Article : Sleeping on rail concern

[somebody]

I don't have a problem with the cheaper fares per distance unit the longer the journey is, which is essentially how the present fare structure is predicated. 

I can go along with that, but not to the present degree.

[BrizCommuter]

The inner city gets excellent frequency and service.

Is that sarcasm?

Try getting from Central to Wilston on a Sunday morning.

Or Dorrington to The Prince Charles Hospital on a Saturday.

Or anytime on the Doomben Line!

[ButFli]

What's not factored into the discussion so far is the greater options that inner-city travellers have by way of frequency of services and spread of services across the day.  This is a so-called 'hidden subsidy' to inner-city dwellers.  To compare like with like, assume there are 20 return services a day from Nambour; therefore, the comparision should be on the basis that a commuter at Toowong or Albion also receives 20 return services a day.

This doesn't need to be factored in because it can be dismissed easily. When I say the 199 is profitable I don't mean select services are profitable. I mean the total farebox revenue for a year is more than the cost of running every single 199 service 5:00AM to 11:30PM, 7 days a week for an entire year. There is no hidden subsidy there. You can QQ all you want about increased services but the fact is those extra services are paid for by 199 passengers.

To be sure, if the 199 was being run as a business it could be made more profitable by cutting out late-night and early-morning services that run with very few passengers. In that respect, ratepayers are "subsidising" the 199 by foregoing some profit. But if we're going down that road then the 199 will be one of the few routes with any service at all.

[#Metro]

Is that sarcasm?

Try getting from Central to Wilston on a Sunday morning.

Or Dorrington to The Prince Charles Hospital on a Saturday.

Or anytime on the Doomben Line!

Yes but your few counterexamples are not strong enough to disprove that the inner city areas don't have better service than the outer areas. Does it not? Or are you saying that Cultural Centre bus frequency is the same as that to Gympie North? Clearly not...

The inability to make cross-town trips such as Dorrington-PCH, which is something dead easy to do in a car reflects the lower frequency of service on the GCL and generally poor interchange with other buses and modes.

[BrizCommuter]

Is that sarcasm?

Try getting from Central to Wilston on a Sunday morning.

Or Dorrington to The Prince Charles Hospital on a Saturday.

Or anytime on the Doomben Line!

Yes but your few counterexamples are not strong enough to disprove that the inner city areas don't have better service than the outer areas. Does it not? Or are you saying that Cultural Centre bus frequency is the same as that to Gympie North? Clearly not...

The inability to make cross-town trips such as Dorrington-PCH, which is something dead easy to do in a car reflects the lower frequency of service on the GCL and generally poor interchange with other buses and modes.

Inner-city commuters really have a raw deal in Brisbane, poor frequencies compared to international and even national standards, and some of the highest public transport fares in the world.

As my blog has shown, long distance commuters in SE Queensland don't have it quite as bad as they suggest.  It is a fact of life that if you choose to live in a small town such as Nambour, more than 100km from your place of work, that you will have lower frequencies, a longer journey time, and higher fares.

[#Metro]

And I think you would be right Brizcommuter.

I think services should meet a basic standard though, and the arguments you have raised are valid, they can't be used as license to excuse the single track and not buiding CAMCOs stub to Caloundra.

However, that said, we must ask what makes a person travel 100 km to go to work? Now if they are a regular commuter, then my answer can only be that they must have a high paying job in the Brisbane CBD or study at the universities in Brisbane.  You are not going to travel 100km just to start work in a low paying fast food restaurant job for example.

So in a sense, and I am going to say something not entirely effusive here, they can afford to pay. Getting a place in Darra or Inala or even Mooroka, Rocklea etc maybe not the nicest of places, is rather affordable. There are places that are $300 per week for 2 bedroom units there.

So I would not change the fares. I would offer better frequency and a faster trip by fixing up the infrastructure so that people would be willing to pay more due to higher quality. But we have got to think here. Paying a train driver to drive an hour or more out to places 100km away takes a lot of time and therefore costs more. Extending track @ $100 million dollars PER KILOMETRE to very far places is also expensive.

So I think it is fair that they pay more.

[Arnz]

There have been some arguments here along the lines of this: that if 10 students can cram into a suburban house and share rent, the rent is reasonable; therefore it is affordable for someone from the coast to live cheek by jowl in inner-suburban Brisbane, presunably two to a bed.

Why not stop there?  All GST collected within a state should be returned to that state.  The cost of sending a letter in the inner-city should be reduced to 10 cents, and the cost of sending a letter to Alice Springs should be $5, because that better reflects the cost structure.  If you break a leg in the inner-city and only have to be conveyed to the Royal Brisbane or the Mater, then the ambulance cost charged to you should be $200, but if you are a stockman who breaks a leg in a remote location, his trip in the Flying Doctor aircraft should result in a bill of $10,000.

A litre of Hepburn Springs natural water should cost $1 if sold within 10 km of the source, $2 if within 1 to 5 km and $100 in Bundaberg.  Close public schools, because they involve a subsidy, send every child to a private school.

Got to eliminate those subsidies.

