Now that both political parties have announced that there will be no Zone 1 +2 fares, what about a proposal to reintroduce off peak fares in Melbourne and regional centres. Surely would not be too hard with that marvellous ticketing system we have, purchased at a bargain basement price?
Could be part of answer to Melbourne traffic congestion, may lead to more staging of people's work hours?

Hell no.  Fares are too low as it is.

We really need distance based fares with slight zonal modulation of the rate.

That would make far more sense.

Cost is least competitive for short trips, and that's where it has the most impact (no parking fees to compete with etc.).

ZH836601,
I am uncertain what you mean in that last sentence.
Could you elaborate please?

Now that both political parties have announced that there will be no Zone 1 +2 fares, what about a proposal to reintroduce off peak fares in Melbourne and regional centres. Surely would not be too hard with that marvellous ticketing system we have, purchased at a bargain basement price?
Could be part of answer to Melbourne traffic congestion, may lead to more staging of people's work hours?

Most likely myki will still have zone 1 - 2 fares for the V/Line services.

Hell no.  Fares are too low as it is.
We really need distance based fares with slight zonal modulation of the rate.
That would make far more sense.
Cost is least competitive for short trips, and that's where it has the most impact (no parking fees to compete with etc.).

That not true - The problem withthe existing fare system – subsidized the well off by give them heavenly discount fares and on the other hand forcing people that can’t afford to buy a 28 day plus fare to buy more expensive fare!



Example of this:

Melbourne to Bendigo cost$55.20 for a daily under myki but in Sydney it cost $15.00 smart card cap - go from Central to Newcastle for the day.

in this case if a personbuys a 28 days pass and then it only cost them $16.28 a day, but person can't afford buy this way they are disadvantages and force to buymore costly daily fare.

ZH836601,
I am uncertain what you mean in that last sentence.
Could you elaborate please?

Short trips are currently overpriced due to the zonal structure which subsidises long trips.

Short trips also have lower modal competition in terms of car costs (usually easy parking, minimal petrol costs, etc.)

Fairness would dictate that if you travel twice the distance you should pay twice as much.

The best way to achieve this is with distance charging, with some inherent radial zonal structure so that fare revenue is proportional to costs - which is dependent both on patronage (more patronage means more revenue) and the costs of providing the service (more services means more expenditure).  Ie. you would expect the inner city distance charge rate to be higher than the distance charging rate for say Sunbury to Bendigo.

We should be looking to have revenue meet expenditure (as road vehicles broadly do) - if this requires fares higher than the equivalent car travel costs, then public transport is demonstrating some major inefficiencies that need to be rectified.

Short trips are currently overpriced due to the zonal structure which subsidises long trips.

Short trips also have lower modal competition in terms of car costs (usually easy parking, minimal petrol costs, etc.)

Fairness would dictate that if you travel twice the distance you should pay twice as much.

The best way to achieve this is with distance charging, with some inherent radial zonal structure so that fare revenue is proportional to costs - which is dependent both on patronage (more patronage means more revenue) and the costs of providing the service (more services means more expenditure). Ie. you would expect the inner city distance charge rate to be higher than the distance charging rate for say Sunbury to Bendigo.

We should be looking to have revenue meet expenditure (as road vehicles broadly do) - if this requires fares higher than the equivalent car travel costs, then public transport is demonstrating some major inefficiencies that need to be rectified.

Car travel and public transport travel cost are two different things.

For example – if person was to own a car that was wortharound $10,000 and to maintain the car it would cost them the following:

• Servicing the car : $400 a year


• Insurance :$650


• Rego : $356.00 to $712

Before drive their car – there is cost of $1,762.00 already

The current pt fare system is not fair at all – because it heavily subsidizes the well off that can afford to pay their fares in an advance.

The bigger problem is commuter club discount and which gives 10% discount top of fare that all ready heavily discounted and my view this commuter club discount should be scraped it unfair and not needed.

