Ticket price rises 2012 - 2014

[ozbob]

And the train is a lot safer ...  in fact, it is highly likely that the train would be quicker as well, particularly with the constant issues on the highway.

[SurfRail]

But would it be as comfortable?  Last week I had occasion to use the train between Sydney & Wollongong. One way was a bus substitution, the other way was by train. Even 'though the bus was slightly faster, I preferred the train because it was much more comfortable.

I was cheated out of a V-set to and from the Gong the other week - may never experience that now with their imminent replacement with H-sets entirely.

[colinw]

That is a real shame, V-sets are nice and comfortable (although somewhat shabby these days).

My best interurban memory, from NSWGR days when I was kid, was a U-set to Gosford. Now that is a train I really liked.  I also have vague memories of my grandfather taking me to Lithgow on a train that I think was a 46 class EL plus carriages, similar to the consist involved in the Granville disaster.

[SurfRail]

That is a real shame, V-sets are nice and comfortable (although somewhat shabby these days).

My best interurban memory, from NSWGR days when I was kid, was a U-set to Gosford. Now that is a train I really liked.  I also have vague memories of my grandfather taking me to Lithgow on a train that I think was a 46 class EL plus carriages, similar to the consist involved in the Granville disaster.

Fortunately I have been able to enjoy them before and will be able to in future - just not on the South Coast. 

[dwb]

Thread getting off topic perhaps?

[ozbob]

Full 2012 fares, including paper here --> http://translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/fares/fares-2012

[ozbob]

Fare changes 2012 --> http://translink.com.au/resources/tickets-and-fares/fares/2012-fares-factsheet.pdf

[HappyTrainGuy]

$3 bucks for one zone... haha yeah right. Back to the car I go.

[ozbob]

It is ever more important to get everyone using a go card, those paper prices are just too expensive.

[HappyTrainGuy]

But still, $3 for one zone on a GoCard.... Translink should really start to look at introducing more zones. For people that now have to pay to park at Chermside that used to drive there locally might aswell just drive and pay for parking at that price for PT.

[somebody]

But still, $3 for one zone on a GoCard.... Translink should really start to look at introducing more zones. For people that now have to pay to park at Chermside that used to drive there locally might aswell just drive and pay for parking at that price for PT.

Just reduce the peak go card fares across the board by 50c or some such number.  No need for more (or less) zones.

[Stillwater]

Introducing more zones?  Surely it would be more practical to reduce the number of zones.  A large proportion of people would travel 2 zones, for instance, and this sort of travel would be a good revenue-raiser.  Charge, say, $4 for travel anywhere within zones 1 and 2, then collapse zones 5 and 6 zone fares to $5.60, 7-8 to $6.80, 9-10 to $8.30, 11-12 to $9.60, 13-14 to $10.60, 15-16 to $12.30, 17-18 to $14.50, 19-20 to $16.00, 21-22 to $17.40 and 23 to $19.50.

[dwb]

Introducing more zones?  Surely it would be more practical to reduce the number of zones.  A large proportion of people would travel 2 zones, for instance, and this sort of travel would be a good revenue-raiser.  Charge, say, $4 for travel anywhere within zones 1 and 2, then collapse zones 5 and 6 zone fares to $5.60, 7-8 to $6.80, 9-10 to $8.30, 11-12 to $9.60, 13-14 to $10.60, 15-16 to $12.30, 17-18 to $14.50, 19-20 to $16.00, 21-22 to $17.40 and 23 to $19.50.

No no no no no no no. This has been discussed to death on this board why that would be a bad idea.

[dwb]

But still, $3 for one zone on a GoCard.... Translink should really start to look at introducing more zones. For people that now have to pay to park at Chermside that used to drive there locally might aswell just drive and pay for parking at that price for PT.

Just reduce the peak go card fares across the board by 50c or some such number.  No need for more (or less) zones.

Good thinking Simon... if in fact they'd thought along these lines when they did the fare rise initially, they probably could have approached it all differently... for example, rather than 15% rise, 15% rise, 15% rise, they could have raised the fares by say 20c and 5%....

