Katter's Australian Party 4 point 'Fares Fair' public transport policy

[ozbob]

http://www.ausparty.org.au/news/media-releases

Katter's Australian Party 4 point 'Fares Fair' public transport policy

State Leader of Katter's Australian Party, Aidan McLindon, has announced a four point public transport policy to the improve pricing and ticketing structure for commuters.

The 'Fares Fair' plan announced by Mr McLindon, which is supported by Back on Track includes:

   Bringing paper ticket prices into line with GoCard pricing, which will reduce prices by 30% for occasional commuters and create a level playing field, user pays pricing system.

   Introducing a daily cap to charge passengers for a maximum of two journeys (up to 8 trips) per day. This will provide the ability for commuters to use GoCard or paper tickets without any extra charges, similar to the system used in Victoria.

   Seniors and pensioners will be able to travel free for 25 hours per week on bus, rail and ferry services from 9am - 2pm, Monday to Friday.

   Fare increases will be capped at CPI through a statutory limitation on public transport annual price increases. This will prevent recent price increases of 15%


==================

Comment:  RAIL Back On Track welcomes the KAP fare policy initiative and supports the discussion of fare policy.
Members do not necessarily support each element but it is clear the public does find public transport relatively expensive.

Further policy initiatives on public transport fares from other parties would be welcome.

[Fares_Fair]

Hey, they have kidnapped my nom de plume!  
What are my options SR?  

Is the paper ticket option remaining, i.e. only valid for 2? hours and no return trip included?

It would prevent future price increases of (2 x)15%[EDit-CLARIFY: and bring increases into line with CPI], not reverse recent ones ?!

2 journeys per day great for students.

Going for the pensioner vote, I fully support this great off-peak initiative.

[ozbob]

That sort of detail appears to be missing FF.

Nothing is sacred in election campaigns ... lol

I like the free travel for Seniors, and the universal two journey daily cap would be welcome by many as well.

There is a case for CPI increases for 2013 and 2014 in view of the very significant recent fare increases.

Members poll confirms that ( --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7784.0 ).

Paper tickets will be phased out eventually is my guess.

[SurfRail]

I'm more interested in what parties want to do to fix the actual rather than perceived problems.

ALP - CRR and various other measures set out in current government policy documents
LNP - throw some trains at Ferny Grove
KAP - ?
GRN - ? (the absence of meaningful funding details renders anything they have said fruitless)
Various IND - ?

Capping fares to CPI is just as arbitrary a measure as 15% increases - neither is targeted at doing anything.

[ozbob]

The infrastructure issues are critical of course, but all candidates are no doubt getting a lot of constituent feedback on the public transport fares and they will respond to that feedback.

[Fares_Fair]

That sort of detail appears to be missing FF.

Nothing is sacred in election campaigns ... lol

I like the free travel for Seniors, and the universal two journey daily cap would be welcome by many as well.

There is a case for CPI increases for 2013 and 2014 in view of the very significant recent fare increases.

Members poll confirms that ( --> http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7784.0 ).

Paper tickets will be phased out eventually is my guess.

Indeed lol.
I should have trademarked it!

I agree with CPI increases.
Nothing on actual infrastructure then? (answered above)

[#Metro]

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm going to say it anyway

I don't support restricting PT funding to CPI only.

CPI only increases mean NO NEW FUNDING in real terms with the sole exception of new funds from more pax (i.e population growth)
or more subsidy (like that is going to happen!) and cutting fat.

Why close off the options?

There have been many improvements to the network as a result of the fare increases - people on rail are not seeing value for money as the services have not
followed that (shame) but IMHO on buses there have been a lot of new services.

[Fares_Fair]

This at the bottom of the downloaded media release ...  lol

For comment from Back on Track President, Robert Dow, call (number removed)

Congrats Mr President   

[ozbob]

Melbourne has very reasonable fares, particularly at weekends and they are introducing 10 minute frequency!

A balance has to be found in SEQ, I think the evidence is clear that the present fare increases are not working, time to revisit it.  Other jurisdictions can get good fares and frequency, SEQ  just lags ..

[ozbob]

This at the bottom of the downloaded media release ...  lol

For comment from Back on Track President, Robert Dow, call (number removed)

Congrats Mr President   

As I said, nothing is sacred in election campaigns ... lol

[Jonno]

I know I'm in the minority, but I'm going to say it anyway

I don't support restricting PT funding to CPI only.

