Article: Call to revive cheap tickets

[Fares_Fair]

City News
Thursday 19 May, 2011
by Nicole Carrington-Sima


Call to revive cheap tickets

[achiruel]

Yet another reason the ALP is sliding so badly in the polls in Qld, even their Ipswich heartland looks like it might turn blue in 2012.

[Sunbus610]

Media Releases
Labor rejects extra $26m for public transport
Tuesday, 10 May 2011 13:11

QUEENSLAND'S Transport Minister today refused to redirect $26 million Labor plans to give to political parties towards improving public transport by re-introducing monthly, six monthly and 12-month tickets.

Shadow Minister for Transport Scott Emerson said Transport Minister Palaszczuk refused to pledge the money to public transport despite admitting she had been asking the Treasurer for extra funds to assist train, bus and ferry commuters.

"I asked Labor how quickly they could reintroduce monthly, six monthly and 12-month tickets to give cost of living relief to regular public transport users if the $26 million they plan to spend on political parties was re-diverted to transport," Mr Emerson said.

"Instead of pledging the money to public transport, the Minister claimed instead she was delivering a 'world class transport system' in South East Queensland.

"I think if you ask any commuter, they will tell you that our public transport system is  far from world class . 

"It's clear Annastacia Palaszczuk is completely out of touch with public sentiment and her comment that the public transport system is world-class shows how arrogant this Labor Government has become."

The Labor Government is pushing through the Electoral Reform and Accountability Amendment Bill legislation through Parliament which will see a minimum of $26 million of taxpayer funds given to political parties.

Media source:- http://www.scottemerson.com.au/media-releases/

Labor's refusal to this gets the :conf :conf :conf from me!!

[somebody]

I would have the same reaction as Sunbus has displayed above if the un-integrated QR only 6 monthly and 12 monthly passes were re-introduced.

I don't favour increasing the subsidy for Coast commuters either.  I'd rather $26m, if on offer, goes to reducing the flag fall so everyone can benefit.

[Fares_Fair]

That is fair enough, but the long-haul commuters have a case that even the Minister considers worthy of correcting. Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk, is to be commended for that.
Perhaps one could organise their own boycott ... 

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Zoiks]

We dont need 1/3/6/12 monthly tickets.
We need daily and weekly capping.

Lets not get into the argument again about whether the long distance commuters are underpaying

[Fares_Fair]

Hello Zoiks,

I would hope that those can be discussed, and implemented in the new Public Transport Advisory Group.
But the Minister's response has only included 6 and 12 month tickets to date.

IIRC, Ozbob mentioned/hinted in a post here somewhere that these tickets would be considered as part of the go card system.

IMHO, there needs to be a fair way for all commuters to receive a discount for their regular (consistant) travel.
They are the cornerstone of the system and like frequent flyers, should be rewarded for bringing a consistant income to TRANSLink, which in turn assists planning and budgetary purposes.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

Hello Zoiks,

I would hope that those can be discussed, and implemented in the new Public Transport Advisory Group.
But the Minister's response has only included 6 and 12 month tickets to date.

IIRC, Ozbob mentioned/hinted in a post here somewhere that these tickets would be considered as part of the go card system.

IMHO, there needs to be a fair way for all commuters to receive a discount for their regular (consistant) travel.
They are the cornerstone of the system and like frequent flyers, should be rewarded for bringing a consistant income to TRANSLink, which in turn assists planning and budgetary purposes.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

You don't believe the Frequent User Discount already achieves this?

I for one am against moves which result in 9-5 peak time commuters discounts.

[ozbob]

My comments were that we support improved fare enhancements to the go card.  As mentioned before elsewhere the intention is not to have paper periodicals and so forth but to have additional fare options on the go card, and clearly one of the options they are looking at is a form of periodical ticketing (eg. as for myki).  The fact is that there is a tremendous public groundswell for further improvements.  TransLink have always said that there will be further improvements as well.  The article just confirms this in terms of the Minister's comments as well.  The government realises IMHO that sticking absolutely to the present fare structure with increases as planned without some offset is probably political suicide.  There is plenty of scope for improvements.

[Fares_Fair]

Hello Zoiks,

I would hope that those can be discussed, and implemented in the new Public Transport Advisory Group.
But the Minister's response has only included 6 and 12 month tickets to date.

IIRC, Ozbob mentioned/hinted in a post here somewhere that these tickets would be considered as part of the go card system.

IMHO, there needs to be a fair way for all commuters to receive a discount for their regular (consistant) travel.
They are the cornerstone of the system and like frequent flyers, should be rewarded for bringing a consistant income to TRANSLink, which in turn assists planning and budgetary purposes.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

You don't believe the Frequent User Discount already achieves this?

