melbtrip Chief Commissioner

Location: Annoying Orange



I don't think the fares are that expensive.


That is you view and respect people will have different view as mine, but I still say the single and Daily fares outside Melbourne zone 2 are too expensive and  how they're workout is unfair compare to Melbourne fares.



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 off-peak time miss a train from Nar Nar Goon and then can be wait up to 3hours for the next  train service.
A person should  not be forced to pay nearly double for their fare because they are travelling 7km more.

In my view the Traralgon line should be electrify and with new train sets like the CityRail H set that has Capacity of 864 seats compare to V/Line which currently has Capacity between  178 to  285 seats.

Sponsored advertisement

  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity
Cool story bro, LaTrobe Valley trains are not exactly crying out for capacity.

Let's quad to Dandenong first before we worry about electrifying for 2tph.

A person should not be forced to pay nearly double for their fare because they are travelling 7km more.
"Melbtrip"

Cough, zone 1 zone 2, cough.
  xxxxlbear Token Booking Clerk

Location: Geelong
That is you view and respect people will have different view as mine, but I still say the single and Daily fares outside Melbourne zone 2 are too expensive and how they're workout is unfair compare to Melbourne fares.
"Melbtrip"
Instead of continualy banging on and on about, why don't you complain to the relevant authorities who set fares?
Wasted effort here, nobody listens to you anymore.

In off-peak time miss a train from Nar Nar Goon and then can be wait up to 3hours for the next train service.
"Meltrip"
Why would country trains need a timetable that resembles a Melbourne metro service?
Country trains trains have been running at 2/3/4+ hour interval timetable ever since Victorian Railways began running trains to rural areas.

A person should not be forced to pay nearly double for their fare because they are travelling 7km more.
"Melbtrip"
Tough titties.
Get used to it, it has been happening in Melbourne for years, ever since zonal fares were introduced.
  Gazza2 Locomotive Fireman

I don't get why Myki wasn't used as a chance to implement more finely grained zones for Melbourne, like in Perth and Brisbane, to rid the system of these massive jumps between zones. I'd have thought say 5 zones for the bounds of the Metro area would be good, means about 10km per zone or so.

It's 40c per extra zone in Brisbane roughly, so the fare you pay accurately reflects the distance travelled.
Though I think Perth is probably a bit better. In Brisbane they made Zone 1 stingily small...I mean, New Farm and Fortitude Valley in separate zones? GTFO!





  Gwiwer Rt Hon Gentleman and Ghost of Oliver Bulleid

Location: Loitering in darkest Somewhere
Think politics.  Scrapping Zone 3 could be considered a vote-grabbing stunt.  Establishing a system of zones across the State was a political decision whether or not it turns out to be to the advantage of any particular individual.  
  Revenue Chief Commissioner

Think politics.  Scrapping Zone 3 could be considered a vote-grabbing stunt.  Establishing a system of zones across the State was a political decision whether or not it turns out to be to the advantage of any particular individual.  
"Gwiwer"


Establishing zones across Victoria was NOT a political decision, but a necessary step to ensure that the software for the ticketing system could be delivered. It isn't practical to operate a ticketing system with a mixture of point to point and zone pricing. The benefit of zones is that it means that if you catch the train to Geelong, then you get free bus travel around that zone.  So Zones simplified the ticketing system dramatically and delivered integration. It is worth pointing out that the benefit of free travel in regional cities and metro Melbourne for V/Line passengers was only made AFTER the decision was made to implement zone fares in Victoria.

Sydney didn't do this - they wanted a ticketing system that could cope with a combination of zones, point to point, etc. And their project had to be cancelled as it was so complex. There are systems where point to point and zones co-exist, but generally these are pay as you go systems with less integration and no periodical tickets.

The fact that you have zones doesn't mean you have to promote them as such. You can promote it as 'a fare from Geelong to Melbourne also includes free travel around Geelong and around Melbourne' - you don't have to use zones as part of the explanation - but because it is an easier concept to promote than charging units then that's probably going to happen.

