Is collecting fares worth the money?

[fabricator]

If tickets were free, anyone could catch a train or bus for any reason. Seems like a good idea till you realise that includes bad elements of society as well as putting off normal passengers, and besides many people would not use public transport even if it was free.

So the vandals catch services to vandalise, drugs users can take drugs or get a free ride to their dealer. Sure these are extreme examples, but would happen in some areas. What about those who are bored/lazy enough to catch a bus for one or two stops, or just loiter around.

Also if you don't need a ticket, how do you prove a vandal loitering around a station didn't intend to use the train anyway ?

[Prince George]

Bah! This talk of vandals, dealers, loiterers (generally code for "the homeless"), or truant schoolkids just sounds like the ongoing war on the poor. "Get them off my street, get them out of my sight!" cry the more fortunate, who prefer ignorance to solutions. Do I suppose that these vandals and dealers are leading lives of quiet sobriety, staying in school, tending the gardens around churches, and singing songs at retirement homes, all for want of free buses? Of course not, but as long as they are just doing it in some northern or southern suburb that I never visit, what do I care?

The free travel for schoolkids policy was ended because of claims that it was encouraging truancy. No question, there were many teenagers in Rundle Mall or Marion on a school day, but not many people were questioning the other source of this behaviour. In the years past, the school leaving age was low (14 or 15) and kids that weren't thriving at school had the chance to seek work. During the eighties the economy started to stagnate and youth-unemployment rose; as part of the "solution" for this problem, they raised the school leaving age; meanwhile, for those old enough to leave, jobs continued to dry up. Result, kids with no interest in traditional schooling are obliged to stay there, and even if you want to leave there's little waiting for you. Sounds like a recipe for truancy to me - but the source of the problem, as far as public feeling was concerned, was the free travel. So they dropped that and made bugger all other changes. The message: truancy is fine as long as they do it at home.

[fishinajar]

Some form of ticketing is required to be able to track usage and plan for more efficient infrastructure usage-timetables, routes, frequency capacity etc.

Some form of charge is required to reduce problem usage- here is an example: say your school/uni/workplace provided cans of coke. Imagine the number they would have to provide if they were free compared to if they sold them for even just 10c each. The 10c charge means that people have to pay something and vastly reduces wasteful useage, such as spraying people with-which would of cause be purely wasteful-and fun.

Toll roads are a great (and hated) example:
If you want to use it you must pay: which means it is no way near as conjested as it would be if it were free. And lets say demand becomes huge, then they can use the mamoth amounts of money they've collected to expand capacity.

Yes I am a fan of tolls and paid ticketing.
And yes I have paid out a fortune in both tolls and tickets.

[Norman]

Also with the Toll example... whe amount the user pays in tolls, the same amount the user saves in terms of getting stuck in traffic and wasting petrol idling in the back roads. On paper of course.

[Wayno]

How about this idea:

Purchase a multi-trip ticket (e.g. 10 trips). Get on a train and insert your ticket into the machine as per normal. No trip is deducted during peak hours (7-9am + 5-7pm). Use the ticket outside peak hours and a trip is deducted. Ticket expires 3 months after first usage.

It's not quite free, but a big motivator to frequently use PT. Also this approach would solve many of the concerns raised above, AND increase train patronage outside peak hours (because someone who mostly travels 7-9am & 5-7pm would not want to waste 10 trips - Use em or lose em!!)

Thoughts?

[Norman]

Not really relavent since we're getting a new ticketing system within the next 3 years, and that may lead to monthly and yearly tickets being available again.

[Prince George]

In a "synchronicity" moment, Streetsblog has a post from one of their members suggesting St Louis should make it's transport free. It mentions there that there was a plan floated for New York City, and there's a site devoted to the principal - http://freepublictransit.org/

Not really relavent since we're getting a new ticketing system within the next 3 years, and that may lead to monthly and yearly tickets being available again.

BTW, monthly/yearly tickets suffer some of the problems that have been raised for free-transit: having bought a year ticket, my travel for that year is now free and it's in my interests to take as many trips as possible using it. Likewise for school students with a monthly pass.

[Aidan]

Some form of ticketing is required to be able to track usage and plan for more efficient infrastructure usage-timetables, routes, frequency capacity etc.

Not necessarily. Nowadays you can record the weight and calculate it from that, or use security camera footage.

Bah! This talk of vandals, dealers, loiterers (generally code for "the homeless"), or truant schoolkids just sounds like the ongoing war on the poor.

