Wellington puts out issues paper on fare structure review

[somebody]

http://www.farereview.co.nz/assets/Uploads/J0974-WRC-Fare-Systems-summary-low-res.pdf

Periodicals lose!
Refer to pages 23-25

Off peak discount recommended to go to 50% !
Refer to pages 20-21

[Gazza]

Also worth looking at is page 5, which has good definitions"

Fare structure   
The foundation for the system. For example, it could be based on flat,
distance-based, time-based or zonal-base fares, or a combination of
fare types.
Fare products
The range of tickets available (e.g. single, multi-ride, periodical*) and
associated business rules (e.g. in relation to concessions and transfers).
Fare levels
The price of the fare products (which is addressed through Greater
Wellington's annual fare review).
Fare concessions
Particular groups that qualify for concessions (such as children, young
people, tertiary students and 'seniors'), and the concession levels.
Ticketing system
The technology used to process transactions, such as paper tickets, tokens,
magnetic-stripe cards and 'stored-value cards'**. This will be addressed
through a separate project.

Note the difference in defintion of the fare structure, and the fare levels.

[#Metro]

I think they should go the way of Melbourne - two zones. Simple.

[Gazza]

Did you read the bit on fare zones? Wellington is a bit like Brisbane in that it has a couple of long dangly bits of commuter rail that stretch 100km away, so someone doing a short trip across the zone boundary would pay as a much as 100km rail user.

They are proposing 7 zones, which seems about right to me.

My tweet : 

@TransLinkSEQ @scottemersonmp Wellington NZ is doing a public consultation on PT fares. We should too.Democracy @ work http://www.farereview.co.nz/assets/Uploads/J0974-WRC-Fare-Systems-summary-low-res.pdf ...

[somebody]

I don't see why they should reduce their number of zones.

That proposal had a negative benefit in the issues paper too.

[ozbob]

Also worth looking at is page 5, which has good definitions"

Fare structure   
The foundation for the system. For example, it could be based on flat,
distance-based, time-based or zonal-base fares, or a combination of
fare types.
Fare products
The range of tickets available (e.g. single, multi-ride, periodical*) and
associated business rules (e.g. in relation to concessions and transfers).
Fare levels
The price of the fare products (which is addressed through Greater
Wellington's annual fare review).
Fare concessions
Particular groups that qualify for concessions (such as children, young
people, tertiary students and 'seniors'), and the concession levels.
Ticketing system
The technology used to process transactions, such as paper tickets, tokens,
magnetic-stripe cards and 'stored-value cards'**. This will be addressed
through a separate project.

Note the difference in defintion of the fare structure, and the fare levels.

Good definitions, but all dependent on fare structure.  Price is meaningless until the structure is defined, fare types etc.

Until they sort out the structure they really cannot do much.  Off peak 50% interesting.

[somebody]

They are indeed planning to sort out the fare structure first.  Most likely fare structure seems to be like SEQ Mar2012 - 10 then free - but charging the most expensive trips.  I wouldn't be surprised if they go with a 50% FUD either.

Wellington already has about 50% farebox recovery, and about 50% of patronage off peak.

They will re-jig the fare levels to maintain the farebox.

[ozbob]

50% FUD is the way to go, the 10 then free is just going to end up the same as it will here ... unsustainable ..

[#Metro]

Back from Melbourne this weekend, and I like Myki!! Spent all day on the trams and trains paying nothing after a few trips. I think daily caps are the way to go - good all round solution.

[ozbob]

Back from Melbourne this weekend, and I like Myki!! Spent all day on the trams and trains paying nothing after a few trips. I think daily caps are the way to go - good all round solution.

Yes, myki is fine.  Bunch of spoiled brats down south .. LOL

Daily cap works well with the two zones and that.  Still claws in a fare, and gets people out and about.

A daily cap on the go card is a little less straightforward, perhaps highest zone fare x 2 plus a possible loading.

[somebody]

50% FUD is the way to go, the 10 then free is just going to end up the same as it will here ... unsustainable ..

I agree.  Only kicking after 10.

I don't think you've ever said that before.  Did something change your mind?

[ozbob]

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=8719.0

Preferred options under the present constraints.

