Would it be better to take way the off-peak fares for regional areas and replace them with the better fares which are calculated the same way as Melbourne fares?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that's what will happen when myki is introduced onto V/Line.

No, off-peak fares will remain for trips of three or more zones (all in the fares and ticketing manual).

I think the real question is how long will it be before this is extended to metropolitan. No plans for it at this stage, but one of the deliverables for myki was always the ability to deliver off-peak fares in Melbourne.

In my previous posts I talked about the difficulties associated with making changes to the current functionality of the ticketing system due to the contractor's inability to deliver software in an appropriate timeframes. 

To translate from Publicservantese into English: We couldn't change the way the system works because the contractor was late with the software.

In my previous posts I talked about the difficulties associated with making changes to the current functionality of the ticketing system due to the contractor's inability to deliver software in an appropriate timeframes.

To translate from Publicservantese into English: We couldn't change the way the system works because the contractor was late with the software.

If only that was the case! I think it might be more accurate to say, not only were they late, but they haven't yet delivered everything they were suppose to and that there are concerns about their ability to do other changes.  It isn't just a question of running late, but of their capability.

It isn't my role to defend every decision related to myki and I object to the implication that it is

Wow. You do a great job for an amateur.
You're an expert only when it suits you, aren't you?

I share knowledge and insights when asked politely.

Can you please explain why Melbourne zone 1 and 2 single and day fare are calculated as the following:

two hours (single fare) = 7 day pass /10
daily cap = 7 day pass /5

and country fares are not?

Would it be better to take way the off-peak fares for regional areas and replace them with the better fares which are calculated the same way as Melbourne fares?

An example of the new fare structure is place below

Periodical tickets are heavily discounted on V/Line - which means that the weekly cap can be reached in about three days of travel. In order to fix this you would need to increase the price of periodical tickets, which is unlikely to occur. The alternative, to reduce the cost of the single and daily cap, would decrease revenue and would reduce V/Line prices below appropriate levels. There are no plans that I am aware of to revise V/Line pricing.

Periodical tickets are not heavily discounted on V/Line and fact the single and daily fares so expensive I know people do not use V/Line because of this and they decide to drive  instead of using public transport.

V/Line fares compared to City Rail are expensive.

The most a person wishing to travel from Central to Newcastle (168.10 km) on a new smart card is going to pay is $15.00.

I give a fare structure isfair and reasonable.


Why should a person from Nar Nar Goon pay $19.20 for a daily cap travel to Melbourne and back in peak time and which is 162% for travelling 7 km more compare to person Melbourne to Pakenham and which pays only $11.84?

At worst person from Nar Nar Goon should only be paying an extra zone top of the person paying at Pakenham and which only cost around about $4.00 more!

So bases on this the fare should have been from Nar Nar Goon to Melbourne should be around $15.76 at maximum fare and not $19.20

The $12.80 daily fare is more reasonable for person travelling to and from Nar Nar Goon to travel to Melbourne compare to the current fare of $19.20.

There is no weekly cap under myki!

In my previous posts I talked about the difficulties associated with making changes to the current functionality of the ticketing system due to the contractor's inability to deliver software in an appropriate timeframes.

To translate from Publicservantese into English: We couldn't change the way the system works because the contractor was late with the software.

If only that was the case! I think it might be more accurate to say, not only were they late, but they haven't yet delivered everything they were suppose to and that there are concerns about their ability to do other changes. It isn't just a question of running late, but of their capability.

In your personal opinion, do you think that in retrospect it was a mistake to give them the contract, as opposed to someone else?

It isn't my role to defend every decision related to myki and I object to the implication that it is

Wow. You do a great job for an amateur.
You're an expert only when it suits you, aren't you?

I share knowledge and insights when asked politely.

Can you please explain why Melbourne zone 1 and 2 single and day fare are calculated as the following:

two hours (single fare) = 7 day pass /10
daily cap = 7 day pass /5

and country fares are not?

Would it be better to take way the off-peak fares for regional areas and replace them with the better fares which are calculated the same way as Melbourne fares?

An example of the new fare structure is place below

Periodical tickets are heavily discounted on V/Line - which means that the weekly cap can be reached in about three days of travel. In order to fix this you would need to increase the price of periodical tickets, which is unlikely to occur. The alternative, to reduce the cost of the single and daily cap, would decrease revenue and would reduce V/Line prices below appropriate levels. There are no plans that I am aware of to revise V/Line pricing.

