In what is a positive move announced a few months ago, people heading to Moore Park can use their MyZone tickets. Unfortunately, the overpriced tickets for the shuttles are still to be sold.
Ideally they would just make these shuttles free, which is what would happen in Qld or WA. In the Qld case they would send the bill for the services to the promoter. Making the shuttles free for everyone would be an equitable outcome and nearly everyone is paying a fare to reach Central anyway. It is dubious why people who happen to hold a MyMulti ticket should receive free travel on these services - it is very unlikely these services would cause a tipping point to make it worthwhile to purchase a MyMulti. Fare integration would make such trips of negligible cost anyway.
Making them free would save hassle with selling the tickets as well as hassle for the intending commuters.
In short, while it is a positive move that an anomaly is being reduced, this change isn't going far enough.
Showing posts with label integrated. Show all posts
Showing posts with label integrated. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Friday, December 7, 2012
Cabinet decision on Light Rail to UNSW due soon
According to a recent Telegraph article a cabinet decision is due this coming week. In my opinion, this idea is purely ideologically based. Currently, the bus services in the region have flows in both directions in both peaks. This system will take out the counter peak flows on the 891 and 895 bus services while leaving the peak direction flows largely on buses. This may be different with fare integration as you could carve out the via Central bits of bus routes 339, 374, 376, 391 and remove the 372, 393 and 395 services. However, most of the advantages could be had with just fare integration. Why is it being seriously considered? Mostly because the 891 doesn't really achieve. I proposed a number of solutions to that here. Indeed, it's not necessarily clear that the trams will solve the problem.
According to this SMH article, this is yet to be approved by cabinet. From the article:
"A spokesman for Action for Public Transport, Jim Donovan, said he had been told by a senior public transport bureaucrat that a proposal to integrate fares in Sydney had been put to the cabinet but not yet signed"
This is absurd and unacceptable, and should be a major focus for fixing transport in Sydney but it isn't.
According to this SMH article, this is yet to be approved by cabinet. From the article:
"A spokesman for Action for Public Transport, Jim Donovan, said he had been told by a senior public transport bureaucrat that a proposal to integrate fares in Sydney had been put to the cabinet but not yet signed"
This is absurd and unacceptable, and should be a major focus for fixing transport in Sydney but it isn't.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Draft Transport Masterplan fails
Sandy Thomas was being far too kind when called this plan a lightweight piece of fluff. So much is missing from this plan it isn't funny.
While the plan has numerous mentions of interchanges, integrated fares is never mentioned, and a fare structure review is mentioned only once. The low level of importance attached to this issue is likely to soon see Sydney with a fare structure found in few places outside the third world. The rest of Australia already has integrated fares and Auckland and Wellington are likely to get it soon.
A number of interchanges in Sydney have failed. Edgecliff, Newtown and Pennant Hills are three which spring to mind. At Pennant Hills, the M2 bus services are actually cheaper to use than the train, which is underutilised. This is a perverse outcome as the bus services are more expensive to provide than feeder buses and it no doubt contributes to the negative growth which has occurred in peak rail patronage at this station. Newtown isn't strictly an interchange but it is far faster on a train than a bus particularly in peak yet few people get off the bus to use a train there. The lack of integrated fares are part of the problem.
While the plan has quite a number of mentions of increased frequency, it is not mentioned what services particularly are to have their frequency increased, nor the operating hours of such frequency, nor what the appropriate frequency would be.
Chapter 4 shows that the proposed southern destinations of the single deck trains are actually expected to be the least congested in 2031, which is presumably before the second harbour crossing would be built. It also shows that the Northern Line is likely to continue to be under served. No capacity increase is planned for Strathfield-Town Hall, unfortunately.
Chapter 4 also shows that the East Hills line to Macarthur is expected to be under served. Didn't anyone tell them that the Erskenville-Sydenham sextuplication would allow trains from Macarthur to access Sydney Terminal? Not without significant spend if the absurd Hurstville metro proceeds, but that is very unlikely anyway.
The Northern Beaches Bus Rapid Transit proposal is reprised unchanged, even though the study (strangely) found no options with benefits greater than costs.
The Light Rail proposal is just inconvenient for most people as it requires detouring via Central. Perhaps the idea is that the via Taylor Square buses would remain but this is not explained.
While the plan suggests that rail has a low mode share to the Airport, no suggestions for action are made. Surely the problem is that the fares are far too high and buying out the private partner is something which could be looked at.
Even if the plan's unfunded proposals are implemented, it still forecasts increased congestion, in some cases by a quite significant margin, particularly Rouse Hill-Macquarie Park.
While the plan has numerous mentions of interchanges, integrated fares is never mentioned, and a fare structure review is mentioned only once. The low level of importance attached to this issue is likely to soon see Sydney with a fare structure found in few places outside the third world. The rest of Australia already has integrated fares and Auckland and Wellington are likely to get it soon.
