Fare Comparison and Graph : Eumundi to Brisbane QLD & Sydney to Morisset NSW

[Fares_Fair]

I received this fare comparison table from a commuter.
It compares the fares from Eumundi to Brisbane with the fares from Sydney to Morrisset (116km) in NSW.

The evidence is stark.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[ButFli]

So the tax payer is not subsidising people to live on the Sunshine Coast and work in Brisbane enough? Is that right? The Government should spend more money encouraging people to live further from work? Okay!

[Arnz]

To be fair Morriset gets a hourly service (no increase in peak).  Eumundi on the other hand gets a grand total of 2 trains a day (with some 630/631 buses connecting from Nambour).

[Fares_Fair]

So the tax payer is not subsidising people to live on the Sunshine Coast and work in Brisbane enough? Is that right? The Government should spend more money encouraging people to live further from work? Okay!

Yes, and yes.

We are all taxpayers.
... and the purpose of rail is for short intra-urban trips is it ?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

  Whatever

RailCorp requires a government subsidy of close to $1.8 billion a year

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CityRail#Performance

[Gazza]

We are all taxpayers.
... and the purpose of rail is for short intra-urban trips is it ?

Compare the pair. Two lines with similar peak frequency.

Shorncliffe to Bindha has 3561 AM peak boardings (2009)
10.8km of line (Counting to Northgate)
330 boardings/km


Robina to Ormeau has 3430 AM peak boardings (2009)
45.3km (Counting to Beenleigh)
76 boardings/km


So the suburban line outdoes the interurban one both in terms of raw passengers numbers, and intensiveness of use.

Edit:
How about the basket case Doomben line?

417 AM peak boardings (2009)
3.4km (Counting to Eagle Junction)
122 boardings/km.

And we'll put the entire Nambour line into the mix for fun too.
873 AM peak boardings (2009)
55.2km (Counting to Caboolture)
16 boardings/km.

[somebody]

... and the purpose of rail is for short intra-urban trips is it ?

Too right.

By your logic we should rip up the Shorncliffe line, Ferny Grove line, Cleveland line beyond Murrarie or so and also the Airport line.  Not to mention Paris metro, etc.

It's also useful for longer distances and freight.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I propose they should axe Nambour trains as the freight brings in the $$$ and frees up valuable paths through the CBD.

[Arnz]

While we're at it we should axe the whole rail network in Australia and replace it with BUSWAYS!    Trucks carrying freight can run inbetween the buses  

After all freight in all forms do bring in the $$$$, whilst freeing up paths for more frequent than 30 min off-peak services and for road trucks carrying $$$ making freight.   .  

Perhaps the Gold Coast Line may get 12tph double decker Bustechs (96 seaters with room for standees), whilst the Sunshine Coast Line may get 6tph Volvo B12BLE Volgren bodied 3-axles (56 seater with room for standees)  

[HappyTrainGuy]

Damn those maglev buses are sounding better and better 

[Stillwater]

We have been here before in this discussion and it boils down to the economic rationalists versus those who believe in equality of service.  It costs 60c to post a letter from Darwin to Hobart, but the cost is far more than that.  A letter posted at Carina and addressed to a Towong residence would require a 20c outlay by Australia Post, while the same letter sent to Birdsville would be of the order of $10.  No-one is saying that Birdsville people should collect their post from Charleville or 'move to Charleville'.  Likewise, you could argue on cost grounds that there really should not be a cardiac unit at the Alice Springs Hospital.  There is a heart surgeon there because someone who suffers a heart attack in Central Australia needs a half-descent chance of medical care that they could not reasonably access in Adelaide or Darwin, thousands of kilometres away.  The economic rationalists would say that the doctors and nurses in that cardiac unit should be redeployed to Darwin because they could save more lives there than the number of people dying of heart disease in Central Australia due to the lack of suitable health facilities.  And, yes, all the people who live on the Sunshine Coast could be made to move to the Samford Valley so the Ferny Grove Line could be extended to Dayboro.  A Sunshine Coast resident could argue that they don't want their taxes being spent on massive new infrastructure for Brisbanites.  Brisbanites could argue that the SunLander and tilts should go -- towns like Innisfail and Bowen, without access to an airport, should live with horse and cart, or the Greyhound bus, because they don't live in the capital.  But where does all that get us folks?  It is just a whole lot of s*#t.  Pollies and their advisors must sit and laugh when the RailBOT dogs start chewing each other's legs.

[Gazza]

I don't have a problem with intercity rail, but I do have a problem with saying it should friggen be $8 one way. That's ridiculously under valued.

