New fare strategy - articles and discussion

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail click here!

Number of Queensland households that had electricity disconnected due to non-payment rose 38 per cent in 2011

Number of Queensland households that had electricity disconnected due to non-payment rose 38 per cent in 2011

    From: AAP
    September 24, 2011 12:00AM

THE number of Queensland households that had their electricity disconnected because they couldn't pay their bills rose 38 per cent in the past financial year, latest figures show.

The Queensland Competition Authority's hardship statistics for the last quarter was released this month.

Taken with previous reports, the latest publication reveals 25,000 had their electricity cut off for non-payment in 2010-2011, compared with just under 18,000 the year before.

The Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS) says the skyrocketing cost of essentials, including electricity, is driving the trend.

"Consumer price index has increased by 19 per cent over the last five years but over that same period of time electricity's gone up by 63 per cent, public transport's gone up by 48 per cent, insurance has gone up by 40 per cent, rents have gone up by 35 per cent, and food's gone up by 23 per cent,'' QCOSS director Mark Henly told AAP.

"So what we're finding is it's the cost of essentials that are the ones that are spiralling at a far greater rate than other costs out there in the community and these are all the ones that are basic essentials that people need to rely on day to day."

He said the number of disconnections could be reduced if more people sought to join hardship programs through their electricity provider.

Many don't even know the programs exist, he said.

"We're saying to consumers, make sure you ask about what's available, make sure that you inform people if you are experiencing issues around financial capability in relation to paying for electricity.

"And we're also saying to retailers make sure that you let people know what programs are available so they're best supported."

QCOSS is also calling for electricity concessions that apply currently to pensioners to be extended to all low-income earners who have a healthcare card.

"This is done is other states and is a far more equitable system," he said.

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail click here!

Three million fewer trips on public transport in Queensland but State Government denies it's due to higher fares

Three million fewer trips on public transport in Queensland but State Government denies it's due to higher fares

    by: Robyn Ironside and Robert MacDonald
    From: The Courier-Mail
    September 29, 2011 12:00AM

COMMUTERS are shunning public transport, with three million fewer trips taken in the past financial year.

The State Government denies the drop is linked to higher fares and TransLink has blamed January's floods.

But the report shows the biggest decrease was between April and June, with about two million fewer train trips.

It was an even bigger drop than the January to March quarter.

This was despite increased frequency on some routes and 105,000 extra seats.

The annual TransLink report, tabled late yesterday by Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk, shows a plunge from 181.8 million trips in 2009-10 to 178.6 million in 2010-11.

Train trips fell by 2.6 million, and 2.1 million fewer trips were taken on ferries and CityCats, while buses managed an increase of 1.3 million trips.

Opposition transport spokesman Scott Emerson said the 15 per cent annual fare hikes and the scrapping of weekly tickets in January had turned people off public transport.

But TransLink spokesman Andrew Berkman said more accurate collection of data could explain the plunge.

"Go card is providing more accurate data compared with the previous formulas used," he said.

"On trains, one weekly ticket used to be counted as 11 trips. Now we're finding with go card that can mean seven on trains, and three or four on buses."

Mr Emerson said the repeated fare hikes were taking their toll on struggling families.

"The public is paying more but what they're getting in return from Labor is reduced services, increased disruptions, more overcrowding and greater concerns over their personal safety," he said.

Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk this month urged the State Government to cap fare hikes in response to falling ferry patronage.

Fares are due to rise 50 per cent by 2014 lifting the cost of a single zone trip from $2.65 to $4.04. The scrapping of weekly, monthly and annual tickets has already seen some commuters paying $2600 more a year.

The taxpayer subsidy for passengers on southeast Queensland's buses, trains and ferries jumped by 20 per cent to more than $6 a trip in 2010-11.

This is despite hefty fare rises to reduce TransLink's reliance on the public purse.

TransLink says in its annual report that January's floods and higher borrowing costs meant the State Government had to increase it subsidy by $161.2 million, to $1.1 billion.

