Go card fare structure - poll for future enhancements

[ozbob]

Please vote and/or comment on possible fare structure enhancements for the go card.

Thanks.

[ozbob]

The myki (Melbourne) fare structure is an excellent example IMHO --> http://www.myki.com.au/Fares/default.aspx

Has myki money (similar to the go card present fare structure but with capping) and myki pass (periodical ticket options - flexible in terms of duration).  Both modes can exist concurrently on an users myki card.  This makes travel seamless whether or not travelling in normal periodical zones or outside those zones as needed.

Detailed fare manual for myki click here!

[somebody]

Flagfall is too much.  Also, the zone based system is not good.  Should be a smaller flagfall with a higher distance component, with the distance component based on the as the crow flies distance.

I'm comfortable with the lack of capping so long as frequent user stays as is.

[mufreight]

A good start would be,
A lower fare for the initial zone traveled then reduce the number of zones,
Pensioner fares on a monthly cap or alternatively free off peak.

[#Metro]

I think the myki system is overly complicated.
A manual to understand the fares should not exist.

I think a monthly or weekly cap is the way to go. I think, based on previous comments:

4. Frequent user discount below 10 trips.
This one is a pickle. You don't want a mad rush on Thursday and Friday just because it is Thursday and Friday. Frequent discount should apply to those who stick with PT. Now, does this mean a frequent user if one who consumes more trips (in number) or uses the service longer? (i.e. travelling all day every day for years on PT). Lets just say that I would support a "Committed user" discount over a frequent user one... LOL. To me that means at least monthlies/monthly cap etc.

So a person who uses PT for a month, should get a discount over someone who makes  60 trips in a day.

[stephenk]

If Translink want to make any attempt at attracting people to public transport (I'm convinced the Ferny Grove Line is loosing passengers at the moment) they need sensibly priced daily caps and periodic fares on Go-Card. A significantly better train service would also help!

[somebody]

If Translink want to make any attempt at attracting people to public transport (I'm convinced the Ferny Grove Line is loosing passengers at the moment) they need sensibly priced daily caps and periodic fares on Go-Card. A significantly better train service would also help!

And in fact tinkering with the fare structure is unlikely to help much at all.  So long as it's reasonably easy to understand and reasonably affordable, it shouldn't be too much of a disincentive.  The current fare structure is both of those things.

A signficantly better train service wouldn't be hard.

A good start would be,
A lower fare for the initial zone traveled then reduce the number of zones,
Pensioner fares on a monthly cap or alternatively free off peak.

I agree with the part about reducing the cost for the first zone travelled, but reducing the number of zones I don't think would make too much difference.

4. Frequent user discount below 10 trips.

I think 10 trips is the best dividing line.  Otherwise there is a need to put up the base price to prevent fare box leakage from commuters.

[dwb]

What is the motivation for this poll?

[ozbob]

Snap shot of what members think.  TransLink have indicated that future fare enhancements are under consideration.

Many community groups and users are pressing for improved fare options.

[dwb]

TransLink have indicated that future fare enhancements are under consideration.

When and how did they indicate that?

[ozbob]

TransLink have long indicated that enhancements to the go card fare structure are under consideration.

My guess is that when paper is removed at the end of the year there might well be further changes (perhaps additions to the present fares).

Cheers
Bob

[dwb]

Sorry for the size, that is about my lack of ability with smf.

[stephenk]

Trains aren't mobile phones, and latter are well known for confusing price plans. Great art work, but I think the idea is terrible.

Just cap the fares at at a sensible daily fare (just less than three journeys), and allow weekly/monthly fares as per London's Oyster Card.

[#Metro]

Do a trial. Market research. Surveys and focus groups.
Trains may not be mobile phones but caps are used in a lot of other places- footballer's wages, business and monopoly regulation, internet and data services,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/01/2806583.htm
http://www.londontoolkit.com/briefing/oystercard.htm

[somebody]

Trains aren't mobile phones, and latter are well known for confusing price plans. Great art work, but I think the idea is terrible.

Got to say, I agree.  I'd much rather just pay a fair price and not have to think about what cap is suitable for me etc.

Do a trial. Market research. Surveys and focus groups.

You've posted before that we are worrying far too much about fares.  I agree with this sentiment.

