Article: Minister hints at commuter budget relief

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Minister hints at commuter budget relief

Minister hints at commuter budget relief
Daniel Hurst
April 8, 2011 - 3:01AM

Queensland's transport minister has signalled she wants to act on commuter concerns over ticket pricing in time for the June state budget.

In a wide-ranging interview with brisbanetimes.com.au, Annastacia Palaszczuk also acknowledged the government needed to provide tourists with a better public transport ticketing option.

The state government has come under fire from commuters over the decision to remove periodical saver tickets, such as six-monthly and yearly passes, and increase fares by 15 per cent in January.

Ms Palaszczuk, who took over the transport portfolio in February, defended the five-year program fare hikes that began last year, saying the increases were funding services and infrastructure.

But she said commuters were "very disappointed that the six-month and the 12-monthly passes were taken away" and she had asked for "urgent" advice on restoring the incentives.

Ms Palaszczuk said TransLink was in talks with supplier Cubic over how such incentives could be built into the Go Card system.

The Transport Minister said improvements would be made following feedback from the new community feedback body she was setting up, with expressions of interest to be sought from people next week.

"This will be a high-level group of people that will say these are our top three or four issues we want government, Queensland Rail and TransLink to work on to benefit the public," she said.

"I want to really have a meeting of this committee in May, at least by the end of May, because we've got [the] budget in June, so we'll need to be making a decision about these six-monthly and 12 monthly passes pretty quickly."

Asked whether daily fare caps for commuters would also be introduced, she said: "One step at a time ... Let's see what people [on the new committee] have to say first. The focus needs to be on six-month and 12-month [incentives]. People have sent a very clear message to me about that."

However, Ms Palaszczuk also saw a need to improve the system for tourists.

Visitors can no longer purchase daily paper tickets and have to pay for every trip they make around the city or region, either through individual single tickets or multiple Go Card journeys.

"One issue that is very important I think is that when tourists come to southeast Queensland that they have the ability to purchase a travel card, which they're able to purchase in some other states and other countries," Ms Palaszczuk said.

Ms Palaszczuk pointed to improvements being made, including the looming railway timetable overhaul to increase the number of seats available for transport users each week, and several infrastructure projects.

She also sought to target Liberal National Party election team leader Campbell Newman over his March comments, while still Lord Mayor, that he wanted the government's $8 billion cross-river rail project to be stopped.

In January, the government announced the unfunded underground rail project would be delayed by at least two years because the summer of disasters had dug a massive hole in public finances, despite previously warning of looming cross-river capacity constraints if the project did not go ahead.

Mr Newman, who last month advocated a cheaper metro project instead of the government's cross-river rail plan, clarified his comments this week.

He said he understood the capacity problems and the need to get more train services across the river, but the government's proposal was too expensive. He also argued the existing project had stalled and blown out under Labor.

Ms Palaszczuk rejected suggestions the government's criticism of Mr Newman for not backing the project was hollow given it was the government that had delayed construction. She said work was continuing on the planning and the environmental impact statement would be released soon.

Asked about the prospect of securing crucial Commonwealth funding, she said she was confident the federal government understood the importance of the project.

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

8th April 2011

Good news at Brisbanetimes

Greetings,

Some good news with the public confirmation that fare incentives in the terms of periodical ticketing for the go card are actively being considered.  Something we have been campaigning for since 2007.

We strongly support Cross River Rail and suggest that it should be brought forward, not delayed.

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org

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

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Minister hints at commuter budget relief

Quote
Minister hints at commuter budget relief
Daniel Hurst
April 8, 2011 - 3:01AM

Queensland's transport minister has signalled she wants to act on commuter concerns over ticket pricing in time for the June state budget.

In a wide-ranging interview with brisbanetimes.com.au, Annastacia Palaszczuk also acknowledged the government needed to provide tourists with a better public transport ticketing option.

The state government has come under fire from commuters over the decision to remove periodical saver tickets, such as six-monthly and yearly passes, and increase fares by 15 per cent in January.

Ms Palaszczuk, who took over the transport portfolio in February, defended the five-year program fare hikes that began last year, saying the increases were funding services and infrastructure.

But she said commuters were "very disappointed that the six-month and the 12-monthly passes were taken away" and she had asked for "urgent" advice on restoring the incentives.

Ms Palaszczuk said TransLink was in talks with supplier Cubic over how such incentives could be built into the Go Card system.

