The user time element in public transport service planning (Pt 2)

Can it be done?

Still think that substantial travel time reductions are impossible without building high-speed railways under each suburb?

The following examples show how significant travel time savings could be possible, largely with existing infrastructure.

Example 1: Inter-suburban bus trip

Consider a short bus trip where the bus runs every 40 minutes. This service level is typical for middle and outer suburban routes and even some major inner suburban routes (eg 246 on Sunday evenings).

The trip takes ten minutes, with five minutes allowed to reach and leave the stop at either end. That adds up to a best case 20 minutes travel time, if you arrive at the stop just as the bus arrives. The worst case, if a bus has just been missed, is 60 minutes. While the average, assuming random arrival is 40 minutes.

This comparison shows high variability, or +/- 20 minutes from the average. The 3:1 difference between maximum and minimum trip times is entirely due to the attempt to make a short trip by randomly arriving to catch a low frequency service.

Increasing frequency to 20 minutes reduces the average time to 30 minutes, or a 33% reduction. Variability is reduced to +/- 10 minutes, or 20 to 40 minutes. For a ten minute frequency the average drops to 25 minutes, or an average 37% time saving. Variability drops to +/- 5, or a ratio of maximum to minimum of 1.4:1.

The above example shows that frequency has a dramatic effect on random arrival end-to-end travel times. Higher frequency also cuts variability, or effectively increasing travel reliability. The minority willing to plan around timetables can enjoy the benefits today, without any frequency increase. That’s unless they depend on connections, which are discussed next.

Example 2: Bus + train trip

Consider a suburb about 20km from the CBD. Its local buses run every 30 minutes and the trains every 20 minutes. The passenger is 5 minutes walk away from the bus stop. The bus trip (via a meandering route) takes 15 minutes to a stop near the station. When passengers alight the bus they need to cross a busy road to the station, which has only one entrance at the far end of the platform (assume 5 min). After that the train takes 40 minutes to the city.

The best case travel time is 5 min (walk) + 0 min (wait for bus) + 15 min (bus travel) + 3 min (station access) + 0 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). Or a total of 65 minutes for the 20km trip.

The worst case travel time is 5 min (walk) + 30 min (wait for bus) + 15 min (bus travel) + 5 min (station access – assuming 2 min traffic light cycle at crossing) + 20 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). That’s a total of 115 minutes for the 20km trip.

There’s three things to note. Firstly the worst case represents an overall speed of just over 10km/h or about double walking speed. Secondly the variability is high – the worst case taking twice as long as the best case. And, in the worst case example, the passenger is in motion for barely half the time.

Now consider the same trip above, with the following modest service improvements:

· Bus frequency upgraded from 30 to 20 minutes, to provide a harmonised connection to each train, with a consistent 6 minute connection · Bus route made more direct, to reduce travel time from 15 to 10 minutes and fund the higher frequency, but with 5 minutes added walking time · Additional station platform entrance and zebra crossing installed (to reduce station access time from 5 to 2 minutes)

The best case travel time following these improvements is as follows: 10 min (walk) + 0 min (wait for bus) + (10 min bus travel) + 2 min (station access) + 4 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). Or a total of 66 minutes for the 20km trip. The worst case following these improvements is as follows: 10 min (walk) + 20 min (wait for bus) + 10 min (bus travel) + 2 min (station access) + 4 min (wait for train) + 40 min (train travel). Or a total of 86 minutes for the 20km trip.

The difference is dramatic. The average travel time has fallen from 90 to 76 minutes, while the ‘worst case’ is nearly 30 minutes quicker. Variability also fell; from +/- 25 minutes of the mean to +/- 10 minutes. Better connectivity and higher bus frequency contributed most to the gain. However more direct bus routing and better pedestrian access also added smaller but no less cost-effective benefits.

Example 3: Bus + Bus trip

Finally we’ll examine a cross-suburban trip involving a change between two bus routes. This is typical for journey types in which public transport has a low modal share.

I’ll use similar assumptions to the first example. Eg 5 minute walk to and from the bus and 10 minute travel time in each bus. The first route runs every 60 minutes while the one being changed to is every 40 minutes.

The first leg involves 5 min (walk time) + 30 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time), or a total of 45 minutes. The best case is 15 minutes, while worst case is 75 minutes. Or a variability of +/- 30 minutes.

The wait to the second bus will be anywhere between 0 and 40 minutes. Because the frequencies are unharmonised the best connections will recur every two hours. We’ll assume an average of half its frequency, or 20 minutes.

The second leg involves 20 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time) + 5 min walk time, or a total of 35 minutes average. But it could range from 15 to 55 minutes, or a variability of +/- 20 min from the average.

The very shortest time that the overall trip can be made is 30 minutes, with the longest 130 minutes. The average time is 80 minutes. Because time savings and delays average out, the traveller is unlikely to experience the extreme shortest and longest trip times. But if they do, that’s a ratio of over 4:1, or a variation of +/- 50 minutes.

While people may tolerate a higher variability for a short trip (Eg a 10 minute trip taking 20 minutes), it is probably true that tolerance declines for longer trips (especially if routine). Hence the letters in the paper complaining about suburban trips that take an hour by public transport but only 20 minutes driving.

There’s a couple of things that can be done to reduce variability.

Firstly the passenger could forego flexibility and use a timetable. Instead of waiting an average of 30 minutes for the first bus, they wait an average 5 minutes. This reduced variability of +/- 20 minutes is solely due to the connection between the first and second bus, which is beyond the passenger’s control. Average travel time is also reduced – by 25 minutes, which is the difference between the planned wait and the random arrival wait (ie half the frequency of the first service).

There’s also the contribution of service planning, which unlike the first response, assumes no accommodation on the part of the passenger.

Suppose the frequency of the first service was upgraded from 60 to 40 minutes. The first benefit of this is to reduce the average wait, from 30 to 20 minutes. Variability contributed by the wait for the first service is thus reduced.

The second benefit is that it matches the frequency of the second service. Such matching does not guarantee good connections but does dramatically slash variability. Let’s look at the numbers.

The first leg involves 5 min (walk time) + 20 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time), or a total of 35 minutes. The best case is 15 minutes, while worst case is 55 minutes. Or a variability of +/- 20 minutes.

The wait to the second bus will be anywhere between 0 and 40 minutes. Because the frequencies are now harmonised the connections will recur every 40 minutes. We’ll assume there’s been no special planning and the wait for the second service is half its frequency, or 20 minutes.

The second leg therefore involves 20 min (average wait) + 10 min (travel time) + 5 min walk time, or a total of 35 minutes. Because the first leg has been harmonised to it the wait for it is now constant, variability has been reduced to zero.

Add the two legs and we have an average of 70 minutes. That’s 10 minutes down on the first case of 80 minutes. But the real gain has been in reduced variability. At best it’s 50 minutes and at worst it takes 90 minutes. This is a variability of +/- 20 minutes – well down on the earlier +/- 50 minutes. Also the ratio of maximum to minimum journey time has fallen from over 4:1 to under 2:1. Although average travel times are still slower than many would like, the improvement made from adjusting one route from a non-harmonised 60 minutes to a harmonised 40 minutes cannot be underestimated.

Again, with the earlier example one can do better. If one sacrifices flexibility and uses a timetable to catch the first service, the average travel time falls by 15 minutes (70 to 55 minutes) and variability virtually eliminated. Secondly, if planners consider that the connection between the two services is sufficiently important to be worth adjusting timetables, the connection time could be reduced from the 20 minutes average assumed here to 10 minutes. This contributes another 10 minutes, meaning a total average trip time of 60 minutes for those who don’t use a timetable and a reliable 45 minutes for those who do.

Summary and Conclusion

I have demonstrated the effect of frequency on cutting journey time. It is at first dramatic, with a point of diminishing returns being reached as frequency rises to around ten minutes. Beyond that point, unless it needed for capacity or for very short trips, its impact drops.

