Changes to go card fare structure announced today, 16th October 2011

[somebody]

I would dispute that only 16.4% of go card journeys are exactly 10 journeys (assuming journeys was meant and not trips, semantics can make all the difference).
I would believe that that figure is much higher, perhaps more like 80% (guess).

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

Only going on Andrew Fraser's comments.  There are part time workers, retirees etc who travel less often.  It does seem low, I do have to agree with you on that one.

[Gazza]

I think it would have to be close, if it were 80% like your guess then the Govt would be bragging that the new policy benefits a full 80% rather than a mere 20%.

[Fares_Fair]

I would dispute that only 16.4% of go card journeys are exactly 10 journeys (assuming journeys was meant and not trips, semantics can make all the difference).
I would believe that that figure is much higher, perhaps more like 80% (guess).

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

I would disagree, many people (at least travelling less than 6 zones) would likely replace one or two trips here or there even if they're a 'm-f 9-5'er - by bike, lift, walk etc. That is why ten trips were substantially more popular in Brisbane than weeklies (other than being able to buy them at the corner store of course).

To clarify, I meant just rail users.
Sorry, my error.
Agree that the 10 trip tickets were extraordinarily popular for buses.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Cam]

More than half of the staff who work on the floor that I do in the CBD have a rostered day off (RDO) once per fortnight. Very few of these people use public transport on their RDO so in every second week they won't benefit from free travel after 10 journeys.

[Gazza]

20% vs 3.6% apparent contradiction is resolved thus:
16.4% of Go Card users do exactly 10 journeys/week.  Thus will not get a benefit unless they do more trips.

A quick question, but if only that many are making more than 8 trips per week, then where's the case for going to the expense of implementing monthlies and above?
People make it out as if heaps of people would use them., but I reckon it would basically be limited to people doing 10 trips as week, since the 'certainty' of travel you'd be doing is needed to justify spending money upfront the pass.

And I don't think it's worth spending money on implantation costs to only benefit a small subset of PT users.

You've quoted my comments, but I presume you know what I think - that we (RAILBoT) have gotten more than what we have asked for.  What's with continued bitching?

It wasn't a criticism of what you posted, and yes I know what you think.
I think the free after 10 trips is a good deal.

I'm merely pointing out that I think it's a waste of effort (Both on our part to campaign for it, and on the governments part to implement) to bother with monthlies and above, since the majority of users won't use them.

The popularity of the old 10 trip savers mentioned, I think supports the argument to just offer a lower base fare to everyone (If we are aiming to spend money on further ticket subsidies)

In effect, a 10 trip saver was like a primitive go card...It had a 'stored value', and the user had the ability to use this stored value whenever they pleased, with no time restrictions.
What made it appealing is that if offered this value for money in a flexible manner....It didn't depend on a weekly cycle, and if you used it 5 days in a row, or a few times over the course of a month, you got treated equally.

Offering periodicals is a subsidy to a particular group, and costs X dollars. I think its fairer to spend that X dollars and offer the discount to all.

And I'm guessing people are going to argue that offering periodicals encourages people to make extra trips since they are unlimited on the periodical and that drives PT use.

But at the same time, using the money to lower the base fare means you capture trips at the end of the market where the cost of driving versus PT is very similar....As I've established im some posts, some PT trips (I think it was any trip under 5km) works out more expensive on PT than the 'all inclusive' cost of driving the same distance. And that should absolutely not be the case.

[dwb]

I think it's a waste of effort (Both on our part to campaign for it, and on the governments part to implement) to bother with monthlies and above, since the majority of users won't use them.

It is the government's job to "bother".

[somebody]

I think it's a waste of effort (Both on our part to campaign for it, and on the governments part to implement) to bother with monthlies and above, since the majority of users won't use them.

It is the government's job to "bother".

In this case it would be a retrograde step.

Fares policy should be as simple as possible.  There isn't a single reason to have monthlies in addition to the 10 journey cap.  If you feel there is, why haven't you posted it here?

