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

[ozbob]

it can only be one variable compared at a time.

FYI multivariate analysis allows for the observation and analysis of more than one variable at a time.

[Gazza]

 

Can we apply that to V/Line 

[ozbob]

Love to, but need the data.  I am sure they did that though hence their comments.

But, it is neither here nor there, it is a combination of things that will drive improved patronage.  To me, it is frequency, then cost, then duration. Others see it different, they may well think it is cost, duration, then frequency and so forth.  Fix the bloody lot and we can't fail is my approach.

Improve the frequency, quicken the journey, improve the fare structure.  Bound to be a big winner!

[justanotheruser]

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.  

but I would prefer to see a more even spread across longer hours rather than crammed peak hour trains and just half filling off peak instead of quarter full. To achieve this society needs to change the way they operate. One company I worked for allowed you to choose your own hours if your boss agreed. One employee chose to start at midday and he got so much extra work done in that 5-9pm window because of fewer distractions. Encouraging things like this also helps create demand. My jobs are different in that the hours are set but most office work is not. Many offices with customer service have extended hours for call centres anyway.

[justanotheruser]

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.

Well I guess I need to start shopping in the city rather than at my local shops just so I can be a good PT user! While I understand what your getting at I incorporate PT into my life. Untill early last year I had no choice. I walk when I can. I have recently started walking home from my 2nd job which takes 40mins rather than catching the bus.

[colinw]

Thumbs up to that justanotheruser.  Being a frequent public transport user is NOT good for the environment or anything else if they are unnecessary trips.

Riding a bus or train is better than driving. But a nice long walk or bike ride, or avoiding unnecessary travel, trumps all those options.

My best workday commute involves opening the VPN connection to the PC at work. Since we networked the test equipment in the lab I can even debug & test remotely. Total distance travelled is about 5 metres. Can't do it every day, but when I can it is great (and a lot more productive because unnecessary distractions are eliminated).

I would be quite happy to ramp public transport down again if the actual amount of travel people needed could be reduced.  Slinging in a rail line to somewhere like Flagstone or Ripley is not necessarily a win, because it is only encouraging unsustainable long commutes.

[somebody]

Now, when you say "Fare Structure" you are including the fare levels, right?  To me it's not really the structure, more the high prices.

[Gazza]

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.

Well I guess I need to start shopping in the city rather than at my local shops just so I can be a good PT user! While I understand what your getting at I incorporate PT into my life. Untill early last year I had no choice. I walk when I can. I have recently started walking home from my 2nd job which takes 40mins rather than catching the bus.

But the FUD is never going to be a catch all for every possible way of using PT, and every time you move the trip number threshold down, the people just below that threshold will complain they are missing out.

I still reiterate the point that the 2% usage of the FUD is not the fault of the fare structure, it's the fault of PT generally not being practical for non work trips, Or in your case, because you just don't need to use it.

[somebody]

+1

[SurfRail]

I still believe that 8 trips is an appropriate starting point for the FUD to kick in to incentivise it properly.  If you are making at least 8 trips a week, you are still using public transport bucket loads more than the average Queenslander.

[Gazza]

Yeah but if most people are getting it, then its not really a discount at all is it?

[Fares_Fair]

I still believe that 8 trips is an appropriate starting point for the FUD to kick in to incentivise it properly.  If you are making at least 8 trips a week, you are still using public transport bucket loads more than the average Queenslander.

+1

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[SurfRail]

Yeah but if most people are getting it, then its not really a discount at all is it?

If the FUD is virtually unused, then why even bother with it?  Most people using public transport on weekends are probably part of the captive market anyway, given how awful it is away from BUZ routes, the Gold Coast Highway etc.

Most commuters would only be getting effectively a single free trip with the threshold set at 8, hardly a big loss, and you would still really have to be travelling every day of the week for it to be available or work for you. 

Obviously the main thing still is to play with off-peak fares, which is where there is the greatest opportunity to soak up existing capacity by attracting people with incentives.

[Gazza]

Most commuters would only be getting effectively a single free trip with the threshold set at 8

^Would be Two trips, assuming people do 10.

hardly a big loss,

Giving away 20% for free is a big loss in my books.

Also, even if you consider it 'hardly a big loss', then it's hardly a big gain either.

given how awful it is away from BUZ routes, the Gold Coast Highway etc.

Fix that then  


So lets get back to basics. What exactly is the main goal of the FUD, in concise terms.

