Should the proposed 15% fare increases for 2013 and 2014 be capped at CPI only?

[ozbob]

Planned fares for 2013 to 2014  --> http://translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/fares/planned-fares

15% increases for 2013 and 2014.

Would you mind just focussing on the proposed fare increases for this poll please?

[somebody]

Even freezing at present levels isn't going far enough.  Not only do we need to freeze all increases, we need to drop the flag fall reasonably substantially.

[HappyTrainGuy]

$4 for one zone.... someone tell them their dreaming. I could get 2L of petrol for that price and spend the return trip fare on daily insurance and maintainence for the car.

[SurfRail]

I vote for other.

I agree with Simon that the flagfall needs to be reduced - this is very important because most journeys are 1 or 2 zones only.

However, I am happy to pay reasonable increases, as long as they can quantify the benefit accruing from them. 

Without a decent business case (that is made public), fare increases above CPI are not justified in any measure.  Without evidence that the increases are the only way to get better services, then effectively they are bluffing in a way we cannot even call them on.

[Jonno]

I vote for other.

I agree with Simon that the flagfall needs to be reduced - this is very important because most journeys are 1 or 2 zones only.

However, I am happy to pay reasonable increases, as long as they can quantify the benefit accruing from them. 

Without a decent business case (that is made public), fare increases above CPI are not justified in any measure.  Without evidence that the increases are the only way to get better services, then effectively they are bluffing in a way we cannot even call them on.

+1

[ozbob]

Would you mind just focussing on the proposed fare increases for this poll please? You can change your vote.

It is agreed that other changes are needed eg.  2 Mar 2012: SEQ: Public transport fare price sensitivity http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7780.0  but I just wish to isolate the proposed 15 % fare increases in 2013 and 2014 and how members see that as a single issue.

[#Metro]

If people want fares capped at CPI, would they also like to have their network improvements capped at CPI also?

[Jonas Jade]

If people want fares capped at CPI, would they also like to have their network improvements capped at CPI also?

Depends on what those network improvements are.

If they want to continue with the fare increases and you want to approach it like that, the network improvements that are funded by the fare increases need to be clearly stated so that we know what is being given for the money.

That said, tt, you know better that there are other ways that savings can be made - eg deadwood bus routes etc, efficiencies, and if you look at it the other way around, their funding is being maintained as a result of the fare increases. If there was no fare increase, funding becomes a bit restrained, and there is a plan to improve some services, then perhaps they can make the difficult choice to cut back on some routes.

My vote is for CPI only.

[BrizCommuter]

If people want fares capped at CPI, would they also like to have their network improvements capped at CPI also?

The improvements have already been capped very approximately around the CPI. Increase in Q1 bus service km last annum was 2.5%, whilst the fare increased 15%.

[somebody]

If people want fares capped at CPI, would they also like to have their network improvements capped at CPI also?

I have detailed numerous ways they can do more with less.

A number of people would hate to see that, so I guess this question is fairly targeted at them.

[O_128]

I want to see drastically lower fares with CPI increase only. Teamed with 15 min off peak rail and patronage would skyrocket.

[Derwan]

If people want fares capped at CPI, would they also like to have their network improvements capped at CPI also?

So far I have seen absolutely no improvement to services despite the fare increases, so I would have to say no - no further increases in fares until we have ALL experienced service improvements from the increases to date.

[#Metro]

I voted to increase the fares.

We are never going to see the main improvements become a reality with levels of funding that only maintain the status quo and basically step with inflation... efficiencies found or no efficiencies found. The demand for PT isn't capped to CPI so I don't see why fares should be either.

[somebody]

I voted to increase the fares.

We are never going to see the main improvements become a reality with levels of funding that only maintain the status quo and basically step with inflation... efficiencies found or no efficiencies found. The demand for PT isn't capped to CPI so I don't see why fares should be either.

Ok, but that reduces subsidy by a few percent, at the cost of significantly less PT use and therefore significantly less PT benefits.

