PTAG: Whatever happened to the 6 and 12 month tickets ?

[somebody]

It's interesting that those who travel the furthest for commuting (and thus pay the most) are the ones who most want a commuter discount ticket.  (ooh, Am I allowed to say that?)

[Gazza]

I don't think I'm missing the point either.

We want people to catch public transport.

Discounts - a cap or a periodical might encourage more people to take public transport instead of driving to work.

Peoples transport decisions aren't based that heavily around cost, its more about speed and convenience and comfort. Why do you think people persist in driving gas guzzling 4x4s and Commodores even though it's cheaper to take the bus?

Yes, peak hour is full, but then maybe more services are needed.  The roads are busy too, not just the trains.  Most peole really don't have that much leeway in what times they are expected to be present at work.

If trains and buses are managing to load themselves quite well in peak, despite no discounts, then why should Translink sell themselves short?

It's like, if you owned a restaurant so popular that it had lines out the door for breakfast, lunch and dinner, would you have any motivation to drop your prices?

A particular restaurant we all know quite well is very popular for breakfast and dinner ,Too much for the staff to handle! Always hard to get a seat, the owner has done the sums and he can only ever serve about 300 customers at brekky, and 300 at dinner. (And he's pretty much stuck that way until he forks out for some extensions to the restaurant)
But not many people visit over lunch, or late in the evening after the dinner rush. It doesn't do too well on weekends either.

The manager is thinking of introducing some daily specials to get more people through the door.
On one hand he's got a bunch of people who always visit for breakfast and dinner who reckon they are entitled to cheaper meals because they are such loyal customers. He really wants to, but his gut tells him he will be driven to the wall. He can only ever serve 300 people per brekky and lunch after all, and if he starts giving his food away cheap he's gonna make less per head, and lines will still be out the door.

But the manager looks out at the empty tables at lunch, weekends and late evenings, his gut tells him if  he offers his specials now he might actually get some bums on seats when the place is dead.

[BrizCommuter]

Yes, peak hour is full, but then maybe more services are needed.  The roads are busy too, not just the trains.  Most peole really don't have that much leeway in what times they are expected to be present at work.

I agree, however peak hour capacity expansion is expensive as the system is at capacity during peak hour-- which means that an increase in PT supply can only come about buy buying more concrete (or removing seats, getting rid of express, putting in an extra door(s) in trains - I hear lots of squealing when any of these are suggested!!!).

I think some clarity would come about if we asked the question "what is the purpose of a PT fare cap?"
when we have an answer to that then the picture will become clearer.

I don't think the purpose of a fare cap should be to encourage more peak hour 9-5 commuting. That already happens and the system is loaded up to capacity without needing one.
Off-peak and weekends are a different story, but I don't really notice the price difference there. It is the travel in the off-peak that should be encouraged.

When BrizCommuter uses public transport more than twice a day, the extra journeys are outside of the peak period. BrizCommuter is sure that is the case for other frequent public transport users such as students travelling to uni and work on the same day, and tourists. Thus daily capping would attract more public transport use during the off-peak, rather than the peak.

Likewise weekly caps would encourage the use of public transport on weekends. Thanks to the current fare structure, BrizCommuter's weekend public transport use has plummeted.

[BrizCommuter]

It's interesting that those who travel the furthest for commuting (and thus pay the most) are the ones who most want a commuter discount ticket.  (ooh, Am I allowed to say that?)

Or in other words, live an unsustainably long distance from their work, and then want even more subsidising of their travelling habits.

[somebody]

Yes, peak hour is full, but then maybe more services are needed.  The roads are busy too, not just the trains.  Most peole really don't have that much leeway in what times they are expected to be present at work.

I agree, however peak hour capacity expansion is expensive as the system is at capacity during peak hour-- which means that an increase in PT supply can only come about buy buying more concrete (or removing seats, getting rid of express, putting in an extra door(s) in trains - I hear lots of squealing when any of these are suggested!!!).

I think some clarity would come about if we asked the question "what is the purpose of a PT fare cap?"
when we have an answer to that then the picture will become clearer.

I don't think the purpose of a fare cap should be to encourage more peak hour 9-5 commuting. That already happens and the system is loaded up to capacity without needing one.
Off-peak and weekends are a different story, but I don't really notice the price difference there. It is the travel in the off-peak that should be encouraged.

