Has anyone tried to introduce a fully integrated distance based fare system?

[somebody]

Has this ever been attempted?  Every system I am aware is either zonal or not fully integrated (Singapore, Hong Kong).  I'm not aware it has ever been tried.

[Mr X]

Isn't the Singapore MRT distance based? Fare differs by what station you are going to.

[somebody]

Isn't the Singapore MRT distance based? Fare differs by what station you are going to.

Yes, but what happens if you get off it and on a bus?  Or some other mode?

[Mr X]

You can use the same ez-link card on the buses as on the MRT, i can't recall what fare it was based on though. the whole system is cheap as chips!

[somebody]

You can use the same ez-link card on the buses as on the MRT, i can't recall what fare it was based on though. the whole system is cheap as chips!

Pretty sure it's a separate flag fall on the bus and the train.  There's a few exceptions in SIN and HKG but it's not integrated in general.

[Arnz]

All,

They charge by distance on either bus or train.  You got 45 minutes between each transfer.  Distance fares are integrated.

However jumping back on the same bus route (regardless of the 45 minute transfer rule) resets it as a new journey.  A new journey also commences if you hop back on the MRT after the 45 min transfer rule.

http://www.publictransport.sg/content/publictransport/en/homepage/CommutersGuide/fares_ticketing.html

[somebody]

Here's a couple of pictures:



Seems to be route distance based.  Still not completely sure how it works because each different mode has it's own charge.

[colinw]

So how do you calculate distance for a horribly indirect line like Cleveland vs. a bus taking a direct route (e.g. via Capalaba)?  Similar situation would apply in Adelaide for the circuitous Belair line.

Not criticising, I am in favour of a broadly distance based scheme as well, subject to consideration of anomalies like the above.

The most important thing is that fares are set at a level where they attract patronage to the system and reflect value for money for the standard of service provided.

Charging premium & ever increasing fares for a rotten apple service that is the same or even slower than  it once was just doesn't cut it. The stalling of SEQ patronage growth in recent years clearly shows that, even if the Government has its head in the sand and continues to claim their 7.5% increase with no service improvement is good value just because it isn't quite as bad a gouge as Labor planned.

[somebody]

Simon, you joining me on the dark side with regard to fares?

I've used numerous PT systems and like probably 90% of tourists who do similar I wouldn;t have a clue if that system is Zonal or distance. You want to go from A to B, you ask what ticket gets me to B, Sometimes with a bit more homework you get a multi day pass and usually they are either for the suburban area or like a Go-card and you may need to top up. And the end of teh day it makes little difference to most PT users how the fare is calculated because they will use it either way. Its just what is the fairest fare system using 21st century technology and for my money, distance is it.

Not sure what you mean by the dark side, but I like there being one fare, one method of calculation, for fares to be reasonable, and no hassles.  I hate needing to calculate the best fare for my trip, needing to buy a periodical or having to interact with anyone or anything because of fares.  Touch on/touch off is a minimal interaction.

So how do you calculate distance for a horribly indirect line like Cleveland vs. a bus taking a direct route (e.g. via Capalaba)?  Similar situation would apply in Adelaide for the circuitous Belair line.

In Singapore?  Sucked in.  I think I'm showing my age there.

[Stillwater]

Another view, one based on universal and egalitarian access to services, says that a zonal system, with different widths for concentric zones is designed such that every user can pay to travel about two zones to access the shops, school, doctor etc.  Everyone is treated equally, even if the distance travelled is not equal.

Maybe it is time to consider the notion of 'seat-kilometre availability' for rail.  That is the number of seats QR sends over distance to a particular station.  A person paying a fare of, say, $6-$8 in the inner-city has access to a good number of trains every day, all being sent their way to entice them to travel.  At the other extreme, Gympie North passengers have only two return trains a day, for which they pay $20 one-way.

The seat-kilometre ratio would be greater for the Kelvin Grove station than the Gympie North station, due to the large number of trains running the Kelvin Grove line.