The problem is that all land transport in Australia is subsidised, so it is over demanded and under supplied...People make trips longer and more than they naturally would because Governments subsidise them to do this. And suburbanites are guilty of this too. I remember in the Chermside parking debate there was a comment on the CM site from someone in Wellington Pt saying they were gonna boycott Chermside and shop at Capalba instead.... WTF were they doing going so far anyway?

The examples quoted above are actual essential services, and there needs to be a good baseline standard for everyone, hence the Alice has a cardiac unit.

But intercity rail becomes more of a grey area in terms of it's essentialness.
By that I mean, we don't have true commuter rail running say 200-300km from our cities, nor do we have a fleet of learjets so people in the outback can have daily city jobs and "equal access" to a 'PT' service.
So clearly there is a line where service provision goes from being a necessity to being ostentatious or wasting money, doesn't it?

And how are we classifying these interuburban lines... Do they exist to provide mobility to non urban areas, or is it a mass transit function or what?
Think of the distinction between a welfare route and a BUZ.


PS, my above comparison of suburban versus interurban was not a critique of the (GC line... Since it is popular
and I would class it as necessary)
more I just wanted to finally put to bed FFs insistence that rail is mostly about inter urban...if what he was saying is true then our suburban lines wouldn't be operating at intensities many times greater than the suburbans.
Big difference between a 15km line taking 10000 cars off the road each morning versus a 100km line taking 800 off the road. 

[HappyTrainGuy]

Consideration also has to be put into what they can expect vs the cost to provide it. Mail isn't immune from it too. If it was you could have overnight express postage all around Australia. If you ramp up services everywhere, create all these multiple running service patterns, adding new lines and freight growth can't be sustained without something eventually giving up which is in this case inner city capacity in Brisbane. If you live futher away then expect a bit of a delay because PT can not serve everyone without driving it into the ground. If the south wants to grow 5 billion first has to be spent on building a tunnel. Just imagine the benefits of 5 billion being spent on the health sector or 5 billion on the education sector or even 5 billion being spent on the police and fire sectors. Just image how crazy people would be if 5 billion was spent on the arts.

If you want to have the same level of service 150km away as someone that lives 1.5km and then complain that it costs too much in aother more populated city then its begging for trouble. Why isn't more infrastructure spent on providing the north with electric trains. Cairns-Innisfail-Townsville or Rocky-Gladstone-Bundy-Harvey Bay-Maryborough. How is it any different to Sunny Coast-Brisbane-Gold Coast.

[Stillwater]

Of course there must be a balance.  Today, people from Eumundi pay $150 a week for a train service to Brisbane in circumstances where there are two return trains a day versus someone who pays $50 a week in the 'burbs to have 40 return services a day.  The person in the city pays a higher mortgage, less for PT: the person up Eumundi way, a bit less to the bank for the home loan and more for a significantly less PT service.  Swings and roundabouts.  SC folk need to support CRR in Brisbane (and I think they do) because everyone benefits -- and that is the objective.  CRR doesn't just benefit Brisbane because it is located there -- the dividends stretch across the network.  Likewise, Brisbane people benefit from upgrades to the SCL, even if only due to the economic benefit of fast, efficient freight trains.  As for the 15 per cent fare hikes, people seem to be saying they want to see something for the extra money being paid.  The grease must cover all of the hog, not just the bit you or I would want to eat.

[Arnz]

Of course there must be a balance.  Today, people from Eumundi pay $150 a week for a train service to Brisbane in circumstances where there are two return trains a day versus someone who pays $50 a week in the 'burbs to have 40 return services a day.  The person in the city pays a higher mortgage, less for PT: the person up Eumundi way, a bit less to the bank for the home loan and more for a significantly less PT service.  Swings and roundabouts.  SC folk need to support CRR in Brisbane (and I think they do) because everyone benefits -- and that is the objective.  CRR doesn't just benefit Brisbane because it is located there -- the dividends stretch across the network.  Likewise, Brisbane people benefit from upgrades to the SCL, even if only due to the economic benefit of fast, efficient freight trains.  As for the 15 per cent fare hikes, people seem to be saying they want to see something for the extra money being paid.  The grease must cover all of the hog, not just the bit you or I would want to eat.

Being serious for once in this thread, I'd say +1 to that.  

Most of the commuters up Sunshine Coast way are in favor of CRR.  However, most are pushing for the NCL duplication/realignment to come after CRR mainly for freight revenue reasons.  Revenue = More money for upgrades on all other parts of the network, and future extensions.  Freight revenue off the government's part ownership of QRNational, as well as usage fees QueenslandRail get off the Freight Operators (QRNational and PN) does put revenue back into the state, which in turn will help them on reducing their debt.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Well said.