[HappyTrainGuy]

No point in having world class PT if only the rich can afford it.

[O_128]

People go the wrong way about things, We havn't seen a 30% increase in services over the past 2 years. One reason is that fares are to high, Rather than wait for patronage to grow before adding more services it should be done to encourage more people to use the service.

[Gazza]

Thats how I feel too. In some respects services might have to run as a loss leader for a year or so to gain market share. I feel we are way too conservative in this respect.
Richlands and Springfield didn't/aren't getting high frequency from day 1 because they'd rather wait and see. But interstate/international experience suggests that is a path to failure, because not enough demand is induced initially to be as successful as otherwise.

[somebody]

And what a shame we aren't likely to get any data on the results of the new fare structure before the election!  If Translink Tracker will still be produced in the new regime, the Mar2012 quarter is about 3 months away anyway.

[Jonas Jade]

I voted to increase the fares.

We are never going to see the main improvements become a reality with levels of funding that only maintain the status quo and basically step with inflation... efficiencies found or no efficiencies found. The demand for PT isn't capped to CPI so I don't see why fares should be either.

But we're not talking about a hypothetical fare increase which are happening in conjunction with these service improvements... we're talking about a fare increase less than 12 months away, with 30 min frequency trains, an incomplete "CFN" and the continued operation of inefficient routes.

I know what you're saying, but we've got to be able to see the carrot before we're gonna run for it.

[SurfRail]

They were perfectly capable of introducing enormous changes by increasing funding levels previously (eg Eastern and Southern region network redesign in mid-2005 which they have really only tinkered with since then, Gold Coast Highway in mid-2006). 

The only stated aim of the increases is to reduce the subsidy proportion.  That is not a precondition to better services, and the improved fiscal position is demonstrably not being achieved with the current pricing path.

I note with some interest that their forecast in the last financial year's report shows subsidy declining to 20-ish % this fin year, and then magically starting to increase again.  I am very sceptical about this.

[Otto]

I vote on a freeze on fares (2013-2014).. Some 'select areas' have seen an increase in services (bus), but the majority has not. Rail reliability has gone backwards instead of forwards.. Rail was more dependable 10+ years ago compared to now.

In the last 10 years of BT 'pre TransLink', the fares were frozen twice, ie, no rises in 48 months x 2..

In my view, the QLD GOVT have this all wrong.. Major infrastructure investment must be put into our rail system first. When it's all done (properly), watch the patronage soar and at that point, determine new fare strategies to maximise fare box return.

Just my view..

[Fares_Fair]

I vote on a freeze on fares (2013-2014).. Some 'select areas' have seen an increase in services (bus), but the majority has not. Rail reliability has gone backwards instead of forwards.. Rail was more dependable 10+ years ago compared to now.

In the last 10 years of BT 'pre TransLink', the fares were frozen twice, ie, no rises in 48 months x 2..

In my view, the QLD GOVT have this all wrong.. Major infrastructure investment must be put into our rail system first. When it's all done (properly), watch the patronage soar and at that point, determine new fare strategies to maximise fare box return.

Just my view..

I'm happy to pay CPI adjusted increases, especially if it results in real improvements (and it should).
Agree with your philosophy on investment Otto.

[#Metro]

I vote on a freeze on fares (2013-2014).. Some 'select areas' have seen an increase in services (bus), but the majority has not. Rail reliability has gone backwards instead of forwards.. Rail was more dependable 10+ years ago compared to now.

In the last 10 years of BT 'pre TransLink', the fares were frozen twice, ie, no rises in 48 months x 2..

In my view, the QLD GOVT have this all wrong.. Major infrastructure investment must be put into our rail system first. When it's all done (properly), watch the patronage soar and at that point, determine new fare strategies to maximise fare box return.

Just my view..

That's quite interesting, and I would agree. Most of the service improvements have been within the inner zones, not the outer zones. Rather than charge a uniform increase, the inner zones which see improvements could bear increases, while the outer zones less so. The same thing could be done with time - peak hour prices could increase while off-peak hours decrease.