[somebody]

http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=8719.0

Preferred options under the present constraints.

Ah ok.  So you did.

I always understood in 2011 and before that you wanted to get rid of the FUD for a periodical though.

[ozbob]

Early on periodicals were certainly in the mix, but once I become aware of the limitations of the system no point. I don't think there will be a move to periodicals as such from here.

[somebody]

I would mischievously suggest more buses and less trains.

The fares are a bit higher in Wellington.  $A12.84 gets you to Varsity Lakes (85km), whereas $NZ12 gets you to Waikanae (around 50+km).  Petrol is well over $NZ2 per litre there.  Perhaps they are paying staff less and/or are more efficient.  I think they probably have more density, and also trolleybuses.

[somebody]

Thousands respond to bus fare plan
MICHAEL FORBES
TRANSPORT AND METRO REPORTER
Last updated 05:00 26/10/2012

Wellington bus
ANDREW GORRIE/Dominion Post
FARE DEBATE: The council received more than 2200 responses on proposed bus fare changes.

Public transport users want big discounts for tertiary students, fewer zones, and they want to pay by the kilometre when travelling across the Wellington region.

Public feedback to Greater Wellington regional council's proposed fare structure changes was discussed by councillors yesterday.

The council received more than 2200 responses through its website and about 20 written responses during its eight-week consultation period.

The Victoria University Students Association also surveyed its members and provided the results to the council. Students represented 35 per cent of the total respondents, reflecting a high level of interest and support for tertiary students discounts.

Councillor Daran Ponter said he understood the desire from students, but people on low incomes and the unemployed felt the same way.

Councillor Peter Glensor acknowledged the strong support for discounted tertiary fares but said the council would have to be careful about how it defined a tertiary student.

"This city is full of people doing their masters in public policy one unit at a time, and they could cost us a lot of money."

There was general support for the principle of fares being as cheap as possible for as many people as possible.

Some respondents said Wellington already had some of the most expensive fares in New Zealand or Australia, and increasing them in the current economic climate would significantly reduce patronage.

Others said a cheap single-zone fare was essential to support people who depend on public transport.

The council will now use the feedback to develop its preferred package of fare changes, which will go out for public consultation early next year.

Councillor Nigel Wilson said he wanted to see the issue of free public transport for people with disabilities addressed sooner rather than later.

WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT

ZONES 45 per cent favoured a shift to five or seven larger zones; 41 per cent wanted the existing 14 zones retained.

FARES 62 per cent supported a pay-per-kilometre system rather than fares based on zones travelled.

PEAK/OFF-PEAK Support for and against an off-peak bus fare was split almost down the middle. There was also a fairly even split over whether a 25, 33 or 50 per cent discount was the most appropriate.

CONCESSIONS 66 per cent supported a tertiary student concession, with 52 per cent of those indicating a 50 per cent discount was the most appropriate. 41 per cent favoured a general under-20s fare rather than the current school student fare.75 per cent wanted the existing concessions for disabilities retained rather than being replaced with a general off-peak fare.
Ad Feedback

SUPERGOLD CARD Opinions were split over extending the SuperGold card concession to the afternoon peak.

PAYMENT Preference for future payment options were split between a periodical ticket (33 per cent), a trip-by-trip stored-value card (36 per cent) or a capped period fare with a stored-value card (25 per cent).

Related story: 20kmh speed limit for Golden Mile?

Contact Michael Forbes
Transport and metro reporter
Email: michael.forbes@dompost.co.nz
Twitter: @michael_forbes

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7865678/Thousands-respond-to-bus-fare-plan

[somebody]

"FARES 62 per cent supported a pay-per-kilometre system rather than fares based on zones travelled."

Going to have to agree on this, in 21st century with live systems and a ever growing larger % of population walking around with a smart phone, paying by the km should be the way forward.

Per km of route distance or as the crow flies?

[Gazza]

Should be as the crow files, clearly.

Yncentive for the operator to be as straight as possible with routes too  .

[Golliwog]

"FARES 62 per cent supported a pay-per-kilometre system rather than fares based on zones travelled."

Going to have to agree on this, in 21st century with live systems and a ever growing larger % of population walking around with a smart phone, paying by the km should be the way forward.