Or even, if they'd gone back to the system they had when they launched go card, they could have a tariff then zone fees and the zone fees could have been adjusted better rather than some sloppy % increase across the board on multiply raised and adjusted prices (existing prices had been rounded as they were paper prices that had to be to the closest 10c (concession) or 20c (adult).

[HappyTrainGuy]

50 cents doesn't mean much considering its going to be $4 for one zone in 2014 which I think is just an absolute rip off no matter how much lipstick and makeup you put on SEQPT/Translink to pretty it up.

[somebody]

50 cents doesn't mean much considering its going to be $4 for one zone in 2014 which I think is just an absolute rip off no matter how much lipstick and makeup you put on SEQPT/Translink to pretty it up.

It would mean a lower 1 zone go card fare than present.  The $4 is only the cash fare price.

[HappyTrainGuy]

50 cents doesn't mean much considering its going to be $4 for one zone in 2014 which I think is just an absolute rip off no matter how much lipstick and makeup you put on SEQPT/Translink to pretty it up.

It would mean a lower 1 zone go card fare than present.  The $4 is only the cash fare price.

considering its going to be $4 for one zone in 2014.

[somebody]

Ah, ok.  Sorry about that.  (2012 fare - 50c ) * 1.15 * 1.15 = $3.37  FWIW.  Still too expensive of course.

[#Metro]

One of the reasons why the fare rises have been advertised in advance is because translink needs a stable and predictable source of revenue that it can plan new routes on. No point spending a year planning route X and then running it for a few years and then oops-- have no idea if funding will be there or not...

[HappyTrainGuy]

Its also another reason to close routes when they justify their closure due to lack of patronage.

[somebody]

One of the reasons why the fare rises have been advertised in advance is because translink needs a stable and predictable source of revenue that it can plan new routes on. No point spending a year planning route X and then running it for a few years and then oops-- have no idea if funding will be there or not...

That's the pro-TL spin. However, it assumes that you actually know how many trips will actually be taken.  Last two rises have increased fare box revenue in nominal terms - June 2011 Quarter collected $84.5mil vs June 2010 Quarter @ $76.4mil.

The question is: Is the $8.1 mil of extra revenue worth it?  Much PT use has been deterred by this.

[mufreight]

Come on you blokes, how about a bit of practical reality here.
First on the subject of zones, if there is to be any change here the number of zones should be reduced rather than increased.
Next fares, the maximum justifiable fare increase is in line with the CPI not in excess of that figure.
For public transport to serve its basic purpose in this day and age which is to provide an alternative to private transport that will encourage the useage of public transport and take private cars off the roads reducing the community costs of road infrastrucutre construction and maintenence and public health costs and trauma as a result of road accidents.
To encourage the usage of public transport it must be convenient, frequent, reliable and AFFORDABLE.
For peak travel this effectively means that the combined fares for two adults needs to be no more than the costs of operating a private car for the same journey and to encourage off peak usage the combined fares for two adults and two children or three adulds needs be less than the costs of operating a private car for the same journey. 

[somebody]

For peak travel this effectively means that the combined fares for two adults needs to be no more than the costs of operating a private car for the same journey

Err, no.

That ignores parking costs, as well as the fact that the majority of peak hour car commuters are travelling alone.  Generally used average is 1.2 people/car.

[#Metro]

That's the pro-TL spin. However, it assumes that you actually know how many trips will actually be taken.  Last two rises have increased fare box revenue in nominal terms - June 2011 Quarter collected $84.5mil vs June 2010 Quarter @ $76.4mil.

The question is: Is the $8.1 mil of extra revenue worth it?  Much PT use has been deterred by this.

You can model the expected patronage of the overall system using projections based on population increases for geographical areas.
I'm sure that $8.1 million is funding a number of BUZ services that are coming online now which IMHO.

[somebody]

That's the pro-TL spin. However, it assumes that you actually know how many trips will actually be taken.  Last two rises have increased fare box revenue in nominal terms - June 2011 Quarter collected $84.5mil vs June 2010 Quarter @ $76.4mil.

