Well now that we’ve got integrated ticketing sorted I think it would make good sense to have a look at how this might all work in a couple of years time when it all starts to go operational. An integrated ticket is really just one part of how Auckland’s fare system should be overhauled – although obviously it is the key factor. For a start, let’s get a couple of definitions sorted:
- Integrated ticketing: To me this basically means multi-operator, multi-modal ticketing. In other words, it doesn’t matter which company, or which mode (rail, bus, ferry, etc.) you travel on you can use the same ticket. It’s important to note that an integrated ticketing system does not have to be a smart-card system, and in fact could simply be a paper-based system.
- Smart-card ticketing: This is where the ticketing system has been computerised to the extent that information relating to the cards is stored in a central computer system, rather than simply on your card (which could be termed a ‘dumb-card system’). Smart-cards are generally (although I guess they don’t have to be) RFID cards – which means that they don’t actually have to make physical contact with their readers. The “smartness” of them is the ability to do many many things with the cards, such as make purchases for non-public transport use, to top them up remotely, to top them up automatically, to cancel them remotely, to work out the best deal for travellers even when a highly complex arrangements of trips have been made, and so forth. It’s important to note that a smart-card is not necessarily an integrated ticket – with the Snapper Card being the most obvious example of a smart-card this is not integrated (as it is not useable on all public transport modes/operators in Wellington).
- Zone-based fares: This is where you effectively divide up the city into a number of zones, and you charge your fares by how many zones someone travels through. This is the kind of system used in Melbourne and also in London (at least on the underground, the buses are different). It is different to a ‘staged based fare system’, as fares are not calculated on a distance basis, and in fact you might find yourself being able to take a very long trip yet stay within one zone, if your route skirts around the city.
- Stage-based fares: This is the kind of fare system we have in Auckland at the moment, where each route is divided up into a number of stages, that don’t always align with each other. For example, travelling from Glen Innes to the city is a 2 stage trip on a train, but a 3 stage trip (or, on one route a 4 stage trip) on the bus.
- Fare caps: This is when you no longer get charged beyond a certain point for more travel within a particular part of the city (or potentially, for any travel within the city). This is usually done on a daily basis with smart-card systems, so that people don’t have to “risk” buying a daily pass hoping that it’s the best deal, but rather get the best of both worlds as they pay less if they don’t travel up to the cost of a daily pass, but at the same time get their fare capped for the day at the daily rate. London has this system on their Oyster Card, and it’s damn useful.
- Free transfers: This is where a system allows a number of different legs to a trip to be simply counted as one trip. The typical way to do this to have ‘time-based’ rather than ‘trip-based’ ticketing. Generally, any further trips to the first one within a two hour period are considered to simply be another part of the one trip – so you are not charged any more than what you would if you made your whole trip in one ‘leg’.
Now that we’ve got a few definitions out of the way (and feel free to challenge my interpretation of these terms, it’s always useful to have a debate on the matter), I think there’s a very important question that needs answering some time in the relatively near future: what is the best fare structure for Auckland?
On the Campaign for Better Transport Forums we have been having this debate, and some very interesting insights have emerged. One post in particular looks at what an Australian transit advocate thinks are critical components for the ideal fare structure. It’s an interesting list:
1. Multi-modal – one ticket for rail, road or rudder
2. Multi-operator – one ticket regardless of who owns the vehicle
3. Free transfers within specified time period and specified zone area
4. No multiple flag falls
5. Affordable
6. Equitable – no discrimination based on mode or region
7. Discounts for frequent users
8. Caps on daily travel fares
9. Simple to understand
10. Convenient to use
11. No requirement to tag-off
12. Pre-paid tickets to be the conventional standard
13. Cash fares always available, but at a penalty price
14. Adaptable for anomalies (cheap short trips, overlapping zone boundaries, etc)
15. No nexus between price of service (fares) and cost of providing service
16. Encourages modal shift from private motor vehicles to public transport
17. Costs shared by all beneficiaries of the transport system, not just passengers
18. A single corporate identity and brand name for marketing.
A lot of this is pretty obvious stuff, and a few matters are somewhat debatable (such as points 11 and 15). However, it’s certainly a useful starting point. Multi-modal and multi-operator are obvious – as it’s not integrated ticketing without those two key elements. I also think that free-transfers are critical, as transfering is already annoying enough without charging people for the “privilege”. I also think that it’s worthwhile creating a reasonably significant different in price between cash fares and the fares offered to smart-card users. This will encourage people to use the smart-cards, which will mean faster boarding times, a critical benefit of RFID based systems. I’m also a big fan of daily (and potentially weekly or monthly) caps, so that people can just use the public transport system for a large number of trips without having to worry about being stung with a big bill at the end of it. It provides an assurance, plus also simplifies the ticketing system as it means we don’t need to worry about providing people with weekly or monthly passes – as they’ll get the best value anyway (on the other hand, weekly and monthly passes are useful for encouraging off-peak travel as people want to make the most of what they’ve paid for…. potentially there’s an interesting debate there).
So what system do I think would work best for Auckland? Around a year ago I put together quite a detailed post on how I thought the future fare/ticketing system should work, and I think that I still agree with quite a lot of what I said then. Perhaps the one thing that has changed is how the introduction of ‘fare caps’ could simplify matters, so that really you don’t need to offer distinctly separate “single two hour trip, daily, weekly and monthly passes”, but rather the card will work out what the best value for you is and cap what you pay at that level. Then you have the following options:
1) 2 hour ticket for x zones of travel (capped at the daily rate)
2) Daily ticket for x zones of travel (capped at the weekly rate)
3) Weekly/monthly ticket for x zones (potentially unnecessary)
For making varying trip lengths you would have the card work out the best deal. So basically it’s like stored cash that caps at either the daily level or the weekly level (if you do more than 5 days worth of travel).
For me, I usually catch 1 stage buses so probably I would “cap out” at whatever a weekly 1 zone costs. However, if I missed a day’s work or (heaven forbid) drove to work one day then I would pay 4 daily rates. If I had to make a random return 4 zone trip then I would simply have one “4 zone daily” deducted from my running balance. It sounds complex, but basically if your system advertises that the smart-card “Guarantees the Best Deal” (and actually does) then I think it’s fine.
There are a myriad of different ways in which ticketing is done overseas, and I am not sure whether anyone’s settled on the perfect system yet, so there should be some useful debate.
Processing...
I find the system used in Zurich works well. The city is divided into zones, basically the city is one zone and outlying regions are a 2nd zone. All travel within a zone is unlimited if you have a pass for that zone. If you want to travel to a second zone you can pay for a zone extension to your existing pass, this is either valid for 2hrs (1 way) or 24 hrs (return). This way the whole transfers idea is redundant as travel within a given zone, be it bus, train, tram, ferry, funicular etc, is unlimited. A yearly single zone pass for Zurich for unlimited travel for instance costs around 700NZD and one for the entire country i.e. free unlimited travel across the entire country is around 2500NZD per year. There is also no need for swiping on and off as, like in Germany, there is an honour system with random checks to make sure people buy a ticket. The latter works well and removes the need for turnstiles.
The system in Zurich appears very similar to the ones I saw in Germany as well. Only two main zones covering the main urban area, with other zones only coming in when you travelled to adjacent towns.
Yes the system is in many ways similar to Germany and you appreciate the freedom of exiting and entering trams, buses etc at any door due to the spot checks rather than having to swipe on/off. Passenger loading is extremely high at some stations with probably 100-200 people getting off and on in a matter of seconds, only possible because 10 or so doors are open on a tram, this is something that would take 15 minutes on an Auckland bus with only one door and the slow chip-cards.
Hey …let’s also look at the system in Hasselt, Belgium, where there are no fares! And no more traffic gridlock!
Public transport should be regarded as an essential public service and be fare-free – a relatively simple way to help reduce traffic congestion and pollution big time in these days of global warming.
Fares only contribute a portion of the cost, but cost an enormous amount to collect. Why bother? There are other ways to pay for public transport – for starters the millions of dollars currently being spent on building more and more roads (which we all know will be clogged up in no time), could be diverted to urgently upgrade Auckland’s public transport. A vast integrated network of modern low-emission buses and electric trains could be rapidly moving people about, with no delays as passengers get on and off without having to fumble for change or cards.
If we are really serious about getting people out of cars and on to public transport, making it fare-free and frequent is the way to go.