When BrizCommuter uses public transport more than twice a day, the extra journeys are outside of the peak period. BrizCommuter is sure that is the case for other frequent public transport users such as students travelling to uni and work on the same day, and tourists. Thus daily capping would attract more public transport use during the off-peak, rather than the peak.

Likewise weekly caps would encourage the use of public transport on weekends. Thanks to the current fare structure, BrizCommuter's weekend public transport use has plummeted.

That would be OK.  At least it has a reason.  What I am against is a weekly which is priced at around the price of 8 peak trips, as per the old weeklies (and CityRail).  I often qualify for frequent user on Wednesday.  I'd expect to get little out of a weekly which is priced around 10 peak trips.  I'm only saving on trips which are frequent user discount trips anyway.  Also, I make odd trips off peak or single zone (instead of my usual 2 zone) before I've qualified for frequent user, which increases the effectiveness of frequent user for me.  If you make the comparison to a daily cap, I have to make 18 journeys in a week before I am better off. 

The difference of capping vs frequent user isn't worth worrying about IMO.

[Derwan]

If you want to attract people to PT with cheaper fares, you should achieve that by reducing the base price, not giving discounts to those responsible for a large portion of the costs.

I don't agree with this.  There is the psychological aspect of frequent user discounts.  Regardless of the base price, people are more inclined to accept something if they believe they're getting a discount.  The fact that the discounts were taken away is a big issue.  (Yes I know the base price was reduced by 20%, but that's ancient history now and prices have risen significantly since then.)

There is a sense of achievement when you do enough to "get the discount", whether it's PT or that free coffee when you get enough stamps on your card.  For PT, it would encourage people to catch PT every day and not just some days.  People's suggestion of the amber light has merit.  It reinforces the achievement.  (See the amber light... "Yay!  I got a discount!")

Under the current system you have to travel more than 2 times a day, 5 days a week to achieve the discount.  The majority of PT users won't achieve this so there is no incentive for them to catch PT every day.  They will hardly ever get that sense of achievement of qualifying for a discount.  So why bother?

[SurfRail]

It's interesting that those who travel the furthest for commuting (and thus pay the most) are the ones who most want a commuter discount ticket.  (ooh, Am I allowed to say that?)

I wouldn't say that - I would say they are just more vocal about it!

I should clarify all of my comments above - I would be perfectly happy with capping, but I don't believe we should be in a rush to avoid the possibility of periodicals.

[Gazza]

Under the current system you have to travel more than 2 times a day, 5 days a week to achieve the discount.  The majority of PT users won't achieve this so there is no incentive for them to catch PT every day.  They will hardly ever get that sense of achievement of qualifying for a discount.  So why bother?

Still not following.
I don't need an incentive to jump on the train 5 days a week....I already have one, it's called keeping my job.

If we're going to get into touchy feely psychological factors, then here's another one....Routine.
You're saying that without discount that kicks in earlier than the  10 trips a week , people will get disappointed, won't use PT on all 5 days, and suddenly do something different on Friday to what they wake up and do every other day, as some sort of protest against 'the man'.

[Derwan]

Still not following.
I don't need an incentive to jump on the train 5 days a week....I already have one, it's called keeping my job.

If we're going to get into touchy feely psychological factors, then here's another one....Routine.
You're saying that without discount that kicks in earlier than the  10 trips a week , people will get disappointed, won't use PT on all 5 days, and suddenly do something different on Friday to what they wake up and do every other day, as some sort of protest against 'the man'.

You appear to have missed (or avoided) my point completely.  First of all, I was talking about the decision whether to drive or take PT, not ignore responsibilities.

I'm not suggesting that people will get disappointed.  I fail to see how you drew that conclusion.  And while routine is important for some (yes there's another psychological discussion we can have on that one), others are happy to go with what they feel like doing on the day.

I won't bother trying to explain myself further.  If you don't get it you either don't get it or refuse to get it.  (Yes - there's another psychological discussion.) 

[Zoiks]

I'm still yet to see an advantage of periodicals over capping

[Fares_Fair]

It's interesting that those who travel the furthest for commuting (and thus pay the most) are the ones who most want a commuter discount ticket.  (ooh, Am I allowed to say that?)