Even if that's what it sounds like, that's no excuse for ignoring real problems.

"Get them off my street, get them out of my sight!" cry the more fortunate, who prefer ignorance to solutions. Do I suppose that these vandals and dealers are leading lives of quiet sobriety, staying in school, tending the gardens around churches, and singing songs at retirement homes, all for want of free buses? Of course not, but as long as they are just doing it in some northern or southern suburb that I never visit, what do I care?

As long as they're not doing it on the buses! There's no point making public transport free if it's not safe to use!

The free travel for schoolkids policy was ended because of claims that it was encouraging truancy.

Where did you get that idea? The policy was ended as schoolkids were piling onto buses to travel only a stop or two, filling them up and slowing them down. It was nothing to do with truancy.

No question, there were many teenagers in Rundle Mall or Marion on a school day, but not many people were questioning the other source of this behaviour. In the years past, the school leaving age was low (14 or 15) and kids that weren't thriving at school had the chance to seek work. During the eighties the economy started to stagnate and youth-unemployment rose; as part of the "solution" for this problem, they raised the school leaving age; meanwhile, for those old enough to leave, jobs continued to dry up. Result, kids with no interest in traditional schooling are obliged to stay there, and even if you want to leave there's little waiting for you. Sounds like a recipe for truancy to me - but the source of the problem, as far as public feeling was concerned, was the free travel. So they dropped that and made bugger all other changes. The message: truancy is fine as long as they do it at home.

The school leaving age at the time (1990-91) was 15. Seaview High School had the Transition Education program, to get those people who hated school into the workforce as soon as possible, as an alternative to conventional schoolwork. I don't know if other schools had similar programs.

If there was a perception that free travel was contributing to truancy, it could be easily addressed by requiring a ticket to be used between 9am and 3pm. They didn't. The public perception was that it was a bad idea, but it was nothing to do with truancy.

BTW, monthly/yearly tickets suffer some of the problems that have been raised for free-transit: having bought a year ticket, my travel for that year is now free and it's in my interests to take as many trips as possible using it.

That's not a problem, it's an advantage.

Likewise for school students with a monthly pass.

Except that a lot of school students wouldn't have monthly passes. Some walk to school. Some ride yellow school buses. Others go by car.

How about this idea:

Purchase a multi-trip ticket (e.g. 10 trips). Get on a train and insert your ticket into the machine as per normal. No trip is deducted during peak hours (7-9am + 5-7pm). Use the ticket outside peak hours and a trip is deducted. Ticket expires 3 months after first usage.

It's not quite free, but a big motivator to frequently use PT. Also this approach would solve many of the concerns raised above, AND increase train patronage outside peak hours (because someone who mostly travels 7-9am & 5-7pm would not want to waste 10 trips - Use em or lose em!!)

Thoughts?

So not only would there b the loss of peak revenue, but there would be a financial incentive for passengers to travel at the busiest times rather than when there's more spare capacity!

[Wayno]

How about this idea:

Purchase a multi-trip ticket (e.g. 10 trips). Get on a train and insert your ticket into the machine as per normal. No trip is deducted during peak hours (7-9am + 5-7pm). Use the ticket outside peak hours and a trip is deducted. Ticket expires 3 months after first usage.

It's not quite free, but a big motivator to frequently use PT. Also this approach would solve many of the concerns raised above, AND increase train patronage outside peak hours (because someone who mostly travels 7-9am & 5-7pm would not want to waste 10 trips - Use em or lose em!!)

Thoughts?

So not only would there b the loss of peak revenue, but there would be a financial incentive for passengers to travel at the busiest times rather than when there's more spare capacity!

sorry Aidan, what's your point? i thought this thread was titled "is collecting fares worth the money?" so yes - revenue loss is implied - and surely more people traveling during peak hours would aleviate some of the peak road traffic problems?

[monotonehell]

How about this idea:

Purchase a multi-trip ticket (e.g. 10 trips). Get on a train and insert your ticket into the machine as per normal. No trip is deducted during peak hours (7-9am + 5-7pm). Use the ticket outside peak hours and a trip is deducted. Ticket expires 3 months after first usage.

It's not quite free, but a big motivator to frequently use PT. Also this approach would solve many of the concerns raised above, AND increase train patronage outside peak hours (because someone who mostly travels 7-9am & 5-7pm would not want to waste 10 trips - Use em or lose em!!)