Also discussed has been travel time variability. Public debate on this normally concerns train reliability, and this is especially important for those connecting to less frequent buses. However the examples demonstrate indicate it can be very high for bus trips, especially those involving random arrival and connections between non-harmonised services. Harmonised bus frequencies can greatly reduce variability and make public transport more useful for trips where it’s currently weakest.

The planning approach presented here focuses most on service frequency and its harmonisation. There is less attention to infrastructure and capacity.

The former is cheap and quick, while the latter is expensive and long-term.

Both have their place in a growing city. But introducing the latter without the former means that use of the latter is poorly utilised and public transport’s potential to fully contribute to the overall transport effort is unrealised.

The user time element in public transport service planning (Pt 1)

There’s been heavy discussion about the financial user cost of public transport, following the announcement of an 8.6 per cent fare rise from next month. This post is about another user cost; the longer time it sometimes takes relative to driving.

Amongst those with a choice, public transport attracts its highest share where it is time competitive with driving, notably work trips to the city. Where it’s uncompetitive passengers tend to be those with more time than money, typically due to low incomes and/or an inability to pay. This is the familiar skewed pattern of old and young in the off-peaks and city commuters during the peaks.

This is a long post, so is split into two parts. Part 1 discusses user financial costs, funding sources, trip time and trip time variability. Part 2 uses examples to illustrate the large gains possible from service and other improvements.

Two dimensions: time and money

One insight that comes from counting time as a cost is that it invites comparison with that other type of cost most commonly associated with public transport – fares. Fares are known and fixed whereas time value is less tangible but no less important.

Although lacking hard numbers, we can guess time value’s magnitude or draw inferences from surveys and modal share statistics. We know it varies with trip length, location and timing. Acceptance of slow trips and high costs varies but depends on the value placed on time and money respectively. Some rough plots of user time versus financial costs for various transport modes in Melbourne are on the graph below.

The ‘best’ is cheap and fast (bottom left) while the worst is dear and slow (top right). The other corners are occupied by fast expensive (top left) and slow cheap (bottom right). Overall user costs for each comprises dollar plus time costs, with this increasing from bottom left to top right.

Consensus that a particular mode represents good value is highest for those near the bottom left. Whereas top right is poor value and only worthwhile for those willing to bear the high overall cost. If they are not, they’ll change homes, jobs or schools to avoid it. The action is crucial; mere grumbling implies acceptance since bad transport may still be better than other choices available.

I take the view that most people are transport pragmatists, ie whichever available mode suits their time / cost value profile for a particular trip will be used. Most of the time the mode chosen (driving) is faster but dearer than public transport. This invites the question as to whether the overall user value of public transport would increase if it were faster, even if somewhat dearer.

Public transport’s place

Public transport’s detractors treat slowness as inherent but this is not necessarily so. Where transit is slow, this is due to decisions made on station spacing, route and timetable planning, street design, signal priority and allocation of road space between modes.

Skybus (also on the graph) is an example of fast public transport. Its fares are high relative to government-subsidised routes. But because it’s both fast and frequent its time costs are low. Add the two and you see that Skybus occupies a distinctive (and successful) position in the market, set apart from regular buses (with low fares but high time costs).

Is regular public transport’s position on the graph optimum?

The answer depends on what you want it to achieve.

What would happen if you changed either its user financial or time costs?

Making an already low-priced but infrequent bus service cheaper would not greatly reduce the overall user cost to the ‘average person’. This is because unless they value their time lowly, the time cost component probably outweighs the fare cost and slashing the latter won’t cut the total much.

However this conclusion ignores certain market segments. Fare cuts are more significant for those who value money more than time, ie the ‘captive passsenger’ end of the market. This segment tolerates the limited service and values the saving more than average so will probably use the service more, possibly even increasing revenue.

It’s a bit like arguments in favour of Reaganomics tax cuts; individuals pay less but incentive stimulates economic activity which increases overall tax take. Fare / patronage elasticity will likely be highest off-peak and weekends as there’s more discretionary trips made by a different passenger profile.

The above limited bus service isn’t attractive to car owners unless driving conditions are very poor. People on all but the lowest incomes may find the waiting not worth the saving. Passengers that a lowered fare attracts may have previously walked rather than driven. Cheaper buses might make individual travel more energy intensive, although public transport fuel efficiency (as measured by fuel use per passenger) improves with patronage (ie more passengers per litre).

Speeding up buses (achieved through directness, frequency and connectivity) but charging a higher fare should have a different effect. The better service may attract some who previously drove or got lifts. Existing passengers may use the improved, more capable service more. But a fare increase could mean that even though the service is better, price-sensitive passengers abandon it for their lower value discretionary trips.

Funding better transport

There’s at least three things that can be done.

* The first is to maximise effective service levels from current budgets. For example delete routes that duplicate others and use saved resources where more worthwhile. This requires a strong service planning culture, and for co-ordinating agencies to take a network view; both factors in which Melbourne has been weak. Like tidying an over-grown garden before selling your house, good service planning has high payoffs, due to this legacy. And participatory public engagement, including illustrating the service gains possible, should help build acceptance.

* Secondly there’s the possibility of differential off-peak pricing. This gives the price-sensitive a discount while preserving revenue from the less price sensitive. This segments the market and probably optimises patronage, though at expense to legibility. A difficulty here is if peak fares must rise disproportionately to retain overall revenue, and here we merge into the next point.

* The third are other measures to generate revenue. Possibilities include development of rail air space, parking taxes, hypothecated property levies or above-CPI fare increases.

All are politically difficult, especially if the fare increase has not followed tangible reliability and service improvements. Rises skewed toward peak period commuters (without whom capacity building infrastructure would not be needed) may be economically most rational, but send the wrong signals with regards modal choice if not accompanied by similar increases for driving (whether through fuel, parking or road space pricing).

This combined approach may be better transport policy but probably harder than fare hikes alone due to the larger numbers affected. While not impossible, it may require a trust in government that is lacking, particularly in states that propose then cancel major transport projects, such as New South Wales with its various metro plans.

Whereas people are willing to individually pay more for quicker travel (as witnessed by the popularity of driving versus public transport), sourcing such funds for collectively funded network improvements raises hackles. How do we break this deadlock?

Seeing improvements differently

It may be worth reviewing how we regard transport improvements.

Large transport plans may be centred on infrastructure. Its purpose is typically to relieve ‘bottlenecks’ caused by extrapolating present commuting patterns forward. Time costs may be used to justify it; studies may cite rising congestion costs and ‘lost productivity’. Infrastructure’s tangible nature invites us to draw lines on maps and build models to imagine a faster future.

Another way of thinking is to set a public transport journey time reduction target and use the best combination of infrastructure and services to achieve it. The bigger the target the higher the cost, but the more likely that public transport would win the modal share shifts envisaged in Melbourne 2030 (an increase from 9 to 20% or a patronage trebling).

A 20 to 50% cut in average public transport travel times may seem far-fetched. But considering how it could happen would sharpen our thinking about which improvements are really worthwhile. Plus it familiarises planners with the real source of delays, which passengers know but they may not.

Overall travel time and its variability

Rules for such analysis need to match where and when people live and travel. For example they must acknowledge that people live where they do and not at railway stations. They want to leave when they want, without checking a timetable. And the selection of trips used must represent travel made by all motorised modes, and not skewed towards public transport’s current profile. These rules are observed by (i) counting waiting and transfer times, (ii) assuming random arrival at the stop or station, and (iii) including a representative spread of trips (including cross-suburban, night and weekend travel, which together form a majority of all trips).

Adding the first two produces a more useful average travel time (random arrival end to end travel time) than ‘headline’ minimum in-vehicle travel times. The latter is often a dubious selling point for ‘fast rail’ projects. It’s a bit like quoting air fares without all the extras and surcharges; meaningless at best and misleading at worst.

Travel time variability also needs to be known. Which transit system is better? One where a particular trip takes anywhere between 10 and 40 minutes. Or one that at best is slower (eg 15 minutes) but at worst is faster (25 minutes). It’s no contest really; the latter’s lower variability means better reliability, especially for time-critical trips.

