NSW Govt Is Seriously Considering a Major Hike in Public Transport Fares in Sydney - Review Closes This Friday, 12pm Feb 5th!

Lempengpro on 04/02/2016 - 11:32

Extract from the email:

Dear xxxxxxx,

My name is Kurt Iveson. I'm a public transport user and an Associate Professor of Urban Geography at the University of Sydney. I've also been studying and organising for fair fares and accessible public transport as part of the Sydney Alliance Transport Team for the last five years.

I'm writing to you because right now, the NSW Government is seriously considering a major hike in public transport fares in Sydney.

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW (IPART) periodically reviews transport fares for the NSW Government. Just before Christmas last year, the IPART released a report into transport fares in Sydney, and made a series of recommendations to the NSW Government that would dramatically increase the cost of public transport for many thousands of people across the city.

The review closes this Friday!

This is crazy - with all the social, economic and environmental benefits of public transport, we should be making it easier to use for everyone, not more difficult!

IPART's recommendations are open for public comment until this Friday, February 5th. We need to send a powerful message to IPART and to the Transport Minister that Sydneysiders demand affordable public transport.

Take 2 minutes now to share your story about why you don't want these changes to Opal fares and how you will be effected. This can be as a short as sentence or two! http://www.sydneyalliance.org.au/ipart_transport_submission?e=59acf5eae15c3122e769d0a6ff9d1829&n=2

We need to challenge the assumption that affordable public transport is optional for a global city like Sydney. Here are some of their recommendations:

  1. Fare increase of 8% in real terms over three years - this compares to its last determination in 2012, which recommended price increases of 4% in real terms over three years;
  2. Changes to Opal Gold card eligibility arrangements, which would see older people who are not pensioners forced to pay full fares for travel (rather than the $2.50 cap that all seniors currently pay);
  3. Increases to the Opal Gold card cap - from $2.50 up to $4.00 by 2018;
  4. Increase the daily fare cap - which is currently $15 for full fare travel - to $18 in 2016, with further cap increases of $1 per year thereafter. This will see the cap go up to $20 by 2020. This has flow-on effects for concession card holders.
  5. Abolish the current Sunday daily fare cap of $2.50 for everyone and replace it with a weekend cap of $7.20 in 2016, increasing to $8.00 in 2018. This would increase the cost of taking a family of four out for the day from $10 to a potential $32 in 2018.
  6. Instead of getting free travel for the rest of the week from the first 8 trips, IPART recommends it be after the 10 most expensive trips in a week. What does that mean? If you commute every weekday you lose the "free Friday" discount (and therefore much of the incentive to travel via public transport every day).
  7. Rejection of proposal to extend off-peak travel concessions to bus commuters.

Which of these will effect you or your family? Let us know. http://www.sydneyalliance.org.au/ipart_transport_submission?e=59acf5eae15c3122e769d0a6ff9d1829&n=3

Thanks to our friends at NCOSS who helped us go through the report with a fine toothed comb. Please send through your story before 12pm this Friday February 5th. http://www.sydneyalliance.org.au/ipart_transport_submission?e=59acf5eae15c3122e769d0a6ff9d1829&n=4

Looking forward to hearing your stories,

Assoc Professor Kurt Iveson

Sydney Alliance advocates for a world-class public transport system that is regular, reliable, clean, safe and easy to use for the people of Sydney regardless of health, wealth, age & mobility. It is planned, integrated and connected to where people live, work and play.

Travel

Related Stores

sydneyalliance.org.au
sydneyalliance.org.au

Comments

  • scrimshaw on 04/02/2016 - 12:00
    +2

    For those that want a summarised version of what IPART is proposing:
    https://youtu.be/qC16jnbcIrc

    • cypher67 on 04/02/2016 - 12:07

      So much more informative than that email, thanks Scrimshaw.

      To further summarise, if you only use public transport to get to and from work for your 9-5 using a single mode of transport, you will be paying more money.

      • scrimshaw on 04/02/2016 - 12:10

        yeah, the message they're sending is a little veiled. They claim 'some people will be paying more' but the proposed changes actually affect like… 90% of the population who primarily travel in peak hours.