The bottom line is weather people see PT as a community good, allowing reasonable easy access to local services, or as a pay-for-distance travelled, very much like a taxi flagfall and so many cents per kilometres travelled.  Community sentiment lies somewhere in between.

[somebody]

You'd be a fan of the Melbourne system then, with their far higher rate for zone 1 (only) trips than zone 2 (only).

[Stillwater]

Rather than see things as sharp, contrasting back and white, we should appreciate the hues of grey in between.  I do not know enough about the Melbourne system to say whether I am a fan or not.  All I know is that the Minister has said the SEQ 23-zone system stays.  We may debate alternatives, but it is unlikely to move the government, so the issue is how do we make the 23-zone system work effectively.

[somebody]

Ok, but I wasn't particularly looking to talk about the Qld system here.

[triplethree]

Singapore has fully integrated fares between all three modes (bus, MRT and LRT) and the two operators (SBS Transit and SMRT Corporation). IIRC, the fare brackets were 0-3km, then a bracket for every kilometre thereafter, then a 40km+ bracket.

It wasn't a pure distance-based system though ... there was a flagfall component. When I was there in 2010 the 0-3km bracket was something like 65 cents, then it rose steeply after that by about 8 cents per bracket, but quickly tapered off to a few cents per bracket, reaching a maximum of around $1.94.

There were, however, two fare tables: one for air-conditioned buses, the other for non-air-conditioned buses. I have no idea what happened if you had a multi-trip journey which involved an AC bus and a non-AC bus. It was a bit of a moot point because all of the very many buses I caught had AC.

The new distance-based fares were introduced in July 2010. It replaced a crazy Sydney-style system where you were charged individually for each separate trip and each bus route was divided up into 0.5km sections. Singapore has a standard bus stop spacing of around 400 metres so most stops were in their own section! When you transferred between buses or between modes 50 cents was deducted off the fare for your second and subsequent trips (the "transfer rebate"). Also, the North East Line charged higher fares than the other MRT lines to reflect the higher cost of constructing the 100% underground line and to make up for the lower patronage (most of the suburbs around the outer stations were only just being developed at the time).

Singapore is the only system I know of which comes close to having an integrated distance-based fare system. I'd be interested too in knowing of any other cities which have tried to implement one.

[Fares_Fair]

Another view, one based on universal and egalitarian access to services, says that a zonal system, with different widths for concentric zones is designed such that every user can pay to travel about two zones to access the shops, school, doctor etc.  Everyone is treated equally, even if the distance travelled is not equal.

Maybe it is time to consider the notion of 'seat-kilometre availability' for rail.  That is the number of seats QR sends over distance to a particular station.  A person paying a fare of, say, $6-$8 in the inner-city has access to a good number of trains every day, all being sent their way to entice them to travel.  At the other extreme, Gympie North passengers have only two return trains a day, for which they pay $20 one-way.

The seat-kilometre ratio would be greater for the Kelvin Grove station than the Gympie North station, due to the large number of trains running the Kelvin Grove line.

The bottom line is weather people see PT as a community good, allowing reasonable easy access to local services, or as a pay-for-distance travelled, very much like a taxi flagfall and so many cents per kilometres travelled.  Community sentiment lies somewhere in between.

THis is a very interesting concept, and possibly worth pursuing.

[somebody]

Still has the V journey problem.  If you make a negative charge for the return trip then your example of the Beenleigh-City (10 minutes) City-Beenleigh trip has become a 0km journey, attracting only a flag fall charge, assuming you have that.

[Gazza]

In the past I've suggested checking the ratio of distance versus displacement when calculating to avoid that issue.

[somebody]

- Yeroongpilly to Corinda via Roma St via train or via direct bus, the fare is as crow flys, again simple, why make it complicated?

Let's say you travel via Roma St and exit the station.  Yeerongpilly to Roma St is further than to Corinda.  Your continuation has a negative charge.  Are you saying to refund it or not?  You might say that you shouldn't exit the station, but you would have to if you did that trip by bus from Moorooka on a 100, or from Yeerongpilly on a 105/108.