Per km of route distance or as the crow flies?

But as the crow flies would also have some issues. EG: On the Citycat, UQ to North Quay is further than UQ to South Bank (marginal distance I know, but it was the only such example I could find on short notice)

I'd think you'd want to put some 'fuzz' into the system so such issues. So fares would be 0-1km = $1.50, 1-2km = $1.75 sort of thing. Before I get attacked too much, $$ values here were picked random just to illustrate a point, not necessarily advocating them as the price to set it at, or how big the bands should be. Another I noted is that it's a few 100m shorter as the crow flies from the 109/412 bus stop in the CBD to UQ Lakes than Chancellors Place, so again, if it was purely a price/km then there'd be a (small) price incentive for everyone to use the 109 rather than the 412.

[somebody]

109 is a shorter route is it not, so it would be fair for it to be cheaper than the 412.

Should be as the crow files, clearly.

Yncentive for the operator to be as straight as possible with routes too  .

Not clear at all.  How are you going to handle people doing return trips within the transfer window?

[#Metro]

With the savings so infinitisemally small, there really would be no incentive IMHO. Be careful of pricing different routes slightly differently because you are starting to move away from integrated fares, this makes things hard to remember. Adding "fuzz" gets you back to the zone system in practice.

Some reading

http://www.humantransit.org/2009/05/in-search-of-fair-fares.html

[Gazza]

i think fuzz is a good idea, its not actually zonal TT because zones tend to be concentric circles, so it means orbital/ cross town trips tend to stick in the same zone, whereas with linear trips cross many zone boundaries.

1km intervals is certainly a lot different to the typical zone sizes in Brisbane, Perth, and Melbourne.

Not clear at all.  How are you going to handle people doing return trips within the transfer window?

How many people do that? Why should be care?

Certainly shouldn't be route km based because you'd end up with situations like the Doomben line costing more due to that loopy bit it does to get up to EJ.

[somebody]

Well I guess if you are prepared to write off that revenue in both directions and only collect the flag fall then that does indeed solve the problem.

[Gazza]

Well its not exactly fair to charge people based on route distance travelled, because it means they are paying for diversions, roads which aren't direct, turns in the river etc.

[somebody]

Well its not exactly fair to charge people based on route distance travelled, because it means they are paying for diversions, roads which aren't direct, turns in the river etc.

Why shouldn't the customer pay for indirect roads, bends in the river etc?  They have chosen to make those sorts of trips and it isn't the transit agency's fault.  I can accept diversions, but they should be taken out of the system anyway.

[Gazza]

Why shouldn't the customer pay for indirect roads, bends in the river etc?

Not the customers fault either.
Eg the indirectness of the Cleveland line is not the customers fault.

[somebody]

Why shouldn't the customer pay for indirect roads, bends in the river etc?

Not the customers fault either.
Eg the indirectness of the Cleveland line is not the customers fault.

I think it is the customers fault - they have chosen to live at Bulimba, for example.  I don't see why they shouldn't be expected to pay their share of the ongoing transit costs in an ideal world.  As the crow flies is an effective subsidy at Bulimba.

[Gazza]

Why shouldn't the customer pay for indirect roads, bends in the river etc?

Not the customers fault either.
Eg the indirectness of the Cleveland line is not the customers fault.

I think it is the customers fault - they have chosen to live at Bulimba, for example.  I don't see why they shouldn't be expected to pay their share of the ongoing transit costs in an ideal world.  As the crow flies is an effective subsidy at Bulimba.

So what do you think of the Cleveland line example?

[somebody]

That could be argued either way.  It's not like you didn't know about the indirect nature of the Cleveland line when you moved there.  On the other hand, QR 100+ years ago went a long way around, presumably it was cheaper to do so back then.

As the Crow fly's is simple,

It is certainly conceivable that it would be cheaper to implement such an option.

[SurfRail]

My opinion remains that our zonal system is not broken and does not need fixing, other than to smooth out the little discrepancies where stations are arbitrarily "over the border".  For instance, I do not support the comments in the GCCC Transport Strategy about the fare zones creating inequalities for the Gold Coast when compared with Brisbane, because it would only apply to a tiny number of people in Brisbane going from the northside to the southside who get a minor advantage.  In any case, east-west travellers down here get a similar advantage.

