FSR Exploration of Options ReportJune2013.pdf

Public Transport Fare Structure
Review

Exploration of Options

Report prepared by
Fiona Johnson
Public Transport Group, GWRC

Public transport modelling by
Andrew Ford
Senior Data Analyst, GWRC

For further information, please contact:

Public Transport Group
Greater Wellington City Council
Phone: 04 801 4179
Email: [email address]

Executive summary

The objective of the fare review is to develop a fare structure that is
  equitable for those using the system
  simple and easy to understand
  reflects the policies of the Regional Public Transport Plan and
  maximises patronage while achieving the necessary level of fare box recovery.

A number of options have been considered for fare structure, fare products and fare
concessions. These include for the structure retaining the existing 14 concentric zones (ie
status quo), large zones and a distance based fare; for products, period passes, fare capping
and targeted products; for concessions, changes to the existing concessions for children and
young adults and SuperGold card holders, plus new concessions for people with disabilities,
low income adults and tertiary students.

Moving to larger zones simplifies the fare structure, however in a revenue neutral
environment, the fare for short trips will increase across the region. This can be offset in
Wellington City by introducing an inner city zone, or across the region by introducing a short
trip fare. Having a short trip fare for journeys less than 3km resolves the issue in Wellington
city, but in outer areas, such as Kapiti, the less dense urban form and need for collector type
routes means a ‘short trip’ is up to 6km. Implementing different short trip lengths across the
region is complex to understand and is not favoured.

Moving to a distance based fare with a fare per kilometre decreasing with distance travelled
increases the revenue generated from the fare structure. However, users in Porirua, Lower
Hutt, Upper Hutt and Kapiti tend to pay higher fares under this scenario, whilst users in
Wellington are more favourably impacted. Any patronage gains within Wellington city are
offset by patronage reduction elsewhere in the region.

The issue then becomes whether a change in fare structure delivers sufficient benefits to
warrant the level of change required. Distance base fares add complexity to the fare structure
and make fares less transparent. District based zones simplify the fare structure but in order
to generate sufficient fare revenue, the single zone fare has to be set at a relatively high level.
As such, neither option offers sufficient advantage over the existing concentric zone structure
to justify major change.

The conclusion of this report is that there are insufficient benefits from alternative structures
to warrant substantial change to the current concentric zone model.

Current fare products are recommended to be gradually phased out to be replaced by a single,
time based ticket per zone and fare capping at a daily and / or weekly level.  A weekend
family pass, event tickets and bulk purchasing scheme are suggested.  It is recommended that
the total number of products is reduced.

Concessions for people with disabilities are supported in the long term, and may be
implemented through a universal off peak fare or targeted concession for people with
disabilities. The introduction of an off peak fare is supported. Further work on a bulk
purchase scheme which may benefit tertiary students is identified.

iii

Public Transport Fare Structure Review
Exploration of Options
1.  Purpose
The purpose of this report is to present
  the feedback from recent consultation
  a summary of international case studies of fare structures and
  an evaluation of options for a fare structure, products and concessions.
The report provides background information and analysis for the Council decision making
process.
2.  Background
The Economic Wellbeing Committee agreed the terms of reference for the Fare Structure
Review (FSR) in November 2011. The review covers the way in which fares are calculated
and charged and includes the fare charging structure, any concessions and the types of fare
products to be offered. The review excludes the fare levels which are reviewed annually by
the Council.

The Fare Structure Review has undertaken three streams of work, these being:

1.  Seeking feedback from operators and public transport stakeholders and the
community through establishing a Fare Structure Review Reference Group,
undertaking consultation on a range of potential options, holding a discussion forum
for public transport advocates and interest groups and holding a series of focus groups
around perceived value for money and fare structure preferences

2.  Undertaking international case studies of fare structures in cities around the work

3.  Analysing the options including modelling the patronage and revenue impacts of the
various options.

A Reference Group with representatives from regional councillors, users and operators
considered the potential options and explored the potential impacts of changes to the fare
structure, concessions and products. A limited number of options were agreed by the Council
in May 2012 (Report 12.151) for public consultation. Consultation on potential options for
the fare structure was held in July, August and September 2012.

A report to the Economic Wellbeing Committee in October 2012 (Report 12.462) outlined
the initial results from modelling work around the revenue and patronage impacts of some the
options for fare concessions. The report also presented the feedback received through the
consultation process.

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
1
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

This report summarises the 3 streams of work and explores options for a preferred fare
structure. Further modelling and analysis will be undertaken on the impact of the preferred
fare structure as part of the work to develop the business case for the Integrated Ticketing and
Fares project later in 2013/14.
3.  Objectives and assessment criteria
The objective of the fare review as established in the FSR Terms of Reference is to develop a
fare structure that is:

  equitable for those using the system
  simple and easy to understand
  reflects the policies of the Regional Transport Plan and
  maximises patronage while achieving the necessary level of fare box recovery.