I for one am against moves which result in 9-5 peak time commuters discounts.

May I ask why ?
So you think it should be for the occasional user ??

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[#Metro]

Hmm. I don't know.

I'd rather the cap. There is a difference between price level (what the cost is) and fare structure (how prices are arranged/organised).

The two issues need to be separated from each other.

I would agree with Simon, in the sense that the 9-5 commuter is probably a person who has a well paying professional job in the Brisbane CBD which is why they travel that distance (or they are a Uni Student going to a Brisbane university but they get 50% discount on Adult fare) . I would agree with you however in the sense that bulk-up front tickets should be available because they provide regular patronage for the system. A cap or pre-loaded pass (or both) could do this. We know that Go Card is capable of doing this (See MARTA examples in Atlanta which uses identical system).

What the Sunshine Coast really needs is speed and frequency. The tracks REALLY need to be fixed- people are willing to pay but only if the service is good. At the moment they are being served high priced rotten apples.

[somebody]

I for one am against moves which result in 9-5 peak time commuters discounts.

May I ask why ?
So you think it should be for the occasional user ??

Because the 9-5 commuters are responsible for requiring infrastructure upgrades (like CRR), rolling stock acquisition etc.  Basically on current fare policies off peak commuters subsidise peak hour commuters, and it is a very poor policy IMO.  Even in the bus system I wouldn't be surprised if more than 15-20% of the cost is fixed.

Also, having a higher base fare to maintain the same amount of fare revenue is a deterrent to the occasional user who might be trying PT for the first time or only when there car is being serviced.  These are the people that need to be won over to PT.

What the Sunshine Coast really needs is speed and frequency. The tracks REALLY need to be fixed- people are willing to pay but only if the service is good. At the moment they are being served high priced rotten apples.

Something needs to be done to prevent the whole northern line all stopping to Northgate (except the GYN services).

[Fares_Fair]

I for one am against moves which result in 9-5 peak time commuters discounts.

May I ask why ?
So you think it should be for the occasional user ??

Because the 9-5 commuters are responsible for requiring infrastructure upgrades (like CRR), rolling stock acquisition etc.  Basically on current fare policies off peak commuters subsidise peak hour commuters, and it is a very poor policy IMO.  Even in the bus system I wouldn't be surprised if more than 15-20% of the cost is fixed.

Also, having a higher base fare to maintain the same amount of fare revenue is a deterrent to the occasional user who might be trying PT for the first time or only when there car is being serviced.  These are the people that need to be won over to PT.

What, even with the off-peak fare structure ?
I'm wondering how do you justify that statement when all use the infrastructure ? It's a capital cost.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

There's no point spending money on discounts for peak hour users if they were going to use it anyway....These 9-5 commuters make 10 trips per week basically. If you put the price up, they'd still make those 10 trips. If you put the price down, they'd still make those 10 trips. Discounts are only needed to encourage additional trips.
As far as I'm concerned, people should pay full price for their first 10 trips, because everyone is in the same boat for that one.

People feeling 'entitled' to discounts for this kind of 'normal' usage annoy me....Do you really resent paying for something you use, that is already heavily subsidised anyway. Quit being a tightarse!
Discounting an already subsidised 9-5 commute is "middle class welfare" and a waste of funds that could go towards higher frequency. Higher frequency is better at getting more pax than discounting.

I'm wondering how do you justify that statement when all use the infrastructure ? It's a capital cost.

Not really. If there wasn't a peak hour 'peak' then lines could mostly get away with only one track pair and the fleet would be much smaller, and take the Ipswich line for instance, 4 tracks, but only 2 get used off peak.

[Zoiks]

Infrastructure is built for a couple of hours a day. Its such a waste. We should be REALLY encouraging people to move to off peak hours.

What is the current off peak discount?

[somebody]

What, even with the off-peak fare structure ?
I'm wondering how do you justify that statement when all use the infrastructure ? It's a capital cost.

Yes.  All use the infrastructure, but if it wasn't for peak hour requirements we would probably only need one pair of tracks through the CBD in 2020.  Thanks to peak hour requirements we need 3.  This costs to buy and also maintain.  Then there is rolling stock, which is very expensive also largely only used in peak hour.

The off peak fare structure gives a low discount IMO.  In Sydney it was proposed in 2006 (and as I recall, accepted) to reduce the off peak discount from 40% to 25% (only accessible on return rail tickets however).  Link: http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/files/Transcript%20CityRail%20Fare%20Review%202006%20Public%20Hearing%20-%205%20May%202006.PDF

I suppose Myki & Per don't have an off peak, but I would argue that is a limitation in their fare structure.  V/Line have it though - Intercity to Geelong is $6.70 off peak and $9.50 peak, about a 30% discount.