This meant that despite a 15 per cent increase in bus, train and ferry fares in January, ticket revenue covered only 22.5 per cent of TransLink's costs, compared with 24 per cent in the previous year.

And that meant the taxpayer subsidy jumped from $5.05 in 2009-10 to $6.06 in 2010-11.

TransLink says improved fare-evasion strategies have saved $5 million.

[Derwan]

My comment on this morning's article:

Apart from the fare increase, the pathetic frequency is turning people away from trains.  And if you don't live on the Caboolture/Ipswich corridor, expect to get NO improvement until mid next year!  How many fare increases have we already had to put up with - with absolutely NO increase in frequency?

[ozbob]

From 612 ABC Brisbane Breakfast with Spencer Howson click here!

Public transport trips down but don't expect lower fares

Public transport trips down but don't expect lower fares

29 September 2011 , 8:12 AM by Spencer Howson

Are rising public transport fares stopping you from catching the train or the bus? Perhaps you've decided riding a bike is more economical.

There were three million fewer trips on public transport in the last financial year- but what is turning commuters away from the service?

Matt Longland is Director of Strategy and Planning for Translink and Scott Emerson is the LNP's Transport spokesperson:

[Gazza]

The other issue is that many of the new seats.
- are in peak periods, so are about carrying a similar number of pax in less crowded conditions.
- duplicate existing routes, rather than opening up high frequency routes to new markets.

[STB]

I must admit after that phone interview from Scott from the LNP, it really feels like there really isn't a choice between the two parties on this issue.  Must admit, not just with transport matters, I'm hoping that there's a decent independent or alternative party to vote for this coming election as at the moment neither major party looks attractive.

From TransLink's point of view I can see what they are saying.  Basically they are asking for a certain amount of funding to put on what they want, but in turn aren't getting the funding they need and then are having to recommend to Government to put in an unattractive fare structure to compensate for that.

Oh dear...

[Stillwater]

The RailBOT Party, perhaps -- standing just one candidate ... in the seat of Ashgrove.  That would get political heads turning.  Or, if people want to make a personal contribution -- volunteer to do campaign work for any candidate other than Andrew Fraser in the seat of Mt Coot-tha.

[ozbob]

The core issue is the falling relative fare box. This indicates the need to improve the fare structure so that more trips are taken and more fares generated.

The way to do this of course is to improve the fare structure to encourage more use (particularly outside peaks) and targeted frequency.  The LNP simply does not want to give away what they would do.  I have little doubt that the fare structure will be changed and significantly.

[somebody]

From TransLink's point of view I can see what they are saying.  Basically they are asking for a certain amount of funding to put on what they want, but in turn aren't getting the funding they need and then are having to recommend to Government to put in an unattractive fare structure to compensate for that.

A strategy which is an unmitigated failure.

This indicates the need to improve the fare structure so that more trips are taken and more fares generated.

I disagree.  Only the fare levels are a problem.

[ozbob]

Only the fare levels are a problem.

Fare levels are part of the fare structure.  Levels need to be considered as part of the structure.  You say it is an 'unmitigated failure' ... I don't think many would disagree with that!

[somebody]

Only the fare levels are a problem.

Fare levels are part of the fare structure.  Levels need to be considered as part of the structure.  You say it is an 'unmitigated failure' ... I don't think many would disagree with that!

Why infer that there need to be rule changes by saying "fare structure" when only the levels need changing?

[Gazza]

But for me, what good are changes to the fare structure if you can't use the service to begin with?

[Stillwater]

Bottom line:  Recent changes have attracted fewer customers.  Despite the fact people are paying more to travel, the government is paying out more by way of subsidy than it did before the 15 per cent increase in fares.  Government to Translink -- Why are we paying you more, in circumstances where you are charged with growing the business and reducing our subsidy input over time, when the reality is dropping patronage at a higher nett cost to government?

[dwb]

Only the fare levels are a problem.

Fare levels are part of the fare structure.  Levels need to be considered as part of the structure.  You say it is an 'unmitigated failure' ... I don't think many would disagree with that!