CPI only increases mean NO NEW FUNDING in real terms with the sole exception of new funds from more pax (i.e population growth)
or more subsidy (like that is going to happen!) and cutting fat.

Why close off the options?

There have been many improvements to the network as a result of the fare increases - people on rail are not seeing value for money as the services have not
followed that (shame) but IMHO on buses there have been a lot of new services.

This assumes there is no cost impact because less people are using public transport...which is not true. For every person who is not using public transports cost the tax payer more than the money made from PT.  So if more people use PT there may be more taxes to invest in the system. 

There needs to be a balance and currently It is out of balance

[Gazza]

For comment from Back on Track President

Did you tell em that discounting paper tickets is a bad move?

[#Metro]

This assumes there is no cost impact because less people are using public transport...which is not true. For every person who is not using public transports cost the tax payer more than the money made from PT.  So if more people use PT there may be more taxes to invest in the system.

There needs to be a balance and currently It is out of balance

But you are making your own assumption that the network being frozen at its current extent is sufficient for SEQ which is growing like crazy.
That's what capping at CPI is it is freezing the revenue from tickets. Now unless the government is going to increase the subsidy level to something like 90% (cough cough) or dump the welfare/coverage objectives I don't really see where the $$$ are going to come from for more services.

There have been a lot of service improvements in the network funded from fare increases. Australian systems are some of the most heavily subsidized in the world, you need cash to run things, much more than just the status quo which is what CPI is.

I don't see why tickets should be linked to CPI, any more than they should be linked to lunar phases, stock market indicies, tide phases or the number of days of sunshine in a year. Welfare objectives can be met through discount schemes currently in place.

[ozbob]

For comment from Back on Track President

Did you tell em that discounting paper tickets is a bad move?

Of course.  If you want people to preferentially use the go card there needs to be some incentive for use over paper.   My own view is that paper should be removed as the cost impact is clearly unfair, providing go card availability is better on board buses and via ticket machines etc.

Be interesting to see if the mainstream media follow up on this KAP policy announcement.  Some discussion on the fare structure and alternatives in the public domain would be welcome.

[#Metro]

Of course.  If you want people to preferentially use the go card there needs to be some incentive for use over paper.   My own view is that paper should be removed as the cost impact is clearly unfair, providing go card availability is better on board buses and via ticket machines etc.

Also can't access the 10 then free or 9 then free initiatives on paper either.
Simply scrapping paper would do the same trick.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbane mX 7th March 2012 page 2

Just the ticket, Bob

[Jonno]

This assumes there is no cost impact because less people are using public transport...which is not true. For every person who is not using public transports cost the tax payer more than the money made from PT.  So if more people use PT there may be more taxes to invest in the system.

There needs to be a balance and currently It is out of balance

But you are making your own assumption that the network being frozen at its current extent is sufficient for SEQ which is growing like crazy.
That's what capping at CPI is it is freezing the revenue from tickets. Now unless the government is going to increase the subsidy level to something like 90% (cough cough) or dump the welfare/coverage objectives I don't really see where the $$$ are going to come from for more services.

There have been a lot of service improvements in the network funded from fare increases. Australian systems are some of the most heavily subsidized in the world, you need cash to run things, much more than just the status quo which is what CPI is.

I don't see why tickets should be linked to CPI, any more than they should be linked to lunar phases, stock market indicies, tide phases or the number of days of sunshine in a year. Welfare objectives can be met through discount schemes currently in place.

So let's keep increasing prices, reducing PT usage, continue minimal system increases in overall transport picture, ruin the urban landscape of our cities with freeways/tunnels and spend more taxes/subsidies on roads!  That's your solution?

[dwb]

As if I didn't need ANOTHER reason NOT to vote for this Krazy Kat(ter)!

[#Metro]

So let's keep increasing prices, reducing PT usage, continue minimal system increases in overall transport picture, ruin the urban landscape of our cities with freeways/tunnels and spend more taxes/subsidies spent on roads!  That's your solution?