Or in other words, live an unsustainably long distance from their work, and then want even more subsidising of their travelling habits.

Like I keep saying to those who think a rail network is for short suburb to suburb trips. 
It's NOT.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

You appear to have missed (or avoided) my point completely.  First of all, I was talking about the decision whether to drive or take PT, not ignore responsibilities.

I'm not suggesting that people will get disappointed.  I fail to see how you drew that conclusion.  And while routine is important for some (yes there's another psychological discussion we can have on that one), others are happy to go with what they feel like doing on the day.

I won't bother trying to explain myself further.  If you don't get it you either don't get it or refuse to get it.  (Yes - there's another psychological discussion.) 

I do get your point, I just think you're wrong.

The crux of what you are saying is that there is a potential passenger market we could win for regular travel if we kicked in discounts sooner.

But the way I see it, if we put the cap in sooner (Say after 8 trips to be equivalent to a weekly in Sydney) we're basically knocking 20% off revenue currently collected from the entire 'M-F 9-5' market in order to encourage people to "catch PT every day and not just some days."

Another way of looking at it in real terms, getting your free travel sooner would save $8.28 a week for a 4 zone traveller.
Does this mean that $8.28 per week is the make or break saving for some people between taking PT or driving over this distance?

For all the crap PT gets given, its actually pretty good for a lot of people, that's why the trains are full. I still firmly believe that PT use in peak hour wouldn't be too price driven. You do what works for you.

If somebody is a driver, its not because they think PT is too expensive, its because they don't live close enough to a train station or BUZ, or there's no cross town routes (For non CBD workers), or its faster to drive, or the timetable is crap for them, or its too overcrowded and uncomfortable, or a myriad of other reasons that discounting won't actually address.

You did mention the analogy of free coffee stamps, but say with Maccas, the coffee is so shockingly bad that the notion I'll get a free one after X number of cups is not enough to make me actually start going there and being loyal.

I mean, if people want to have different capping rules/periodicals so it will save them money, then just come right out and say it! . But don't try and use strawmen to justify it like "more people might use it", or "people prefer such and such". who are these "people" anyway? If it would make you use it more, then fair enough, but its safe to say everyone on here uses PT because it's close to them and it works, not because it's -/+ 10% of a certain price level that makes them happy.

Is it honestly worth burning big holes in the revenue currently collected from everyone in order to attract these seemingly fickle 'people' who are influenced by price movements of a few dollars.

What's wrong with boosting patronage the proven way through better services?

Who here can honestly say they would give a sh%t about prices if we actually did have a 'world class' system. Judging by that recent survey, the people in (Periodical-less) Perth certainly don't.

Like I keep saying to those who think a rail network is for short suburb to suburb trips.  rofl
It's NOT.

Hey, I'm cool with people if they want to travel that distance every day, but they should be paying $20-30 a ticket each way, as they would in Europe or Japan over that distance (With that sort of money being collected, track upgrades and faster rolling stock would be standard and not a pipedream)

[somebody]

I'm with Gazza.  You shouldn't savage your revenue (or put up the base price) just to get a handful of sporadic users to become full time users.  Putting up the base price really puts off occasional users who we need to be trying to win over.

Like I keep saying to those who think a rail network is for short suburb to suburb trips. 
It's NOT.

Perhaps that's not the main reason, but try telling users of the Moscow Metro circle line that you can't have rail for cross town trips!  Similarly users of the former Tennyson trains.  I could add some other examples from Sydney.

[petey3801]

Personally, I think Peak travel should be charged as is (ie: at 100% rate). Where things need to change is the off-peak periods, where the trains are nowhere near as busy. Maybe take another 10% or something off the ticket price for off-peak journeys. It may be a bit of a loss, but if it gets more bums on seats, it would be worth it..

[Derwan]

What's wrong with boosting patronage the proven way through better services?

Yes - this must be the first and foremost method to attract people to public transport.

I read through your post and yes it certainly makes sense.  I guess the problem is people's perception.  (Yes - that psychological bit.)  It's the same with express services that shave just a few minutes off travel time.  Take away express services and people moan and complain even though the difference is minor.

People's perception is that they got a better deal with periodicals (i.e. capped fares).  That's why the push is on for them to return.  It might make sense NOT to have them, but you can't change people's perceptions - and people's perceptions influence the way that they vote.