The question is: Is the $8.1 mil of extra revenue worth it?  Much PT use has been deterred by this.

You can model the expected patronage of the overall system using projections based on population increases for geographical areas.
I'm sure that $8.1 million is funding a number of BUZ services that are coming online now which IMHO.

If the patronage growth had continued at the prior rate (7.4%) more than half of that extra revenue would have been delivered anyway.

Sorry, but I think this fare rise policy is already a failure and as it continues its failure will amplify.  If fare revenue doesn't rise significantly March quarter 2012 and patronage declines are you prepared to call the fare policies a failure?

[#Metro]

If the patronage growth had continued at the prior rate (7.4%) more than half of that extra revenue would have been delivered anyway.

Sorry, but I think this fare rise policy is already a failure and as it continues its failure will amplify.  If fare revenue doesn't rise significantly March quarter 2012 and patronage declines are you prepared to call the fare policies a failure?

What is to say that the rate must remain linear? Is that a reasonable assumption to make? Are there confounding factors present?
If you travel the full 23 zones to Brisbane (unlikely) it will cost $16.91 one way or $33.82, roughly equivalent to an hour and a bit of labour in a day and comparable with CBD parking costs. So I think that is affordable in an overall budget.

Time and again it has been shown that frequency pulls in the pax.

[somebody]

Time and again it has been shown that frequency pulls in the pax.

That's true but fares are also a factor.  Did you see that removing the "station access fee" from Green Square and Mascot in Sydney resulted in a significant increase in patronage for those stations?

[mufreight]

For peak travel this effectively means that the combined fares for two adults needs to be no more than the costs of operating a private car for the same journey

Err, no.

That ignores parking costs, as well as the fact that the majority of peak hour car commuters are travelling alone.  Generally used average is 1.2 people/car.

I believe that I did say the costs of OPERATING a private car for the same journey which would include parking and tolls.
The intent is to draw the maximum numbers of commuters out of their cars and off the roads for the major part of their commute if not for their entire commute.  The more passengers carried even with a lower fare base structure the more ecenomicaly efficent and sustainable public transport becomes.

[somebody]

For peak travel this effectively means that the combined fares for two adults needs to be no more than the costs of operating a private car for the same journey

Err, no.

That ignores parking costs, as well as the fact that the majority of peak hour car commuters are travelling alone.  Generally used average is 1.2 people/car.

I believe that I did say the costs of OPERATING a private car for the same journey which would include parking and tolls.
The intent is to draw the maximum numbers of commuters out of their cars and off the roads for the major part of their commute if not for their entire commute.  The more passengers carried even with a lower fare base structure the more ecenomicaly efficent and sustainable public transport becomes.

I can't see city parking for less than $17/day on a weekday.  You need to coming from zone 4 or beyond with two people just to pay for the parking vs PT.

Maybe you are thinking of weekends @ $12/day.  Two people still need to be coming from zone 3 or beyond.

The above ignores small things like petrol & wear and tear.

[dwb]

Come on you blokes, how about a bit of practical reality here.
First on the subject of zones, if there is to be any change here the number of zones should be reduced rather than increased.
Next fares, the maximum justifiable fare increase is in line with the CPI not in excess of that figure.
For public transport to serve its basic purpose in this day and age which is to provide an alternative to private transport that will encourage the useage of public transport and take private cars off the roads reducing the community costs of road infrastrucutre construction and maintenence and public health costs and trauma as a result of road accidents.
To encourage the usage of public transport it must be convenient, frequent, reliable and AFFORDABLE.
For peak travel this effectively means that the combined fares for two adults needs to be no more than the costs of operating a private car for the same journey and to encourage off peak usage the combined fares for two adults and two children or three adulds needs be less than the costs of operating a private car for the same journey. 

Disagree on so many levels with what you've written here.

[dwb]

Time and again it has been shown that frequency pulls in the pax.

That's true but fares are also a factor.  Did you see that removing the "station access fee" from Green Square and Mascot in Sydney resulted in a significant increase in patronage for those stations?

That was a substantial station access fee wasn't it?