Is it starting to make sense now?

Infrastructure is built for a couple of hours a day. Its such a waste. We should be REALLY encouraging people to move to off peak hours.

What is the current off peak discount?

15% rising to 20% in Jan 2012 and staying there, if current plans proceed.

[SurfRail]

Yes.  All use the infrastructure, but if it wasn't for peak hour requirements we would probably only need one pair of tracks through the CBD in 2020.  Thanks to peak hour requirements we need 3.  This costs to buy and also maintain.  Then there is rolling stock, which is very expensive also largely only used in peak hour.

But fares don't pay for infrastructure, they don't even pay for half of yearly operational costs.  The money comes from the State budget, from local councils if you are lucky and from Canberra if you are very lucky.  Value capturing can only defray capital costs, not pay for them up front, and fare revenue only becomes relevant to capital costs in any way if you happen to be somebody like the MTR Corporation with 100% or better cost recovery.

The purpose of off-peak fares should be to attract people away from the peak to manage demand, to encourage people to us PT even when the roads don't happen to be congested, and to fulfil a social equity role.

I honestly believe concessions should be scrapped too, with everybody paying a reasonable fare falling somewhere in between.

[#Metro]

How can people move to off peak services when there practically are none?

[Gazza]

But fares don't pay for infrastructure, they don't even pay for half of yearly operational costs.

But infrastructure has operating costs too...More track pairs means more labour hours for maintenance, more station platforms to staff, More trains to fix, clean, replace parts on etc.

[Zoiks]

I honestly believe concessions should be scrapped too, with everybody paying a reasonable fare falling somewhere in between.

I dont agree with this and its not just because I am a student.
Having a concession encourages the old to use public transport instead of driving (dangerous) and gives them more freedom when they do so.

Having a concession encourages the young to use public transport and help cement its use into their habits so they are more likely to use PT options.


@tramtrain, Its a bit of a chicken and the egg scenario. Hopefully we will see what a 15min train service will do to offpeak usage

[mufreight]

But fares don't pay for infrastructure, they don't even pay for half of yearly operational costs.

But infrastructure has operating costs too...More track pairs means more labour hours for maintenance, more station platforms to staff, More trains to fix, clean, replace parts on etc.

The cheaper fares encourage a greater usage thus creating additional revenue by filling seats that would otherwise be empty in the off peaks.
The imposition of additional conditions applying for these cheaper fares ensures that they do not erode the base revenue stream but build patronage that in practice carries through to full fare trips.  
This principal had worked for years and is currently still used for air and coach travel and was used here on rail in times past and still is in use on other rail systems.
More revenue with no increase in the fixed operating costs.

[somebody]

How can people move to off peak services when there practically are none?

Fares are a less important part of the overall picture here.  If there were some off peak services, which there are at least in the bus system, these should be getting concessional fares.  The lack of services isn't a reason to pay full price off peak.  Just the opposite is true.

But fares don't pay for infrastructure, they don't even pay for half of yearly operational costs.  The money comes from the State budget, from local councils if you are lucky and from Canberra if you are very lucky.  Value capturing can only defray capital costs, not pay for them up front, and fare revenue only becomes relevant to capital costs in any way if you happen to be somebody like the MTR Corporation with 100% or better cost recovery.

The purpose of off-peak fares should be to attract people away from the peak to manage demand, to encourage people to us PT even when the roads don't happen to be congested, and to fulfil a social equity role.

I honestly believe concessions should be scrapped too, with everybody paying a reasonable fare falling somewhere in between.

What are you counting as "operational costs" and what as "capital costs".  If you can answer that question, then you must have a better understanding of the accounts than I.  I expect that depreciation on rolling stock comes out of "operational costs" as does maintenance on the perway.  Both of which are largely the fault of the peak hour commuters.

[SurfRail]

What are you counting as "operational costs" and what as "capital costs".  If you can answer that question, then you must have a better understanding of the accounts than I.  I expect that depreciation on rolling stock comes out of "operational costs" as does maintenance on the perway.  Both of which are largely the fault of the peak hour commuters.

Who are not travelling by road, and who are paying full fare, thus saving the public money.

What's your point?  If it was that off-peak travel subsidises peak travel, I couldn't agree less.  More intensively used services recover their costs better - the perway doesn't get wider in the peak.

