New fare strategy - articles and discussion

[somebody]

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.

Well, you would have a friend in Chris Hale here.  Remember his presentation from the CPTF?  I assume you were there.

To be honest though, I'm reasonably comfortable with the part where trains to run parrallel to the buses, so long as they are going somewhere different.  However, the current 444 route I am not comfortable with at all. 88 is worse.  Perhaps I should just leave it at that given that this topic is about fares.  Transfers are always going to be a disincentive to patronage.  No argument possible.  So is poor frequency, of course.

To be honest, I am completely unconvinced that if we agreed to forgo city connections that they would upgrade rail frequency at all.  So why keep hammering this point?

If that were true, why not just raise the peak hour fare?

Perhaps because their policies on public transport are poor?

It's hard to find the correct level though, because the off peak marginal cost isn't the same for all modes.  It's much higher for bus than the train.  Also, loadings in the off peak aren't likely to be nearly as high.

[#Metro]

Thanks for the constructive discussion. What is not to like about 444? I think 444 is great and should NOT be turned into a feeder service.

To be honest, I am completely unconvinced that if we agreed to forgo city connections that they would upgrade rail frequency at all.  So why keep hammering this point?

Aaah. Watch this:

Jönköping, on the southern shores of Lake Vättern in Sweden, is a city with 81,000 inhabitants
(including the integrated town of Husqvärna) and 120,000 in the administrative commune of
Jönköping.

A completely restructured, modernized bus network was introduced in 1996. The
network is now organised around three main pendulum lines that cross the urban area. All other
lines have many connections with the main lines, which are the "arteries of the network", se
figure 13.

The core bus services, with local and rural feeder routes represented a relatively radical change,
since previously most areas of the town had low frequency but direct services to the town centre.
These were in some cases replaced by a feeder route and an interchange.

The fast and efficient operation of the main routes attracts so many passengers that the services are run with 5- and 10-
minute intervals most of the day. This also induces many suburban passengers to make transfers
between local and main line services for journeys within the city. Most of the local bus lines have
two departures per hour most of the day.

The effect?

The results have been impressive, even if there has been some complaints from some customers
with forced interchange in the suburbs. Patronage has increased by 15 percent (1996–2002)
where it had been declining by a rate of –1–2% on an annual basis prior to the launch of the
program.

Comparable Swedish cities without a similar network restructuring continued their
decline in the same period. The market share for public transport has increased from 19% to
22%. The level of patronage is higher than most comparable cities; 143 journeys per inhabitant
per year is much more than most similarly sized cities in Scandinavia.

The fare box recovery ratio is 68 percent (2000) compared to 32% in 1986 and up 13% since 1996.
The new bus system also helped to revitalise its town centre,

Are we paying for new services, or are we paying for old services with marginal improvements so that
waste within the system can remain?

[#Metro]

http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf

PS: the above is an ALL-BUS network. No rail anywhere.
The population is hugely below that of Brisbane.

[Stillwater]

Yes, but the cost of petrol in Norway is astronomical.  People do their sums and catch the bus instead of using a private car.  As much as Australians carry on about petrol prices, we pay the third or fourth lowest price for fuel (including taxes) in the western world.

[Stillwater]

Check the tables:
http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/internationalprices.htm
http://www.byebyeblighty.com/1/2010-petrol-prices-international-comparisons/

[somebody]

What is not to like about 444? I think 444 is great and should NOT be turned into a feeder service.

The problem is that it doesn't originate in the CBD in the same point as all the other routes through Indooroopilly, especially the express routes.  This is why this route is so overcrowded that they have decided to create the 88.  The other problem is that you need to go backwards through the CBD to get on it at the Cultural Centre.  If you are heading to the Roma St end of town, you can use the train, or interchange if you are coming from/heading to west of Indro.

Jönköping, on the southern shores of Lake Vättern in Sweden, is a city with 81,000 inhabitants

http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf

PS: the above is an ALL-BUS network. No rail anywhere.
The population is hugely below that of Brisbane.

I would like to point out that your link, both in the theoretical parts and in the practical examples has multiple routes on the same corridor, presumably with co-ordination between the routes!  Stupid city stop locations prevent co-ordination being effective.  I really am very frustrated that Brisbane appears to be hell bent on not having this solution in their city!  Enough that they would start the 88 route because the 111 and 444 routes now have to shoulder loads which were previously carried by other routes.  Also, having 3 buses from Indooroopilly to the city arrive with 1-2 minutes on the timetable after a gap of nearly 15 minutes, even while there are 19 buses/hour/direction on the corridor.