No need to make it more technical than it should be.

Pricing is all that needs to be fixed.

[somebody]

+1

It's certainly not broken enough to bother with fixing it.

[Gazza]

That could be argued either way.  It's not like you didn't know about the indirect nature of the Cleveland line when you moved there.

It's a bit harsh to say people should only move next to the most direct lines.

Anyway, if you're going to argue it should be user pays based on route Km, I could say easily argue it could be user pays based on transit time...after all, its drivers hours which are the main cost of running a service, not the distance.

[somebody]

It's like Jarrett Walker says, there are anomalies with any fare system.

[#Metro]

Anyway, if you're going to argue it should be user pays based on route Km, I could say easily argue it could be user pays based on transit time...after all, its drivers hours which are the main cost of running a service, not the distance.

True Gazza, true - and guess what, the WORST routes are also the slowest, crappest so they would cost the MOST. They make up the BULK of the BT bus network, so fares on those would rise (i.e. Cost for riding the 105 Yeronga Safari or 414 Taringa Twirl would go UP).

[HappyTrainGuy]

Anyway, if you're going to argue it should be user pays based on route Km, I could say easily argue it could be user pays based on transit time...after all, its drivers hours which are the main cost of running a service, not the distance.

True Gazza, true - and guess what, the WORST routes are also the slowest, crappest so they would cost the MOST. They make up the BULK of the BT bus network, so fares on those would rise (i.e. Cost for riding the 105 Yeronga Safari or 414 Taringa Twirl would go UP).

They'd be making a fortune of us northside users!

[somebody]

It's different to now as at least the outbound trip is charged for.  Unless I'm mistaken Gazza was proposing a system which didn't do that.  If you don't credit for reverse trips, how are you going to credit for the second leg of V shaped journeys?

BTW, I think all express stops in the BCC area are in fact named.  On the 444 O/B:
CC,
KGSBS,
Cribb St,
Auchenflower,
Wesley Hospital,
Toowong,
BBC,
Taringa,
Indooroopilly Interchange A,
Indooroopilly school,
Chapel Hill,
Alkira,
Kenmore Churches,
Marshal Lane,
Kenmore Central,
Misty Morn,
(getting fuzzier)
Rafting Ground Rd,
QCAT,
Belbowrie shops,
Pioneer West,
Pioneer East,
Moggill.

IIRC.  I think I've missed a couple.

[SurfRail]

I'm still not sold on distance fares.  The system is not broken.

[somebody]

I'm still not sold on distance fares.  The system is not broken.

But it's a reasonable proposition for a clean sheet of paper problem.  I think that's all that is being suggested.

[Gazza]

If you don't credit for reverse trips, how are you going to credit for the second leg of V shaped journeys?

Its an annoying one, because V shaped journeys do happen. Eg Brisbane to Movie World requires a backtrack from Helensvale on the bus.

Best solution I could think of is a bit of code that compares distance travelled on linear points total,  versus distance travelled between first and last points.

Or in other words, distance versus displacement.

If the ratio becomes too high then everything happening after the furthest point from the start is split off as a new journey.

Eg to get to Movie World from Roma St is 63km total via point to point measured between all transfers.
Versus 56km as the crow files Roma St to Movie World.


If i decided to try and do a return trip Oxley to Indroopilly and back to Oxley in the transfer window, that's 12.2km total travel versus 0km actually covered.

It would be a pretty high ratio, say your distance being 10 times or more your displacement, because some inner city trips do technically have a bit of backtracking.

But it would capture really obvious instances.

[HappyTrainGuy]

If you don't credit for reverse trips, how are you going to credit for the second leg of V shaped journeys?

Its an annoying one, because V shaped journeys do happen.

Taigum to Bracken Ridge via Sandgate (326)
Those Chermside Community Buses (336/337)
The 338 has some massive detours
Every Thompson bus service in Strathpine/Warner/Bray Park/Lawnton takes a long scenic tour

Then comes the issue: What bus do I get. Do I get on the 335 from Chermside to get to Prince Charles Hospital or do I get the 325. It could work but it will be a bitch of a system to setup compared to the current system.