[#Metro]

I dont agree with this and its not just because I am a student.
Having a concession encourages the old to use public transport instead of driving (dangerous) and gives them more freedom when they do so.

Having a concession encourages the young to use public transport and help cement its use into their habits so they are more likely to use PT options.


@tramtrain, Its a bit of a chicken and the egg scenario. Hopefully we will see what a 15min train service will do to offpeak usage

I agree there needs to be decent services. If you serve rotten apples, don't expect many customers!
Business 101- have a good quality product! Discounted rotten apples are not the solution!

Concessions are there because if they were not there these people might not use the system at all- and thus lower revenue I think. Same reason why movie places have student and concessions- not out of charity, but because it is better for their bottom line.

I don't believe in the "habits" cementation idea though. The first thing I see people do when they approach a bus stop timetable is look at their phone for the time and then look at the timetable to see the frequency and when services end. IMHO that's why decent frequency (and this ultimately means re-organisation of the buses), fewer, simpler services and a good scope of hours is so important.

On these grounds I think concessions should stay. I also think that services should increase.
Any other discount apart from a cap or pre-loaded fare passes I probably wouldn't see worthwhile in supporting IMHO.

Full carparks should also be looked at for charging for (they do this in Perth) and road pricing / congestion pricing looked at introducing.

[somebody]

the perway doesn't get wider in the peak.

It doesn't get wider during the peak, but it is wider because of the peak.

More intensively used services recover their costs better

But it needs to be more intensively used over the day/year.  Using it intensively only for a few hours a day doesn't get good bang for buck.  Imagine if a stevedoring company operated the same way.  They'd go broke very quickly.  Both have very expensive infrastructure so I say they are comparable.

Every passenger who pays a fare in off peak adds little to costs, so the revenue is almost for free.  Providing improved services to these people is inexpensive and also likely to improve the bottom line.

[Zoiks]

You can think of it this way.
Offpeak people are costing the system operating costs and thats basically it.
Peak people are costing the system operating costs and increased infrastructure costs. Operating costs are generally smaller per person, but it does not make up for the infrastructure costs.

An easy to see example of this is the SE Freeway. Its what, 8 lanes in some parts and it still gets clogged during peak hour. Take it outside of peak and you would probably only need 2 of those lanes. Those peak hour people are costing the system 2 extra lanes outside of what it would normally cost.

[#Metro]

And this is why I think there should be more OFF peak patronage. It works on BUZ buses, about time it worked on trains too.

And just in case this sounds loony--- they do it in Perth!

[Fares_Fair]

You can think of it this way.
Offpeak people are costing the system operating costs and thats basically it.
Peak people are costing the system operating costs and increased infrastructure costs. Operating costs are generally smaller per person, but it does not make up for the infrastructure costs.

An easy to see example of this is the SE Freeway. Its what, 8 lanes in some parts and it still gets clogged during peak hour. Take it outside of peak and you would probably only need 2 of those lanes. Those peak hour people are costing the system 2 extra lanes outside of what it would normally cost.

Zoiks,

I see your point, however the commuter is not the one responsible for the peak hours of work.
Why penalise the commuter when he doesn't control the work environment.
Business and government are responsible.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

I see your point, however the commuter is not the one responsible for the peak hours of work.
Why penalise the commuter when he doesn't control the work environment.

But how is merely not giving a discount 'penalising' them?

Think of it this way. If every 9-5 commuter got a discount for their 10 trips, then it's not really a discount at all because the 'full price' becomes irrelevant to everyone.

Its like how supermarkets give a 4c/L discount on fuel, except it's basically meaningless, because across the board, fuel is probably 4c dearer than if there was no supermarket discount scheme, and since the majority of customers have these dockets, you're only really breaking even.

If we start discounting before 10 trips, then you can guarantee that this will blow a hole in revenue, and fares will rise faster than otherwise to make up the shortfall within a year or two.

Why is this reality so hard to accept?

I still believe that a lot of these complaints come out of people being tight-arsed rather than there being a real problem with fare levels (Except perhaps the flagfall issue, which is making PT dearer than driving for short trips)
Frequently that overused line of "Oh, but families are struggling with the rising cost of living" gets trotted out as justification...Yeah newsflash, prices for everything and the cost of living has been rising continuously since economies began, and there will always be people on low incomes that will struggle. Why does this mean we suddenly have to change PT fares?

Discounting will basically only blow a hole in revenue, and will only benefit people that already use PT.

If someone drives a gas guzzling 4x4 to work each day, explain to me how saving 50c or whatever per trip is suddenly gonna change their mind.

[somebody]

I see your point, however the commuter is not the one responsible for the peak hours of work.
Why penalise the commuter when he doesn't control the work environment.
Business and government are responsible.