Check out views and articles on: farefreenz.blogspot.com
Roger Fowler
Yes several cities in Switzerland already operate on a no fares system and others are talking about moving in the same direction. However, yearly passes are so cheap here IMO as it is that for what you get it’s basically a token payment.
However, it’s going to take a miracle for fare free to occur in NZ. Instead we get this ridiculous farebox recovery policy.
I don’t know whether a system with only 1-2 zones would work in Auckland. Prices would increase dramatically for those taking short trips.
Roger, fare-free is a nice idea, but would the level of patronage increase justify the doubling of subsidies (current farebox recovery is around 43% in Auckland)? Maybe it would, but I tend to doubt that patronage would double.
I found the two zone system worked really well in Melbourne.
I was well impressed that for $10 I could get out to Belgrave and back and use trams around town as I liked for an entire day (Belgrave is about as far out as Pukekohe).
Also, one thing that shows how backwards Auckland is, even compared to the Tron, is that the Tron already has the 2hr ticket, so if you jump off one bus but get on another before the 2hrs is up the second trip is free.
If fares are free you’ll have the same problems you have now with “free” roads… Too many people using the services for low quality or unneeded trips…
Jarbs, I think you are neglecting to make one critical distinction in your set of definitions, that is the difference between ‘integrated ticketing’ and an ‘integrated fare structure’. These are not the same thing but it is easy to treat them that way and assume that is what Auckland will get. Integrated ticketing can be a simple as a stored value card that can be used by all operators to deduct whatever their particular fare product might be, i.e. a city wide ticketing system. But unless the fare products are the same across all operators and transfer between vehicles on the one ticket is possible then you cannot call it a integrated fare system.
It was only in the Herald today that I saw the first published mention of a ‘vastly simplified fare structure’, despite all the talk of integrated ticketing this is the first suggestion that they are aiming for integrated fares. I have always been concerned that the Auckland smartcard would simply be a universal stored value card, i.e. not much different from now except not needing a different card for each company.
On the topic of a 1-2 zone system, I am in favour. It is suggested that the price of short trips would increase dramatically, but that is only from the perspective of the old stage system. With a zone system you are effectively renting time on the network rather than buying distance on a vehicle. So with those short distance trips people might be able to make the journey there and back again within the two hour (or whatever) limit. I would be interested to see what proportion of trips are only one stage, I wouldn’t be surprised if the vast majority are actually around the 3 to 4 stage ‘sweet spot’.
Plus if most people move to daily or weekly passes the issue of distance becomes irrelevant, as people basically pay a fixed amount to travel as much as they like any time. Then it becomes a bit like say a Sky TV rental, you pay for access to the packages of channels you want at your disposal, not by how much you actually watch.
My issue with going fare free is this: The biggest barrier to using public transport in Auckland isn’t the cost, its the lack of services going where and when people want to go, its poor time keeping and integration, the lack of integration between services, the lack of system coordination as a whole and the limited rapid transit core of the network. Removing the cost might make people more willing to go out of their way a little further to save money and the lack of ticketing would speed up boarding somewhat, but it would do nothing to fix the fundamental problems with the system.
Ok there would be a minor improvement, so why not do it anyway? My answer to that is because it would require total subsidy of the system as it stands. I don’t know the exact figure, but the regional council (i.e. the ratepayers/taxpayers) would have to come up with several hundred million dollars more each year *just to maintain the existing system*, let alone fund the improvements and expansions it so desperately needs.
I think that is the critical point the extra capital required to subsidise equals far less station improvements, extra routes, studies which can improve the system overall…
Yeah, it would be a case of the region’s ratepayers paying two to three times as much to get exactly the same network being used by pretty much the same people. The ironic thing is the only demand increase would come from those services that are fast and effective, i.e. the ones that are already crowded and have no more capacity to take any more people! And as the city would be a few hundred million in the hole then there is no money for capital expansion or any further operating expenditure to address the overcrowding. The slow, ineffective and poorly patronised routes would simply stay that way, slow, ineffective and poorly patronised.