Periodical tickets are not heavily discounted on V/Line and fact the single and daily fares so expensive I know people do not use V/Line because of this and they decide to drive  instead of using public transport.

V/Line fares compared to City Rail are expensive.

The most a person wishing to travel from Central to Newcastle (168.10 km) on a new smart card is going to pay is $15.00.

I give a fare structure isfair and reasonable.


Why should a person from Nar Nar Goon pay $19.20 for a daily cap travel to Melbourne and back in peak time and which is 162% for travelling 7 km more compare to person Melbourne to Pakenham and which pays only $11.84?

At worst person from Nar Nar Goon should only be paying an extra zone top of the person paying at Pakenham and which only cost around about $4.00 more!

So bases on this the fare should have been from Nar Nar Goon to Melbourne should be around $15.76 at maximum fare and not $19.20

The $12.80 daily fare is more reasonable for person travelling to and from Nar Nar Goon to travel to Melbourne compare to the current fare of $19.20.

There is no weekly cap under myki!

Quite right, there is no weekly cap - I meant a seven day pass.

There are many people who argue for cheaper fares. PClark has made the case for fares to be higher previously on this forum.
I don't think the fares are that expensive. The Nar Nar Goon person you mentioned above has a number of benefits not available to suburban passengers (express train, faster travel times, etc.). Yes they also get a choice of fewer services. But in peak times (and you've quoted the peak fare above, not the off-peak fare), you have advantages from avoiding traffic congestions. I don't see the current fares as being too cheap (and of course they were reduced in price some years ago). Other thing to factor in is that Victoria has one of the most generous concession schemes in Australia - which means that people on low incomes (eg. a low income health care card) pay 50% less than adults - unlike some other states where they have to pay full fare)

In my previous posts I talked about the difficulties associated with making changes to the current functionality of the ticketing system due to the contractor's inability to deliver software in an appropriate timeframes.

To translate from Publicservantese into English: We couldn't change the way the system works because the contractor was late with the software.

If only that was the case! I think it might be more accurate to say, not only were they late, but they haven't yet delivered everything they were suppose to and that there are concerns about their ability to do other changes. It isn't just a question of running late, but of their capability.

In your personal opinion, do you think that in retrospect it was a mistake to give them the contract, as opposed to someone else?

My personal opinion is absolutely yes. But it actually isn't that simple. A small number of very senior individuals - who are no longer employed by the Victorian Government - took the decision to try and rush the implementation of the system. It meant that the tender documents were not as good as they should have been.  There was also a mistaken belief by some people that because the tariff system needed to be unique to Melbourne, that you needed to develop software from the ground up (and as we have seen, the tariff data has actually been very good with very few errors other than those related to buses in headless mode in the Zone 1/2 overlap area - the software complexity is in terms of card management and device management).  

But at the end of the day the single biggest mistake was to award this as a single contract - rather than to split the project into a number of elements. It was that decision that brought down the project. The cruel irony about this was that we had learned that lesson with Onelink - and yet certain people refused to listen to the lessons of the past - and as the old saying goes, if you ignore the mistakes of the past.....

So the question shouldn't be "were they the right people to get the contract", it is "should there have been one contract?".

It isn't my role to defend every decision related to myki and I object to the implication that it is

Wow. You do a great job for an amateur.
You're an expert only when it suits you, aren't you?

I share knowledge and insights when asked politely.

Can you please explain why Melbourne zone 1 and 2 single and day fare are calculated as the following:

two hours (single fare) = 7 day pass /10
daily cap = 7 day pass /5

and country fares are not?

Would it be better to take way the off-peak fares for regional areas and replace them with the better fares which are calculated the same way as Melbourne fares?

An example of the new fare structure is place below

Periodical tickets are heavily discounted on V/Line - which means that the weekly cap can be reached in about three days of travel. In order to fix this you would need to increase the price of periodical tickets, which is unlikely to occur. The alternative, to reduce the cost of the single and daily cap, would decrease revenue and would reduce V/Line prices below appropriate levels. There are no plans that I am aware of to revise V/Line pricing.

Periodical tickets are not heavily discounted on V/Line and fact the single and daily fares so expensive I know people do not use V/Line because of this and they decide to drive instead of using public transport.

V/Line fares compared to City Rail are expensive.

The most a person wishing to travel from Central to Newcastle (168.10 km) on a new smart card is going to pay is $15.00.

I give a fare structure isfair and reasonable.


