Fares comparison and the Translink rip off

[mufreight]

On a distance traveled basis for a comparison of fares many have overlooked the fare comparison
Under Translink a zone is 2 kilometres
In Perth a zone is 8 kilometers while in both Melbourne and Sydney a single zone extends for tem kilometers
This means effectively that to travel the equivelent of a single zone journey in Perth one would travel 4 zones here in Brisbane and both Melbourne and Sydney 5 zones
The equivalent journey here in Brisbane under Translink to the single zone trip in Perth which would cost $2.60 here would cost $4.77 on the Go Card, almost double the price on a per kilometer basis with a better standard of service, minimum 15 minute frequency
The equivalent journey to the single zone trip in Melbourne and Sydney of 10 kilometers is a five zone trip under Translink which costs per kilometer traveled again half as much again and again with greater frequency of service.
This can not be construed as anything other than a Government rip off of commuters, more so when one considers that on average wages in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth are higher than in Brisbane. 

[somebody]

Under Translink a zone is 2 kilometres

That is clearly incorrect.

City-Indro is 2 zones and 6-7km
City-Kenmore - 3 zones and about 10km
City-Darra is 3 zones and 16km
City-Gympie is 23 zones and 172km
City-Ipswich is 7 zones and 38km
City-8 Mile Plains is 4 zones and 16km

Need I go on?

[mufreight]

Under Translink a zone is 2 kilometres

That is clearly incorrect.

City-Indro is 2 zones and 6-7km
City-Kenmore - 3 zones and about 10km
City-Darra is 3 zones and 16km
City-Gympie is 23 zones and 172km
City-Ipswich is 7 zones and 38km
City-8 Mile Plains is 4 zones and 16km

Need I go on?

Zone 1 is a 2 kilometer long zone but your point is taken but does not alter the fact that from the Brisbane CBD a 10 kilometer trip covers more zones, as you say 3 for which the fare is significently more than a journey of the same distance in any other city in this country at $ 4.24 or $ 6.20 on a single ticket as compared to $3.80 in Melbourne for the same journey.
I should have checked the length of the zones more closely no doubt but the principle remains the same and te cost of public transport here under Translink is considerably higher and represents an even higher percentage of the Brisbane commuters take home wages than a journey of the same distance in other citys

[#Metro]

It is easy to say that "we pay too much" compared to city X. Trouble is that each city has a different perspective on what is acceptable and what isn't. Brisbane seems to be quite happy with lots of low frequency routes with a very large rocket bus system that operates during peak hour and not at other times. Our trains are effectively run as a welfare / coverage service.

Simply pushing for the lowering of prices isn't going to solve the underlying issues- a lot of duplication (P88) and other problems in the underlying network.

TransLink seems happy to add routes, but less keen to cut them into feeders and reluctant to steam iron (BUZification of 180 for example should have considered simplifying the route to run directly down Cavendish and Newham roads to Garden City, for example).

[Gazza]

It's not the number of zones that is the problem, it's the fares programmed into them.

[somebody]

Under Translink a zone is 2 kilometres

That is clearly incorrect.

City-Indro is 2 zones and 6-7km
City-Kenmore - 3 zones and about 10km
City-Darra is 3 zones and 16km
City-Gympie is 23 zones and 172km
City-Ipswich is 7 zones and 38km
City-8 Mile Plains is 4 zones and 16km

Need I go on?

Zone 1 is a 2 kilometer long zone but your point is taken but does not alter the fact that from the Brisbane CBD a 10 kilometer trip covers more zones, as you say 3 for which the fare is significently more than a journey of the same distance in any other city in this country at $ 4.24 or $ 6.20 on a single ticket as compared to $3.80 in Melbourne for the same journey.
I should have checked the length of the zones more closely no doubt but the principle remains the same and te cost of public transport here under Translink is considerably higher and represents an even higher percentage of the Brisbane commuters take home wages than a journey of the same distance in other citys

Good answer.

Yes, I agree zone 1 radiates roughly 2km out.  Depends on a few things like rail vs bus.

[dwb]

It's not the number of zones that is the problem, it's the fares programmed into them.

+1.

More zones actually allows you to reduce the cost per zone... so shorter trips aren't so expensive as a regional trip... that may not currently be the case, but reducing the number of zones will do little about that and simply further increase the amount that shorter distance passengers pay for longer distance passengers.

[mufreight]

It's not the number of zones that is the problem, it's the fares programmed into them.