I think what Translink are badly explaining is that if we had access to the data we would find that the Go card transfer rules are actually more generous than people used to get away with on paper tickets. I know myself that I often go out and do a big round trip, and rather than two journeys it is just one because I now fit under the transfer rules.

I think what no one here is acknowledging is that the current transfer rules are quite generous, but they are FOR A REASON, and a good one at that. We want a zero cost transfer ticketing system and we want it to enable at least three modes given the regional nature of the system (think bus-train-bus journeys). And given the low frequency in many parts of the networks I wouldn't be promoting for instance changing the transfer time to 40 mins down from 1hr... but to be honest, Translink could do this to up the number of journeys... hence dropping the number of free transfers... all of a sudden that drop in patronage might not be a drop in patronage anymore.

Using a go card

If you're using a combination of buses, trains or ferries, touch on and off each trip.

If you change from one train to another train without leaving the station there is no need to touch off and then back on again. Simply touch off when you arrive at your destination.

go card transfer rules
You can transfer up to 3 times across all zones.
You have 5 hours to complete your journey.
The final trip of the journey must start within 3.5 hours of when you started the first trip.
There is a 1 hour time limit between transfers.
Using a paper ticket

At the start of each trip on your journey, show your ticket to the bus driver, train station master (if one is available) or ferry master.

Paper ticket transfer rules
You can transfer as many times as you like.
You must start the final trip before the expiry time printed on the ticket.
If you are travelling within 1-10 zones you have 2 hours to complete your journey as long as you start the last trip before the end of the 2 hours.
If you are travelling within 11 zones or more you have 3.5 hours to complete your journey, as long as you start the last trip before the end of the 3.5 hours.

[ozbob]

I was just speaking to someone here at Goodna, who because of the one hour frequency of their buses is missing out on transfers due to late running/non connections. This impacts for them in terms of increased fares above what they could have achieved under a daily paper ticket.  There may actually be a case for extending transfer times outside a core inner zones where there is a semblance of frequency and transfers can be achieved within the limits ...

[dwb]

I was just speaking to someone here at Goodna, who because of the one hour frequency of their buses is missing out on transfers due to late running/non connections. This impacts for them in terms of increased fares above what they could have achieved under a daily paper ticket.  There may actually be a case for extending transfer times outside a core inner zones where there is a semblance of frequency and transfers can be achieved within the limits ...

What I am saying is that Translink are already generous on this transfer time because of this issue, and if you made it more generous you'd just be giving more free transfers to people who probably shouldn't be getting them... so you'd have to keep making the journey cost higher. There will always be some people who fall outside, but the system should cope for the majority - it is about balance.

Does this someone you've been talking to routinely sit at the bus stop for more than an hour after deboarding a train?

[ozbob]

The issue is generally bus to bus out here.  It is an issue for these folks, and I suggest elsewhere.

TransLink have recognised the need for a longer journey time on higher zones, it would a good move to increase transfer times above the inner zones.  Only fair really ...

[somebody]

I was just speaking to someone here at Goodna, who because of the one hour frequency of their buses is missing out on transfers due to late running/non connections. This impacts for them in terms of increased fares above what they could have achieved under a daily paper ticket.  There may actually be a case for extending transfer times outside a core inner zones where there is a semblance of frequency and transfers can be achieved within the limits ...

I'd have no problem with it being raised to 90 minutes for this issue.

[dwb]

I was just speaking to someone here at Goodna, who because of the one hour frequency of their buses is missing out on transfers due to late running/non connections. This impacts for them in terms of increased fares above what they could have achieved under a daily paper ticket.  There may actually be a case for extending transfer times outside a core inner zones where there is a semblance of frequency and transfers can be achieved within the limits ...

I'd have no problem with it being raised to 90 minutes for this issue.

For the record, I do have a problem with that suggestion.

[somebody]

I was just speaking to someone here at Goodna, who because of the one hour frequency of their buses is missing out on transfers due to late running/non connections. This impacts for them in terms of increased fares above what they could have achieved under a daily paper ticket.  There may actually be a case for extending transfer times outside a core inner zones where there is a semblance of frequency and transfers can be achieved within the limits ...