No point in having world class PT if only the rich can afford it.

I don't share this view at all. I actually don't have a job at the moment and I can get around. People who need it can get discounts and concessions.
No, the real reason is that people don't want to pay for improvements that they demand.

The only stated aim of the increases is to reduce the subsidy proportion.  That is not a precondition to better services, and the improved fiscal position is demonstrably not being achieved with the current pricing path.

It may not be, but from what has been seen by TL new services have been rolled out using the new revenue generated.

I'm happy to pay CPI adjusted increases, especially if it results in real improvements (and it should).

CPI increases only keep pace with inflation - that is bus driver wages etc. So in real terms, this means NO NEW FUNDING FROM FARES.

Limiting the increases to CPI will only delay the inevitable - one gigantic increase later...
Part of me is not surprised though, when TL came in 2004 I remember prices for stuff dropping...

[Fares_Fair]

I vote on a freeze on fares (2013-2014).. Some 'select areas' have seen an increase in services (bus), but the majority has not. Rail reliability has gone backwards instead of forwards.. Rail was more dependable 10+ years ago compared to now.

In the last 10 years of BT 'pre TransLink', the fares were frozen twice, ie, no rises in 48 months x 2..

In my view, the QLD GOVT have this all wrong.. Major infrastructure investment must be put into our rail system first. When it's all done (properly), watch the patronage soar and at that point, determine new fare strategies to maximise fare box return.

Just my view..

That's quite interesting, and I would agree. Most of the service improvements have been within the inner zones, not the outer zones. Rather than charge a uniform increase, the inner zones which see improvements could bear increases, while the outer zones less so.

No point in having world class PT if only the rich can afford it.

I don't share this view at all. I actually don't have a job at the moment and I can get around. People who need it can get discounts and concessions.
No, the real reason is that people don't want to pay for improvements that they demand.

The only stated aim of the increases is to reduce the subsidy proportion.  That is not a precondition to better services, and the improved fiscal position is demonstrably not being achieved with the current pricing path.

It may not be, but from what has been seen by TL new services have been rolled out using the new revenue generated.

I'm happy to pay CPI adjusted increases, especially if it results in real improvements (and it should).

CPI increases only keep pace with inflation - that is bus driver wages etc. So in real terms, this means NO NEW FUNDING FROM FARES.

Limiting the increases to CPI will only delay the inevitable - one gigantic increase later...
Part of me is not surprised though, when TL came in 2004 I remember prices for stuff dropping...

If I may add, you have this quotes and replies thing down pat 

[#Metro]

I would like someone from TL to come on to this forum so we can quiz them about fares structures and so forth.
Their voice is missing from this debate.

I think Sally Stannard and Andrew Berkmann from TL might be the contacts.
Let's hear the rationale. I'd also like to see TL come before parliamentary committees perhaps at estimates time or some such as well.

[SurfRail]

I would like someone from TL to come on to this forum so we can quiz them about fares structures and so forth.
Their voice is missing from this debate.

I think Sally Stannard and Andrew Berkmann from TL might be the contacts.
Let's hear the rationale. I'd also like to see TL come before parliamentary committees perhaps at estimates time or some such as well.

One of the very few redeeming features of Failpage and a few related sites was the user "Revenue" who was actually a bureaucrat in the Victoria government who worked on this stuff, and routinely engaged on questions like these.

I'm sure we get TransLink reading this material, it would be nice if some of them would (or could be permitted to by TTA) delurk.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I don't share this view at all. I actually don't have a job at the moment and I can get around. People who need it can get discounts and concessions.
No, the real reason is that people don't want to pay for improvements that they demand.

That's just you and your circumstances. Just because your set doesn't mean that everyone else is. While you might think that people can apply for discounts and concessions its not always the case.

