Article: Minister hints at commuter budget relief

[Golliwog]

FF, your statements about the eligibility of commuters are wrong. ALL commuters are elligible, but only 9% make use of it.

[awotam]

"A weekly, from memory, was equivalent to approx. 3.5-4 daily cost trips."
Correct, four daily trips. Wasn't inconsequential to me either and I'm only in Zone 3.

[Fares_Fair]

Hello Golliwog,

You are playing semantics, and I respectfully disagree.
from the Pocket Macquarie Dictionary, Second Edition, Jacaranda Press 1991 : Ineligible means "not fit or qualified to be chosen"

By not commuting more than 10 journeys on a regular basis, they are not fit for the discount, nor are they qualified to be chosen, are they not ?
The fact that only 9% make use of it, speaks for itself.

They are ONLY eligible if they do more than 10 trips per week.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Golliwog]

No offence, but thats kind of irrelevant. The terms of the discount are that you have to complete more than 10 journeys. Just because you don't do so doesn't mean you are ineligible. Ineligible would mean that even if you did complete more than 10 journeys, you didn't get the discount.

[Fares_Fair]

None taken, but it's entirely relevant.
and it's only available to less than 9% of all commuters.

Compare it to the former ticketing system where eveyone was 'eligible' depending upon the ticketing (weekly, monthly, 3 , 6 or 12 month) product they bought.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

I have to respectfully disagree with your point here.

Bangs head against wall.

I cant be bothered doing the calculations again, and it's too hard now that the old fare levels are unavailable.
But basically, In the past I proved it that a weekly ticket was basically no real difference in price to 10 trips + 4 half price weekend trips with the frequent user discount (FUD), or literally a small price difference of a dollar or two that wasn't worth worrying about.

None taken, but it's entirely relevant.
and it's only available to less than 9% of all commuters.

What's your point?

If only 9% of people are doing enough trips to get the FUD, then why would Weeklies help the other 91%?
If they were buying weeklies, they would be wasting their money, because they wouldn't get the full value of the amount spent per week!

I'm not sure of the stats, but it is safe to say a big portion of passengers do 10 trips exactly, no more, no less, just your standard commute.
That is why so few people qualify for the discount, because it's all the travel they ever do.

By not commuting more than 10 journeys on a regular basis, they are not fit for the discount, nor are they qualified to be chosen, are they not ?
The fact that only 9% make use of it, speaks for itself.

They are ONLY eligible if they do more than 10 trips per week.

Because there is no point in discounting for people doing 10 or less.

Think about it this way....Any discount (Aside from social obligation ones like Pensioner discounts) have to be shown to increase patronage, or else it's money down the drain.

I work a 5 day per week job in normal working hours, so 10 trips per week. Would discounting say my 9th and 10th trip make me use PT more. No! Because I was going to use it anyway, and I don't really have a choice, I gotta get to work!

But what about say additional journeys beyond my standard 10 work trips...Say going to the GC on the weekend, or a trip to the movies one night, Thursday night shopping at Indro etc. At this point, the FUD would kick in, and it becomes attractive to take them up on the offer.

The fact only 9% end up using the FUD is not an indictment against the ticketing system, it is merely just evidence of the fact that few people use PT outside of peaks and normal commutes, because the service level sucks on weekends and evenings. That should be blatantly obvious to everyone.

[Golliwog]

I'm with Gazza (mostly). I think there could be some need for a weekly ticket. The problem with the FUD is it doesn't exactly work to boost patronage. You're not likely to use PT more if its still going to cost you more to use it for that extra journey (even if all up it ends up cheaper than a weekly ticket). IMO this kinda gets into psychology and trying to predict how people are going to want to spend their money. A weekly ticket makes people want to get the most for their money and so take those extra trips, where as with the FUD even though if you do some extra journeys, it can still end up cheaper than a weekly, as your only paying per journey, the tendancy would be to not make those extra trips.

This is where the car really does win out. Theres no reader in the dash to tell you exactly how much it just cost you in wear & tear, petrol, etc to make your journey.