[somebody]

It's the same with express services that shave just a few minutes off travel time.  Take away express services and people moan and complain even though the difference is minor.

It shouldn't be so minor.

Back in the day, I used to use CityRail from Wynyard to Parramatta/Harris Park.  Fast trains used to do it in 29 minutes to Parramatta (if on time), slow trains in 38 (IIRC) to Harris Park.  Difference was only 6 stations bypassed, and I think the express time was pretty fat (60km/h in 21km express zone).  Perhaps the slow train time was obese.  I could actually walk further from Parramatta and still be ahead.  If I was lucky, I could get a train backwards from Parramatta to Harris Park, which was the fastest possible journey.

[colinw]

Just had an offpeak journey Kuraby to Windsor & return, to go and collect an eBay purchase.  People are NOT using the Beenleigh line to any great degree in the weekday offpeak, a bus would have easily carried the load on offer.

This journey neatly illustrated to me some of the problems with our public transport system:

1. Fat in the timetable.  Long station dwells, a lot of very slow running.  41 minutes for 22 rail km from Kuraby to Central, for a grand average speed of just under 32.2 km/h!
2. Poor connections. Arriving Roma St inbound, Ipswich train was seen leaving just as we pulled in. 30 minute wait for stations beyond Darra, 15 minutes for all to Richlands.  Nambour train was departing as well, a passenger from the Beenleigh line wouldn't have made it either.  Coming home, the same thing - Ipswich train leaving as we arrived Central & Roma St.  At Park Road we held waiting for a Cleveland to Doomben train to clear the junction, then were off as soon as the signals cleared & points were set. Passengers from the Cleveland Line would have needed to wait 30 minutes for the next Beenleigh Train.
3. Poor announcement of connections.  No mention of UQ busway services at Park Road.  No mention of Richlands line or busway connections at Roma St. No mention of Gold Coast & Airtrain connections at Coopers Plains even though these services stop there in the offpeak.

And don't get me started about some of the other passengers.  I had to "enjoy" the company of three drugged out morons who thought a quiet carriage was a good venue for a scuffle, wrestling and throwing nails at each other!!!  Obviously not QR or TransLink's fault, but I felt uncomfortable, as did several other passengers.

I can understand why the bus system is doing comparatively better.  Service frequency wins, and I have never felt a personal security risk on the bus or at a busway station, whereas some of the Beenleigh line trains & services make me feel distinctly unsafe at times.

[somebody]

It's not just fat which makes the Beenleigh line slow.  Roma St-South Brisbane is a very substandard alignment, and Altandi and Trinder Park/Woodridge aren't good either.  I think there hasn't been much interest in aligning well in areas which freight trains and Gold Coast trains do not run.

I can't abide dwells at Roma St or Bowen Hills, and I think the ones at Central should be kept to a minimum - 2mins max.  I also think Melbourne resisting the introduction of "Stand clear, doors closing" messages has been correct.

Coordination between the multiple lines, I would think would be unlikely.  If all lines have a 15 minute frequency, they can't all coordinate.  You'd have to pick some winners.

[SurfRail]

If all lines have a 15 minute frequency, they can't all coordinate.  You'd have to pick some winners.

But, of course, the connectivity problem is nowhere near as severe at those headways and pulse timetabling actually becomes less relevant to the network en globo.

[Gazza]

People's perception is that they got a better deal with periodicals (i.e. capped fares).  That's why the push is on for them to return.

But there are a whole bunch of other perceptual type things, and things people 'want' too...

....Express to their stationitis,  don't want to transfer, don't want the timetable to ever change (Did anyone see those comments from people on the CM website who thought that we shouldn't alter existing services, but rather add new ones between them!), dont want to walk far (has to go down their street, so long as the bus stop isn't in directly in front of their house) don't want CRR since they'd rather have new suburban extensions to their sprawlsville suburb built first (System wont work if you did that mate), want unlimited free parking at stations because they don't like feeder buses, expect that even in the height of peak they will never have to stand  etc etc
Point is, if we want the system to 'grow up' there's a line in the sand you have to draw, where you start resisting old mindsets such as these, and just run the damn network properly.

