Brisbane Transport farebox recovery info 2004/5 to 2009/10.

[somebody]

Info's a little old, but still seems relevant to me.  Link: http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=75109

	2004/05	2005/06	2006/07	2007/08	2008/09	2009/10
State+council subsidy ($million)	92	102	111	129	155	169.6
Fares ($million)	55	61	67	72	81	90
Farebox recovery ratio	37.4%	37.4%	37.6%	35.8%	34.3%	34.7%

Seems like QR aren't the only cause of inefficiency.

[dwb]

Info's a little old, but still seems relevant to me.  Link: http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=75109

	2004/05	2005/06	2006/07	2007/08	2008/09	2009/10
State+council subsidy ($million)	92	102	111	129	155	169.6
Fares ($million)	55	61	67	72	81	90
Farebox recovery ratio	37.4%	37.4%	37.6%	35.8%	34.3%	34.7%

Seems like QR aren't the only cause of inefficiency.

Simon that link is gold and would seem to indicate what we've been saying, it is the inefficiency in the network, rather than the fares that is the real problem and why PT is so expensive in Brisbane.

[#Metro]

Simon that link is gold and would seem to indicate what we've been saying, it is the inefficiency in the network, rather than the fares that is the real problem and why PT is so expensive in Brisbane.   

That inefficiency could also be called "meeting coverage goals of a bus within 400 m of a house"

[dwb]

That inefficiency could also be called "meeting coverage goals of a bus within 400 m of a house"

No not directly, not in this case anyway as that goal existed and was catered to prior to 2004/5.

[Gazza]

Its not even adhered to anyway. Im certainly further than 400m from a stop, and its not like I'm in the sticks.

[Mr X]

Unrelated and offtopic- I noticed the link said the BCC's 500 bus plan was paid for by the QLD govt? If so then why was this a big LNP BCC promise when it's not even in their jurisdiction? 

[Set in train]

Unrelated and offtopic- I noticed the link said the BCC's 500 bus plan was paid for by the QLD govt? If so then why was this a big LNP BCC promise when it's not even in their jurisdiction? 

Political communication/clever marketing/lies.

[somebody]

Its not even adhered to anyway. Im certainly further than 400m from a stop, and its not like I'm in the sticks.

I'd have thought that between the 101/102, 104 (selected trips) and 106 most of Corinda was covered.

[Gazza]

I'm near the border of Oxley/17 Mile Rocks

[somebody]

468?  I guess the corner of Fort Rd/Fremont St/Gordon Crt would exceed the 400m benchmark.

In NSW AIUI the standard is 90% of people within 400m to a bus stop.  Not sure what it is here.

[dwb]

Its not even adhered to anyway. Im certainly further than 400m from a stop, and its not like I'm in the sticks.

400m radius, not walk.

90% within 400m bus stop or 800m train station.

See page 42 from the 2007 published 2004 Translink Network Plan.



[ed to correct bad link to image.]

[somebody]

400m radius, not walk.

That's a little pointless isn't it?

[dwb]

400m radius, not walk.

That's a little pointless isn't it?

Perhaps, but it is easily measured.

Most, if not all "proximity measures" are implemented similarly across Government.

[somebody]

In case anyone is interested, non-BT trips average approx. $2 fare paid, whereas for BT trips the average fare is $1.17.  Perhaps trips are a lot longer on other services, and/or involve less transfers.

[dwb]

In case anyone is interested, non-BT trips average approx. $2 fare paid, whereas for BT trips the average fare is $1.17.  Perhaps trips are a lot longer on other services, and/or involve less transfers.

I'd suggest BT proportionally carries more students than other operators too, given that all UQ, GU, QUT routes are effectively BT run (other than train).

Would be interesting to know how many free pensioner journey trips were given out since its introduction, as a proportion of pensioner trips as that would bring down the average too.

High interchange is a good thing, so that $figure is kind of a bad indicator... I'd suggest we want people making interchange and having multi destination journeys, rather than single seat journeys from say Redlands or Redcliffe to CBD peak only.

Wouldn't you?

[somebody]

High interchange is a bad thing when it is Adelaide St-CC first trip and then interchange.

It's a good thing when it is Algester-Altandi, then train to Fortitude Valley.

I'd agree about BT carrying a lot of students.  Could be a factor, but I am sure not the only one.

[dwb]

High interchange is a bad thing when it is Adelaide St-CC first trip and then interchange.

It's a good thing when it is Algester-Altandi, then train to Fortitude Valley.

I'd agree about BT carrying a lot of students.  Could be a factor, but I am sure not the only one.

True, that is why it would be nice if pedestrian conditions were improved on Victoria Bridge... some of those needless interchanges could be offset. It is only a short walk and people should be encouraged to do it via foot!

[somebody]

Or you could fix the city stop locations and those transfers would reduce to a trickle.

[dwb]

Or you could fix the city stop locations and those transfers would reduce to a trickle.

Or you could do both...

[SurfRail]

In case anyone is interested, non-BT trips average approx. $2 fare paid, whereas for BT trips the average fare is $1.17.  Perhaps trips are a lot longer on other services, and/or involve less transfers.

There are probably other factors too.  Most smaller private operators no longer have full time employees, have smaller overheads (smaller depots and smaller fleets as services are less peaky) and are not unionised up the wazoo (ie higher wages).

[#Metro]

As an aside, I quite like the owner driver scheme discussed in Jarrett Walker's Human Transit. This might be a goer for more rural / regional places.

[SurfRail]

As an aside, I quite like the owner driver scheme discussed in Jarrett Walker's Human Transit. This might be a goer for more rural / regional places.