The FSR Reference Group has developed a set of criteria for assessing the impact of any fare
structure. These criteria reflect the principles articulated in the Review Terms of Reference
and were signed off by the Economic Wellbeing committee in May 2012 (Report 12.151) as
part of the public consultation on the fare structure. These criteria for any assessment of an
alternative fare structure are as follows:

Criteria
Description
Simple, easy to
This indicates the extent to which users potential users find the fare
understand and
structure simple and easy to understand and they are not discouraged
use:
from using the services and paying appropriate fares
Encourage
Encouraging increases in level of patronage (boardings) and passenger
patronage growth:
kilometres expected within the specified financial constraints
Affordability for
Public transport provides an affordable travel option for people who
users:
depend on public transport (i.e. those who don’t have access to motor
vehicles or can’t walk or cycle for most of their trips)
Ease and costs of
This reflects
fare / ticketing
  any differences between options in the capital and operating
system
costs of the proposed electronic ticketing system
implementation
  the extent of any technology-related difficulties anticipated in
and on-going
the initial implementation and periodic adjustments of the
administration:
proposed fare structure/ ticketing system
  the extent of difficulties anticipated in adjusting operator
contracts in response to introducing and periodically adjusting
the new fare structure
Support efficient
This reflects the fare structures contribution to:
network design,
  encouraging supporting efficient network design by removing
operations and
any fare impediments (e.g. by allowing free transfers)
asset utilisation:
  encouraging peak spreading (travel outside peak periods / peak
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
2
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Criteria
Description
directions) which also means improving the use of public
transport assets and reducing the capital operating costs for a
given transport task
  reducing bus boarding and alighting times which will also
reduce operating costs and encourage increased patronage
  reducing fare collection and ticketing costs
Deliver sufficient
The fare structure must generate sufficient revenue to meet the current
revenue:
fare-box recovery policy as specified in the Regional Public Transport
Plan
Economic
Fares have a consistent relationship to the economic costs of different
efficiency:
trips

4.  Consultation and Engagement feedback
A number of different consultation methods have been used to understand community views
on the current and future options for the public transport fare structure in Wellington. These
include

  the formal consultation feedback (reported to the Economic Wellbeing Committee in
October 2012 - Report 12.462),
  a discussion forum for public transport users, advocates and residents groups on the
issues around any change to the public transport fare structure, and
   focus groups around the relative perceived value for money of public transport in the
region
  A Fare Structure Review Reference Group comprising representatives from operators,
councillors and users.

These are summarised below. A summary of the relevant results from the annual user
satisfaction survey is also presented.
4.1  Formal consultation - mid 2012
During the formal consultation carried out last year, respondents were asked to comment on a
range of alternative options for the fare structure in Wellington.

Overall, respondents were evenly split between retaining existing 14 zones or moving
towards coarser 5 or 7 zone option. 70% of those who preferred coarse zones preferred a
combined approach of zones for cash and distance based for smart card users with a higher
preference for a purely zonal structure from respondents outside Wellington city who would
typically be travelling longer distances on public transport.

When asked to consider a distance based fare structure, the majority of respondents supported
fare increments to decrease with distance travelled, with a higher percentage of people
supporting this in Kapiti and Wairarapa.

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
3
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Overall two thirds of respondents supported a concession fare for tertiary students which may
be a reflection of the high number of under 25 year olds who responded to the survey.
Around 40% supported extending the child concession fare to all people under 20 years old
and over half of all respondents considered the level of discount offered should be 50%.
Three quarters of respondents considered that concession fares should continue to be offered
to people with disabilities.

Overall opinion was evenly split for or against an off peak fare, although support for an off
peak fare increased with respondent age. Only a quarter of respondents considered that
concession fares for beneficiaries or people with disabilities should be replaced with a
universal off peak fare.

When asked about preferences for future payment systems, 40% of respondents who use
public transport for more than 20 trips per month preferred to pay using a periodical ticket,
whereas 57% of respondents who use public transport less frequently (1 to 4 trips per month)
prefer the option of paying on a trip by trip basis with a stored value card. Generally, people
who use the train as their main public transport mode preferred periodical tickets, and those
who identify the bus as their main public transport mode prefer to pay by stored value card
reflecting the current payment systems in place. Just under two thirds of respondents
supported payment with a smart card.
4.2  Public transport discussion forum
At the forum for public transport users and advocates, views were varied. There appeared to
be a general consensus that whichever fare structure is adopted, the Council should be
focusing on increasing patronage on public transport.

The group considered that public transport must be affordable, easy to access and use.
Integrated ticketing and a single smart card system across the network were needed as this
would encourage patronage growth and make the network easier to use.

The group considered that the overarching objective for the fare structure review should be
that the fare structure results in fares that are fair, reasonable and equitable. Maximising
patronage and ensuring any fare system is simple and easy to use were considered the next
most important attributes of a fare structure.

