Article: LNP to halve fare rises

[SurfRail]

To double/treble patronage, which is required, requires a whole raft of changes, including and in not particular order:

0. All levels of Govt to accept and public recognise that we have spent 50 years creating today's traffic problems not failing to address them;
1. Planning Principles/Contols to plan for 50-60% of trips to be by public tarnsport not 10-15%;
2. Planning Principles/Contols to plan for 20-30% of trips to be by active transport not 10-15%;
3. Urban design principles that prioritise walking, cycling and public transport over driving
4. Road space and parking only built to cater for the minimum level sof trips than cannot be physciall made using public or active trnasport;
5. No more freeway and tunnel construction;
6. Road capacity converted to public transport (ROW), cycling and pedestrian space;
7. Off-site car parking in commercial centres reduced to zero except for 4 above
8. Public transport fares designed/set to encourage people to think Public Transport as their first/fastest option not last.
9. Rail network upgarded to allow above level of transit, freight and long distance passenger trips;
10. Safe and active urban centres around our major stops
11. 10 min off-peak services each and every day   

1, 2, 4 and 7 are utter fantasy from a practical point of view – so is 0 unless the relevant government is talking about previous governments from the other side of politics.  You will never see public transport cater to 50% of all trips in a region like SEQ.  30% would be really pushing it.

I think a reasonable outcome would be 25-30% for both Brisbane and the Gold Coast and 15-20% for most of the other LGAs.

[#Metro]

I would love to see how the network will massively grow to cater for 50% more patronage while funding from fares are capped to effectively $0 in real terms... (That's what capping to CPI is folks...).

The calculation for CPI also includes things like breakfast cereals, multigrain sandwich loaves, cakes, televisions, mince meat and alcoholic beverages.
What the h%ll does this CPI components have to do with the price of PT?

Do people really want to link fares to the inflation in price of cake, mince meat and and sandwich bread?

[somebody]

I would love to see how the network will massively grow to cater for 50% more patronage while funding from fares are capped to effectively $0 in real terms... (That's what capping to CPI is folks...).

Improve the effectiveness of the services (e.g. city stop locations) and more people will use it which will bring in more fare revenue.

It's not like buses are full all the time, except in a few hot spots.

[mufreight]

A couple of points worth some thought.
The fare increases have made Public Transport unaffordable for many.
The drop in patronage effectively has reduced the fare box take in proportion to the operating costs. The same numbers of services operated for less passengers.
Public Transport is a community service that Government is obliged to provide.
The continual fare increases at a rate higher than the CPI disadvantages commuters using public transport when compared with commuters using private transport (cars)
This cost disadvantage for public transport coupled with a pathetic service frequency is pushing more commuters to private transport which then in turn means a greater draw on the public purse to construct and maintain the infrastructure and further costs in terms of congestion, increased road trauma which in turn places greater load on an already overtaxed health system, increased polution.
Actually reducing fares combined with improved standards of service and frequency has with other public transport systems in this country increased patronage with a resultant drop in the numbers of commuters using private transport.
This reduced private vehicle usage has saved on road infrasturcture both in the provision and maintenance, reduced the numbers of accidents and resultant road trauma victims needing medical treatment taking load of the health system, (many road accident victims either are hospitalised for extended periods or never rejoin the workforce) and significently reduces exhaust emission polution by removing many of the older less fuel efficent highly poluting older cars off the roads.
It is painfully obvious that many who have been posdting on this thread have never had practical business management experience in the public transport industry and suffer from the beancounter approach.  Unfortunately in a service industry one has to provide a reasonable level of service which public transport under the control of Translink unfortunately does not and at a REASONABLE cost in comparison to other forms of transport and the levels of service have to be as convenient as possible.
A six car train operating on a 30 minute frequency off peak may carry 180 pax. Split that same six car train into two three car trains and operate them on a 15 minute frequenct and they will carry an average 120 pax each.  If operated as driver only there is no increase in operating costs and the increased loading is a gain of 1/3.  A reduction in fares of 10% still gives an increased farebox take and this in turn would then lead to greater patronage with the flow on effects of a reduction in the numbers of the older less efficent more poluting private cars being used by commuters and the other flow on benefits from this increased public transport uptake.

[aldonius]

Mufreight's post needs to be nailed to certain doors.