So tell me, which impacts patronage more
- a fare increase
- a frequency increase paid for by those fare increases

If you want the prices to go down, fine, just delete BUZ 196, delete BUZ 222, delete more frequent Darra-CBD trains on the weekend and after hours, delete route 29, delete the new rockets, roll back the northern network changes, delete 590, delete extra 104 services, delete P88, delete BUZ 412, bring back the old buses, get rid of the new ones, and so on and on.

Where do people think the money comes from to fund all this stuff? Heaven?

I don't deny that there is an upper limit to what can be charged for PT, this is true, but the subsidy is already at 75% do you really think you are going to get improvements over the status quo by getting more cash from the government?

Do you really want to freeze the network at CPI? Because that's what CPI is - no new funds in real terms.
You are basically saying "please cut off the cash supply and leave the network as it is."

Of course, people don't like to believe that, that too confronting, too intense so it becomes "so when we cut off that
funding source we will magically cut fat or the government will magically increase its subsidy level". It hasn't happened
now, so what makes people think it is going to happen anytime soon? The government has already said it doesn't want
to increase its 75% share.

good luck!

[ozbob]

The problem with run away fare increases is it is masking the real issue, inefficiency and poor network design, and hopeless frequency.

V/Line a number of years ago turned it around by reducing the fares and improving the frequency.  Patronage growth through the roof.

The public is voting with their feet, the present approach of very high fare increases couple with limited improvements is not increasing the fare box.  Time they changed the paradigm, and the public is suggesting that as well.

LNP would be well advised to talk to the Vic Government, looks like they has seen the light ..

[Barbar]

I see KAP also doesn't support a half price discount fare (paper ticket) on public transport for Newstart allowance recipients also holding the health card....I just don't understand why this is such a taboo issue in Queensland politics. ...once again its 'Fares Fair' except for the unemployed thousands in Queensland.

[Stillwater]

While there might be some aspects of Katter's proposal that would need refining, his party, no doubt, came up with its policy after surveying voter sentiment.  Monitoring of voter issues must be pegging PT and fares as an issue that the LNP and ALP need to deal with.

We shouldn't get too hung up about the specifics, because they can be tweeked at a later date.  What is important is that the issue gets profile such that the major parties feel they will lose votes if they don't address PT ticketing, frequency etc.

The answer is to keep agitating, and mentioning PT every time there is a survey about election issues.  At the 'meet the candidate' sessions, ask a question about PT.

[Fares_Fair]

 

[somebody]

If you want the prices to go down, fine, just delete BUZ 196, delete BUZ 222, delete more frequent Darra-CBD trains on the weekend and after hours, delete route 29, delete the new rockets, roll back the northern network changes, delete 590, delete extra 104 services, delete P88, delete BUZ 412, bring back the old buses, get rid of the new ones, and so on and on.

You could delete P88, 222 and most 29 trips with minimal effect on the network quality.

How about some competence.

[#Metro]

You could delete P88, 222 and most 29 trips with minimal effect on the network quality.

How about some competence.

Simon, why have you deliberately chosen to look at the leaves and ignore the tree?

Route 29 was full when I saw it go past yesterday. Packed to the gunwales it was.
Route 222 is not doing badly at all.
P88 is carrying pax but would be better off amalgamated into a BUZ 400 (but I doubt they would do it, it would be like admitting they were wrong, human nature being
that Governments never ever ever make mistakes ever).

[somebody]

I don't know what you mean.

[SurfRail]

TransLink - $1,400 million for 178.6 million trips (which is actually around 175 million taking the rail patronage update into account) - http://translink.com.au/resources/about-translink/reporting-and-publications/2010-11-annual-report.pdf

QR - $770m for 51m passengers (ie 55% of the budget for 31% of the passengers).

Transperth's budget was $731.78m for their ENTIRE network last fin year, which carried nearly 136 million - http://www.pta.wa.gov.au/Portals/0/annualreports/2011/pta2011v4/transperth.html

Comparative spend (including subsidy and ticketing revenue):
- SEQ - $8 per trip
- Perth - $5.38 per trip

Too expensive here.  QR needs to be a LOT more efficient to justify $770m of funding for such awful patronage returns.

