There have been a lot of articles in the media recently bemoaning changes to public transport fares as the AT Hop card is progressively introduced. The latest relates to hikes in ferry fares which are coming in the near future:
Big fare hikes for ferry users could hit within weeks.
The North Shore Times has learned of the changes from an industry insider who says Auckland Transport has undertaken a “campaign of non-disclosure increases”.
When asked for a response to the claims, Auckland Transport directed the Times to its website.
The council-controlled group did not confirm or deny the increases were happening, whether tertiary discounts are again being cut or when the new fares will be implemented.
“Auckland Transport has an annual fare review process which is communicated to the media [as it was earlier this year] and to customers through our customer channels.”
But the industry source says changes are a result of the AT Hop card roll-out, taking place across Auckland’s public transport network.
A big increase in fares for some Green Bay bus users occurred recently. Plus it seems like the Discovery Day pass and the Northern Pass – the two existing integrated fare products in Auckland – are going to be phased out shortly. While the AT Hop card’s simplification of the current suite of fare products is a step in the right direction – it seems like there are going to be some really dumb changes to fares in the near future because of two key reasons:
- Auckland Transport not coming up with a much simpler zone based fare system ahead of implementing integrated ticketing.
- Auckland Transport not having a fare policy.
Unfortunately we also have the situation where Auckland Transport are aligning fares at the same time as rolling out the HOP card. This may be the technically easiest solution but it is only serving to give a lot of people a negative impression of the card itself. Had they done number 1 first, the roll-out of HOP would be much much easier.
We’ve discussed the importance of integrated fares and zone based fares many times before, so in this post I’m going to talk more about the need for Auckland Transport to have a proper fares policy.
Setting public transport fares is clearly a very complex balance between being low enough to attract people to use the service but also high enough to minimise subsidy requirements. The latter issue is also affected by NZTA’s completely arbitrary Farebox Recovery Policy – which requires fares to cover 50% of operating costs (Auckland currently manages about 44% recovery). In addition to this complex balance there are a number of other detailed considerations that need to be taken into account in the setting of fares. The list below is by no means complete but takes into account matters that need to be considered:
- The extent to which fares rise with the length of the trip. At one end of the scale there are flat fares where you pay the same amount no matter how far you go – at the other end is something like a pure per kilometre charge. Longer PT trips generate more external benefits (e.g. congestion relief) so there’s a logic for having something in between a flat fare and a purely distance based fare.
- The level of complexity or simplicity in the fare system. In pursuit of ‘optimal’ outcomes it’s very easy to create a fare system that’s mind-bogglingly complex and impossible to understand. Yet overly simple systems can lead to inequitable, illogical or inefficient outcomes: should a trip down the road cost the same as one from Pukekohe to the city centre, should children have to pay the same as adults, should someone travelling off-peak and not adding to peak capacity problems have to pay the same as someone at peak times? Once again a careful balance needs to be found.
- Building on the above, the extent of concessionary fares is something that can be really complicated. Should a super-wealthy retired person really get free PT while a struggling working family have to pay full fares? Should university students get a discount when they’re pretty likely to catch PT already?
- A further consideration is the extent to which the fare system should favour or encourage certain types of users. Should monthly pass holders get a particularly good deal because they’re the ‘best customers’? To what extent should smart-card users get a discount compared to people who pay with cash? And as above, is there value in providing a discount for off-peak travel? Or – dare I say it – should there be family/group passes?
As you can tell from the above, I have posed far more questions than I have answered – because this is a complex issue which involves significant value judgements and decisions to sit behind it. It needs some clear objectives, things like: maximising patronage, recognising the importance of a simple and easy to understand system, providing value for money (both for passengers and for public agencies picking up the subsidy), catering for those with fewer transport choices, encouraging people to use the HOP Card, encouraging people to make transfers where that’s an efficient outcome etc. It needs to be clear about the tradeoffs between different objectives – like how maximising patronage may conflict with maximising farebox returns.