Average random arrival end-to-end travel time and travel time variability (for a representative sample of trips in the area) are the to key numbers planners need to pick the best from a number of route and timetable options.

Train planners may have to juggle with express running versus frequency. Service delivery is also critical; when passengers start having to catch an earlier train due to the risk of the one they want being cancelled, effective travel speeds can easily halve, especially when a connection from a bus is involved.

Tram planners have little scope for express running and frequency is generally already high. Their main problems are externally caused, especially when in mixed traffic. Although there are trade-offs between whether all services are run to the terminus or some terminate early to provide greater frequency and capacity in the busier inner core.

Bus planners have more flexibility. They must balance walking time, coverage, number of routes, use of transfers, directness and frequency. However, like trams, priority on the roads can speed travel and reduce variability. This is especially where bus priority operates at all times and not just when the bus is running late.

Part 2 will follow with examples

How much does it cost to get around in the city: bikes, public transport and taxis compared

Melbourne's public bike share scheme starts tomorrow.

Each mode has its own advantages and peculiarities. For instance public transport isn't always door to door, waiting times for taxis varies, and the bike hire scheme requires a $300 security deposit (daily and weekly members only) and BYO helmet.

The charging structures for each mode varies, and this will be the topic here.

Taxi: Fares are based on a $3.20 flagfall plus $1.617 per km or 56.6c / minute time charge (the time charge applies if the speed is under 21 km/h). A 20% surcharge applies late at night or on public holidays. Taxi fares are several times dearer than public transport fares or bike hire charges, to reflect the personal door to door service provided.

Public transport: Fares depend on ticket type, validity period and passenger. Discounts apply for bulk-purchase, periodical and weekend tickets. A single-trip City Saver costs $2.80. 2 hours unlimited travel in Zone 1 (which includes the CBD and inner suburbs) costs $3.70, while a day costs $6.80. Concession fares are a bit over half these amounts. Bulk purchase and periodical tickets can offer savings of 25% or more.

Bike Share: Charges are based on a $2.50 daily flagfall (or membership charge) plus a rising charge per 30 minute block. The first half-hour is included in the flagfall. The next half-hour costs $2.00. Above then per half-hour charges rise; to $5 for 61 - 90 minutes and then $10 for each subsequent half hour.

Comparisons: Imagine a graph with time along the x-axis and cost along the y-axis.

The taxi curve is very steep, shooting up to nearly $10.00 by around 10 minutes of travel.

Public transport and bike share are both cheaper than taxis, but they swap places depending on the amount of travel time required.

Up to 30 minutes bike share is almost always cheaper, at $2.50 (much less for weekly and annual members). However users of City Saver x 10 pay $2.18 per trip - this is the only case where full fares are lower than bike share charges for up to 30 minutes of use. While the City Saver x 10 is a bulk-purchase product, there are no restrictions on when it must be used up by, unlike periodical Metcards or weekly bike share memberships.

The costs of bike share and public transport cross over in the 30 to 60 minute region. 60 minutes of bike share costs $2.50 flag fall + $2.00 usage charge, or a $4.50 total. In contrast a 2 hour full fare Zone 1 ticket costs $3.70. Hence for the casual pay-as-you-go user, public transport is always cheaper for an hour's travel.

It is in the 60 minutes or under usage level that the benefits of long-term bike share memberships are greatest. A weekly member riding up to an hour 5 days per week pays $1.60/day flagfall + $2.00, or a total of $3.60 per day. This is comparable to casual Metcard ticket purchase (for a 2 hour ticket) but dearer than a 10 x 2 hour Metcard. Yearly bike share membership is only 20 times the daily rate, so yearly members who cycle weekly or more would pay just cents for flagfall each time. Yearly members could bike share for an hour a day and pay less than public transport users, even those using periodical tickets. Around the 30 - 60 minute region bike share and public transport costs are roughly the same, with public transport generally cheaper, especially when compared against costs for casual bike share users.

Beyond an hour the cost differences between bike share and public transport diverge markedly. Because public transport tickets are mostly time-based, and the shortest is 2 hours, it is no dearer to take transit for 2 hours than it is for 1 hour. There is also a relatively gentle rise from 2 hour to daily fares, with less than a doubling for an increase in travel time allowed by over five times.

Bike share charges behave in the opposite manner, rise steeply with time of use. Charges (excluding flagfall) increase from $0 (30 minutes), $2 (31 - 60 minutes), $7 (61 - 90 minutes) to $17 (91 - 120 minutes). At this 2 hour level casual bike hire is $19.50, ie approximately 5 times dearer than a 2-hour public transport ticket. This almost exponential rise is presumably to encourage use of the scheme for short trips in the CBD region only.

Conclusion: Of the three modes of travel compared, public transport is the most cost-effective for CBD travel. This is especially for visitors from the suburbs, who in many cases will have arrived on public transport with a daily or higher ticket, so would face a marginal cost of further CBD travel of zero. The bike share scheme occasionally works out cheaper, but only for those frequently making short trips.

Sydney's multimodal ticketing and lessons from Travelcard

Each city has its special difficulties when it comes to some aspect of public transport. For example, Brisbane has infrequent off-peak trains and Perth lacks a genuine daily ticket. Canberra has limited weekend services while Adelaide's diesel rail system is outdated (currently being electrified). Melbourne can design a sensible fare structure but has found each successive new ticketing system since 1990 heavy going.

Sydney's most obvious failing would have to be its unintegrated fares. Especially for a self-proclaimed 'world city' so dependent on tourism and international business. Most Australian state capitals introduced integrated fares 30 or so years ago. Sydney alone has lacked the political and organisational will to follow suit.

Furthermore it has institutionised fragmentation through a curious body called IPART. While its bailiwick covers a wide range of NSW government utilities and services and could well be useful in these areas, in transport it produces lengthy, earnest and probably unread reports that appear to entrench fragmented fares by treating each mode seperately.

What integrated tickets Sydney offers are either too cheap or too expensive and have limited appeal. The cheap options (eg the $2.50 Pensioner Excursion and Family Funday Sunday tickets) only work for a minority of passengers such as pensioners or families travelling together on a Sunday.

Meanwhile the $18.20 Day Tripper excludes private buses yet covers the outer reaches of the CityRail network. In the absence of other integrated fare daily tickets covering all modes within a smaller area, the Day Tripper is too overpriced to be a serious choice for either CBD-based tourists, locals visiting from the middle suburbs or regular commuters.

Hence if you're not a senior (or family travelling together on a Sunday), you'd often have to purchase separate tickets for seperate modes. And even if you stuck to the same mode, the lack of a time component (eg the 2-hour tickets used in Melbourne) incurred a penalty for transferring or otherwise interrupting the trip.

So although Sydney fares were reasonable value for the simple commuter trip involving one operator or mode, travel soon got expensive for the sort of diverse multimodal trips public transport must attract to gain modal share. In recent years Melbourne's transit patronage has boomed while Sydney's has lagged. Although it has existed for many years, Melbourne's multimodal fare system deserves at least some credit for this diverging performance.

A small proportion of the 193 different types of tickets currently used for travel on Sydney's public transport (according to the Tourism Task Force).

Hence it is pleasing that the liabilities of Sydney's ticketing mess has at last been officially recognised. The government's response, announced today, is the proposed Myzone fare system, intended to apply across Greater Sydney.

Myzone's key changes appear to:

* Simplify ticketing for each mode by amalgamating seperate section tickets into a smaller number of 'fare bands' (effectively larger sections)
* Apply the same rules to State Transit and private bus services
* Introduce a series of trimode tickets (applying for suburban train, bus and ferry, but not light rail, monorail, airport rail or Countrylink)

Unlike the established zone and time-based fare systems in Melbourne and Perth, Myzone remains based on section tickets without a time component. The justifications for this, which appear weak for interstate readers, is given here.