Could probably apply similarly to "hospitals" in regards to "schools".  Or "Charge" more if you live beyond the "BCC" boundaries.   What about applying costs to the "local" business (such as the local convenience store).

Inner-city commuters really have a raw deal in Brisbane, poor frequencies compared to international and even national standards, and some of the highest public transport fares in the world.

As my blog has shown, long distance commuters in SE Queensland don't have it quite as bad as they suggest.  It is a fact of life that if you choose to live in a small town such as Nambour, more than 100km from your place of work, that you will have lower frequencies, a longer journey time, and higher fares.  

Inner City short trip commuters gets a bus every 5 minutes within the City.  Fortitude Valley to suburbs in the West End for example.  I'll concede on cross town travel (e.g. Doomben to where-ever) not being up to standard.

As for further away, you forgot to take into consideration that not all passengers are from the terminus for that matter, and therefore pays extra costs on top of the train fare.  (Such as the fuel to the station, or the fare from anywhere on both coasts to the train stations).  

Varsity Lake and Robina for example have more Park & Ride commuters from the GC than O&D Commuters.  Same for Landsborough & Nambour which has more Park & Ride from the SC than O&D passengers.  The catchment of longer distance rail isn't involved at the terminus only.

[O_128]

BCC should have at the max 2 zones after that let the usual zonal system continues. It annoys me that on a Sunday someone who gets a train to ipswich gets a better service frequency when I live 4km from the city near a major arterial, though its a fact of life that we have to subsidies the people further away it shouldn't be done at the expense of people doing the smart thing and living closer to there work to be lugged with a max $4.60 fare for 1 zone.

I also agree that zone 1-1 should be free but only if the current zonal system was kept.

No way on the 2 zones.  There'd be too many inequities in that.

Not sure where you could live within 4km of the CBD to have a worse frequency than the Ipswich line.

It ain't hard.  We're giving out suggestions on how to reduce the costs of inner commuters subsidising the longer (Outer/Coast) commuters

Still a straw man argument.  Set up a straw man, then knock it down.

Norman park on wynnum road on a sunday has a 40min frequency and bulimba which is in the 5km boundary has a bus every 90 min. 

[Arnz]

BCC should have at the max 2 zones after that let the usual zonal system continues. It annoys me that on a Sunday someone who gets a train to ipswich gets a better service frequency when I live 4km from the city near a major arterial, though its a fact of life that we have to subsidies the people further away it shouldn't be done at the expense of people doing the smart thing and living closer to there work to be lugged with a max $4.60 fare for 1 zone.

I also agree that zone 1-1 should be free but only if the current zonal system was kept.

No way on the 2 zones.  There'd be too many inequities in that.

Not sure where you could live within 4km of the CBD to have a worse frequency than the Ipswich line.

It ain't hard.  We're giving out suggestions on how to reduce the costs of inner commuters subsidising the longer (Outer/Coast) commuters

Still a straw man argument.  Set up a straw man, then knock it down.

Norman park on wynnum road on a sunday has a 40min frequency and bulimba which is in the 5km boundary has a bus every 90 min. 

Just did a timetable check on a Sunday for both areas.  Norman Park has a 30 min frequency on Sundays.  Bulimba on the other hand has the cross river ferry (not Citycat) every 15 minutes with connections to the frequent Cityglider.

[somebody]

To be sure, if the 199 was being run as a business it could be made more profitable by cutting out late-night and early-morning services that run with very few passengers. In that respect, ratepayers are "subsidising" the 199 by foregoing some profit. But if we're going down that road then the 199 will be one of the few routes with any service at all.

That would be a bad business decision.  The 199 needs those "loss making" services to increase confidence in the service and therefore patronage at other times.  How many people are going to look up a timetable to see when the 15 minute frequency stops and think that they can use the bus at those times?  Most likely, if the frequency dropped below 15 minutes before 11pm, people would just use a car even at times when the frequency is 15 minutes.

What would be different with private ownership is that the peak service would be increased.  It would be no guarantee of competence though.

Inner City short trip commuters gets a bus every 5 minutes within the City.  Fortitude Valley to suburbs in the West End for example.  I'll concede on cross town travel (e.g. Doomben to where-ever) not being up to standard.

Hasn't this argument already been rebutted?

Specifically for your example.  Ann St on Sunday has:
10:49am Glider
10:51am 199
10:57am 196
11:04am Glider
11:06am 199
11:19am Glider
11:21am 199
11:27am 196

So you still have 13 minute gaps.  Heading in the opposite direction it is far worse as you cannot wait for the Glider and the 199 at the same time.

Norman park on wynnum road on a sunday has a 40min frequency and bulimba which is in the 5km boundary has a bus every 90 min. 

I had no idea that the 230/235 were that bad!  There you go.

Just did a timetable check on a Sunday for both areas.  Norman Park has a 30 min frequency on Sundays.  Bulimba on the other hand has the cross river ferry (not Citycat) every 15 minutes with connections to the frequent Cityglider.

Try walking from Thynne Rd to the Bulimba Ferry wharf and get back to me.