In relatively recent times we have seen the mess which occurs when you don’t have a fare policy. The most recent fare rises saw the gap between HOP fares and cash fares narrow (contrary to efforts to get more people using HOP), saw monthly pass prices increase while single fare cash prices stayed the same (contrary to rewarding best customers and encouraging more people to use monthly passes) and saw fares for longer trips that generate the most external benefits increase while fares for short trips generally stayed the same. Plus the huge backlash against the fare zones proposed in the draft RPTP and the recent angst over fare changes as the AT Hop card is implemented.
The solution to this mess seems incredibly obvious to me: Auckland Transport needs to prepare a cohesive fares policy, which gets into much more detail about the mechanics and trade-offs of the different fare options than the draft RPTP did. Auckland Transport then needs to consult with the general public and key stakeholders about the policy, get general buy-in, and then use that policy to guide what it does in the future about fares.
Seriously. Not that hard and it would save them a lot of angst.
On a slightly related note, the stupidity of the way our PT contracting works where Fullers are allowed to do whatever they want on the Devonport and Waiheke routes due to them being fully commercial has thrown up classic example of how dysfunctional things are. Recently Fullers decided to replace their ticketing system due to their old one getting a bit long in the tooth but rather than just hook fully into the HOP system, they have launched a separate system allowing them to offer ferry tickets not available to HOP users. With crap like this, it’s no surprise that the HOP usage on Ferries has been abysmal with less than 5% of all ferry trips being paid for using HOP according to the most recent stats produced by Auckland Transport.
Processing...
I still say John Minto has the right idea.
We can get most of the patronage boost benefits with a sensible fare policy, but still keep $100 million or so to invest in more services.
Most peak times services packed anyway so free fares wouldnt help one bit.
Free fares probably good idea in provincial NZ where is plentiful free parking (and Christchurch) but not in Auckland.
Back to the post I’m reading the RPTP most of the points there are quite similar to what you raise, so the issue is implementation.
For example RPTP says daily cap introduced once all operators on same system. But can’t see why this can’t be done now, and at the latest should be done the day the last operator changes to AT HOP (Bayes in November).
Knowing AT a new fares policy would take a year to wander through the bureaucracy. I think we need urgent action to ensure AT HOP doesn’t become a dirty word, and to boost patronage.
It would be interesting wouldnt it? There would be money saved on staff and collection costs.
I do think the capacity arguments are overdone. Are there really that many people who arent taking PT juts because they have figured out it is cheaper to drive. Most people I know are not using PT because (a) they say PT would take way longer especially if not going to the CBD, (b) they have a company car and free parking, or (c) they just refuse to share space with another human being and think PT is for losers.
None of those would be changed by free PT.
Tallin, Estonia seems to be doing well. They havent been flooded with users but then they were at about 50% PT modal share already.
You mean that it is a great idea to protest up and down Queen St every other weekend?
Hey, it gets the cars off Queen St! 😛 (if only for a little while)
To the (long) list of failures please add how some routes are serviced by different bus companies (UE and GW) so whether or not you can use your HOP card depends on the brand of bus that shows up, not the number of the route. Yes, I am still grumpy at being caught out by this and not being able to use my monthly pass!
Simon
Unfortunately it simply isn’t possible to roll out HOP to all buses at the same time so there was always going to be some element of it. Had fares been sorted out first though it might have not been as bad.
Yes, but they could have minimised the annoyance by at least making sure all the buses you can’t use HOP on were all the same route number. Make up a new route number for those particular buses. At least then people would know they can’t use HOP on 195s but they can on 198s say (I made up the 195 number – why couldn’t AT?).
And, as mentioned below, they do sometimes have buses of one ‘brand’ used on routes of another so what will happen in those cases? People who they’ve been pestering to upgrade to HOP will be told oh, sorry, you can’t use it on this bus.
