Should CityTrain be Free or near free?

[Gazza]

Paradoxically, I think one of the reasons why North American systems do appear to fare better (so Canadian Cities again, and maybe American ones) is because their funding sources aren't stable. They are FORCED to make cuts when the economy goes down, so there is a big incentive to cut legacy routes and make the system lean and efficient.

Its very noticeable actually. For instance in Orlando you could tell it was built around connections and there was very little duplication.
Though they still had 15 min routes in key places.

[colinw]

The problem with Doomben trains is that trains were re-introduced as a SYMBOL of good PT. In reality, splitting the transport task between trains sometimes and buses sometimes just makes a dog's breakfast style mess that makes the service VERY unattractive. No wonder no-one wants to use it. By the time the train turned up people could have rode a bicycle to the CBD!

When the Doomben line trains were re-introduced in 1998, patronage on the corridor subsequently increased markedly compared to what the bus was managing, despite the schite frequency.   Given that it is absolutely the worst suburban rail service in Brisbane (not including Nambour, which is Interurban), and one of the worst in the country, that says much about the bus that it replaced/augmented.


The whole Doomben/Pinkenba/Australia TradeCoast corridor needs a major rethink, as neither the bus or the rail routes are performing. I still think heavy rail to Hamilton North Shore plus connecting buses to ATC & Myrtletown/Pinkenba is the way to go, but it is going to take a much better service than the current Doomben line (which IMHO does not justify its own existence).

I hate seeing such a potentially useful corridor go to waste the way Doomben does.

[wbj]

Simplistic question I know, but I'll ask it anyway.  What loading is required for a train to break even?  Do crowded peak hour train services make a profit?

[Arnz]

It would vary on the route I believe.  Longer outer suburban and interurban routes to Ipswich and Varsity Lakes for example, I would assume cost more to operate than the short runs to the areas of Shorncliffe and Ferny Grove for example. 

Somebody in the know may be able to clarify further.

[Jonno]

Each public transport trip should get a subsidy equal to that of a motor vehicle trip including all environment, Heath and other externalities.  If that ends up with PT being free then it is only fair.  Reduce subsidy of motor vehicle than reduce subsidy of PT.

Remove the subsidies from road.  It's far superior!

I suspect if such an approach was adopted that the subsudies to motor vehcile transport would be wound back very quickly rathen than PT getting extra.  A great outcome in its own right.

[Jonno]

It would vary on the route I believe.  Longer outer suburban and interurban routes to Ipswich and Varsity Lakes for example, I would assume cost more to operate than the short runs to the areas of Shorncliffe and Ferny Grove for example. 

Somebody in the know may be able to clarify further.

also depends on the reductions  in externalities included rathen than just pure operation and capital investment.

[somebody]

Simplistic question I know, but I'll ask it anyway.  What loading is required for a train to break even?  Do crowded peak hour train services make a profit?

Peak hour runs are far more expensive to provide than off peak runs.  Providing peak capacity results in fixed costs, so are you just thinking of break even in terms of variable costs?  It also depends on if people are paying full fare, concession or free!