[#Metro]

The Perth train system is directly comparable to QR, the two systems are so similar that you can compare down to the line level

(e.g. Mandurah line = our Gold Coast Line)

A comparison was done here, I would suggest comparing it on a mode level, so Transperth Rail versus QR.
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=5617.0

Take out the Sunshine Coast/Gympie line (hardly any services run there anyway, so I can't see that eating up a lot of funds anyway)
and it is almost a 1:1 comparison.

Perth vs Brisbane

TransPerth train map http://metropoliphone.com/img/train/train_perth.pdf
TrasnLink Train map http://translink.com.au/resources/travel-information/maps/110117_busway-and-train-network.jpg


Is it really true that we can't run frequent services because the network is too big?


The Armadale line is ~ 30 km to the terminus. About the same distance as Ipswich line at 38km.
Armadale- 15 minute trains. Ipswich- 30 minutes.

The Midland line is ~ 16 km to the terminus.
About the same distance as the Ferny Grove line which is 16km. Midland 15 minute trains. Ferny Grove 30 minutes.

The Fremantle line is 18km to the terminus. About the same distance as from Central to Hemmant on the Cleveland line
or comparable to the Shorncliffe line (16km). Fremantle line- 15 minute trains. Hemmant and Shorncliffe lines 30 minutes.

The Gold Coast line is ~75 km. Directly comparable with Perth's Mandurah line in terms of distance and service type. Both trains run express and have limited stops (in Perth's case the intermediate stations do not exist, in Brisbane's case the train simply bypasses them). Identical trains. Recent upgrades and duplication to the track and the Gold Coast line is also fairly new too. 15 minutes frequency to Mandurah and. Half an hour frequency to the Gold Coast.

The Caboolture Line is ~ 50 km. Directly comparable with Perth's Joondalup line in terms of distance. Some concession can be given for the slightly bent alignment in Brisbane and older age of the line. However, nothing special is out at Clarkson. Caboolture line has a township at the terminus and fast growing suburbs like North Lakes etc. 15 minutes frequency to Clarkson. Half an hour to Caboolture.

All these train lines in Perth run 15 minute frequency in the off-peak. Perth IS a valid yardstick to use when comparing against the QR rail system.

Add to that now Thornlie spur line = Springfield (Richlands) spur line.

[somebody]

So tell me, which impacts patronage more
- a fare increase
- a frequency increase paid for by those fare increases

Probably the former.  The fare increases bring in hardly any extra funds because of the patronage deterred.

[#Metro]

Probably the former.  The fare increases bring in hardly any extra funds because of the patronage deterred.

From what I can gather a 20% increase in fares decreases ridership (assuming no service increases) by about 2%
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3443.0

Rail needs to be fixed, but there must be funding for CFN, CFN = the bare basic minimum.

[somebody]

Probably the former.  The fare increases bring in hardly any extra funds because of the patronage deterred.

From what I can gather a 20% increase in fares decreases ridership (assuming no service increases) by about 2%
http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3443.0

Rail needs to be fixed, but there must be funding for CFN, CFN = the bare basic minimum.

Not really. A 2% drop as compared to what it would have grown, probably around 5%+ is really a 7% drop, approx.

[Cam]

Comparative spend (including subsidy and ticketing revenue):
- SEQ - $8 per trip
- Perth - $5.38 per trip
Too expensive here.  QR needs to be a LOT more efficient to justify $770m of funding for such awful patronage returns.

So the Western Australian Government can provide more services than the Queensland Government, costs the WA passenger considerably less than a passenger in QLD & costs the WA government considerably less than the QLD government.  :conf

The taxpayer in QLD is obviously getting poor value for money.

[#Metro]

Yes, but you can't really grow patronage if you don't have services to put those people on...
If you double the frequency you double the patronage...

Even if we were going for zero growth in patronage, what's that - 1.2 million fewer people travelling per year - we could gain that back by putting on one or two BUZ services and still have $$$ left over.

At the end of the day, there needs to be money to run the network, this is going to come from:

1. Government funding (they fund 75% already)
2. Fat and inefficiency (or dropping welfare/coverage goals)
3. Fares (around 30%)
4. Advertising (miniscule)

If you cut off $$ from fare supply, an assume that there really isn't much space to move on advertising, the only other place to get $$$
is to cut fat (and is there really that much fat to make up demand for the next 2 years of growth in service demand?) or more government subsidy
(you can try, they've already said they they don't want to budge on that one). And then on top of that, everyone wants expansion and discounts too... how is that going to work?