I am sure that virtually every other city in the world can do it.  Why is Brisbane determined to design their network wrong, and then wonder why some routes are overcrowded since 2008 when these moves were made?  And why people are unhappy with the system?

The other point I would make is that while a bus/rail interchange at Indooroopilly is a possibility, as are artic buses on the 444, these are not near term solutions for reasons already discussed.

The planned better timetable will likely get some O&D pax on the city-Indro corridor from bus to rail, and an even better one would get more, but it remains to be seen how big this effect will be.  Not that I am arguing about the merit of the new timetable.

[#Metro]

There are too many bus routes IMHO with too many variations. Some, if not most need to be sent to the scrapper to be chopped back and feed trunk lines. Not only will this fill up the train using bus, but it would also allow those routes some more space to be grouped together in the CBD.

And is it a serious design flaw that KGS was designed NOT to to take arctic buses on most of its bus stops? I was really surprised when you said that. Why did they design it this way?

Expecting to get high patronage from improved frequency but making access conditional on living within 400-800m walk up radius of the train station is silly! This is just a general comment not directed at you, but could you imagine what would happen to a business or a shopping centre if they refused to serve people outside the 400-800m walk up radius- it would go bust! So why is it OK for the rail system to be operated this way? No wonder the subsidy is so huge and trying to get more services is like trying to pull hen's teeth.

Yes, it would be nice to have interchange at Indooroopilly and Toowong. Will it happen? It should, but probably won't.
Even drover dog can see what is wrong with the PT system (Oops, did I say system?, sorry I meant train, bus & ferry).

[O_128]

Indooroopilly shopping centre is being redeveloped in the next few years, unfortunatly there appears to be no move to fix the interchange location


www.indooroopillyshopping.com.au/pdf/pdf_indo_development.pdf

[#Metro]

What a truly awful location to put new bus stops- just after musgrave rd exit ramp where it is a huge walk.
Note the extension on the South/East side of the Centre!!! Now is the opportunity for a proper interchange!
But in a busway station there, and then let the buses cross over to the rail station and a second interchange.

(I'll make a new thread)

[somebody]

And is it a serious design flaw that KGS was designed NOT to to take arctic buses on most of its bus stops? I was really surprised when you said that. Why did they design it this way?

I don't think so.  If they had all the stops artic capable, there may have not been space for 6 stops in each direction.  It may have had to be reduced to 5.

There are too many bus routes IMHO with too many variations.

I would agree with this.  But as for full time routes in the west, I think the 425+430+433+435+444+445+453+454+468+427+428+432+598/599 would be all OK.  It's the 457/458/459, 461, 467 peak time routes and the 105, 106, 450, 460 routes which I would be thinking of scrapping.  So it really is a minority in this part of town.  460/461 is really only enabled by Richlands.  But that's just my opinion.

[Derwan]

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

Exploit opportunities to promote go card.

I think there's a bit of "exploiting" going on!

[ozbob]

Courier Mail --> Brisbane man wins $10m Oz 7 lotto bought from Exchange Casket Agency in Queen Street, City

A BRISBANE man plans to top-up his go card after winning the $10 million division one prize pool from last night's Oz 7 Lotto draw ...

[mufreight]

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.

It would be far more effective if the Call Centre was staffed by Translink staff who had sufficent knowledge to give direct factual responses or who had immediate access to the information needed to give factual responses rather than the carefully created lets cover our collective butts spin that is too often irelevant to the question posed by the commuter.
The provision of direct factual responses would in all probability cost less, would enhance the credibility of Translink, reduce commuter frustration and create a climate within Translink that would be far more conducive to having problems resolved which would lead to an improved level of customer service rather than the current heads in the sand cover our butts it was someone elses fault do not bother us, we will do it our way and if you do not like the way we operate too bad approach of Translink in dealing with customers that presently exists.

[somebody]

I would think so.

[Golliwog]

It would be far more effective if the Call Centre was staffed by Translink staff who had sufficent knowledge to give direct factual responses or who had immediate access to the information needed to give factual responses rather than the carefully created lets cover our collective butts spin that is too often irelevant to the question posed by the commuter.
The provision of direct factual responses would in all probability cost less, would enhance the credibility of Translink, reduce commuter frustration and create a climate within Translink that would be far more conducive to having problems resolved which would lead to an improved level of customer service rather than the current heads in the sand cover our butts it was someone elses fault do not bother us, we will do it our way and if you do not like the way we operate too bad approach of Translink in dealing with customers that presently exists.