For those who doubt that it made it simplier - I would merely say that Melbourne has one set of zones, one set of business rules, one set of concession, etc..  Much much more simple than what Sydney tried and failed to deliver.
  Revenue Chief Commissioner

I don't get why Myki wasn't used as a chance to implement more finely grained zones for Melbourne, like in Perth and Brisbane, to rid the system of these massive jumps between zones. I'd have thought say 5 zones for the bounds of the Metro area would be good, means about 10km per zone or so.

It's 40c per extra zone in Brisbane roughly, so the fare you pay accurately reflects the distance travelled.
Though I think Perth is probably a bit better. In Brisbane they made Zone 1 stingily small...I mean, New Farm and Fortitude Valley in separate zones? GTFO!




"Gazza2"


I designed the zone boundaries in Brisbane (well the first draft - there were some subsequent changes). In the Brisbane City Council area they were based on the zones that were already in place from the previous ticketing system. Smaller zones certainly do maximise revenue - but they aren't necessarily in the interest of customers. One of the benefits of Melbourne is that if you live in Zone 1, then pretty much all of your travel is covered, including non standard trips you make on weekends, holidays, etc.  So you can confidently purchase a seven day pass and your travel will be covered.

The other benefit of Melbourne is that the vast majority of customers are traveling a single zone - which means that there is no financial benefit provided to come closer to the destination to catch a fare (eg. no one from Ivanhoe drives to Clifton Hill). Effectively no one wants to drive any close into the Melbourne than the Zone 1 boundary (and tram users and most bus users have no incentive to get any close to their destination before getting on PT).

So the problem with Brisabne is that people have an incentive to drive into Northgate to catch a train - whereas in Melbourne they would have no incentive to travel any further in than the Zone 1 boundary - which is quite a distance from town.

Melbourne's solution is preferable for customers, operators and avoiding congestion.

In relation to the jump in fare, yes that's annoying - but the other advantages outweigh it significantly.
  Gazza2 Locomotive Fireman



So the problem with Brisabne is that people have an incentive to drive into Northgate to catch a train

People do that because they want to access the frequency and expresses, not because of the fares. It's the same reason Darra suddenly became popular once the Richlands line opened...Because the station has higher frequency, and is on the express pattern.
It's got nothing to do with fares, and people doing stuff like driving to the zone 1+2 overlap like they do in Melbourne to save money simply doesn't happen.

Anyway, if a 2 zone system has so many advantages (I don't actually agree), why didn't you design it that way?


Melbourne's solution is preferable for customers, operators and avoiding congestion.
It's not preferable at all...I'd rather only pay for what I use, and I don't like cross subsidising those on longer commuters.

As for operators, what's the advantage? If the system is programmed by a competent contractor and uses proper equipment, as is the case in Brisbane, then the zones calculate themselves for the user. 

As for avoiding congestion, well I think trying to look to fares to solve that is a bit of a dead end. To avoid congestion you actually need a useful network....Why are all the high frequency bus kilometers in Melbourne spent out at whoop whoop on those Smart Bus orbitals , with very little in the way of good cross town services in the inner suburbs where they would actually get more patronage?

So you can confidently purchase a seven day pass and your travel will be covered.
But what's the difference to just having your 7 day pass, and then paying the small amount extra (40-80c etc) if you travel out of  your zone.
The finer grained zones means your 7 day pass could potentially be cheaper, since you aren't paying for the outer section of zone 1 or whatever.

 

  Revenue Chief Commissioner

Yes, you are right - Northgate was probably a poorer example, but I think that the fare levels do play a factor on some other lines.

People driving closer into the city in Brisbane is more likely to occur because the level of fare difference is so great. In Melbourne, the difference in fare is the difference between the Zone 1 fare and the Zone 1+2 fare, which while relatively large, isn't as large as in places like Brisbane for longer journeys.

The subsidy argument doesn't work - if a train is coming into the city, then it really doesn' matter on most lines whether a passenger gets on in Zone 1 or Zone 2 - the train has to be provided and where customers get on doesn't really make a difference. Yes, there are expresses and short starters on some lines, but given the train network is so heavily subsidised anywhere, and given that peak capacity is so expensive, then you can't really argue that some journeys are being subsidised - as EVERY trip is being subsidised.