[ozbob]

As I understand it, the go card in its present configuration is not able to include periodicals. It is possible with further system and software improvements which would take some time as well (12 months?).

So the likelihood of any periodical ticket on the go card is remote for now.

Personally, I don't think re-introducing paper periodicals is the best outcome either.  

TransLink have broadly indicated that more is planned for the go card.  I would expect the LNP will be suggesting lowering the base fare rates, sticking to CPI increases and perhaps even something like Perth free zone one travel for all or something similar.

If the free early bird proposal surfaces again it would have to be on all modes.  But it has not been that successful in Melbourne (on rail only).  I think addressing the base fare rates is a better option.

[somebody]

Personally, I don't think re-introducing paper periodicals is the best outcome either.  

I say it would still be a retrograde step if on the Go Card.

I would expect the LNP will be suggesting lowering the base fare rates, sticking to CPI increases and perhaps even something like Perth free zone one travel for all or something similar.

If the free early bird proposal surfaces again it would have to be on all modes.  But it has not been that successful in Melbourne (on rail only).  I think addressing the base fare rates is a better option.

I don't see a reason to have any increase to the base fares.  They're already too high.  Free travel zone is a good idea and closes the loophole with catching a bus between two stops on Adelaide St at lunchtime - you have to try harder to use this loophole.

[ozbob]

What if?

Fares:

LNP come out during the election with a committment to roll back fares an amount equal to   [(20% + 15% +15%) - (CPI past three years) ]

Free zone one travel (ala Perth).  Off peak to 30%.

Leave the rest as is.


These things could be implemented easily on the system as it is.  I think periodicals, paper or go are out of the picture (although public sentiment is they want them).

(there are other issues of course, frequency, hours, coverage but just fares for now).

[Cam]

What if?

Fares:

LNP come out during the election with a committment to roll back fares an amount equal to   [(20% + 15% +15%) - (CPI past three years) ]

Free zone one travel (ala Perth).  Off peak to 30%.

Leave the rest as is.


These things could be implemented easily on the system as it is.  I think periodicals, paper or go are out of the picture (although public sentiment is they want them).

(there are other issues of course, frequency, hours, coverage but just fares for now).

I think they would win plenty of votes. Unfortunately,  I don't think they need to. It is looking like they will comfortably win the 2012 election without having to entice further voters.

[Fares_Fair]

What if?

Fares:

LNP come out during the election with a committment to roll back fares an amount equal to   [(20% + 15% +15%) - (CPI past three years) ]

Free zone one travel (ala Perth).  Off peak to 30%.

Leave the rest as is.


These things could be implemented easily on the system as it is.  I think periodicals, paper or go are out of the picture (although public sentiment is they want them).

(there are other issues of course, frequency, hours, coverage but just fares for now).

Scroll down to report and see Q4 here
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=6870.0

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[dwb]

Fares policy should be as simple as possible.  There isn't a single reason to have monthlies in addition to the 10 journey cap.  If you feel there is, why haven't you posted it here?

Complexity doesn't have to mean difficult to use. Complexity and diversity can be very simple.

There is no one passenger, there should not be one ticket choice.

I've previously stated and restated I don't believe in reintroducing paper periodicals in any form (weekly, monthly, QR 3/6/12 monthly) except perhaps daily (*perhaps*) and that I would prefer other alternatives than the current 10-then-free but that I do think it is better than nothing. It is effectively the same discount as is given to Seniors but split differnetly, rather than 2-then-free-daily, it is 10-then-free-weekly, I see no reason whatsoever that they can't implement 32-then-free-monthly in exactly the same way that the two current deals are implemented.

Why? Well we've already discussed this numerous times, different passengers have different needs and I do not believe in solely serving m-f 9-5 commuters. It is that simple. I'm sure that there would be people who would benefit from a 32-then-free-monthly option rather than a 10-then-free-weekly option. If it were implemented on top of 10-then-free-weekly, then you'd have the stronger incentive to keep using throughout the month. I say 32 bc that is what the old monthly was, but it could easily be different.

