POLL: What kind of frequent user discount would you prefer?

[somebody]

The evidence is clear, further enhancements to the go card fare structure are needed, and the Government and TransLink have broadly indicated just that.

The evidence is clear that service improvements increase patronage.  I don't know what evidence you are referring to about evidence that the "fare structure" is hurting patronage.  Fare hikes?  Of course, to some degree.

Every time there is a fare rise in Sydney, it was forecast to hurt patronage by around 1% for a 4% fare rise.

[Gazza]

Better ticketing options will improve the fare box and in so doing provide more for services and improvements. TransLink has the tools to do the modelling and so forth.  The evidence is clear, further enhancements to the go card fare structure are needed, and the Government and TransLink have broadly indicated just that.

What will increase the farebox is.
-Sitting down and answering the fundamental question of "What type of services will win people away from the private car and be popular with the public".
-Rooting out inefficient operating practices that bleed the system dry, such as excessive dead running, steam ironing routes to save time and hence running costs and labour, and redeploying redundant jobs like train guards.

If you can afford to give the system a good chunk of money up front, you should be entitled to a bigger discount.  I really can't see any problem with that - TransLink has your money to play with earlier, so you should get some recognition for that.

Think about it from the operators perspective.
They aren't some struggling business with cash flow problems who need money up front like this to help pay the bills and the bank etc.

They are a large government organisation with the financial resources to run services as normal even if fares aren't coming in....They are managing to operate just fine under current fare arrangements aren't they? It's not like we are hearing reports in the media of  Translink struggling to pay its contractors because customers aren't converting their travel credits into funds the organisation can use quickly enough. Obviously the mechanisms are already in place to operate viably with the  cash flows they get on a day to day basis.

So even all passengers did use periodicals, all that basically means is that the TL can collect a little extra interest than otherwise.
But what you are glossing over is that Translink will in fact collect less money overall, due to the lower price of the periodicals compared to PAYG...Unless of course you are saying that periodicals will only be 6% or so cheaper than PAYG (Or whatever current interest rates are)

Of course, periodicals will be a lot more than 6% discount or people will whinge, so in the end all it will mean is that this 'self entitled' discount people want, will do the opposite of what you suggest, and result in less money overall for the system, rather than give them this 'new' meaningful financial resource to work with.

[dwb]

The problem at the moment is that the fare structure is not increasing the fare box, despite the rhetoric suggesting that the fare increases are designed to do that.  Better ticketing options will improve the fare box and in so doing provide more for services and improvements. TransLink has the tools to do the modelling and so forth.  The evidence is clear, further enhancements to the go card fare structure are needed, and the Government and TransLink have broadly indicated just that.

Where's the evidence Bob?? Peak hour trains and buses continue to run and are still full, they make the majority of revenue. The ticket price has surged, how you can possibly think that revenue hasn't increased?? Offpeak use would not have diminished that much.

Further I think the bolded "needed" in your quote above really means "seen to be politically needed" to counteract the LNP's ridiculous and purile "cost of living" attack... this is SIGNIFICANTLY different from proven as needed, on a good policy level.

[somebody]

TL Tracker reports fare per trip has increased by around 7.4% compared to the previous Q3.

[Gazza]

TL Tracker reports fare per trip has increased by around 7.4% compared to the previous Q3.

I think that settles it then

[dwb]

TL Tracker reports fare per trip has increased by around 7.4% compared to the previous Q3.

TL Tracker reports fare per trip has increased by around 7.4% compared to the previous Q3.

I think that settles it then

Yes, partly. But why did fare per trip only increase by 7.4% when fares went up so much more? Especially as this figure is per trip. Does the tracker have a total quantum by which its fares went from and to?

[Gazza]

Pre emptive strike, but think about it this way

Say the government was particularly generous and gave an ongoing $100 mil per year, extra over current  levels out of consolidated revenue to put into TL.

These figures are just estimates, and not real world, but it's about the principle....

Option 1:
5 new high frequency bus routes, with the rest spent on fare cuts/deferred fare rises.

Option 2:
10 new high frequency bus routes, with no fare cuts, and normal fare rises.

I will take option 2 any day of the week, and with every bit of new cash injected for years to come, I would still take it, and wouldn't stop until all train lines have at least 15 minute services, a bus is meeting every train, and all main roads have a high frequency route anchoring it. You can see that this is a pretty big goal, but obviously it's what we need to have a proper comprehensive system and create the sort of system people will rely on and embrace.
Every time we divert money towards fare cuts and sideshows like that, it's actually pushing out the timeline of being able to achieve this.