[#Metro]

Imagine if you had to swipe you go card to pay your road user charges every time you wanted to drive...

[Stillwater]

No need, because next generation cars easily could have transponders installed at point of manufacture (no need to buy a Go-Via device).  Your distance travelled in one year, or quarter, could be calculated and bill generated and sent.

For DTMR, to discovery whether an unregistered vehicle is on the road, just feed the details into a computer and sit back and wait for the suspect car to pass below a gantry fitted with detection equipment (like the automatic tolling detectors on the Gateway Bridge).  If police had the rego of a getaway car in a bank heist, ditto.

If the truckie is taking too long to make a delivery, the boss could 'call up' the truck location and wonder why it is stationary outside a brothel.  Courier companies ditto, or would know exactly how far away their van is from a pick-up.  Buses, taxis, ditto.

Next generation Big Brother - closer than you think.

[somebody]

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.

True at 2009 and earlier levels.  10 trip/week commuters paid the same on a go card as on a weekly.

I cant be bothered doing the calculations again, and it's too hard now that the old fare levels are unavailable.
But basically, In the past I proved it that a weekly ticket was basically no real difference in price to 10 trips + 4 half price weekend trips with the frequent user discount (FUD), or literally a small price difference of a dollar or two that wasn't worth worrying about.

True at 2010 levels.

I'm not sure of the stats, but it is safe to say a big portion of passengers do 10 trips exactly, no more, no less, just your standard commute.
That is why so few people qualify for the discount, because it's all the travel they ever do.

Exactly.  And they also travel at peak times.  Giving a discount to these people means you have to increase your base price to keep the revenue.  Which deters occassional users who could become more frequent users.  Not a good policy.

Daily cap could be a different matter, although if you use PT 7 days/week you would likely be worse off.

[Gazza]

I'm with Gazza (mostly). I think there could be some need for a weekly ticket. The problem with the FUD is it doesn't exactly work to boost patronage. You're not likely to use PT more if its still going to cost you more to use it for that extra journey (even if all up it ends up cheaper than a weekly ticket). IMO this kinda gets into psychology and trying to predict how people are going to want to spend their money. A weekly ticket makes people want to get the most for their money and so take those extra trips, where as with the FUD even though if you do some extra journeys, it can still end up cheaper than a weekly, as your only paying per journey, the tendancy would be to not make those extra trips.

Agreed about the pyschology, and IMO if we're getting to that point, I think it's well and truly small grain stuff, and won't make a pinch of difference in a system that is still fundamentally flawed....Get a decent network up and running that people want to use before worrying about one percenters that could encourage extra people on.

In all honest, I'd rather the weekly/FUD (Look, they are basically the same thing) remain as a default offer within the system rather than being a "loadable" product....Why, because it would sh%t me to tears If I had to put up with station ticket machines and bus drivers being clogged up by hoards of people loading their weekly....52 weeks a year. The nature of people would mean they would all do it on Monday morning  

Monthly and upwards should be what passes start out from, and that keeps transactions to a manageable level.

[ozbob]

Periodical options for the go card if brought in will be online application only is my expectation.  Six monthly and yearly is all that has been mentioned officially so far.   Daily, FUDs, journey caps etc. are/will be automatic

[Gazza]

We can't just load them on at the machines like in London and Melbourne?

[ozbob]

We can't just load them on at the machines like in London and Melbourne?

I am only guessing but to stop fare abuse/evasion I am thinking that they will opt for periodical options for registered users only, and this then probably locks it into an online process.   You wouldn't want a punter attempting to purchase a 6 monthly periodical ticket on a bus with coins now would we?  LOL

Assuming the AVVMs can be programed (and they probably can again is my guess) it might be registered cards only via them as well.

[Gazza]

I am only guessing but to stop fare abuse/evasion I am thinking that they will opt for periodical options for registered users only, and this then probably locks it into an online process.   You wouldn't want a punter attempting to purchase a 6 monthly periodical ticket on a bus with coins now would we?  LOL

But I mean, in Melbourne you don't have to be registered to load passes do you?

I think yearlies can only be brought from a commuter club or something though.