The group considered that concession fares should be offered to those most in need, however
who was most in need was debated by participants. Tertiary student representatives argued
for concession fares for students, whereas other participants argued other low income users,
such as cleaners or other service workers, were equally as ‘deserving’ of a concession fare.
4.3  Focus groups on value for money
Six focus groups were held around the region with the objective of exploring public transport
user’s perception of the value for money of current public transport fares, and their views on
any future changes to the fare structure.

Participants generally perceived that under the current fare structure, longer distance public
transport travel was better value for money than shorter public transport trips. Rail was
considered to offer better value for money than bus travel on a fare per kilometre travelled
basis, however participants considered that because bus stops were generally closer to where
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
4
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

people want to go and the journey was more ‘direct’ this added value for money for bus
users.

Participants were asked to consider the relative fare for a number of short, medium and long
distance trips around the region. Under the current fare structure, short trips in Wellington
have a higher fare than an equivalent trip in the Hutt and Kapiti, and Wairarapa travellers
tend to pay more for a 50km trip length than Kapiti users. Participants raised multiple
reasons for why the relative cost of journeys in the region could be seen as ‘fair’, with
reasons ranging from fares set by distance travelled, duration of journey, level of congestion
along route, social good reasons, topography, ability to pay, and willingness to pay. Only a
few participants considered the same length of journey should cost the same across the
region, mainly as they perceived other factors also influenced the cost of a journey.

A quarter of participants supported retaining the current 14 zone structure, all of these
participants (bar one) lived in Kapiti. The remaining participants were evenly split around
whether they preferred large zones or distance based fares. Larger zones were seen to
discriminate against short trips, whereas distance based fares were seen to discriminate
against longer distance travellers.

Participants were evenly split between whether there should be a differential between peak
and off peak fares, however, of those who supported a differential were also evenly split
between whether off peak fares should be lower or higher than peak fares. The reasons
ranged from that at peak times, public transport is more crowded and unpleasant so should
cost less, to lower off peak fares are needed to encourage more public transport use.
4.4  Public Transport Fare Structure Review Reference Group
The review criteria were discussed by the FSR Reference Group who considered fairness and
equity considerations are unlikely to differentiate between different structures as every fare
structure requires some trade-offs between different user groups and types.

The FSR Reference Group considered that the two most important criteria for the review
where that any fare structure must be simple and easy to understand and use and encourage
patronage growth. All other criteria are balanced in terms of the level of importance,
although these criteria may present significant impediments for some options.

The FSR Reference Group also considered that the fare structure should reward the types of
behaviours the Council considers important, an issue identified in the original terms of
reference for the project. As such, the fare structure should reward:

  frequent users
  users who travel outside the peak period
  users who pay using a smart card system.

In addition, the FSR Reference Group considered that the fare structure should be mode
neutral with the same products available on bus, rail, and ferry. Fares for some services
could be set at a premium, for example on the ferry, recognising either the nature or
additional cost of the service.

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
5
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Based on the underlying assumption that the fare structure should reward specific types of
behaviours rather than users, the FSR Reference Group also considered that concessions for
specific users were not supported. The FSR Reference Group considered that there should be
a national approach to concessions for people with disabilities, beneficiaries and tertiary
students similar to the Super Gold card which provided clarity and consistency to the
provision of concession fares.

In relation to specific products, the FSR Reference Group supports:
  In general, using fare capping in preference to periodical products
  Extending the current child discount to everyone under 19
  Retaining (rather than extending) the national definition of ‘off-peak’ for SuperGold
card holders.
  An off peak fare in preference to a tertiary discount, although a bulk buying discount
for students should also continue to be investigated.
  Allowing adults travelling at weekends to take children with them for free (as long as
administrative issues can be overcome).

4.5  Annual public transport user satisfaction survey
The GWRC annual public transport user survey has shown over the last few years that users
have become less satisfied over time with the affordability of both train and bus fares. Over
the last 5 years, the level of satisfaction with public transport affordability has declined from
around 52% for rail users and 58% for bus users in 2008 to 32% for rail and 34% for bus in
2012.    Whilst  this  decline  has  to  be  set  against  a  background  of  a  tough  economic
environment,  the  decline  of  over  20%  in  satisfaction  across  the  5  years  is  significant.
Between  2008/09  and  2011/12,  overall  patronage  grew  by  just  0.4%  against  a  population
growth of 5%.

When  the  current  14  zone  structure  was  introduced  in  2006,  GWRC  public  transport  fares
were increased by around 15%.  Between 2008 and 2012, GWRC public transport fares have
increased by approximately 20%, in addition to the 2.5% increase in GST introduced in 2010.
Over  the  same  period,  the  general  Consumer  Price  Index  has  risen  around  8.5%.  A  further
fare increase of 2.5% for most products is planned for 2013.
5.  Comparison to other cities
A number of case studies of other cities around the world were completed.  The case studies
looked at 14 different cities around the world and were grouped as follows:

Distance based fare  Singapore (3.2km + 1km increments), Seoul (10km + 5km
structure:
increments), Amsterdam (flag fall plus 1km increment or one
hour ticket)

Zonal based fare
Perth (1 city zone plus 8 concentric zones), Brisbane (1 city
structure
zone plus 22 concentric zones), Melbourne (2 zones), London
(inner London: 6 concentric zones), Newcastle upon Tyne (6
district based zones), Nottingham (1 zone), Seattle (3 zones),
Zurich (7 district zones), Oslo (5 concentric zones), Bergen (7
city zones), Frankfurt (4 concentric zones plus airport zones).

