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

[dwb]

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.

I think we figured that out. Shall we agree to disagree yet again?

[Gazza]

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

That's what the intent behind my statement. Obviously walking and cycling is the best form of transport of all.

But hey, any sort of free and discounted travel could potentially make people use PT instead of cycling or walking, but I digress.

And if we are thinking 'corporate' then you have to think of how a company would run a promotion....The point of a promotion is to win more business.

So therefore the goal of a fare structure/level change is to win more ridership.

[somebody]

But hey, any sort of free and discounted travel could potentially make people use PT instead of cycling or walking, but I digress.

Indeed, and the 32-then-free monthly exacerbates this effect.

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.

I think we figured that out. Shall we agree to disagree yet again?

Well, I'm going to leave it that you aren't making any sense.

[#Metro]

So therefore the goal of a fare structure/level change is to win more ridership.

Changing the speed, frequency and better mobility trumps playing around with the ticket price.
Rotten apple principle... if your bus comes 1 per hour and is free or you can take car for $20, I would be driving!

[dwb]

And if we are thinking 'corporate' then you have to think of how a company would run a promotion....The point of a promotion is to win more business.

That is now how businesses run, or at least not how successful businesses are run.

Good businesses run promotions to maximise profit/revenue.

The only time they run a promotion simply to win more business is when they are attempting to undercut a competitor to establish a longer term profit making client base and/or actually put the competitor out of business.

[dwb]

So therefore the goal of a fare structure/level change is to win more ridership.

Changing the speed, frequency and better mobility trumps playing around with the ticket price.
Rotten apple principle... if your bus comes 1 per hour and is free or you can take car for $20, I would be driving!

Yes exactly Tramtrain, or as I previously expressed it (damn I forgot frequency, but I think contextually it is implicit in capacity and reliabilty):

I stick to my guns that currently, peak capacity and service reliability is the main determinant of peak passengers decision making not peak PT pricing... that and of course limited road space, limited parking availability and high cost of parking.

[somebody]

I'd doubt that reliability was a major determinant.

E.g. What has been the growth in CityRail patronage since the slower, but ultra reliable timetable has been instituted?  Less than population growth!

[dwb]

I'd doubt that reliability was a major determinant.

E.g. What has been the growth in CityRail patronage since the slower, but ultra reliable timetable has been instituted?  Less than population growth!

I'm not talking one to two minutes reliability and the proportion of services that arrive and depart within that x/y minute schedule, I'm talking about the service actually running or not, and taking about the same amount of time to complete a journey, ie not breaking down or taking 30mins one day and 1hr30mins the next.

[somebody]

I'd doubt that reliability was a major determinant.

E.g. What has been the growth in CityRail patronage since the slower, but ultra reliable timetable has been instituted?  Less than population growth!

I'm not talking one to two minutes reliability and the proportion of services that arrive and depart within that x/y minute schedule, I'm talking about the service actually running or not, and taking about the same amount of time to complete a journey, ie not breaking down or taking 30mins one day and 1hr30mins the next.

I don't think that's a major problem in Australia.

[Gazza]

And if we are thinking 'corporate' then you have to think of how a company would run a promotion....The point of a promotion is to win more business.

That is now how businesses run, or at least not how successful businesses are run.

Good businesses run promotions to maximise profit/revenue.

The only time they run a promotion simply to win more business is when they are attempting to undercut a competitor to establish a longer term profit making client base and/or actually put the competitor out of business.

Ugh can you stop playing semantics. That's now the 2nd time in row you've done that. You know damn well the intent behind my post.

[dwb]

Ugh can you stop playing semantics. That's now the 2nd time in row you've done that. You know damn well the intent behind my post.

Sorry Gazza I'm not having a go and it is not semantics, I think our discussion/disagreement cuts to the heart of the issue, and that issue is whether one is talking about prioritising sales or profit.

I'm suggesting that fares should seek to maximise profit  |  I believe you are suggesting that the fares should seek to maximise sales.

From my perspective the PT network can't focus on prioritising the number of sales, while peak capacity is limited AND demand exceeds supply.

Offpeak however I agree with you, the network should focus on maximising sales and not profit. This is for several reasons broadly to do with the fact that the product is not in high demand and that those customers are more price sensitive. If you're going to be operating at a 'loss' in offpeak, you might as well do it to the maximum benefit you can and offer the strongest incentive possible to shift behaviour, bc under our land use pattern you're not likely to approach or exceed carrying capacity of the services/infrastructure.  Peak is an entirely different story however.

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly, I've been jumping back and forth from the forum to the CSEQ2031 document it is late and I'm still only 1/3 way through :S