[dwb]

If the patronage growth had continued at the prior rate (7.4%) more than half of that extra revenue would have been delivered anyway.

Sorry, but I think this fare rise policy is already a failure and as it continues its failure will amplify.  If fare revenue doesn't rise significantly March quarter 2012 and patronage declines are you prepared to call the fare policies a failure?

But the point is Simon that the system couldn't cope with 7.4% increases, it was full, you wouldn't have kept getting that growth. What they needed was funding to improve the services to carry more. There is no point selling a high demand item for below what you can reasonably sell it for... different offpeak of course.

And ultimately, the PT base in Brisbane doesn't have much choice given the rises aren't huge or associated with cuts like in other jurisdictions with financial difficulties.

[somebody]

Time and again it has been shown that frequency pulls in the pax.

That's true but fares are also a factor.  Did you see that removing the "station access fee" from Green Square and Mascot in Sydney resulted in a significant increase in patronage for those stations?

That was a substantial station access fee wasn't it?

$2.60 for a single and cheaper for return/weekly ($17).

Link: http://cityrail.info/news/2011/110302-access_fee

2008 TL fares, link: http://web.archive.org/web/20080718223802/http://translink.com.au/qt/translin.nsf/index/ti_fares_adult_Aug08

The difference between the 2008 TL fares and the 2014 TL fares are probably higher.

And ultimately, the PT base in Brisbane doesn't have much choice given the rises aren't huge or associated with cuts like in other jurisdictions with financial difficulties.

How do you figure that the fare rises aren't huge?

Surely it is obvious that they are using the fare rises to constrain patronage growth.

[mufreight]

I believe that I did say the costs of OPERATING a private car for the same journey which would include parking and

The above ignores small things like petrol & wear and tear.

Operating any vehicle includes costs of fuel (without which it goes nowhere and which is an obvious cost) registration, insurance and maintenence and these are ongoing costs then factor in depreciation.  All of these factors were taken into consideration plus drivers wages when caluclating fares for a bus operation and with the exception of drivers wages also apply to the OPERATION of a private car.

[dwb]

Surely it is obvious that they are using the fare rises to constrain patronage growth.

Surely it is obvious they are trying to maximise peak revenue for existing capacity? And why shouldn't they?!?!!?!

For me, I will repeat, offpeak pricing is the big deal. To be easy, I'd probably just take 2004 ticket pricing for off peak.

[somebody]

Surely it is obvious that they are using the fare rises to constrain patronage growth.

Surely it is obvious they are trying to maximise peak revenue for existing capacity? And why shouldn't they?!?!!?!

For me, I will repeat, offpeak pricing is the big deal. To be easy, I'd probably just take 2004 ticket pricing for off peak.

Which completely contradicts your monthly proposal.

You still haven't resolved this.

[dwb]

Surely it is obvious that they are using the fare rises to constrain patronage growth.

Surely it is obvious they are trying to maximise peak revenue for existing capacity? And why shouldn't they?!?!!?!

For me, I will repeat, offpeak pricing is the big deal. To be easy, I'd probably just take 2004 ticket pricing for off peak.

Which completely contradicts your monthly proposal.

You still haven't resolved this.

How so?!

I've merely said that it is easy for them to introduce pensioner two-then-free-daily ticket, and soon ten-then-free-weekly ticket, so why not 32-then-free-monthly ticket. It hardly takes nothing away from the discussion of peak versus offpeak.

[somebody]

A 32 then free monthly is completely against maximising peak revenue.  That's an axiom isn't it?

[dwb]

A 32 then free monthly is completely against maximising peak revenue.  That's an axiom isn't it?

Not when you base ticket price is 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.15 x 1.15!

[dwb]

That's what I'm saying right, that the old approach was just sell the ticket as cheap as possible to everyone so that your network was at saturation in peak with excess demand requiring rationing through queuing.

I suggested in my research to lift the base fare by 10% a year for a couple of years and offer other discounts. Broadly what Translink is doing is in line with my suggestions in my research except they chose 15% per year, and they hadn't launched the other products (and still haven't) PRIOR to the raises.