I'm suggesting this as a pragmatic alternative. They've shown they can implement this easily, it would benefit customers and the system, so why not do it!

[SurfRail]

Fares policy should be as simple as possible.  There isn't a single reason to have monthlies in addition to the 10 journey cap.  If you feel there is, why haven't you posted it here?

Complexity doesn't have to mean difficult to use. Complexity and diversity can be very simple.

There is no one passenger, there should not be one ticket choice.

I've previously stated and restated I don't believe in reintroducing paper periodicals in any form (weekly, monthly, QR 3/6/12 monthly) except perhaps daily (*perhaps*) and that I would prefer other alternatives than the current 10-then-free but that I do think it is better than nothing. It is effectively the same discount as is given to Seniors but split differnetly, rather than 2-then-free-daily, it is 10-then-free-weekly, I see no reason whatsoever that they can't implement 32-then-free-monthly in exactly the same way that the two current deals are implemented.

Why? Well we've already discussed this numerous times, different passengers have different needs and I do not believe in solely serving m-f 9-5 commuters. It is that simple. I'm sure that there would be people who would benefit from a 32-then-free-monthly option rather than a 10-then-free-weekly option. If it were implemented on top of 10-then-free-weekly, then you'd have the stronger incentive to keep using throughout the month. I say 32 bc that is what the old monthly was, but it could easily be different.

I'm suggesting this as a pragmatic alternative. They've shown they can implement this easily, it would benefit customers and the system, so why not do it!

I actually think a monthly option in lieu of the weekly option would be:

(a) easier to administer; and

(b) easier to actually make use of, especially if we peg it to activate at 32 trips as dwb has suggested.

You should also be able to determine when your period starts by registering your card.

[dwb]

You should also be able to determine when your period starts by registering your card.

Perhaps, although with a monthly I'd be more likely to just do it per calendar month... but then again it might be nice to have the flexibility to set the start date yourself (although not as important as the currently weekly which starts each monday).

[somebody]

it would benefit customers and the system, so why not do it!

It would benefit some customers but reduce fare box revenue overall for a given base fare.  It would promote few, if any PT trips as compared to a 10 then free weekly.  Therefore the system benefit is negative, I say.

If you are willing to reduce fare box revenue, just reduce the base fare.  That WOULD promote extra trips.

[dwb]

If you are willing to reduce fare box revenue, just reduce the base fare.  That WOULD promote extra trips.

No it wouldn't, it would just cut budget.

I think it is reasonable to give frequent flyers discount that not everyone gets. Do not misconstrue my assertions that everyone should get a discount, that is not at all what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that everyone should be able to access entitled to some discount (not the same discount) if they do something in a 'better' way.

[somebody]

No it wouldn't

Yes, it would.

Are you suggesting that the lack of growth in PT since the new fares policy started is due to something other than high fares?

it would just cut budget.

Clearly that isn't a serious consideration for you, at least when it doesn't suit your argument, based on the whole thrust of what you are suggesting.

[dwb]

Think of it this way, Virgin sell cheap tickets, but not all of their tickets are cheap, with this approach they manage to a) make money and b) encourage more trips because people can (if they do the right things) get a cheap ticket.

NOT EVERYONE gets a cheap ticket on Virgin, nor should they on PT. It doesn't mean that you can't offer cheap deals to those people who will 'do the right thing'.

We can go back and forward on this as much as you like, it is a well established business practice to offer deals, not to simply sell your product under cost... if you do you go out of business, full stop.