Like Melbourne's Route 509? Probably the only integrated metropolitan example of this I can think of in Australia. 

Here's their fleetlist and history, and a streetview of their nearby "depot".

[#Metro]

What an odd bus route!

You know what's hilarious - it runs at 20 minute frequency all day, better than 90% of brisbane buses I reckon!

[somebody]

a streetview of their nearby "depot".

Whoa, how do they turn the bus around in that depot?  They don't, I guess.

[dwb]

In case anyone is interested, non-BT trips average approx. $2 fare paid, whereas for BT trips the average fare is $1.17.  Perhaps trips are a lot longer on other services, and/or involve less transfers.

There are probably other factors too.  Most smaller private operators no longer have full time employees, have smaller overheads (smaller depots and smaller fleets as services are less peaky) and are not unionised up the wazoo (ie higher wages).

Surely the operator specific cost recovery has nothing to do with either contractual payments to the operator or to actual operator costs... so is this relevant? I assumed Translink just added up all the money that BT passed to them and divided it by the number of tags/button presses that BT had - each being a "trip".

[dwb]

a streetview of their nearby "depot".

Whoa, how do they turn the bus around in that depot?  They don't, I guess.

hahah so no, "no reversing" rules then?!

[SurfRail]

In case anyone is interested, non-BT trips average approx. $2 fare paid, whereas for BT trips the average fare is $1.17.  Perhaps trips are a lot longer on other services, and/or involve less transfers.

There are probably other factors too.  Most smaller private operators no longer have full time employees, have smaller overheads (smaller depots and smaller fleets as services are less peaky) and are not unionised up the wazoo (ie higher wages).

Surely the operator specific cost recovery has nothing to do with either contractual payments to the operator or to actual operator costs... so is this relevant? I assumed Translink just added up all the money that BT passed to them and divided it by the number of tags/button presses that BT had - each being a "trip".

The formula is apparently based on service kilometres rather than patronage.  Maybe that should be reviewed...

[somebody]

The formula is apparently based on service kilometres rather than patronage.  Maybe that should be reviewed...

I think it's right.  AFAIK it's in line with what is done in other jurisdictions.  If you want to base payment on patronage then they should be able to plan the networks themselves, and that isn't a good idea.

[SurfRail]

The formula is apparently based on service kilometres rather than patronage.  Maybe that should be reviewed...

I think it's right.  AFAIK it's in line with what is done in other jurisdictions.  If you want to base payment on patronage then they should be able to plan the networks themselves, and that isn't a good idea.

There should still be some incentivisation for getting operating costs right down, so they can skim a bit of the subsidy and invest it into the network (BT)/profits (privates) but in such a way that TTA is pays less for unproductive arrangements.

[somebody]

If the payments are based on service kilometres, at least there's an incentive to reduce dead running.

[dwb]

If the payments are based on service kilometres, at least there's an incentive to reduce dead running.

But not much incentive to have an efficient service

[Golliwog]

Nor much of an incentive to ensure proper patronage counts are done (ie, double counting go card users) either to give TL the data it needs to make proper network planning decisions.

[Mr X]

Let me get this straight,
Translink "subsidised" fares in 2009 by 75% (farebox recovery 25%)
BT farebox recovery is 35%

Thus the inefficiencies aren't in BT?

[somebody]

Thus the inefficiencies aren't only in BT?

Fixed it for you.

[#Metro]

Route 416 anyone?
105?
Fig Tree Pocket Rocket (why does that area need its own rocket?)

[achiruel]

Let me get this straight,
Translink "subsidised" fares in 2009 by 75% (farebox recovery 25%)
BT farebox recovery is 35%

Thus the inefficiencies aren't in BT?

There are inefficiencies in BT, but other operators are even less efficient.  That's the way I'd read it, anyway.

[#Metro]

There are inefficiencies in BT, but other operators are even less efficient.  That's the way I'd read it, anyway.

Disagree. There's heaps of waste at BT - route 88 for starters!

The other operators are likely to be smaller operators (don't have the same economies of scale), doing runs outside Brisbane (lower density/not as much demand because they don't have CBD) and more likely to run coverage/welfare services at frequencies that don't attract huge patronage.

The exception to this would be Surfside.

Pity that Ips isn't that frequent either...

[somebody]

There are inefficiencies in BT, but other operators are even less efficient.  That's the way I'd read it, anyway.

Disagree. There's heaps of waste at BT - route 88 for starters!

The other operators are likely to be smaller operators (don't have the same economies of scale), doing runs outside Brisbane (lower density/not as much demand because they don't have CBD) and more likely to run coverage/welfare services at frequencies that don't attract huge patronage.

The exception to this would be Surfside.

Pity that Ips isn't that frequent either...

Please explain how that doesn't fly in the face of the figures which are in front of you, combined with the figures for the overall farebox recovery ratio.

[somebody]

The formula is apparently based on service kilometres rather than patronage.  Maybe that should be reviewed...

I think it's right.  AFAIK it's in line with what is done in other jurisdictions.  If you want to base payment on patronage then they should be able to plan the networks themselves, and that isn't a good idea.

There should still be some incentivisation for getting operating costs right down, so they can skim a bit of the subsidy and invest it into the network (BT)/profits (privates) but in such a way that TTA is pays less for unproductive arrangements.

You may be interested in some posts on the Auckland Transport Blog on this.  They still have "net" subsidised trips (operator keeps fares), commercial trips (unsubsidised) and "gross" - the way we do it.  They are moving to an all "gross" contract system.  I think I've read that Wellington are similar.

I think this info must be buried in the links, but can have a go at digging it up if you want.