Smaller zones does generally lead to higher revenue - can you charge people going longer distances more. So that's why Brisbane was designed that way.  Historical factors also played a key role.

In relation to passes - there are patronage and customer benefits for someone purchasing a pass and then being able to travel without thinking about it. If they have to top up to do small amounts of travel outside of their zone it does become a disincentive and something they have to think about.

In relation to operators, most bus routes in Melbourne operate in a single zone. This made it easier for bus drivers to sell tickets, avoids passengers buying a ticket and staying on the bus (over-riding). In a smartcard environment, it means that for most bus passengers, on routes that only go in one zone, they won't be overcharged if they don't touch off.  So there are advantages in both a mag stripe and all smartcard environment.
  xxxxlbear Token Booking Clerk

Location: Geelong
Yes, you are right - Northgate was probably a poorer example, but I think that the fare levels do play a factor on some other lines. People driving closer into the city in Brisbane is more likely to occur because the level of fare difference is so great. In Melbourne, the difference in fare is the difference between the Zone 1 fare and the Zone 1+2 fare, which while relatively large, isn't as large as in places like Brisbane for longer journeys.The subsidy argument doesn't work - if a train is coming into the city, then it really doesn' matter on most lines whether a passenger gets on in Zone 1 or Zone 2 - the train has to be provided and where customers get on doesn't really make a difference. Yes, there are expresses and short starters on some lines, but given the train network is so heavily subsidised anywhere, and given that peak capacity is so expensive, then you can't really argue that some journeys are being subsidised - as EVERY trip is being subsidised.Smaller zones does generally lead to higher revenue - can you charge people going longer distances more. So that's why Brisbane was designed that way. Historical factors also played a key role.In relation to passes - there are patronage and customer benefits for someone purchasing a pass and then being able to travel without thinking about it. If they have to top up to do small amounts of travel outside of their zone it does become a disincentive and something they have to think about. In relation to operators, most bus routes in Melbourne operate in a single zone. This made it easier for bus drivers to sell tickets, avoids passengers buying a ticket and staying on the bus (over-riding). In a smartcard environment, it means that for most bus passengers, on routes that only go in one zone, they won't be overcharged if they don't touch off. So there are advantages in both a mag stripe and all smartcard environment.
"Revenue"


Revenue, speaking of buses, I believe that top-ups are NOT currently available on Melbourne metro buses. Seeing as onboard top-ups are available on some regional bus services (I can confirm that through 1st experience on the Geelong  Queenscliff bus route, and other routes in the Geelong region such as the  St. Leonards bus), when will this feature be available on Melbourne metro bus services? Smile
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity

Establishing zones across Victoria was NOT a political decision, but a necessary step to ensure that the software for the ticketing system could be delivered.
"Revenue"

You still haven't explained why Melbourne should only have two zones, a system which discourages short distance travel and subsidises long distance travellers over those in the inner city.

The main London network cover nine zones.

Melbourne's solution is preferable for customers, operators and avoiding congestion.
"Revenue"

Bollocks.

  Gazza2 Locomotive Fireman


The subsidy argument doesn't work - if a train is coming into the city, then it really doesn' matter on most lines whether a passenger gets on in Zone 1 or Zone 2 - the train has to be provided and where customers get on doesn't really make a difference.
Trains going 40km into the suburbs are not the only type of PT people catch.

can you charge people going longer distances more.

But if you already charge in this manner for V/Line with those zones, why not just continue the pattern inwards to the CBD?

In relation to passes - there are patronage and customer benefits for someone purchasing a pass and then being able to travel without thinking about it.

I thought the "best fare without thinking about it" was a selling point of Myki. Or is that still not good enough for some?