[somebody]

I still believe that 8 trips is an appropriate starting point for the FUD to kick in to incentivise it properly.  If you are making at least 8 trips a week, you are still using public transport bucket loads more than the average Queenslander.

+1

Soo, gimme, gimme, gimme.

Correct me if I am wrong, but neither of you have countered the points about either taking nearly 10% off your revenue base, or deterring PT by putting up the base fare.

Most commuters would only be getting effectively a single free trip with the threshold set at 8

^Would be Two trips, assuming people do 10.

hardly a big loss,

Giving away 20% for free is a big loss in my books.

No, you are giving away 20% for 50%, so you are only losing 10%.

[Fares_Fair]

I still believe that 8 trips is an appropriate starting point for the FUD to kick in to incentivise it properly.  If you are making at least 8 trips a week, you are still using public transport bucket loads more than the average Queenslander.

+1

Soo, gimme, gimme, gimme.

Correct me if I am wrong, but neither of you have countered the points about either taking nearly 10% off your revenue base, or deterring PT by putting up the base fare.

Most commuters would only be getting effectively a single free trip with the threshold set at 8

^Would be Two trips, assuming people do 10.

hardly a big loss,

Giving away 20% for free is a big loss in my books.

No, you are giving away 20% for 50%, so you are only losing 10%.

Patronage would increase significantly with the fare revisions.
Improve the services and people will flock to it.
We are the dearest in the country by a country mile.
The majority view of the commuter whom I see and talk to every day tell me the fares are too much.
Argue the ideology all you like, but the fact remains.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

Patronage would increase significantly with the fare revisions.

Faresfair, I still haven't gotten a response from you on the calculations I did, where I showed that giving everybody a 40c fare cut for all trips would cost the system $62.8 million per year, which could actually fund 12 high frequency bus routes, or convert up to 24 half hourly ones to 15 minute frequency.
See http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6366.msg63303#new
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

[#Metro]

I've always believed that increasing service quality should come first. The evidence? A car costs easily $20,000 to buy, then $1000s more to insure, register, pay for parking, fines, wear and tear, tyres, roadside services, petrol blah blah blah... the NOMINAL cost is absolutely colossal when compared to PT, HOWEVER, although the cost is high, the benefit to the person who drives is also high.

Discounting rotten apples is a losing situation. You keep the apple rotten and then you reduce the price which prevents other services being added which Gazza has pointed out. And there is a bottom limit to this too- you can't have a ticket price below ZERO. The greatest cost to people isn't fares - it is waiting time and journey time. The reason why people live out so far and work in Brisbane is because they know that they can afford to do it, which is why they do it. They wouldn't do it if it didn't pay.

None of this is to say that services should not be improved blah blah, but cutting peak hour fares is not going to do much. Everybody wants free free free, that's just a fact of life, and the service is so terrible that no excuses or apologies can be made to defend it, however, none of that is a reason to reduce the fares. What's needed up there is more concrete- to enable faster services and more frequency, both of which people will be happy to pay for.

Central to the discussion of any frequent user discount is this
1. What is the purpose of the discount
2. Will the effects be significant enough

Any discussion about discounting must not forget that money not received is frequency not gained = passengers lost. This is the "hidden" side of things that one should not forget about. Don't just focus on what you can see- a big discount, it's what you don't see that matters. Often people have good intentions, but the consequences are often the EXACT OPPOSITE to what they intend...

[somebody]

Patronage would increase significantly with the fare revisions.
Improve the services and people will flock to it.
We are the dearest in the country by a country mile.
The majority view of the commuter whom I see and talk to every day tell me the fares are too much.
Argue the ideology all you like, but the fact remains.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

I think your points of fact are spurious at best.  According to the QR survey, AM peak patronage grew from 726 to 873 2005-2009, while PM peak grew from 669 to 792.  So basically even with the cheaper tickets and superior service to present I think it is unlikely that patronage has been decimated my the fare hikes.  It's still cheaper than driving and parking, and also less stressful.

As for being the dearest by "a country mile".

Melbourne-Geelong 74.6km: Weekly = $63.10, off peak return = $13.40
Perth-Mandurah 70.1km: $7.65 all day or $6.75 for autoload users
Brisbane Central-Beerwah 76.9km: $8.51 peak or $7.24 off peak
NSW 65km+: Weekly = $56, off peak return = $10.80

SEQ is actually cheaper than WA off peak for non-autoload customers, which in WA has to be a bank account rather than a credit card.

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

You know what?  Perth do not have a weekly, and their daily is not valid in the AM peak!  Unless I am mistaken.  Also, their frequent user discount is only 40%.