To me, wanting to go back to old style periodicals, and not just having an even playing field of set capping for all, is in this mindset. So what if it's what 'people' want, when it isn't the most effective method. As far as I'm concerned, blowing holes in the revenue collected from all (which costs money) to attract a fickle minority more is up there with building park and rides as the most cost inefficient method of building patronage.

but you can't change people's perceptions - and people's perceptions influence the way that they vote.

This is what has paralysed progress in PT.

[#Metro]

....Express to their stationitis,  don't want to transfer, don't want the timetable to ever change (Did anyone see those comments from people on the CM website who thought that we shouldn't alter existing services, but rather add new ones between them!), dont want to walk far (has to go down their street, so long as the bus stop isn't in directly in front of their house) don't want CRR since they'd rather have new suburban extensions to their sprawlsville suburb built first (System wont work if you did that mate), want unlimited free parking at stations because they don't like feeder buses, expect that even in the height of peak they will never have to stand  etc etc
Point is, if we want the system to 'grow up' there's a line in the sand you have to draw, where you start resisting old mindsets such as these, and just run the damn network properly.

To me, wanting to go back to old style periodicals, and not just having an even playing field of set capping for all, is in this mindset. So what if it's what 'people' want, when it isn't the most effective method. As far as I'm concerned, blowing holes in the revenue collected from all (which costs money) to attract a fickle minority more is up there with building park and rides as the most cost inefficient method of building patronage.

EXACTLY. People want to treat the PT system like their own personal car. They want public transport to me-me-me island but don't want to pay for it! Many of the things that make up good public transport is the EXACT OPPOSITE to what people say they want- i.e. express to my front door, stops everywhere etc etc...

[ozbob]

People's perception is that they got a better deal with periodicals (i.e. capped fares).  That's why the push is on for them to return.  It might make sense NOT to have them, but you can't change people's perceptions - and people's perceptions influence the way that they vote.

Yes, reality Derwan.  The Government will move on some further fare enhancements, the only question is the form.  The Minister has clearly indicated that.

Whilst perusing the TRANSLINK web site (Metro Vancouver) came across this little gem ..

http://www.translink.ca/en/Fares-and-Passes/Monthly-Pass.aspx

Sunday and Holiday FareCard Special

On Sundays and Statutory Holidays you can use your FareCard to take five other riders with you for free! A total of six riders is allowed: Two adults (14 and older) and up to four children (13 and under) can ride on a single Adult FareCard, West Coast Express 28-day Pass, or Annual Employer Transit Pass. (Does not apply to Concession Passes.)

Vancouver is oft touted as a good example. Their ticketing practises actually encourage public transit use. Significant value in monthly passes as well.

[SurfRail]

Which is why I continue to be incredulous about the claims on here that:

1. TransLink's programmed fare hikes are inevitable or represent good cost recovery for the system (neither point borne out by experience anywhere else in the world or this country).

2. Periodicals don't encourage off-peak utilisation and are outmoded (neither point borne out by experience anywhere else in the world or this country).

The system needs to be made as cheap as possible for everybody, taking into account the need to get more people on seats where there is spare capacity and the need to encourage people to make more and more of their short trips by public transport.

Everybody is getting ripped off, especially people who want to use the system for discretionary, short-range travel. 

People have a legitimate expectation that their money will be used to deliver viable services at competitive costs, particularly for groups.  The system needs to be cheap and offer good service, not one or the other, and it is easily achievable with a bit of effort.

Bottom line is that people are a lot more price sensitive than some forumers here take them for. 

[#Metro]

Bottom line is that people are a lot more price sensitive than some forumers here take them for. 

Disagree and agree.

COST = (waiting time x value of time) + nominal price

The waiting time is a VERY LARGE and significant cost, indeed it would easily make the nominal price pale. When people talk about ticket prices, they are really forgetting that the waiting time (30 minutes or so?) easily eclipses the ticket price.

[Zoiks]

I also think Melbourne resisting the introduction of "Stand clear, doors closing" messages has been correct.

Not sure I quite understand the significance of this

[Zoiks]

Bottom line is that people are a lot more price sensitive than some forumers here take them for. 

Disagree and agree.