Why should a person from Nar Nar Goon pay $19.20 for a daily cap travel to Melbourne and back in peak time and which is 162% for travelling 7 km more compare to person Melbourne to Pakenham and which pays only $11.84?

At worst person from Nar Nar Goon should only be paying an extra zone top of the person paying at Pakenham and which only cost around about $4.00 more!

So bases on this the fare should have been from Nar Nar Goon to Melbourne should be around $15.76 at maximum fare and not $19.20

The $12.80 daily fare is more reasonable for person travelling to and from Nar Nar Goon to travel to Melbourne compare to the current fare of $19.20.

There is no weekly cap under myki!

So you want to play that stupid game then?

Ok, why does a Bendigo traveller get charged just over double the fare for travelling four times further than a Sunbury customer?

I gis a fair structure is fare and raisonable.

Based on the Sunbury fare, a Bendigo weekly should cost $240, not $134.

V/Line fares compared to City Rail are expensive.

It's well documented that V/Line is heavily subsidised in terms of what the actual cost of the service is. By your statement, City Rail must be a charity...

V/Line fares compared to City Rail are expensive.

It's well documented that V/Line is heavily subsidised in terms of what the actual cost of the service is. By your statement, City Rail must be a charity...

And then you get people who travel to/from the Football on weekends who say "public transport in Melbourne is expensive". Really? $3.50 per day is expensive?  You can really prove anything you want to. Let's just say that the fact that Melbourne's public transport generates just a little over one dollar per passenger boarding is a pretty good indication of how cheap fares are generally.

Revenue’s recent postings about the Myki contractor put me in mind of the sign on former US President Harry S. Truman’s desk in the Oval Office.

It stated “The Buck Stops Here”.

It is the duty of those elected to form government to select competent persons and organisations to supervise and carry out taxpayer-funded projects and to see that such projects are completed on-time and on-budget and to deliver the results specified.

Unfortunately, the backgrounds of those elected as ALP MPs from the top down make it unlikely that they will have the ability to ensure that this happens and the door is opened to shonky contractors.

 

Or put another way if you jump in a car and drive how far can you get before you reach $1 in costs?  And before you reach the value of a daily cap?  You might also have to pay to park and to drive on certain roads.  That's before you consider the "hidden" costs such as purchase of a car, wear and tear, insurance and perhaps others.  

Public transport remains cheaper for individuals.  The advantage can swing the other way for small groups travelling together simply because fares are (for the most part) priced per person but road tolls / insurance /car purchase remain the same and wear, tear and fuel don't increase a great deal if you have 4 or 5 in the car instead of 1.

Those who consider public transport expensive might be unaware of what it actually does cost, or might possibly be comparing unlike costs such as that for a family outing.  And they are almost certainly unaware of how much they have already contributed to the cost of a journey indirectly via their taxes.

Revenue's recent postings about the Myki contractor put me in mind of the sign on former US President Harry S. Truman's desk in the Oval Office.

It stated “The Buck Stops Here”.

It is the duty of those elected to form government to select competent persons and organisations to supervise and carry out taxpayer-funded projects and to see that such projects are completed on-time and on-budget and to deliver the results specified.

Unfortunately, the backgrounds of those elected as ALP MPs from the top down make it unlikely that they will have the ability to ensure that this happens and the door is opened to shonky contractors.

I think the key lesson in relation to myki is in relation to contractual structures. It was the decision to go for a single contract, rather than a number of smaller contracts where under performing contractors could be terminated, that destroyed this project. It shows you how a project can be brought down by a very small number of individuals, making rash decisions, in an otherwise competent organisation.

"It shows you how a project can be brought down by a very small number of individuals, making rash decisions, in an otherwise competent organisation."

Oh yeah?

What about RFR blowing out from eighty million of taxpayer's funds to nearly a billion?

On another level what about pink batts and new school buildings?

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

In the end it all stops at the Premier or PM's office.

In the examples you mentioned, they were political promises that then ended up costing more. Certainly a rich tradition of those on both sides of politics. Myki is a little different as there wasn't a political promise involved - but rather a small number of bureaucrats who got it very wrong.  Not saying that the examples you mentioned aren't valid - but myki happened in a very different way.

I think that it's worth being reasonable specific about this as if you generalise then you don't actually learn anything. Of course Minister's are ultimately accountable but if you don't understand what happened then both sides of politics are at a disadvantage as no one learned anything. At the very least, myki should be a genuine case study as to why contractual structures matter. My personal view is that no matter who was Minister, the outcome probably wouldn't have differed - because the mistakes that were made related to issues that most Ministers, of both political parties, generally don't get down into the fine detail of (eg. procurement strategy).