Thoughts?

So not only would there b the loss of peak revenue, but there would be a financial incentive for passengers to travel at the busiest times rather than when there's more spare capacity!

sorry Aidan, what's your point? i thought this thread was titled "is collecting fares worth the money?" so yes - revenue loss is implied - and surely more people traveling during peak hours would aleviate some of the peak road traffic problems?

It depends whether you are taking people out of cars or off of their couch. I know a lot of pensioners who get on the bus just before 9:00 and wait for the clock to tick over to 9:03 so they can use their cheaper tickets. They would move to earlier buses if they were free.

[Omicron]

So not only would there b the loss of peak revenue, but there would be a financial incentive for passengers to travel at the busiest times rather than when there's more spare capacity!

sorry Aidan, what's your point? i thought this thread was titled "is collecting fares worth the money?" so yes - revenue loss is implied - and surely more people traveling during peak hours would aleviate some of the peak road traffic problems?

It depends whether you are taking people out of cars or off of their couch. I know a lot of pensioners who get on the bus just before 9:00 and wait for the clock to tick over to 9:03 so they can use their cheaper tickets. They would move to earlier buses if they were free.

You need to stop knowing those pensioners.

[Prince George]

BTW, monthly/yearly tickets suffer some of the problems that have been raised for free-transit: having bought a year ticket, my travel for that year is now free and it's in my interests to take as many trips as possible using it.

That's not a problem, it's an advantage.

Aidan, the problems that I was referring to were the "unlimited spurious trips" problems mentioned by Norman ("it would increase pointless trips for 1 or 2 stops"), AtD (as "the tragedy of the commons"), and most recently by yourself ("The policy was ended as schoolkids were piling onto buses to travel only a stop or two, filling them up and slowing them down."). It's the same situation as with cars and roads: having bought a comparatively expensive car, all my trips are cheap, so it's in my interest to extract as much value as I can by driving as much as possible; likewise an expensive bus ticket that makes all my trips free.

BTW, I was at uni in '90-91 - part of the first generation to pay HECS (we were a bitter, bitter generation) - and got to see the next crop of school kids get free tickets while I was still catching public transport daily, as I had done for years. I can tell you that there were hordes of school kids catching buses both before and after those free public transport halcyon days, as indeed there still are. I would be interested to see any hard figures that support the claim that giving free trips to schoolkids was slowing the buses enough to warrant removing that benefit. And I can assure you that the airwaves and papers were thick with complaints about truancy (stories of errant children being almost as popular as dole-bludgers, dodgy-builders, tenants-from-hell, and slum-landlords with our beloved media outlets).

[fishinajar]

Some form of ticketing is required to be able to track usage and plan for more efficient infrastructure usage-timetables, routes, frequency capacity etc.

Not necessarily. Nowadays you can record the weight and calculate it from that, or use security camera footage.

This would be incredibly complex with out some sort of ticketing system. You need to understand the system not only allows calculation of number of passengers on a service, but also where they came from, where they are going to, change-overs etc.

[Aidan]

Some form of ticketing is required to be able to track usage and plan for more efficient infrastructure usage-timetables, routes, frequency capacity etc.

Not necessarily. Nowadays you can record the weight and calculate it from that, or use security camera footage.

This would be incredibly complex with out some sort of ticketing system. You need to understand the system not only allows calculation of number of passengers on a service, but also where they came from, where they are going to, change-overs etc.

Our current ticketing system only shows where people get on, not where they get off. If you want detailed information about the origin and destination, you're better off using passenger surveys.

[Norman]

BTW, monthly/yearly tickets suffer some of the problems that have been raised for free-transit: having bought a year ticket, my travel for that year is now free and it's in my interests to take as many trips as possible using it.

That's not a problem, it's an advantage.

Aidan, the problems that I was referring to were the "unlimited spurious trips" problems mentioned by Norman ("it would increase pointless trips for 1 or 2 stops"), AtD (as "the tragedy of the commons"), and most recently by yourself ("The policy was ended as schoolkids were piling onto buses to travel only a stop or two, filling them up and slowing them down."). It's the same situation as with cars and roads: having bought a comparatively expensive car, all my trips are cheap, so it's in my interest to extract as much value as I can by driving as much as possible; likewise an expensive bus ticket that makes all my trips free.

But first one would need to have that monthly or yearly ticket. The amount of short trips generated under a monthly or yearly will be fewer than if public transport were free.