Will be fascinating when some NZ Bus routes are on AT HOP but not others. They regularly have the buses from other brand running on routes (Ie North Star bus on Metrolink route). Almost all their buses appear to be AT HOP capable now, but can they swap ticketing systems based on what route the bus in running that day?
Fares need to be sorted out, and quickly. Over the last two days I have found myself having to drive to work (due to having to take items into the office) and it is both significantly quicker and now quite a bit cheaper. For the short trip from Devonport to the hospital (about 4 or 5km in a direct line) AT will charge $9.80 each way (bus/ferry/bus).
Getting to the hospital from say Glen Innes which is near enough the same distance costs $3.40 (train and walk).
It should be the same for both.
I thought that the whole idea of integrated ticketing and the HOP card was that it wouldn’t matter what combination of trains, buses or ferries you used – a short trip would cost the same. I feel that getting a HOP card has proven to be a complete waste of time.
So what is going on at Auckland Transport these days? It’s really easy to sort out. And if that’s too hard, a very simple stopgap measure would be to cap daily charges on HOP cards to say $5 or $6 the way they do in Melbourne. Whatever is done, the situation can’t be left in this current mess.
The ferry contracts are a nightmare. They’re fully commercial, so AT doesn’t have the right to either set or integrate fares. They’re at the mercy of the ferry operators.
Talking of different Bus Companies, when are we going to see one consistant Brand across Auckland i.e. AT instead of the mish mash, Metrolink / Go West / Waka Pacific / what ever other bollocks that someone thought up at the time?
Those three brands are all NZ Bus. I believe that AT gets to control service branding once the PTOM comes into effect, which would be what puts an end to the plethora of services. You’ll note that there is AT branding rolling out on the Northern Busway, so it is happening as it becomes possible.
And on the 380.
It seems pretty simple to me, actually.
Three zones (two would mean too high a jump), with two fare settings, and broad application of the lower one.
(eg.)
$2, $4, $6.
$1, $2.50, $4.
Outer link. Isthmus and surrounding suburbs. Everything else.
It seems to me that lack of will is the main impediment. When people aren’t confident in doing something, they use the search for a perfect instrument as a delaying tactic.
So a trip from Pukekohe to Bucklands Beach is the same as one from Kingsland to the University? Henderson to Orewa the same as St Helliers to Mission Bay?
You draw lines (fare zones). You cross a line, you go from a single zone to a double zone. You cross into the third zone, you pay three zones. The most you’d pay is the cost of three zones. Pukekohe to Bucklands would be either (eg) $2 or $4, depending on whether it required transferring through zone two. Henderson to Orewa probably $4. You could start the fare at $3, for example, but then you’d need to make zone one large enough to make that worthwhile.
It’s pretty easy to work out. And much simpler than the multitudes you have to deal with otherwise. It does mean that some very long trips are much cheaper than you’d have otherwise, but that’s a small price to pay. In Melbourne, for example, I’ve taken two separate trains of an hour or so each, and only paid $6.40. That’s an anomaly, and one that you can wear – unless the system thinks that it’s about charging people as much as possible, rather than making things as simple and easy as possible and maximising revenue by maximising patronage.
I’m totally down with the zones concept, just commenting that the three zones you presented (Outer link. Isthmus and surrounding suburbs. Everything else.) lacked a bit of finesse. Once you delve into the nitty gritty its not quite so simple to get something that is effective, equitable and fair.
I personally disagree with the zones system, or at least with one that has a linear relationship between distance and cost. For one thing, people commuting from the far suburbs are generally the ones with the least disposable income. I think that a system with a fixed fee + a variable cost depending on distance (or number of stops) + a cap (2-3 times the fixed cost?) would be better. It decreases exact predictability but it increases confidence that wherever you go, you won’t be in for a ridiculously hefty charge. It removes the ‘step’ for people at the edge of a zone, and the incentive to walk that extra km to avoid doubling their fare. This is the sort of crap that tends to make people distrust the system.