What should happen – fares should be subsidizes should be based on the needs based and not based on if person they can pay their fares in an advance!

This scheme (commuter club discount) is not able to country people or to concession holders.
Zone 1 year Commuter club discount
325 days: 1430 / 10 = 143 1430 - 143= 1287 / 325 = $3.96 a day
365 days: 1430 / 10 = 143 1430 - 143= 1287 /365 =
$3.52 a day


Zone 1 and 2 year Commuter club discount

325 days: 2210 / 10 = 221 2210- 221 = 1989 / 325 = $6.12 a day
365 days: 2210 / 10 = 221 2210 - 221= 1989 /365 =
$5.45 a day

The lack of distance-based charging is the wrong way to go, I agree with that.  Especially stupid seeing as they spent $1.5 billion on a ticketing system designed to actually do that efficiently ... and then went to a flat fare system anyway (idiotic really isn't it).

The issue is that State governments of both shade like to discount those outer suburban long commutes in the belief that really cheap fares is what those people want instead of a better service. It makes no sense whatsoever that someone living in Bacchus Marsh, Werribee or Craigieburn should pay the same amount for a daily peak-hour haul into the city and back while someone travelling four blocks on a tram pays the same fare; it just isn't an efficient use of resources and it puts people off using public transport for short trips because it's comparatively expensive.

So as usual, it's a political footy and good policy loses out.

Melbtrip as always is making a wrong comparison as interstate situations are not viable alternatives for people to take. It's not like saying Ventura is cheaper than Transdev and you should try to take Ventura if you can.

The comparison is against the motor vehicle and what is seen as a direct cost for each journey (i.e. not the cost of the car and rego, but things like toll, parking, fuel, time). As mentioned before, short trips have a disincentive as parking is usually free, and fuel cost is minimal for short trips.

Hi all,
Thanks for all the comments.
The new system of charging a zone 1 fare only for those travelling from zone 2 into zone 1 surely favours the long distance traveller?
In Melbourne, generally speaking, the less well off live in the outer suburbs. Therefor the new structure favours the less fortunate, surely.
Just to return to my original topic on off peak fares, this then further
helps the less well off travel in off peak times as well?
Appreciate your comments in advance.

Car travel and public transport travel cost are two different things.

As per usual you miss the point.


Public transport should be more efficient than roads - if priced to cost recovery (less congestion benefits and concessions) fares should be cheaper than road (excise plus registration).


If not there are inherent inefficiencies in place.


There is no reason not to aim for cost recovery of expenditure, less savings due to reduced congestion, and a concessional component.

In Melbourne, generally speaking, the less well off live in the outer suburbs. Therefor the new structure favours the less fortunate, surely.

So why don't we offer fuel excise rebates and vastly reduced registration costs to outer suburban residents?

This simple statement should demonstrate the daftness of your comment - the low fares benefit a relatively small particular group, outer suburban CBD commuters, robbing the system of much needed revenue and unreasonably favouring white collar CBD workers over the vast majority who don't work in the inner city.

Everyone should pay their way for transport, be it road or PT, and logically that means if you travel further you should pay more.  By subsidising long distance transport you naturally dilute the benefits of living close to work and further increase congestion.  At the moment the vast majority working near their place of residence pay disproportionally more for public transport.  Some people seem to have this illogical idea that everyone works in the CBD - for Cardinia Shire, only 2.1% work in the CBD, 4% in the City of Melbourne overall.

So no, there shouldn't be off peak fares.  There shouldn't be weeklys, or monthlys either.  You should pay a distance charged fare, dependent on some basic radial zoning.

You don't get a discount for using your car 5 days in a row, why should you for public transport?

OK ZH836301,
So you are saying that say: a recently divorced mother of 3 primary school aged children, who has only passed year 10, has not worked for 10 years, is renting in Pakenham for say $200 per week, partner not paying any maintenance, can only work reduced hours as she has to pick children up from school- she should pay say $25 per day return fares, (that's $125 per week )so that the Government can mostly recover the cost of running the train?
Interesting.