COST = (waiting time x value of time) + nominal price

The waiting time is a VERY LARGE and significant cost, indeed it would easily make the nominal price pale. When people talk about ticket prices, they are really forgetting that the waiting time (30 minutes or so?) easily eclipses the ticket price.

Its even more complex then that however as COST = (Waiting time x value of time x factor) + (Travel time x value of time) + Nominal price. People hate waiting on a seat thats not moving more then waiting on a train that is moving slowly and steadily.

We should not be subsidising the peak hour travellers which is exactly what periodicals will do.
For people to choose a periodical, they will go through the following:
I travel for 50 days during this periodical, 2 times each day cost is $5 each way so $500 - periodical costs $400 so ill choose the periodical. We have then subsidised peak hour travel. You then have issues with different zones and whatever.

However with capping,  if they decide to go to the movies/football/mate place/shopping after work, they see that the trip is capped and thus they are not paying for it (yellow light would be good here) and cements it in their head that travelling outside of work is cheap on the wallet.

I also think that offpeak should be 50% off regardless.

[Gazza]

Not sure I quite understand the significance of this

It increases dwell times. In other systems you literally get one short buzzer and then the doors shut. When you save a little bit of time at every station, it quickly adds up.
Those stupid announcements on logan buses slow things down equally as badly.

Which is why I continue to be incredulous about the claims on here that:

1. TransLink's programmed fare hikes are inevitable or represent good cost recovery for the system (neither point borne out by experience anywhere else in the world or this country).

2. Periodicals don't encourage off-peak utilisation and are outmoded (neither point borne out by experience anywhere else in the world or this country).

The system needs to be made as cheap as possible for everybody, taking into account the need to get more people on seats where there is spare capacity and the need to encourage people to make more and more of their short trips by public transport.

Everybody is getting ripped off, especially people who want to use the system for discretionary, short-range travel.

People have a legitimate expectation that their money will be used to deliver viable services at competitive costs, particularly for groups.  The system needs to be cheap and offer good service, not one or the other, and it is easily achievable with a bit of effort.

Bottom line is that people are a lot more price sensitive than some forumers here take them for. 

Perhaps we have two separate debates going on in this thread, about the specifics of when caps should kick in.

I'm cool with people getting incentives to travel offpeak, weekends etc.

But my fundamental view is that for everybody, the first 10 trips need to be full price to avoid subsidising regular work commutes. Once you push beyond 10, by doing an evening trip, weekend trip etc, then discounting is fine by me.
But this is more or less what happens anyway, the frequent user discount kicks in after 10 trips.

Of course, we can have a debate about whether the current frequent user discount is enough (or even if it should just be free after 10 trips)

But, when you start talking about ideas of discounting earlier than 10 trips, you then start losing revenue you otherwise would've gotten (from all the people that travel to work every day irrespective)
When this happens, do you substitute the lost revenue by...
-Taking it away from making higher frequency services more widely available.
-Raising the base price to cover the loss (In turn making individual trips costly for less regular users)

I don't disagree on your other points though, the price rises seem to be about paying for TLs inefficiency.

[SurfRail]

Bottom line is that people are a lot more price sensitive than some forumers here take them for. 

Disagree and agree.

COST = (waiting time x value of time) + nominal price

The waiting time is a VERY LARGE and significant cost, indeed it would easily make the nominal price pale. When people talk about ticket prices, they are really forgetting that the waiting time (30 minutes or so?) easily eclipses the ticket price.

Most commuters do not wait anywhere near that long for a train.  And frankly, if you are not a working professional, your time does not necessarily equal money.  All that you need is a reliable way of getting to work that is reasonably priced - you need bread, not caviar.

Off-peak travellers are the ones getting the long end of the stick service wise, peak commuters getting shafted cost-wise.  Both issues can be resolved as long as TTA has the primary objective of PT in mind - enabling people to avoid congestion by providing a cheap and reliable way around it.  Enticing people onto the network at all times is the main way of accomplishing that.

[SurfRail]

Its even more complex then that however as COST = (Waiting time x value of time x factor) + (Travel time x value of time) + Nominal price. People hate waiting on a seat thats not moving more then waiting on a train that is moving slowly and steadily.

We should not be subsidising the peak hour travellers which is exactly what periodicals will do.
For people to choose a periodical, they will go through the following:
I travel for 50 days during this periodical, 2 times each day cost is $5 each way so $500 - periodical costs $400 so ill choose the periodical. We have then subsidised peak hour travel. You then have issues with different zones and whatever.