The Transport Minister said improvements would be made following feedback from the new community feedback body she was setting up, with expressions of interest to be sought from people next week.

"This will be a high-level group of people that will say these are our top three or four issues we want government, Queensland Rail and TransLink to work on to benefit the public," she said.

"I want to really have a meeting of this committee in May, at least by the end of May, because we've got [the] budget in June, so we'll need to be making a decision about these six-monthly and 12 monthly passes pretty quickly."

Asked whether daily fare caps for commuters would also be introduced, she said: "One step at a time ... Let's see what people [on the new committee] have to say first. The focus needs to be on six-month and 12-month [incentives]. People have sent a very clear message to me about that."

However, Ms Palaszczuk also saw a need to improve the system for tourists.

Visitors can no longer purchase daily paper tickets and have to pay for every trip they make around the city or region, either through individual single tickets or multiple Go Card journeys.

"One issue that is very important I think is that when tourists come to southeast Queensland that they have the ability to purchase a travel card, which they're able to purchase in some other states and other countries," Ms Palaszczuk said.

Ms Palaszczuk pointed to improvements being made, including the looming railway timetable overhaul to increase the number of seats available for transport users each week, and several infrastructure projects.

She also sought to target Liberal National Party election team leader Campbell Newman over his March comments, while still Lord Mayor, that he wanted the government's $8 billion cross-river rail project to be stopped.

In January, the government announced the unfunded underground rail project would be delayed by at least two years because the summer of disasters had dug a massive hole in public finances, despite previously warning of looming cross-river capacity constraints if the project did not go ahead.

Mr Newman, who last month advocated a cheaper metro project instead of the government's cross-river rail plan, clarified his comments this week.

He said he understood the capacity problems and the need to get more train services across the river, but the government's proposal was too expensive. He also argued the existing project had stalled and blown out under Labor.

Ms Palaszczuk rejected suggestions the government's criticism of Mr Newman for not backing the project was hollow given it was the government that had delayed construction. She said work was continuing on the planning and the environmental impact statement would be released soon.

Asked about the prospect of securing crucial Commonwealth funding, she said she was confident the federal government understood the importance of the project.

[ozbob]

Interview radio 612 ABC Brisbane Breakfast with Spencer Howson 7.15am or thereabouts on this today ...  stand by


Ed:

Interview went ahead, good news!  Hopefully might be on the 612 breakfast blog later today ...

[Stillwater]

The minister is also putting the acid on this group and others representing commuters to come up with 'three or four priorities' from the myriad discussed here for further investigation and implementation.  That is realistic because the government can only bite at the problems one chomp at a time.  So the ministers expectation is there be a discipline exercised to filter out the important issues.  Periodic ticketing and CRR are among biggies, I would have thought.  Should there be a program of smaller, capacity enhancing projects -- strategically placed crossing points and some short length triplication and duplication, for instance -- to beef up frequency, as opposed to 'build CAMCOS'? 

[#Metro]

My list, in order, would be (assuming Cross River Rail is taken as given):

1. Timetabling for greater frequency- for greater metropolitan areas (so out to Ipswich/Caboolture/Beenleigh/etc)
 * 15 minute frequency standard during off-peak (incl. Weekends)
 * 10 minute frequency standard during peak hour
 * 20 minute frequency standard at all other times
 * Universal weekend timetable (some leeway for variation can be given for extra friday night/saturday night services) but otherwise the same train at the same time for both Sat and Sunday. They need to develop BUZ-like branding for this too.

2. Identification and removal of bottlenecks for greater frequency (low hanging fruit) on the QR system to enable higher frequency (this is single track sections, cross-overs, platforms that can't be used etc). This follows from (1).


3. Re-organisation, consolidation and simplification of the bus system to connect with trains to support increased frequency on trains(once step 1 is completed, allowing higher capacity during peak hour to absorb the capacity increase). This might actually release funds from the bus network to be used for frequency boosting. On the Ipswich line (to Darra) this has already been done, all that's needed is an interchange at Indooroopilly. Peak hour capacity will be increased by roughly 5000 pax , which is enough to take most buses off Coronation Drive.