[somebody]

A bit different with reserved seating, as you can choose which seats are sold at which price and therefore keep load factors high.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Oh like first and second class on planes. There's no curtain but there different numbers 

[Stillwater]

The real game following the announcement of the 16th is not with the debate here about lower base rates, free fares after 32 journeys etc, but with the education of the public as to how they can use their go-card for advantage -- each individual person's advantage.  Translink now needs to fund a TV advertising campaign showing the flexibility of the go-card, the off-peak advantages etc.  Once people realise how they can use it (to 'beat the system', if you like), they will take to it and patronage numbers will turn around.  It can't just be a generic go-card 'for information' ad, but one that is based around a theme such as 'Use Go-Card to Lower Your Transport Costs'.  It works for supermarkets who whack up prices while putting them down on selected items and demonstrating that with big red hands and people shouting 'prices are down.' 

[somebody]

Oh like first and second class on planes. There's no curtain but there different numbers 

Not exactly what I was getting at.  I was referring to the revenue management systems which attempt to near-fill every flight.

[Gazza]

If you are willing to reduce fare box revenue, just reduce the base fare.  That WOULD promote extra trips.

No it wouldn't, it would just cut budget.

I think it is reasonable to give frequent flyers discount that not everyone gets. Do not misconstrue my assertions that everyone should get a discount, that is not at all what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that everyone should be entitled to some discount (not the same discount) if they do something in a 'better' way.

Is it not doing things a 'better way' to use PT in place of the car in the first place?
Current high base fares prevent this.

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail 22nd October 2011 page 72

Queensland Rail's revamp is still not a ticket to ride

[somebody]

Think of it this way, Virgin sell cheap tickets, but not all of their tickets are cheap, with this approach they manage to a) make money and b) encourage more trips because people can (if they do the right things) get a cheap ticket.

NOT EVERYONE gets a cheap ticket on Virgin, nor should they on PT. It doesn't mean that you can't offer cheap deals to those people who will 'do the right thing'.

We can go back and forward on this as much as you like, it is a well established business practice to offer deals, not to simply sell your product under cost... if you do you go out of business, full stop.

One more comment on this.  I would agree that "not everyone" should get a cheap PT ticket.  By "not everyone" I would mean peak hour commuters!  They are responsible for a large portion of expenditure, and also the competing road option is considerably less attractive.

As for your last line, best I don't reply.

[dwb]

Think of it this way, Virgin sell cheap tickets, but not all of their tickets are cheap, with this approach they manage to a) make money and b) encourage more trips because people can (if they do the right things) get a cheap ticket.

NOT EVERYONE gets a cheap ticket on Virgin, nor should they on PT. It doesn't mean that you can't offer cheap deals to those people who will 'do the right thing'.

We can go back and forward on this as much as you like, it is a well established business practice to offer deals, not to simply sell your product under cost... if you do you go out of business, full stop.

One more comment on this.  I would agree that "not everyone" should get a cheap PT ticket.  By "not everyone" I would mean peak hour commuters!  They are responsible for a large portion of expenditure, and also the competing road option is considerably less attractive.

As for your last line, best I don't reply.

Why's that? You don't think PT should be run like a business? Well I say this in the context of stating that government subsidy should make up the main funding, and other funding mechanisms like road tolling should cross subsidise, but that doesn't change the fact that it should be run responsibly, and yes, we both agree that service efficiencies (doing more with the same) are an integral and missing part of the pie here. I'm also on the record as saying again and again that offpeak fares should be lower than 2004 TL base fares... probably even lower than 2004 ten trip fares... around half or even a third of peak fares now. And the full set of 15% price rises is a bit steep, but overall, if they keep pushing that money into new/improved services, and equity concerns are balanced (for example health care card concession discount implemented) then I think the rest of the community can cop the rises, I'm sick of this Aussie sense of entitlement that it is "un-Australian" to charge for something.

[somebody]

You don't think PT should be run like a business? Well I say this in the context of stating that government subsidy should make up the main funding, and other funding mechanisms like road tolling should cross subsidise, but that doesn't change the fact that it should be run responsibly, and yes, we both agree that service efficiencies (doing more with the same) are an integral and missing part of the pie here.

On these points I fully agree with you.