Avoids passengers buying a ticket and staying on the bus (over-riding)
But if you are giving everyone a cheaper fare than otherwhise. by putting the bus into one big zone, then that's really just "leagal over-riding". You could at least try to collect revenue from those travelling long distances.
  Revenue Chief Commissioner

Yes, you are right - Northgate was probably a poorer example, but I think that the fare levels do play a factor on some other lines. People driving closer into the city in Brisbane is more likely to occur because the level of fare difference is so great. In Melbourne, the difference in fare is the difference between the Zone 1 fare and the Zone 1+2 fare, which while relatively large, isn't as large as in places like Brisbane for longer journeys.The subsidy argument doesn't work - if a train is coming into the city, then it really doesn' matter on most lines whether a passenger gets on in Zone 1 or Zone 2 - the train has to be provided and where customers get on doesn't really make a difference. Yes, there are expresses and short starters on some lines, but given the train network is so heavily subsidised anywhere, and given that peak capacity is so expensive, then you can't really argue that some journeys are being subsidised - as EVERY trip is being subsidised.Smaller zones does generally lead to higher revenue - can you charge people going longer distances more. So that's why Brisbane was designed that way. Historical factors also played a key role.In relation to passes - there are patronage and customer benefits for someone purchasing a pass and then being able to travel without thinking about it. If they have to top up to do small amounts of travel outside of their zone it does become a disincentive and something they have to think about. In relation to operators, most bus routes in Melbourne operate in a single zone. This made it easier for bus drivers to sell tickets, avoids passengers buying a ticket and staying on the bus (over-riding). In a smartcard environment, it means that for most bus passengers, on routes that only go in one zone, they won't be overcharged if they don't touch off. So there are advantages in both a mag stripe and all smartcard environment.
"Revenue"


Revenue, speaking of buses, I believe that top-ups are NOT currently available on Melbourne metro buses. Seeing as onboard top-ups are available on some regional bus services (I can confirm that through 1st experience on the Geelong  Queenscliff bus route, and other routes in the Geelong region such as the  St. Leonards bus), when will this feature be available on Melbourne metro bus services? Smile
"xxxxlbear"


As buses progressively have their equipment removed, and the new driver consoles are installed, bus drivers will be able to top up (as you say, in the same way as in regional Victoria).  To avoid customer confusion, this will be 'turned on' when all buses in a depot have been converted - so it will be different dates for different routes. Having said that, it won't be widely advertised - as you obviously want to encourage people to top up off board if possible.
  Revenue Chief Commissioner

Establishing zones across Victoria was NOT a political decision, but a necessary step to ensure that the software for the ticketing system could be delivered.
"Revenue"

You still haven't explained why Melbourne should only have two zones, a system which discourages short distance travel and subsidises long distance travellers over those in the inner city.

The main London network cover nine zones.

Melbourne's solution is preferable for customers, operators and avoiding congestion.
"Revenue"

Bollocks.
"ZH836301"


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.
  Revenue Chief Commissioner

The subsidy argument doesn't work - if a train is coming into the city, then it really doesn' matter on most lines whether a passenger gets on in Zone 1 or Zone 2 - the train has to be provided and where customers get on doesn't really make a difference.
Trains going 40km into the suburbs are not the only type of PT people catch.

can you charge people going longer distances more.

But if you already charge in this manner for V/Line with those zones, why not just continue the pattern inwards to the CBD?

In relation to passes - there are patronage and customer benefits for someone purchasing a pass and then being able to travel without thinking about it.

I thought the "best fare without thinking about it" was a selling point of Myki. Or is that still not good enough for some?

Avoids passengers buying a ticket and staying on the bus (over-riding)
But if you are giving everyone a cheaper fare than otherwhise. by putting the bus into one big zone, then that's really just "leagal over-riding". You could at least try to collect revenue from those travelling long distances.
"Gazza2"


Sure - if you wanted to make a lot more money from passengers you could have more zones. For every person who was charged less for a very short journey, there would be a lot of people who would be charged more. That's why Brisbane has more zones - to make more money. It makes it very easy to push up the prices with more zones.

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.
  Revenue Chief Commissioner

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.
  ZH836301 Chief Commissioner

Location: BleakCity

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.
"Revenue"

Here you go: Outer suburban areas are subsidised more.