[Jonno]

To double/treble patronage, which is required, requires a whole raft of changes, including and in not particular order:

0. All levels of Govt to accept and public recognise that we have spent 50 years creating today's traffic problems not failing to address them;
1. Planning Principles/Contols to plan for 50-60% of trips to be by public tarnsport not 10-15%;
2. Planning Principles/Contols to plan for 20-30% of trips to be by active transport not 10-15%;
3. Urban design principles that prioritise walking, cycling and public transport over driving
4. Road space and parking only built to cater for the minimum level sof trips than cannot be physciall made using public or active trnasport;
5. No more freeway and tunnel construction;
6. Road capacity converted to public transport (ROW), cycling and pedestrian space;
7. Off-site car parking in commercial centres reduced to zero except for 4 above
8. Public transport fares designed/set to encourage people to think Public Transport as their first/fastest option not last.
9. Rail network upgarded to allow above level of transit, freight and long distance passenger trips;
10. Safe and active urban centres around our major stops
11. 10 min off-peak services each and every day  

1, 2, 4 and 7 are utter fantasy from a practical point of view – so is 0 unless the relevant government is talking about previous governments from the other side of politics.  You will never see public transport cater to 50% of all trips in a region like SEQ.  30% would be really pushing it.

I think a reasonable outcome would be 25-30% for both Brisbane and the Gold Coast and 15-20% for most of the other LGAs.

Vancouver, Munich, Berlin, Oslo, Vienna, Cophenhagen, Los Angeles, half of France, etc. etc have all done these and  benefited greatly.  They are fantasy as long as we claim them as undoable based on the last 50yrs  failed road transport experiment

I forgot to add;

12: public education on benefits of public transport and rail.

EDIT: Unless we do get PT up to 50% we will bankrupt the economy, chock it on taxes and have little left over for any other services!  

[#Metro]

What is the mode split for Vancouver and what is the definition of "Vancouver" use to calculate that?

[mufreight]

Mufreight's post needs to be nailed to certain doors.

Someone else made a similar suggestion so that they could throw darts at it.

[aldonius]

Goes to show...

[Jonno]

What is the mode split for Vancouver and what is the definition of "Vancouver" use to calculate that?

Better than SEQ's by a long shot. The point is the change in direction because doing more of our current approach is just creating an ever bigger problem!

[Jonno]

It is doable!!!

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=7873.new#new

[SurfRail]

Vancouver, Munich, Berlin, Oslo, Vienna, Cophenhagen, Los Angeles, half of France, etc. etc have all done these and  benefited greatly.  They are fantasy as long as we claim them as undoable based on the last 50yrs  failed road transport experiment

Road transport is not an experiment. It is how the vast majority of people currently get around.  It is a reality, and one that PT needs to make significant inroads in, but to claim that 50% of all passenger journeys in a region like SEQ can conceivably be carried on public transport is a joke.

None of those cities are comparable to the urban form across the south-east, or even in metropolitan Brisbane.  More to the point, I really doubt that any of those cities have a combined public and active transport tally of something like the 70-80% you have suggested would work here.

You can probably get the inner city and places like Surfers Paradise up that high.  You will never, never get places like Mansfield, Victoria Point, Raceview or Caboolture up that high, and there are far more places like these (and always will be).

It is important to be realistic, otherwise we are nothing better than the PTUA in Melbourne.

EDIT: Unless we do get PT up to 50% we will bankrupt the economy, chock it on taxes and have little left over for any other services!

Numbers please.

[#Metro]

I agree with SurfRail.

Due to my modal neutrality as a core principle, I don't have a main gripe against cars. Germany and Switzerland are well known for their massive autobahns. Vancouver has freeways, just outside the city.

Cars do play a role in society and are not all bad/evil/etc. If public transport only cities were so great, there'd be quite a few more of them then there are now.


outtake: on endearing-but-useless transit
http://www.humantransit.org/2011/12/outtake-on-endearing-but-useless-transit.html

Here is an outtake from an early draft of my book, written at a time when I intended to confront technology choice issue more directly than I ended up doing.  (There turned out to be a book's worth of stuff to explain that was even more important than that, so the next book will likely be about technology choice.)

Darrin Nordahl's My Kind of Transit argues the opposite of my view here.  Since I am debating Darrin tomorrow in a webinar (for US Green Building Council members only, alas) I thought I'd post this in the spirit of cheerful provocation.

In Chapter 2 of Human Transit, I argue that useful transit can be understood as involving seven dimensions or elements.

1.    "It takes me where I want to go."

2.    "It takes me when I want to go."

3.    "It's a good use of my time."

4.    "It's a good use of my money."

5.    "It respects me."

6.    "I can trust it."