I think paying close to $4 for one zone is just a load of bullsh%t no matter how good you or translink claim it to or could be. Its still a t%rd wrapped in a shiny red bow. Funding is there. Go at the network with a chainsaw and remove routes that compete with rail, feed more routes into heavy rail, get rid of routes that are just stupidly run, get rid of duplicated routes, fix up the mess that the city has with routes starting everywhere, WHY DOES EVERY ROUTE GO TO THE CITY!!!, cull routes at interchanges/busways, run routes with buses that are close to depots rather than by what area it is. Get local councils to chip in and none of this "I'm a council, PT in my area is a state funded issue.. ps can we have a new busway over there". BCC chips in 70 million yet Logan doesn't. Once the fund sucking pointless routes are cut and there still needs to be funding then increase fares.

The whole network needs a revamp. Increasing fares is not the solution.

[#Metro]

That's just you and your circumstances. Just because your set doesn't mean that everyone else is.

This is true, but that fact that this is true does not also make it true that fares should only be linked to CPI.

While you might think that people can apply for discounts and concessions its not always the case.

This is also true, but more of a case to allow targeted discounts for those particular users who need them (i.e. health care card holders), NOT discounts
across the board which don't discern who can afford and who cannot.

I think paying close to $4 for one zone is just a load of bullsh%t no matter how good you or translink claim it to or could be. Its still a t%rd wrapped in a shiny red bow. Funding is there.

Short distance commuters want a discount, long distance commuters want a discount... conundrum...

Go at the network with a chainsaw and remove routes that compete with rail, feed more routes into heavy rail, get rid of routes that are just stupidly run, get rid of duplicated routes, fix up the mess that the city has with routes starting everywhere, WHY DOES EVERY ROUTE GO TO THE CITY!!!, cull routes at interchanges/busways, run routes with buses that are close to depots rather than by what area it is. Get local councils to chip in and none of this "I'm a council, PT in my area is a state funded issue.. ps can we have a new busway over there". BCC chips in 70 million yet Logan doesn't. Once the fund sucking pointless routes are cut and there still needs to be funding then increase fares.

I actually agree with this. The higher fares does provide a very strong impetus for efficiency as people complain. Although, that said, there is also a limit to how much you can squeeze from fat. North American systems are efficient, I suspect because their funding is tied to sales taxes so that when sales revenues go down, they are forced to make cuts to the network and so over time there just hasn't been room to waste resources.

The whole network needs a revamp. Increasing fares is not the solution.

Increasing fares is just another source of funding. I am not convinced why fares should be linked specifically to CPI over say, any other index that someone might come up with.
Surely fares should be linked to PT demand? No??

If anything, there is a case for following Otto's suggestion of geographically considered increases or time (i.e raise the fares for peak hour services) based increases.


On another level, if only the government spent what it spends on 1km of concrete on the Eastern Busway, we'd have a much better system.

[#Metro]

Get local councils to chip in and none of this "I'm a council, PT in my area is a state funded issue..

Hahaha, I like this one, but you know what, THIS IS A FARE INCREASE ALSO, VIA THE BACK DOOR...

LOL.

[SurfRail]

Get local councils to chip in and none of this "I'm a council, PT in my area is a state funded issue..

Hahaha, I like this one, but you know what, THIS IS A FARE INCREASE ALSO, VIA THE BACK DOOR...

LOL.

It does however have its advantages.  I've previously suggested differential rates levies for public transport (a number of Canadian systems have various transit taxes as well).   

The beauty of this notion is that you can apply the differential so that properties like CBD office towers and shopping centres, which have commercial landlords and put bigger stresses on the network, contribute a reasonable proportion to the maintenance and running of the system.  You also do not have to charge people who live in the Lockyer Valley (access to the 539 only) the same rate as people who live in the CBD.  It means the cost is defrayed more equitably and rationally rather than the fares going up everywhere even though some parts of the network see no change.