4. CAMCOS/Sunshine Coast spur to Caloundra

I haven't given much priority to extension (say Gold Coast to GC Airport, Flagstone, Kippa Ring (sorry guys!) and what not because I think that the current system needs to be fixed (except on the Sunshine Coast which is at capacity). Once the current system is fixed up, you can use buses to connect people to it while you wait for funds to recharge (think of the Springfield-Richlands Rocket)

If I can add a 5th one-- look at decongestion pricing. Even the RACQ agrees on this one.
It could be a new revenue source to pay for things while also promoting PT and efficient use of road space.

http://www.humantransit.org/2011/03/are-toll-lanes-congestion-pricing.html
http://www.humantransit.org/2011/03/watching-our-words-congestion-charge-or-price-or-shudder-tax.html

[#Metro]

More BUZ would be good, and re-allocating P88 but ran out of numbers!

[ozbob]

http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/04/weekly-monthly-daily-tickets-to-return.html?site=brisbane&program=612_breakfast

Weekly, monthly, daily tickets to return

08 April 2011 , 8:17 AM by Spencer Howson

First it was announcing a timetable review for synchronising buses and trains. Then it was returning buses to Ipswich. Most recently, it was the announcement of trains running more frequently on certain lines.

You get the sense that Annastacia Palaszczuk is all for change as Minister for Transport.

This morning, the Brisbane Times reports that the Minister is considering reintroducing periodical ticketing and new ticket option for tourists.

The Minister wasn't able to speak this morning. Robert Dow is president of the public transport lobby group Rail Back on Track:

[frereOP]

Are we pushing the wrong barrow here?

I am very much of the belief that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  For every subsidy that someone provides, someone somewhere ultimately has to pay for it and public transport is no exception.  While we all want cheaper and reliable public transport, secure water supplies and reliable electricity, someone has to pay for the infrastructure and operating costs and no one wants it to be them.

If we want newer and more frequent public transport services, and if we want upgraded facilities, are we jeopardising the capacity of government to provide these by lowering the cost of public transport through fare reductions including fare capping?

The money has to come from somewhere, I think it is wrong of us to advocate something without explaining ways of achieving it that don't undermine the budget bottom line.

[Derwan]

1. Timetabling for greater frequency- for greater metropolitan areas (so out to Ipswich/Caboolture/Beenleigh/etc)

I agree that this is the number 1 priority.  We cannot be forced to continually suffer price increases for absolutely no increase in services.  (Yes, Caboolture/Ipswich lines are getting more services soon, but not anyone else.)

While tramtrain's suggested frequencies are ideal, I can't see us getting there any time soon.  As a step towards ideal frequencies, I think we should be pushing for:

1.  Bare minimum of 15-minute PEAK services on every line.  There are still some lines (e.g. Shorncliffe) that do not have a 15-minute peak frequency.

2.  Extend the peak period.  6am - 10am and 3pm to 7pm.  People are sticking to the traditional peak times because that's when the services are.  If they're a little late, it doesn't matter because there's another train in a few minutes.

These are achievable before CRR and without massive increases to the workforce (that would require significant training time).  Once this is implemented, it's not as huge a leap to 15-minute off-peak frequencies.

[ozbob]

Are we pushing the wrong barrow here?

No.   Improving the uptake of public transport via better ticketing products will actually increase the fare box and reduce the direct subsidies. The present fare structure is failing in that regard (see TransLink Tracker).  TransLink and Government have now recognised that and we on the way, public transport first choice not last choice!  The TransLink Go Card CRG is clear on this, and finally there is movement.

This is a great development.  I see no need to change the present basic fare structure but simply add the periodical options on top.

Frequency is essential of course and the other essential component.

It comes down to frequency, fares and functionality ..

The other big elephant in the room is the election. I expect the present mob do really want to get re-elected ...  public feedback on this is relentless, scathing and real.

Functionality is my own term to encompass all aspects of the physical presence and access to public transport - includes infrastructure.

An important point is get out of the narrow economic mindset and look at the broader whole of community economic benefit of maximising public transport use - it was this approach that drove the journey capping for seniors.  Watch this space!

[Derwan]

The money has to come from somewhere, I think it is wrong of us to advocate something without explaining ways of achieving it that don't undermine the budget bottom line.

If it were up to me, I'd be suggesting:

1.  Increase frequency to a point where there is capacity to spare
2.  Implement a congestion tax in the CBD with proceeds to fund Public Transport and remove the toll from alternative roadways such as the Clem7.