[Arnz]

Specifically for your example.  Ann St on Sunday has:
10:49am Glider
10:51am 199
10:57am 196
11:04am Glider
11:06am 199
11:19am Glider
11:21am 199
11:27am 196

Did a Sunday search, A search after 7am came up at 7:08, 7:11, 7:18, 7:26, 7:33, 7:41, 7:48, 7:56 (199 and Glider alone).  Okay, so that's a 8 min gap for West End suburbs.  Now throw in the other buses if you're only going to the Cultural Centre,  Bus every 3-5 minutes.

Try walking from Thynne Rd to the Bulimba Ferry wharf and get back to me.

Says walk 1km.  Everybody (myself included) could do with the walk.

[somebody]

Actually, you cannot wait for the CityGlider and the 199 at the same time.  The Glider uses the island stop (216), while the 199 serves stop 210 on the other side of both Ann St and Gipps St.

Same problem in the other direction.

[Arnz]

Actually, you cannot wait for the CityGlider and the 199 at the same time.  The Glider uses the island stop (216), while the 199 serves stop 210 on the other side of both Ann St and Gipps St.

Same problem in the other direction.

So you have to cross the street?  Regardless, it's still in the same location, and should technically count.

It's similar to what Nundah/Toombul/Northgate off-peak passengers will be facing as of June 6.  15 min frequencies spread across different platforms (sectorisation).

[somebody]

Actually, you cannot wait for the CityGlider and the 199 at the same time.  The Glider uses the island stop (216), while the 199 serves stop 210 on the other side of both Ann St and Gipps St.

Same problem in the other direction.

So you have to cross the street?  Regardless, it's still in the same location.

 It's similar to what Nundah/Toombul/Northgate off-peak passengers will be facing as of June 6.  15 min frequencies spread across different platforms (sectorisation).

It is very unlikely that you would be able to get across the street in time.  Ann St is bad enough, but Gipps St is a major access to/from the Storey Bridge.  Not really similar to Toombul, as you may as well ignore the trains on the suburbans in peak there.  But even if you weren't, waiting on the concourse you should see the train coming.  Nundah is a bit more problematic as you have a subway, but at least you can cross the platforms without needing to run across two busy roads against the traffic lights.  I see it as not an option, although you can gamble on the timetable being accurate.

Even off peak, as you were referring to, presumably there would be PIDs which will tell you which platform you need to go to.  Where is the equivalent at Fortitude Valley?

[achiruel]

Try walking from Thynne Rd to the Bulimba Ferry wharf and get back to me.

Says walk 1km.  Everybody (myself included) could do with the walk.

I don't know where you got that information from, I've actually walked that distance numerous times as I used to work near Thynne Rd and it is far more than 1km.

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Lytton+Rd&daddr=Oxford+St&hl=en&geocode=FZISXf4dYrYfCQ%3BFeAjXf4d_mUfCQ&mra=ltm&dirflg=w&sll=-27.453789,153.061738&sspn=0.018584,0.027595&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.452342,153.06294&spn=0.018584,0.027595&z=15

Says 2.4km

And yes the 230/235 Sunday frequency is atrocious, I know because I used to work on public holidays sometimes and I couldn't get the 235 to work before 9am and I started work at 7, so I had to take a train to Morningside and walk.

[Arnz]

Try walking from Thynne Rd to the Bulimba Ferry wharf and get back to me.

Says walk 1km.  Everybody (myself included) could do with the walk.

I don't know where you got that information from, I've actually walked that distance numerous times as I used to work near Thynne Rd and it is far more than 1km.

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Lytton+Rd&daddr=Oxford+St&hl=en&geocode=FZISXf4dYrYfCQ%3BFeAjXf4d_mUfCQ&mra=ltm&dirflg=w&sll=-27.453789,153.061738&sspn=0.018584,0.027595&ie=UTF8&ll=-27.452342,153.06294&spn=0.018584,0.027595&z=15

Says 2.4km

And yes the 230/235 Sunday frequency is atrocious, I know because I used to work on public holidays sometimes and I couldn't get the 235 to work before 9am and I started work at 7, so I had to take a train to Morningside and walk.

I stand corrected then, I've used the TL planner, and I had the km walking threshold set to 2km.

I don't know about Google, but as Google said themselves it doesn't take the side paths or shortcuts through the back of the residential areas into consideration.  Assuming there are a few of the shortcuts around, it should knock the distance walked down considerably.

[achiruel]

I stand corrected then, I've used the TL planner, and I had the km walking threshold set to 2km.

I don't know about Google, but as Google said themselves it doesn't take the side paths or shortcuts through the back of the residential areas into consideration.  Assuming there are a few of the shortcuts around, it should knock the distance walked down considerably.

Odd, TL JP is giving me 2440m

[justanotheruser]

However you get a much better service with far more options. Why shouldn't you pay for that if you want a user pays system? What your really saying is you want people further out to subsidise your trips. If you receive more services then obviously that costs more so you should pay for that.