    • ronnknee on 05/02/2016 - 09:50

      The price hikes wouldn't seem too bad if they were justified. Right now, the government is proposing that we paying more for the same level of shitty service which of course would cause outrage from the public. The service needs to be improved first eg. more frequent services during peak hours, less delays; before higher prices are sought.

    • tonsta on 06/02/2016 - 20:10

      only 1,200 views, hows the public to know if they don't spread the word.

  • cDNA on 04/02/2016 - 12:01
    +2

    This is so unfair. :(
    Public transport already takes $70 out of my pocket every week

    • Evil-Elmo on 04/02/2016 - 14:10
      +2

      Try living in Brisbane! Mine is $100 a week and it was only a few years back we had 15% year on year increases.

      I agree it's unfair… maybe NSW is looking at how they got away with big increases in QLD?

      • Nametab on 05/02/2016 - 16:30

        Very likely, given that both systems were rolled out by Cubic.

      • dogboy on 05/02/2016 - 17:40

        Living in Brisbane is great. We get paid the least but have the highest fuel and public transport costs :(

    • SnoozeAndLose on 04/02/2016 - 14:10
      +2

      doesnt $60 is a cap?

      • cDNA on 04/02/2016 - 14:11
        -1

        Really? I admit I haven't checked my opal card statement. I just gave a rough estimation based on how much it costs my each day

        • SnoozeAndLose on 04/02/2016 - 14:13

          Friday is free(may be you are counting it)

          It will be more if you work in the airport

    • lgacb08 on 04/02/2016 - 15:30

      move to Melbourne, only $39 a week, only downside is by the time your card is touched on you miss the train.

      • cDNA on 04/02/2016 - 15:57

        That's the plan. One day….

    • Untameable on 04/02/2016 - 21:58
      +2

      Driving a car takes $15 * 5 for parking, plus $35 in petrol = $115 out of my pocket each week (in Perth).

      But Jesus I wouldn't take public transport if you paid ME $115 per week. The last time I set foot on one some thugs threatened to kill every white person on the bus before urinating down the aisle; and there were only 2 of us versus 5 of them.

      Haven't gone back since. I salute your effort to help save the environment though.

      • GameChanger on 05/02/2016 - 00:39
        +1

        Which car park is $15?

        • Untameable on 05/02/2016 - 00:55

          CPP; in the CBD on the corner of Wellington St and the freeway south onramp. $15 for up to 10 hours.

        • cvas on 05/02/2016 - 15:32

          Good price but that one is a PITA to get out of if you want to go Fwy South. Wilson, next to tiger lils is also $15, except Wilson (for the most part) are thieves.

      • cDNA on 05/02/2016 - 09:10
        +2

        WA has the highest crime rates in Australia. Sydney is pretty safe, especially in peak hour. Western Sydney (past parramatta) at night scares me a bit.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2016 - 09:12
      +1

      Maybe people should stop voting liberal governments and this sort of thing won't happen

  • dsantos15 on 04/02/2016 - 12:22
    +2

    Its sad that it is actually cheaper for me to drive.. I've been pro-public transport all my life and have considered myself as being lazy if i drove instead of getting public transport. I like the 'green' aspect of it. Bikers your great..But drivers of cars (like myself) designed to fit up to 5 people, wasteful.. yet completely understandable.

    • cDNA on 04/02/2016 - 12:28

      I live near the Sydney city and work in western sydney. Driving is out of the question.

      • enzioFirenze on 05/02/2016 - 09:54
        +1

        actually driving is more feasible for you because the parking costs can be less compared to CBD, that's the only thing stopping me from driving to work!

        • cDNA on 06/02/2016 - 19:15

          Paramatta road is literally the worst place in Sydney. The traffic is sickening in the outbound and inbound directions.

  • Baysew on 04/02/2016 - 12:40
    +6

    A major hike in public transport fares in Sydney?

    The Government is on the wrong bus here. What is driving this ?
    We have just been trained to accept this. It's not ferry nice at all.