+1.

More zones actually allows you to reduce the cost per zone... so shorter trips aren't so expensive as a regional trip... that may not currently be the case, but reducing the number of zones will do little about that and simply further increase the amount that shorter distance passengers pay for longer distance passengers.

You have selectively overlooked the simple fact that under Translink with the multiple short zones a single zone journy is more expensive than a single zone journey in any other city in this country regardless of the difference in the usable length of the single zones.
Brisbane a single zone is $3.90, in Melbourne a single zone is $3.80, in Sydney a single zone is $3.30 while in Adelaide a single zone costs $2.80 with a zone in these three citys being 10 kilometers while in Perth the single zone journey costs $ 2.60 for a 8 kilometer zone so please explain how having more shorter zones under Translink enables a lower cost per zone traveled.
It is painfull obvious that in practice under Translink the reverse is the case to maximize the cost to the commuter for a pathetic standard of service.

[O_128]

It's not the number of zones that is the problem, it's the fares programmed into them.

+1.

More zones actually allows you to reduce the cost per zone... so shorter trips aren't so expensive as a regional trip... that may not currently be the case, but reducing the number of zones will do little about that and simply further increase the amount that shorter distance passengers pay for longer distance passengers.

You have selectively overlooked the simple fact that under Translink with the multiple short zones a single zone journy is more expensive than a single zone journey in any other city in this country regardless of the difference in the usable length of the single zones.
Brisbane a single zone is $3.90, in Melbourne a single zone is $3.80, in Sydney a single zone is $3.30 while in Adelaide a single zone costs $2.80 with a zone in these three citys being 10 kilometers while in Perth the single zone journey costs $ 2.60 for a 8 kilometer zone so please explain how having more shorter zones under Translink enables a lower cost per zone traveled.
It is painfull obvious that in practice under Translink the reverse is the case to maximize the cost to the commuter for a pathetic standard of service.

Ive said multiple times that halving the amount of zones would be welcome.

[BrizCommuter]

Are there any rules of thumb over distances between zone borders (radiating from CBD) in SE Queensland?

Interested to know how each zone step price increase compares to cost of petrol to traverse that zone?

[somebody]

Original fare structure was $2 for 1 zone, +40c per zone up to 9 zones, +80c per zone for subsequent zones.

Consolidated rounding errors are the reason why (3 zones - 2 zones) does not equal (2 zones - 1 zone).

Ive said multiple times that halving the amount of zones would be welcome.

I'm dead against that. The Melbourne system means that a 2-3km commuter pays the same as a 9km commuter.

It's not the number of zones that is the problem, it's the fares programmed into them.

+1.

More zones actually allows you to reduce the cost per zone... so shorter trips aren't so expensive as a regional trip... that may not currently be the case, but reducing the number of zones will do little about that and simply further increase the amount that shorter distance passengers pay for longer distance passengers.

You have selectively overlooked the simple fact that under Translink with the multiple short zones a single zone journy is more expensive than a single zone journey in any other city in this country regardless of the difference in the usable length of the single zones.
Brisbane a single zone is $3.90, in Melbourne a single zone is $3.80, in Sydney a single zone is $3.30 while in Adelaide a single zone costs $2.80 with a zone in these three citys being 10 kilometers while in Perth the single zone journey costs $ 2.60 for a 8 kilometer zone so please explain how having more shorter zones under Translink enables a lower cost per zone traveled.
It is painfull obvious that in practice under Translink the reverse is the case to maximize the cost to the commuter for a pathetic standard of service.

2012 fares for 1 zone are $4.50 cash single, $3.05 peak go, $2.44 off peak go.

Who knows what Translink are thinking with these fare rises, if they are thinking anything at all?  Deterring PT use is one possibility, but then why expand services?

Incompetence explains everything.

[Gazza]

You have selectively overlooked the simple fact that under Translink with the multiple short zones a single zone journy is more expensive than a single zone journey in any other city in this country regardless of the difference in the usable length of the single zones.
Brisbane a single zone is $3.90, in Melbourne a single zone is $3.80, in Sydney a single zone is $3.30 while in Adelaide a single zone costs $2.80 with a zone in these three citys being 10 kilometers while in Perth the single zone journey costs $ 2.60 for a 8 kilometer zone so please explain how having more shorter zones under Translink enables a lower cost per zone traveled.

Did I not just say earlier that its the fares programmed in that are the problem, not the number of zones.