1. The Super Gold Card concessions should become integrated too with the Auckland Oyster. This will perovide a much better audit trail than we have now where transport companies simply push a button to collect the fare off the Government, no checks on validity can be made as Gold Cards are not linked to fare tickets issued (the last 12 months have been a gold mine for bus and train and ferry companies, with so much suspected abuse and fraud by transporters going on that now plans are in train to limit the fare concessions to the off peak hours only)
2. Why not set up ARTA as a “Pharmac for public transport”, i.e. a bulk purchaser of public transport on the passenger’s behalf? Fares could then be set as a flat fare (or even free for Auckland City residents) for a yearly card.
3. I have personally major concerns, as a Waiheke Islander, that our local transport monopoly provider will do all it can to avoid fare capping or charge a fare comparable to other (subsidised) zones in the city. Fullers has been rebranding itself as a tourist service instead of a public transport service with boats routinely taken out of commuter service to ply the charter trade. Commuters are seen as a useful nuisance (as a good cashflow provider in winter) but the $32 return tourists and dirty weekenders are Fullers real market. The Oyster system needs to make sure that ALL transport modes in Auckland are included with the same terms and conditions.
ARTA being “a bulk purchaser of public transport on the passenger’s behalf” is effectively what the PTMA enables. ARTA could effectively ‘charter’ each bus, train and ferry route at a fixed price and have the operator collect any fares for them. That is key to better transport in Auckland IMHO, and they need to start making it happen.
The one price for any service is a tricky one, given that there are big differences in the cost of running each mode. Ferry is the most expensive per route mile, followed by rail and then bus. Getting it all into one cohesive system under the one fare is very important though, but where to draw the line? Obviously not ALL transport mode have to be included, certainly including the helicopter shuttle to Waiheke would be over the line.
The pain in the arse of the RPTP is that ARTA has conceeded Joyce is going to amend the PTMA and so they aren’t going to change any of the routes in the manner you’re talking about…
Indeed Jeremy. All the more reason to submit on thr RPTP telling ARTA to have some guts. I mean they’re going to disappear in October next year, what do they have to lose?
That would at least put pressure on the ATA and Joyce…
a few matters are somewhat debatable (such as points 11 and 15)
I want to add that point 11 (no need to ‘tag-off’) happens to address the biggest problem I have observed with Wellington’s Snapper system. Despite not even living there I have seen on a number of occasions people being frustrated and embarrassed at the rear door of the bus when the terminal fails to tag them off and the driver, unaware, closes the door and drives off. Usually the passengers were able to call the driver’s attention before he or she got too far but this is a totally unacceptable situation to put anyone through in my opinion. Once I even saw two passengers traveling together get separated due to this failure to ‘tag-off’!
I always thought that if I lived in Wellington (or anywhere with Snapper – watch out Auckland) this would be enough to discourage me from using the service. Hence, I suggest this point be considered fully deserving of its place in the list of ‘critical components’ for an ideal fare structure.
I guess the problem is that you can only really have no tag-off if you have a flat fare on all your buses. Which isn’t really that realistic for Auckland I don’t think.
“Multi-modal – one ticket for rail, road or rudder”
Or in the case of Zurich: rail, road, rudder, or rope! Cable cars’ non-necessity in Auckland aside, are there likely to be changes to the timetabling of the buses so that they co-ordinate with the trains, and with each other at major interchanges, for the most efficient use of existing infrastructure? Besides, being freed up from travelling all the way into the CBD, more or less parallel to the rail services, maybe some buses could be put into use in areas which are currently poorly served – full-time service from Waiuku to Papakura, and re-introduction of the route to Pukekohe, for instance?
There needs to be some major reorganisation of routes to link in with trains and ferries, however, NZ Bus is likely to lobby agains this seeing as for them they are lost customers. This is where ARTA making bulk purchasing of PT would come into play, and an area that Joyce’s changes to the PTMA could really do damage.
Brent, yes it certainly is the plan to decrease the number of long-haul services and increase the number of feeder buses. The extent to which that is possible depends on improvements to the capacity of the train network (serious expenditure needed there) as well as how badly Joyce stuffs up the PTMA.
Nick R: “Obviously not ALL transport mode have to be included, certainly including the helicopter shuttle to Waiheke would be over the line.”
There is no such thing (except for Michelle Boag’s passport transport).