[petey3801]

I still believe that 8 trips is an appropriate starting point for the FUD to kick in to incentivise it properly.  If you are making at least 8 trips a week, you are still using public transport bucket loads more than the average Queenslander.

So, the vast majority of people will still only use PT to/from work. Therefore, they will simply get 2 trips discounted. They won't use PT any more than those 2 days if they don't already do it now! (Anything more than the 5-day trips to/from work is discounted now and only a few people use it, why would people start using PT for more than those trips just because they got 2 trips free at the end of the week?).

Loss of extra revenue for virtually zero gain. Fix the off-peak frequency and fares and watch the patronage grow. There is little room in the peak periods to grow (in particular the AM peak). Off-peak/Counter Peak is where the opportunity lies.

[ozbob]

You know what?  Perth do not have a weekly, and their daily is not valid in the AM peak!  Unless I am mistaken.  Also, their frequent user discount is only 40%.

Partly true Simon.  They give a further 15 - 25% depending on how one charges the Smartrider card, so really good discounts.

Perth also has the Free Transit Zone, and free travel for Seniors off peak and weekends.

http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/TicketsandFares/Tickettypes.aspx

http://www.transperth.wa.gov.au/TicketsandFares/SmartRider/AddValueMethods.aspx

[Gazza]

So, the vast majority of people will still only use PT to/from work. Therefore, they will simply get 2 trips discounted. They won't use PT any more than those 2 days if they don't already do it now! (Anything more than the 5-day trips to/from work is discounted now and only a few people use it, why would people start using PT for more than those trips just because they got 2 trips free at the end of the week?).

Loss of extra revenue for virtually zero gain. Fix the off-peak frequency and fares and watch the patronage grow. There is little room in the peak periods to grow (in particular the AM peak). Off-peak/Counter Peak is where the opportunity lies.

Nice post.
It seems to me this public transport policy is based around the arbritary goal of "helping lots of people meet the cap', like as if the percentage of people getting achieving capped fares is some sort of significant measure we should be massaging the fare structure with to make the figure look good.

It's like when CityRail had trouble making the trains run on time, so some bright spark said "I know, let's just change the definition of 'on time' to be less strict, so it looks like more trains run on time". Moved the goalposts....meanwhile nobody was actually getting anywhere in a more timely manner.

So hey, lets just make it easier for people to get capped fares by shifting the goalposts, and push that 2% to like 50%...Never mind that people still aren't doing trips on weekends etc, so long as we're making people feel good, that's all that matters right?

Here I was thinking the goal of public transport was about providing services that get people where they need to go. Guess I was wrong.

Let me be clear...I agree that fare rises should be matched with CPI, but any attempts to send them backwards will cut into money that would have already been budgeted, and that means impeding on the rollout of service improvements. No denying that.

[somebody]

They give a further 15 - 25% depending on how one charges the Smartrider card, so really good discounts.

That is a discount as compared to the cash ticket price. Equivalent for SEQ would be around 30%.

Perth also has the Free Transit Zone, and free travel for Seniors off peak and weekends.

Love to have the FTZ, and no real objection to the free seniors travel outside of peak.  Although if it free off peak, I think it should be full fare in peak.

[#Metro]

It's like when CityRail had trouble making the trains run on time, so some bright spark said "I know, let's just change the definition of 'on time' to be less strict, so it looks like more trains run on time". Moved the goalposts....meanwhile nobody was actually getting anywhere in a more timely manner.

I agree. Is it an increase in mobility?
New services are-- cheaper existing services are not.

I would like to see some efficiency gains from steam ironing and network re-organisation
-- the 29 Wooloongabba to UQ Lakes sounds like pure waste and duplication of existing services. Sigh.

[SurfRail]

Would be Two trips, assuming people do 10.

Do you want to explain to me how 8 x 1 + 2 x 0.5 = 8?  1 free trip, not 2.

And frankly, they don't deserve the revenue we are giving them as they clearly can't use it properly.  They can bloody learn to do without it by cutting their own overheads instead of gouging us for more underperforming bureaucrats who couldn't plan their way out of a paper bag.

There is so much money being flung at capital works on the M1 that all this talk of lost revenue is just meaningless to me.  Services need to be both attractive and reasonably priced to maximise loadings at all times of the day - and that does include the peaks.

[somebody]

And frankly, they don't deserve the revenue we are giving them as they clearly can't use it properly. 