Here's a table of the four possible combinations, how desirable each situation is, and real world examples of systems for each category.

Good & Cheap – YES! Singapore, Hong Kong.
Good & Expensive – Yes. Stockholm, London.
Bad & Expensive – NO! Brisbane.
Bad & Cheap – No. Los Angeles.

Places like Singapore and HK can do good and cheap, because they have such high density, and it takes less infrastructure and routes to cover the city well, so it becomes a case of all routes running with heavy loads and making good returns.

[Gazza]

Dwb, the discrepancy could be attributed to:
-More capped trip, be it FUD or free pensioner trips.
-Lower use of paper tickets, which in effect cut fares for these pax when they shifted to Go Card.

[somebody]

Yes, partly. But why did fare per trip only increase by 7.4% when fares went up so much more? Especially as this figure is per trip. Does the tracker have a total quantum by which its fares went from and to?

It says to $1.89 per trip.  While some trips are connections, I think it is fair to say that there is still a large portion of trips done by people on concession fares.

Why only 7.4%?  Go Card use increased from ~55% to ~75%.

[ozbob]

I was referring to the fare box/subsidy.  Page 5 of http://translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/2010-11-quarterly-report-jan-to-mar.pdf

No change, in fact gone backwards.  The stated aim for the fare increases was to reduce the subsidy, hasn't happened.  If there were more pax, particularly out of peak it is logical to expect the fare box to increase. Peak is limited in growth capacity, plenty of growth capacity off peak.

[Golliwog]

The fare/subsidy % bar graph on the bottom of page 5 shows that the split is actually about the same as it was last quarter. And of course the subsidy per trip has increased. They lost a crap load of patronage. Even once normal services had returned patronage was way down, so they're experiencing hte same cost with much less use and therefore less income. I'm also going to hazard a guess and say that while patronage wasn't collected during the week of free transit, costs were.

[ozbob]

Went backwards in Q2 as well.  I think further enhancements to get more pax using the services particularly out of peak and weekends will start to turn it around.  Far better a train be running with 400 pax at say 30% discount than 100 at 15% ...

Everyone is entilted to their view, including the community.  The government has indicated they will be moving on some further fare enhancements which is the direct result of community feedback over a long period.

And of course the wild card in all of this is the looming state election.  Who knows what the LNP will propose ...

[somebody]

Q2 generally has less trips, presumably due to people going away on holidays for Xmas.

[ozbob]

Have a look at Q1 and Q4 prevous year,  I think most people can see since the fare increases the relative fare box has decreased, subsidy increased.  This is opposite to the justification for the fare increase.  Hence further tweaking of the fare structure can be expected.

[Gazza]

Far better a train be running with 400 pax at say 30% discount than 100 at 15% ..

I don't think a 15% extension on existing savings would quadruple your pax.

[ozbob]

Far better a train be running with 400 pax at say 30% discount than 100 at 15% ..

I don't think a 15% extension on existing savings would quadruple your pax.

So what?   Better to have tried than continue on the path to mediocrity ..

[ozbob]

Far better a train be running with 400 pax at say 30% discount than 100 at 15% ..

I don't think a 15% extension on existing savings would quadruple your pax.

So what?   Better to have tried than continue on the path to mediocrity ..

In fact some participants on this board would suggest the discount should be 50%!   I am just being pragmatic ...

[somebody]

Have a look at Q1 and Q4 prevous year,  I think most people can see since the fare increases the relative fare box has decreased, subsidy increased.  This is opposite to the justification for the fare increase.  Hence further tweaking of the fare structure can be expected.

I'd be happier with that stat if we had it for the most recent quarter, which wasn't flood affected.  But I do agree insofar as the subsidy has been rising with the increasing fares.

[justanotheruser]

Which brings us right back to a capping scheme that cuts in with an achievable level of frequent use ...

I'm not sure how you can form the conclusion that there is something wrong with the present fare structure from this poll/thread.

For the most part the frequent user discount is just a show pony. I don't know exact figures but I would be surprised if more than 2% of users actually got a the FUD discount. The majority would use PT to travel to work and then home and drive on the weekend.

[Golliwog]

I used it a bit coming up to exams. I was going to uni everyday for a few weeks

[Gazza]

So what?   Better to have tried than continue on the path to mediocrity ..

Spend the 15% on a new BUZ or something, it might not be a system wide measure, but at least it would fix up one area, get those pax out of the mire, and get a few thousand more people using PT, and that's what gets the overall usage count up. We need to do this sort of thing progressively.

I just don't see how a 30% discount off peak will get people using a 30/60 min frequency bus or train, or make them magically able to catch a feeder bus that doesn't exist.