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.
"Revenue"

Beats explaining to someone that their four station trip will cost $12.


  xxxxlbear Token Booking Clerk

Location: Geelong
As buses progressively have their equipment removed, and the new driver consoles are installed, bus drivers will be able to top up (as you say, in the same way as in regional Victoria). To avoid customer confusion, this will be 'turned on' when all buses in a depot have been converted - so it will be different dates for different routes. Having said that, it won't be widely advertised - as you obviously want to encourage people to top up off board if possible.
"Revenue"

That's good to hear!
At least that will something positive for those Melburnians who are either unable, or unwilling, to top up their Myki cards online, and who don't necesarily live near a Myki top-up machine equipped railway station , or a Myki retail outlet.

Thank you for the information, Revenue Smile
  Brendan03 Chief Commissioner

Location: Sydney
As buses progressively have their equipment removed, and the new driver consoles are installed, bus drivers will be able to top up (as you say, in the same way as in regional Victoria). To avoid customer confusion, this will be 'turned on' when all buses in a depot have been converted - so it will be different dates for different routes. Having said that, it won't be widely advertised - as you obviously want to encourage people to top up off board if possible.
"Revenue"

That's good to hear!
At least that will something positive for those Melburnians who are either unable, or unwilling, to top up their Myki cards online, and who don't necesarily live near a Myki top-up machine equipped railway station , or a Myki retail outlet.

Thank you for the information, Revenue Smile
"xxxxlbear"


Further to this... Will Online-top up action lists be pushed to buses in a more reliable time frame after the Metcard equipment is removed?

I think I mentioned a while back that I've been reluctant to use online top-up due to the buses only receiving their action list when they're at the depots, as in my case, My entry point to the transport network is usually via a local bus route, rather than hard-wired equipment at the train station.
  Revenue Chief Commissioner

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.
"Revenue"

Here you go: Outer suburban areas are subsidised more.



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.
"Revenue"

Beats explaining to someone that their four station trip will cost $12.
"ZH836301"


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

At the end of the day though - it isn't about subsidy. It is about the cost of alternatives, remaining price competitive, and having equitable outcomes. Hence the term subsidy isn't very useful.

In terms of a four station trip costing 12 dollars, that isn't an argument for more zones, it is an argument for larger zone overlaps -which I personally think has a lot of merit.
  Revenue Chief Commissioner

As buses progressively have their equipment removed, and the new driver consoles are installed, bus drivers will be able to top up (as you say, in the same way as in regional Victoria). To avoid customer confusion, this will be 'turned on' when all buses in a depot have been converted - so it will be different dates for different routes. Having said that, it won't be widely advertised - as you obviously want to encourage people to top up off board if possible.
"Revenue"

That's good to hear!
At least that will something positive for those Melburnians who are either unable, or unwilling, to top up their Myki cards online, and who don't necesarily live near a Myki top-up machine equipped railway station , or a Myki retail outlet.

Thank you for the information, Revenue Smile
"xxxxlbear"


Further to this... Will Online-top up action lists be pushed to buses in a more reliable time frame after the Metcard equipment is removed?

I think I mentioned a while back that I've been reluctant to use online top-up due to the buses only receiving their action list when they're at the depots, as in my case, My entry point to the transport network is usually via a local bus route, rather than hard-wired equipment at the train station.
"Brendan03"


Theoretically it shouldn't make that much of a difference, but I guess having the consoles in will ensure the system is operating correctly. There are no plans I'm aware of to have action lists 'pushed' to buses and trams. The system is based on the mobile devices having their information updated when they go back to the depot.

Of course, this is still a massive improvement over most systems that do NOT do online tops ups on mobile devices (eg. in London you have to pick up your online top up at a SPECIFIC station).

Having said that, improvements to the central system mean that updates are more regularly going out to depots - so if you top up online at 10pm, then there is a good chance the top up will be available on your bus the next morning. The '24 hour' advice can probably be updated to be more specific once there is good evidence the system is more stable and that online top ups are moving though the system even quicker than advertised.
  Gwiwer Rt Hon Gentleman and Ghost of Oliver Bulleid

Location: Loitering in darkest Somewhere
so if you top up online at 10pm, then there is a good chance the top up will be available on your bus the next morning.


Which still doesn't assure anyone that their top-up, made in good faith actually will be available when they need it.