We do pay for the services. The 199 (arguably the best service in Brisbane) runs at a profit. I don't want anyone subsidising my fare. I don't want anyone subsidising any fares. In a user pays system, my fare would be reduced. As it is now, a significant portion of my fare goes to subsidising the fares of outer-suburb dwellers.

it is a lifestyle choice. So now your arguing that people shouldn't have to pay for their lifestyle choices. Interesting.

I think everyone should have to pay for their lifestyle choices. What I am saying is that if I am forced to pay for the lifestyle choices of people living on the Gold and Sunshine Coasts, Ipswich etc then it is only fair and logical that they have to pay for mine. As it is now, you are prepared to take the savings of living in the outer suburbs while expecting everyone else to cover your additional costs.

Firstly I take the savings for one simple reason. We simply can't afford to live closer. So once again if your prepared to help pay the rent I'll move closer. Of course I'll still have the same problem as I have two jobs that are around 20 suburbs apart. Sure one could suggest that I could quit one and look for a replacement closer to home.  However with the number of people who lost their jobs due to the floods looking for work jobs aren't that easy to find  locally.

Secondly please explain how you are subsidising my fairs when I travel from ipswich to my 2nd job (a 1 zone trip) and how you are subsidising the fares of people who make 1 or 2 zone trips to get to the shops in ipswich.

Thirdly if you want no subsidies you will be paying more as all fares are subsidised. Remember the reasoning given for increasing fares? To reduce the subsidy from 75% to 70% (that it has had the opposite effect is not relevent).  So with no subsidy you will be paying way more. Also if fares were not subsidised then you might find numerous BT runs being canceleed causing people who use it to drive and clog up the road system. Not to mention that with the much higher fares driving will be a better option anyway. West end is a bit of a unique situation because of the type of community in that area. There are a significant amount of people into alternative options and would not consider a car to begin with.

What it comes down to at the end of the day is that your wanting to make an issue clear cut when it is not so straightforward.

[justanotheruser]

One way to make it even is to have a zone system for trains and another zone system for busses. Only problem is that this is now a disadvantage to passengers that catch busses along a similar route that would do the same distance. Although this could then improve bus services to then interchange with train stations and also make trains look more desirable for passerngers.

ther ealready is different zone boundaries for buses and trains or are you meaning something different.
Example Zone 1 on BCC bus from ann st will only get you to roma st. If you go onto milton rd you are in zone 2. However on the train toowong in the end of zone 1.

[somebody]

What it comes down to at the end of the day is that your wanting to make an issue clear cut when it is not so straightforward.

I say it is clear cut that the current system is wrong.  It is not clear cut what the correct system would be.

[justanotheruser]

The inner city gets excellent frequency and service.

Is that sarcasm?

Try getting from Central to Wilston on a Sunday morning.

Or Dorrington to The Prince Charles Hospital on a Saturday.

Or anytime on the Doomben Line!

dorrington to prince charles hospital (which is not inner city to be honest) hs three services in the hour according to journey planner compared to two services from ipswich while say landsborough to central station doesn't even have a one per hour frequency.

Central to wilston also has three services per hour.

Also consider weekday services. if you are at toowong shops how many services per hour are there to get into the city in the middle of the day say the hour of 12? four trains plus how many buses?

[justanotheruser]

Now assuming ten trips/week in peak there is a ticket price difference of $26-40 on the go card.

Are you now attempting to argue that the amounts of the subsidy aren't much because the ticket price isn't very much different???

If so, I say your argument is wrong and you presumably know it.

Exactly where does the money spent on the Coast commuters' subsidy get spent for a New Farm resident?  New Farm lifestyle is more sustainable than living on the Coast.  I would have thought that would be an axiom.

Whats wrong with using the 109 to Park Rd? Or do you just mean that is Roma St starters were extended via Clapham stabling that there would be no benefit from using a 109 over a 209/139/169?

What's wrong with it is that you are using a bus, which is less efficient form of transport along a train line.  It is the same problem with providing such incentive to use buses Roma St-Taringa as is done at present.

As long as i don't get taxed for living along way from one of my jobs.

I think we all knew this was where you are really coming from.

Why shouldn't you pay for that if you want a user pays system?

What part of "The 199 is profitable" do you not understand?

What your really saying is you want people further out to subsidise your trips.

Incorrect.

So now your arguing that people shouldn't have to pay for their lifestyle choices. Interesting.

Again incorrect.

User pays sounds great in principle but in reality it is not what Australia is grounded on. We have a government that acts for us all to provide an environment where there is overall support for its citizens.

Arguments that I am subsidising  x rail commuter because I am a regular user of y bus service can be expanded thus.  Why should I subsidise university students (HECS is nothing like the real cost)?  Why should I subsidise the neighbours coronary bypass surgery?  Why should I subsidise the other neighbours child care?  Heck why should Sally receive a baby bonus?  And it goes on ...

Fare structures reflect the socio-economic reality of our society. 

I am happy to pay tax and costs that are balanced overall and give in general terms balance and opportunity for all.  That's life really ...

Australia has gone well too far down that path.  It is also far too complicated.  But I wouldn't like to see the savage cuts which apply in NZ and the US.  Perhaps there will be cuts in the budget next week.