The claim that coencentric zonal-time based systems are biased towards CBD travel is not convincing. If anything they cheapen long-distance tangential trips not via the CBD, eg Frankston to Ringwood via Stud Road (in Melbourne) or Campbelltown to Blacktown (in Sydney).

Aiming to equalise fares to remove this anomaly would require a patchwork-style neighbourhood fare system, such as Melbourne tried during the 1980s. The experience here was that as most trips are either local or CBD-based any possible revenue gain was outweighed by the added complication of neighbourhood boundaries. As a result Melbourne had returned to a coencentric zoning by 1989 and will shortly be extending this model statewide.

There is no reasons given for time-based tickets (of less than a day) not being suitable. As mentioned previously, the time-based approach is superior for those who want a public transport system to be more than a single mode conveyances for city workers, school children and pensioners because of the added network versatility of free transfers.

Will the 'Mymulti' tickets win public acceptance compared to the 'Mytrain', 'Mybus' and 'Myferry' single mode tickets? The answer will depend on ticket range, pricing and availability.

Mymulti's ticket range is explained here. The emphasis is clearly on CBD commuters, as evidenced by the availability of weekly, quarterly and yearly tickets and the city-based distance rules applied. These distances apply in bands of (i) up to 10km, (ii) up to 35 km, and (iii) unrestricted. It's worth noting that these bands apply to Cityrail travel only and outer-suburban bus and ferry travellers can use any of the above tickets. Regular commuters who can afford periodical tickets are likely to gain substantially through this change.

What about the tourist or suburban resident visiting the city or even their local shopping centre? Unless they are a gunzel travelling trains, ferries and buses all day, Mymulti's $20.00 go-anywhere daily offers good versatility but poor overall value. In many cases paying single fares will remain cheaper so 'Mymulti' will be of limited use (unless they're staying near the city for three days and think far enough ahead to buy a $41 weekly).

Many tourists will not need the $20 daily's coverage. Instead the most pressing need is for a cheaper ticket allowing worry-free multimode travel within say 10km of the CBD. A widely available $8-10 multimode daily ticket would sew up most of the tourist and inner-suburban resident market.

Even if individual mode tickets remained cheaper, the sheer versatility of a well-priced daily would surely make it a winner. The equivalent (and highly successful) Melbourne Zone 1 Daily ticket costs $6.80. However the Sydney market could bear slighly more, especially given the inclusion of ferries, which tourists value. This ticket might just be the daily version of the 'MyMulti 1'.

Similar comments apply for the local visiting the city from a middle suburb. $20.00 for a daily fare is too high and does not encourage the use of multimode tickets. Instead a multimode daily ticket costing around $12 to 15 would do much better and not be dissimilar to Melbourne's Zone 1+2 daily ($10.60). This could be the daily version of the 'Mymulti 2'.

There is no doubt that today's changes are a positive step for fare integration in Sydney. But even allowing that the current multimode offerings may be transitional, having just one very expensive MyMulti daily ticket that covers too great an area is mistaken given that a good value set of daily tickets should form the foundation of a sound integrated fare system. Given that MyMulti weekly and quarterly tickets do come in a range of prices that would more closely reflect travel needs the failure to extend this principle to daily users appears an oversight that does not encourage the use of multimode tickets, and in the longer term, the phase out of single mode tickets.

Sydney would do well to look at the success, nearly 30 years ago, of Melbourne's Travelcard. This started in 1981 as a simple daily ticket available in all zone combinations (6 required for a 3 zone system). And just like Sydney in 2010 it was offered alongside single-mode tickets for trains, trams and buses.

Melbourne's Travelcard experience showed that if you're going to do multimode ticketing, some good value and widely available daily tickets are the best products to start with. Longer term tickets can come later and will be demanded if the daily product is good enough.

Why should a multimode daily come first? Firstly it's operationally simple. It can be introduced alongside single mode tickets, whether these be single-use or 2-hour, section or zonal. Secondly passengers understand it. Thirdly it's a popular ticket type. Dailies require low commitment from the passenger (most people know they'll need it for the trip home) and if priced well can provide good value.

What about its pricing? Multimode tickets should be priced attractive relative to single-mode tickets. They can be more, but not that much more. This is so that single mode tickets can be absorbed into the multimode equivalent after one or two annual fare rises. To properly balance revenue and value for the customer, it is probably optimum to provide a selection of daily tickets appropriate for the zones of travel. Melbourne has done this but Perth and Sydney have not. However the number of ticket combinations rises exponentially, so the number of zones needs to be kept down (even 4 or 5 may be difficult).

Multimode ticket availability also has to be good and at least that of single mode tickets. Daily (and shorter term) tickets need to be available from bus drivers, but MyZone tickets appear not to be available through this means.

Once multimode dailies are widely used, weeklies and monthlies would be the next priority (replacing single mode periodicals). This would encourage more regular commuters to use multimode ticketing. A 5xDaily product (on the single card) could provide a crude bulk purchase but flexible use option.

Further progress would require integration at the sub-daily level (whether section, single-trip or 2-hour zonal tickets). Fares for cash single-mode tickets would be adjusted over 2-3 years until they became no cheaper than multimodes, so then a phase-out would raise no controversy.

The other benefit would that the range of tickets would be less but those that remain would become more versatile and permit more flexible travel (including free transfers). Once sections vs zones are sorted out it would then be possible to consider time-based tickets and a genuine 10x2 hour-type product (preferably with automatic daily conversion).

With such a unified fare system, a Smart Card ticketing may be practical, although by then the main reforms for the customer will have already been achieved, in making multimode travel easier and ticketing easier to understand. Sydney wasted a lot of money on a Smart Card system (the abandoned 'T-Card' project) without getting the fare system right first.

The changes announced today for Sydney are a welcome though still inadequate step towards the sort of fare integration that passengers in other Australian cities have enjoyed for many years.

Melbourne's new bus zones and network connectivity

Integrated fares that provide free transfers between all modes is a requirement for transit to operate as a genuine nework. Introduced in Melbourne when patronage hit record lows and lines were under threat of closure, integrated fares contributed greatly towards transit's turnaround.

Subsequent advances gave metropolitan travel to holders of V/Line tickets and, announced this week, tidied up Melbourne's bus zone boundaries.

How do these latest bus changes improve network connectivity (from a fares standpoint)?

Probably the best demonstration is to map all the bus routes that cross a zone boundary onto a large sheet of paper. Use colours according to current zone. Then add the train lines, again identifying stations by zone.

You will find cases of different zones applying to different bus routes, even if they serve the same stops. This is hard to explain and discourages passengers from using multi-route frequent service corridors if the fare varies depending on the route number.

At other times railway stations may be in Zones 1 and 2 but the buses outside may be in Zone 2 only. This requires transferring passengers to pay an extra fare if travelling from the city, and so discourages feeder bus use. Instead many drive to the station, placing pressure on scarce parking space and sapping local bus patronage. And even if you usually walk to the station, having a bus in the same zone is a good back-up during train service disruptions.

Compare this map with the proposed zones and note the changes. Some of the stations whose passengers will benefit include:

* North Brighton
* Middle Brighton
* Bentleigh
* Oakleigh
* Reservoir
* Merlynston
* Oak Park
* Glenroy

Some major trip generators to get cheaper fares on more routes in more directions include Monash University (Clayton), Monash Medical Centre (Moorabbin), Northland Shopping Centre (Preston), LaTrobe University (Bundoora) and Sunshine Hospital (St Albans). With public transport already dominant for CBD travel, these are the sorts of major suburban trip generators that patronage will need to grow for transit to further increase its modal share.

Some of the well-served service corridors to benefit include Chadstone - Oakleigh - Monash University (Clayton), Oriel Rd (West Heidelberg), Bulleen Rd - Doncaster, Reservoir - LaTrobe University and Reservoir - Northland.