[ozbob]

As far as I am aware you can have myki pass on unregistered myki card.  But it is very much a weak link in terms of the rort - communal tickets. Nearly as bad as the days of those using scanners and ink jet printers doing their own season tickets 

I don't think they would do that in SEQ (allow season ticketing on unregistered go cards, just a hunch I have), they are just not like that ...  my guess is SNOs would be authorised to check ID when checking a periodical go card (the readers they use tell all ... )

[Gazza]

I don't think they would do that in SEQ (allow season ticketing on unregistered go cards, just a hunch I have), they are just not like that

Ah yes, I mean, we can have unregistered periodicals in Melbourne, London etc (Sydney too, or any other city with paper tickets, since they dont put your name on a MyMulti in Sydney)

But we can't have it in SEQ, because "we're different".

[ozbob]

But we can't have it in SEQ, because "we're different".

  no, just seems that way ...

[somebody]

Agreed about the pyschology, and IMO if we're getting to that point, I think it's well and truly small grain stuff, and won't make a pinch of difference in a system that is still fundamentally flawed....Get a decent network up and running that people want to use before worrying about one percenters that could encourage extra people on.

In all honest, I'd rather the weekly/FUD (Look, they are basically the same thing) remain as a default offer within the system rather than being a "loadable" product....Why, because it would sh%t me to tears If I had to put up with station ticket machines and bus drivers being clogged up by hoards of people loading their weekly....52 weeks a year. The nature of people would mean they would all do it on Monday morning  

Monthly and upwards should be what passes start out from, and that keeps transactions to a manageable level.

It would also annoy me to have to load such a product on my card every week, even if doing it online.

I really don't know why we are wasting so much time talking about capping. There are far more pressing issues.

[ozbob]

It would also annoy me to have to load such a product on my card every week, even if doing it online.

Auto weekly?  Or simply follow Melbourne's lead, any time period one wants ...

[dwb]

None taken, but it's entirely relevant.
and it's only available to less than 9% of all commuters.

Compare it to the former ticketing system where eveyone was 'eligible' depending upon the ticketing (weekly, monthly, 3 , 6 or 12 month) product they bought.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Um how many people only travel point to point on the rail network??? Not that many! 3, 6 or 12 month tickets were only available to these customers, heavily subsidised by everyone else and have finally been removed, 6 years after the introduction of Translink!

[Arnz]

None taken, but it's entirely relevant.
and it's only available to less than 9% of all commuters.

Compare it to the former ticketing system where eveyone was 'eligible' depending upon the ticketing (weekly, monthly, 3 , 6 or 12 month) product they bought.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Um how many people only travel point to point on the rail network??? Not that many! 3, 6 or 12 month tickets were only available to these customers, heavily subsidised by everyone else and have finally been removed, 6 years after the introduction of Translink!

You'd be surprised at the amount of people that are Point to Point for the purposes of work actually.   Plenty of people in the outer suburbs of Brisbane (at least speaking from the Northern suburbs, there were plenty from Bald Hills and Strathpine for example) had seasonal tickets prior to their abolishment.

[dwb]

None taken, but it's entirely relevant.
and it's only available to less than 9% of all commuters.

Compare it to the former ticketing system where eveyone was 'eligible' depending upon the ticketing (weekly, monthly, 3 , 6 or 12 month) product they bought.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Um how many people only travel point to point on the rail network??? Not that many! 3, 6 or 12 month tickets were only available to these customers, heavily subsidised by everyone else and have finally been removed, 6 years after the introduction of Translink!

You'd be surprised at the amount of people that are Point to Point for the purposes of work actually.   Plenty of people in the outer suburbs of Brisbane (at least speaking from the Northern suburbs, there were plenty from Bald Hills and Strathpine for example) had seasonal tickets prior to their abolishment.

Sorry, you're right I should have said network, not rail network. And this only reinforces my point, that these long distance passengers, which in some ways are the biggest drain on the PT purse were getting (in my mind) an unreasonably large discount... in the case of 12 month tickets I believe paying somewhere around 33% of its value based on a M-F 9-5 commuter's travel pattern.