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
6
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

All cities studied allowed free transfers with most products with the exception of Nottingham
were every trip is a new fare.

Off peak fares were offered by Singapore (for trips prior to 7.45am), London (after 9.30am),
Newcastle (after 9am), Seattle, Brisbane (with go card) and Zurich (between 9am and 5pm).
Off peak discounts tended to vary across the zones from inner city to outer regions and
ranged from 5% to 40%.

All cities studied offered concession fares for children and seniors. Cities in the UK provide
concession fares for people with disabilities meeting nationally specified criteria. Tertiary
students are eligible to travel for the child fare in some UK and European cities. In the US,
tertiary students are offered fare concessions through bulk purchase schemes offered by
universities.

The fare products offered were varied. A mix of single, short journey, daily, weekly,
monthly and annual tickets were available in many cities. Amsterdam used time based
tickets of 1 hour, with additional charge for carrying a bike. Brisbane and Perth have
standard zonal tickets with 2 or 3 hour time limits.  Just 2 cities used multi trip tickets. In
London, fares are capped at a daily maximum which is slightly below the all-day travel card
value. The daily cap is equivalent to between 2.8 and 4 smart card single tickets.

US cities use employer based bulk purchase schemes, however these often have local and
federal tax incentives associated with them which are unavailable in New Zealand.
Melbourne has a similar bulk purchase scheme for employers which gives an additional 5%
discount over the weekly ticket price.

Most cities provided some discount incentive to use a smart card rather than cash to pay for
fares. In London, the smart card fares are discounted at between 30% and 50% from the cash
fare for inner London zones and between 10% and 20% for outer London zones. Perth has a
system where the level of discount is dependent on the method used to top up the smart card
(i.e. higher discount for automatic top up compared with loading a card at a shop). Denmark
offers the highest discount to people who register their smartcards.
6.  Current travel patterns
Current travel patterns are outlined in Appendix 2 to this report.

The analysis of travel patterns shows that in the morning peak , 80% of trips finish in the
Wellington CBD. Around 50% of trips in the morning peak originate from within
Wellington city itself, with around 15% from Porirua, 20% from Lower Hutt, 5% each from
Kapiti and Upper Hutt and 3% from the Wairarapa. These figures show that public transport
usage in the region is heavily Wellington city centric.

Around 48% of all trips occur in the off peak period. In the inter peak period, 50% of all trips
are to the Wellington CBD. Just under 65% of all inter peak trips originate from within
Wellington city, 18% of trips originate in Lower Hutt and around 9% in Porirua.

Just over a quarter of all public transport trips in the region are less than 3km, with around
60% of these within the Wellington CBD, and almost 85% in Wellington city. Two thirds of
trips less than 3km occur in the inter peak period.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
7
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Based on smart card usage on buses, 28% of smart cards used in a week are used only one
day per week, and just 16.5% are used 5 days a week. Smart card usage is highest during the
peak period, with over 75% of journeys paid by smart card and lowest during the inter-peak
period with just over 40% being paid by cash.

Based on smart card data from buses, in any one day, 54% of smart card users only travel in
the peak period and 52% only make one trip in a day either in the peak or off peak of which
64% are in the peak period. Given that regular users are likely to be smart card users, this
means the predominant travel pattern on buses in Wellington city is for people to make only
one trip a day on public transport. Around a third of regular users who travel 5 days a week
using public transport use public transport in the morning and evening peak times.

Just over 40% of rail users travel using a monthly pass. Given that monthly passes provide
value for money if used more than 30 times a month, the rail travel patterns are likely to
include a significantly higher proportion of people travelling twice or more a day and are
more oriented towards commuter travel.
7.  Modelling of the impact on patronage and revenue
The Wellington Public Transport model gives an accurate picture of current public transport
trip patterns, based on bus ticket machine and rail survey data. An economic analysis has
been undertaken using these trip patterns to estimate how people might respond to changes in
public transport fares, providing estimated patronage and fare revenue under a range of
scenarios.

The modelling has used guideline 'elasticities' to reflect the fact that, in simple terms, a
reduction in fare will stimulate more demand – this is generally more pronounced in the off-
peak than the morning peak. Any increase or decrease in fares in the interpeak period will
have a greater impact on patronage than a similar change to fares in the peak period. As a
result, the model assumes that a 10% decrease in fare would generate a 3% increase in
demand in the morning peak and a 5% increase in demand in the inter-peak period. These
elasticities are drawn from Australasian and international research, as well as modelling best
practice. These elasticities are an approximation to reflect the overall change in usage across
the population, however within the population, different groups are likely to be more price
sensitive than others. An example would be low income public transport users are likely to
be more affected by fare increases than higher income users consequently the elasticities for
lower income public transport users are likely to be higher than for higher income public
transport users.