I doubt it. With so many different areas and projects going on within Translink, expecting there to be one group of people who knows everything that is going on is ridiculous. I agree the Q and A thing that Stillwater described is not the way to do it, but I would much prefer to get a response the first time round of "sorry, I don't know the answer to that but I'll pass it on to someone who does and we'll get back to you with the answer"

[somebody]

Golliwog, I think that having internal people do it tends increase the level of responsibility they feel for providing a good answer.  And also removes a layer of bureaucracy from finding out the answer.

Back to topic, is it fair to say that the fare strategy is a failure?  The subsidy per trip has increased quite a way above levels up until Q1 2009/10.  In Q2 2009/10 there was a substantial reduction in patronage according to TL figures.  The problem is that this occurred before the fare increases.  Otherwise, it seems to me that higher fares have done little if anything to reduce the subsidy per trip.

[justanotheruser]

It would be far more effective if the Call Centre was staffed by Translink staff who had sufficent knowledge to give direct factual responses or who had immediate access to the information needed to give factual responses rather than the carefully created lets cover our collective butts spin that is too often irelevant to the question posed by the commuter.
The provision of direct factual responses would in all probability cost less, would enhance the credibility of Translink, reduce commuter frustration and create a climate within Translink that would be far more conducive to having problems resolved which would lead to an improved level of customer service rather than the current heads in the sand cover our butts it was someone elses fault do not bother us, we will do it our way and if you do not like the way we operate too bad approach of Translink in dealing with customers that presently exists.

I doubt it. With so many different areas and projects going on within Translink, expecting there to be one group of people who knows everything that is going on is ridiculous. I agree the Q and A thing that Stillwater described is not the way to do it, but I would much prefer to get a response the first time round of "sorry, I don't know the answer to that but I'll pass it on to someone who does and we'll get back to you with the answer"

but isn't that what they do now??? If they can't give an answer they say they will get back to you in 10 days time.

[ozbob]

Back to topic, is it fair to say that the fare strategy is a failure?  The subsidy per trip has increased quite a way above levels up until Q1 2009/10.  In Q2 2009/10 there was a substantial reduction in patronage according to TL figures.  The problem is that this occurred before the fare increases.  Otherwise, it seems to me that higher fares have done little if anything to reduce the subsidy per trip.

Agree, abject failure ...

[Golliwog]

It would be far more effective if the Call Centre was staffed by Translink staff who had sufficent knowledge to give direct factual responses or who had immediate access to the information needed to give factual responses rather than the carefully created lets cover our collective butts spin that is too often irelevant to the question posed by the commuter.
The provision of direct factual responses would in all probability cost less, would enhance the credibility of Translink, reduce commuter frustration and create a climate within Translink that would be far more conducive to having problems resolved which would lead to an improved level of customer service rather than the current heads in the sand cover our butts it was someone elses fault do not bother us, we will do it our way and if you do not like the way we operate too bad approach of Translink in dealing with customers that presently exists.

I doubt it. With so many different areas and projects going on within Translink, expecting there to be one group of people who knows everything that is going on is ridiculous. I agree the Q and A thing that Stillwater described is not the way to do it, but I would much prefer to get a response the first time round of "sorry, I don't know the answer to that but I'll pass it on to someone who does and we'll get back to you with the answer"

but isn't that what they do now??? If they can't give an answer they say they will get back to you in 10 days time.

Kind of, but I've had problems where I know that they won't personally be able to answer the question, but on hte first reply, I still get an email back with some information about what it is I was asking, but nothing that specifically answers the question, to which I send back an email asking them to ctually forward my question on to someone who can answer it properly.

[mufreight]

It would be far more effective if the Call Centre was staffed by Translink staff who had sufficent knowledge to give direct factual responses or who had immediate access to the information needed to give factual responses rather than the carefully created lets cover our collective butts spin that is too often irelevant to the question posed by the commuter.
The provision of direct factual responses would in all probability cost less, would enhance the credibility of Translink, reduce commuter frustration and create a climate within Translink that would be far more conducive to having problems resolved which would lead to an improved level of customer service rather than the current heads in the sand cover our butts it was someone elses fault do not bother us, we will do it our way and if you do not like the way we operate too bad approach of Translink in dealing with customers that presently exists.