    • retiredfeline on 04/02/2016 - 12:44
      +3

      We should all rail against this with submissions.

      • Baysew on 04/02/2016 - 12:47
        +8

        O pal, you are on the right track, we can't afford to be a sleeper on this. It's just not fare.

        • Allan on 04/02/2016 - 12:58
          +5

          I hope everyone hops on board and make sure things don't get derailed even further

        • cypher67 on 04/02/2016 - 13:08
          +3

          @Allan:
          Feels like the doors closing, please stand clear on which side of the track everyone is on

        • cowiie on 05/02/2016 - 09:32

          @cypher67: Make sure you give them a piece of your mind… DOH!!!

    • ronnknee on 05/02/2016 - 09:30

      You try too hard.

  • sellingoutsoon on 04/02/2016 - 13:16
    -3

    This comment won't be popular, but it's the truth, and grossly misunderstood by nearly everybody debating this topic. TBH if you look at the actual numbers (in fairness: most people don't have access to them) and remove emotion and self-interest (which hardly anyone will do, if we're honest) public transport is way too cheap in NSW. A large percentage of people riding the train in Sydney are doing so to work in the city, getting paid over 100K (many a great deal more than 100K), and being subsidised heavily by the government for it! Whereas people living in Western Sydney who also work in Western Sydney are often driving to work in lower paid jobs. Driving costs considerably more, in nearly every case. Even if it doesn't in immediate cash terms, wear and tear on a vehicle changes that. This is not treating people equally, which I believe is the government's (meaning: our) mandate for "public" (meaning: our) transport.

    • SnoozeAndLose on 04/02/2016 - 14:09
      +2

      But if you consider that you have a car and not driving it to work that the insurance/CTP/Registration need to pay annually, although you will get a bit more wear and tear.

      People love to drive to work? being stuck in the middle of traffic every morning and after work? All these because the public transport is sucks and expensive.

      Public transport suppose to be cheap and reliable for everyone so that more people can get off the road, it actually create more econ. benefit that you can not see. As the public transport especially bus be more on time and cheap, more and more people use the revenue will go up.

      Government should make public transport even cheaper and create more local job so less people have to travel the long way to work.

      • sellingoutsoon on 04/02/2016 - 14:11
        -1

        Nice ideas. I was talking about the actual figures though, the real numbers that make budgets work (as in "who's going to pay for it"?)

        • SnoozeAndLose on 04/02/2016 - 14:12

          The fare is only contribute to 25%(currently) to the operating cost, the rest can be advertisement , Government funding …

        • sellingoutsoon on 04/02/2016 - 14:14

          @LoveBargain15: So you're saying the price is unviably low. So car-driving taxpayers should pay the rich to travel by train to high paying jobs? (that's what the ABS shows is happening!)

        • SnoozeAndLose on 04/02/2016 - 14:28

          @sellingoutsoon: I want to point out that raising the fare may not improve the revenue much as it is only contribute to 25% of the cost. I think the high paying jobs (depends how high you are referring to) people still drive to work and park in the CBD. They may not use the public system as well.

          Make public transport cheaper may not equal to reduce revenue, if the number of people use is more than the number of fare reduced, it will be a win win situation as less people on the road. The capacity on the train, ferry, bus is far more to reach it capacity yet. then they are building new train in north west for train every 2 minute it push the capacity even higher.If you dont do anything (making the system cheaper/more efficient) to increase the volume then the revenue is getting worst. There is to say government spend enormous amount of money on north west line which no one use(to an extent that it cover the cost) due to increase in fare, this just a lose to everyone.

          I hope people wont just looking this one side and not a complete picture.

        • Tyrx on 05/02/2016 - 18:52
          +1

          @sellingoutsoon:

          Who do you think are paying for those multi-million dollar upgrades to the road system in Sydney? I hate to break it to you, but the cost to taxpayers in terms of subsidising trains is pretty much exactly the same as motorists… Road users are actually MORE subsidised by the Government than people who use trains.