Rail systems in NSW and Victoria are well developed for that. 

God forbid that we should have a service like CityRail beyond Berowra, Emu Plains, Macarthur or Waterfall.  All those lines are positively awful.

Did you deliberately ignore part of my post because it is not convienient? I live in the same zone as one of my jobs but well away from the other job. So if as you suggest I move closer to my other job then I will simply be moving further away from the other one. So if the criteria is that you live close to your job to avoid the tax then yes I do live close to my job so therefore I avoid it. the suggestion of taxing those who travel further assumes people have one job only.

Wow big whoop the 199 is profitable!!!! So what??? Care to name all those really short bus services in brisbane that aren't profitable? No for the sake of your argument you choose to ignore that.

yes you are saying you want people further out to subsidise your trips if the suggestion is to put a tax on those who travel further. What else would that be? If your suggestion was to have the same distance per km cost (after including a flagfall for infrastructure costs) then that would be different but that was not what was said. So you are asking for a subsidy in the form of a tax.

You also only quoted one part where I pointed out the difference in prices of tickets for ten trips a week. talk about quoting with misleading intentions. That was part of a larger section countering the argument that living in the city in new farm costs the same as living further out at ipswich. I provided weekly rental prices and transport costs to prove it is not the same cost. remove the small bit you quoted from that context and of course you miss the point.

[somebody]

I live in the same zone as one of my jobs but well away from the other job. So if as you suggest I move closer to my other job then I will simply be moving further away from the other one.

I never suggested that you move.  Just that you pay a more worthy portion of your own lifestyle choices regarding PT.  Alternatively, others can pay a similar portion of their lifestyle choices regarding PT.

So if the criteria is that you live close to your job to avoid the tax then yes I do live close to my job so therefore I avoid it. the suggestion of taxing those who travel further assumes people have one job only.

Again, I never suggested that you move.

Wow big whoop the 199 is profitable!!!! So what??? Care to name all those really short bus services in brisbane that aren't profitable? No for the sake of your argument you choose to ignore that.

I could name them but I don't see the relevance.

yes you are saying you want people further out to subsidise your trips if the suggestion is to put a tax on those who travel further. What else would that be? If your suggestion was to have the same distance per km cost (after including a flagfall for infrastructure costs) then that would be different but that was not what was said. So you are asking for a subsidy in the form of a tax.

Where did I say that?  In fact, I could allow a slightly different per-km cost for long trips.  The current system is that there is a massively different per-km cost.

Try getting from Central to Wilston on a Sunday morning.

Central to wilston also has three services per hour.

Searching in the journey planner shows an hourly train, with a bizarre interchange option from the 345 leaving at 7:37am and a different one 8:52am.  The first serious bus option starts at 8:48am.

[O_128]

One way to make it even is to have a zone system for trains and another zone system for busses. Only problem is that this is now a disadvantage to passengers that catch busses along a similar route that would do the same distance. Although this could then improve bus services to then interchange with train stations and also make trains look more desirable for passerngers.

ther ealready is different zone boundaries for buses and trains or are you meaning something different.
Example Zone 1 on BCC bus from ann st will only get you to roma st. If you go onto milton rd you are in zone 2. However on the train toowong in the end of zone 1.

If we are going to have a serious talk about subsidies we need to start at the core. Simply put zone 1 is waaaay to small. Everyone keeps saying that the bulk of growth over the next few decades will occur in the 5km circle around the city due to the densification. So this entire area should be classified as zone 1. from there the zone can change every 5km. In this scenario public transport would most likely grow in the centre without even adding a congestion charge which can then be used to subsidize the people who for whatever reason live further away.

my major annoyance are people who seem to expect 15 min all day frequencies out at nambour and etc. In europe and particularly london these areas have a 30 min all day service with some peak hour extras.

[Gazza]

User pays sounds great in principle but in reality it is not what Australia is grounded on. We have a government that acts for us all to provide an environment where there is overall support for its citizens.

Arguments that I am subsidising  x rail commuter because I am a regular user of y bus service can be expanded thus.  Why should I subsidise university students (HECS is nothing like the real cost)?  Why should I subsidise the neighbours coronary bypass surgery?  Why should I subsidise the other neighbours child care?  Heck why should Sally receive a baby bonus?  And it goes on ...

Fare structures reflect the socio-economic reality of our society. 

I am happy to pay tax and costs that are balanced overall and give in general terms balance and opportunity for all.  That's life really ...

Europe and Japan also support their citizens just the way Australia does, except when it comes to transport they are more rational and price it properly.

[justanotheruser]

I live in the same zone as one of my jobs but well away from the other job. So if as you suggest I move closer to my other job then I will simply be moving further away from the other one.

I never suggested that you move.  Just that you pay a more worthy portion of your own lifestyle choices regarding PT.  Alternatively, others can pay a similar portion of their lifestyle choices regarding PT.

So if the criteria is that you live close to your job to avoid the tax then yes I do live close to my job so therefore I avoid it. the suggestion of taxing those who travel further assumes people have one job only.