I doubt it. With so many different areas and projects going on within Translink, expecting there to be one group of people who knows everything that is going on is ridiculous. I agree the Q and A thing that Stillwater described is not the way to do it, but I would much prefer to get a response the first time round of "sorry, I don't know the answer to that but I'll pass it on to someone who does and we'll get back to you with the answer"

but isn't that what they do now??? If they can't give an answer they say they will get back to you in 10 days time.

The problem lies in the 10 days response which all too frequently does not occour and when a response is eventualy received it all too frequently is simply spin and does not address the question/complaint made/raised.
There is no practical or realistic justification for the ten working days delay, next working day delay at worst would be aceptable and by removing the intermediate buffers of an unrelated to Translink call centre staffed by people who are seemingly instructed to dumb it out rather than respond does not help either.

[Stillwater]

It is not simply the case that Translink call centre staff are instructed to 'dumb it out'.  The whole idea of the Q and A process is that people can ring the call centre on successive days and get different people on the line, but essentially will get the same pre-prepared answer from a script that seeks to anticipate the question being asked.

The Translink employee may be capable to assist with a specific query that differs slightly from the Q and A script, but they are instructed to stick to the approved words -- and not be spontaneous with an answer, even if they know it.  It is about control of the information and that old WWII adage 'loose lips sink ships'.

The '10-day rule' is to allow for an approval process, usually up to section-head middle management level and possible liaison with another agency (such as QR), maybe involving three or four more people other than the person who prepares the draft written response to address the specific query.  The new words, or revised words, get added to the Q and A list -- and the defences are preserved.

Test the system -- think of a question and call the Translink call centre two or three times in a week and see if you get essentially the same reply.

[mufreight]

It is not simply the case that Translink call centre staff are instructed to 'dumb it out'.  The whole idea of the Q and A process is that people can ring the call centre on successive days and get different people on the line, but essentially will get the same pre-prepared answer from a script that seeks to anticipate the question being asked.

The Translink employee may be capable to assist with a specific query that differs slightly from the Q and A script, but they are instructed to stick to the approved words -- and not be spontaneous with an answer, even if they know it.  It is about control of the information and that old WWII adage 'loose lips sink ships'.

The '10-day rule' is to allow for an approval process, usually up to section-head middle management level and possible liaison with another agency (such as QR), maybe involving three or four more people other than the person who prepares the draft written response to address the specific query.  The new words, or revised words, get added to the Q and A list -- and the defences are preserved.

Test the system -- think of a question and call the Translink call centre two or three times in a week and see if you get essentially the same reply.

The cover our butts at any cost does not provide either the responses to commuters in a timely manner nor the standards of open and accountable government that one is entitled to expect from any government institution.
The level of deliberate misinformation provided rather that honest responses is now beyond the point of being alarming.
If Translink is incapable of resolving this situation one must question the ability of the senior management to operate such an instrument of government.
Obviously time for the Transport Minister to consider disbanding this authority and replacing it with something both functional and responsive to the needs of the commuters which Translink is suposedly tasked to provide.

[justanotheruser]

It is not simply the case that Translink call centre staff are instructed to 'dumb it out'.  The whole idea of the Q and A process is that people can ring the call centre on successive days and get different people on the line, but essentially will get the same pre-prepared answer from a script that seeks to anticipate the question being asked.

The Translink employee may be capable to assist with a specific query that differs slightly from the Q and A script, but they are instructed to stick to the approved words -- and not be spontaneous with an answer, even if they know it.  It is about control of the information and that old WWII adage 'loose lips sink ships'.

The '10-day rule' is to allow for an approval process, usually up to section-head middle management level and possible liaison with another agency (such as QR), maybe involving three or four more people other than the person who prepares the draft written response to address the specific query.  The new words, or revised words, get added to the Q and A list -- and the defences are preserved.

Test the system -- think of a question and call the Translink call centre two or three times in a week and see if you get essentially the same reply.