100% agree with the premise but not the conclusion, but that should not be refunded in the way you describe.

[Gazza]

Do you want to explain to me how 8 x 1 + 2 x 0.5 = 8?  1 free trip, not 2.

Yeah, Simon already pointed out my mistake several posts ago, the conversation has moved on.

[justanotheruser]

The reason why people live out so far and work in Brisbane is because they know that they can afford to do it, which is why they do it. They wouldn't do it if it didn't pay.

actually I live so far out because I can't afford to live closer. Four years ago where we lived the rent for our neighbours house was more than double what we pay where we are now. And our rent went up fair amount due to house shortage after the floods. So despite having to pay for PT (living near city I rode my pushbike) it is still cheaper than living close in. Even if fares were to be increased there would have to be an increase of almost $300/week to make living close to the city affordable for us. of course seem as I have two jobs and one is close to home and one in the city I would still be stuffed either way. For some the situation may be different but we can't rent a unit.

[justanotheruser]

It's like when CityRail had trouble making the trains run on time, so some bright spark said "I know, let's just change the definition of 'on time' to be less strict, so it looks like more trains run on time". Moved the goalposts....meanwhile nobody was actually getting anywhere in a more timely manner.

This is a bit misleading as the trains were not on time then they changed the definition of 'on time' to must arrive at scheduled time which increased the number of late trains according to official figures. It still wasn't changed for quite some time. I could be wrong but I think there may have even been an election in between! After this the definition was changed back to its original definition and trains were given extra time in the timetable to allow for late running so they could make up the time.

[#Metro]

actually I live so far out because I can't afford to live closer. Four years ago where we lived the rent for our neighbours house was more than double what we pay where we are now. And our rent went up fair amount due to house shortage after the floods. So despite having to pay for PT (living near city I rode my pushbike) it is still cheaper than living close in. Even if fares were to be increased there would have to be an increase of almost $300/week to make living close to the city affordable for us. of course seem as I have two jobs and one is close to home and one in the city I would still be stuffed either way. For some the situation may be different but we can't rent a unit.

I am not denying your situation, but the point is that it still pays. If someone were to commute to the CBD and make a loss every time, you can be absolutely sure that person will move to act in such a way to stop that happening. Most people tend to look after themselves and re-organise their lives to move themselves towards benefits and away from losses. I think welfare should be delivered through welfare measures- concessions on transit, access passes, centrelink payments. I don't think, as much as people may not want to hear this, I want to subsidise someone who has a good paying job in the CBD and wants to live further out for the lifestyle or because that is just their choice.

This is not to say that there are not problems with the service, there certainly are, just saying, if you live out a Gympie North/la la land etc don't expect high speed/high frequency etc, and it is not like the crappy service is a secret. You get what you pay for. I know prices for the rotten apple service have gone up and that is not fair, but the solution is concrete in this case, not discounting of rotten apples.

Pull your socks up Queensland Government and fix that line!

[ozbob]

Remember when the go card fare structure was full fare for the first 6 journeys and there after 50% for the week?

I would not be suprised if the fare structure was changed from the present 10 journeys to either 9 or 8, before the 50% discount kicks in.

This is no change to the basic fare structure and such a change would be easily to implement, as would a change to off peak discount, which will be going to 20% next January as indicated.

[somebody]

Remember when the go card fare structure was full fare for the first 6 journeys and there after 50% for the week?

I would not be suprised if the fare structure was changed from the present 10 journeys to either 9 or 8, before the 50% discount kicks in.

This is no change to the basic fare structure and such a change would be easily to implement, as would a change to off peak discount, which will be going to 20% next January as indicated.

Neither would I and I would suggest that RailBoT would have done a lot to see that happen.

However, I would much prefer the outcome of 15% fare hikes not proceeded with (or revised down), while off peak discount is raised to 20%.  This would be more expensive than the fare structure plan assuming the same numbers of trips, but I think we can say that more trips would occur on PT with this plan than making the FUD kick in sooner.  By far.

[ozbob]

I think it is unlikely IMO the Government will back down on the published fare structure ie. the 15% per annum increases, and as recently as yesterday implied that.  That is a political risk however in view of the forthcoming state election.

I think the way they might move (if they move at all) is to reduce the number of journeys before the discount kicks in.  It is not a backdown on the published fare table but still offers some relief, for those over the threshold (and this is the group that is giving the most feedback).

Well targeted it might actually drive a higher fare box as more people avail themselves of the opportunity to reach the concession level.  The costs of doing something like this would be minimal compared to other major programming changes.

