Comments on: Thales wins Integrated Ticketing contract

By: Uroskin

Uroskin — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 01:49:43 +0000

@Jezza: the Half Moon Bay return fare is $13.40, the return to Waiheke $32. The “difference” (if you can call it that because the Waiheke route is not a market fare but a monopoly fare) is due to ARC subsidies to Fullers for the run (reduced last year because Fuller’s bluff was called by ARTA and had to settle for a lower subsidy).
Fuller refuses a subsidy for the Waiheke run (while claiming poverty) because it would come with strings attached such as standard service delivery, fare ceilings and sharing wharf space to any competitor, handing in the route as a private run and open it up to competition.
The $50 cap would work well for Waiheke too, currently a monthly pass is $315 but that also includes an all zones Stagecoach bus pass on the mainland and the bus service on Waiheke. The cap would attract far more custom for Fullers too!

Feel free to check out Fullerswatch website for more details: http://fullerswatch.blogspot.com

By: Jezza

Jezza — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:34:34 +0000

Can’t include Waiheke in a $50 dollar a week cap, it would cause Fullers to immeaditely dis-continue the service or explode subsidies…

As an aside can anyone explain why the ferry to Waiheke takes 35 mins and cost $28 Adult return and the ferry to Half Moon Bay takes 35 mins and costs $13 odd Adult return..? Could it be because Waiheke Islanders have no other options..?

By: jarbury

jarbury — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:00:20 +0000

I remember reading quite an interesting book on the London Underground, and it said that a real problem over the past few decades has been the increasing proportion of the workforce in “white collar” office jobs. These jobs generally have a much more standardised working hours than factory jobs, which is more often shift work. This had meant that the peak hour demand on the Underground was comparatively higher than in the past, but off-peak it was quieter – not a very good trend if you’re trying to operate an efficient system.

In the last 10 or so years though tourists and other travelers have used the Underground more during off-peak hours though, so that has counterbalanced that trend quite well. In an ideal world it would be nice to have a steady level of demand throughout the day, rather than the peaks and troughs where you either need to provide far more capacity than you’ll need 85% of the time (very very expensive) or you end up with chronic overcrowding during peak hour.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:50:16 +0000

Yes, I think they call it demand management. Peak vs. off-peak fares are very different. Differences in prices at different times of the day are even more pronounced on trains around the UK. Also the availability of discounted advance purchased tickets on trains varies (has reduced over time I suspect).

However, I sometimes think demand management is used as an excuse to put up prices. The real motivation is to maximize the amount of money collected (whether to cover costs or maximize profit). I would argue that this is the real motive for private operators (as with the train franchises in the UK) and publicly owned operators to a certain extent.

I would have thought that overcrowding acts as it’s own demand suppressor without needing to put up prices (as with motorways).

By: jarbury

jarbury — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:11:41 +0000

I didn’t notice because I haven’t been in London since June last year

Yes the paper fare cost of the Underground is horrific. Do you think the fares are deliberately high to act as a kind of demand suppressor? To avoid even more overcrowding…

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:36:09 +0000

Zone 1 is now 1.60… and you didn’t even notice… see what I mean about fare creep! Bus is now 1.00… still good value but damned if I can figure out how to get around London by bus. Zone 1 paper ticket 4.00!! (zone 1-6 paper is also 4.00) I could be wrong about this but I seem to remember that when Oyster was introduced the Oyster fares were a significant discount on existing paper fares (1.00 for zone 1 I think). Since then both the paper ticket and the Oyster fare have increased significantly.

By: jarbury

jarbury — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:16:43 +0000

90p for a bus trip anywhere in London is pretty good I reckon. 1.50 for a zone 1 underground trip is a little on the high side, but seriously everything in London is damn expensive from my recollection! It’s a good question to ask why the London Underground is so expensive – perhaps all those staff standing on the platforms shouting instructions at peak time. Are they all really necessary?

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:52:14 +0000

I have some experience of the Oyster card system and acknowledge there are significant benefits from having such a system but I think there is also a down-side. It’s expensive for passengers. Operators (the one’s who set prices) are able to quietly increase fares or have a fare structure that has expensive singles for occasional users. In London the paper tickets are now stupidly expensive, effectively a penalty for not having an Oyster card, and a single trip using an Oyster card is not that cheap either.

By: jarbury

jarbury — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:00:09 +0000

Ha…. nah I think I’ll maintain my one stage bus trip into town. Transport costs me about $15 a week.

By: uroskin

uroskin — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:34:41 +0000

Yes, that would be a preferred option for many Waihekeans but since we don’t reach the 10,000 residents threshold for a unitary independent authority it is not an option in the short term. Be most welcome to up the numbers by moving here.