If this was a State tax raised through local government rates and remitted back to TransLink, it would also be a way of de-politicising the BCC "we fund stuff too" issue as it would supplant their funding role.  It would be about as contentious (ie not at all) as the bushfire levy councils collect and remit back.

[#Metro]

It does however have its advantages.  I've previously suggested differential rates levies for public transport (a number of Canadian systems have various transit taxes as well).   

The beauty of this notion is that you can apply the differential so that properties like CBD office towers and shopping centres, which have commercial landlords and put bigger stresses on the network, contribute a reasonable proportion to the maintenance and running of the system.  You also do not have to charge people who live in the Lockyer Valley (access to the 539 only) the same rate as people who live in the CBD.  It means the cost is defrayed more equitably and rationally rather than the fares going up everywhere even though some parts of the network see no change.

If this was a State tax raised through local government rates and remitted back to TransLink, it would also be a way of de-politicising the BCC "we fund stuff too" issue as it would supplant their funding role.  It would be about as contentious (ie not at all) as the bushfire levy councils collect and remit back.

I am being humorous, but so now instead of just p%ssing off PT users, everyone will have their pitchforks out at George Street. How is this any different to just going to 100% government subsidy? The government wants to move in the OPPOSITE direction.

The beauty of this notion is that you can apply the differential so that properties like CBD office towers and shopping centres, which have commercial landlords and put bigger stresses on the network, contribute a reasonable proportion to the maintenance and running of the system.  You also do not have to charge people who live in the Lockyer Valley (access to the 539 only) the same rate as people who live in the CBD.  It means the cost is defrayed more equitably and rationally rather than the fares going up everywhere even though some parts of the network see no change.

Yes, but the problem here is that there is NO SUCH THING as a tax on "business". Only people pay taxes, businesses will respond by increasing rents, which means that shops will increase their prices, so that the ultimate effect is EXACTLY the same as a fare increase except you pay for it when you go to eat lunch in the CBD and you just obfuscate / hide the increase in something else.

The basic inescapable law is this - more services require MORE money, or the same money used more efficiently.

[#Metro]

I think with these fare increases, there is a VERY POWERFUL case to CUT WASTE.

[Fares_Fair]

I think with these fare increases, there is a VERY POWERFUL case to CUT WASTE.

How much could be saved by axing TRANSLink, it's role could be carried out by the Department of Transport, or a separate department within it.
It was created as job creation scheme, complete witrh duplication of services (like the SNO's who replicate the ticketies job).
I see a strong case for that.

It's primary role was as a political tool in the hands of the current government, designed to disseminate propaganda.
Remember the Go card, every time you wrote to TL you got a response praising the go card and your question went unanswered 80% of the time (literally).

Things have changed of late and it is far more responsive and responsible than it ever used to be.
Too little too late IMHO.

[Stillwater]

Where's Neil Scales when he's needed?

[Fares_Fair]

PS
sorry Neil, here's your new desk ... next to the Director General.   

[SurfRail]

I am being humorous, but so now instead of just p%ssing off PT users, everyone will have their pitchforks out at George Street. How is this any different to just going to 100% government subsidy? The government wants to move in the OPPOSITE direction.

This does not necessarily increase the revenue base - it distributes it more rationally than the government putting in a big chunk of money from consolidated revenue.  The pitchforks are actually an important part of that strategy because it encourages accountability.

Works in Canada, doesn't it?

Yes, but the problem here is that there is NO SUCH THING as a tax on "business". Only people pay taxes, businesses will respond by increasing rents, which means that shops will increase their prices, so that the ultimate effect is EXACTLY the same as a fare increase except you pay for it when you go to eat lunch in the CBD and you just obfuscate / hide the increase in something else.

Nope.  The increase is distributed around the whole of society instead of just the system users, because public transport generates society-wide benefits which extend further than "I can catch the bus to get to work".  The fares are also able to be kept lower for commuters, which stimulates patronage and improves recovery.