However with capping,  if they decide to go to the movies/football/mate place/shopping after work, they see that the trip is capped and thus they are not paying for it (yellow light would be good here) and cements it in their head that travelling outside of work is cheap on the wallet.

People really don't think that analytically.  If the system is not cheaper than driving and parking on a daily basis (ignoring the sunk cost of a car), then plenty of people will prefer to endure the congestion, as they do now.

All public transport is subsidised in one form or another in Queensland.  The difference to farebox recovery in providing a 20% discount is, in practical terms, bugger all, and can easily be met by redirecting some of the obscene roads budget and pursuing efficiency measures.  The gains to patronage by making the system more attractive cost-wise should not be discounted.

I don't understand the practical difference between periodicals and capping in your dissertation above, except that capping is less simple for the system to record.  Periodicals are idiot proof as there is no calculation involved, only a recording of the transaction, thus no scope for errors, fixed fares or the like.

However, as iterated above, I believe capping is certainly something we need - I just don't see why when periodicals suit some people and are clearly accepted on world's best practice networks that we need to reinvent the wheel.  The myki system by all accounts works well, Melburnians attitudes to the contrary (then again fare evasion is the pastime of choice down there).

[somebody]

Which is why I continue to be incredulous about the claims on here that:

1. TransLink's programmed fare hikes are inevitable or represent good cost recovery for the system (neither point borne out by experience anywhere else in the world or this country).

I don't think anyone has claimed that have they?

2. Periodicals don't encourage off-peak utilisation and are outmoded (neither point borne out by experience anywhere else in the world or this country). 

I think it is fair that they would encourage off peak utilisation, but what would you expect from effectively giving the product away for free?  Should we forgo that potential revenue to reduce off peak traffic congestion slightly, when the real problem is peak congestion?  Also mobility, I guess.

I don't understand the practical difference between periodicals and capping in your dissertation above, except that capping is less simple for the system to record.  Periodicals are idiot proof as there is no calculation involved, only a recording of the transaction, thus no scope for errors, fixed fares or the like.

But you still haven't solved the problem of people buying a weekly/monthly for zone 1 and travelling to East Ipswich?  Or Ormeau or Landsborough?

[#Metro]

Most commuters do not wait anywhere near that long for a train. And frankly, if you are not a working professional, your time does not necessarily equal money.  All that you need is a reliable way of getting to work that is reasonably priced - you need bread, not caviar.

Totally disagree. Perhaps you should avail yourself of Route 414 sometime...

[#Metro]

Most commuters do not wait anywhere near that long for a train.

Most train stations in SEQ are 30 minute waits.

And frankly, if you are not a working professional, your time does not necessarily equal money.

Totally disagree and flies in the face of massive patronage increases in the off-peak and weekends on the BUZ when people are NOT commuting to work.
If people don't value time, then there would be no need to supply PT in the off-peak. People would just walk everywhere, no matter how slow...

[#Metro]

The value of time:

[HappyTrainGuy]

What a waste of 3.19 when you can't hear the sound 

[Gazza]

Most train stations in SEQ are 30 minute waits.

Not in peak hour when the majority of trips take place though, but I get the gist of your point.

The system needs to be made as cheap as possible for everybody, taking into account the need to get more people on seats where there is spare capacity and the need to encourage people to make more and more of their short trips by public transport.

Everybody is getting ripped off, especially people who want to use the system for discretionary, short-range travel.

People have a legitimate expectation that their money will be used to deliver viable services at competitive costs, particularly for groups.  The system needs to be cheap and offer good service, not one or the other, and it is easily achievable with a bit of effort.

Bottom line is that people are a lot more price sensitive than some forumers here take them for. 

I can totally see where you are coming from....

But I'm realistic, It's either Andrew Fraser controlling the purse strings, or someone from the LNP, neither of them seem the sort that would simultaneously slash fares and increase services, as much as we'd like to have both.

To me, it almost seems like the only way out is to have higher fares for a few years, put that money into higher frequency and fixing the sorts of very real problems mentioned in colinw's post , use that to build critical mass and split costs across a bigger pool of passengers, and then ease off with fare rises in following years (keep them below inflation) once the network is more popular, so things would equalise once again.