[ozbob]

My bet is once the additional ticketing products are around public transport use around the clock ( and the fare box ) will soar!

Congestion tolling I agree is inevitable, but is there a political party brave enough??

[Golliwog]

My bet is once the additional ticketing products are around public transport use around the clock ( and the fare box ) will soar!

Congestion tolling I agree is inevitable, but is there a political party brave enough??

No, although I did read the newsletter from Labors Brisbane Lord Mayor candidate with interest. He points out the short comings of the tunnels and toll roads plan, and says he thinks there needs to be more of a focus on PT. Couldn't find a link to his newsletter on his website though. Don't think he would jump on board with a congestion tax, but I think he would be for bus/transit lanes.

[somebody]

Are we pushing the wrong barrow here?

I vote yes.

Congestion tolling I agree is inevitable, but is there a political party brave enough??

Maybe one day, but I would be most surprised if it occurred in Brisbane this decade, and still surprised if it occurred next decade.

[#Metro]

It is not a congestion tax.
It is money people pay to get out of congestion, not a charge ON congestion.

http://www.humantransit.org/2011/03/watching-our-words-congestion-charge-or-price-or-shudder-tax.html

There seems to be a flurry of new interest in congestion pricing, partly under the pressure of tight budgets almost everywhere.  But journalists can muddy the waters by describing congestion pricing as either exploitative or punitive.

Last month, I was invited to contribute to a Sydney Morning Herald thinkpiece on the subject.  My contribution, the second of four pieces here, emphasises that congestion pricing is not about paying for congestion, it's about paying to avoid congestion.  The core point:

Suppose you announce that you'll give away free concert tickets to the first 500 people in a queue. You'll get a queue of 500 people. These people are paying time to save money.

Other people will just buy a ticket and avoid the queue. They're choosing to pay money to save time.

Today, we require all motorists to wait in the queue. When stuck in congestion, we are paying for the road space in time rather than in money.

Shouldn't we have a choice about this? Why are we required to save money, a renewable resource, by spending time, the least renewable resource of all?

Unfortunately, the Sydney Morning Herald framed the whole piece with the question, "Should motorists pay for the congestion they cause?"    The implication is that congestion pricing is punitive, that some citizens believe that other citizens should be punished for their behavior.  The question seems designed to sow misunderstanding and inflame rage.  To their credit, none of the four expert responses -- even the one from the auto club opposing the congestion charge -- really took this bait.

So there's a problem with the terms congestion charge and congestion price.  The terms sound like "paying for congestion," when the truth is the opposite, we're being invited to choose whether to spend money to avoid congestion.  A more accurate term would be congestion avoidance price or even better, congestion avoidance option.  But those are too many words.

Should we call it a decongestion price?

Real congestion pricing is about giving free and responsible adults a set of options that reflect the real-world geometry of cities.  The core geometry problem is this:

Cities are, by definition, places where lots of people are close together.
Cities are therefore, by defintion, places with relatively little space per person.
Your car takes 50-100 times as much space as your body does.
Therefore, people in cars consume vastly more of the scarce resource, urban space, than the same people without their cars -- for example, as pedestrians or public transit riders.
When people choose whether to drive, they're choosing how much scarce urban space to consume.
If urban space is to be used like any other scarce resource, its price needs to be deregulated so that it is used efficiently.

Congestion pricing is a form of deregulation.  It is the most libertarian concept imaginable.

There's another way to mess this up, and that's the term "congestion tax."  Here's the New Zealand Herald:

Aucklanders may be levied to drive through increasingly congested streets in the absence of Government funding of the region's "strategic aspirations".

A paper released by Local Government Minister Rodney Hide before Auckland's first spatial plan due out in 11 days suggests raising revenue by charging motorists to drive around the Super City at peak times.

Hide makes clear that this isn't a congestion price intended to reduce congestion.  It's just another tax, intended to raise revenue.  So just to be clear: If it's congestion pricing, there are public transit (and bike-ped, and casual carpool) alternatives that enable people to get where they're going.  The congestion price cordons on the CBDs of London and Singapore work because there's abundant public transit to those places, so relatively few people absolutely have to drive into them.  The San Francisco Bay Bridge tolls have a congestion-pricing value because there's both abundant transit and casual carpool options for avoiding them.