[dwb]

Prepaid or postpaid. It's easy to understand. People will switch to whichever works best for them. Postpaid worked out on a dollar based cap, rather than zonally based cap makes sense for a number of reasons, especially implementation. They simply total your bill then give you the level of discount you'd preselected but postpaid. If you select the wrong cap you just change it the next month.

This saves the hassle of working out a cap for a certain number of zones, and the likely number of trips to make the cap worthwhile. In my proposal even a low user can get a discount by preselecting but postpaying. A zone based monthly cap only gives high users value, and gives them plausibly too much for free undermining the finances of the system.

It clearly came out with the removal of ten trip savers, that didn't require you to use the ten trips in one week, was valued by a whole lot of people who don't commute, but still want (and deserve in my opinion) a discount.

The benefit with caps as well is that the fare rates could be applied for when you signed up/ purchased the card, allowing you the flexibility to amend ticket pricing for new customers, and slowly shift your old customers, rather than the way they work now which is to p%ss all the existing customers off.

Value based caps also work really well in certain circumstances of changing people's habits - for instance someone who makes three trips a week may all of a sudden make 9, then 12, each time changing their cap. With a monthly ticket the upfront cost prevents them ever purchasing it, cos they know they won't get value, cos they don't travel more than 10 times a week.

Caps could also allow in future different retailers to purchase wholesale travel value and resell to various different market groups at a discount, think offpeak, or contrapeak, or shift workers.

I know it is not suited for all, and that is why you'd maintain prepaid/per journey option.

[dwb]

And by the way, much of our congestion is caused by school travel, and pricing does have an impact on school travel.
If school kids paid a flat fare, like Perth's we could possibly make a significant dent in congestion.

So I'd also propose a kids special, much like London or Perth.

[somebody]

Prepaid or postpaid. It's easy to understand. People will switch to whichever works best for them. Postpaid worked out on a dollar based cap, rather than zonally based cap makes sense for a number of reasons, especially implementation. They simply total your bill then give you the level of discount you'd preselected but postpaid. If you select the wrong cap you just change it the next month.

If you already have a car in the garage, you don't have to think about it, you just get in it and drive.  And when you run out of petrol, you put more in at the going rate.  Expecting people to think too much about the price will act as a (minor) disincentive to using PT.

Other than the zone system, fixed fares, refund process and insufficient off peak discount, I love the present system.

[dwb]

That is exactly the point, you get people to think about the "free" bit that they can get by maximising the use of the cap. People start to adjust their habits, and as coverage and reliability expands after a few years perhaps a few people will start to think I don't need my car anymore. It is about making enough funds to invest in new and better services, while addressing people's values, while subtlely changing their habits.

[somebody]

That is exactly the point, you get people to think about the "free" bit that they can get by maximising the use of the cap. People start to adjust their habits, and as coverage and reliability expands after a few years perhaps a few people will start to think I don't need my car anymore. It is about making enough funds to invest in new and better services, while addressing people's values, while subtlely changing their habits.

I don't think it would work out that way.  Most people are happy to pay for fuel once they already have a car in the driveway, as it amortises the fixed costs of car ownership over more benefit.

[dwb]

Lots of people don't want the hassle or expense of owning a car but they feel they just have to at the moment cos pt doesn't offer them what they need all the time. i know diehard PT supporters who've been caught by this themselves. the point is to get everyone using it just that little bit more, so the whole system works more efficiently, less cars on the road, buses run better, more customers on the same bus with the one driver now making 7 runs instead of 5, carrying 420 pax rather than 200, and earning twice the revenue for more or less the same fixed cost.

a couple of years ago if you suggested that we'd have 1.3 mobile phones per person and people ditching their landline, most would have looked at you as if you were a freak. now, it is starting to happen. people have been maintaining their landline at expense, even though their habits have changed for the convenience of the mobile, and they're getting used to the idea of ditching the landline totally.

I feel the same can happen with PT. after all it can be more convenient than the car - one just needs to travel to some places other than brisbane to realise this.

plus,  I just got this other piece of feedback indicating perhaps your view it is too complex for most doesn't match reality.