Again, I never suggested that you move.

Wow big whoop the 199 is profitable!!!! So what??? Care to name all those really short bus services in brisbane that aren't profitable? No for the sake of your argument you choose to ignore that.

I could name them but I don't see the relevance.

yes you are saying you want people further out to subsidise your trips if the suggestion is to put a tax on those who travel further. What else would that be? If your suggestion was to have the same distance per km cost (after including a flagfall for infrastructure costs) then that would be different but that was not what was said. So you are asking for a subsidy in the form of a tax.

Where did I say that?  In fact, I could allow a slightly different per-km cost for long trips.  The current system is that there is a massively different per-km cost.

Try getting from Central to Wilston on a Sunday morning.

Central to wilston also has three services per hour.

Searching in the journey planner shows an hourly train, with a bizarre interchange option from the 345 leaving at 7:37am and a different one 8:52am.  The first serious bus option starts at 8:48am.

The relevance of other bus routes that aren't making money is that you kept on looking at one bus run as justification for your argument while ignoring all the others which don't pay their own way.

Happy to concede not much of a service that early in the morning for central to wilston.  However the demand would be extremely small and more frequent services aren't likely to make a difference. That is why I chose a later time where it is more likely to have higher patronage.  lets look at weekday shall we. Off-peak you have 5 services per hour compared to one service per hour for buses in raceview. Or take morning peak there are from 7:35-8:35am seven services. Once again compare that to raceview where there are two services.  Of course we could take your time of day on sunday morning and ask for a raceview to ipswich service and find the first service is at 9:01am (put in departure time of 7:30am).  Or go in the reverse direction ipswich to raceview. Get a train at 8:11 to booval and wait 44mins and get a bus. So yeah first thing sunday morning it may be crappy but that is still better than non-existant!

Also once again you assume I have made a lifestyle choice. Well I suppose in a way I have in that I choose for my family not to be homeless. As I said previously where we live reflects what we can afford. Sorry to all those who love ipswich but it doesn't rank anywhere near the top of where I would live if I could choose. I would rather toowong where I could easily referee, ride my bike to work or go for social rides and be closer to many good friends who live in the toowong/indro area.

My apologies for saying you told me to move closer to work. I was working on several replies at once and have had an very stressfull day. I only came on here as another form of distraction to occupy my mind. It is a bit frustrating for me as people seem to be assuming we make no short distance trips when they live further away from the city so just like those we are subsidising longer trips as well. Then to see the suggestion from others that zone 1 travel be free makes it worse (note zone 1 is what was said not 1 zone travel). If that was the case then what about those who move closer to work are being penalised by having to pay for the short trip while others making the short trip get a free ride.  


Several others have said that it is the obvious and logical decision so I guess according to them we aren't logical!

[ButFli]

Firstly I take the savings for one simple reason. We simply can't afford to live closer. So once again if your prepared to help pay the rent I'll move closer. Of course I'll still have the same problem as I have two jobs that are around 20 suburbs apart. Sure one could suggest that I could quit one and look for a replacement closer to home.  However with the number of people who lost their jobs due to the floods looking for work jobs aren't that easy to find  locally.

I repeat my question. Why do you accept the savings on housing costs of living in the outer suburbs but expect taxpayers and other commuters to cover the increased transport costs that result?

Secondly please explain how you are subsidising my fairs when I travel from ipswich to my 2nd job (a 1 zone trip) and how you are subsidising the fares of people who make 1 or 2 zone trips to get to the shops in ipswich.

Are these one and two zone trips on bus routes that are making a profit? If the answer is no (and I know that it is) the shortfall must be coming from somewhere. Some of it is coming from the profit the 199 makes, the rest of it is coming from taxes. I buy tickets for the 199 and I pay taxes. Therefore, I am subsidising your trips.

Thirdly if you want no subsidies you will be paying more as all fares are subsidised. Remember the reasoning given for increasing fares? To reduce the subsidy from 75% to 70% (that it has had the opposite effect is not relevent).  So with no subsidy you will be paying way more.

The 70-75% covers the system as a whole and is not indicative of the subsidy for each individual trip. If subsidies are cut then I want tickets priced at a level that covers the cost of the trip. Given that the fares I currently pay to travel on the 199 are higher than the cost of providing the trip, instituting a no-subsidy user-pays system would mean the cost of my ticket is reduced.

Obviously I don't really want such a system and I am happy to see a reasonable subsidy applied to public transport. What I am argueing against is the notion that the outer-suburbs and coasts are not getting their fair share of public transport, when this is clearly not the case. If you want public transport that is as good as the inner city (which still isn't that good) then be prepared to cover its cost through increased ticket prices. YOUR increased ticket prices, not mine.

[justanotheruser]

Firstly I take the savings for one simple reason. We simply can't afford to live closer. So once again if your prepared to help pay the rent I'll move closer. Of course I'll still have the same problem as I have two jobs that are around 20 suburbs apart. Sure one could suggest that I could quit one and look for a replacement closer to home.  However with the number of people who lost their jobs due to the floods looking for work jobs aren't that easy to find  locally.

