When I say that more zones adds complexity - I'm not talking about software or technical complexity - I'm talking about complexity in explaining it to customers, explaining where zone boundaries are, explaining to passengers how much a fare will cost, etc.

I don't recall hearing any anecdotal evidence regarding passengers having any difficulty understand the 10 or so neighbourhood zones we used to have 20 or so years ago.
I think you underate the intelligence of todays passenger!

Oh, and just to point out the inbalance in fares that we have today due to having only 2 zones.....
It costs the same for a person to travel from, say, Tottenham to Ginifer, and from Sunbury to Stony Point.
Though these are extreme examples, it just shows the inequity of a 2 zone system that covers such a large area such as Melbourne.

In terms of Singapore remember also that the city-state is a densely populated high-rise city with far greater uptake of public transport than Melbourne has.  It simply isn't possible for everyone to drive there.  It isn't in Melbourne either but we don't have the same high-density high-rise living.

As well Myki is intended to cover almost all of Victoria which if a grid were laid over it Singapore style would create a very much greater number of potential fare options.  Each additional fare possibility which is stored in the back end has the potential to slow down every interaction between user and system in terms of tag-on tag-off, even if only by the merest fraction of a second.  

Well if a train is going from South Morang to Flinders Street - does it make a different to costs if someone gets on in Zone 1 or Zone 2?

Yes.

Under that scenario, couldn't you argue that outer suburban areas are LESS subsidised?

Hell no.

In relation to your Laverton example, if Melbourne had more zones people would try to drive further and further in.

Bollocks. With more zones, the benefit of driving further in is reduced.

Get a clue.

The evidence when zone 3 was abolished was that people who had previously driven to a Zone 2 station to obtain a cheaper fare then shifted to their nearest station as the fare then became the same.

As an aside that shift has also changed significantly the parking requirements at some former Zone 3 stations where car parks which could once cope no longer can while those farther in to the city are a little less busy.

There is no logic in what people will do.  If they think they can save by travelling through fewer zones they will - even if it costs them more overall.

When I say that more zones adds complexity - I'm not talking about software or technical complexity - I'm talking about complexity in explaining it to customers, explaining where zone boundaries are, explaining to passengers how much a fare will cost, etc.

I don't recall hearing any anecdotal evidence regarding passengers having any difficulty understand the 10 or so neighbourhood zones we used to have 20 or so years ago.
I think you underate the intelligence of todays passenger!

Oh, and just to point out the inbalance in fares that we have today due to having only 2 zones.....
It costs the same for a person to travel from, say, Tottenham to Ginifer, and from Sunbury to Stony Point.
Though these are extreme examples, it just shows the inequity of a 2 zone system that covers such a large area such as Melbourne.

The neighbourhood zones were actually pretty simple because Zone 1 was the same size as today (roughly) and therefore someone travelling to/from the city only generally needed to understand the zones in their local area. So for 99% of customers, it was as simple as the three zone system it was transitioned into.  If you add more zones on a radial basis, then yes there is more complexity. More zone overlaps to understand, etc.. Of course, as has been pointed out, myki does remove that significantly. Customers don't need to understand zones if they don't want to.

The problem with these debates is that they involve a lot of theoretical examples - that don't generally relate to how most people use the system.

In SEQ, some people were obsessed with giving the zones 'spokes' - but it really added no revenue, impacted on almost no customers - and was adding complexity for a theoretical equity benefit.

Making it as simple as possible for the customers is important - and for most customers - it is a single zone system. Those who travel two zones are generally doing rail journeys where zones are easier to understand.

Bollocks.  With more zones, the benefit of driving further in is reduced.Get a clue.

Not true. What this means is that fares from closer to Melbourne get cheaper. For example, at the moment, Laverton and Newport have the same fare. If you have more zones, then Newport gets cheaper and Laverton gets more expensive. This encourages more people to drive in further.  And if you can't be polite, don't post.

The evidence when zone 3 was abolished was that people who had previously driven to a Zone 2 station to obtain a cheaper fare then shifted to their nearest station as the fare then became the same.

As an aside that shift has also changed significantly the parking requirements at some former Zone 3 stations where car parks which could once cope no longer can while those farther in to the city are a little less busy.

There is no logic in what people will do.  If they think they can save by travelling through fewer zones they will - even if it costs them more overall.

That's true.  Of course, we shouldn't make it that it is a massive issue. The large size of the zones means that the majority of trips are done within a single zone. For example, all trams trips are in a single zone, the majority of bus trips are in a single zone, many people on trains travel within a single zone. And for those who travel multiple zones, then it doesn't matter if you are a Senior, travelling on a weekend or using a student pass.

