Home of the bin chicken. Visit our friends:
Why isn't public transport free? That's the sort of thing I want my taxes going towards.
From memory the cost of implementing Go cards and enforcing fares cost more than the income generated anyway. At 50c a pop I'm sure it is now.
Rather than paying private companies to implement ticketing on public transport, then expecting the public to put more money towards a private company's profit margin why not just cut out the middle man and make it free?
Rather than paying private companies to implement ticketing on public transport, then expecting the public to put more money towards a private company’s profit margin why not just cut out the middle man and make it free?
You answered your own question - the people making the decisions don't give two shits about what is best for you (the public), the environment, or even the efficiency of the public tax pot, all they care about is increasing profits for themselves and their ilk.
This is a Melbourne focussed article but makes a good case about why free PT wouldn't work in Melbourne:
https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/free/
I imagine similar arguments can be made elsewhere
Could you imagine the volume of cookers / crazies on the trams if it was free...
50c is insignificant enough that it doesn't break the bank commuting every day, but it also puts a barrier on people wanting to use it for non commuting purposes.
Doesn't that just make you a judgey arsehole?
Not really.
The smallest barrier keeps out the extreme end of the scale is my attitude. It's catch all not judgey.
Unless your pro the clowns with cell phones cranking shit music at max volume for all to hear?
I'm more in favour of removing barriers in society, especially ones arbitrarily implemented to keep out whoever you've decided is undesirable.
About bloody time. I just spent a month in Taiwan. It was about this pricing. Initially I was booking taxis, using cars. Then when I saw the price I just stopped, and went all in on public transport. Fast, easy and cheap.
If it's affordable, people will use it. Great to hear.
Problem not in price but convenience and availability. For big cities public transport makes sense, services can be frequent enough and still have some load on each bus/tram/you named. For suburbian life public transport is just not an option, density to low. This is why it work in Taiwan. SO choice is between in living in human ant hill with public transport, or live in decent conditions and drive a car.
Price is s big factor though. Maybe not to you, but to many it is.
However frequency also. If I missed a train in TW, there'd be another come along soon. So I want stressed, running to get the train. Missed it... no big deal.
I think if you were commuting from Brisbane to Taiwan, the length of trip would come into play also. Perth to Taiwan would make more sense. It's slightly closer and in the same time zone. 😁
To answer your unstated question: suburbs with rail links see those rail services enthusiastically used. So, usage is not the issue. It's the upfront costs of establishing links, coupled with how long it takes - a decade or so. Our politics is just not well equipped for long term big infrastructure projects. The chances are high that the opposition will be in power to take the credit for the project's completion, or they'll blame your party for the bad project when they get in and the costs blow out. Or, they kill/maim the project anyway.
Feels like a highly cynical move this close to an election. It might help them sure up some votes from the Greens, and it'll provide them a bludgeon they can use when the LNP wins and inevitably chooses to declare the trial a failure.
From the other angle, 50 c is an interesting figure. I saw Jonathan Sriranganathan point out on Facebook that at this point, it would probably be cheaper (to the Government) to just make it free. There's no way 50 c per trip is enough to cover the cost of fare enforcement alone. Other commenters suggested it could be important that it not be free to force people to tap on, to allow for recording data to decide whether or not the trial was successful. It could also be the case that they'll quietly wind back enforcement during this period.
Still, cynicism and criticism of the extent of it aside, this is fantastic. It's a huge step in the right direction, and they should be praised for being willing to do that. It's a bit frustrating that public transport can take as much as 3 times as long as driving, outside of peak hour, but I'll be making an effort to use it more often during this trial period; partly because it genuinely is much cheaper, but mostly just because I want to contribute to the trial's success.
Unexpected, but very welcome!
Wow, so much sense in one decision, is this Qld gov or some weird dream... and fuck no transport experts, this is almost as good as free. Considering it used to be one of the most expensive in the world (Airtrain BS not withstanding, that actually is the most expensive k for k) quite refreshing.
It's a great step and worth celebrating. Hopefully it will encourage people to try PT and leave the car at home. Given the cost of living crisis I do hope it makes a difference.
That said, I do think charging $1 instead of 50c would be better, and put on additional routes and services. I think that is one of the main barriers to people choosing PT in Brisbane, or more accurately, Brisbane's suburbs. So I think success of this is going to be limited because some areas are just not well serviced and often take twice as long to reach their destination.
From what I recall fares don't even come close to covering the costs of public transport in most cases, so whether it is 50c or $1 or $5 or free is likely immaterial, and more about using the fare structure as a way to encourage and/or disencourage the behaviour you want or don't want. And also about using it as a simple way to track usage (as other commentators have suggested) while still being essentially free, without overhauling the whole system.
I do think charging $1 instead of 50c would be better, and put on additional routes and services
Politics doesn't work that way. If they had reduced the cost to $1 instead of $0.50, it wouldn't have meant any increase in services, because increasing services would require hiring more staff, training them, figuring out which routes to increase service on, doing consultation, etc. etc. etc. It's a long and complicated process. All the extra 50 c would have done is put more money in government coffers.
In the long term, eh, yeah, maybe you're right. Honestly I doubt it, because the difference in revenue from that extra 50 c is tiny anyway and we'd need to find so much extra money from elsewhere that we might as well find it all from elsewhere (I suggest the road widening budget!). But it's at least a debate that could be had. But for a 6-month snap-announced trial, there's no debate, that would just be straight-up worse.
Disagree, free would be better. Once adoption is up (you know this will last to the next election only) there'll be profit if you're enough of a bitch to need it. As many have said, it's not worth the bother, breathe some cleaner air.
If Brisbane is anything like Newcastle then the LGA will turn around after this experiment and say “Look! Hardly anyone used the buses except school kids” and scrap it all.
Now this hasn’t happened in Newcastle, but it would be the likely outcome because the routes are too few and the buses not often enough.
Australia is completely dependent on car culture in its layout and in its sub-normal intellect-driven toxic masculinity. VROOM VROOM! MUST MAKE LOUD NOISE WITH MY NON-IRONIC TERRIBLE HAIRCUT AND FOCUS ON DENYING EDUCATION!!!
We are to spread to relay on public transport. Nothing wrong with cars, just rid of the cities. Cars and big city is terrible combination.
Nothing wrong with cities if serviced properly and provided with good infrastructure.
Cars are a major problem when they take priority over actual people and the ecosystem.
I