It has been assumed that integrated ticketing will be implemented alongside the
implementation of the decisions on the fare structure review. Integrated ticketing is
represented in the model by allowing free transfers between services across all modes, as
opposed to the current situation whereby each leg of a journey is treated and charged as if it
were a new trip. The revenue impacts of introducing integrated ticketing are discussed
below.

Modelling work presented in this report on the impact of altering concession fares and
introducing a peak / off peak fare differential has been carried out based on the existing 14
zone structure and on either a revenue neutral basis or with the revenue impact identified.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
8
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Modelling work around moving to larger zones or distance based fares is presented as a
comparison against the existing patronage and revenue figures. This is to enable a
comparison between the current fares and the new fares for each option, and to provide
advice on the scale of the overall revenue impact.
8.  Integrated fares and ticketing
Integrated ticketing has been implemented in a number of cities and regions around the world
whereby one ticket can be purchased for a journey which may include multiple legs or use
multiple public transport modes. One driver for implementing integrated ticketing is to make
travelling by public transport easier for passengers, making public transport more attractive
for users. Increases in patronage have been reported after such schemes have been
implemented.

The Council has signalled its intention to introduce a single smart card system across the
network which will enable integrated ticketing across bus and rail. Implicit in integrated
ticketing is that fares will also become integrated. Integrated fares means that the same fare
is paid for the same journey no matter which route or mode of travel is used. There are two
possible definitions of integrated fares, these are that any subsequent leg of a journey is
charged:

1.  without the flag fall component of a fare for any subsequent legs of a journey, or

2.  without any fare increment if subsequent leg of journey is within the same zone as
alighting point at end of previous leg of journey (i.e. the journey is charged based on
the number of zones travelled regardless of how many vehicles used to make the
journey).

The definition of integrated fares to be used by the Council when implementing its integrated
ticketing project has not been finalised, however, the first definition tends to lend itself to a
fare structure based on distance travelled and the second to a fare structure based on zones.

As the majority of transfers in the network are currently treated as new trips, there is a
potential revenue implication from moving to integrated ticketing under either definition
above. The number of transfers within the current travel patterns has been estimated based
on survey data carried out in 2005 and 2010 and ETM data in 2011. These sources point
towards around 12% of rail journeys either being accessed or egressed by bus. There a large
variation in the number of bus to bus transfer trips estimated from the different data sources
varying from 2% to 3% to just under 20%. More robust information will be obtained as part
of the business case for the integrated ticketing project, however at the worst case, the
introduction of integrated ticketing may reduce revenue by around $3 million per annum.
This is based on a revenue loss equivalent to a one zone fare for 12% of rail journeys and 3%
of bus journeys. This figure would be reduced by any increase in patronage resulting from
integrated ticketing.
9.  Fare structure
The fare structure establishes the rules and methods used to calculate the fare charged for any
particular journey. The options for fare structure vary from a flat fare where one fare is paid
irrespective of distance travelled through to a point to point distance based fare structure
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
9
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

where fares are charged based on a unique station to station or stop to stop fare. Time based
fares are not typically used however many systems use a hybrid of zones plus time based
structure which enables transfers to be made on one ticket.

Whilst smart card systems provide the technological opportunity to introduce a more
differentiated fare structure based on distance, the case studies showed that many European
cities still have retained a coarse zonal structure even after implementing a smart card
technology to collect fares. The use of zonal structures is justified on the basis that the
greater simplicity and ‘marketability’ of such a zonal structure is able to attract greater
patronage of the public transport network.

In Asian cities, such as Singapore and Seoul, a distance based fare structure has been
implemented with fare increments charged for every 1km and 10 km respectively. The
literature around fare structures tends to point to distance based fares as being used where a
more commercial focus for public transport is desired, mainly due to their ability to raise
more revenue than a flat fare or very coarse zonal system.

The benefits of distance based fares and a highly differentiated fare structure are around
increased equity and economic efficiency. With a distance based fare structure, journeys of
similar distance tend to cost the same and fares increase with distance travelled, both of
which are perceived by users as being a more equitable. User support for a coarse zonal
structure or a flat fare structure often depends on the level of fare charged, with evidence in
Europe showing that the acceptability of a flat fare system is greatest with a very low flat
fare.