The cover our butts at any cost does not provide either the responses to commuters in a timely manner nor the standards of open and accountable government that one is entitled to expect from any government institution.
The level of deliberate misinformation provided rather that honest responses is now beyond the point of being alarming.
If Translink is incapable of resolving this situation one must question the ability of the senior management to operate such an instrument of government.
Obviously time for the Transport Minister to consider disbanding this authority and replacing it with something both functional and responsive to the needs of the commuters which Translink is suposedly tasked to provide.

what kind of questions are you asking?  I have always without fail had translink get back to me (or someone else such as the service provider like westside buses).  Only once was the answer not clear and the information translink gave conflicted with what a few private bus companies were doing. That the bus companies were in the wrong was clear as BCC buses did not adhere to the practice and they really stick to the rules and other private bus companies did not follow the practice.


In any case what is the point of disbanding translink to set up another mob just like translink with a different name at massive cost to us taxpayers?  To think the new version of translink would be any different is just fantasy world material.

[mufreight]

Were Translink to be rolled up it would get rid of a bureaucracy that has been proven to be more concerned with justifying its existence than carrying out its supposed prime reason for its existence, the provision of public transport.
Rail should be allowed to run its own race in the provision of service as should BT with the bus and ferry services.
The administration of the co-ordination of services between the various contracted operators and the provision of information about services could be then placed in the hands of an office of Queensland Transport rather than the present situation of duplication of effort with Translink attempting to micro manage rather than co-ordinate the provision of services and accepting responsibility for anything they stuff up which is almost everything they touch or become involved with.
The numbers of staff required would be only about a fifth of those currently in the employ of Translink and most would be people with hands on experience it public transport rather than the theory merchants with no practical experience other than in the construction of a beauraucracy and justifying their own existence.
The existing system gives no latitude and lacks the flexibility for any operator to react to commuter needs in a timely manner.

[AnonymouslyBad]

Back to topic, is it fair to say that the fare strategy is a failure?  The subsidy per trip has increased quite a way above levels up until Q1 2009/10.  In Q2 2009/10 there was a substantial reduction in patronage according to TL figures.  The problem is that this occurred before the fare increases.  Otherwise, it seems to me that higher fares have done little if anything to reduce the subsidy per trip.

It's worrying, though for all the flaws our public transport has, I'd be surprised if patronage actually dropped prior to the fare increases. Given that weeklies are counted as 11 trips (for example), I'd be willing to give TL the benefit of the doubt when they say some of those lost passengers were never actually there to start with. It'll be interesting to see what happens to patronage now that most people are on go card and fares are continuing to go up.

I think the go card probably has a lot to do with the increasing subsidy also. Even though there's lots of exceptions, go cards have probably generated less fare revenue than paper tickets on average. Because go card was discounted from day one, but prices were still set based on paper tickets, every go card trip was actually money down the drain for TL until they started with the fare increases. The price hikes last year were spun as bringing go trips into line with what paper used to cost, and if that's the case it would only hold the subsidy steady (or bring it back to pre-go card levels) rather than actually decreasing it.

[justanotheruser]

The existing system gives no latitude and lacks the flexibility for any operator to react to commuter needs in a timely manner.

So what do we go back to the old system where they also did not respond to needs of the commuter?  I have not seen a proposal which would improve things yet.  The only benefit is to save some money which will go back into general funds and be spent on other stuff which is good overall for the state if it is spent on the right things.  Most likely it will just be spent on building more roads and subsidising certain industries while leaving other industries to cope the best they can.

[somebody]

Back to topic, is it fair to say that the fare strategy is a failure?  The subsidy per trip has increased quite a way above levels up until Q1 2009/10.  In Q2 2009/10 there was a substantial reduction in patronage according to TL figures.  The problem is that this occurred before the fare increases.  Otherwise, it seems to me that higher fares have done little if anything to reduce the subsidy per trip.

It's worrying, though for all the flaws our public transport has, I'd be surprised if patronage actually dropped prior to the fare increases. Given that weeklies are counted as 11 trips (for example), I'd be willing to give TL the benefit of the doubt when they say some of those lost passengers were never actually there to start with. It'll be interesting to see what happens to patronage now that most people are on go card and fares are continuing to go up.

Patronage always drops in Q2.  Q3 usually shows a small rise, and Q4 a large increase.  Presumably Xmas holidays are a large part of the reason.

Thing is that Q2 2009-10 showed 43.95m, Q2 2008-09 showed 43.9m.  Growth which was previously strong was stopped.  Rail patronage dropped according to TL figures, while bus patronage grew a little.  Possibly rail patronage is worked out as a remainder.  Total patronage - bus & ferry patronage.  Would seem a pretty coarse calculation.