Eg 1 Zone in Perth is Roughly 3 zones in Brisbane. If a 3 Zone Brisbane ticket equalled 1 zone Perth ticket, then things would be sweet.

And it would step downwards, so a 2 zone Brisbane ticket would be cheaper than a 1 zone Perth ticket, due to the shorter distance.

As Simon said, originally a 1 zone ticket in Brisbane was $2, which was a good deal at the time (Though less services back then)

If fares weren't at ridiculous levels as they are now, we wouldn't even be talking about the number of zones!

[HappyTrainGuy]

Who knows what Translink are thinking with these fare rises, if they are thinking anything at all?  Deterring PT use is one possibility, but then why expand services?

Incompetence explains everything.

Depends what part of Translink your looking at. Incompetence, prue genius or com bank profit envy all in the same organisation. No different than the clem 7. They raised the prices, lost a few thousand car movements but made a net gain of more than they were making before.

Lets assume that in 2008-2009 everyone travelled 1 zone for 1.02 while in 2009-2010 everyone did the exact same but instead paying 1.04

2008-2009: 181,900,000 x 1.02 = $185,538,000
2009-2010: 181,800,000 x 1.04 = $189,072,000

They lost 100,000 trips but pocketed roughly an extra 3.5 million because of an extra two cents. Translink have what...... put it up by 30% with varying amounts of concession/adult/peak/off peak fares and what do they have to show for it.....  :conf































Oh.... the 314 of course! http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/services-and-timetables/timetables/110606-311,312,313,314.pdf

[dwb]

Who knows what Translink are thinking with these fare rises, if they are thinking anything at all? 

Maybe they are trying to show the low elasticity of peak customers to enable them to forecast revenue for Cross River Rail...?

[dwb]

It's not the number of zones that is the problem, it's the fares programmed into them.

+1.

More zones actually allows you to reduce the cost per zone... so shorter trips aren't so expensive as a regional trip... that may not currently be the case, but reducing the number of zones will do little about that and simply further increase the amount that shorter distance passengers pay for longer distance passengers.

You have selectively overlooked the simple fact that under Translink with the multiple short zones a single zone journy is more expensive than a single zone journey in any other city in this country regardless of the difference in the usable length of the single zones.
Brisbane a single zone is $3.90, in Melbourne a single zone is $3.80, in Sydney a single zone is $3.30 while in Adelaide a single zone costs $2.80 with a zone in these three citys being 10 kilometers while in Perth the single zone journey costs $ 2.60 for a 8 kilometer zone so please explain how having more shorter zones under Translink enables a lower cost per zone traveled.
It is painfull obvious that in practice under Translink the reverse is the case to maximize the cost to the commuter for a pathetic standard of service.

No I haven't, you misread my post. I've bolded it for your reference.

[somebody]

HTG, peak patronage has risen but off peak has shrunk.  Surely if they wanted to increase revenue in 2012 they would be putting up the peak fare and putting the off peak fare down.  Sort of, that is what they have done, but I am sure it could have been done better if it had been done that way intentionally.

[dwb]

HTG, peak patronage has risen but off peak has shrunk.  Surely if they wanted to increase revenue in 2012 they would be putting up the peak fare and putting the off peak fare down.  Sort of, that is what they have done, but I am sure it could have been done better if it had been done that way intentionally.

Indeed.

From my perspective it is Translink's job this year to determine a low cost immediately implementable plan (design details everything) to sort out Cultural Centre congestion and go to the media with it and a promise to cancel further rises past this year through increased network efficiency once BCC agrees to let them build it. If council want politics, take it to them!

Further, I'd like to see the offpeak fares equal to or lower than the equivalent 2004 fares on a ten tripper... that means around $1.60 for a single zone adult... or roughly $1.20 cheaper than is proposed in 2013. You could do it proportionally, but it is probably easier to say knock off 50c then 30% (ie keeps higher return on long distance trips).

[dwb]

Although I'm loathe to suggest it, Translink could also close the 1hr transfer window to 40mins and the number of transfers from 3 to 2 (ie 3 services not 4), that would knock out some of those return journeys that really aren't continuations... and raise the per trip ratio.

It would however also make it less easy to do the shopping via trip chaining on the way home, and where there is poor frequency make a kick up the arse by charging twice for a poorly timed connection.

[Gazza]

Don't agree, or else some trips would not work within the limit.