If, on the other hand, you're in a place where there's no reasonable alternative to driving -- such as large parts of Auckland -- then anything  that suppresses driving will suppress travel, and that means it will suppress economic activity.  And if you're just taxing economic activity, then this is really no different from sales taxes, Goods and Services Taxes (GST), or income taxes. By taxing economic activity, you're suppressing something that government and society should be encouraging.  That's not a libertarian idea; quite the opposite.

[#Metro]

To improve public transport, something must be done about cars.
A congestion charge does not have to be a cordon toll.

All the projects mooted so far also need funding. Funding is the limiting ingredient here. No funding. No project. It's that simple.

[ozbob]

Quote from: frereOP on Today at 08:48:16 AM
Are we pushing the wrong barrow here?
I vote yes.

Frequency is important of course, but you must also have a fare structure that is acceptable to the community.  It matters little what we think as individuals, the reality is the public want (demands?) a better outcome, look at the responses to the 17th March 'boycott'.  A better fare outcome will actually drive use and frequency.  You have said yourself Somebody, the present TransLink fare structure is not working.  Time for improvements.

The other point, it is not possible to constantly raise all factors together.  Just because a particular piece is on fares, doesn't mean the other issues of lesser importance. It is just that at that time that is the topic of interest.  The media tends to be very specific on a topic.

[frereOP]

Are we pushing the wrong barrow here?

No.   Improving the uptake of public transport via better ticketing products will actually increase the fare box and reduce the direct subsidies.

Where's the hard evidence?  I't does make sense, but I'd like to see the business case first. 

I'm not against subsidies per se because I don't subscribe to the full cost recovery model.  Subsiding something in some place can have much larger benefits for the wider community that are not directly apparent.  eg subsidising public transport in Brisbane means fewer road accidents here, less CO2 and less road damage and this benefits ALL Australian residents directly or indirectly whether they live in Brisbane, Perth or Darwin.

[#Metro]

Where's the hard evidence?  I't does make sense, but I'd like to see the business case first.  

I'm not against subsidies per se because I don't subscribe to the full cost recovery model.  Subsiding something in some place can have much larger benefits for the wider community that are not directly apparent.  eg subsidising public transport in Brisbane means fewer road accidents here, less CO2 and less road damage and this benefits ALL Australian residents directly or indirectly whether they live in Brisbane, Perth or Darwin.

This is true. But with decongestion pricing working in tandem with PT policy perhaps you could get a level playing field. It could also have many of the benefits you mentioned.
Fringe benefits need cleaning up too. Apparently more stilted towards car...

[Stillwater]

The other interesting thing in Minister Palaszczuk's interview with the Brisbane Times was her statement that the EIS for the CRR would be released 'soon', however one defines 'soon'.  Elsewhere, it has been stated that the EIS would be completed 'by the end of 2011'. 

For both statements to be true and stand side by side, then a date around August-September would be a good guestimate.  Significance?  There would be an update on the price then, so a judgement would be made about affordability and the appetite of the private sector to buy into the project, thereby limiting the size of the public contribution.  The EIS would have a big say in determining project feasibility.

Also, a commitment to proceed to detailed planning would need to be made around December, because that is when governments start to think about budgets, which are worked up in the New Year, each year, in the months leading to May-June.  In the 2012-13 financial year, you would need to budget for detailed planning -- probably $200 million.

Assuming 2011 is a 'rebuilding year' and 2012 is the election year, as Anna Bligh tells us, then in December the government would have the information it needs to commit politically to CRR and announce it as part of an election manifesto.  (As opposed to the 'wouldn't it be nice to have if we could find the money approach of Connecting SEQ 2031)

Then governments would need to gird their loins and, in financial year 2013-14 call for expressions of interest from the private sector to build office towers and residential units/shopping centres, stations and concessions in those stations (Starbucks etc).  There would be argy-bargy over price and contributions -- with the private sector on one side and between the state and federal governments on the other.  Argy bargy with the state government and the BCC over planning etc.

Both state/federal governments would need to look at their borrowings and what other 'big things' are planned for the same timeframe as CRR is built (hospitals, freeways etc), because that will determine just what they could afford overall and how fast construction occurs.

Then.... if CRR falls over, what's next?  CanDo's metro?  The merry-go-round starts again - prefeasibility, preliminary investigations, EIS and business case, detailed planning, negotiations with property owners and private investors, detailed planning, calling of tenders... and on and on.

It is a complex business.