Again, this is how it works elsewhere, and it is a more accountable measure than (a) throwing money at the system from consolidated revenue; and (b) jacking up fares with no apparent narrative of where things will be improving.

It also allows you to seamlessly levy properties which directly benefit from new infrastructure like GCRT or CRR.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I personally think long distance commuters have nothing to complain about when it comes to fares. Yes there might be problems with the frequency ie Nambour but for the distance its a bargin however with the fare increases that bargin slowly dissapears like 314 bus stop signs. Long distance passengers choose to commute to Brisbane for work and have the beach lifestyle on the weekends. Students have nothing to complain about as they are entitled to concession. 

What exactly does Translink actually do day to day anyway.... besides paying for expensive office space and thinking up and funding epic 314 routes 

[SurfRail]

What exactly does Translink actually do day to day anyway.... besides paying for expensive office space and thinking up and funding epic 314 routes 

You have to wonder.  It has always seemed to be fairly top-heavy.

[Arnz]

TL's only major restructure with the SC bus network was in 2003-2005 when they started splitting long winding routes to shorter runs, and threw frequency upgrades from hourly to half-hourly on the non-trunk routes (eg Route 1 Caloundra to Noosa to Route 600 and Route 620, and 1A Caloundra to Nambour to Route 610 curtailed at Kawana).  Further splits came in a few years later (Route 602 to 602 and 612 and Route 617 to 617 and 618).

And then you got less frequent community/coverage routes like the 613, 623, 632 and 639, for the most part funded by the SCC taxpayers.   But then there is the air parcel on a few routes such as the Little Mountain half of the 603 (Bellvista half of the 603 has some patronage), and the 601 for much of the day.

[#Metro]

This does not necessarily increase the revenue base - it distributes it more rationally than the
government putting in a big chunk of money from consolidated revenue.  The pitchforks are actually
an important part of that strategy because it encourages accountability.

All this is is increasing the government subsidy from 75% to 80, 90 100%. It doesn't matter how you do it or what you call it, how you hide it - whatever -  that's what that is. Might come on a different piece of paper, different logo, might be collected from different organization, but ultimately there is no such thing as a tax on business, only people pay taxes and that's who will pay.

Works in Canada, doesn't it?

I've heard that seal clubbing also works in Canada, not necessarily a reason to do that here too... what is the point of creating all these different taxes and schemes when it is ultimately going to be paid by the same people anyway?

Nope.  The increase is distributed around the whole of society instead of just the system users,
because public transport generates society-wide benefits which extend further than "I can catch the
bus to get to work".  The fares are also able to be kept lower for commuters, which stimulates
patronage and improves recovery.

Agree and Disagree. Me buying a dishwasher also generates society-wide benefits (time savings, jobs for the economy, less water used, less greenhouse pollution, more time to spend with family), so should the government buy me a dishwasher?

Government should only fund things that have positive externalities to the extent of that externiality. It is arguable that with a 75% subsidy, one of the highest in the world, that government is well discharging that duty already. Even with the society-wide benefits (which I don't deny), there is no denying that the largest benefits accrue to the individual so of course they should pay something. Anyway, before cars came on the scene there wasn't a need to subsidise PT - society benefits or no society benefits...

Furthermore, we need to be mindful of when these patronage increases do occur. If they occur at peak hour, the system is already saturated and underpricing at peak hour is going to see the network overload. Which will require - surprise surprise - more buses and trains & services which need to be paid for. Peak hour capacity expansion is expensive - as we have seen with Cross River Rail - 7 billion bucks - so increasing fares at peak hour might not be such a bad thing (up to a limit).

Again, this is how it works elsewhere, and it is a more accountable measure than (a) throwing money
at the system from consolidated revenue; and (b) jacking up fares with no apparent narrative of
where things will be improving.

It is less accountable because you are hiding the fare increase/subsidy increase ultimately in city building rents etc and spreading it over multiple different taxes on different pieces of paper tickets, state budgets, local council budgets, building/business taxes and levies - that is the whole idea of this scheme!