I'm sick of this Aussie Queensland sense of entitlement that it is "un-Australian" to charge for something.

Fixed it for you.

Not sure why you are saying that to me though.

[dwb]

You don't think PT should be run like a business? Well I say this in the context of stating that government subsidy should make up the main funding, and other funding mechanisms like road tolling should cross subsidise, but that doesn't change the fact that it should be run responsibly, and yes, we both agree that service efficiencies (doing more with the same) are an integral and missing part of the pie here.

On these points I fully agree with you.

I'm sick of this Aussie Queensland sense of entitlement that it is "un-Australian" to charge for something.

Fixed it for you.

Not sure why you are saying that to me though.

No no it is definitely a nation wide thing, just look at the discussion on the carbon tax, it is all about how it will make living unaffordable and how it is un-Australian and then the discussion about electricity and water price rises, despite the fact that you still get like 2000 litres of water for less than people routinely spend on 600ml courtesy of CocaCola Amatil.

I'm saying it is the same with PT.... transport costs money to provide, building it, maintaining it, paying people's wages, keeping it clean, running it (electricity/gas/diesel).... it has to have some reasonable way to recoup some of that cost, and that is fares. The PT lobby can't seriously ask for tolling on roads and then expect PT to be free...

[somebody]

I'm saying it is the same with PT.... transport costs money to provide, building it, maintaining it, paying people's wages, keeping it clean, running it (electricity/gas/diesel).... it has to have some reasonable way to recoup some of that cost, and that is fares. The PT lobby can't seriously ask for tolling on roads and then expect PT to be free...

How do you reconcile these comments with your comments suggesting a monthly cap which would reduce fare box revenue?

[dwb]

I'm saying it is the same with PT.... transport costs money to provide, building it, maintaining it, paying people's wages, keeping it clean, running it (electricity/gas/diesel).... it has to have some reasonable way to recoup some of that cost, and that is fares. The PT lobby can't seriously ask for tolling on roads and then expect PT to be free...

How do you reconcile these comments with your comments suggesting a monthly cap which would reduce fare box revenue?

A monthly cap (the 32-then-free version) would be targeting specific customers, not everyone. That is entirely consistent with what I've just been saying... don't sell below cost to everyone, but give deals to certain high flyers/ 'good customers'.

[somebody]

I'm saying it is the same with PT.... transport costs money to provide, building it, maintaining it, paying people's wages, keeping it clean, running it (electricity/gas/diesel).... it has to have some reasonable way to recoup some of that cost, and that is fares. The PT lobby can't seriously ask for tolling on roads and then expect PT to be free...

How do you reconcile these comments with your comments suggesting a monthly cap which would reduce fare box revenue?

A monthly cap (the 32-then-free version) would be targeting specific customers, not everyone. That is entirely consistent with what I've just been saying... don't sell below cost to everyone, but give deals to certain high flyers/ 'good customers'.

I dispute that those who would benefit from this, mostly 9-5 M-F commuters, can be called "good customers".  These people are responsible for a substantial proportion of costs.  Good customers are those that use PT full time.

[Gazza]

I'm not getting it though dwb.

1) You rightfully reject people who feel they shouldn't have to pay because they just dont want to.

2) But you've also said.
I'm saying is that everyone should be entitled to some discount (not the same discount) if they do something in a 'better' way.

PT isn't welfare, why is it a god given/non negotiable that people using it every day have to have a discount.

If your answer is "Because they deserve it", then that is conflicting with point #1.

These people are responsible for a substantial proportion of costs.  Good customers are those that use PT full time.

I agree...Look at the comment by Mr Skurrie in the CM article.

"Regular commuters, if the government bothered to ask us, avoid public transport like a plauge on weekends, so the benefits are meaningless"

To me, that sort of poor attitude is not that of a "good customer".

For all the flack PT gets given, a lot of our peak hour services are not bad (SC line etc excluded)...For me its a train every 6 minutes and a fast trip into the CBD, at a significantly lower cost than parking and driving.
So my choice is more of a default one of rationality, and a "no brainer".
But when I use PT on weekends, the frequency isn't as high and the traffic isn't there, so it does become a "choice" rather than a default.