[ozbob]

Subsiding something in some place can have much larger benefits for the wider community that are not directly apparent.  eg subsidising public transport in Brisbane means fewer road accidents here, less CO2 and less road damage and this benefits ALL Australian residents directly or indirectly whether they live in Brisbane, Perth or Darwin.

Look no further than VLine, reduced fares, improved the frequency and timings, and patronage has boomed ever since.  Great overall economic benefits as you point out.  I am sure TransLink will economic model the new fare enhancements, if that is made public though is a moot point.  

[Fares_Fair]

From the Brisbanetimes story ..
Ms Palaszczuk said TransLink was in talks with supplier Cubic over how such incentives could be built into the Go Card system.
The Transport Minister said improvements would be made following feedback from the new community feedback body she was setting up, with expressions of interest to be sought from people next week."This will be a high-level group of people that will say these are our top three or four issues we want government, Queensland Rail and TransLink to work on to benefit the public," she said.
"I want to really have a meeting of this committee in May, at least by the end of May, because we've got [the] budget in June, so we'll need to be making a decision about these six-monthly and 12 monthly passes pretty quickly."

Is it invitation only ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ozbob]

No, they are going to advertise for EOI.  It is up to an individual to respond to the call for EOI.

[Zoiks]

We need to remember this is got to do with issues surround ticketing only from what I ca see.

I personally think:
- Introduce Daily + Weekly capping on go card
- Remove paper tickets and make disposable go cards (possibly slightly higher fare)
- Reduce the number of zones
- Investigate new funding methods for PT ie. Congesting pricing, developer input, rate surcharge new train stations for the first 3 years etc. Look at what they are doing in HK, London etc with regards to those issues.

Also since we now have a seemingly receptive and pro PT minister, I could possibly go through, update and with the help of the people on here expand my final year project on Rail efficiency that I posted on here last year.

[Cam]

- Reduce the number of zones

I don't agree with this but am in favour of reducing the fare per zone travelled.

[Zoiks]

With the number of zones we have it makes it very difficult to work out the fare price sometimes.

I think reducing it down to 6 or so zones would be good.
I do NOT support reducing the fees for Sunshine Coast + Gold Coast people. We shouldnt be encouraging people to live so far away from their place of work.

[Fares_Fair]

With the number of zones we have it makes it very difficult to work out the fare price sometimes.

I think reducing it down to 6 or so zones would be good.
I do NOT support reducing the fees for Sunshine Coast + Gold Coast people. We shouldnt be encouraging people to live so far away from their place of work.

Hello Zoiks,

I think that the large number of zones actually makes it fairer to distribute the cost according to the distance.
So I disagree on that first point.

Second point.
Reducing the price would not do that.
The majority of people do not make their choice to live somewhere purely on the basis of the cost of public transport. IMHO, it would not be the deciding factor!

To further clarify,
I am talking about home owners, not usually itinerant university students for whom it would be a factor.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[#Metro]

I would like to add that the PT access should be included in the sustainability declarations.
It is so expensive to extend train lines everywhere. And once you have done that you haven't even fixed up the current system yet...

[Stillwater]

RATIONALISE THE NUMBER FO FARE ZONES

A re-examination of the zones would be appropriate if the issue of fares is being explored.  Any study should be based on 'community of interest' considerations and not on distance from Central Station.

For example, Woombye and Palmwoods are bothin Zone 16, which is appropriate because they are like Red Hill and Ashgrove.  People who live in these communities have Nambour as their service centre, yet it is in Zone 17.  Maybe all three should be in one zone, so that a visit to the doctor or the shops for this 'combined community of interest' is one zone.

A one zone fare might have to rise slightly.  Compensate for this in the city by extending zone 1 out a bit further.  (There, the one-zone fare increase would have little difficulty in being accepted because people would see value in more frequent services and the fact they could travel around the city and environs without tripping a second zone payment.)

There are more logical couplings that would determine zones.  Beerwah is the district retail and admin hub for the Glasshouse Mountains area.  Landsborough (zone 13), Beerwah (12) and Glass House Mountains (11) could be lumped into one zone based on their 'community of interest'.

Beerburrum (10) and Elimbah (10/11) would be one zone.  Caboolture is some distance south and deserves its own zone.  Caboolture, Bribie Island and Morayfield are one logical zone coupling.