7.    "It gives me freedom to change my plans."

The dominant mode in a community is the one that best addresses the seven demands, compared to the available alternatives, in the perception of the majority of people.  In a rural area, or a low density suburban one, the automobile meets all seven demands handsomely.  You can drive to just about anywhere (demand 1).  The car is in your garage when you need it (demand 2).  It is the fastest way to get to most places (demand 3) and thanks to many government subsidies it is relatively cost-effective to own (demand 4).  It is comparatively comfortable (demand 5).  You maintain the car, so you have some control over its reliability (demand 6).   Finally, it's easy to change your travel plans mid-trip (demand 7).

In core areas of Paris, London, or New York, these same demands explain why the rapid transit system, not the automobile, is dominant.

[#Metro]

1.    "It takes me where I want to go."

Core Frequent Network

2.    "It takes me when I want to go."

Core Frequent Network

3.    "It's a good use of my time."

Core Frequent Network

4.    "It's a good use of my money."

Fares (but also people will pay more for better service frequency)

5.    "It respects me."

??

6.    "I can trust it."

Core Frequent Network

7.    "It gives me freedom to change my plans."

Core Frequent Network


This is why completing the CFN should be the top near term priority before ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS to services in the Brisbane Region.

[Gazza]

50% is a pretty hefty goal for PT mode share right now.

At the moment Paris is 31%, Madrid 43%, Amsterdam 30%, Copenhagen 29%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share

Not saying we shouldn't aim high, but even if we just got to say 30% for the time being, that still will make a massive difference to liveability.

[ozbob]

From the Couriermail click here!

LNP pledges to put brakes on public transport fare hikes, raising them by 7.5pc a year

LNP pledges to put brakes on public transport fare hikes, raising them by 7.5pc a year

    by: Koren Helbig
    From: The Courier-Mail
    March 14, 2012 11:35AM

CAMPBELL Newman has sought to capitalise on Labor's deeply unpopular plan to increase southeast Queensland's public transport fares promising he will sacrifice revenue to ease commuter pain.

Mr Newman yesterday pledged a 7.5 per cent fare hike each year for the next two years under an LNP government, halving the ALP's planned 15 per cent annual hike.

But the plan will cost $101 million, money the Bligh Government said was critical to funding much-needed new buses, trains and system upgrades.

The LNP's hip-pocket promise came after 77 morning trains were delayed by up to 40 minutes yesterday when a vine was blown on to a wire tripping out power to rail signals and sparking concerns about the reliability of services.

Commuter advocate Robert Dow said the meltdown was "unfortunate timing'' and reinforced the public perception the system was unreliable.

"The impact on commuters is getting pretty serious and people are becoming a little bit despondent,'' said Mr Dow.

"You do wonder if they're doing aggressive vegetation clearing? Are they paying attention to those issues in the way that they should?''

Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the latest blunder was "not good enough'' but defended Queensland Rail's maintenance budget saying it had grown from $53 million in 2008-09 to $84 million this year.

Ms Palaszczuk also ruled out another $1 million fare-free day, such as the one that followed the previous system meltdown on February 28. Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk immediately accused Mr Newman of a secret plan to cut services, while defending her government's 15 per cent annual fare increases from 2009 to 2014 as necessary to ensure reliability.

Mr Newman insisted the LNP could still deliver on infrastructure, despite the revenue loss, using savings identified across the state budget which he again refused to detail at this stage of the election campaign.

"This is real fare relief, this is real cost of living savings, which people are crying out for," he said from a platform above Brisbane's Roma St Station.

Commuters, many angry at yet another morning service break-down, yesterday cautiously welcomed the policy although some took umbrage that the LNP's hikes were still double CPI.

Rail Back on Track spokesman Robert Dow said the move was a start but a major overhaul of all fares was still needed, including dropping the $1.50 flagfall on all fares and increasing the 20 per cent off-peak discount to 30 per cent or higher.

"They're just too expensive upfront. Like a paper ticket, $4.50 to cross the river, is ridiculous,'' he said.

Mr Dow said lowering fares would encourage more people to use public transport, which would ultimately increase profitability.

[ozbob]

http://www.scottemerson.com.au/media-releases/fares-up-services-down-under-labor.html

LNP Statement

Fares up, services down under Labor

Thursday, 15 March 2012 07:44

A vote for Labor on March 24 was a vote to increase public transport fares by 15 per cent in 2013 and 2014, the State Opposition said today.