I'd have no problem with it being raised to 90 minutes for this issue.

For the record, I do have a problem with that suggestion.

So what do you suggest?  Hourly services exist and it is possible to arrive 1 minute after the previous service departed while the following service is delayed.

[BrizCommuter]

I was just speaking to someone here at Goodna, who because of the one hour frequency of their buses is missing out on transfers due to late running/non connections. This impacts for them in terms of increased fares above what they could have achieved under a daily paper ticket.  There may actually be a case for extending transfer times outside a core inner zones where there is a semblance of frequency and transfers can be achieved within the limits ...

I'd have no problem with it being raised to 90 minutes for this issue.

For the record, I do have a problem with that suggestion.

A 9 hour transfer window would be useful!

http://brizcommuter.blogspot.com/2011/09/queensland-government-translink.html
Comments on todays CM article.

[BrizCommuter]

And if you don't live on the Caboolture/Ipswich corridor, expect to get NO improvement until mid next year! 

You think there is going to be a frequency increase in 2012? Recent evidence is suggesting no 15 min frequencies in phase 2 timetables. Lets hope this is wrong.

[Fares_Fair]

And if you don't live on the Caboolture/Ipswich corridor, expect to get NO improvement until mid next year! 

You think there is going to be a frequency increase in 2012? Recent evidence is suggesting no 15 min frequencies in phase 2 timetables. Lets hope this is wrong.

Our improvements were 2 3 more weekday services, and extra weekend services and the bulk of our journeys became longer by about 10 minutes.
Be careful what you wish for.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[STB]

The issue is generally bus to bus out here.  It is an issue for these folks, and I suggest elsewhere.

TransLink have recognised the need for a longer journey time on higher zones, it would a good move to increase transfer times above the inner zones.  Only fair really ...

If the issue is bus to bus, which buses are people attempting to transfer onto and are there ways of modifying the schedules that could alleviate the issue in the meantime?  Keep in mind though that the primary connections for the Ipswich bus times are for rail and not for bus, with the rail line being the only option for city bound travellers.

[ozbob]

I just had a meeting with a local MP.  One the issues raised by the MP via constituents was the fact that buses don't connect to the trains!

The timetables might suggest they do, in practise they often miss.  When you have poor bus frequency and poor train frequency it becomes problematical.

[STB]

I just had a meeting with a local MP.  One the issues raised by the MP via constituents was the fact that buses don't connect to the trains!

The timetables might suggest they do, in practise they often miss.  When you have poor bus frequency and poor train frequency it becomes problematical.

That tells me either two things, one, there's a problem with the rostering and which routes they link a bus on to, in regards to how much recovery time is available for that bus to get before it heads onto it's next run.  Or, two, there's a problem with the run times and the bus is unable to keep up to the timetable.  Or perhaps it's combination. 

Regardless it's not difficult to fix either issue, unless if they've hooked buses on to several routes and haven't given enough recovery time, which might mean another bus or two has to be thrown onto the network to enable better recovery time for a bus to maintain the timetable.  If so, that costs extra if they don't have the buses to do it.

[ozbob]

The down side for extending transfer times would be effects on the journey cap for those so entitled.  But that would be offset by the continuation to some extent.

The obvious answer is a universal daily cap, but I don't think that it is coming along the track ... nor other periodicals.

The authorities are still in denial (well at least publicly ...  )

[ozbob]

They have 15 minutes between train arrivals at Goodna, and the 524 bus departing Goodna on the hourly frequency for example.  15 minutes and it still prangs!  People are patient, they have to be ....

Arrival at Goodna rail on a 524 are not really an issue at peak because of the reasonable train frequency, during off peak,  it is timetabled 5 minutes before the train departure.  Good luck, sometimes you win, mostly you don't, so you can admire the new 'flood proof' QR structures up on stilts, or  UP/DOWN coalies on the fly, or perhaps if one is lucky some light engine movements whilst waiting for the next train in 30 minutes or so.  A stroll across the footbridge is also an option, great views ... 