This proposal would need transport planners to change their thinking from 'cents per km travelled' to a cluster concept of towns and suburbs which represents the closet place where people travel to access shops, doctors, an interchange, or school etc.  It would require some judgement calls, but would be more relevant to people and their travel habits.

[Stillwater]

Wacol, Gailes, Goodna and Redbank are split across 3 zones.  Maybe one zone is appropriate.  And so on -- based on 'community of interest'.

[Golliwog]

For the FG line, Ferny Grove station is on a zone boundary, so catching the train to Central is only a 3 zone fare, but to catch the bus to the station is a zone 4 fare. IMO this is why driving to the station is so popular out there. For a few cents on petrol you save 46 cents (full adult fare). Now in some cases that would be justified (ie: travel from Samford) but for those coming from Upper Kedron and Ferny Hills it doesn't.

[O_128]

Zone 1 needs to be stretched right out I would like to see it cover a 5km ring around the city seeing as this is the area we are trying to intensify so badly

[Zoiks]

With the number of zones we have it makes it very difficult to work out the fare price sometimes.

I think reducing it down to 6 or so zones would be good.
I do NOT support reducing the fees for Sunshine Coast + Gold Coast people. We shouldnt be encouraging people to live so far away from their place of work.

Hello Zoiks,

I think that the large number of zones actually makes it fairer to distribute the cost according to the distance.
So I disagree on that first point.

Second point.
Reducing the price would not do that.
The majority of people do not make their choice to live somewhere purely on the basis of the cost of public transport. IMHO, it would not be the deciding factor!

To further clarify,
I am talking about home owners, not usually itinerant university students for whom it would be a factor.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Indeed it seems farer, but at what cost. I used to work in a hotel as a porter. People came up to the Zone pricing sheet, took 1 look and turned around and asked for a cab.
A good example is london with 9 zones and Melbourne with 2 from memory. Anything within the same zone should be free/low cost ($1?)

Ultimately I would like to see a per/km charging for road use and maybe something similar for PT. But that is a long way off yet.

@golliwog. People underestimate how much it costs to run a car. Your looking at ~20c/km for petrom or ~70c/km taking into account wear and tear, rego etc. Sadly people forget about these externalities because they fill up once a week and pay rego once a year etc, where as you see the fare every time you touch on.

[Gazza]

With the number of zones we have it makes it very difficult to work out the fare price sometimes.

But you can always check online or read the faretables on buses, at stations etc, or do a dummy transaction on a ticket machine to find out what it would cost.
If you use the journey planner (Which is a near necessity for anyone new to the system) it tells you the fare.
No excuse for not being able to find this information apart from laziness.

I don't really see why the actual fare level is something you'd have to obsess over. It's not like you can shop around, you just pay it ,because it is what it is.
GoCard reduces the importance of knowing the fares also.
Think about in terms of making phone calls...You'd have a rough idea of what it's going to cost based on your rate plan, but it's not as if you know precisley
beforehand, because the length of your call varies.
Or, it's like finding out the price of another type of transport. Plane tickets...You have to look up online or visit a travel agent to find this out.

I also support the number of zones, because it means the price changes smoothly zone to zone rather than huge jumps like in Melbourne.

For example, Woombye and Palmwoods are bothin Zone 16, which is appropriate because they are like Red Hill and Ashgrove.  People who live in these communities have Nambour as their service centre, yet it is in Zone 17.  Maybe all three should be in one zone, so that a visit to the doctor or the shops for this 'combined community of interest' is one zone.

You also get this occuring around Sherwood for people going to Indro....I'ts a 2 zone trip despite being basically just a short hop across the river.
I reckon a 2 and 1 zone trip should be priced equally, and then only begin increasing prices beyond the 3rd zone, since by then you are actually going a decent distance.

Also agreed about not reducing long distance ticket prices. It's a lifestyle choice to live far out from work, and I'd support having the fares for this type of commute set at European levels, but at the same time having a dedicated long distance fleet, and full infrastruture upgrades to support 'very fast' running.
There is little benefit to society in having a train network that takes nearly two hours to travel a mere 100km.

I don't think the fares actually need to be any cheaper really, because reduced fares only benefit people that already use PT. They wouldn't attract anyone new really, unless it was massive price cut (So Airtrain I feel is the only thing that would benefit from a fare cut)

[Zoiks]

But you can always check online or read the faretables on buses, at stations etc, or do a dummy transaction on a ticket machine to find out what it would cost.
If you use the journey planner (Which is a near necessity for anyone new to the system) it tells you the fare.
No excuse for not being able to find this information apart from laziness.