I'm still sure though that if you add them up and compare them to the total number of passengers, they aren't many.... remember TL's numbers show that something like 85% of trips are 1 or 2 zones!

[dwb]

I really don't know why we are wasting so much time talking about capping. There are far more pressing issues.

If you ask me about capping, which I strongly believe is the best way to go, I mean a VERY different thing than when Bob speaks about capping.

I strongly don't believe in a daily cap, but rather a value based zonally independent weekly or monthly cap that could work much more like a telephone cap... when you buy the more you buy (the higher the amount) the greater the level of discount... up to your cap. Previously I'd suggested this might be best implemented as a monthly post paid option, however it could probably also be implemented as a prepaid rolling option.

Ie... you buy a certain recharge for a certain cost but you get more in travel credit than you've paid to recharge. The greater the recharge the greater the value compared to what you paid. This would replace all the frequent user scheme but not off peak travel. You could use that credit over any time or across any zones, it wouldn't be only for a week or a month and in set zones. It would be highly flexible and be able to be taken advantage of by anyone. Compared to the post paid set duration monthly option, this would probably more highly benefit longer distance passengers over shorter distance passengers, however an infrequent user could get the same level of discount by doing one big recharge that lasts for ages compared to a the same big recharge that runs out sooner for the longer distance passenger.

I really doubt mobiles would have taken off so much and replaced landlines to the extent they have if no one had thought up the cap idea!

[ozbob]

Dwb, as you are aware your ideas for capping have been passed directly to TransLink.  It is their call ...

[somebody]

I strongly don't believe in a daily cap, but rather a value based

No way!  It just makes the fare structure more confusing.  The last thing I want is to spend more hours of my life thinking about PT fares.

I really doubt mobiles would have taken off so much and replaced landlines to the extent they have if no one had thought up the cap idea!

Err, no.  The real thing which did it was mobiles becoming somewhat cheaper than landline rental due to the price of the latter increasing.

[dwb]

Dwb, as you are aware your ideas for capping have been passed directly to TransLink.  It is their call ...

Thanks Bob, yes I'm aware you have passed on my previous ideas to Translink. But the concept in the above post was actually quite different from my previous proposals in that it was prepaid and not based on a fixed rolling period such as a month even if other aspects were the same as my previous proposal.

[Fares_Fair]

I strongly don't believe in a daily cap, but rather a value based

No way!  It just makes the fare structure more confusing.  The last thing I want is to spend more hours of my life thinking about PT fares.

I really doubt mobiles would have taken off so much and replaced landlines to the extent they have if no one had thought up the cap idea!

Err, no.  The real thing which did it was mobiles becoming somewhat cheaper than landline rental due to the price of the latter increasing.

I'm with you somebody,
The reason for all of the 'fantastic' mobile cap plans available is designed to make it much harder to compare mobile apples with apples.
No 2 plans are the same and it requires detailed analysis of one's habits to come up with the right plan for one's useage.
They know that most people don't have the time to do this properly and thus win more money when the wrong plan type is chosen.

I would be dead against this type of silly complication to public transport fare structures.
Anything to obfuscate the fare structure will advantage those who try to mislead the public, e.g. the Go card 30% cheaper (true) spin.
It's this way because they increased paper tickets by 45% to make Go card attractive and then TRANSLink have the gall to say how successful Go card is.

Go card is here and here to stay, and it has great potential for improvement one would hope, we just don't see it yet.

Does dwb want train services for just 1-2 stops as this is the majority (85% he quoted) of trips taken ?
He wants no long distance commuters, we should all live close together in high density housing.

Wherever there are trains, and trains are believe it or not, designed for distance travel, you need to accept that.
I'm tired of the short distance rail travel argument.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[dwb]

He wants no long distance commuters, we should all live close together in high density housing.

Yep sounds good to me.

[longboi]

He wants no long distance commuters, we should all live close together in high density housing.

Yep sounds good to me.

+1

[somebody]

Great amplification of my point, Fares_Fair.  The lack of a rebuttal from dwb in his subsequent post is most interesting.