So you'd want to be rewarding this 'choice' rather than just defaulting to using it.
*Note: I don't care wether i have to pay for PT or not on weekends, nor do I feel entitled to discounts...Higher frequency and speed is what makes me happy"

I know it's a bit of a generalisation, but for example, the type of person you see getting on the bus with multiple bags of groceries is what I imagine in my head as a "good PT user"

[dwb]

2) But you've also said.
I'm saying is that everyone should be entitled to some discount (not the same discount) if they do something in a 'better' way.

PT isn't welfare, why is it a god given/non negotiable that people using it every day have to have a discount.

Perhaps "entitled" was the wrong word to use... but the sentence does have a clause. What I meant was more like "Everyone should be able to access a discount if they do something in a better way"... a discount, which implies variable pricing, and variable across discounts.

When I say everyone should have access to improve their behaviour I'm acknowledging that you need to turn the Titanic, and as much as you might go into reverse thrusters, the ship is going to continue on its path for a while, perhaps long enough to sink everything, but small steps are better for people and if you make the perceived discount greater and greater the further along that path to the "good customer" we're talking about, then we're on the right way.

You should strongly note, that 32-then-free or any version of that 40-then-free-monthly is NOT my preferred choice, my value based pre-selected monthly cap is my preferred choice. I even see no reason why the "wholesale" cost of the service (as long as it is above the minimum payment needed) should vary in price for customers depending on when they sign up... for example in February you launch a campaign tying in a 12x monthly ticket price, available only in February that is substantially cheaper than the other months... why? Well every year February, March and April have the highest patronage, if you could lock those passengers in for the rest of the year at their best behaviour, through incentive pricing, then why not, everyone benefits.

But then Simon probably just had a heartattack at the complexity of pricing (lack of transparency) I just suggested.

And as a side note, PT *is* actually a fairly significant welfare service of the state whether you like it or not. But I didn't say that anything is a god given right. And I don't think the whole thing should be run like that, but equity and access is an integral component of PT and is likely (and probably should) remain so for the forseeable future.

[Gazza]

And as a side note, PT *is* actually a fairly significant welfare service of the state whether you like it or not. But I didn't say that anything is a god given right. And I don't think the whole thing should be run like that, but equity and access is an integral component of PT and is likely (and probably should) remain so for the forseeable future.

I know i know....Hence we have coverage routes, and concession tickets.
But the gist of what I'm saying is that giving people discount just because they used it (Treating them like they are a good little dog that fetched a ball) kind of amounts to middle class welfare and is like a cash handout for the sake of it.

for example in February you launch a campaign tying in a 12x monthly ticket price, available only in February that is substantially cheaper than the other months... why? Well every year February, March and April have the highest patronage, if you could lock those passengers in for the rest of the year at their best behaviour, through incentive pricing, then why not, everyone benefits.

See that is good thinking actually....

But way to move forward isn't really set in stone is it?

What I'm trying to say is that any sort of discount for full fare pax that reduces the fare box has to have a corresponding increase in patronage, or what's the point? Everyone would surely have to agree with that at the very least?

So what I'm interested in is what will bring about the greatest increase in pax for this hit on the farebox.

If it could be proven that 32 then free would bring in more pax than a lower base fare, then I wouldn't argue.

And this could go for any sort of discount programme, eg a yearly cap sold at the start of the year.

The most logical approach is to say "We have X million to put towards fare discounts, which mechanism will bring about the most riders?" And then just go with the one that will bring in the most.

Because the end goal is to maximise patronage.

[Fares_Fair]

Hello Gazza,

I would respectively disagree.
The end goal does not appear to be to maximise patronage, going on the fare increases, in fact the reverse seems to bear more logic.
This is borne outr by the reduction in trips occurring in April to June this year.