I cannot accept this argument.  The commuter has accepted the job with the peak travel requirements and chosen to live where they do.  dwb has posted that in Rio there is some employer sponsored travel deal, but let's not get in to whether something like that should be applied here.

Why is this reality so hard to accept?

Perhaps because people don't want to pay more?

[dwb]

I see your point, however the commuter is not the one responsible for the peak hours of work.
Why penalise the commuter when he doesn't control the work environment.
Business and government are responsible.

I cannot accept this argument.  The commuter has accepted the job with the peak travel requirements and chosen to live where they do.  dwb has posted that in Rio there is some employer sponsored travel deal, but let's not get in to whether something like that should be applied here.

Why is this reality so hard to accept?

Perhaps because people don't want to pay more?

Whoah whoah whoah wo wo! Hold on a sec....

I agree that people have automony on where they choose to live and raise their family and what jobs they work. HOWEVER, it despite perhaps different partners working in different locations or a forced relocation by your employer, I would suggest that one's ability to choose where they live over their work hours is usually stronger, at least for professional people.

Although government itself is constantly talking about managing demand, even the transport and planning departments have strong cultures that require one to, in a large proportion of cases, follow the mould and work standardised hours leaving little choice to the individual. The individual is only responding to pressures of both work and family working those hours.

What I think would work better (from a transport perspective) but that is never going to happen, is that Government (as a leader) has a lotto for work timeslots and that's what you get, more or less entire offices that work the same hours as their team, but different to other teams. The current approach with flexible hours often just means that people still travel in one peak or another, but then on the few days they leave early they pick up their kids from school actually adding to road demand, not spreading it!

And in Rio, actually all of Brazil, your employer PAYS your transport to and from work. They pay the amount you spend, so the further you live the more they pay, under FEDERAL legislation.

We SHOULD DEFINITELY be talking about this!!!

[#Metro]

I guess I would make a few comments:

1. I don't think spread hours works. It requires too many businesses etc acting voluntarily to do this and also it is best when most people start work around the same time. Then there is induced traffic etc.

2. The employer paying is economically equivalent to a situation where the employee pays IMHO. There is no difference in the end result I think. See here the employer pays wages. If they had to pay for our transport, they would simply pay us less money in wages vs the baseline scenario. So ultimately there is no difference IMHO.

[somebody]

We SHOULD DEFINITELY be talking about this!!!

Start a new thread if you want to.

1. I don't think spread hours works. It requires too many businesses etc acting voluntarily to do this and also it is best when most people start work around the same time. Then there is induced traffic etc.

It's been done in time of war, but I can't imagine it being done in peacetimes.

[dwb]

2. The employer paying is economically equivalent to a situation where the employee pays IMHO. There is no difference in the end result I think. See here the employer pays wages. If they had to pay for our transport, they would simply pay us less money in wages vs the baseline scenario. So ultimately there is no difference IMHO.

No its not. Presumably the employer could bulk purchase and then implement programs in the workplace to reduce its own costs through promoting use of walking, cycling, carpool etc.

If the employer is effectively paying, then it feels free to the consumer, so they don't pay twice by having a car AND then also paying each time they get on a bus. I also refudiate the idea they would simply pay lower wages.... look at all the existing options that haven't reduced wages, and in a way actually increase it... for instance novated leases.

[dwb]

We SHOULD DEFINITELY be talking about this!!!

Start a new thread if you want to.

If there is going discussion here on this one demanding cheaper tickets, I think it is entirely relevant to mention tolling and other payment options here. It is not viable to simply talk about cutting the price of tickets and not be also at the same time in the same place be talking about how you're going to make up for it.

[somebody]

We SHOULD DEFINITELY be talking about this!!!

Start a new thread if you want to.

If there is going discussion here on this one demanding cheaper tickets, I think it is entirely relevant to mention tolling and other payment options here. It is not viable to simply talk about cutting the price of tickets and not be also at the same time in the same place be talking about how you're going to make up for it.

Possibly, but I wouldn't favour an arrangement where PT to work is provided by your employer.  However, I could live with the idea that PT fares come out of your pre-tax income.  QLD government workers have that deal effectively, combined with electricity, but it is capped at $1333p.a.  Some people spend that much just on electricity.

[#Metro]

electricity?

[somebody]

electricity?

Yes, the $1333p.a. is for combined BT + QR + ferry fares and electricity.

[#Metro]

Electricity for what exactly? Public servant houses?
I'm confused...

[somebody]

Electricity for what exactly? Public servant houses?
I'm confused...

Yes.