Melbtrip as always is making a wrong comparison as interstate situations are not viable alternatives for people to take. It's not like saying Ventura is cheaper than Transdev and you should try to take Ventura if you can.

The comparison is against the motor vehicle and what is seen as a direct cost for each journey (i.e. not the cost of the car and rego, but things like toll, parking, fuel, time). As mentioned before, short trips have a disincentive as parking is usually free, and fuel cost is minimal for short trips.

Looking at another cities in Australia and how they charge fares and look at alternatives I believe is right way go about it.
For example looking how Sydney does it - by giving subsidizes to people that lease can afford it is best practise.
The problem with short tips by PT is not the fare itself normally - but how it takes get from point A to point B and how time you have to transfer to get where you want to go to.
For example - it takes me 5 mins get to local shopping center by car, but using PT it takes 15 - 30mins.
PT is normally good when it is faster ,frequent and cheaper compare to using the car for example of this when travelling in peak hour.

In Melbourne, generally speaking, the less well off live in the outer suburbs. There for the new structure favours the less fortunate, surely.
Just to return to my original topic on off peak fares, this then further
helps the less well off travel in off peak times as well?

The new fare structure for Melbourne (2015) would actually make things better for people in outer suburbs.
Would be better if the fare system was like they have in Sydney and have a weekly cap in place and after 8 joineries in the week should be free.
In Sydney they have 30% discount when travelling in off-peak - the same should applied here.

So no,there shouldn't be off peak fares. There shouldn't be weeklys, or monthlys either. You should pay a distance charged fare, dependent on some basic radial zoning.

Major Cities like New York have flat fares and it works well for the city.

The problem with short tips by PT is not the fare itself normally - but how it takes get from point A to point B and how time you have to transfer to get where you want to go to.
For example - it takes me 5 mins get to local shopping center by car, but using PT it takes 15 - 30mins.
PT is normally good when it is faster ,frequent and cheaper compare to using the car for example of this when travelling in peak hour.

I wish the government would listen to things like this.

Good PT = more patronage = more money.

OK ZH836301, So you are saying that say: a recently divorced mother of 3 primary school aged children, who has only passed year 10, has not worked for 10 years, is renting in Pakenham for say $200 per week, partner not paying any maintenance, can only work reduced hours as she has to pick children up from school- she should pay say $25 per day return fares, (that's $125 per week )so that the Government can mostly recover the cost of running the train?
Interesting.

I'm not going to argue exact costs without the specific data, but yes, if you travel across the city you should expect to pay more - why is it so hard to comprehend when the same applies to driving?  You don't swipe your monthly or show your address at the petrol station for virtually free petrol.


Don't attempt to play dumb emotive arguments, it's embarrassing.  If that same mother has to drive to work she gets absolutely no subsidisation of her trip at all.


We should also make an exemption to income tax to fit her case.  Let it apply to those with three children, not two, not one, or four.  Let it only apply to those in year 10, and make everyone who fits into this category exempt, regardless of income.  This is the exact analogy to granting those on a specific trip vector massively subsidised transport at the expense of everybody else.

For example looking how Sydney does it - by giving subsidizes to people that lease can afford it is best practise.

Giving subsidies out to one specific group for no reason is not best practice.

Would be better if the fare system was like they have in Sydney and have a weekly cap in place and after 8 joineries in the week should be free.

Melbtrip would would make a great petrol station owner - he'd let me fill up for free after eight journeys.

Major Cities like New York have flat fares and it works well for the city.

Melbourne should have distance based fares, it would work well for the city.


Did I just make a Melbtrip argument?  You only want capped fares to finance your pointless journeys all across town.


Why should I and the majority of people who don't use public transport subsidise you?