LNP Shadow Minister for Transport Scott Emerson said Labor's only public transport policy this election was to increase the cost of living for families and commuters by raising fares again without any improvement in services.

"The LNP is firm in our pledge to lower the cost of living for families by slashing Labor's unfair fare hikes by 50 per cent," Mr Emerson said.

"Queenslanders should not forget that Labor hid its plan to increase the cost of public transport from voters until after the last election.

"A vote for local Labor Members in Brisbane and southeast Queensland on March 24 is a vote to increase public transport fares by another 15 per cent in 2013 and again in 2014.

"After 20 years Labor's only plan is to increase the cost of living for commuters and deliver reduced service reliability.

Mr Emerson said the LNP had already committed to increasing off-peak services on the Ferny Grove line, showing that lower fares and more services would be delivered under an LNP Government.

"The LNP's public transport policy is passenger focussed," Mr Emerson said.

"The only thing Labor has to show this election for its public transport policy is two major outages that have caused massive inconvenience and stress for commuters and its breaking caretaker conventions to bribe voters with a free day of travel."

"Each and every one of Labor's local members in southeast Queensland has voted to slug commuters with 15 to 20 per cent fare increases year after year after year.

"No wonder there's more congestion on our roads as commuters have abandoned public transport for their cars.

"A CanDo LNP government will lower the cost of living and deliver better infrastructure and planning.

"It's time for a change. It's time to get Queensland back on track."

[#Metro]

So I think PT will become a major issue...

[Fares_Fair]

So I think PT will become a major issue...

It IS a major issue, it needs to be.
We can't keep going backwards, efficiencies need to be found, as does funding for improvements.

[HappyTrainGuy]

Members on here have stated many reasons as to how to improve parts of the network and to get more funding. It's like banging your head against a wall

[#Metro]

I actually think they are going to lose the election on it - the killer blow could be the LNP's CRR proposal.

[Stillwater]

Voters need to keep making PT an election issue.  Remember, the election campaign is the only time when our 'super' politicians are vulnerable to Kryptonite.  After the election, they retreat to the safety of the lead-lined Parliament House, where they are impervious to the slings, arrows and jibes of public opinion.

[O_128]

So I think PT will become a major issue...

It IS a major issue, it needs to be.
We can't keep going backwards, efficiencies need to be found, as does funding for improvements.

Its been a major issue for 10 years. the waste of space legacy tunnel could have fixed the SC line and most track constraints on the network. These people are idiots. Maybe its time for RBOT to mobilise into a political party 

[somebody]

Why don't the so and sos extend the 393??  That's what has me beat.

[kazzac]

how about freeze PT fares for the next 3 years instead! i wouldnt mind paying extra for improved services for instance a Balmoral/Bulimba BUZ

[Mr X]

A "Can do" Public Transport Action plan should include:
- funding for CRR/accept IA funding
- funding for SC line duplication, CAMCOS, MBRL and Trouts Rd
- funding for Bulimba BUZ, BUZ 359, 227, 555 (these are funded by the state through Translink. Why do BCC candidates keep making BUZ services an election issue when running for Lord Mayor?  :conf.  Meh they can carry through towards Graham Quirk's reelection bid)
- fare prices restricted to CPI

But nope. This is ROADS ROADS ROADS land. The only thing they care about are ROADS:
- Toowoomba Bypass and Bruce Highway LNP action plan priority #1
- car rego fees frozen ( )

PT users pay more for the same while car users pay the same and get free apples.

[#Metro]

Action comes about from the narrowing of focus:

1. - funding for CRR/accept IA funding

Agreed

2. - funding for SC line duplication, CAMCOS, MBRL and Trouts Rd

SC line duplication is the most important - that will provide immediate relief. MBRL is already funded so non-issue, CAMCOS only to Caloundra to allow interconnection with the bus network.

- funding for Bulimba BUZ, BUZ 359, 227, 555

Basically complete the Core Frequent Network. I think all rockets to Bulimba should be scrapped and the 227 or 220 BUZzed, along with 230 and 235 (both via South Bank, 227 can be used for those heading to the Valley or hop on a Ferry). 232 should be steam ironed into a cross town from Bulimba to Carindale/Cannon Hill.

- fare prices restricted to CPI

I totally disagree with this. Can't have cake and eat it too. CPI is an average measure and has things like televisions, bread and mince meat in it - clearly unrelated to PT demand/fares.

PT users pay more for the same while car users pay the same and get free apples.

This is just a election lollipop. I'm surprised that they didn't offer a beer subsidy scheme.