Bollocks. With more zones, the benefit of driving further in is reduced.

Get a clue.

Not true. What this means is that fares from closer to Melbourne get cheaper. For example, at the moment, Laverton and Newport have the same fare. If you have more zones, then Newport gets cheaper and Laverton gets more expensive. This encourages more people to drive in further. And if you can't be polite, don't post.

So you're saying PT is more expensive than driving.

That's the only way your logic would make any sense.

Bollocks. With more zones, the benefit of driving further in is reduced.

Get a clue.

Not true. What this means is that fares from closer to Melbourne get cheaper. For example, at the moment, Laverton and Newport have the same fare. If you have more zones, then Newport gets cheaper and Laverton gets more expensive. This encourages more people to drive in further. And if you can't be polite, don't post.

So you're saying PT is more expensive than driving.

That's the only way your logic would make any sense.

People don't necessarily behave rationally - I'll bet that for practically every person who drives into Zone 1 it would have been cheaper to go to their local station instead. Part of it is not knowing what driving costs. Part of it is a desire to 'rip off' the public transport network (eg. "those bastards aren't going to get any more of my money than I can possibly avoid - but I hate parking costs in the City more".).

Don't assume rational behaviour - because even under the current structure it is almost always cheaper to go to a station closer to home (more car parking, less driving, etc..).

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the current situation demonstrates your logic is incorrect.

I don't think subsidy is the right word - as all customers are so heavily subsidised that you can't really run a cross subsidy argument. If you want to have the debate in terms of equity - then that's another matter. But I don't think you can make a case based on subsidy - because ALL fares are so heavily subsidised.


Bull! any system has routes requiring varying levels of subsidies.
What routes were profitable in the SEQ bus review? The 199 West End-New Farm and the 412 UQ-CBD...Both routes within zone 2, and operating in high density areas and able to recover all of their costs, no subisdy needed. At the other end of the scale were many of the peak only, long distance routes like the 250.
Melbourne would be the same, and the level of subsidy would vary. Heck, how could have we had that discussion of the worthiness of the Hurstbridge line beyond Eltham....The principle in action.

Also, I notice that people in Z2 only pay less than someone traveling Z1 only. Why is that? Again, further evidence of bias towards outer areas.


Not true. What this means is that fares from closer to Melbourne get cheaper. For example, at the moment, Laverton and Newport have the same fare. If you have more zones, then Newport gets cheaper and Laverton gets more expensive. This encourages more people to drive in further. And if you can't be polite, don't post.

It also encourages another group of people to drive less, because the fare more closely reflects the short distance they are travelling.

As well Myki is intended to cover almost all of Victoria which if a grid were laid over it Singapore style would create a very much greater number of potential fare options.  Each additional fare possibility which is stored in the back end has the potential to slow down every interaction between user and system in terms of tag-on tag-off, even if only by the merest fraction of a second.  

I'd just assign each stop a GPS co-ordinate, and the system just triangulates the distance travelled and charges according to a cost per kilometer of the whole journey with transfers.

When I say that more zones adds complexity - I'm not talking about software or technical complexity - I'm talking about complexity in explaining it to customers, explaining where zone boundaries are, explaining to passengers how much a fare will cost, etc
But people cant buy paper tickets anymore. Even more reason to just shift to more zones and charge what you charge.

 but it doesn't work so well if you want to encourage users to get a seven day pass or a 30 day pass and stick with the system.
But PT in Melbourne is the beez kneez isn't it, why wouldn't people stick with it

I'm not really sure what your argument is - you are saying you want more zones to charge people travelling short distances less and longer distances more. That's fine - but what's the logic behind that? What social benefit does that have? It adds a lot of complexity - so there needs to be a good reason for it.
For starters, the social benefit side of things is already adressed with targeted concessions and free tix and the like, why do we have to provide discounts based on geographical location.
I'll quote the MVV, a PT organisation more successful than Melbourne:

It’s a question of making tariffs fair: if you are only travelling a short distance, you want to pay a lower tariff. If you are travelling further, you should pay more.

Everything else in life you pay for by amount...It costs less to fly MEL-SYD then MEL-PER. A short taxi fare is less than a longer trip. The cost of a car trip is dependent on how far you drive and the fuel you use.

Again, why is it ok to have charged country users distance based fares since forever, but city customers are too precious to have more zones etc?