Buy petrol is not same thing as buying a public transport fare.
When I drive my car - there number of factors of cost and they're the following:

• Traffic - more Traffic use more petrol


• Where I travelling to


• Distance travelling to/forum


• Size of car

Car parking / maybe tollways fees - (using tollway may reduce how much petrol I use or time it takes get to place that I want to go to
When the state government or get someone else to run the public transport services and the cost is based on service delivered is same it does not chances on based how people use it or not
·
Cost of running service stays the same regards less how many people using it or not
·
Bus companies get paid for full bus even if the bus is empty
Public Transport always going have subsidies attached to it- The question how can the state governments set their fares.
All fares in Melbourne is based on the idea - a person is most likely to travel to CBD area and so for zones are based on this.

The current pt fare system is not fair at all – because it heavily subsidizes the well off that can afford to pay their fares in an advance for example I highlighted was discounted year Commuter club fares.
PT fares must be fair for everyone and must set so people use it on a regular bases.
Having a weekly cap does this in fair way for everyone and also having a off-peak fares to encourage people use non popular services.

Did I just make a Melbtrip argument? You only want capped fares to finance your point less journeys all across town. - My pt used has gone down by 90 -95% compare to last metcard was sold.

I do not believe well off people - Like people with well paid jobs getting heavily discount fares over people that need it more like early and disable.

OK,
I see Public transport in Melbourne as having two aims:
1.Get people out of their cars so roads are less clogged and
2. Help less well off people get to jobs, social engagements, doctors , Centrecare etc.

If you agree with these premises, please tell me how more expensive PT can achieve these aims.

When Melbtrip uses public transport, not only does he use poor English, but :

there number of factors of cost and they're the following:
• Congestion - more people use more space



• Where I travelling to



• Distance travelling to/forum



• Size of Melbtrip's rear end

New York is NOT the size of Melbourne. A trip two stops down Collins street is not the same as travelling from Werribee to Pakenham.

Public transport is not a charity. If your argument was valid, then why aren't you arguing the same thing for supermarkets, water suppliers, electricity companies, etc? A mother who is in year 10 and has 3 children would be struggling to pay all that - transport would be the LEAST of her concerns.

The main issue at the moment is certainly not the fare structure - the biggest issue is accessibility. More people would be using Public Transport if they could. How many people do you know say that they drive because catching the train is too expensive?

OK,
I see Public transport in Melbourne as having two aims:
1.Get people out of their cars so roads are less clogged

If Public transport is faster and more convenient, that will do the trick. Or just the fact that roads are clogged that people look for alternatives

2. Help less well off people get to jobs, social engagements, doctors , Centrecare etc.

Don't agree with you there - "they" don't have a choice anyways. On top of that, if you actually wanted to help less well off people get to jobs, etc, then you would run more buses in those directions first so it was an actual option.

If you agree with these premises, please tell me how more expensive PT can achieve these aims.

Tell me how cheap PT achieves these aims any better than frequency improvements.

I am not even going to comment on melbtrips posts. My brain isn't quite up to it at the moment.

This thread should be in the Myki thread, but anyway, for what it is worth....

Point 1
Myki zones for Melbourne is a great idea as it isn't complicated to figure how much it will cost to get from point a to point b when compared to what we had a few years ago with 10 neighbourhoods.

Point 2
Myki zones for V/line is a nice idea, but it should really be a different, or distance based, ticketing system.
The example that I seem to love to throw up is that of the trip I did late last year from Geelong to Malmsbury.
I am a concession card holder and it was a Sunday when I did the trip.
The entire fare for Geelong to Malmsbury using Myki was in the order of $11, as I got an off peak fare from Myki.
Had I gone to the booking office, it would have cost me around $28 for a V/line paper ticket (peak fare as V/Line hadn't offered Sunday travel off peak fares).

The fare differential is quite amazing, I guess the reasoning is that in one journey (as opposed to one trip), Myki does not charge for the same zones twice....Geelong to Southern Cross is zones in 1 to 4, and Southern Cross to Malmsbury is zones 1 to 7.