[ozbob]

Opposition statements:

http://www.scottemerson.com.au/

Commuters abandon public transport under Labor fare hikes

Queenslanders are continuing to give up on public transport under the Bligh government as patronage fell for the second year in a row, the State Opposition said today.

LNP Shadow Minister for Transport Scott Emerson said Translink's Annual Report 2010-11　 revealed public transport commuters had voted with their feet following the Bligh government's 30 per cent fare hike over the past two years.

The report shows commuters took 3.2 million fewer trips than the previous year, with train trips down by more than a million in the last quarter compared to the same period the year before.

"The public is paying more but what they're getting in return from Labor are reduced services, increased disruptions, more overcrowding, and greater concerns over their personal safety," Mr Emerson said.

"As a result they're simply turning away from using public transport.

"The repeated fare hikes are taking their toll on average families already struggling with other cost of living pressures such as water and power bills under Labor."

The TransLink Transit Authority Annual Report 2010–11 showed patronage peaked at 181.9 million in 2008-09, but fell to 181.8 million in 2009-10, before plummeting to 178.6 million last financial year.

"The Bligh government is failing to meet its own basic target of 188 million trips a year.

"There is no doubt the cost of public transport was turning people off public transport, with fares having risen 30 per cent in the past two years with another 15 per cent rise scheduled every year until 2014.

"Labor is busy spinning their latest failure by blaming the floods and old paper tickets.

"But the blame lies squarely on Labor's gross mismanagement of the state's finances, leaving us with an $85 billion debt that is now being paid for by public transport commuters every time they touch on and touch off.

"Only a CanDo LNP Government will cut waste and get action on the basics," he said.

========================

Labor fare hikes driving away public transport users

Labor must explain how it will encourage more commuters to use public transport in the face of its plan to double the cost of fares, the State Opposition said today.

Shadow Minister for Transport Scott Emerson said massive hikes in train, bus and ferry fares by the failed Bligh Government was making public transport increasingly unaffordable for commuters.

"Labor's plan to double the cost of fares by 2014 to pay for its financial mismanagement and blunders is driving passengers away from public transport," Mr Emerson said.

"Since Labor announced its plan two years ago in 2009, after the State election, commuters have already been hit with two fare increases totalling at least 30 per cent with three more increases of 15 percent planned for the next three years, " Mr Emerson said.

"When the Bligh Government announced two years ago it would double the cost of fares, it promised services would improve.

"But since then, according to the State Government's own Translink Tracker, growth in patronage has stalled as passengers revolt against the endless fares increases."

The most recent data showed the number of services on which people were forced to stand had jumped by 67 per cent in the morning peak period and 30 per cent in the afternoon compared to the previous quarter.

"Complaints and injuries were also up according to the State Government's own figures," Mr Emerson said.

"There has been almost a 25 per cent increase in complaints for services running late this year alone."

Mr Emerson said commuters believe public transport was becoming less affordable, with the survey showing support falling to as low as 55 per cent.

"Labor has increased the fares to force commuters to pay the interest bill on its massive $85 billion debt.

"That's on top of the other cost of living hikes under Labor including electricity and water bills that have sky rocketed between 60-70% in the last five years.

"Only a CanDo LNP Government will get action on the basics," Mr Emerson said.

[dwb]

cut waste and get action on the basics

pffffft whatever.

[dwb]

So what do you suggest?  Hourly services exist and it is possible to arrive 1 minute after the previous service departed while the following service is delayed.
[/quote]

Are you seriously honestly suggesting that the transfer time set in the programming for the entire SEQ region should be based on one quarter of one percent of trips taken??

I'm putting myself on the record to say that I think that perspective is ludicrous.

[somebody]

So what do you suggest?  Hourly services exist and it is possible to arrive 1 minute after the previous service departed while the following service is delayed.

Are you seriously honestly suggesting that the transfer time set in the programming for the entire SEQ region should be based on one quarter of one percent of trips taken??

I'm putting myself on the record to say that I think that perspective is ludicrous.

A lot of these people are already disadvantaged, so why add to their disadvantage?  What's the problem with a 90 minute window?  There would be some fare box leakage from it, but quite little really.  Not nearly as much fare box leakage as a daily priced around 2 peak time trips.