[ozbob]

So what?   Better to have tried than continue on the path to mediocrity ..

Spend the 15% on a new BUZ or something, it might not be a system wide measure, but at least it would fix up one area, get those pax out of the mire, and get a few thousand more people using PT, and that's what gets the overall usage count up. We need to do this sort of thing progressively.

I just don't see how a 30% discount off peak will get people using a 30/60 min frequency bus or train, or make them magically able to catch a feeder bus that doesn't exist.

Off peak goes to 20% next year anyway, time will tell hey?   

[somebody]

Which brings us right back to a capping scheme that cuts in with an achievable level of frequent use ...

I'm not sure how you can form the conclusion that there is something wrong with the present fare structure from this poll/thread.

For the most part the frequent user discount is just a show pony. I don't know exact figures but I would be surprised if more than 2% of users actually got a the FUD discount. The majority would use PT to travel to work and then home and drive on the weekend.

I use it quite a bit.  Most businesses reward their frequent users, I'd hate for it to go.  If that happened, I'd think there would have to be some sort of capping.

[Gazza]

I think though, as Tramtrain said, you cant ride a bag of concrete.
At the same time, you cant "ride a 5% additional discount" or 'ride a periodical".

Say  you want to do a Sunday outing to the Gold Coast from Ipswich...Well first, you try and get the train for a nice early start in the morning, but its only hourly. You then  try and shortcut cross country via the 598 or the 104, but the first doesn't run on Sundays, and the second doesn't run weekends at all! Even if it were a Saturday, its only hourly on the 598, so no real chance of it being an effective connection.
So you duly trek all the way into the city and back out again. Thankfully at least at the GC end, there is some co-ordination.
Situations like this are very common across the network.

I just think it's a bit reprehensible to be splashing around discounts that will largely just 'save money' for existing users, yet it's still leaving out in the cold huge tracts of SEQ that don't even have a viable service to begin with. How long are we going to ignore these people for?
It was posted here earlier that for one member, the only feeder bus to the station takes an hour to go a short distance because the route severely needs a steam ironing, and it doesn't even begin early enough to allow someone to get to the CBD in time for 9am.
People who have copped extra costs due to fare structure changes have it bad, but people that don't even have proper services actually have it much worse.

I still haven't gotten a decent explanation to how discounts solve problems like the above.


Another way of looking at it, what 'costs' people/society more in real terms? Individual  users all paying a bit extra because of no discounts?
Or people paying through missed job opportunies, disconnection,  less economic development, reduced international competiveness of the region because the network isn't a cohesive whole?

[somebody]

I guess, but I'd hate to see RailBoT waste its time lobbying for a removal of the Frequent User Discount!  It's already here, can we leave it alone?

[ozbob]

I wouldn't be too concerned Simon.  I think the FUD is safe for now, unless it is replaced by capping.  Be interesting to find out what the LNP will do with the fare structure.  I think one thing is clear, the projected 15% per annum increases won't fly if they win the state election, more likely CPI.

[justanotheruser]

I guess, but I'd hate to see RailBoT waste its time lobbying for a removal of the Frequent User Discount!  It's already here, can we leave it alone?

I'm not advocating to get rid of it as such just pointing out the majority of users will never receive  the FUD.

[Gazza]

Thats because most people aren't true frequent users.

[justanotheruser]

Thats because most people aren't true frequent users.

define frequent user. I know translinks definition but previously you got a discount for a weekly where now you no longer get a discount for five days which is what most people used weeklies for. When taking kids to sporting events on a weekend driving is the main choice. If going to the coasts on a weekend driving also is a main choice of transport. So the definition of frequent seems to have changed so who decideds what a "true frequent" user is?

[somebody]

define frequent user.

A user using PT for more than the daily trip to work and back.

[Gazza]

You do in effect, because when they first brought out go card, they set the price level so when you did the calculations it worked out the same.

I know translinks definition but previously you got a discount for a weekly where now you no longer get a discount for five days which is what most people used weeklies for.

In the past, weeklies had a good reason for existing because it cut down on queues at ticket windows and the number of transactions bus drivers had to do. But we're in the age of AVVMs and PAYG smart cards, so this practical concern no longer exists so no need to dangle the carrot (Well, I guess we have a stick instead these days with the high cost of singles, and no dailies)

A user using PT for more than the daily trip to work and back.

Exactly. Taking PT to work versus driving more comes down to what is actually available to the user and what they want to spend.
If somebody drives to work every day, do we call them a frequent driver? Are they really driving any more frequently then the majority of the population that also drive to work?