1 transfer to rort a return trip is all it takes, so how do you stop them?

[dwb]

Don't agree, or else some trips would not work within the limit.

1 transfer to rort a return trip is all it takes, so how do you stop them?

The question is, does the system give out more free transfers than it should or more than it would stop giving out if you jigged the rules a bit.

What does the 2nd paragraph refer to? It confuses me.. what rort? and if you are busy doing something you can't do a transfer...

[Gazza]

What I meant to say if you were pursuing a strategy of reducing the number of transfers in order to stop people doing return trips in 2h, it would have to be reduced to zero or else you aren't stopping it.
When I was based in Milton for work I would do the odd lunch hour errand to Toowong Village or the CBD.
Go card always charged the return trip as a transfer, and I can't force it to not do that. Win for me though 

A lot of people taking advantage of quick return trips would only be using one vehicle in each direction, so reducing the transfer limit to 2 would not prevent that.

I think 4 vehicle boardings is about right. Consider the geography of the network, where you basically have to go through town and in many cases change to cross the city.
(GCL/590 is only useful in some circumstances)
Worst case would be local feeder, trunk line, change in CBD to another trunk line, then local feeder to your final destination.
Bit of an epic PT trip, but that is the realistic limit for the number of transfers under normal circumstances.

[dwb]

What I meant to say if you were pursuing a strategy of reducing the number of transfers in order to stop people doing return trips in 2h, it would have to be reduced to zero or else you aren't stopping it.
When I was based in Milton for work I would do the odd lunch hour errand to Toowong Village or the CBD.
Go card always charged the return trip as a transfer, and I can't force it to not do that. Win for me though 

A lot of people taking advantage of quick return trips would only be using one vehicle in each direction, so reducing the transfer limit to 2 would not prevent that.

Ahh ok I see now, however if the 60min transfer window were reprogrammed as 40-45min then I reckon a bunch of those non-single-journey-returns would be charged as two journeys... under a weekly capped scheme I think that is acceptable.

[somebody]

I cannot see how a reduction in the time to effect a transfer would be acceptable.  A number of routes in this town run hourly.  If you just miss one, you shouldn't have to start a new journey.

[mufreight]

Although I'm loathe to suggest it, Translink could also close the 1hr transfer window to 40mins and the number of transfers from 3 to 2 (ie 3 services not 4), that would knock out some of those return journeys that really aren't continuations... and raise the per trip ratio.

It would however also make it less easy to do the shopping via trip chaining on the way home, and where there is poor frequency make a kick up the arse by charging twice for a poorly timed connection.

It would seem that you selectively ignore the situation where in a through journey there is a lack of co-ordination and there is a gap in excess of the 40 minute transfer time which then means that those making a through journey with a change of mode will be forced to pay more in the form of two journeys instead of one transfer as at present.
I would question if it is your intention to inflate the revenue stream for Translink or to lower the requirement for Translink to provide a standard of service by making public transport as user unfriendly and expensive as possible to render it unafordable for many which would lower patronage levels resulting in a lower fare box take and inevitably a reduction of services.

[dwb]

Although I'm loathe to suggest it, Translink could also close the 1hr transfer window to 40mins and the number of transfers from 3 to 2 (ie 3 services not 4), that would knock out some of those return journeys that really aren't continuations... and raise the per trip ratio.

It would however also make it less easy to do the shopping via trip chaining on the way home, and where there is poor frequency make a kick up the arse by charging twice for a poorly timed connection.

It would seem that you selectively ignore the situation where in a through journey there is a lack of co-ordination and there is a gap in excess of the 40 minute transfer time which then means that those making a through journey with a change of mode will be forced to pay more in the form of two journeys instead of one transfer as at present.
I would question if it is your intention to inflate the revenue stream for Translink or to lower the requirement for Translink to provide a standard of service by making public transport as user unfriendly and expensive as possible to render it unafordable for many which would lower patronage levels resulting in a lower fare box take and inevitably a reduction of services.

You can question whatever you like. As I said I am loathe to suggest it, but tinkering with the transfer rules is one of the options available to change the fare structure whether you like it or not. One of the reasons individual fares seem so high is so they can increase the per trip cost recovery, it seems to be an alternative is to reduce the number of trips per journey. I know that I've had numerous "continuations" that weren't really continuations and it suggests to me that network wide the transfer rules are not ideal. I acknowledge Simon's point about hourly services and I would assume the transfer rules are to allow for such.