No fare system is perfect and there may still be real or perceived 'anomalies' that these latest revisions do not change. People just outside a zone boundary often want their location included in another zone or maybe put in an overlap. Having everything in a single zone is sometimes suggested but even this implies a judgement of some sort and large flat-fare networks do not necessarily offer the best compromise between 'value for passengers', 'revenue', 'simplicity' and 'perceived fairness'.

Transfer-friendly fares policy is less to do with whether (say) Box Hill is in Zone 1 or 2 than it is in ensuring that all trains and buses at a given station have the same zones to remove transfer penalties. Expressed differently, transfer penalties impose a marginal cost on the passenger, and their existence harms network connectivity. In contrast the location of zone boundaries affects the absolute levels of fares but need not impose transfer penalties if the network is zoned as one.

If I could only ask one question for each proposed public transport infrastructure, route, timetable, physical access or fares change, it would be 'Does this change strengthen network connectivity?'. In relation to these revised bus zone changes, the answer is an unqualified 'yes'.

Why housing's 'Zone 1' price premium is no longer justified

Estate agents and property investment spruikers will tell you that one of the benefits of buying an inner suburban home is its cheaper fares (for city commuters) than a place beyond about 15km from the city. Anecdotally many buyers and renters seem to value this criteria as well. 'Located in Zone 1' is perhaps not quite as coveted as being in the catchment of a so-called 'good school' but it's not far off, especially for childless couples.

Three years ago I demonstrated out that the higher mortgage payments of a dearer inner suburban home generally outstripped the savings in fares. Unless the Zone 1 suburb 14km from the CBD had amenity benefits that the Zone 2 suburb 16km out didn't have, the fare difference is not worth paying much of a premium for if buying a home.

To put it in dollar terms, the difference in monthly fares for a full fare passenger is about $60 per month or $15 per week. Double that for a two income household (both taking public transport to a city job) and half that for a concession passenger. $15 per week is just under $700 per year, or the same as 7% interest on $10 000 owing. And $10 000 is trivial where average house prices are over $100 000 different between adjoining suburbs on opposite sides of the zone divide.

Has anything changed in 2009? Average house prices are generally higher than in 2006 but interest rates are lower, so the difference in mortgage payments between then and now even out.

While we have a metropolitan fare system that generally works well, don't let anyone tell you it is immune from change. For example, in the last 30 years we have seen section-based fares with fine increments, one type of zone system, its abolition in favour of a neighbourhood system, another type of zone system and lately its significant modification with new flat fare tickets.

The two major fare changes in the last five years or so are:

The first is a gradual flattening of the fare system. Longer trips are now a lower fare multiple of the shortest trips. Each recent trend has been in this direction. Examples include the abolition of both the cheapest fares (Rail+2, Short-Trip, National Bus section tickets) and the dearest fares (Zone 3, V/Line fare reductions). In 2006 only Seniors could get flat fare tickets (the Seniors Daily).

Since then new ticket types, starting with the Sunday Saver, school student periodicals and then the Weekend Saver, extended flat fares to new groups of passengers. Free travel at certain times has been extended, with the Early Bird and Sunday Pass being examples. While trips that involve zonal tickets still remain in the majority, zones are becoming irrelevant for an increasing amount of travel.

The second change is what is likely to happen with Myki ticketing. Nominally this involves no change to fares or zones. However people who select the 'Myki Money' option won't need to think about zones if they don't want to; instead they will just top up when their balance gets low. Fare zones become less of a 'barrier', which can happen with otherwise flexible tickets such as the 10 x 2 hour. Finkestein argues that users of roads with electronic toll collection are less mindful of the amount they pay than where toll collection was manual. There is no reason to suggest that passenger behaviour will be different with public transport smartcards.

To summarise, both flatter fares and less awareness of exact payment amounts will make fare zones less important in real life. Unless flat fares completely take over, distance (or its modern proxy of zones) will remain one of the main bases of calculating fares along with travel time, time of travel, and method of ticket purchase or payment.

While there is a great deal of appeal in buying in a Zone 1 suburb, it is desirable to know the real factors that attract people to the area. These are things like general amenity, facilities, walkability and quality of transport which do affect quality of life. While Zone 1 status doesn't hurt, the lower fare won't save much money compared to the likely higher price paid to buy into the area. Contrary to what the property agents and promoters claim, Zone 1 isn't worth paying much of a premium for if the area otherwise satisfies 'high amenity' or 'value for money' tests.

City lobbyists go for cheap

Each age seems to bring a catch-all adjective that vested-interest spruikers use to advocate bad policy ranging from the merely ineffective to the to the positively harmful.

The last century has seen the rise and fall of such buzz-terms as 'scientific', 'electric', 'space-age', and 'computerised' to describe products. After faith in modernity wilted, 'natural', 'community' or (in Melbourne) 'liveable' became big. More recently almost everyone wants to dub their pet policy as 'environmental' or 'green'. And with the wish to give silly schemes false respectability and confine debate to 'experts', 'economically modelled' has also risen as a selling-point. Single-issue advocates try to retain their message, only changing their justifications with the times.

Today's Herald Sun contains an article where the Committee for Melbourne advocates for free city public transport.

And, right to script, the hallowed 'economic modelling' makes it into paragraph one. Environment comes in a little lower, in paragraph 4.

My standard procedure when faced with such articles is to go to the source, where additional information can often be found. For many 'news' stories start as media releases from vested interests; only a minority are uncovered by snooping journalists. To be newsworthy, these releases have to be based around some event, even if manufactured, such as the release of a 'report' (easily arranged) or a voice grab from a sympathetic academic.

Well I couldn't find the cited 'economic modelling' on the Committee for Melbourne website. Nevertheless, it contained several other relevant articles, such as their year-long lobby for free city transport and support for concession fares for overseas students.

On the other side of the ledger is professed concern about what they call creaking public transport and limiting sprawl by concentrating development along public transport corridors.

Notice how they want a buck each way? One one hand they want a stronger role for public transport, but do not agree that city passengers ought to contribute to its operation. More than anywhere else in the state, the CBD cannot operate without public transport, yet the city's supposed advocates appear unwilling to grant it a revenue stream to keep it strong.

Some claims in favour of free transport made in the article are rubbery.

Since statewide fare integration in 2007, the country visitor coming in on V/Line already enjoys free transport, not just in the CBD, but Zone 1 as well. Similarly those from the suburbs will not benefit since their daily, weekly or multi-ride tickets effectively include free CBD transport.

Then there's tourists and the benefits they bring to the city.

$6.80 for a Zone 1 daily ticket is not unreasonable. No tourist whose spent $1000 to fly here is going to curtail their expenditure on stuffed koalas, river cruises or meals because of that fare. Instead that sort of expenditure is quite inelastic, which my brand of economic model says brings Victoria more money, not less. Plus there's the theory of sunk costs, which means that if you've paid for a ticket you'd want to get some use from it. So you grab the tram to Luna Park, pop up to the zoo, visit Scienceworks at Newport and the rest, eating and drinking all the way. Good value for them and better value for us, improving transit's cost-recovery off-peak.

Of course some will benefit from free CBD transport, but they're not particuarly deserving.

For example drivers and parking operators will be winners. By parking on the CBD edge they will have free transport. If this takes longer haul trips from public transport then this harms patronage. Some short walking trips may move to public transport if the latter was free. Neither makes free transport particuarly 'green'.

Overall the Committee for Melbourne seems to be wanting 'cheap transport' more than 'better transport'. Increasingly paid for by others, of course. This is even though 'better transport' is more effective than 'cheap transport' in bringing people to the city, and hence increasing the latter's commerce. Rather than seemingly having a bet each way, this is the horse they should be backing.

Cheap fares in Australian capitals

A good post from Lifehacker compares discount public transport ticketing options between Australian cities.

And for those flying there's also a post on cheap airport to city transfers.

Myki in action

Some pictures from a trip to test Myki in Geelong.

Below is a cardboard short term ticket that bus passengers who buy a ticket from the driver will get. It is available in two hour or daily formats. To sell a ticket drivers accept the passenger's money, place a ticket on the driver's console 'platform', enter the type of ticket required via a touch screen and give the passenger their ticket and change.