He wants no long distance commuters, we should all live close together in high density housing.

Yep sounds good to me.

Soo, long distance commuters then must drive?  I'm not against allowing long distance commuters, but I must agree with the arguments that having them receive a higher level of subsidy is inequitable.  It is most inequitable that it is so expensive to use the train from Central to Fortitude Valley, for example.

[Arnz]

So according to that logic, all rail stops beyond the inner city must be demolished and be replaced by highways then, with all future residential built only the inner city and be squashed together like in most Japanese cities  

Meanwhile lets move the freight off the now demolished rail lines under that logic back onto the trucks and onto the roads, followed by outer and interurban commuters on the roads, followed by the congestion tax.  

Yeah, great logic there.  Thanks to the sate government's large resistance to decentralisation (eg lower job pools in the outer suburbs and towns), you just congested every major arterial into town and at the same time increased unemployment.

[Fares_Fair]

None taken, but it's entirely relevant.
and it's only available to less than 9% of all commuters.

Compare it to the former ticketing system where eveyone was 'eligible' depending upon the ticketing (weekly, monthly, 3 , 6 or 12 month) product they bought.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Um how many people only travel point to point on the rail network??? Not that many! 3, 6 or 12 month tickets were only available to these customers, heavily subsidised by everyone else and have finally been removed, 6 years after the introduction of Translink!

You'd be surprised at the amount of people that are Point to Point for the purposes of work actually.   Plenty of people in the outer suburbs of Brisbane (at least speaking from the Northern suburbs, there were plenty from Bald Hills and Strathpine for example) had seasonal tickets prior to their abolishment.

Sorry, you're right I should have said network, not rail network. And this only reinforces my point, that these long distance passengers, which in some ways are the biggest drain on the PT purse were getting (in my mind) an unreasonably large discount... in the case of 12 month tickets I believe paying somewhere around 33% of its value based on a M-F 9-5 commuter's travel pattern.

I'm still sure though that if you add them up and compare them to the total number of passengers, they aren't many.... remember TL's numbers show that something like 85% of trips are 1 or 2 zones!

On the Sunshine Coast line they cannot be many due to SINGLE LINE TRACK from Beerburrum and poor service frequency !!
Hopefully the 8 new and extension services will help.
But as someone here always says, (is it Derwan?) you don't get lots of people buying bad apples.
However I don't expect any sympathy from dwb's and Nikko's preferred high density, non-family friendly and coop them all up together philosophy.
Keep the trains for ourselves who only need it for 2 stops, rationale.

My question to dwb, what do you see is the purpose of rail ?
Freight only perhaps ?
History shows us it is the most efficient, reliable, safe method of LONG distance transport there is.
That is why it makes sense for distance passenger transport as well.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Derwan]

But as someone here always says, (is it Derwan?) you don't get lots of people buying bad apples.

Umm... nope.  Not me.   

[Stillwater]

I think TT is the man with the applecart.

I see we are beating ourselves up again about long distance rail travel.

Yes, it is more difficult to provide comprehensive medical services at Alice Springs for the people of Central Australia as it is for people who live in the shadow of the Mater Hospital.  That doesn't mean that AlicthanSprings folk are less deserving of the service.  And, yes, it could be argued that the doctor providing specialist heart treatment at Alice Springs would, in all likelihood, see (and save the lives of) fewer patients.  So, the argument goes, move him to a capital city where he could save more lives.  Sadly, more people in Alice Springs would have to die.

Now, to trains.  The case could be put that someone living at Darra is the fortunate recipient of positive discrimination because they get a bloody good train service at a reasonable price.  Someone travelling from Palmwoods, arguably, gets a poorer service for a larger sum of money.

The government talks up affordable housing.  For some, affordable housing is obtained beyond the city centre.  Imagine the city of Brisbane with the Gold and Sunshine Coasts' populations poured into it!  More than a million extra people.  The train to Albion would be very crowded indeed, even if it came every five minutes!  The Clem 7 would have traffic jams.