And why did you have the citysaver fare. Again, because if PT costs too much for a short trip people will drive instead.

All well and good to say the majority of people are traveling only within one zone, but if the actual cost of that one zone is too much, then people wont use the system.

That's true. Of course, we shouldn't make it that it is a massive issue. The large size of the zones means that the majority of trips are done within a single zone. For example, all trams trips are in a single zone, the majority of bus trips are in a single zone, many people on trains travel within a single zone. And for those who travel multiple zones, then it doesn't matter if you are a Senior, travelling on a weekend or using a student pass.

Um, may I suggest you have take a look at a Melbourne tram map, and familiarise yourself with it (maybe that is a good idea seeing as you seem to be happy to promote Myki).

You will find that tram routes 86 to Bundoora, 109 to Box Hill, and 75 to Vermont South are all in both zone 1 AND zone 2.

Have a chat with a spokesperson from Yarra Trams - you may, respectfully, learn something!!!
You may even get a free familiarisation trip while you are at it, if you are lucky

You will find that tram routes 86 to Bundoora, 109 to Box Hill, and 75 to Vermont South are all in both zone 1 AND zone 2.

With the added "complication" - if such it is - that instead of knowing for sure that you need to purchase a ticket for the relevant zones you now need to touch on and off if you use a tram in Zone 2 (meaning you need to know where the boundary is) in order to ensure you are not charged the higher (and default) Zone 1 fare but only touch on and not off in zone 1.  If there's logic in that I fail to see it.

the majority of trips are done within a single zone

At the risk of re-stirring the wrath of Mr Bent if we accept that this is the case - and I see no reason to differ - then why do we need to spend a billion and a half dollars to collect fares when we can have a standard fare and toss a gold coin into the tin in return for a simple ticket?

You will find that tram routes 86 to Bundoora, 109 to Box Hill, and 75 to Vermont South are all in both zone 1 AND zone 2.

With the added "complication" - if such it is - that instead of knowing for sure that you need to purchase a ticket for the relevant zones you now need to touch on and off if you use a tram in Zone 2 (meaning you need to know where the boundary is) in order to ensure you are not charged the higher (and default) Zone 1 fare but only touch on and not off in zone 1. If there's logic in that I fail to see it.

Yes.  I heard this exact point explained ad nauseum on the radio the other day, and I still don't get it

In terms of Singapore remember also that the city-state is a densely populated high-rise city with far greater uptake of public transport than Melbourne has. It simply isn't possible for everyone to drive there. It isn't in Melbourne either but we don't have the same high-density high-rise living.

As well Myki is intended to cover almost all of Victoria which if a grid were laid over it Singapore style would create a very much greater number of potential fare options. Each additional fare possibility which is stored in the back end has the potential to slow down every interaction between user and system in terms of tag-on tag-off, even if only by the merest fraction of a second.

Myki may well have been intended to cover all of Victoria but it became too hard for PTV, TTA and Kamco.

Singapore is not a postage stamp country.  It covers a fair sized area, similar to Melbourne.

Of course, if the grid reference system of Singapore were too complicated for the basic $1.5 billion ticketing system we have in Melbourne, you can easily increase the size of your grid reference points until the system can cope.

The biggest difference with Singapore is that the fare is straight from A to B.  Here it all revolves around a reference point of the CBD.  Hence, someone taking the tram for a single 1 kilometre journey along Burke Road is paying more than someone else travelling from Pakenham to Frankston.

With reference to fare possibilities slowing down touch on or off, you need to go see the EZ Card in operation in Singapore.  When you touch off one mode, it deducts the full fare to that point.  Touch on the next mode and then touch off and the fare adjustment is made instantly to account for the original starting point of the journey.  It works brilliantly.....and didn't cost a billion dollars to implement.

In terms of Singapore remember also that the city-state is a densely populated high-rise city with far greater uptake of public transport than Melbourne has. It simply isn't possible for everyone to drive there. It isn't in Melbourne either but we don't have the same high-density high-rise living.

As well Myki is intended to cover almost all of Victoria which if a grid were laid over it Singapore style would create a very much greater number of potential fare options. Each additional fare possibility which is stored in the back end has the potential to slow down every interaction between user and system in terms of tag-on tag-off, even if only by the merest fraction of a second.

Myki may well have been intended to cover all of Victoria but it became too hard for PTV, TTA and Kamco.

Singapore is not a postage stamp country. It covers a fair sized area, similar to Melbourne.

Of course, if the grid reference system of Singapore were too complicated for the basic $1.5 billion ticketing system we have in Melbourne, you can easily increase the size of your grid reference points until the system can cope.