Like a Metcard bought on board a tram it is pre-validated and passengers do not need to tag off. If they do, the reader displays a cryptic 'Forced tag-off' message. In the literature it is not described as a myki, even though it's based on the same RF-ID based technology. The intention here is to confine the myki brand to the preferred product (ie a pre-purchased card, preferably registered).

Both paper tickets and Metcards have their zone of travel, expiry date and passenger status (full/concession) stamped on it. This means that except where validators fail to print these tickets can be visually checked for validity. Printing also provides reassurance for the passenger, allows them to check their validity off the system and helps them keep their purse or wallet tidy by knowing which tickets should be discarded. Short-term myki ticket have no distinguishing printing at all. Hence passengers must discard used tickets immediately as valid and invalid tickets are indistinguishable from one another once away from a bus, tram or station.

The majority of passenger observed were using this form of ticket.

Below is the full Myki. Users can store one or both types of credit simultaneously; Myki pass (like the existing monthlies but with more flexibility as to period) and Myki money, which is more suitable for those with less regular travel patterns.

The ticket can be topped up online, by linking to a bank account, over the phone or, in the future, at a railway station. You can also top up when boarding the bus, but this only applies to the Myki money portion of the balance.

Bus boarding can be different with Myki. With regular tickets passengers boarded at the front of the bus, passing the driver. Depending on circumstances they alight at either the front and/or rear door.

Geelong buses on Saturday are well-used, with some routes carrying fully seated loads. Late running can occur due to boarding and alighting times. This can be sped if passengers form two lines, with those who just need to scan on to the right and those who need to see the driver (either buy a short-term ticket or add value) to the left. This does not always occur (some passengers on the left may block the right) but more will get used to this as the system matures. Also some drivers will open the rear door and permit passengers to board through both doors, as shown below.

The key thing Myki users need to remember is the requirement to touch on at the start of your journey and touch off at the end of your trip. It is this requirement that allows Myki to handle multiple zones and automatically calculate the 'best fare'.

Validating by quickly passing the card across the reader will not work. Instead the card needs to be held steady near it for a short time. Success in touching on and off can almost be guaranteed by obeying what I will call the 1x1 rule. The 1x1 rule is that you must hold the card no further than one centimetre away from the reader for one second. Further and shorter may work but might not. Tagging on and off will display the fare deducted and the card balance remaining.

Can you keep your card in your wallet and scan, as commonly done in Perth? It didn't work with me, but I saw another passenger do it. So the answer is maybe but it is not recommended.

As noted before, the non-printing Myki system eliminates visual inspection of tickets; something that had been so important with paper and Metcard tickets. The substitute given is users logging in and checking their transaction details over the internet.

They do this by setting up their card for web access. The set up process requires answering a few questions such as your name and date of birth (provided it's after 1910). Assuming you're not a centenarian, you get a username and password to log in.

Logging in gives access to your Myki's transaction activity, though unlike Perth's SmartRider, not its route and travel history. An example is below. You can see that the card started with $5.00. Just because I could an extra $2.50 was loaded while on the bus.

Tagging on deducted $1.80, which is the minimum two hour fare for a local trip. This is in 'Myki money'. The entry for $1.40 initially seems odd as there is no fare for this amount. However it makes sense when it is realised that this is the difference between a daily fare ($3.20) and a two-hour fare ($1.80). Later trips reach the fare cap, which is the daily fare. Hence they change to 'Myki pass' and no further amounts are deducted.

There are several quirks about the information provided about the user's travels online. The first is that the 'scan on zone' and 'scan off zone' columns were empty. The second is that, unlike Transperth's SmartRider, the route of the service travelled on is not recorded. Thirdly the information recorded changes a day after you check it.

This is shown by comparing the transaction record below (inspected 22 March 2009) with the one above (inspected 21 March, 2009). The difference is that the activity after the fare cap came into effect is deleted from the later record. The reason for this is unknown.

The trips taken were very simple. They all took place on one day in one fare zone. The fare cap worked as intended. However there were no 'odd' trips across zone boundaries. These would be interesting to test, particularly where zones travelled do not follow on (due to getting a car lift across a zone boundary). An example might be Geelong - Queenscliff, (car lift) Queenscliff - Marshall, Marshall - Geelong, 3 hour gap, Geelong - Corio etc. The correct fare would effectively be a Zone 4 daily plus whatever extension amount is necessary for the single trip to Queenscliff (Zone 5).

Further information can be obtained from the Myki shop at 129 Ryrie Street. This can be a slightly hard to spot since signage from the shop's legacy as a payday lender is still visible. This also explains the austere counter and the high security screens, but the staff do come out from behind it to coach customers on proper Myki use. While not ideal this should not be held against Myki; Geelong's main street has so many lenders that it would be hard to find a small shop that hasn't been occupied by one at some stage.

Brochures available included:

* Myki is now part of your local bus network (the main brochure)
* Myki is here (general where to buy)
* Students and Myki (for students)
* With Myki your concession comes too (must still carry you concession card to be eligible - just like Metcard)
* Myki registration form
* Myki refund and reimbursement form
* Application for replacement myki

Mail order Myki

It came in a plain DL-sized envelope without name nor logo. The old-style lickable flap was sparingly taped rather than moistened shut. It wasn't a bill, but a Myki Starter Pack, which came quickly after the order was placed.

The pictures show the contents of the package. For $5 you get:

* A welcome letter (with 'fine-print' terms of use on the back)
* A receipt for the credit card sale
* A strip of paper with terms of use (same as on the letter)
* "A pocket full of myki" - card-sized 16-page manual
* The card itself, loaded with $5.00 of 'myki money'

The card is much like a credit card. The main physical differences are as follows:

* There is no magnetic strip - proximity-based RF ID technology is used instead
* Your name does not appear on the card
* Information giving a web address, contact number and issue conditions
* A card number shown but as painted rather than raised type.

The instruction book covers topics such as topping up, scanning on and off, and registration. Like with a Metcard you'll need to carry a concession card if claiming concession fares. The book ends with frequently asked questions dealing with loss or theft, personal information and contact details.

Sydney versus Melbourne

A trip to Sydney last weekend allowed me to compare public transport and land use between it and Melbourne. Sydney does better than us in some things and worse than us in others. Below are the top fourteen differences found between the two cities' transport.

Seven things Sydney does well

1. Co-locating major shopping centres near railway stations

Major examples visited include Blacktown, Chatswood, Hornsby, Macarthur, Macquarie Centre and Parramatta. These centres are either incorporated in the station complex (Blacktown, Parramatta) or accessible via a short, wide mall (Chatswood, Hornsby).

Melbourne's best example of a station integrated shopping centre is Box Hill. Greensborough, Frankston, Ringwood (Eastland) and Sydenham (Watergardens) are adjacent to but are less integrated with the station. More common though are our larger centres, such as Chadstone, Craigieburn Town Centre (proposed), Cranbourne, Forest Hill Chase, Northland, Southland and Werribee Plaza which are all away from stations.

2. Density of residential and commercial development around some suburban stations

Much higher suburban densities apply in Sydney than Melbourne, with multi-storey buildings seen at stations 20km or more from the CBD. Parramatta is a key example, having evolved as a second CBD, being handier to the western suburbs than Sydney CBD.

The pictures show development around Chatswood and Milsons Point respectively.

It is worth mentioning though that some centres are highly unbalanced and contain high density residential but not shopping or offices of a commensurate standard. An example is Epping, which should have better shops for its housing density. In this case the development of the car-based Macquarie Centre (now linked by rail) might have affected Epping's viability.

3. Wide operating spans

A plus for Sydney, with the difference most apparent on Sunday mornings for trains. This is because Sydney operates a passenger-friendly uniform weekend timetable, with no variations between Saturday and Sunday timetables. The effect of this is that first trains have arrived in the Sydney CBD by 6am versus after 8am for Melbourne.