A PT user isn't special if they just take it to work and back every day...I'd call that a regular habit they will do regardless.
Once you are doing more than this, it's clearly more of a conscious decision to be to be incorporating PT use in your day to day life...A lot of people use PT to get to work, but a much smaller percentage use it for other stuff.

A quote that I love: Remember kids, you're special......just like everyone else.

[ozbob]

One of the best examples of how fare initiatives can contribute to a transport revolution of sorts is V/Line.  They actually reduced fares, improved frequency and services and patronage has boomed!  This leads to a lot of flow on benefits in broader economic savings as well as relative increase in fare box.  The present TransLink fare structure is very static in terms of any real improvements.  Time to bite the bullet.

Regional rail travel booming, despite delays

... V/Line spokesman Daniel Moloney said the first big increases were detected when fares were cut by 20 per cent on average on regional rail services in March 2007.= ...

Google 'public transport/transit fare discounts'.  They are universal ..

[somebody]

Interesting quote, but it was pretty hot on the heels of the regional fast rail project.

[ozbob]

Interesting quote, but it was pretty hot on the heels of the regional fast rail project.

Exactly, as I said services and frequency improved.  I think the real potential for growth on our network is off peak (and counter peak).  Increase the off peak discount either directly or via improved fare structure eg. capping, improve services, stand back and watch the patronage surge.  The Australian experience suggests that.  Enough of the mediocrity here in SEQ.  Capping/discounts doesn't mean a revenue loss, it means more people will use public transport because they perceive the value. This then generates broader economic benefit as well.

We are already seeing this on the Darra to CBD rail corridor with the improved frequency and patronage increase (confirmed by observation and direct feedback at last PTAG).  Still service gaps, but it is surprising how many more people are travelling out of hours now.  Many more will if they see value.  

[somebody]

I wanted to make the point about the trains being faster.  Give people fast, frequent and cheap services and they will be used.  That is the carrot approach.  The other approach is the "stick" approach, which means (especially) restrict parking.  The stick approach is used at all games at Suncorp and 'Gabba, although it does include PT in the ticket price.

[ozbob]

Vline services are not as fast as they are made out to be, but do offer a distinct interurban service above the quality of standard suburban services.

The mighty R class locomotives used to run quicker between Geelong and Melbourne hauling the Geelong Flyers for example than they do today, with greater pax loads, but I digress ...

I am of the view it is time for a new approach.  The Tracker shows the the reality.  Dwb is very keen on a significant ramp in off peak, and I agree with him.  I think it is a good place to start, with some increases in key off peak service frequency to match.  I know the concept might be foreign to both ends of George St, but I do think they don't have much time left before they are trumped politically.

[somebody]

Vline services are not as fast as they are made out to be, but do offer a distinct interurban service above the quality of standard suburban services.

As much as the Victorians whinge about the services not being as fast as promised, say that what they want is an on time train, the fact remains that all the services are faster than the ones they replaced, often not on time and the pax are voting with their feet.  Link: http://www.theage.com.au/national/regional-rail-travel-booming-despite-delays-20090605-byld.html

The Ballarat trains now take 64-84mins, while the previous trains took 90 minutes.  Link: http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/riding-the-rails/2006/09/12/1157826941501.html?page=fullpage
Wiki reckons that line was promised a 60 minute trip.

I'm sure you've seen all those articles, but I include them for others' benefit.

[ozbob]

Just making the point that they are not high speed rail.  The Vlocity sets and the loco-hauled sets do now benefit from the improved track upgrades, but there is a real issue in trafficking through the surburban network, particularly at peak, hence the planned Regional Rail Link.  Still have a basket case on the eastern side though.  I think a rail tunnel from Caulfield to Springvale would fix that.  Also would greatly assist some the level crossing issues.  The bulk of the services (express) would be in the tunnel, the surface all stoppers, the road/rail crossings would be a lot more managable.

[Gazza]

Exactly, as I said services and frequency improved

I'd say this is the main reason for the boom in patronage.
Thing is, we have two variables, and one outcome....You're scientific Bob, so you'd know that tofind the true cause of something, it can only be one variable compared at a time.

[ozbob]

Clearly a combination of factors, and I have said so.  The operators seem to think that fares had a lot to do with it as much as the other improvements though.  The increases occured when the fares were reduced.

What has to happen from this point in SEQ is improved service frequency and an improved fare structure.  As I suggested above if they don't they will be trumped politically.  Other jurisdictions manage to do the smart moves.  Clearly off peak is low hanging fruit ...  go for that first and see what happens ...