Good article Darren. Like a few of us, I am also a kiwi PT / rail professional exiled to Australia. I really enjoying living here. We have explored all around SE Queensland using rail, tram, bus and ferries. Some journeys; for example to Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast, perhaps really push the envelope on 50c fares. However, the upside for us, and for the many others from all walks of life traveling, is that we are going to destinations, suburbs, regions and spending money there. How much does each traveler on a 50c fare spend, at their destination? There are significant benefits to any businesses, within walk-able distances to the nearest bus stop, train stop etc. Occasionally we do hire rental cars at destination, but use those 50c fares to get to that destination. End result, is that the small rental car company located within a distant region gets the business, not downtown Brisbane or Brisbane airport. Often, PT may not be the fastest, most frequent or convenient mode outside of peak hours. But, those 50c fares provide a compelling argument to chillax about those longer journey times, and to instead enjoy a sociable, stress-free, low carbon emissions generating journey. Thank you Darren for your excellent work within Adventures in Transitland!
Thanks Darren, it's nice you covered lots of different impacts. It sounds like they need to bring in (or raise?) parking levies. Also, that the data provides excellent rationale for using parking levies as a source of revenue to fund lower fares.
I always enjoy these insightful articles. What a great summary of the good impact of 50 cent fares. But why use the example of a flight to Bali or even Europe with the savings. This example falls down on so many levels. Blow the carbon saved by travelling on local buses and trains in one hit. Is the wider community supporting cheap travel so the money can then be spent overseas?
The Bali example is simply illustrative and I did point out that many of the savings will go straight into household budgets which are stretched by the cost of living crisis.
It's probably not an appropriate example for exactly this reason, though, Darren. People struggling because their "cost of living is top of mind" don't need to be reminded of what they can't afford. Meanwhile, to those of us who have willingly given up high carbon travel, comments that normalise hyper-mobility just appear inconsistent with your otherwise sound transport planning ideas.
Appreciate your thoughts. Interesting that in Australia people have been reluctant to give up travel even while under significant mortgage and general financial stress. Travel is partly around connection to people and place and partly about experiencing other cultures. For the 600,000 Kiwis living in Australia, including myself, New Zealand and still home, even for Kiwis who have lived here for decades. And flying is the only way I can stay personally (as opposed to virtually) connected to the place where my heart is, Aotearoa/ New Zealand.
Great to hear the roll out of 50¢ fares has been a success (by patronage). A $2 flat fare was introduced here in Otago and has also seen a significant increase in patronage.
You only lightly touch on the public costs towards the end of your article, and I'd be curious to know what modelling/assumptions were done to arrive at the 50¢ price point. My little understanding is the ORC considered further reducing the flat rate, but modelling suggested the benefits (mostly increased patronage) wouldn't outweigh the cost (lost revenue)...
The decision to implement 50 cent fares was made by the politicians to address cost of living issues. The experience of $2 fares in Otago shows that the perception of the price point as cheap is more important than the price point itself.
Good article Darren. Like a few of us, I am also a kiwi PT / rail professional exiled to Australia. I really enjoying living here. We have explored all around SE Queensland using rail, tram, bus and ferries. Some journeys; for example to Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast, perhaps really push the envelope on 50c fares. However, the upside for us, and for the many others from all walks of life traveling, is that we are going to destinations, suburbs, regions and spending money there. How much does each traveler on a 50c fare spend, at their destination? There are significant benefits to any businesses, within walk-able distances to the nearest bus stop, train stop etc. Occasionally we do hire rental cars at destination, but use those 50c fares to get to that destination. End result, is that the small rental car company located within a distant region gets the business, not downtown Brisbane or Brisbane airport. Often, PT may not be the fastest, most frequent or convenient mode outside of peak hours. But, those 50c fares provide a compelling argument to chillax about those longer journey times, and to instead enjoy a sociable, stress-free, low carbon emissions generating journey. Thank you Darren for your excellent work within Adventures in Transitland!
Meanwhile in Auckland we get our PT fares raised to help pay for unnecessary motorway expansion! Woooo
Thanks Darren, it's nice you covered lots of different impacts. It sounds like they need to bring in (or raise?) parking levies. Also, that the data provides excellent rationale for using parking levies as a source of revenue to fund lower fares.
Good idea. Perth in fact uses city centre parking levies to fund a free network of circulator buses within the city centre and surrounding areas.
I always enjoy these insightful articles. What a great summary of the good impact of 50 cent fares. But why use the example of a flight to Bali or even Europe with the savings. This example falls down on so many levels. Blow the carbon saved by travelling on local buses and trains in one hit. Is the wider community supporting cheap travel so the money can then be spent overseas?
The Bali example is simply illustrative and I did point out that many of the savings will go straight into household budgets which are stretched by the cost of living crisis.
It's probably not an appropriate example for exactly this reason, though, Darren. People struggling because their "cost of living is top of mind" don't need to be reminded of what they can't afford. Meanwhile, to those of us who have willingly given up high carbon travel, comments that normalise hyper-mobility just appear inconsistent with your otherwise sound transport planning ideas.
Just a thought. Times change. Love your work.
Appreciate your thoughts. Interesting that in Australia people have been reluctant to give up travel even while under significant mortgage and general financial stress. Travel is partly around connection to people and place and partly about experiencing other cultures. For the 600,000 Kiwis living in Australia, including myself, New Zealand and still home, even for Kiwis who have lived here for decades. And flying is the only way I can stay personally (as opposed to virtually) connected to the place where my heart is, Aotearoa/ New Zealand.
Great to hear the roll out of 50¢ fares has been a success (by patronage). A $2 flat fare was introduced here in Otago and has also seen a significant increase in patronage.
You only lightly touch on the public costs towards the end of your article, and I'd be curious to know what modelling/assumptions were done to arrive at the 50¢ price point. My little understanding is the ORC considered further reducing the flat rate, but modelling suggested the benefits (mostly increased patronage) wouldn't outweigh the cost (lost revenue)...
The decision to implement 50 cent fares was made by the politicians to address cost of living issues. The experience of $2 fares in Otago shows that the perception of the price point as cheap is more important than the price point itself.