Maybe Myki country zones (zones 3+) could be made more expensive to reflect a fairer fare perhaps.

If Public transport is faster and more convenient, that will do the trick. Or just the fact that roads are clogged that people look for alternatives



Don't agree with you there - "they" don't have a choice anyways. On top of that, if you actually wanted to help less well off people get to jobs, etc, then you would run more buses in those directions first so it was an actual option.



Tell me how cheap PT achieves these aims any better than frequency improvements.

Haha, what bus frequency? The only decent bus route, in the entire state, is the 246. Most buses can't run until midnight or even seven days a week in Victoria, unlike trains and trams. Buses in Melbourne are run like a 9-5 job rather than a public transport service.

So why don't we offer fuel excise rebates and vastly reduced registration costs to outer suburban residents?

I've often wondered... Why don't we?


I mean, I live in the inner suburbs, maybe not within walking distance but certainly within cycling distance to work. I can catch public transport to most places I need to go. But I just bought a brand new car. Why? Because when I lived in a small country town 30 minutes drive or 60 minutes bus ride on a joke of a service that only ran 4 times a day, to catch a 60 minute train ride that ran hourly, I had no real choice other than to drive. When the old car died I didn't even consider the $1500 per year its costs just to own the thing before it even leaves the driveway. So under my new circumstances why shouldn't I be priced out of car ownership as I have perfectly capable alternatives.

But seeing as I was somehow able to find $1500 per year on a student pension when I actually needed one, it's not too hard at all to find $1500 per when I'm working just because I want one.

I see Public transport in Melbourne as having two aims:

1.Get people out of their cars so roads are less clogged and

2. Help less well off people get to jobs, social engagements, doctors , Centrecare etc.
If you agree with these premises, please tell me how more expensive PT can achieve these aims.

Public Transport can be one of two things, that are mutually exclusive:
1) A welfare service
2) A competitive service against the car (or each other)

Option 1 is we make it cheap or even free but the system will suffer from lack of funding.
Option 2 is make it a premium service commanding premium prices.

It will never be both because it's unaffordable. The problem with Melbourne is that it's expensive for the needs of those on welfare (can be solved by concessional and family fares), and it doesn't offer a value for money service (can be solved by introducing fairer zoning).

Haha, what bus frequency? The only decent bus route, in the entire state, is the 246. Most buses can't run until midnight or even seven days a week in Victoria, unlike trains and trams. Buses in Melbourne are run like a 9-5 job rather than a public transport service.

Now now, be fair; aside from the little tidbits at the end, the 250/251 and the 216/219 combined make a pretty good service that run just as frequent and to the same hours as the 246. And you're forgetting the SmartBus although they do finish at 9pm on a Sunday. Not entirely sure where the 220, 600/922/923 come into the equation, but I have caught a 220 around midnight before.

Buy petrol is not same thing as buying a public transport fare.

I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you to understand - we are not talking about the overall cost of use, vehicle costs and tolls are irrelevant.


When you drive, you pay for road use through pseudo road user charges (fuel excise) and registration.


Heavy vehicles actually get some of the fuel excise back because of their larger registration fees - if excise was properly hypothecated as a road user charge for car users, it is already at the right level (revenue was in excess, until indexation was halted).  The heavy vehicle charging is rigorously researched to come to the right charge to meet their contribution to road expenditure, and it would be quite simple to extend the system to all other motor vehicles. Hopefully indexation of the excise is back for good so its value relative to road expenditure is not eroded beyond the break even point..


If you fly, you pay for your journey by providing the private business with revenue - this is not a state service, so the airline takes an extra cut on the expenditure required to provide the service as profit, to provide a return on investment.


When you use public transport, one should expect that you pay for your costs - if not, you are receiving a service (transport) unfairly subsidised against the rest of the populace, particularly those working well away from public transport or in jobs that make it impossible to utilise.  