And it's still no substitute for the ability to pay the driver a cash fare, receive a small receipt (let's call it a ticket) and travel as and when you need without the need to pre-plan.
  Revenue Chief Commissioner

so if you top up online at 10pm, then there is a good chance the top up will be available on your bus the next morning.


Which still doesn't assure anyone that their top-up, made in good faith actually will be available when they need it.

And it's still no substitute for the ability to pay the driver a cash fare, receive a small receipt (let's call it a ticket) and travel as and when you need without the need to pre-plan.
"Gwiwer"


As previously mentioned - you can top up on board the bus in regional areas, and this functionality will be available in Melbourne shortly.
In terms of certainty, the 24 hour time which is advertised is very certain - the question will be whether we can advertise another message that guarantees a short time. My personal view is that before too long we should be able to advertise a dramatically shorter time frame for trains - and messages for buses along the lines of "if you top up before Xpm, then it will be available the next day".  So yes, you certainly can pay the driver a cash fare, and you can even buy a plastic ticket from the driver (call it a smartcard). And if you do that a couple of times then you'll pay much less than you did under Metcard. Remember, bus fares are massively cheaper with myki compared to the fares the drivers used to sell. The most popular fare on board buses is a 2-hour concession. The cash fare was around 70% more expensive than using a 10x2hr or myki.

So overall, bus passengers are going to pay a lot less. Not saying you can't find individuals who won't be paying more, but for the vast majority of people they are going to make pretty significant savings.
  DalyWaters Chief Commissioner





In terms of a four station trip costing 12 dollars, that isn't an argument for more zones, it is an argument for larger zone overlaps -which I personally think has a lot of merit.
"Revenue"


Oh for a smartcard and revenue system that could match Singapore!

It is so straightforward.  Throw a grid over the whole country.  Touch on at grid point AB, say Changi Airport.  Final touch off at grid point WF, say Woodlands station.  The fare is calculated by using the distance from AB to WF as the crow flies.

It is by far the fairest system out there.  The fact that the Government's transport options require multi-modal and a long distance to achieve the end point don't matter, the passenger is charged from where he started to where he ended.

In effect, the country is of several thousand zones, being each grid point.

Meanwhile, in Melbourne we struggle with two zones.  These zones encourage development of land on the ever increasing sprawl of Melbourne whilst we also see people ignoring Aircraft station (and soon to ignore the monolith that will be Williams Landing) in order to drive to an already overcrowded Laverton station car park because of the huge difference in fares between zone one and two.


  Revenue Chief Commissioner



In terms of a four station trip costing 12 dollars, that isn't an argument for more zones, it is an argument for larger zone overlaps -which I personally think has a lot of merit.
"Revenue"


Oh for a smartcard and revenue system that could match Singapore!

It is so straightforward.  Throw a grid over the whole country.  Touch on at grid point AB, say Changi Airport.  Final touch off at grid point WF, say Woodlands station.  The fare is calculated by using the distance from AB to WF as the crow flies.

It is by far the fairest system out there.  The fact that the Government's transport options require multi-modal and a long distance to achieve the end point don't matter, the passenger is charged from where he started to where he ended.

In effect, the country is of several thousand zones, being each grid point.

Meanwhile, in Melbourne we struggle with two zones.  These zones encourage development of land on the ever increasing sprawl of Melbourne whilst we also see people ignoring Aircraft station (and soon to ignore the monolith that will be Williams Landing) in order to drive to an already overcrowded Laverton station car park because of the huge difference in fares between zone one and two.
"DalyWaters"


In relation to your Laverton example, if Melbourne had more zones people would try to drive further and further in. So rather than Laverton being crowded, you would have crowding at Newport, etc..  You would actually be making things a lot worse - the current situation ensures that no one has an incentive to drive any further in than the Zone 1 border. So your argument isn't valid if your objective is to reduce car park overcrowding (eg. someone who lived within walking distance of Ivanhoe now has an incentive to drive to Clifton Hill).

In terms of Singapore, and other 'pay as you go' systems, you have to realise that the impact of that style of pricing is to remove periodical tickets. It is quite easy to charge people on a trip by trip basis when you don't have periodicals - 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. Periodical tickets are very important in Melbourne.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.