[HappyTrainGuy]

The 340 used to leave even if your train was just arriving at Carseldine station. I laughed so hard one time when the Caboolture train was going across the level crossing/arriving at the station and the bus just took off like a bat out of hell!

[somebody]

The 340 used to leave even if your train was just arriving at Carseldine station. I laughed so hard one time when the Caboolture train was going across the level crossing/arriving at the station and the bus just took off like a bat out of hell!

Stuff like this happens in Sydney all the time too.

It's not acceptable with half hourly services.

In the case of the 340, I do wonder if there is much take up of the option to use the train and then 340 as opposed to just using the 340 all the way from town.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Most of the uptake is for those that live close to the station along beams road and in and behind Aspley/Carseldine from Ridley and whatits road when the 340 doesn't run its normal route ie its faster to get a 30 min train and then catch a bus for 5 min that leaves as the train arrives then to hike across town, jump on a P341 P344 for 50 mins while it does a sight seeing tour of the city.

[somebody]

Most of the uptake is for those that live close to the station along beams road and in and behind Aspley/Carseldine from Ridley and whatits road when the 340 doesn't run its normal route ie its faster to get a 30 min train and then catch a bus for 5 min that leaves as the train arrives then to hike across town, jump on a P341 P344 for 50 mins while it does a sight seeing tour of the city.

City Stop Locations!!

AARRGGHH!!

[ozbob]

There was a brief report on 612 ABC Radio by the parliamentary reporter highlighting the Governments response that the fares are subsidised (usual spin deflector) and the fare structure is not the fault of decreased patronage, all the floods etc.  As pointed out by others the quarter unaffected by floods showed the significant decrease, some decrease in patronage was due to floods etc. but there is no doubt that the fare structure is impacting negatively.

What the spin doesn't explain is the huge savings in reduced congestion, road trauma costs and lessened environmental impacts, as well as other savings in terms of lessened petrol imports and so forth in terms of the subsidies.  These savings are significantly greater than the subsidies, which is why societies everywhere invest in public transport.

The ABC should be a little more balanced, I expect the Government to churn out biased justifications, if it was a sound result wouldn't be necessary.  These things need to be challenged.

[ozbob]

So what do you suggest?  Hourly services exist and it is possible to arrive 1 minute after the previous service departed while the following service is delayed.

Are you seriously honestly suggesting that the transfer time set in the programming for the entire SEQ region should be based on one quarter of one percent of trips taken??

I'm putting myself on the record to say that I think that perspective is ludicrous.

A lot of these people are already disadvantaged, so why add to their disadvantage?  What's the problem with a 90 minute window?  There would be some fare box leakage from it, but quite little really.  Not nearly as much fare box leakage as a daily priced around 2 peak time trips.

During the pilot phase of go card, it was a 30 minute transfer, there were issues with that because of many missed connections, so it went to an hour.  Granted the number who miss out on transfers because of poor frequency away from the inner suburbs is obviously not that many relative to those who do make connections.  But changing the transfer time would have little impact overall, and might actually encourage more PT use.  

I think the way Perth does it warrants some thought as well.  There is an absolute time limit for transfers only (go has 3.5 hours, as well as the intermediate one hour limits).

http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/TicketsandFares/SmartRider/SmartRiderFaresandRules.aspx

Transfer time limits

SmartRider uses the normal transfer time limits. For journeys up to 4 zones, you have two hours from the time of your initial boarding to transfer between services.

For trips covering 5 to 9 zones, you have three hours.

[somebody]

That's the way it worked for paper tickets.  I don't see a reason to go back to that.

[ozbob]

That's the way it worked for paper tickets.  I don't see a reason to go back to that.

Yes, not necessarily but interesting how other jurisdictions do it.

I see nothing wrong with having different time limits for different zones.  Eg.  keep exiting transfer time limits for transfers within zones 1 to 4, and increase transfer times for transfers from zone 4 to higher zones and within higher zones, say 90 minutes.