    • cypher67 on 04/02/2016 - 14:30
      -1

      Sounds like someone has a low paid job in Western Sydney, maybe if you applied yourself you could be in the city with me paying $2.7k a year (soon to be more) to sit on a packed old run down train all whilst making it easier for those driving to work, all while still paying just as much to keep my car on the road that I hardly use. Swings and roundabouts, do the people out west pay more rego and taxes to use the roads they clearly drive more on?

      • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2016 - 14:15

        (profanity) off, Ayn Rand.

      • ThadtheChad on 06/02/2016 - 12:39

        ^^ It may be unpopular, but this is a fairly fitting reply to @sellingoutsoon's comment.

    • bobbified on 04/02/2016 - 14:58
      +12

      A large percentage of people riding the train in Sydney are doing so to work in the city, getting paid over 100K (many a great deal more than 100K), and being subsidised heavily by the government for it!

      And where do you think the government gets the money from to heavily subsidise all this?

      At the end of the day, the government should not be treating public assets, which are owned by taxpayers, as a business by trying to make a profit from it.

      And don't forget, the higher the personal income, the more tax there is to be paid by the individual. So stop whinging about how people on higher salaries should pay more, etc - because they already do!

      • StewBalls on 05/02/2016 - 09:13

        At the end of the day, the government should not be treating public assets, which are owned by taxpayers, as a business by trying to make a profit from it.

        They are, however, responsible for keeping these public utilities as sustainable & viable as possible, which is what we're discussing here. This notion is a far cry from running them as for profit ventures.

        • bobbified on 05/02/2016 - 10:52
          +1

          I don't disagree with you about the sustainability, but I think that in itself opens up a completely different topic.

          At what point would it be called "sustainable"?

          The ideal definition of that for the government would be at the point where the income generated by the usage and ticket sales covers the costs without any further subsidy from the general taxes.

          So if everything works like that, what would the government do with all our taxes?

          Historically, when there appears to be any chance of a balance happening, there'll be more interest from private equity firms and the government won't be able to resist the sale of that asset.

          At the end of the day, it's us that's paying the full costs of this train system - if the ticket prices don't go up, our taxes will.

        • StewBalls on 06/02/2016 - 07:18

          @bobbified: Public utilities like transport will probably never be self-sustaining, even in an ideal world…however, the more they can be self-supported by user pays funding over general taxpayer revenue the better, wouldn't you agree.

          I know that I'd rather see my taxes used for purposes other than the bottomless pit of public transport…

    • Untameable on 04/02/2016 - 22:01
      -4

      I'd suggest then that when you apply for a public transport card you are forced to lodge a PAYG slip each year; and fees get calculated on that. Richer people should pay more.

      • ruddiger8 on 05/02/2016 - 13:03
        +1

        I disagree with this. "Richer people" are already paying higher taxes and to be frank are probably the type of people who don't bother others on trains/buses. So why treat them differently.
        It is usually the lower class that make my trips to and from work pretty awful sometimes.
        "Richer people" also would have jobs and use the system nearly every day as well. Make it easier on them, not harder.
        I'm paying $60 a week in Brisbane for a train and I only live 23 minutes away.

      • shaiguy on 05/02/2016 - 15:13
        +2

        How is that fair? penalised because you earn more? people who already earn more, already pay significantly higher taxes and are already unfairly penalised for earning more. Another way to put it is people earning more through their taxes already get significantly less benefit (from memory about 20% of the top taxpayers get a negative benefit (including social, economic, infrastructure etc.)).

    • papachris on 05/02/2016 - 02:40

      This is not treating people equally

      Okay then, let's make it genuinely fair. Charge every working person a fixed fee to use public transport to get to/from work, wherever that may be. Train to Penrith then bus to Silverdale? Same price as a ferry to Mosman or a bus to Clovelly.

      Why should a poorer person living in Blackett have to pay far more to get to work than a person "getting paid over 100K" who only buses in from Woollahra?

      public transport is way too cheap in NSW … subsidised heavily by the government

      Are you really advocating removing (or heavily reducing) public transport subsidisation? The effects of that are obvious - massive fare increases, massive drop in usage, massive increase in car usage, and eventually massive landslide victory for the opposition at the next election.

