Premier Steven Miles says pre-election move will save commuters money and boost patronage but transport experts question if funds could be better spent
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.