All should expect a reasonable service.  FF and co are seeking just that -- a floor under service, frequency and cost, even if many more get a better level of service.  Like the heart patient in Alice Springs, the floor should not be denied SC travellers.

[Jonno]

More benefits from reduce ticket prices

www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/train-fares-cut-to-save-energy.html

Train fares cut to save energy
13 April 2011

SPAIN: Under a national energy-saving plan approved by the cabinet last month, fares on RENFE suburban and medium-distance services are to be cut by 5% to encourage greater use of public transport.

The Ministry of Development expects this to result in 22 million fewer car journeys into major cities over four months.

Along with a package of measures including a reduction in the motorway speed limit from 120 to 110 km/h, the plan aims to save 286 million barrels of oil and €23bn a year, cutting annual CO2 emissions by 125 million tonnes.

Everyone gets it except our Transport Planners and Minister!!!

[dwb]

Thanks to the sate government's large resistance to decentralisation (eg lower job pools in the outer suburbs and towns), you just congested every major arterial into town and at the same time increased unemployment.

What do you mean by "decentralisation"? Do you mean moving existing jobs to outerlying areas or do you mean add a greater varierty of more jobs in lesser centres within the region, or even more work from home?? There are significant differences in the implications and likelihood of each of these happening. The government will not on whole (nor should it) move existing CBD jobs to other centres for several reasons unless the labour required for one office can actually be sourced in that smaller catchment... which often it isn't, producing longer travel for more people. The property council was calling on this strongly recently as a political stunt only to enable their members to expand into ex-gov CBD accommodation, however now that the CBD business accommodation crisis has ended (at least temporarily due to GFC), so has their stunt, they no longer want gov to move out as that would put further downward pressure on their building owners to lower commercial rents (against their member's wishes)! Also, the very reason for centralisation is to enable businesses to both compete and to trade, and believe it or not, government needs to do this too, as such it is often impractical and undesireable to artificially move a gov office someplace that no CEO in his/her right mind would move a business and all those corporate minds who were previously calling on govt to decentralise know it!

He wants no long distance commuters, we should all live close together in high density housing.

Yep sounds good to me.

Arhhhhm for the record I was being (at least mildly) facetious, though I do appreciate Nikko's +1 as I believe he more or less understood what I meant when it seems FF missed the point altogether.

And by the way, for those of you who think Brisbane is "crowded" you've got to be kidding... there were more people living closer in in the 50's!

[Arnz]

dwb, if you want to reduce and/or eliminate the subsidy and/or remove the train service all together for outer suburban and interurban travel, it's your opinion.  However, don't blame the government when every major arterial is choked every day and unemployment increases because a bunch of inner suburban folks complain about outer suburban and interurban folks being subsidised when they have a lesser frequency.

Either provide the jobs further out so to encourage people not to travel far, or else otherwise increase the service (if it means building infrastructure such as CRR or various line duplications/triplications to do it, do so) into the major centre of employment, or if they don't have the money to provide the infrastructure, and many people use the service because they have to (for example, some Sunshine Coast loadings into the city morning peak have standees by Beerwah) then subsidise the service for the restricted frequency.   Not hard to figure that out.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbane mX 13th April 2011 page 2

Jumping on board

[dwb]

dwb, if you want to reduce and/or eliminate the subsidy and/or remove the train service all together for outer suburban and interurban travel, it's your opinion.

Actually I never said that, what I said was that there needed to be a fairer distribution of costs and benefits.

Either provide the jobs further out so to encourage people not to travel far, or else otherwise increase the service (if it means building infrastructure such as CRR or various line duplications/triplications to do it, do so) into the major centre of employment,

I'm an ardent supporter of cross river rail.

...or if they don't have the money to provide the infrastructure, and many people use the service because they have to (for example, some Sunshine Coast loadings into the city morning peak have standees by Beerwah) then subsidise the service for the restricted frequency.   Not hard to figure that out.

Although, perhaps there is a link between wasting all your money on ineffective subsidies to provide a poor level of service, and the fact that there is no money left over to provide improved infrastructure to improve the level of service as well as its profitability?