I love the idea of taking existing models and adding to new context - simplicity but innovation. To clarify (since I've never been on cap phone plan)- when you say "min cost" eg $15 on 29 cap - if I have a slow month and make $3 of trips, I would still pay $15? If I never made it to $29, and made $20 of trips I would pay $20?

now although she was querying it, her understanding of the concept was perfect. all that I needed to do was confirm her interpretation was correct. the number of people who have had a cap before is also substantial, so they would be coming at it with a pre-understanding.

[somebody]

Lots of people don't want the hassle or expense of owning a car but they feel they just have to at the moment cos pt doesn't offer them what they need all the time. i know diehard PT supporters who've been caught by this themselves.

I don't think there is much relevance to this point.

Fare structures attracting to PT is very unlikely.

[mufreight]

Lots of people don't want the hassle or expense of owning a car but they feel they just have to at the moment cos pt doesn't offer them what they need all the time. i know diehard PT supporters who've been caught by this themselves.

I don't think there is much relevance to this point.

Fare structures attracting to PT is very unlikely.

It is plainly obvious that both Government and Translink are not prepared to make the effort to attract more commuters to PT despite the savings in overall infrastructure costs
to cater for more people forced to commute by road rather than by PT.
Seemingly it is policy of both Government and Translink not to attract more commuters to use PT so that they do not have to provide the services that increased demand would need.

[Golliwog]

mufreight, I think you think the government does a lot more thinking than they do. I think the lack of PT infrastructure spending is simply because atm a lot more people use private cars so its easier to score political mileage by providing people with what they want instead of trying to change the way they do things.

[somebody]

mufreight, I think you think the government does a lot more thinking than they do. I think the lack of PT infrastructure spending is simply because atm a lot more people use private cars so its easier to score political mileage by providing people with what they want instead of trying to change the way they do things.

I would agree.  But it doesn't explain why they are throwing so much money at PT without caring about the bang for buck they are getting.  That just gets PT advocates and the car lobby off side simultaneously.

[Derwan]

At the end of the day, I want to be able to touch on and touch off without thinking about prepaid amounts or selected zones.  Caps are fine if the system can handle them but I don't want to have to remember to pay upfront to get a periodic ticket.  (That's backwards thinking IMHO.)

I also don't want to be ripped off if I don't end up catching public transport every day (e.g. sick for a couple of days), which is what happens with pre-paid periodic tickets.  I might miss out on a discount that week (if there's a weekly cap) - as long as I'm not paying for days that I'm not using PT!

[dwb]

At the end of the day, I want to be able to touch on and touch off without thinking about prepaid amounts or selected zones.  Caps are fine if the system can handle them but I don't want to have to remember to pay upfront to get a periodic ticket.  (That's backwards thinking IMHO.)

I also don't want to be ripped off if I don't end up catching public transport every day (e.g. sick for a couple of days), which is what happens with pre-paid periodic tickets.  I might miss out on a discount that week (if there's a weekly cap) - as long as I'm not paying for days that I'm not using PT!

Again, I think given a monthly value based cap this is not really an issue. Just like mobiles you self regulate and adjust your behaviour or cap month to month.

[somebody]

adjust your behaviour

Exactly what I don't want to do in response to any given fare structure.  I think Derwan is with me on that one.

[wbj]

I think that scheduling of services and providing more peak hour services is more important than changing the fare structure.  Standing for 40 minutes during peak hour is not attractive at half the price.

[#Metro]

I think that scheduling of services and providing more peak hour services is more important than changing the fare structure.  Standing for 40 minutes during peak hour is not attractive at half the price.

Its true. Frequency is the thing that needs to be improved.
Heaps more passengers to be gained from frequency increases than tinkering with ticketing and prices.

But I think that if someone asks "do you want caps or not?", that is a valid question and it ought to be answered rather than "other things are more important, we won't worry about that for now". A quick survey on a focus group will reveal whether the current fare system, or whatever new ideas for fares, is tolerable enough for commuters.

[wbj]

Let's put the issue into perspective.

Would you rather save 50c of $1 on your train trip or sit for your 40-50 minute trip rather than stand?

[mufreight]

inreased frequency will bring more commuter usage which will in turn increase the revenue base which complemented by capped fares also attracting more usage of PT raises the question of why it is that the argument is being presented that frequencies can not be increased or fares capped because of lack of revenue.

[somebody]

capped fares also attracting more usage of PT

I don't think this has been established at all.