[Fares_Fair]

... and the purpose of rail is for short intra-urban trips is it ?

Too right.

By your logic we should rip up the Shorncliffe line, Ferny Grove line, Cleveland line beyond Murrarie or so and also the Airport line.  Not to mention Paris metro, etc.

It's also useful for longer distances and freight.

Simon, your'e stoking the fire again, must be what moderators do?  

I could have worded that much better and saved the reactions in this post.
The point I meant is that the primary purpose of heavy rail is for freight and passengers over long distances, that is what it's original purpose was for.
That said, that doesn't mean it cannot be used for short intra-urban trips as well.

The more vehicles off the roads the better.

SW, thanks for all the buckets of water, you have a good way of explaining the situation in a nutshell.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[colinw]

Moderators are entitled to an opinion as well.

What you say is is ONE purpose of heavy rail.

Another purpose is highly efficient MASS TRANSIT over shorter distances, where demand outstrips the capability of other modes.  Rail used for that purpose is vastly more efficient than some dribbly outer urban service providing a highly subsidised cheap ride to people who choose to live 100km or more from work.

I am going to go on the record and say that the main rationale for upgrading the North Coast Line is long haul freight - I frankly don't care if there is NO long distance passenger in this state at all and couldn't give a damn if the Sunlander, Tilt, etc were run off the nearest wharf to make an artificial reef.  Would rather see the track capacity used to haul 1.5km long rakes of containers and let the subsidised passengers ride Greyhound or Jetstar.

The passenger purpose of the line is, and always will be secondary, as encouraging an intensive long distance commute is focusing on entirely the wrong kind of development.

In my alternate universe there would never have been wires beyond Beenleigh, Caboolture or Ipswich, and we would not have laid a single kilometre of line toward the Gold Coast until Brisbane's rail system was intensively used & functional.

For that reason I also would very much prefer to see decent transit systems develop INTERNALLY within the Sunshine Coast & Gold Coast before lines from get extended any more.

On the NSW side of things, I also will also not shed any tears when inevitably the wires come down west of Mt Victoria (or even Katoomba) and the 2 hourly interurban to Lithgow bites the dust. I also cringed when the electrification was extended even further down the South Coast to Kiama. Those long haul slow interurbans in NSW, with dirt cheap "rotten apple" prices, encourage entirely the wrong kind of development and represent a drain on the public purse that will never be justified. Maybe they will be replaced with decent fast rail one day, and if so the prices for the service will be set accordingly.

[Gazza]

The point I meant is that the primary purpose of heavy rail is for freight and passengers over long distances, that is what it's original purpose was for.

I guess then the primary purpose of the world wide web is the exchange of infromation between scientists, because that was it's original purpose was for?

[ozbob]

Everyone is entitled to their view.  Mine is the long distance passenger rail is actually cost effective, the so called subsidies are financial trickery.  The real costs of Greyhound and Jetstar are illusory and never costed properly.  The fact remains that long distance passenger rail is needed and I have little doubt will increase from here.  People do not want to run the gauntlets on the roads or in the air.  Harp on about developments here and there being nice self contained little units, the reality is they are not.  The passenger demands on the Sunshine Coast will be very significant in the years to come.

I expect the LNP will come out with a policy to address the upgrade between now and the state election.

[ozbob]

The point I meant is that the primary purpose of heavy rail is for freight and passengers over long distances, that is what it's original purpose was for.

I guess then the primary purpose of the world wide web is the exchange of infromation between scientists, because that was it's original purpose was for?

No the primary purpose of the web was for military communications ....   

[Gazza]

http://user.web.cern.ch/public/en/About/Web-en.html

[Mr X]

Internet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

INTERNET =/= WWW!

The internet WAS developed by the military.

[Gazza]

Ta o_O,
That is why I was careful in my original post and typed world wide web and not Internet.

[O_128]

Back on topic, there is little reason why QLD fares are so expensive other than the gov blowing money on useless projects and blowing money on useful projects and getting no return from there investment (cough rich lands). Every other state seems to be able to deliver new services without 15% fare increases. Im also confused as how increasing our fares 75% over 5 years only equals a 5% reduction in the subsidy?

[colinw]

The fact remains that long distance passenger rail is needed and I have little doubt will increase from here.

Maybe so, but I doubt it will be in the form we are used to in QLD.  Services like the Westlander have no future at all.

[somebody]

NSW long distance fares are far too cheap, and have gotten worse with the mostly election inspired MyZone changes.