The other main examples of good spans are (i) All-night NightRide buses that operates all nights of the week, mirroring the suburban train network, (ii) 24 hour service on some busy State Transit routes and (iii) 24 hour service on the Light Rail.

Countering this are spans for some outer suburban bus routes, which can be more restrictive than Melbourne since we introduced 7 days/9pm service to many of ours.

4. Wayfinding signage, maps and bus route directories at stations

This is done effectively, as shown in the examples below (Blacktown and Macquarie University Stations).

5. Maps in printed timetables

These are of high quality, at least in STA printed timetables. Metrolink bus stops have similar maps.

6. Physical interchange between train and bus

Often you don't even need to cross roads, and, as this example from Lindfield shows, there is sometimes even direct access from the platform.

7. A more versatile and legible City Loop

Trains operate in both directions and there is no midday reversal or different weekend operating patterns. This makes it better for within-CBD trips than ours; a major advantage for them given their lack of our tram grid network.

Seven things Sydney does less well

1. Fares and ticketing

A lack of integrated fares and confusing ticket types was the most important failing observed during the trip. While it maintains a bureaucracy to write 200-page reports about the most trivial of fare rises, the NSW Government lacks the will and ability to fix a problem that other cities like Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne solved more than 25 years ago. Apart from inconveniencing passengers, the absence of a proper city-wide fare system has also led to the abandonment of the partially-installed 'T-card' smart card project (Card reader at Lindfield Station below).

If you transfer between train and bus you will likely need to pay another fare. If you need to break your journey you'll also pay as tickets are good for a single ride and not a time period, as in Melbourne. Certain railway stations, being privately built, attract special surcharges that range from the merely annoying to the rather steep.

Sydney does not have a fare system as such. Rather there are multiple systems for train, airport train, State Transit bus, private bus, T-way, light rail, ferry, monorail etc. There are many different ticket types but each one doesn't do very much. It probably doesn't matter if you make the same trip each way and do not change modes or break your journey, but otherwise travel can be very expensive indeed. Tourists get even more confused, and have to work out the best deal from the pile of fares brochures pictured below.

In contrast, because of its integrated fare system, Melbourne provides all its fare information in a single simple brochure and the best choice for tourists (Daily ticket, usually Zone 1 only) is (a) clear, (b) versatile, (c) widely obtainable, and (d) good value for money.

2. Base frequency of trains

Off-peak Cityrail services commonly operate every 30 minutes (though exceptions exist). Because most major stations get trains on two or more lines, this generally means they receive four trains per hour. However many of the smaller stations on one line or bypassed by expresses only get two trains per hour.

This service level is similar to Adelaide or Brisbane (weekday off-peaks), somewhat inferior to most of Melbourne 3 or 4 trains per hour, and greatly inferior to Perth (4 trains per hour). The capital (and labour) intensive Cityrail network cannot be automatically be associated with a 'turn up and go' frequent service (like a European subway, or even Perth trains during the day) and passengers are more reliant on timetables and journey planning than they should be.

While the flip side of infrequency can be faster service at major stations due to off-peak express running, my own view is that this is only justified once service frequencies are already high (eg 10 - 15 minutes). If this cannot be achieved then my preference is for the Melbourne pattern, ie few off-peak expresses but giving all stations a somewhat higher base frequency.

3. Frequency and spans of some bus services (particularly private)

To be fair limited frequency and span is not unique to Sydney and can be found in suburbs of any Australian city. Also noted was a marked difference between the service on the Parramatta - Liverpool T-Way (wide span and reasonable frequencies) to the lesser offerings available on the T-Way to Rouse Hill. The example below is better than many, but still includes some non-clockface running that may not consistently connect with trains.

4. Information at many bus stops, especially a lack of maps

Even some heavily patronised State Transit stops (eg Sydney Airport) have extremely rudimentary information. Sometimes the only information provided is route number, final destination and times, with details of intermediate stops and maps missing. This contrasts with the maps contained in printed timetables which were praised above.

5. Lack of differentiation of premium and regular bus routes

Again not unique to Sydney, with Adelaide (Go-Zones) and Brisbane (BUZ) showing the way forward. And to be fair it should be pointed out that more Sydney Bus routes offer high service than usual in other cities, so the State Transit name might already be associated with good hours and frequency (much like trams are in Melbourne).

The new Route 10 'Metrobus' service between Kingsford Smith and Leichardt (via the CBD) was particularly puzzling. It is marketed as a frequent premium service for which a timetable is not required (and is not provided at stops or in leaflet form). Service frequency is 10 minutes peak, 15 minutes off-peak and 20 minutes weekend. Buses are air-conditioned and low-floor and all stops have route maps.

This could almost qualify as a premium service except for two things. Firstly the 9pm finishing time is earlier than all the 'regular' routes around Leichardt, which combine to provide a very high quality service until midnight or later. Secondly the 20 minute weekend service frequency does not really qualify as 'turn up and go' and unless services are very frequent a full timetable should have been provided. As it is the combined timetables at stops include all routes except 10. There is also a consistency issue; other regular State Transit routes offer more frequent service but these (correctly) still have printed timetables.

6. Legibilty of bus network in the CBD

Admittedly this suffers when compared to Melbourne trams, which together with their frequent service and the grid street layout, provide the 'gold standard' unlikely to be equalled elsewhere.

Central Sydney is less planned and has a larger number of distinct bus routes versus Melbourne's fewer, and apparently straighter trams. There dominant feature appears to be a 'spine' up George Street with a number of interchanges around the city (eg Railway Square & Circular Quay). Some overall 'network' information at stops would be nice, although to relieve crowding it might be thought better if people making short CBD trips walked instead.

7. Vandalised trains

No pictures will be published, but there was more evidence of external tagging (and even murals) than in Melbourne. Train insides were also dirtier and likely to be graffitied. The ability to see out of train windows is limited, though scratching is less than in Perth. Limited visibility within double-decks, with their split-level design and poor communication between carriages (compared to our Siemens) might increase vandalism opportunities and lower perceived safety. On the credit side though, Melbourne is the nation's capital for lineside graffiti, and Sydney was cleaner in this regard.

Other observations

Noticed in Sydney was much higher (over?)staffing on the rail system. For example most stations were staffed and there were more in each station. Trains still have guards. Transit officers were sometimes seen at stations but never on trains travelled on. Neither were tickets checked.

DDA access in Sydney has yet to catch up to Melbourne, where all but one stations are accessible. However where access was provided this was commonly through lifts (which has staffing implications). Also, unlike Melbourne, many suburban stations have been rebuilt and modernised. This indicates that like Perth, Sydney prefers to knock things down, whereas Melbourne will mostly retain. Similar observations apply to the CBD, where Melbourne retained more of its built heritage than Sydney, and espedially Perth, where any building over 40 years old is a rarity.

The other consequence of this cultural difference is whereas Melbourne will leave a rail based shopping strip alone to lose status and gracefully decline (as shoppers flock to the greenfields car-based mall two kilometres away), Sydney is more inclined to demolish an existing rail-based strip and build a Westfield right there. The Melbourne approach works where there is a robust strip shopping tradition and to preserve heritage, but risks building 'two cities' and entrenching car-dependence as the mismatch between the location of major nodes and the rail system widens. In contrast, Sydney's 'knock down and co-locate' recipe, though it lacks the 'character' of our successful strips like Chapel Street, Puckle Street or Glenferrie Road, represents better transport/land use planning and is preferred in outer areas where existing shopping strips are weak, in decline and can't be saved.

While the same buckled signal cable housings seen in Melbourne was also seen in Sydney, the track in Sydney was of better quality, due to their higher use of concrete sleepers. The times when track work is done is no mystery either, with many line occupations on weekends. My first train trip in Melbourne after returning felt like flying with mild turbulence. Thanks to their long-standing program to eliminate them, level crossings are rare in Sydney but remain widespread in Melbourne.

The trip was a success and many things were seen that are not described above. Thanks to Scott & Damo for their ideas and guidance before and during it.

