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,
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
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.