The biggest difference with Singapore is that the fare is straight from A to B. Here it all revolves around a reference point of the CBD. Hence, someone taking the tram for a single 1 kilometre journey along Burke Road is paying more than someone else travelling from Pakenham to Frankston.

With reference to fare possibilities slowing down touch on or off, you need to go see the EZ Card in operation in Singapore. When you touch off one mode, it deducts the full fare to that point. Touch on the next mode and then touch off and the fare adjustment is made instantly to account for the original starting point of the journey. It works brilliantly.....and didn't cost a billion dollars to implement.

Which is why I fail to see why the Government was hell bent on creating a system from scratch when perfectly good systems exist elsewhere that we could have bought, made the necessary adjustments to have it working in Melbourne, and have it up and running fairly quickly

People don't necessarily behave rationally - I'll bet that for practically every person who drives into Zone 1 it would have been cheaper to go to their local station instead. Part of it is not knowing what driving costs. Part of it is a desire to 'rip off' the public transport network (eg. "those bastards aren't going to get any more of my money than I can possibly avoid - but I hate parking costs in the City more".).

Again, you're not making any logical sense.

If I live in Point Cook, my closest station is Aircraft, but if I drive just 1km farther, I save $65 on a monthly - for the average car, that might only cost you $10 in fuel.

The smaller the fare jumps, the less incentive there is to travel farther.  There also needs to be some thought put into where the zones are placed, the Laverton/Aircraft boundary location is plain moronic.

...Myki may well have been intended to cover all of Victoria but it became too hard for PTV, TTA and Kamco....

Of course, if the grid reference system of Singapore were too complicated for the basic $1.5 billion ticketing system we have in Melbourne

Myki is easy peasy for V/Line. It's gross incompetence by Baillieu   that it  hasn't been extended. Myki will cost, over ten years, $1.2 billion - $498m (for capital and software) + $500m (10 years operations) + $121m (additional work on software and more hardware) - not $1.5 million as continually asserted by the ignorant media, who can't separate the additional cost of Metcard ($252m from 2007-2012), and progress payments as described by the Auditor General, from 2007 to 2012, from the actual cost of Myki. Stop repeating the myth. Unless further payments are made, Myki will cost, over ten years, less than Metcard (over the same period of time). Whether the damn thing actually works (speed to touch on and off) is another matter.

then why do we need to spend a billion and a half dollars to collect fares when we can have a standard fare and toss a gold coin into the tin in return for a simple ticket?

-Cos then you are stuck with $2 as the only fare, or muliples of $2.
In 2020, when wages and running costs are higher, and im paying $6 each way due to inflation, do I have to lug around heaps of spare $2 coins?

-Because a "standard fare" as you call it, doesn't allow for you to charge according to distance. If I'm catching the bus to the local shopping center, I should pay less than someone going right from Frankston to the City, shouldn't I?

-Where is the 'tin' at city loop stations, on a fully loaded multi section tram etc?

-How does the "simple ticket" work? Does it get printed by a machine? Torn off from a booklet by a conductor?

-If it does require a machine, how much would have it cost to install these machines, versus the Myki TVMs?

-You still have the same issue with big jumps in fare levels. It might be $2 in the urban area, but where you you draw the line once you hit V/Line territory? Does it go from $2 to $6.90 once you hit Donnybrook?

-How does the cost of collecting and counting coins from every single passenger work in the long term compared to electronic smart card transactions (Staffing, Armaguard collections across the network, etc)

-Judging by your overall suggestion, you don't seem to understand the concept of captial intensiveness versus labour intensiveness.
Collecting coins would be light on capital upfront, but expensive long term.
Myki is expensive and capital intensive up front, but cheaper long term.

-I'd love it if you could tell me the staff numbers needed to support your suggestion on the front line (Even a guesstimate). In case you didn't notice, Australian wages are very high, even for simple jobs like ticket selling. That staffing number of course grows and grows as patronage increases. 

-A $2 fare would mean extra gov't funds needed to prop up the system. It's not like the schools or hospitals are competing for the same funds or anything right?

Look forward to your full rebuttal

Different question, and it's a bit tinfoil hat.

I had reason to go on the Lilydale line today, and it's been a while.

As I went through Nunawading station, I idly glance up and noticed a big red billboard advertising that Mykis can be topped up at 7-11's. No mention of the fact that the Premium station I was stopped at also sells Mykis

And I got to wondering.  I've seen Myki's own advertising mentioning specifically that 7-11 stores are the first place listed to top up.  In fact, on most Myki paraphenalia, it mentions them specifically, as well as stations, but the 7-11 mention is a bit prominent.