A number of interchanges in Sydney have failed. Edgecliff, Newtown and Pennant Hills are three which spring to mind. At Pennant Hills, the M2 bus services are actually cheaper to use than the train, which is underutilised. This is a perverse outcome as the bus services are more expensive to provide than feeder buses and it no doubt contributes to the negative growth which has occurred in peak rail patronage at this station. Newtown isn't strictly an interchange but it is far faster on a train than a bus particularly in peak yet few people get off the bus to use a train there. The lack of integrated fares are part of the problem.
While the plan has quite a number of mentions of increased frequency, it is not mentioned what services particularly are to have their frequency increased, nor the operating hours of such frequency, nor what the appropriate frequency would be.
Chapter 4 shows that the proposed southern destinations of the single deck trains are actually expected to be the least congested in 2031, which is presumably before the second harbour crossing would be built. It also shows that the Northern Line is likely to continue to be under served. No capacity increase is planned for Strathfield-Town Hall, unfortunately.
Chapter 4 also shows that the East Hills line to Macarthur is expected to be under served. Didn't anyone tell them that the Erskenville-Sydenham sextuplication would allow trains from Macarthur to access Sydney Terminal? Not without significant spend if the absurd Hurstville metro proceeds, but that is very unlikely anyway.
The Northern Beaches Bus Rapid Transit proposal is reprised unchanged, even though the study (strangely) found no options with benefits greater than costs.
The Light Rail proposal is just inconvenient for most people as it requires detouring via Central. Perhaps the idea is that the via Taylor Square buses would remain but this is not explained.
While the plan suggests that rail has a low mode share to the Airport, no suggestions for action are made. Surely the problem is that the fares are far too high and buying out the private partner is something which could be looked at.
Even if the plan's unfunded proposals are implemented, it still forecasts increased congestion, in some cases by a quite significant margin, particularly Rouse Hill-Macquarie Park.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Opal: Integrating ticketing versus Integrated fares
Opal has been promised as the solution to Sydney's fare mediocrity. It is not at all clear that this is correct. What is entirely possible is that MyZone fare structure will be sold through Opal. MyZone is not an integrated fare structure, it is a differential fare structure. Integrated fares would require a mode blind single flag fall system. IPART (Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal) have been quite vocal against an integrated fare system. Politicians don't like changing it much either as it leads to either some people suddenly having to pay more, or significantly less fare revenue.
What Opal will surely be is an integrated ticket, which means a single ticket which can be used on any transport mode i.e. Cityrail/STA bus/private bus/ferry. This should free users from the need to purchase separate tickets for each mode constantly. It is not clear whether it will free users from loading certain passes on to the card to obtain the appropriate fare, as applies with Melbourne's myki.
An integrated fare system is the first step in a transformation in Sydney's public transport. If you are coming from Bondi Beach to the city, you should not need to pay extra to get off the bus at Bondi Junction and get on a train. Ceasing to discourage these types of transfers would be very beneficial for the efficiency of the system overall. The train costs the same regardless of how many people use it and has no capacity issues, however if more people use the bus then more buses must be run. Within STA there are a number of routes and deviations on routes which only exist to remove the need to transfer.
It is possible that, like Brisbane, an integrated fare system would be implemented and the needed restructures to bus routes not occur. There would still be some benefits in this case. At least people can escape the George St traffic jam by getting off their morning bus at Newtown and using a train, for example. These created spaces on the bus can also then be reused on the way to the CBD.
Every other major Australian city has already implemented an integrated fare system, including Canberra. Adelaide did it in the 1960s. Auckland is planning to implement it this/next year, and Wellington will likely follow. Christchurch already has a one free transfer system.
I fear that Sydney is going to be left as the only city in the region without an integrated fare system.
What Opal will surely be is an integrated ticket, which means a single ticket which can be used on any transport mode i.e. Cityrail/STA bus/private bus/ferry. This should free users from the need to purchase separate tickets for each mode constantly. It is not clear whether it will free users from loading certain passes on to the card to obtain the appropriate fare, as applies with Melbourne's myki.
An integrated fare system is the first step in a transformation in Sydney's public transport. If you are coming from Bondi Beach to the city, you should not need to pay extra to get off the bus at Bondi Junction and get on a train. Ceasing to discourage these types of transfers would be very beneficial for the efficiency of the system overall. The train costs the same regardless of how many people use it and has no capacity issues, however if more people use the bus then more buses must be run. Within STA there are a number of routes and deviations on routes which only exist to remove the need to transfer.
It is possible that, like Brisbane, an integrated fare system would be implemented and the needed restructures to bus routes not occur. There would still be some benefits in this case. At least people can escape the George St traffic jam by getting off their morning bus at Newtown and using a train, for example. These created spaces on the bus can also then be reused on the way to the CBD.
Every other major Australian city has already implemented an integrated fare system, including Canberra. Adelaide did it in the 1960s. Auckland is planning to implement it this/next year, and Wellington will likely follow. Christchurch already has a one free transfer system.
I fear that Sydney is going to be left as the only city in the region without an integrated fare system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)