      We need MORE subsidising of PT, not LESS.

      remove emotion and self-interest

      Well I no longer travel by PT, so I'm not suffering from "self-interest" either…

    • syousef on 05/02/2016 - 12:22

      So if you work harder, commute longer, earn more you should be hit up for even more money by the government? So that there is no advantage from all that effort. You're right about only one thing - your comment is unpopular…and rightly so.

  • blitz on 04/02/2016 - 13:58
    +18

    They don't want you to ride a bike.
    They don't want you to take public transport.
    They don't want you to take Uber.
    They would rather you just stayed at home.

    • CheapandUsed on 04/02/2016 - 14:25
      +24

      But they don't want you to have nbn at home..

      • scrimshaw on 04/02/2016 - 14:30
        +10

        Oh, they'll give you NBN all right, just the slower 25mbps version. Just don't expect it in your lifetime. Your kids perhaps can enjoy it.

        • cypher67 on 04/02/2016 - 14:34
          +9

          It depresses me that my mobile phone downloads about 20x faster than my wired home internet connection

        • OptimisticPessimist on 04/02/2016 - 15:19
          +3

          We don't need it any faster than 25mbps, its not like we'd use it for anything other than a glorified video entertainment system.
          Better off putting all that money towards the training of priests, who can then better facilitate the condemning of sinners to hell for spending their time watching cat videos/etc.

        • scrimshaw on 04/02/2016 - 15:27
          +5

          @OptimisticPessimist:

          My human friend, we have a lot of competing needs. Roads, railways, ports, health, education and telecomms, but high speed access to Cat videos are a basic human right, meow. They are what we use to indoctrinate entertain humans and make them think we're cute so that they are willing to do our bidding, feed us food and give us shelter.

          In the upcoming election, please vote for the Cat Party meow!

        • aussieprepper on 04/02/2016 - 15:33
          +2

          @OptimisticPessimist: I work online part of my job is uploading videos. It is unacceptable that a 10 min youtube video takes 5 hours to upload!

        • OptimisticPessimist on 04/02/2016 - 15:49

          @aussieprepper: In the words of the venerable Joe Hockey, perhaps you should get a good job that pays good money, then you won't have to upload videos for a job and deal with wasting 5 hours to upload a 10min video. Then go to a bank, borrow money and purchase a home that's located in an area that's not Australia, you know for better internet speeds.

        • OptimisticPessimist on 04/02/2016 - 15:51
          +1

          @scrimshaw: Damn you dastardly fiendish felines, its enough that you use an infectious parasite (Toxoplasma Gondii) to make us weak willed, but to combo hit us with cat videos is outrageous.

          We humans will fight you to the bitter…………………… Yes meow, would you like more milk, meow? Of course meow, anything you wish meow.

        • Baysew on 04/02/2016 - 16:36
          +3

          @scrimshaw:

          In the upcoming election, please vote for the Cat Party meow!

          Bob Katter ?

        • Faulty on 06/02/2016 - 14:23

          @OptimisticPessimist: Part of my work is sending and receiving filed in excess of 30-40GB multiple times daily. 25mbps isn't gonna cut it for someone working at home with FTTN in a similar situation to me.

    • Untameable on 04/02/2016 - 22:01

      Meanwhile business doesn't like you working from home because you can't be trusted to be doing anything without eyes and ears on you at all times.

    • Thaal Sinestro on 05/02/2016 - 03:45
      +1

      Definition of a Liberal:

      They don't like public transport.
      They don't like public schools.
      They don't like public housing.
      They don't like public hospitals.

      They don't like the public.

      In response to you line "They would rather you just stayed at home", I strongly disagree though. Unemployed people (except for refugees) are continually persecuted by the government. Even disabled people are no longer safe from the razor squad.

      • bobbified on 05/02/2016 - 10:58

        Unemployed people (except for refugees) are continually persecuted by the government. Even disabled people are no longer safe from the razor squad.