I think the key lesson in relation to myki is in relation to contractual structures. It was the decision to go for a single contract, rather than a number of smaller contracts where under performing contractors could be terminated, that destroyed this project. It shows you how a project can be brought down by a very small number of individuals, making rash decisions, in an otherwise competent organisation.

Somewhat akin to the big mistake that is Metro.
Instead of the structure whereby Connex had the operating contract and they tendered out the maintenance to Mainco and United Group, we now are locked into one service provider in MTM.  MTM comprises MTR, United Group and John Holland.

No matter how poorly John Holland performs, we are stuck with them.  If it were under the old system, Connex would change contractor as required.

Yet another case of the Department of Transport / Infrastructure having given the Government poor advice and sold the taxpayer a lemon.

It shows you how a project can be brought down by a very small number of individuals, making rash decisions, in an otherwise competent organisation.

It shows you how a project can be brought down by a very small number of individuals, making rash decisions, in an otherwise competent organisation.

ROLF....yes, good pick up.  

 
It was the decision to go for a single contract, rather than a number of smaller contracts where under performing contractors could be terminated, that destroyed this project

Wasn't the point of the whole 'open-architecture' excercise to be able to avoid the issues with one vendor controlling everything? Or do we have Metcard mk II?

Open architecture is about software and technology. But it's really contract design that determines competition. I think it's a bit early to answer this question. Presumably the test will be when the system is bedded down and we need more of a particular device that is no longer available for sale and a new device type needs to be integrated into the system (eg. a new type of bus driver console, a new design of ticket barrier, etc.).

Periodical tickets are not heavily discounted on V/Line and fact the single and daily fares so expensive I know people do not use V/Line because of this and they decide to drive instead of using public transport.

Geelong weekly 74km - $73
Werribee weekly 33km - $59

Really?

Werribee?

What about Box Hill (15km) also $59 for a weekly.

It doesn’t surprise me that the pollies failed to appreciate the minutiae of myki software and technology and left it to the so-called “experts” (or con-men)  Quite frankly, I don’t see these as fundamental problems that can’t be resolved in due course.

What does puzzle me is the political naivete (or downright arrogance) behind it’s introduction.

Anybody with more than a few grams of little grey cells should have realised that the voting population of greater Melbourne contains a large minority (say at least a third) for whom public transport represents a last resort to be used only in an emergency (say a car breakdown or servicing) or for travelling to and from a few special events like the Grand Final, Melbourne Cup or Royal Show or to take the kids into town for the yearly look at the Myer Chrissy windows.

Common sense would indicate that a large proportion of these voters would live in middle or outer suburban electorates which tend to be more marginal than those in inner Melbourne where public transport is much more convenient and better used.

Why then impose a ticketing system on these people that involves and up-front “membership fee” in addition to the fare paid for the “privilege” of using PT?  Particularly when the very act of purchasing a “membership card” can constitute a time-consuming inconvenience.

My humble opinion is that, if the Minister, Cabinet or Premier had had any political nous, the moment an up-front charge was suggested the reaction should have been “No Way!! - come up with something else”.

Or maybe, like Julia Gillard with the pensioners, they took the view that “these people don’t vote for us anyway so why bother about them”.

 

 

What about Box Hill (15km) also $59 for a weekly.

I didn't think Melbtripe would know where that was, as it's not between Larar and Nar Nar Goon.

What about Box Hill (15km) also $59 for a weekly.

I didn't think Melbtripe would know where that was, as it's not between Larar and Nar Nar Goon.

Nar Nar Goon is the next station past Pakenham on the Gippsland line going away from the city.

Geelong weekly 74km - $73
Werribee weekly 33km - $59

Really?


Werribee?

What about Box Hill (15km) also $59 for a weekly.

All zone two locations are treated as if they are located 50km away from Melbourne and that why Werribee and Pakenham share the same price.

Box Hill and Werribee use to be treated as if they are located 30km away from Melbourne

Pakenham use to be treated as if it located 57km away from Melbourne ( most old Melbourne zone 3 was treated as if they  are located 57km away from Melbourne - but  some old zone 3 locations was treated as if they are located 55km away from Melbourne)



Geelong is treated if it 80km away from Melbourne.