The strengths and weaknesses of the different fare structures are summarised below:

Fare
Strengths
Weaknesses
structure
Flat fare
  Simple and easy to understand
  No relationship between fare and
  Easy to implement free transfers
distance travelled

  Implicit cross subsidisation of
costs of short and long trips
  Transfers within the zone
included in fare
Coarse zonal
  Relatively simple and easy to
  Implicit cross subsidisation of
structure
understand
costs of short and longer trips
  Easy to implement free transfers
within one zone
  Broad relationship between
  Issues for short journeys crossing
distance travelled and fare
zone boundaries
  Transfers within a zone included
in fare
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
10
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Fare
Strengths
Weaknesses
structure
Distance
  Generally perceived as fair by
  Users unable to know with
based
users
certainty what the fare will be
  Strong relationship between
prior to boarding for new journey
distance travelled and fare
  Difficulty in establishing fares for
indirect or circuitous routes
(collector routes)
  Transfers dealt with through
removal of flag fall for second
journey
Time based
  Simple and easy to understand
  Fare has no relationship with
(duration)
  Facilitates transfers between
distance
services
  Difficulties setting fares when
congestion, or for express
services vs standard services
  Cancelled or late services become
more of an issue as may reduce
value of the ticket
Time of
  Relatively simple and easy to
  Potential to increase disputes
travel
understand
around fares
(peak / off
  Encourage users to shift journey
  Weakens differentiation between
peak – can
time from peak
fare and distance travelled
be used with
  Encourages increased usage in off    Potential to add complexity for
any of above
peak period
transfers from peak to off peak
zone,
  Increases alignment of fare and
services within one journey
distance or
cost of service provision
time based
structures)

9.1  Current fare structure
Under the current 14 zone system, the zone boundaries are closely spaced in Wellington city
and gradually increase in spacing outside Wellington city. This means that in effect the fare
per kilometre reduces outside Wellington city and fares for travel to and from Wellington
CBD reduce with distance travelled. A second consequence of the increased spacing outside
Wellington city is that local journeys within each town or city may be entirely within one
zone or cross only one zone boundary whereas a similar journey in Wellington city may cross
two zone boundaries.

Just under 50% of all trips in the morning peak and 65% of the inter peak trips originate in
Wellington city. The relatively high usage of public transport in Wellington city, together
with the closely spaced zones, shorter journeys and current fare levels means than public
transport within Wellington city is able to generate around 40% of the morning peak revenue
from 16% of the passenger kilometres and 60% of the inter peak revenue from around 33% of
the passenger kilometres. As a consequence, the fare level and the predicted impact of any
proposed fare structure on patronage in Wellington city strongly influences the total annual
predicted changes in revenue.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
11
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

9.2  Modelling results
Modelling of the 7 district based zone and a distance based fare structure has been undertaken
using a range of fare levels. The 5 zone option was not modelled in detail as the revenue and
patronage impacts were proportional to the 7 zone model as 5 zones is a more extreme
version of the 7 zone model. For each fare structure option, a number of iterations using
different fare levels were carried out to achieve a balance between revenue and patronage
impacts. The results of the modelled are discussed below:

Seven zones
The modelling work has shown that the impact of a coarse seven zone model on revenue and
demand is sensitive to the level of the one zone fare. If the one zone fare is set at the same
level across the region, then short trip fares in Kapiti, Wairarapa, Porirua and the Hutt Valley
increase, negatively impacting on patronage in these zones. Lowering the one zone fare
means that insufficient revenue is generated from Wellington city from the current 3 zone
trips. Given that a greater proportion of trips in the inter-peak period are short trips, the
impact on patronage when moving from the current structure to the larger zones is more
pronounced in the inter peak (See Appendix 3: Table A).

  Figure 1:  Seven zone option

Two methods of mitigating the impact on short trips were considered. These were to
introduce an eighth inner Wellington zone or a hybrid structure with the seven larger zones
plus a fare for short trips less than 2.5km or 3km.

Eight zones
Adding an eighth inner Wellington zone addresses the issue of the impact of larger zones on
short trips within Wellington city CBD, however does not address this issue elsewhere in the
region. The modelling results for an 8 zone option with an inner city zone are given in Table
B of Appendix 3. The inner Wellington zone was defined as either

  at current zone 1/2 boundary (Appendix 3: Table B: options 3a and 3m),
  at the current zone 2/3 boundary (Appendix 3: Table B: option 3c), or
  with the current zone 2 being an overlap zone between the inner and outer Wellington
zones (Appendix 3: Table B: option 3b).
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
12
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

In the eight zone scenario, the greatest impact on patronage is for trips originating in current
zone 2 in the morning peak. Patronage is also negatively affected in all zones outside
Wellington CBD, particularly in the inter-peak period where shorter trips are a more
significant proportion of all trips undertaken. Of the various eight zone options modelled, the
options with the inner CBD zone on the current zone 1 boundary has the best overall balance
of revenue and patronage impacts (see Table 1 below or Appendix 3: Table B, option 3a).