[mufreight]

Effectively reducing fare costs (which capping does) attracts higher patronage, that is established fact in public transport, the same argument also applies as we have recently seen with the effectively reduced tolls (extended discounts) on the Clem 7 as the operator attempts to attract more patronage and the lowered tolls for the Go Between cross river bridge.
The application might be different but the principal remains the same

[somebody]

Effectively reducing fare costs (which capping does) attracts higher patronage, that is established fact in public transport,

Just as it is an established fact that the degree to which this occurs is almost negligible.

I would have though if capping was introduced the base fares would have to rise to keep the fare box revenue the same.  That sounds like a retrograde step.

[ozbob]

Capping encourages maximum public transport use.  Apart from the fact of better utilisation of the public transport, savings in terms of reduced congestion costs, less road trauma and reduced environmental costs make it very worthwhile.  That is why the majority of jurisdictions do it eg. Melbourne, London, Boston, New York where ever.

Remember around 95% of folks here only make 10 journeys or less a week.  Increasing the greater than 10 journeys is where the real costs benefits will accrue for the community.  TransLink and Government I believe are starting to understand this point, capping and periodical options are an effective tool in driving that.  

I note we now have > 30 responses on our poll,  significant data ...

[Strek]

The blatant disrespect translink shows for its customers has forced me into my car.
Keep current fares, fares rises happen, it's a fact a life. The public does need to make a contribution to this service. However a cap is required, along with the abililty to use one "No go card" for multiple people. This would be useful for when out of SEQ visitors come to stay. Tourists are only being superficially cater for. Perhaps a Japan rail pass might be a good idea.
Strek

[stephenk]

The blatant disrespect translink shows for its customers has forced me into my car.
Keep current fares, fares rises happen, it's a fact a life. The public does need to make a contribution to this service. However a cap is required, along with the abililty to use one "No go card" for multiple people. This would be useful for when out of SEQ visitors come to stay. Tourists are only being superficially cater for. Perhaps a Japan rail pass might be a good idea.
Strek

Even as a supporter of public transport I am now using it around 20% less since the fare increases in Jan 2010. Due to the lack of a sensibly priced period ticket I now think twice before making more than 2 journeys a day or travelling at weekends.

Due to the fact I managed to get a seat on the 07:06 ex-Ferny Grove (Sardine Express) at Enoggera last week, I think quite a significant number of public transport users have gone back to driving! I'm awaiting the latest rail loading figures with interest*!

* although if they included data from delayed trains of which there were many during the count period, the results will be useless anyway.  

[Marisue]

Please vote and/or comment on possible fare structure enhancements for the go card.

Thanks.

I would like to see a Day Ticket for Seniors e.g. $2.50 to travel to and from their destination.  Travel to City Hospitals for medical appointments often necessitates in travelling in peak time, they should not be penalised for boarding a train at 6am.   So A Day Ticket for Seniors would be a step forward in 2010

[DBL]

My wish list for Go Card is:
(1) A cap - Many good comments here already about this.
(2) A periodical ticket option.   Needs to reflect current paper ticket options.
(3) Fewer fare zones like occurs in Melbourne.  There are far too many here in Brisbane.  The new Sydney fare system and zoning is also better than here in Brisbane.
(4) More outlets to sell and top up Go Cards eg. Some newsagencies have been denied the option of selling Go Cards.  I've seen several petitions by newsagencies upset about this.  Why doesn't Translink want as many Go Card outlets as possible to encourage patronage?
(5) More fare gates at city stations. I alight at South Brisbane of a morning and when more than one train arrives the queues in line to tag off become long.  I need to get to work, not be delayed by Translink for not putting in enough gates.  They are allowing themselves to be dictated by the station architecture that was designed for paper tickets, not Go Cards.  It was Translinks idea to have passengers tag off so they need to make the exit time as comparable as when we were all using paper tickets.  That advert of theirs about speeding through the fare gate with a Go Card is false advertising if they don't fix the gate delays.
(6) Introduce an on-line option so passegners can make adjustments on their Go Card when Translink equipment failures or errors occur.  The current system of hanging on a phone is painful and seems to be designed to discourage adjustments.
(7) Introduce a Go Card ombudsman for when exisiting proceedures don't resolve commuters Go Card issues. This will improve confidence.