If you want improvements, they need to be paid for.
I'm not surprised that people may feel that they don't get value for money - almost everyone on the rail network doesn't because there hasn't been service
improvements for them, most improvements have gone to buses. But that itself isn't an argument for frozen fare increases, it's an argument to spend some of that
money on improved rail.

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=3443.0

[#Metro]

So the Western Australian Government can provide more services than the Queensland Government, costs the WA passenger considerably less than a passenger in QLD & costs the WA government considerably less than the QLD government.  Confused

The taxpayer in QLD is obviously getting poor value for money.

Could it be that DOO has something to do with it? They carry about the same number of pax...

[ozbob]

Probably not as simple as that. Passenger-trips is one measure, another is passenger-kilometres.  Rail is a lot higher than bus in  SEQ for that metric, and then the comparison is different.

The essential difference is DOO in Perth. Do that in Queensland I think they would be near equivalent.  Moving to DOO in SEQ won't happen for a while as ATP would need to be complete and then  some station modifications.

Face it, the rail network was left to languish for a long time. If you recall the first significant timetable change for 15 years was June 2011 (Ips - Cab etc.).  

QR and TransLink are not able to publicly argue for improvements, in the same way Metro can in Melbourne, although I am sure they do that within their structures and to the authorities as part of departmental workings.

[#Metro]

Probably not as simple as that. Passenger-trips is one measure, another is passenger-kilometres.  Rail is a lot higher than bus in  SEQ for that metric, and then the comparison is different.

Yes, but all that metric says is "trains serve Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast."
We could do the same measurement for cars...

So I'm starting to think that I don't agree with this either - most stations on the QR network are actually within the BCC boundaries. In terms of both length and station spacing the Ferny Grove line and the SE Busway should be comparable. Does it really matter that one line uses vehicles with rubber tyres and the other with steel wheels? I think the issue is frequency, span of hours and bus support. A bus approaching a busway station should be viewed the same as a bus approaching a busway station. The skytrain lines (singular) lines have patronage close to that of the SE Busway and crucially, they don't have the transfer-free trip that the busway has. If fixed-rail operations can achieve similar results to busways, then that points to factors that are not vehicle specific.

There are 85 train stations within the BCC boundaries - 85. There are 22 busway stations within the same BCC boundaries. There's more rail infrastructure than bus infrastructure by about 4x! If buses ran to trains, and trains ran more frequently (every 5-10 minutes), I don't see why patronage on single lines of the QR network could not approach that of the busway.

Do people really care whether they are hopping on a line with a propellor, steel wheels or rubber tyres?

[#Metro]

The essential difference is DOO in Perth. Do that in Queensland I think they would be near equivalent.  Moving to DOO in SEQ won't happen for a while as ATP would need to be complete and then  some station modifications.

Face it, the rail network was left to languish for a long time. If you recall the first significant timetable change for 15 years was June 2011 (Ips - Cab etc.). 

Agreed!

[ozbob]

Yes, the entire network needs much better design.  It does matter to people the mode.  Longish trips people generally prefer rail, fact.  Passenger kilometres is an important metric, as well as passenger trips.  Both need to be considered.

[Fares_Fair]

I'm curious.
How and when did Perth achieve DOO?
Was it controversial, and what impact did it have on passenger safety, if any?

[#Metro]

My point is this -  the busway demonstrates that the low patronage of the rail network isn't due to geographical factors such as low population, low density
and all the rest of the excuses that are trotted out as stock standard. It is possible to achieve very high patronage with proper service characteristics.

The busway stations are mostly within BCC boundaries (except springwood), but so are most of QR's train stations - all 85 of them.

If we take away trips from the long distance lines, what are we left with? - an inner city rail network consisting of 85 train stations within BCC boundaries
that isn't performing as well as ONE busway line with just 9 stations.

Why doesn't the Darra-CBD section of the Ipswich line outperform the SE busway in terms of patronage despite having the CBD at one end,
two main shopping centres in the middle of it (Toowong and Indooroopilly), a university connection UQ and a city (Ipswich) at the other end?

This isn't about bus or train - my question is directed at why a system with 9 stations can outperform one with 85 stations serving the same city.