        The only reason for that is because they're costing the government money. Take the unemployment, etc benefits out of it and see if the government still gives-a-sh!t about those people.

      • shaiguy on 05/02/2016 - 15:17

        Whilst I don't like the changes, the review is undertaken by IPART (an Independent regulator)

      • ThadtheChad on 11/02/2016 - 18:43

        They don't like public transport.
        They don't like public schools.
        They don't like public housing.
        They don't like public hospitals.

        They don't like the public.

        …and they don't like 21st century telecomms infrastructure.

  • cDNA on 04/02/2016 - 14:12
    +1

    Wish Sydney had a proper subway network. A good $50 billion would do it.

    • scrimshaw on 04/02/2016 - 14:37
      +1

      Coming soon. 2019
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro

    • OptimisticPessimist on 04/02/2016 - 15:23
      +2

      $50 billion? Nah, need to account for the likelihood of a budget blowout, you know for times when they can't account for the misappropriation of funds.
      Better make it $X x whenever they decide to get it done + GST hike = $however much they want to charge.

      • cDNA on 04/02/2016 - 15:58

        A bullet train linking Brisbane, Gold Coast, Byron Bay, Parramatta (then a separate 15 minute train from Parramatta to Sydney CBD), Melbourne. :D

        One day!!!

        • papachris on 05/02/2016 - 02:49
          +1

          bullet train

          The funny thing is the first Bullet trains are very old technology now, first opened in 1964. We really are that far behind the Japanese.

          Of course, we can do without the professional train passenger boarding "pushers" that the Japanese use in their city network(s)…

        • scrimshaw on 05/02/2016 - 08:39

          @papachris:

          There's also the fact that JR railways are made of 7 private companies competing against each other. Their business operations are incredibly efficient, their trains run on time and they manage to make a profit still. (to be more accurate, only some lines turn a profit, and these lines subsidize the lines that don't)

          Much of Australia's railways are owned by government. We'd have much to learn from the Japanese.

        • cDNA on 05/02/2016 - 09:12

          @papachris:

          The funny thing is the first Bullet trains are very old technology now, first opened in 1964. We really are that far behind the Japanese.

          I have no idea what new technology is out there, but it would be so much nicer if we threw all our train infrastructure deep underground. We're so backwards….

      • syousef on 05/02/2016 - 12:27

        $50 billion wouldn't even be a down payment on the corruption. Politicians, developers and business men gotta eat right? Sydney is a tasty morsel but just leaves them hungry.

    • cypher67 on 04/02/2016 - 17:14
      +3

      Last report I read, had the Subway network even stronger than McDonalds, we need need anymore subways.

  • Maxxjet on 04/02/2016 - 21:16
    +2

    My advice will be writing to your local MP especially if it's a liberal one, tell them how much you dislike the hike and you , seriously will vote for Labor or Green if it eventuate.

    I did that and got reply by mail from my local MP. Regardless if he or she means what is in the mail, it at least give them an idea how much you feel about it. Seriously, this liberal government should go, a government just knows how to hike up everything, from GST to public transport…..

  • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2016 - 21:18
    +2

    This is obviously a conspiracy by the Sydney Taxi companies, so that within 10 years everyone will be forced to get a taxi everywhere !
    True Fact I just made up.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2016 - 22:00
    +1

    More expensive than it is now? That is ridiculous. Specially with the level of service they offer.
    I need to stop using public transport.
    But damn it, our old roads are full already with slow traffic.
    Did the government think about infrastructures and roas in a much populated city like Sydney.

    • Faulty on 06/02/2016 - 14:27
      +1

      Sydney CBD and some surrounding suburbs were never really planned properly to begin with. Lets take a look at the road network in the city. It has some of the most stupid layouts compared to other cities in Australia and worldwide. The

  • photonbuddy on 04/02/2016 - 22:26
    +1

    The problem is there is no holistic approach to transport.

    I've always said, for a lot of people, if you have to own a car, why would you use public transport?

