IMHO to compare bus vs rail like this. They are supposed to be an integrated network that works to get pax together. It makes no sense for one part of TL to compete with the other. They should be working together, like many other cities overseas seem to have no trouble doing.

Train stations need to be fed pax. The whole justification for this has been laid out in the Connecting SEQ 2031 report. There is no essential difference between a bus approaching a busway station or a bus approaching a rail station. The rail system is a very high quality level of transport and its capacity and capabilities are being completely and shamefully underutilised. Why? Does it pay more for buses to rack up more bus-km using city direct routes that bypass rail stations?

[somebody]

The city direct bus routes can co-exist with an improved train frequency.  I don't see the issue with that.

[#Metro]

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/04/why-transferring-is-good-for-you-and-good-for-your-city.html
http://www.translink.com.au/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/translink-network-plan
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/cee63587-c99d-47af-8353-fb7a451ac1c8/connectingseqweb04partcpart1.pdf (see page 46)

There will always be a need for surface transport using direct bus to the CBD, particularly in the inner parts. However, the train networks capacity is not being used properly, an this is no more evident in the off peak. Simply increasing train frequency will not solve the access problem and will limit the network to people who live within 800 m of the station. This is not good enough.

There is also no need to run so many buses directly into the CBD on many routes, and this is no more obvious on the Western Corridor where buses run parallel to trains between Indooroopilly and the CBD. If that were a busway, those buses would be jumping on it. Even though there is no essential difference between a bus approaching a busway, and a bus approaching a rail station (because a shorter route can be more frequent and defeat the transfer penalty due to increased frequency and cut waiting time at the bus stop), the buses avoid rail, neither Toowong nor Indooroopilly is even properly integrated with bus.

The result is not only do we have to pay for a perfectly good train to run empty, but we also need more buses and pay more bus drivers to transport the same load IMHO. A lot of the feeder bus services which already exist are also low frequency.

[#Metro]

page 41: Connecting SEQ

Rail should be costing the LEAST if it was being used properly.

Why a strong focus on rail?
Connecting SEQ 2031 proposes significant investment in rail.
Rail provides:

• increased efficiency of passenger movements by using the highest capacity service type; as demand increases rail offers the lowest cost per passenger space

[#Metro]

Yes.  But why?  Partly to reduce the subsidy as they have stated, but my conspiracy theory is that they are also using the fares to reduce the peak patronage and therefore the capex required.  Although I could be being paranoid there.  Either way, I'm not happy with the policies.  If they increased fares and put in a reasonable train frequency, that would be one thing, but what they are doing is increasing fares and then not upgrading the train frequency any more than what they have to.  It's just not good enough.

If that were true, why not just raise the peak hour fare?
Somebody, you are not the only one who suspects this -

The answer is pretty obvious to anyone who uses public transport - huge fare rises, and minimal improvements to services. In January 2010, public transport fares increased by between 20-40%. The elimination of weekly, monthly, and yearly tickets seriously hurt the hip pocket of regular commuters. There will be further 15% fare rises every year, for the next few years. Just to make things worse, the daily tickets will be phased out, further discouraging frequent public transport users (including students and tourists). Maybe TransLink should rename the go card, the go car? Many of BrizCommuter's work colleagues who were forced back to their cars due to Inner Northern Busway overcrowding have not returned to using public transport!

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-translink-discouraging-use-of-public.html

Why am I paying more for my train trip when the frequency has not improved one iota?!!!  

[Stillwater]

An interesting  document.  It shows either good forward planning or a focus on getting the spin right:
http://download.translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/right-to-information/D102575-draft-communication-strategy.pdf

[Stillwater]

The Communications Strategy refers to 'Q and As'.  These are pre-prepared Questions and the approved wording Answers, hopefully covering every contingency.  When someone rings the TransLink call centre with a question, the operator scrolls the list of 'approved' questions and answers for the closest question to the one being asked, then gives the 'approved words' answer.

That's why people are encountering problems with TransLink not answering their specific question.  If people push, they are given the 'we will answer in 10 days' routine, because that is the time it takes for a specific answer tailored to the specific question to be worked up and approved.