And I got to wondering more.  How much has 7-11 paid to advertise themselves as a retail outlet to PTV?  And what did they get, aside from naming?  Surely they have gotten more.  Let's face it: if I was doing a deal to install new equipment in all my franchises, I'd want something a little more than a small mention in posters?  Say... eliminating competition from trams?

And thus the NSW disease continues to spread ever wider...

That's true. Of course, we shouldn't make it that it is a massive issue. The large size of the zones means that the majority of trips are done within a single zone. For example, all trams trips are in a single zone, the majority of bus trips are in a single zone, many people on trains travel within a single zone. And for those who travel multiple zones, then it doesn't matter if you are a Senior, travelling on a weekend or using a student pass.

Um, may I suggest you have take a look at a Melbourne tram map, and familiarise yourself with it (maybe that is a good idea seeing as you seem to be happy to promote Myki).

You will find that tram routes 86 to Bundoora, 109 to Box Hill, and 75 to Vermont South are all in both zone 1 AND zone 2.

Have a chat with a spokesperson from Yarra Trams - you may, respectfully, learn something!!!
You may even get a free familiarisation trip while you are at it, if you are lucky

My comment is correct - all tram trips are done within a single zone. Passengers will either pay a Zone 1 fare or a Zone 2 fare. We were talking about how tram passengers will never pay more than a single zone fare to travel on a tram and that's correct. Sarcasm is also unattractive.

Different question, and it's a bit tinfoil hat.

I had reason to go on the Lilydale line today, and it's been a while.

As I went through Nunawading station, I idly glance up and noticed a big red billboard advertising that Mykis can be topped up at 7-11's. No mention of the fact that the Premium station I was stopped at also sells Mykis

And I got to wondering.  I've seen Myki's own advertising mentioning specifically that 7-11 stores are the first place listed to top up.  In fact, on most Myki paraphenalia, it mentions them specifically, as well as stations, but the 7-11 mention is a bit prominent.

And I got to wondering more.  How much has 7-11 paid to advertise themselves as a retail outlet to PTV?  And what did they get, aside from naming?  Surely they have gotten more.  Let's face it: if I was doing a deal to install new equipment in all my franchises, I'd want something a little more than a small mention in posters?  Say... eliminating competition from trams?

You might have seen a number of 7-Eleven advertisments that promote the fact you can top up at 7-Eleven stores (eg. advertisments paid for by 7-Eleven, not myki).  7-Eleven obviously tops up for a number of other smartcard systems internationally (Octopus in Hong Kong, etc.). The commissions paid to retail agents are generally low (but effectively higher than under Metcard as they don't need to have any 'stock' that required advanced purchase).  But 7-Eleven knows that smartcard top ups can drive traffic to their stores. Eg. if you buy a drink and top up a myki, then they will probably make more money on the drink.

If it was a big red billboard - then that would be paid for by 7-Eleven.

In relation to trams, the number of ticket sales on trams before Metcard was removed was very low - so in terms of competition it really wouldn't make any difference to 7-Eleven (eg. if only 1 or 2 percent of people boarding trams were buying tickets on board, then it doesn't really make that much different to the value proposition of being a retailer).

In terms of listing 7-Eleven stores in advertising paid for by myki, I think it is probably because most people would assume you can get a myki from a station booking office - whereas the fact you can get it from a 7-Eleven may be new information. Also, if you can get people to obtain a myki from a 7-Eleven then you'll be more likely to go back there to top it up - which is a good thing because it means fewer top ups on system.

then why do we need to spend a billion and a half dollars to collect fares when we can have a standard fare and toss a gold coin into the tin in return for a simple ticket?

-Cos then you are stuck with $2 as the only fare, or muliples of $2.
In 2020, when wages and running costs are higher, and im paying $6 each way due to inflation, do I have to lug around heaps of spare $2 coins?

-Because a "standard fare" as you call it, doesn't allow for you to charge according to distance. If I'm catching the bus to the local shopping center, I should pay less than someone going right from Frankston to the City, shouldn't I?

-Where is the 'tin' at city loop stations, on a fully loaded multi section tram etc?

-How does the "simple ticket" work? Does it get printed by a machine? Torn off from a booklet by a conductor?

-If it does require a machine, how much would have it cost to install these machines, versus the Myki TVMs?