    Why are the roads jammed with traffic during peak hour? I believe it's because of one thing: Parking.

    It's pointless building toll ways and motorways if there is nowhere for the cars to go at the end of their journey.

    Getting cars off the road into massive parking structures quickly would dramatically reduce congestion on the roads.

    As for the cost of public transport, why shouldn't it be a user pays system?

    I think fares should represent what it costs to run the service, but I also think to encourage people to use public transport, rather than there own car, there needs to be a pay-back scheme. This would give a percentage of your public transport spend off your rego. With reduced insurance premiums for less driving, it would make it more attractive to leave the car at home.

  • thefud on 04/02/2016 - 23:24
    +1

    PT fares: Another reason to never live in Sydney again.

  • snajper on 05/02/2016 - 07:52
    +1

    The reality is that they either have to jack up the prices or privatise the rail network to be sustainable.

  • donkey12 on 05/02/2016 - 07:54

    This is what I have submitted, in case anyone wants some inspiration for their submission.

    Living in The Hills and commuting the City daily is expensive, even with the free Friday. It's even more expensive now that the buses terminate at QVB, so we are forced onto the train to get to Central, making what was a $4.70 trip into a $8.08 due to the train trip between Town Hall and Central, but with added time! So we have already had effectively a 42% increase due to the new system. With the added population to the area public transport needs to be pushed, not discouraged. According to the recent local paper's article on census, The Hills relies on cars more than any other area in Sydney (One article that refers to high car reliance in The Hills http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/news/frustrated-c…). Shouldn't the Government be trying to promote the use of public transport rather than putting up the fares and making it more expensive? There are 8 weeks a year with public holidays in them, meaning we don't get every free Friday, then take into account 4 weeks leave and we are down to 40 weeks a year (with no sick days) of free Fridays, that's $376 (4.70 x 40 x 2) as a thank you for using public transport, compared to the extra cost (plus time) that I have to incur to get to Central because of the recent bus changes to George Street. That's an extra 814.80 that I am paying, so $376 doesn't even cover your recent changes. You've already hit us once, don't hit us again! (260 working days less 20 annual, 10 sick, 10 public = 210 * $3.88 = 814.80).

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2016 - 12:27

      you should be happy your buses still go to the qvb, my buses don't even stop at wynyard anymore. the train to central might cost more, but surely its quicker than george street was with all the traffic.

    • uggugg on 05/02/2016 - 20:07

      You actually should be happy with the recommendations because they're not going to charge you for changing from a bus to a train.

  • Ivan Krazy on 05/02/2016 - 08:44
    +2

    What really annoys me is that public transport should be affordable, convenient and available for anyone to use. The passengers are making also an effort to have one less car on the road. The incentive to jack up the prices defeats the purpose of public transport. If prices were to hike this much… as a user I would expect better, more reliable and major improvements on the network overall.

    • scrimshaw on 05/02/2016 - 08:51

      Increased prices also reflect the increased costs of providing transport. According to IPART anyway, they want revenue from fares to provide for 20% of the total cost. The remainder 80% is subsidized from gov.

      If we think about things like the increase of wages by 2% last financial year that means labor costs might also have increased, plus the fact that our cities are expanding in population which means more services are needed to keep up with demand.
      Then there's also things like ongoing upgrades and maintenance of older rolling stock and train lines.

      • SnoozeAndLose on 05/02/2016 - 09:04
        +2

        Have do you thing if the demand is higher, out current capacity is not reaching the maximum now( I means the capacity to carry more people on each train). So if the demand is higher with more people using the public transport, should the revenue increase? or cost per each service per person is reduced.

        On the other hand increasing the fare by far more than the CPI which will only deter people to use public transport then it is defecting the purpose of public transport. Also people who back on drive will make the congestion even worst which cost the econ more then the revenue increase by changing the OPAL system.