Seven zones plus short trip fare
The introduction of a short trip fare within the seven larger zones addresses the issue of the
higher one zone fare for short trips and is also a mechanism to address the issue of short trips
across zone boundaries. The intention of a short trip fare is for users making local trips and
those moving along the Golden Mile are able to do so for the current one zone fare. The
journey from the bus terminus at Wellington railway station to the corner of Courtenay Place
and Kent and Cambridge Terrace is around 2.5km. Modelling has been undertaken for a
short trip fare for a 2.5km journey and a 3km journey. The results of these are given in Table
C in Appendix 3. It should be noted that around a third of all trips in the inter-peak period
are 3km or less, around  20% are 3km or less in the peak period and 60% of all trips less than
3km occur in the peak period.

Of the short trip fare options modelled, a short trip fare of around $1.50 for all trips less than
3km appears to balance the revenue and patronage impacts (Appendix 3: Table C, option 3ii
and shown below in Table 1).

The 3km short trip distance is appropriate for Wellington inner city trips. In Kapiti and
Wairarapa, the lower density urban form and nature of the bus routes in these areas means
that local trips are likely to be longer than in Wellington city with its more compact urban
form. As the current spacing of zones in Kapiti and the Wairarapa is around 10km, then a
‘local’ one zone trip in these areas could be as much as 6 or more kilometres. In Wellington
city, the fare for a 6km trip is typically charged at the 3 zone fare. If the seven zone plus
short trip fare structure is preferred, further consideration of the length of the short trip is
needed. This would need to balance the various ‘local trip’ lengths across the region to find
an appropriate trip length that balanced the impact on patronage for short trips with predicted
revenue. Different ‘short trip’ lengths across the region are not supported as this would
create complexity for users and administration and issues around boundaries between short
trip zones.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
13
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Table 1:  Preferred options for 8 zone and 7 zone plus short trip fare

7 zones all short trips
8 zones with Inner
(less than 3.0km)

Wgtn CBD zone
charged at $1.50
(Option 3a)
(Option 3ii)
Current
Fare to
Fare to
fares to
Revenu
Trip origin
Wgtn
Demand
Wgtn
Demand  Revenue
Wgtn
e
CBD
CBD
CBD
AM peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
$1.13
2%
-9%
$3.38
-3%
5%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
$3.38
-6%
19%
$3.38
-3%
6%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
$3.38
1%
-6%
$3.38
1%
-6%
Wellington - Total

-1%
0%

-1%
-2%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
$5.25
-1%
-1%
$5.25
-1%
-1%
Kapiti
$8.84
$9.75
-1%
0%
$9.75
-1%
0%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
$4.50
0%
-2%
$4.50
0%
-2%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
$7.50
-3%
10%
$7.50
-3%
9%
$11.95
$11.3
$11.25
(south) or  (south) or
(south) or
Wairarapa
-1%
1%
-1%
1%
$14.05
$13.1
$13.1
(north)
(north)
(north)
All regions - Total

-1%
0%

-1%
-1%

Interpeak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
$1.13
2%
-6%
$3.38
0%
4%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
$3.38
-6%
16%
$3.38
-2%
3%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
$3.38
-1%
-3%
$3.38
-1%
-2%
Wellington - Total

1%
-1%

-1%
2%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
$5.25
-5%
-5%
$5.25
-3%
-7%
Kapiti
$8.84
$9.75
-9%
-8%
$9.75
-9%
-10%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
$4.50
-3%
0%
$4.50
-1%
-2%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
$7.50
-6%
6%
$7.50
-5%
2%
$11.95
$11.3
$11.25
(south) or  (south) or
(south) or
Wairarapa
-
-

$14.05
$13.1
$13.1
(north)
(north)
(north)
All regions - Total

-2%
-1%

-1%
-1%

Annual
All regions - Total

-1%
0%

-1%
-1%

Distance based
A range of options for distance based fares were modelled and these are shown in Tables D
and E of Appendix 3. Distance based fares were calculated on the basis of a flag fall
component for the first kilometre travelled plus an increment for each subsequent kilometre.

The options modelled were as follows:
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
14
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Flag fall
Appendix
including first
3:  Table
Increment for subsequent length of journey
kilometre of
reference
travel
Table D,
$0.75
Flat rate increment of 12c per km
Option 3o
Increments increasing gradually from 12c to 20c per km
Table D,
$0.75
over the first 40 km of a journey and remaining length of
Option 3p
journey at 20c per km
Decreasing gradually from 20c to 12c per km over the first
Table D,
$0.75
40 km of a journey and remaining length of journey at 12c
Option 3q
per km
Steeply decreasing from 30c per km to 7c per km over the
Table D,
$0.75
first 40 km of a journey and remaining length of journey
Option 3r
at 7c per km
Table E,
$1.50
Flat rate increment of 12c per km
Option 2a
Increments increasing gradually from 12c to 20c per km
Table E,
$1.50
over the first 40 km of a journey and remaining length of
Option 2b
journey at 20c per km
Decreasing gradually from 20c to 12c per km over the first
Table E,
$1.50
40 km of a journey and remaining length of journey at 12c
Option 2c
per km
Steeply decreasing from 30c per km to 7c per km over the
Table E,
$1.50
first 40 km of a journey and remaining length of journey
Option 3l
at 7c per km

The fares for typical journeys in the morning and inter peak in Wellington city are reduced
under all scenarios modelled except of those with the steep decrease in fare increment
(options 3r and 3l). As a result, patronage is predicted to grow under all scenarios except
these two options. Predicted revenue is significantly reduced for the constant or gradual
reduction in fare increments with revenue reduced by over a quarter for these options with a
$0.75 flag fall.