That said though, you are right, in that it should be.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

Hello Gazza,

I would respectively disagree.
The end goal does not appear to be to maximise patronage, going on the fare increases, in fact the reverse seems to bear more logic.

Disagree with what?

I said that the end goal should be to maximise PT usage.

It wasn't supposed to be a statement about TLs current activities 

[somebody]

But then Simon probably just had a heartattack at the complexity of pricing (lack of transparency) I just suggested.

Indeed.  You should go to Sydney which has an awful fare structure, possibly one of the most complicated in the world. The CityRail fares and coaching handbook goes for over a hundred pages, and that is only one operator.  It's indefensible.

Do you work in mobile phone pricing plans or something??

[dwb]

And as a side note, PT *is* actually a fairly significant welfare service of the state whether you like it or not. But I didn't say that anything is a god given right. And I don't think the whole thing should be run like that, but equity and access is an integral component of PT and is likely (and probably should) remain so for the forseeable future.

I know i know....Hence we have coverage routes, and concession tickets.
But the gist of what I'm saying is that giving people discount just because they used it (Treating them like they are a good little dog that fetched a ball) kind of amounts to middle class welfare and is like a cash handout for the sake of it.

for example in February you launch a campaign tying in a 12x monthly ticket price, available only in February that is substantially cheaper than the other months... why? Well every year February, March and April have the highest patronage, if you could lock those passengers in for the rest of the year at their best behaviour, through incentive pricing, then why not, everyone benefits.

See that is good thinking actually....

But way to move forward isn't really set in stone is it?

What I'm trying to say is that any sort of discount for full fare pax that reduces the fare box has to have a corresponding increase in patronage, or what's the point? Everyone would surely have to agree with that at the very least?

So what I'm interested in is what will bring about the greatest increase in pax for this hit on the farebox.

If it could be proven that 32 then free would bring in more pax than a lower base fare, then I wouldn't argue.

And this could go for any sort of discount programme, eg a yearly cap sold at the start of the year.

The most logical approach is to say "We have X million to put towards fare discounts, which mechanism will bring about the most riders?" And then just go with the one that will bring in the most.

Because the end goal is to maximise patronage.

Gazza, broadly I do agree with you here, but I'm trying to be more pragmatic.

I disagree that the end goal is simply to bring on more patronage, I think that is a poorly worded statement of objective. I'd agree broadly with wanting to achieve a mode shift from cars to PT, but then I wouldn't want to make PT free so that lots of people make trips by PT who currently do so by walking, riding or choosing not to make a trip because it currently costs them to do so... why? well, 1) because encouraging needless trips whatever the mode is stupid, 2) because it is not financially sustainable and 3) because you'd just end up with rationing through queuing anyway as existing peak capacity is limited and always will be limited no matter what the infrastructure available. There are many many more reasons that I don't think need to be spelt out.

I am against offering yearly tickets like the previous QR tickets because the benefit is not evenly available... that would certainly be middle class welfare, as the only people who can afford to pay a year's transit up front are those who can afford not to get any discount. What I was proposing when I said tie people in, is via some sort of contract with a minimum monthly payment that gets a certain value attached to it, and the travel rates locked in at the rates when you signed the contract.... so basically different customers would be paying different rates depending on when they sign up for their contract. It would then make it easier to change fares, because your base would all be on different contracts and churning from one to another as the deal seems right to them.

Do you work in mobile phone pricing plans or something??

No I don't, but from a corporate perspective I think it would be a good approach.... sectorising passenger types and passenger trips and effectively ending up with different retailers selling access to Telstra (I mean Translink's) network but to a niche customer.

[somebody]

from a corporate perspective I think it would be a good approach.... sectorising passenger types and passenger trips and effectively ending up with different retailers selling access to Telstra (I mean Translink's) network but to a niche customer.

How's a corporate perspective apply?  Pricing plans are a bit different when you are talking about a monopoly subsidised service.

I cannot see your point of view.