[somebody]

What happens now is that you pay for the longer leg.  You don't get a refund because you've had to backtrack.

Possible answers are:
(a) Refund the money - downside is that return journeys become at the price of the flag fall
(b) Don't refund the money - downside is that V shaped journeys are overcharged.

I don't think there's a right answer to that.

[somebody]

What happens now is that you pay for the longer leg.  You don't get a refund because you've had to backtrack.

Possible answers are:
(a) Refund the money - downside is that return journeys become at the price of the flag fall
(b) Don't refund the money - downside is that V shaped journeys are overcharged.

I don't think there's a right answer to that.

I would charge from A-C, the cost for A-B is not incured until the transfer time has elapsed at which point its a 2nd journey. Hence there is no refund as such.

Overcharging for V shaped journey's is a rip-off, pure and simple and encourges people to drive for two reasons, the trip is long and they pay alot for it.

Are you intentionally trying to not be pinned down to one option?

I think you are saying that you would give back the money.  Which basically means you can go from the Gold Coast and back so long as you don't spend more than an hour in Brisbane.

[Gazza]

Let's say you travel via Roma St and exit the station.  Yeerongpilly to Roma St is further than to Corinda.  Your continuation has a negative charge.  Are you saying to refund it or not?  You might say that you shouldn't exit the station, but you would have to if you did that trip by bus from Moorooka on a 100, or from Yeerongpilly on a 105/108.

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with refunding fares on the go. Any fare less than $10 on rail has that happen already, so its no big deal.

So what happens is when you touch on at Corinda the default fare is taken.
You might leave the station, but that should be allowed for anyway. You should be able to exit the paid area if you have a long wait between trains, particularly at Roma St and the Valley where there are shops.

So the 2nd leg, from Roma St to Yeerongpilly is counted as a trip, not a separate journey.

When you touch off at Yeerongpilly the fare is adjusted again, to be the distance between Corinda and Yeerongpilly (overall displacement). At the same time a check is made between the sum of straight line distances so far (Corinda-Roma St, Roma St Yeerongpilly). If the overall displacement is too small compared to the sum of straight line distances (V shaped journey detection) then the system breaks up appropriately. In this case, I think its fine to do the Corinda-Yeerongpilly since the 104 is so infrequent.

Eg if someone somehow did Nambour to Caboolture Railbus then Caboolture-Roma St all stopper, and then back from Roma St to Nambour on an express IMU, it would charge for the Railbus+All Stopper as one trip, then the Express as another trip.

Which basically means you can go from the Gold Coast and back so long as you don't spend more than an hour in Brisbane.

That said, who would? I think short return trips in the suburbs are a bigger problem than someone doing a joyride on a mostly empty train to the GC.

[somebody]

Shoppers trips are certain to happen though.

[Gazza]

In that case, the V shaped (well its more of an I shape actually since you'd be tracing the same route each time) trip detection would work.
Your last stop would be say 10m away from the one you boarded at, given its just across the road. As a proportion of a say total 5km return bus trip to the shop, this is huge relative difference, so the rule would be activated and the IB and OB parts of your journey would be broken up and charged for separately.

[somebody]

I guess that's a reasonable solution.  Increases the complexity though.

[Mr X]

That sounds easy to rort.

[somebody]

That sounds easy to rort.

How do you mean?

[Gazza]

Mr X, perhaps give an example, if you're gonna nitpick?

Simon, yes it increases complexity, but any system like Singapores you trade off simplicity for more accurate pricing.

[Mr X]

Well if I was gonna do an I journey, I'd just make sure I get off at a bus stop a little further away as the one I got on at, that the distance represents a plausible trip, and just walk the remaining distance home. = significantly cheaper fare.

[Gazza]

I think there would be some playing around to do to prevent that....use a ratio that prevents it, or perhaps slide the ratio depending on overall distance travelled.

[HappyTrainGuy]

At least some people would be getting some exercise