[somebody]

I must say that I am pretty shocked about the intransigence by the govt on this point.  Perhaps they could drop the all fares by the difference between the 2011 & 2011 zone 1 fares?

I agree, they did re-affirm their commit to price hikes on Thursday. I must say that these fee hikes generally are so unpopular with the electorate that you wonder why they don't back down and say that they've listened to the people? It would increase their re-election chances.

[Gazza]

I agree. Is it an increase in mobility?
New services are-- cheaper existing services are not.

Oooh, thats what I was trying to articulate. Mobility.

The way I see it, cutting fares doesn't increase mobility, and wont cause 'permanence' in PT usage. Cutting fares probably helps at the bottom end of the market with $$$ concious travellers, who might be prepared to accept a crappy service, and pay with time instead of money.

But the moment one of these travellers gets an increase in income, it could be something as simple as a student moving from study to full time work and having extra cash, or a promotion, or whatever, they will sort of breathe a sigh of relief at being able to ditch the crappy service and drive instead.

Now, I loathe to try and use myself as an example, but the moment I got a car (despite being a student) was the moment I stopped using the 467/468 and started parking and riding instead....I was just sick and tired of the crap frequency, especially in the late afternoon when I would be coming home from uni and would be forced to make a choice between waiting 30 minutes plus for a bus (Or an hour if its earlier in the afternoon!), or just walking 2km home uphill....Basically, the crappy bus service at Oxley turns a 4tph service into a 1tph service, because the other 3 aren't connected with.
Now, if it was clock-face, and had a bus meeting every train as it arrived, then I'd use it.

On the other hand, if you spent the money on service improvements to build patronage that way, people can actually positively change the way they live their life because it's there for them and its too good to ignore, even for higher income earners.

Fare cuts would only work in the short term for many passengers for keeping/holding patronage.

[justanotheruser]

I must say that I am pretty shocked about the intransigence by the govt on this point.  Perhaps they could drop the all fares by the difference between the 2011 & 2011 zone 1 fares?

I agree, they did re-affirm their commit to price hikes on Thursday. I must say that these fee hikes generally are so unpopular with the electorate that you wonder why they don't back down and say that they've listened to the people? It would increase their re-election chances.

because the media would report it as a backflip which in the eyes of people reading the paper means the government is weak. So they feel they have to do something different. Just like in Yes Minister episode Patron of the Arts it is said once a figure is published everyone is committed to it and it can't change so you need to change the figure before it is announced!

[Fares_Fair]

Hello All,

If I may comment on the poll results to date, I would make an observation from the view point of a regular Sunshine Coast / Caboolture commuter.

That is that the results shown here (at top of the post) do NOT reflect the commuter attitudes at large that I hear from regular Sunshine Coast / Caboolture commuters.
I cannot speak for any other lines.
Nor is this a definitive point, merely a reflection of attitudes and viewpoints made to me.

I make no other comment on it except to note it for the record.

Thank you.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

But in saying that, have you pitched both viewpoints to whom you speak to?

[dwb]

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 ...

Nothing viable that is for sure. They won't propose anything at all... "just get rid of this 20 year govt"

[dwb]

Remember when the go card fare structure was full fare for the first 6 journeys and there after 50% for the week?

I would not be suprised if the fare structure was changed from the present 10 journeys to either 9 or 8, before the 50% discount kicks in.

This is no change to the basic fare structure and such a change would be easily to implement, as would a change to off peak discount, which will be going to 20% next January as indicated.

Neither would I and I would suggest that RailBoT would have done a lot to see that happen.

However, I would much prefer the outcome of 15% fare hikes not proceeded with (or revised down), while off peak discount is raised to 20%.  This would be more expensive than the fare structure plan assuming the same numbers of trips, but I think we can say that more trips would occur on PT with this plan than making the FUD kick in sooner.  By far.

They could tinker but I'd tend to think they'll change all or none. Off peak fares really need to be substantially cheaper than peak fares IMHO. If they can this year's 15% rise then they'd have to can each of the next planned rises otherwise they'd be accused of just doing it for an election and given the budget at the moment I highly doubt that will be happening. Off peak discounts wouldn't really "cost" them much to implement, but could be seen as generous, so they might as well go with that. And like Bob says, it is much easier to shift the FUD to 8 (which is sort of the same as the old 10 trip tickets and weeklies/monthlies) so that is probably more likely to happen. If that happens the 15% raise will definitely be staying (and probably should).