There are ways to accommodate that in a zone system, usually by having large outer zones and smaller inner ones. For example, many zone concepts have one small zone covering about a 2-3km radius around the City Centre, yet have a single zone covering all of South Auckland.
Most zone systems also have an overlap between zones focussed on major town centres or interchange points, which is included in both zones. So to go from one zone to the other you have to cross the entire overlap portion, usually two or three rail stations and couple of kilometres of bus. In Auckland we are especially blessed by frequent natural borders of harbours and inlets that make those boundaries a fact on the ground anyway.
I’m with George on the simple concept and cheaper fares to maximise patronage and revenue. Not sure that the outer link makes sense as a zone boundary though – it’s very skewed to the west of the CBD and it really encompasses only a very small part of the city. But as mentioned in later posts, it’s more about the concept (simple, cheap) than it is about the detail, which we could haggle over all day (while doing nothing). What is that line about perfection being the enemy of the good? When you’ve currently got bad, good is better, and you can fix the details later.
As a regular ferry user I’m surprised more people aren’t using HOP. It’s slightly inconvenient to tag on & off (as opposed to just scanning the ticket once at downtown) but auto top up sure beats queuing at the fullers ticket office once a week.
But Aaron just join the “Captain’s Club” and you get one of the new swipe cards. You can then either buy a monthly pass or charge it up with 10 ride tickets. It is substantially cheaper than the AT HOP card fares if you travel every day – which is mental but the reality.
I agree with Matt that it is crazy Fullers havent been able to just put their passes on to the AT HOP cards and have instead started their own new electronic system. I assume that is because they got tired of waiting for the system to be able to handle that.
I asked when the switch to AT HOP was happening and they just shrugged. Very encouraging.
No that won’t be due to waiting for HOP or AT, it will be Fullers trying to keep separate so they have control. The PT operators don’t exactly play the game with the customers best wishes at the top of their mind. It’s all about their bottom line. Fullers is also owned by Brian Souter who has a reputation for this kind of behaviour.
Really? Wow that is really annoying.
That is one of the reason I believe AT are consolidating fares at the same time as rolling out HOP, to do it separate would just be too difficult due to the operators complaining. Further, any hint of them getting upset and they will run to the government about it.
When AT HOP first started on ferries it was more expensive but the single trip HOP fares have been aligned with the Fullers 10 trip tickets now. Not sure about other services but on Birkenhead that I use, a 10 trip ticket is $41 and it’s $4.10 per trip with HOP. Maybe not everyone has got this message?
I know there is the “captain’s club” monthly pass for $132 which could work out a little cheaper depending on your usage pattern but HOP provides a reasonable amount of convenience that I’ll pay a little more to use it. And you don’t have to scan those dorky barcodes 🙂
People haven’t got the message because fullers deliberately haven’t publicised it. Let’s face it, if HOP costs the same as ten trip fares, what possible reason is there for selling 10 trips? Only one, and that’s that Fullers get the revenue upfront. No advantage whatsoever for passengers.
I also wonder if “breakage” revenue from 10 trip tickets is significant. More than once with the old tickets I put it through the wash or lost it. If you lose your HOP card you don’t lose your balance.
But I am pretty sure that the new cards operate like the AT HOP card in that if you lose it your balance is still there. I am also pretty sure (though I always get a monthly) that you can load ten trip tickets on the card.
I am not defending the Fullers only cards, as they should have migrated direct to AT HOP. But the new cards are actually quite good.
The fact that Fullers have been able to do this is crazy. Hong Kong. Oyster, Pretty much any form of PT. AT should therefore be able to allow another operator to service these routes as well.
Well the Devonport and Waiheke routes are fully commercial so if another operator wants to come in they can but I imagine there isn’t enough profit on the routes to support two competing operators.
But that’s the equivalent of allowing the bus operators to cherry pick routes, hold the money making ones and then using their own cards. Oh wait, we’ve just left that scenario. How is it ok for Fullers? AT got duped. There should be Zero subsides then for any of their other routes. All in or out.