I repeat my question. Why do you accept the savings on housing costs of living in the outer suburbs but expect taxpayers and other commuters to cover the increased transport costs that result?

Secondly please explain how you are subsidising my fairs when I travel from ipswich to my 2nd job (a 1 zone trip) and how you are subsidising the fares of people who make 1 or 2 zone trips to get to the shops in ipswich.

Are these one and two zone trips on bus routes that are making a profit? If the answer is no (and I know that it is) the shortfall must be coming from somewhere. Some of it is coming from the profit the 199 makes, the rest of it is coming from taxes. I buy tickets for the 199 and I pay taxes. Therefore, I am subsidising your trips.

Thirdly if you want no subsidies you will be paying more as all fares are subsidised. Remember the reasoning given for increasing fares? To reduce the subsidy from 75% to 70% (that it has had the opposite effect is not relevent).  So with no subsidy you will be paying way more.

The 70-75% covers the system as a whole and is not indicative of the subsidy for each individual trip. If subsidies are cut then I want tickets priced at a level that covers the cost of the trip. Given that the fares I currently pay to travel on the 199 are higher than the cost of providing the trip, instituting a no-subsidy user-pays system would mean the cost of my ticket is reduced.

Obviously I don't really want such a system and I am happy to see a reasonable subsidy applied to public transport. What I am argueing against is the notion that the outer-suburbs and coasts are not getting their fair share of public transport, when this is clearly not the case. If you want public transport that is as good as the inner city (which still isn't that good) then be prepared to cover its cost through increased ticket prices. YOUR increased ticket prices, not mine.

Ok fine you are subsidising the buses at ipswich. Are you also subsidising the buses at logan? Nope. Are you subsidising say the 470? nope. You can't subsidise every bus run. Heck I could argue you aren't subsdising my bus because you are subsidising other bus runs out here or at logan so therefore you are not subsdising me at all. See the problem with focusing on just one bus route? Realistically if prices charged were on a user pays system then you would still pay more because the zones system would still be in place. They would not do it on a run by run basis. I could also argue that you aren't subsidising me because I subsidise myself with four short trips per week and four longer trips per week (more shorter trips if I can't carry the shopping home). So if you want to get down to that individual level fine but you will need a different argument other than why should you subsdise me as I've just shown it doesn't apply.

And sorry I can't agree the services in inner city aren't that good as a general rule.
In the hour of 10am on a weekday the following suburbs have the following number of services
Ipswich    2
Toowong  11
New farm  12
Paddington  9
Enoggera  7
Ashgrove  9
Fairfield   7

I have not argued that we should get the same frequency with buses (trains a different case as they cover much greater distances). What I have argued is that you are getting a much better service and you are paying for that yet you want to pay the same as those with a much lesser service.


Once again you ask why I accept the savings of housing costs. it is for the reasons i have already stated. It is what we can afford. I'm lucky that my boss has allowed me to delay buying new work pants and wear jeans instead because I simply don't have the money to buy new pants. imagine if I was paying rent at toowong or west end or new farm. I have already shown the prices for three bedroom units in two of those locations (searching for west end brings up west end townsville as well so didn't do that). So if I was trying to live there then my family would either be homeless or starve to death. You keep assuming every single person who uses PT can afford those prices. Sorry that ain't true.

[ozbob]

User pays sounds great in principle but in reality it is not what Australia is grounded on. We have a government that acts for us all to provide an environment where there is overall support for its citizens.

Arguments that I am subsidising  x rail commuter because I am a regular user of y bus service can be expanded thus.  Why should I subsidise university students (HECS is nothing like the real cost)?  Why should I subsidise the neighbours coronary bypass surgery?  Why should I subsidise the other neighbours child care?  Heck why should Sally receive a baby bonus?  And it goes on ...

Fare structures reflect the socio-economic reality of our society.  

I am happy to pay tax and costs that are balanced overall and give in general terms balance and opportunity for all.  That's life really ...

Europe and Japan also support their citizens just the way Australia does, except when it comes to transport they are more rational and price it properly.

Gazza, thanks for your comments.  

It may well be in a direct comparison that transport in Europe and Japan for public transport for longer haul routes appears more expensive than Australia.  The fact is though we are not in Europe or Japan. Compare the cost of long haul commuting to Victoria or NSW, that is a more valid comparison IMHO.  The cost of other transport modes in Europe and Japan is also >> higher than car truck transport in Oz for example. It is  very much a balance.  If the cost of long haul public transport became >> expensive than car transport then most move to car transport. All economies settle on various charges and costs that tend to balance out overall. For example housing in the jurisdictions you mention may well be cheaper overall, there are other things which may well be cheaper than Australia. Australia is noted for having some of the dearest housing prices (and by inference rents) in the world on average. Simply suggesting that we need to over price long haul public transport because that is what it is Europe or Japan or wherever is not really taking into account the broader issues.  As the costs increase for road transport it is logical to expect public transport costs to rise commensurately.