  • Flow220 on 05/02/2016 - 09:30

    The problem isn't that complicated…but the solution is… The real problem is our public sector carries too much 'dead weight', transport, police, hospitals… T

    Their efficiency is way too low, and they won't bother getting rid of bad apples because it's too much trouble (it's the taxpayer's money anyway, not my own)…and the bad apples know about it so they are happy to stay bad and lazy and ask for pay rises each year. Put it this way…the amount of money they costed by doing those yearly strikes (free transport) is probably higher than those marginal revenues from increased opal fares. I've seen plenty of times when a group of 7 workers stack around 'fixing' part of a street, one of them is driving a truck, 2 people are holding stop signs, the rest are just chatting. (it's late at night too..so…yea good rates) The same thing happens with police, doctors/nurses…

    i'm not saying everyone in the public sector is lazy though, it's just they tend to have a higher % of bad apples because they are so hard to get rid of, as well as their lack of incentive to get better. Public sector isn't supposed to make money, they should only charge a reasonable amount to help covering part of the costs, but they suck at controlling their costs in the first place, that's the problem.

    • snajper on 05/02/2016 - 11:28

      Spot on…Compare size of Sydney Rail vs Melbourne rail and number of maintenance staff in each …………..Say no more

  • DarkOz on 05/02/2016 - 09:56

    Looks like the OP has found the best forum to post about this. This is Ozbargain. People in here gets upset over any price increase of over $0.01! If it's not discounted we are not happy!

  • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2016 - 10:02

    Cheaper and more convenient to drive a small car in my case as I don't work in the city. Public transport should be cheap, convenient, safe and consistent whereas now I have have found it to be more expansive, buses arrive late or not at all and unsafe at night or afternoon.

  • bobbified on 05/02/2016 - 12:34

    Does anyone know whether the "reasons" contained in the submissions from the public actually make a difference in whether the hikes are approved by IPART or not?

    Because from a logical perspective, one would assume that the majority of people (if not, all) who use the system would oppose a price hike? ie, the hundreds of thousands that use PT every day.

    I can't think of anyone who would actually want to pay more…..

    Or is it a decision based purely on the number of people that are pissed off enough to bother to lodge submissions?

    Or is it simply a PR exercise to make people feel like "they've been part of the process"?

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2016 - 13:40

      Yeah, it's definitely a PR exercise. Not worth our time.

      If anything, the MP that is on the opposition can go on television and state they received "Insert statistic" number of complaints with regards to the price increases.

      However, the opposition really can't do anything and in actuality would want more indirect taxes so the coffers are in a better condition when they win.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2016 - 13:37

    I don't believe they will take anyone's concerns seriously. It's a democracy, but democracy has many flaws.

    It's like when you are voting for two parties, when in fact there are very little differences between it. You are voting for the same thing.

    The same happens in the United States of America, a lot of people are upset about ObamaCare but the alternative which was RomneyCare is very much the same thing except that there would be compulsory purchasing of insurance rather than ObamaCare's voluntary scheme with many loopholes.

    The problem really comes down to a revenue shortfall in the state government coffers. I think whatever happens will be in the interests of keeping the state government running.

  • orbitalpaul on 05/02/2016 - 15:13
    +1

    Has anybody picked up that under the proposed changes the weekly cap will only be $5 more than it is now. I realise that this is Ozbargain but $5 isn't going to bankrupt us, is it?

    • victorheaven on 05/02/2016 - 15:20
      +1

      Not everybody hits the cap under the current system.

      People who travel with single mode (bus or train) 10 times a week are getting 25% increase in fare (10/8 - 1).

    • bobbified on 05/02/2016 - 15:23

      Doesn't sound like much, but it's an increase of over 30% over 5 years.

      You try ask your boss for that sort of a payrise and it's likely that you'll get a boot in the ar5e on your way out of his office.

      This increase does not factor in any further submissions for price increases over the next few years too!

  • RockyRaccoon on 06/02/2016 - 11:11

    Chill out people.

    I HOPE they are SERIOUSLY considering this.

    This way they determine the best outcome, and we pay them enough to do proper consideration.

    However consideration doesnt necessarily mean they will.

    Just like CONSIDERING the GST.

    If they propose, and when see see what this is, then start the complaining, if it needs it.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join