The bit you seem to be missing is that I don't expect full return of expenditure.  It is fair to exclude some proportion of the required revenue to match expenditure on the grounds that the public transport expenditure is reducing the need for additional roads expenditure (say you value this congestion reduction at $1 billion, then you reduce the revenue needed to meet expenditure by $1 billion).  


I also consider it fair to grant fare concessions to those who need them, but these should be considered as transport allowances from the welfare system, not from the transport system.  At the moment, concessions on car registration only save a mere ~$100 (~$300 for seniors), yet public transport concessions can exceed $1000 per year.  This is blatantly unfair to those who are disadvantaged and need to drive for mobility or access employment (the types of jobs for those on low wages typically aren't near PT).


This is incredibly fair and justifiable, and I can't see how anyone could oppose it on any reasonable grounds.

All fares in Melbourne is based on the idea - a person is most likely to travel to CBD area and so for zones are based on this.

Cool story bro, but this has jack to do with it, if you travel twice the distance, you should pay twice the fare (within a broad zone at a given charging rate).


What possible justification can there be for setting the same fair from Sunbury to Stony Point as Brunswick St to the the Royal Melbourne Hospital?


Zilch.

The current pt fare system is not fair at all – because it heavily subsidizes the well off that can afford to pay their fares in an advance for example I highlighted was discounted year Commuter club fares.
PT fares must be fair for everyone and must set so people use it on a regular bases.
Having a weekly cap does this in fair way for everyone and also having a off-peak fares to encourage people use non popular services.

But this form of subsidisation isn't OK, because it affects you right?  It's all about you.



Any form of subsidy for repeated use is completely wrong - as with distance, if you use it twice as often, you should pay twice as much.  You should pay the same amount regardless of whether you perform the same journey every day of the year, or once in a blue moon.  Petrol doesn't get any cheaper the more you drive the same route.

OK,
I see Public transport in Melbourne as having two aims:
1.Get people out of their cars so roads are less clogged and
2. Help less well off people get to jobs, social engagements, doctors , Centrecare etc.

If you agree with these premises, please tell me how more expensive PT can achieve these aims.

See above.  If you're convinced this would cause a wide scale increase in fares, then why exactly are we funding public transport?


Such a determination would mean public transport is providing no real congestion benefit - so stop being silly.


It may mean the expensive subsidisation of long distance CBD commuters by the rest of us comes to an end, but those travelling shorter distances (eg. CENSUS: most jobs are within a persons immediate municipalities) will see far more reasonable fares.


(BTW, I'm sure someone on Centrelink benefits would rather their food be subsidised than some choo-choos they most likely can't use.)

Public transport is not a charity. If your argument was valid, then why aren't you arguing the same thing for supermarkets, water suppliers, electricity companies, etc? A mother who is in year 10 and has 3 children would be struggling to pay all that - transport would be the LEAST of her concerns.

This is the crux of the argument.


Some people seriously think that a service only suitable for a specific subset of the populace should be arbitrarily subsidised for no reason.

Myki zones for Melbourne is a great idea as it isn't complicated to figure how much it will cost to get from point a to point b when compared to what we had a few years ago with 10 neighbourhoods.

It's not really an argument now given smartphones.


It's simple to get a taxi fare calculated on ones phone, and distance charging would pose no real additional issues.  It's not really that great knowing exactly how badly you'll get shafted for catching a bus 4km down the road, a more reasoned system is better.

Now that both political parties have announced that there will be no Zone 1 +2 fares, what about a proposal to reintroduce off peak fares in Melbourne and regional centres. Surely would not be too hard with that marvellous ticketing system we have, purchased at a bargain basement price?
Could be part of answer to Melbourne traffic congestion, may lead to more staging of people's work hours?

There's never going to be any staging of work hours in Australia until you get our sub-standard management class to collectively pull their heads out of their bums and drop their 1800s attitude to employment. And if they're ever able to do that, they might realise that most white collar employees don't need to be in the office at all, and could probably work from home.