Buying a myki

With ticketing such a hot topic here (a Melbourne favourite, despite bigger shortcomings elsewhere, such as Sydney's non-integration and Perth's lack of proper periodicals) it was time to grab a myki for Geelong trips now and travel elsewhere later.

Also the current offer, which waives the $10/$7 card fee, was too good to pass up.

From experience with Transperth's SmartRider, I knew there was a choice between 'anonymous' and 'registered' cards (with your personal details). I initially wanted the latter, to give an opportunity to test the registration process later if needed (I don't know if there's a process to 'deregister', 'anonymise' or 'transfer' a registered myki).

You can order by phone if it's more convenient and you're not near the myki Shop in Ryrie Street. Once through the menu you get to talk to a real person to take your order.

It was here I learned something. If ordering by phone note that registered mykis only are available. For an anonymous myki (eg you might be buying for a friend, or just don't want to register) you need to visit 129 Ryrie Street, or maybe a 'myki mate' on the bus.

Pictures and a description of the info pack will be included here when it arrives.

How to get concession public transport and not be poor

Concession public transport is only for low-income people, such as age pensioners, disability pensioners, students and the unemployed. Right? Wrong!

This post will examine two cases where one can be quite well off (a millionaire household, even) yet get concession or cheaper public transport. It raises some welfare policy issues of who gets what, whether the greatest benefits go to the most needy, or if it's more about votes.

Chapter Six of the Victorian Fares and Ticketing Manual explains who gets concession and free travel.

While many groups get free or concession travel, in this post we will talk about only two; low income earners and seniors.

Low income earners

This group of passengers do not need to be on any welfare benefit, but they do need a Low Income Health Care Card, issued by Centrelink.

Maximum qulifying weekly incomes for various household types are shown here, but for our purposes an amount of $23192 for singles and $38636 will suffice. Income can go up a bit and you will not lose the card, but you won't be able to renew it unless it is below the qualifying amount mentioned above.

The income limits above are not particularly high. There would be many people working part-time (and even some full-timers) who could qualify. Since commuting is a major added expense when one goes to work, the effect of this benefit as it applies to public transport is to assist the 'working poor' and provide an incentive to get off welfare.

If income rises further (eg extra hours at work) a poverty trap effect is created as the concession entitlement cuts out and the passenger must pay full fare. This difference is about $23 per week, assuming Zone 1+2 travel. This is not unique to public transport, and also applies to any heavily targeted welfare benefit with a steep taper rate. The alternative in this case is lessening the benefit withdrawal taper rate, but the problem with this is that welfare becomes both dearer for the taxpayer and less targeted at the needy.

I see nothing wrong with low income working people getting concession travel on public transport, and indeed there are social benefits, especially if it improves work incentives.

However it gets interesting if the cardholder is not working, for instance living off investment income.

Since the Centrelink low income health care card has no assets test, only an income test, you can have quite a lot of assets and still qualify for one (and thus concession travel). How much? Well it depends on the deeming rates.

Working back from the income limits above the result is up to $386533 of assets for singles and up to $643933 for couples. This is a rough (conservative) calculation based on a 6% deeming rate; where 4% applies for part of the capital the figures will be higher.

On their own these are quite respectable asset levels to be deriving government benefits (or concessions). But that's not all. Since the family home is exempt we can add that as well. Assuming ownership of an average home (worth $400000), you can be worth nearly $800 000 as a single or over $1.2 million as a couple and still get transport concession benefits!. Or to put it in another way, you can be a millionare couple who owns their own home and gets $38000 pa and still get concession tickets since Centrelink deems you 'low income'!

Seniors Card

Sick of slumming it on just $38k pa so you can get concession fares? Well you've got a treat coming as soon as you turn 60! Provided you watch your working hours (because I doubt others will), getting a Seniors card is your key to a wonderland of benefits unavailable to working people.

Younger Centrelink clients report various letters, compliance checks and audits to verify you're still entitled to benefits (which is as it should be to maintain the welfare system's integrity). But if you've got a seniors card, about the only mail you'll get are free country travel vouchers. Plus you can rely on the local rag to convey news of seniors festivals (more free travel!) and other goodies.

Admittedly the above has been a bit flippant but the reason will become apparent later. But beforehand, let's distinguish between seniors and (age) pensioners. All age pensioners are seniors, but not all seniors are age pensioners. The single age pension at around $280 per week (single) isn't exactly a life of caviar. However at least they do get various Centrelink benefits, and the assets and income tests ensure there is a sound needs basis for them.

Seniors Card is a quite different animal in no way related to various needs-based Centrelink pension and health care cards.

Over 60? Victorian resident? Well that's two out of three criteria met. The other one is a rather curious work hours test. If you're delivering junk mail around the streets part-time you're in. If you've got your own surgery so can control your work hours to 34 per week you're in. Ditto if you're a BHP board member. But if you're a PAYE earner working 38 hours per week you fail. Eligibility boils down to the control you have over your time, and self-funded investors or business proprieters have more of that than full-time (and taxpaying) employees. Plus, unlike Centrelink cards, no assets or means tests apply.

Since its criteria is so rubbery, you'd think that Seniors Card would attract less generous conditions than than the concession fares enjoyed by holders of Centrelink cards (which have needs-based eligibilty requirements). Again you'd be wrong, at least for Melbourne.

Compare the daily ticket fares between a Zone 1+2 concession daily ($5.30) and the Seniors Daily ($3.30). The non-means tested Seniors Daily is nearly 40% cheaper than the means-tested regular concession tickets. This indicates that if the Seniors Daily ticket has a sound reason for existence it cannot be on fairness, equity or welfare grounds.

However my journey to find a rationale for the sub-concession Seniors Daily did not return empty-handed. This came about because a lot of senior travel is 'discretionary' or 'impulse'. And elasticity for impulse, recreational and other concession fare trips is higher than (say) another person's journey to work.

On all modes interpeak weekday service frequencies are higher than during the weekend or at night. Working people are working and youth are at school during this time. So that leaves the unemployed and seniors as the main potential interpeak passenger base. While services may not be crowded, interpeak patronage is still important to a successful public transport system.

And as the buses are already running, it seems to be in everyone's interests to stack them with sub-concession passengers rather than have them empty. The same seniors who so powefully resist a ticketing change can also resist a bus service cut, so it may be that it is in the interests of operators and public transport generally that seniors form a political constituency for a route's survival.

Since public transport relies on public funding it is inherently political and susceptible to government decisions with regard to services and service levels. A bus route full of seniors is less likely to be withdrawn than one that runs empty, so from the point of view of self-preservation it seems better to carry seniors cheaply, even if the equity is terrible vis a vis concession passengers.

This leads us to a conflict; the policy rationale for the Seniors Daily ticket is poor, but it has great value in getting 'bums on seats', especially during the interpeak period. Outright abolition of the Seniors Daily (while the best on equity grounds) could cost patronage and, given recent events, is politically impossible. Another option could be to maintain the Seniors Daily but confine its use to off-peak travel. This might shift a small amount of discretionary peak senior travel to the off-peaks, so slightly relieving congestion and increasing overall patronage and revenue. Plus equity is slighly improved vis a vis concession passengers as the latter's relative penalty is less ($3.30 vs $4.75 instead of $3.30 vs $5.30). Politically, event this may not be worth the trouble, despite its policy soundness.

Conclusion

I have illustrated two ways in which wealthy households can get concession (or cheaper) public transport.

The first is through the Centrelink low income health care card. Though some millionaire households (living on interest or rents) also qualify overall it is generally in the public interest that such cards continue to be good for concession travel because the main benficiaries would be the 'working poor'.

The second is through the Seniors Card, which can sometimes offer cheaper travel than available to concession holders. The Seniors Card (and thus the allied Seniors Daily ticket) has slack eligibility criteria, fails all equity tests and appears to be more about buying votes. The Seniors Daily however successfully promotes off-peak use and the retention of this ticket for off-peak travel would slighly improve equity while still promoting patronage.