[somebody]

The opposition (I think) will keep the pressure on regarding the fare rises.  I am most concerned about the service quality.  I personally think we shouldn't focus on fares too much!  I cannot see the opposition putting pressure on the government about the mediocre service provision to the majority.

[Derwan]

Most commuters do not wait anywhere near that long for a train.

Try living on the Shorncliffe line.  (Or Doomben line for that matter!)

[Zoiks]

People really don't think that analytically.  If the system is not cheaper than driving and parking on a daily basis (ignoring the sunk cost of a car), then plenty of people will prefer to endure the congestion, as they do now.

All public transport is subsidised in one form or another in Queensland.  The difference to farebox recovery in providing a 20% discount is, in practical terms, bugger all, and can easily be met by redirecting some of the obscene roads budget and pursuing efficiency measures.  The gains to patronage by making the system more attractive cost-wise should not be discounted.

I don't understand the practical difference between periodicals and capping in your dissertation above, except that capping is less simple for the system to record.  Periodicals are idiot proof as there is no calculation involved, only a recording of the transaction, thus no scope for errors, fixed fares or the like.

However, as iterated above, I believe capping is certainly something we need - I just don't see why when periodicals suit some people and are clearly accepted on world's best practice networks that we need to reinvent the wheel.  The myki system by all accounts works well, Melburnians attitudes to the contrary (then again fare evasion is the pastime of choice down there).

I dont agree.. I doubt most people will buy a periodical if it is not cheaper then buying individual tickets for the 9-5 there and back trips.
All transport full stop is subsidised in one form or another in Queensland. There is no sense at all in reducing a 9-5 ticket since they are the ones that are costing us the most. The ones that need more infrastructure built for, the ones that need new carraiges and the ones that need carraiges reserved so they cant be used offpeak.
The gains of increased revenue -> increased services would b

Peroidicals worked well for paper tickets. Its unneeded complexity for a smartcard based system

[dwb]

A cap wouldnt be an incentive to the 9-5 travel. It is an incentive to go elsewhere outside of that. On weekends, to the movies, friends place etc.

9-5 costs us all dearly. We have the network running at breaking point for what 2-3 hours a day and not even breaking a sweat outside that. As such I believe there should not be a discount for the 9-5er. If they want more services they should pay for it as they are the ones that are costing us the most. What we should be encouraging is more people to travel outside of the 9-5.

Dont get me wrong, im not saying we should be ignoring the 9-5ers, far from it. But giving them a discount is just silly.

The question is, did the old cap ever really do this? ie did it ever really incentivise people to do weekend trips... I don't believe it did, because on BT they all bought 10trippers and used them over more than a week... which is good for shift workers, uni students etc, but kind of giving a free discount to peak services, of which Simon is so against.

[dwb]

Yes, peak hour is full, but then maybe more services are needed.  The roads are busy too, not just the trains.  Most peole really don't have that much leeway in what times they are expected to be present at work.

I agree, however peak hour capacity expansion is expensive as the system is at capacity during peak hour-- which means that an increase in PT supply can only come about buy buying more concrete (or removing seats, getting rid of express, putting in an extra door(s) in trains - I hear lots of squealing when any of these are suggested!!!).

I think some clarity would come about if we asked the question "what is the purpose of a PT fare cap?"
when we have an answer to that then the picture will become clearer.

I don't think the purpose of a fare cap should be to encourage more peak hour 9-5 commuting. That already happens and the system is loaded up to capacity without needing one.
Off-peak and weekends are a different story, but I don't really notice the price difference there. It is the travel in the off-peak that should be encouraged.

When BrizCommuter uses public transport more than twice a day, the extra journeys are outside of the peak period. BrizCommuter is sure that is the case for other frequent public transport users such as students travelling to uni and work on the same day, and tourists. Thus daily capping would attract more public transport use during the off-peak, rather than the peak.

Likewise weekly caps would encourage the use of public transport on weekends. Thanks to the current fare structure, BrizCommuter's weekend public transport use has plummeted.

Perhaps, but my gut is telling me it is actually rather difficult for most people to rack up more than 3 journeys a day due to transfer rules... I'd like to see some TL stats about that!