-You still have the same issue with big jumps in fare levels. It might be $2 in the urban area, but where you you draw the line once you hit V/Line territory? Does it go from $2 to $6.90 once you hit Donnybrook?

-How does the cost of collecting and counting coins from every single passenger work in the long term compared to electronic smart card transactions (Staffing, Armaguard collections across the network, etc)

-Judging by your overall suggestion, you don't seem to understand the concept of captial intensiveness versus labour intensiveness.
Collecting coins would be light on capital upfront, but expensive long term.
Myki is expensive and capital intensive up front, but cheaper long term.

-I'd love it if you could tell me the staff numbers needed to support your suggestion on the front line (Even a guesstimate). In case you didn't notice, Australian wages are very high, even for simple jobs like ticket selling. That staffing number of course grows and grows as patronage increases.

-A $2 fare would mean extra gov't funds needed to prop up the system. It's not like the schools or hospitals are competing for the same funds or anything right?

Look forward to your full rebuttal

Given the average yield per trip in Melbourne is about a dollar - a $2 fare for every boarding would double revenue.  What you are actually proposing is a token system. NY and other cities used to accept a coin in their turnstiles, but then were forced to introduce tokens when there wasn't a suitable coin available anymore.

Sarcasm is also unattractive.

Not as much as flouncing, stupidity (such as saying "money-laundrying") or boasting. Real turn-offs.

You know what else is unattractive - and let me assure you that I wouldn't touch you with a 10 foot pole - non-answers.

In terms of listing 7-Eleven stores in advertising paid for by myki, I think it is probably because most people would assume you can get a myki from a station booking office - whereas the fact you can get it from a 7-Eleven may be new information. Also, if you can get people to obtain a myki from a 7-Eleven then you'll be more likely to go back there to top it up - which is a good thing because it means fewer top ups on system.

That didn't come within 100 miles of answering my question, boi.

What deal has been done between 7-11 and PTV?  There are a heckuva lot of other retailers.  Why not "wherever you see a Myki sign"?  Kwik-E-Marts get exclusive naming rights, which is screw-all.  What else did they get?

Come on, you've appointed yourself Unofficial Railpage Spokesman for PTV and Myki...

Bull! any system has routes requiring varying levels of subsidies.
What routes were profitable in the SEQ bus review? The 199 West End-New Farm and the 412 UQ-CBD...Both routes within zone 2, and operating in high density areas and able to recover all of their costs, no subisdy needed. At the other end of the scale were many of the peak only, long distance routes like the 250.

It also encourages another group of people to drive less, because the fare more closely reflects the short distance they are travelling.

Everything else in life you pay for by amount...It costs less to fly MEL-SYD then MEL-PER. A short taxi fare is less than a longer trip. The cost of a car trip is dependent on how far you drive and the fuel you use.

Your assumption seems to be that public transport isn't cost competitive against the car for short journeys. I don't think that's necessarily true. If you consider the costs of parking in the inner suburbs, then I don't think you have made the argument that someone will be more likely to catch public tarnsport in the inner city if fares were lower. The best response to this is that public transport's mode share is actually higher in these area.

Your examples of taxis and planes aren't really relevant. In public transport, services generally run for longer distances. As a general rule it doesn't matter whether someone takes a long or a short journey - the costs are associated with getting that service into the city. In other words, it doesn't make a lot of difference to costs and revenue as to whether someone hops on at Laverton or Footscray.

As someone who worked in Queensland, and lived in New Farm, I would caution you not to believe cost recovery stats put out by that state. They 'hide' an incredible level of government subsidy in concession top up amounts and in capital costs (eg. they assume concession passengers are buying adult fares - and claim the difference) and the capital cost of buses isn't included. Melbourne's contracts are a far more accurate reflection of costs. So I would dispute the claim that those services have anything like a level of full cost recovery.

Having said all of that - we do charge people by distance - we are simply charging to do it in large increments to add clarity for customers, encourage periodical ticket sales, reduce confusion for customers (imagine if there were four zone boundaries on the 86 tram - that would make it a bit more confusing!).

Also worth pointing out that many systems don't have zone overlaps (eg. in Brisbane there is generally one stop in the overlap - no more). What this means in practise is that you end up with MORE zone overlap issues than Melbourne (which adds complexity).

So the debate isn't about distance based pricing - it is about whether big or small zones are better or worse. I've outlined the advantages of bigger zones in terms of promotion, customer understanding, supporting periodical tickets, making sure that most people don't have an incentive to go closer to their destination to get a cheaper fare, etc..