I just received a survey from Auckland Transport by email asking which of two zonal based pricing I preferred. One was concentric circles radiating out from the CBD, the other was a little less concentric with the whole North Shore as one zone and all South Auckland as one zone.
Interesting… Could you go into more detail at all?
I wonder who’s getting these emails, I got one from AT but that was just to ask which bus/train or ferry operators I use.
Me too
I said that the narrative above the second map didn’t give enough info to differentiate from the first.
I also said that there had to be no monthly passes and there had to be daily/weekly/monthly caps and family passes. Plus off peak pricing before 0700 and after 0900.
I also said that they had to bring train operations in house, reduce the overinflated salaries and severely reduce the use of consultants.
They will probably have to bring in some consultants to analyse the possible effect of using less consultants. A Kafkaesque farce that would be a lot funnier if it wasnt our city they were f&%king with.
I got one of those surveys too. The concentric circle one was crazy (IMHO) – one zone from top of North Shore to New Lynn (a trip I suspect few would attempt on PT), three to the city, a much shorter trip (as an example). People on the “isthmus” bit would be particularly annoyed as it would be two stages to the city (meaning that everyone in west and south Auckland were three stages or more). Am I missing some geeky transporty thing that makes these circles a good idea? In a city with two rather large lumps of water taking up a lot of space it seems a rather odd way to do things.
I too got an email about the two zonal ticketing concepts. I thought that either of them would be a vast improvement over the current scenario, but I found it hard to comment about one vs. the other without them both in front of me at the same time (they were displayed consecutively). The survey also asked about the importance of various ticketing-related factors, such as low cost, equitability, costs of short vs. long trips, and off-peak/group/weekend discounts. Assuming this survey indicates impending action on AT’s part, I was somewhat encouraged that things seem to be heading in the right direction, even if there might be a whole bunch of issues/trade-offs to be resolved along the way.
The concept that the Fullers Waiheke service is open to competition is a total myth.
They may be commercial but at a price that those who have tried to compete (and Waiheke residents) have, and are, paying. There may well be enough profit for more than one operator but any potential competitor will be stamped out by Fullers who have deep enough pockets to get the desired result. In the case of the recent ticketing change the obvious intention is to retain the revenue in house and to ensure that accurate passenger counts are unavailable to AT.
Anyone who has observed Fullers Gulf Ferries under current and past ownership would be unsurprised in their current actions.
Fullers can’t claim to be a fully commercial service when they receive SuperGold card subsidies from central Govt. Outrageous that they can introduce their own proprietary ticketing system and still receive this subsidy.
My comments on the post about rail patronage earlier in the week apply here too. Without going into the detail again there is an immediate need to introduce incentive fares. These should be peak and off-peak daily caps, weekend fare cap and one fare only paid when your journey involves two modes of travel or two or more buses. You can change trains now and not pay twice. The same should apply to buses using the AT HOP card. THREE week tomorrw all of the North Shore will be on the AT HOP card for bus travel. The above options should be available immediately or the only people using the card will be the monthly pass users and everyone else will be holding up the driver paying cash because there is insufficient incentive to do otherwise. Build patronage with a proper fare policy NOW. I too got the email from AT asking which services I use but didn’t get the other one. I will be writing directly to AT this weekend about the fare issue. We should be flooding them with ideas/enquiries etc until they realise they have a problem that everyone wants solved now. .
You were lucky to get an email. My other half hasn’t received any, despite registering for them – twice! He is so far very unimpressed with AT HOP.
The fares should be a std one charge across Auckland. $70 students, $90 off-peak and $140 onpeak/offpeak. Weeks divide by 3, days divide by 14. Initially this may mean taking a hit but as patronage soars then the profits go into the network and a carbon-neutral fleet. To complicate and tie things back to internal agreements is just shooting a patronage gain in the foot.
It just gets worse for AT in todays Herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11111709