If you ignore the rail figures, bus, which isn't impacted by this, did show some improvement.  About 3% over the year, or something close to it.  However, given that it had been previously growing at 8.6%p.a. for bus, it is still worrying, especially given that for half the period the fare increases didn't even apply.

Reading off the graphs, I get about $4.80 subsidy per trip in Q2 2008/9 and about $5.20 subsidy per trip in Q2 2009/10 for total subsidies of $210m and $228m respectively, an increase of $18m a quarter.  And that calculation isn't affected by the 10 or 11 trip weekly error.

[Jonno]

No doubt there a number of transport planners say "I told you PT would peak eventually.  My (unsubstantiated) mode split assumptions were correct". Supply problem not a demand problem!!

[somebody]

No doubt there a number of transport planners say "I told you PT would peak eventually.  My (unsubstantiated) mode split assumptions were correct". Supply problem not a demand problem!!

I don't follow what you are responding to here.  Of course growth has slowed with service expansion slowing.  What I am saying is concerning is that value for money has also reduced.

There are a number of reasons why one might expect that, and all occurred on the opening of the INB/KGSBS:
- 393 made virtually useless
- 66 largely surplus to requirements - even though it has high load factors, these only occur because a number of buses are running out of service on the corridor and also the 393 truncation
- 160 made significantly less useful
- 425/430/435/450/453/454/460 made less useful
- lousy level of increases in rail services

[Jonno]

It was tounge in cheek.  I was just saying that all the bad planning, strange service introduction, no rail expansion and worsening service provision will not be seen by some as a failure but confirmation of their belief that PT has a demand ceiling around 15-20%.

[#Metro]

Rail Passengers are paying more but are not getting more. The price is going up but the service levels for most rail stations are not.

[Fares_Fair]

Our welcome to the 15% fare hikes went like this ...

This morning our ex-Nambour service at 6am was cancelled.
No reason given to 'customers'.

We then shared our ex-Nambour ICE train 6:27am service with all those from the earlier cancelled train.
Needless to say it was standing room only [for me and 19 others in our car] from Landsborough to Bowen Hills. (1 hour 15min's).

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[colinw]

I was just saying that all the bad planning, strange service introduction, no rail expansion and worsening service provision will not be seen by some as a failure but confirmation of their belief that PT has a demand ceiling around 15-20%.

I think all that has been confirmed is that 3rd rate infrequent public transport with an unattractive fare structure has a demand ceiling around 15%.

I do not expect this Government or TransLink to have either the intelligence or initiative to actually learn from overseas or Perth experience and make the connection between frequency, patronage and improved cost recovery.  Consequently they will continue to operate our very high fixed overhead rail system at a 3rd rate frequency, the whole time wondering why cost recovery is getting worse year by year. The end result if the trajectory is not corrected will be system decline, starting with trimming of services in the outer part of the network.  The warning sign will be if services to Nambour & Rosewood, or on under performing lines like Doomben, start getting cut. (And as previously posted on this board, there has already been an abortive attempt to kill off Rosewood).

[colinw]

Split off-topic discussion of Lockyer Valley and moved it to this thread:
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5319.0

[justanotheruser]

I do not expect this Government or TransLink to have either the intelligence or initiative to actually learn from overseas or Perth experience...

Having lived interstate and done some travelling I agree that Qld seems to think it is so fantastic that they can't possibly learn from other places

[somebody]

I do not expect this Government or TransLink to have either the intelligence or initiative to actually learn from overseas or Perth experience...

Having lived interstate and done some travelling I agree that Qld seems to think it is so fantastic that they can't possibly learn from other places

One wonders why they feel that.  But if you don't look at other places, I guess you don't know what they do better.

[awotam]

Increased fares, same crap service....
First experience of the new higher fares Mon ... 09.03 Sherwood to Roma St ... 8 mins late!
Remind me ... what am I paying 30% extra for this year ... 
Oh, yes, that's right ... improved service 

[#Metro]

Yes. Rail users are getting a RAW deal, AGAIN!!!
Not happy! :-(

305 000 new seats do not mean much to me if none of them arrive at my station!

WHERE IS MY MUFFIN?!!

[somebody]

Now, now.  Half of the 300k seats are being delivered on rail.  Thing is, that isn't a very big increase.

[#Metro]

No amount of spin is going to make my train come every 15 minutes, and every commuter on the QR network will know this when they turn up to the platform.