I don't really see why the actual fare level is something you'd have to obsess over. It's not like you can shop around, you just pay it ,because it is what it is.
GoCard reduces the importance of knowing the fares also.
Think about in terms of making phone calls...You'd have a rough idea of what it's going to cost based on your rate plan, but it's not as if you know precisley
beforehand, because the length of your call varies.

I also support the number of zones, because it means the price changes smoothly zone to zone rather than huge jumps.

I never said it made sense.  Just what I have observed. I personally dont care, but a lot of people do, especially visitors.

[Gazza]

I'm all for supporting tourists, but anybody that has a cry about "not knowing" something before visiting can go jump. If you visit a city, but don't do a simple google search prior on the basics of the place prior to visting or buy a Lonley Planet Guide, you are clearly stupid/disorganized. Why should we have to baby these people along.

I love to travel, but I never neglect to research.

See, simple: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brisbane+public+transport+fares

For every subsidy that someone provides, someone somewhere ultimately has to pay for it and public transport is no exception.  While we all want cheaper and reliable public transport, secure water supplies and reliable electricity, someone has to pay for the infrastructure and operating costs and no one wants it to be them.

If we want newer and more frequent public transport services, and if we want upgraded facilities, are we jeopardising the capacity of government to provide these by lowering the cost of public transport through fare reductions including fare capping?

I don't mind if the fares go up for better services, but it needs to be the same for everyone.
15% is pretty big as it is, but people that previously bought long periodicals are being forced to cop much more than a 15% rise.

If they had say kept periodicals, made them GoCard only, but increased them at 15% along with everyone else, then there would've no grounds for complaint on their part, apart from the greater issue of how the additional fare revenue is actually being spent.

The loss of weeklies/monthlies is a bit of a non issue though, since the Frequent User Scheme more or less equals it, and the price differences are inconsequential IMO.

[Zoiks]

Fair point. I was just stating what I saw. I wouldnt go adjusting the zones without some sort of study anyway. Im sure we are all missing a thing or 2.

One thing that I did pick up on that noone seems to be talkign about it her interest in bringing back 6 monthly tickets etc.

I think thats a waste.
I think it should be the following.

Go Card:
-Single Ticket
-After 2 trips in 24 hour period switch it to a daily (using 2 highest costing trips as cost) - make all further trips in that 24 hours free (encourages people to use PT instead of taxis/cars for short trips during the day)
-After 5 daily trips switch to a weekly - make all further trips during the 7 day period free for full extents of the network (encourages 9-5ers to use PT on weekends)
-$15 (or higher maybe with a couple of freebies for people who just have mind blanks) fine for not swiping off
-This should all be automatic.

Disposable Go Card for Visitors:
-Single Ticket
-$5 fine for not swiping off

[somebody]

You have said yourself Somebody, the present TransLink fare structure is not working.  Time for improvements.

Not sure I would have put it like that.  I might have said that the current fare policies aren't working.  I doubt I would have specifically targeted the "fare structure" intentionally.

[ozbob]

Fair enough, this is what I had in mind ..

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=2877.msg44640#msg44640

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.

Agreed, a subtle difference, but I think it is time for re-think on all aspects of the fare strategy.  Clearly has already began ...

[Fares_Fair]

from Gazza
The loss of weeklies/monthlies is a bit of a non issue though, since the Frequent User Scheme more or less equals it, and the price differences are inconsequential IMO.

Hello Gazza,

I have to respectfully disagree with your point here.

The current 'discount' scheme is not available for anyone unless they travel more than 10 trips per week.
91% of commuters are ineligible for it.
TRANSLink themselves have admitted (in the print media) that less than 9% of commuters are eligible for it.

Previously weekly tickets attracted discounts as did monthly tickets (which equalled 4 weeklies in cost).
As 4 weeks = 28 days, you saved additionally for a monthly ticket on the extra 3 days in a calendar month, 29th, 30th or 31st.
A weekly, from memory, was equivalent to approx. 3.5-4 daily cost trips. [Please correct me on this as I don't recall the exact amount].

Suffice to say, they were not inconsequential, at least not for Sunshine Coast commuters.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.