The Waiheke ferry service certainly should be included. It provides commuting services for 1,000 people a day – much more than many bus routes in Auckland, and is unsubsidised (unlike many bus routes in Auckland – for which Waiheke Islanders ARE expected to pay ARC transport rates for like everybody else)
There are four different companies providing helicopter services to Waiheke (among other places), but yes I was just using choppers as a facetious example of a extremely expensive transport mode that one couldn’t justify including on the scheme.
I think Waiheke is now undeniably a part of metropolitan Auckland (as evidenced by those 1,000 regular commuters) and it should be part of the metro fare system. Due to the distance and separation involve I think it sits naturally in the group of ‘satelite towns’ in terms of fares. I would therefore have the price of the waiheke ferry aligned with the price of a train to Pukekohe or Kumeu, or a bus to Orewa/Whangaparoa.
An interesting debate is “how many zones should there be?” I know from the bettertransport forums that Nick R is a fan of fewer zones, while others are a fan of keeping the current number of stages and turning them into zones. As far as I can see there are advantages and disadvantages both ways.
As for advantages for fewer zones, clearly this simplifies matters and also probably provides a better deal for those who are travelling from further away. In Auckland you might make all the isthmus plus the lower North Shore your first zone, and then everywhere beyond that a second zone (with ex-urban places being a third zone). This would mean that the cost of travelling from somewhere like Otahuhu to the city is likely to decrease, with compensation from someone travelling from, say Herne Bay to the city. I guess that the city gains more from getting a long car trip to be turned into a public transport trip than a short car trip – so perhaps there is justification for some level of cross-subsidy from that point of view.
As for advantages for more zones, I guess the advantages is that there would be more of an “equitable” feeling about how fares are calculated – in that you really do pay depending on how far you travel. More zones would make a system more complicated, but in a way because short trips would be comparatively cheaper you are potentially encouraging people to locate closer to their work – or more specifically in the inner suburbs – because a single zone/stage trip is relatively cheap. Arguably, this could contribute more towards our growth strategies, while a “flatter” system with higher subsidies for longer trips would potentially encourage more urban dispersal.
I guess that perhaps my judgement is clouded by the fact that I currently enjoy paying only $1.44 per trip into the city for work, and a flatter (fewer zones) system would probably bump that up quite significantly. But it certainly is an interesting debate to have.
Zones and the current stage fare system in Auckland have the disadvantage that if you live on the border of one you end up paying for two zones even for extremely short trips. Surely if we will be expected to swipe in and off, the system could be made a bit smarter, perhaps using GPS to monitor how far you have traveled rather than how many arbitrary fare zones you have crossed. I have experienced in Seattle that certain downtown routes are free during peak hours to accelerate the boarding and alighting process – could be an option to introduce something similar to areas in Auckland.
Would cross-town services offer pretty low fares in a zone setup? e.g. 008 + 009 Urban Express Buses (which I personally think are very good linking railway stations radially).
Very interesting discussion by the way – nice work @jarbury.
Is ARTA looking at re-vamping things like this? Or just driving existing fares through a new electronic system initially.
Rtc, most systems with a small number of big zones have significant overlap, in Melbourne the overlap is usually three rail stations or about six tram stops. Within the overlap zone either zone ticket applies so your trip has to me more than about 3-4km before you are hit by the cross-border blues (see here: http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au/maps-stations-stops/metropolitan-maps/metropolitan-train-network-map/)
Sydney, ARTA certainly has goals for a unified fare structure as part of integrated ticketing… whether is is possible or no is up to the Nats and how much the change the PTMA. If the northern pass is anything to go by then ARTA have their sights set on something close to the Melbourne model with time based passes and large zones.
One thing that hasn’t really been discussed is the possibility of having both, much like the busway has now. What would be wrong with having say daily, weekly and monthly passes and a small number of zones, but retaining a standardised stage system for short trips discrete trips (say city, inner, outer, and regional zones, with about three stages to cross any one zone). Cash fares would be for stage trips or daily’s only, and people could use credit on thier farecard to buy stages, and if they reach the daily pass price for the zone(s) their travel has been in they are automatically upgraded to a day pass.
This would keep things cheap for those short distance single trips and for tourists or one off users, while regular users would still have a strong incentive to get onto a pass.