Pricing it appropriately encourages people to make more sustainable lifestyle choices.  I know someone who got a job on the Gold Coast where they live to avoid the fares.

I'd be more impressed by the comparison if it included WA & Vic.

On the NSW side of things, I also will also not shed any tears when inevitably the wires come down west of Mt Victoria (or even Katoomba) and the 2 hourly interurban to Lithgow bites the dust. I also cringed when the electrification was extended even further down the South Coast to Kiama. Those long haul slow interurbans in NSW, with dirt cheap "rotten apple" prices, encourage entirely the wrong kind of development and represent a drain on the public purse that will never be justified. Maybe they will be replaced with decent fast rail one day, and if so the prices for the service will be set accordingly.

Interesting comments.  I can see what you are saying here re: South Coast as it isn't like they got rid of the diesels.  I'm prepared to reserve judgement on the beyond Katoomba wires, but given that they've gotten rid of the electric locos it's not like they can use them as bank engines.

[Gazza]

FF, Yeah but the thing is you've posted these NSW fare comparisons several times now.
You've never looked at it the other way that perhaps Qld has it right, and NSW is over cheap.

Fares don't have to be a race to the bottom.

[Fares_Fair]

The point I meant is that the primary purpose of heavy rail is for freight and passengers over long distances, that is what it's original purpose was for.

I guess then the primary purpose of the world wide web is the exchange of infromation between scientists, because that was it's original purpose was for?

You are taking it out of context.

Yes, that's right the www (military communications or whatever) has expanded outwards (to all others) from there.

In this case in point, heavy rail is being used for the converse effect.

I fully agree with it being used for that purpose, but not to the exclusion of it's original purpose.
The response here however seems to be for the exclusion of it's original purpose, being long-haul freight and passengers.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Fares_Fair]

Yeah but the thing is you've posted these NSW fare comparisons several times now.
You've never looked at it the other way that perhaps Qld has it right, and NSW is over cheap.

Fares don't have to be a race to the bottom.

These are not the same as previous one's are they ?
Besides the graph looks nice.

Who knows what or who is right.
The C-M story on costs worldwide showed Queensland near the top price wise.

Imagine how much more patronage there would be if they were ...

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

Well, if you're advocating $8 long distance fares like NSW you're basically advocating pork barreling.

[Mr X]

You can go to the Gold Coast for only $9 

Though it does remind me of the times a few years ago I could go to Robina for $3.50 to see my sister... ahhh 

[Arnz]

A Go Card fare to the Southern end of the Sunshine Coast (Caloundra) during the off-peak/weekend is also only (just under) $9.

[Fares_Fair]

Well, if you're advocating $8 long distance fares like NSW you're basically advocating pork barreling.

We already have that in this State, against the Sunshine Coast's rail infrastructure.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Gazza]

Exactly, so let's not keep doing it.

[somebody]

Comparing to the 2009 Cityrail fares, only the return peak fares aren't much different.

Link: http://www.cityrail.info/news/2009/091208-ipart

It's the lack of (regressive) periodical options which increase the price for the long distance commuter.  Perhaps long distance commuters should move to Perth.  Or Vic.

[Fares_Fair]

Clearly, the cost of fares and how they are calculated or justified is a contentious point, judging by the flurry of responses and their intensity.

The fact that long distance passenger services has been called into question is an interesting phenomenon given rails effectiveness in moving anything (customers and freight) long distances.
There are economies of scale in doing so, and I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Golliwog]

I don't think anyone is denying that rail is effective at transporting things (passenger or freight) long distance, but questioning why people need to live so far away from where they work.

[somebody]

I don't think anyone is denying that rail is effective at transporting things (passenger or freight) long distance, but questioning why people need to live so far away from where they work.

And call on the public purse to more highly subsidise them choosing such unsustainable options relative to other people.

[Fares_Fair]

I don't think anyone is denying that rail is effective at transporting things (passenger or freight) long distance, but questioning why people need to live so far away from where they work.

It happens, for want of many reasons - changes in circumstances that resulted in living where I do and commuting to Brisbane to find work, with a young family settled into schooling on the Sunshine Coast.
True, I choose not to move to Brisbane and true I pay taxes for government to provide essential services.
Public Transport is an essential service.

Sadly, much money has been squandered at all levels.
How that money is expended is an issue here, and it needs to be a balanced approach, as SW's postal analogy points out.
I'm sure this issue has been well covered in this site over the years.

Commerce between high populations will always occur, and must occur, be they customers or freight.
Isolationism of populations, as esposed by some here, IMHO is counter-productive and inefficient and would result in duplication of services.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.