Now, I am not saying fair fares should not be in place for fair services.  What we have seen though with the long haul commute though through the loss of seasonal ticketing are very significant increases in the order of several hundreds of percents.  Now that is probably too much, too quickly IMHO.  A  reintroduction of some form of periodical ticketing to mitigate those extreme increases is no doubt on the cards, particularly in view of the current political environment.  Policy is formed to a large part from the constant feedback political representatives receive.  It is tempered by bureaucratic advice and judgement in the public interest, but as we all well know can be subverted with obvious 'pork barrels' and the like, which sadly are part of the Australian political process.  In time, I am hopeful that we will see less 'pork barrels' and better long term decisions in the nations best interest.

[somebody]

Following on from what ozbob said, Petrol tax in Australia is apparently 38.1c/L, in Europe/UK it is more like $1.50/L or more.  You pay in excess of $2/L I think everywhere in Europe.  Perhaps this has changed a little with the high $A, but you get the idea.

So, as Gazza has pointed out, Transport is not as severely subsidised in Europe as it is in Australia.

[somebody]

In the hour of 10am on a weekday the following suburbs have the following number of services
Toowong  11

Don't know who told you that, but it should be 32:
20 buses via Indro
4 trains
4 412s
3 411s
1 417
Not sure if you'd count 2 470s

[justanotheruser]

In the hour of 10am on a weekday the following suburbs have the following number of services
Toowong  11

Don't know who told you that, but it should be 32:
20 buses via Indro
4 trains
4 412s
3 411s
1 417
Not sure if you'd count 2 470s

It did seem a bit low but I was just going by what the journey planner said and counted the number of services available in the hour of 10. While it may not have been accurate or perhaps we entered slightly different destinations. Thanks for strengthening my argument though! I would count the 470s as they do meet the criteria. I used to catch them to work for a little while untill I got a bike.

[Zoiks]

From	To	Distance (KM)	Zones	Cost	Cost Per KM	Cost Per Zone
Nambour	Roma Street	104.8	17	$12.19	11.6c	71.7c
Caboolture	Roma Street	50.4	8	$6.21	12.3c	77.6c
Petrie	Roma Street	28.5	6	$5.29	18.6c	88.2c
Carseldine	Roma Street	17.6	4	$4.14	23.5c	103.4c
Eagle Junction	Roma Street	7.5	2	$3.11	41.5c	155.5c
Fortitude Valley	Roma Street	2	2	$3.11	155.5c	200c

So Nambour travellers pay on a per km basis
49% campared to people from Carseldine
27% campared to people from Eagle Junction
7% campared to people from Fortitude Valley

Thats a pretty heavy discount.
This is why I laugh at people who are from the outskirts of brisbane onwards who say that their service is too lacking or they pay too muchl. Inner city people are definently paying alot more for their services then the people from the Sunshine/Gold Coasts

[somebody]

Slight correction, Valley-Roma St should be 1 zone ($2.65 peak).  Unless I'm very much mistaken.

[Fares_Fair]

I agree, the inner city zone costs are big.
Do you know why the price is so high for the 2 zones ? (rhetoric question)

I think it is because the 2 zone travel (apparently) makes up the bulk of rail transport travel according to the Government.
It brings in the cash.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Arnz]

People that only travel 1-2 zones in other regions also pay the same price.

A traveller from Surfers to Broadbeach or Maroochydore to Kawana Waters pay the same as inner-city commuters in this case.   1-2 zone traffic is patronised considerably on the trunk routes in other regions.

Should TransLink be broken up into QConnect (outside of BCC boundaries) and TransLink (BCC only) to distribute the prices then (as suggested earlier), with a similar Qconnect/TransLink integrated agreement like Airtrain for those travelling from the outskirts onward into the City on Buses/Train?

You can probably merge the BCC zones into 2 zones if you split TL zones up with QConnect.

[Zoiks]

This is an idea that I have been tinkering with:
35c per km - compounding 1%/km discount to a max of 50%
So costs would be:

Nambour - $18.34
Caboolture - $8.82
Petrie - $7.13
Carseldine - $5.08
Eagle Junction - $2.43
Fortitude Valley - $0.69

It would be much fairer, but you still get significant distance discount but its not in the order of 93% in some cases.
Of course numbers can be played with, but you get the idea
Opinions?

EDIT: You can play with the spreadsheet here - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28343978/NewFareStructure.xls

[#Metro]

I don't really see a reason to touch the fare zones. Most people can afford them, those who cannot get concessions or have the option to move. We all have choices I guess. There are places in Brisbane people can rent for $280-300 per week.

I'd rather focus on fixing up the service frequencies and the infrastructure to enable those services rather than play with fare levels.

[Zoiks]

The point was that people that live further out get VERY good.
Plus, if there was a more balanced system that the people further out paid more, they would recover more revenue and thus provide more services (or one would hope  )

[Fares_Fair]

Looking at the zonal map from this post
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5926.msg55274#new
it is interesting to see the jump between some zone numbers and the 'joint' zones.

I'm trying to find a logic to them ...  :conf

Regards,
Fares_Fair.