Option 3r ($0.75c flagfall plus steep decline in fare per km increment) presents the best
balance between patronage and revenue impacts and is shown in Table 2 below. This is the
only distance based option where fares in Wellington city are roughly comparable to the
existing fares and patronage is predicted to rise within Wellington city. This is mainly due to
an increase in trips in zones 2 and 3. Fares for longer journeys and local trips outside
Wellington city are increased under this scenario meaning revenue increases from journeys
originating outside Wellington, however there is a negative impact on patronage in these
areas. Overall, this scenario has low impact on current patronage levels (-1%) and increases
potential revenue by up to (9%), however the impacts across the region vary significantly and
are larger in some areas.

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
15
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Table 2:  Distance based fares – option 3r

$0.75  flag fall plus 'severe'


decreasing fare per kilometre (3r)
Current
Approx.
Fare to
fares to
Distance
Trip origin
Wgtn
Patronage
Revenue
Wgtn
travelled
CBD
CBD
(km)
AM peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
4
$1.65
0%
-1%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
6
$2.55
5%
-11%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
10
$3.75
4%
-5%
Wellington - Total

3%
-6%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
20
$6.00
-4%
25%
Kapiti
$8.84
45
$9.98
-5%
23%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
20
$6.00
-4%
27%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
30
$8.40
-8%
28%
$11.95
(south) or
Wairarapa
75
$12.75
-2%
9%
$14.05
(north)
All regions - Total

-1%
12%

Inter peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
4
$1.65
-2%
-4%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
6
$2.55
7%
-10%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
10
$3.75
1%
-2%
Wellington - Total

1%
-5%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
20
$6.00
-10%
7%
Kapiti
$8.84
45
$9.98
-21%
15%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
20
$6.00
-9%
13%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
30
$8.40
-12%
11%
$11.95
(south) or
Wairarapa
75
$12.75
0%
0%
$14.05
(north)
All regions - Total

-4%
2%
Annual
All regions - Total

-1%
9%

9.3  Assessment against review criteria
The table below summarises the assessment of the three most viable fare structure options
against the review criteria. These options are considered viable as they have a positive or
neutral impact on revenue and neutral or small negative impact on patronage. Options that
had a negative predicted impact on patronage or revenue of 1% or more have not been
considered further.

The assessment considers whether the option presented performs better or worse than the
current 14 zone fare structure.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
16
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Criteria
8 zone with
7 Zone with short  Distance based $0.75
Inner Wgtn CBD  trip fare
flag fall plus steep
zone (Option 3a)  (Option 3ii)
decrease in fare
increment with distance
(Option 3r)
Simple, easy to



understand and
Reducing the number  The reduced number of  Distance based fares are
use:
of zones simplifies
zones simplifies the
conceptually simple however a
the structure
structure but the short
user would not necessarily know
trip fare adds
what their fare would be prior to
complexity and
alighting. Having large
potential uncertainty
distance increments reduces the
for users.
complexity of the system as it
becomes more akin to radial
zones, however this reintroduces
boundary issues
Encourage
= Short trips in
 Short trips in
 Short trips in Wgtn
patronage
Wgtn CDB
Wgtn
 Short trips outside Wgtn
growth:
 Short trips
 Short trips outside   Medium length trips
outside Wgtn
Wgtn
 Long distance trips
 Medium length   Medium length
trips
trips
Long distance
 Long distance
trips
trips
Affordability
= Short trips in
 Short trips
 Short trips in Wgtn
for users:
Wgtn CDB
 Medium length
 Short trips outside Wgtn
 Short trips
trips
 Medium length trips
outside Wgtn
 Long distance
 Long distance trips
 Medium length  trips

trips

Affordability for trips improves
 Long distance
Affordability for single  in Wellington and reduces
trips
trip reduces unless trip  elsewhere in the region

includes transfer
Affordability for
single trip reduces
unless trip includes
transfer
Ease and costs



of fare /
Zones are clearly
Potential issues
Complex fare structure if
ticketing system  defined, simple
around how a ticketing  increments at 1km or less.
implementation
structure
system would deal with  Larger distance increments
and on-going
the short trip fare.
simplify the structure.
Short trip fare adds
administration:
complexity to system
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
17
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Criteria
8 zone with
7 Zone with short  Distance based $0.75
Inner Wgtn CBD  trip fare
flag fall plus steep
zone (Option 3a)  (Option 3ii)
decrease in fare
increment with distance
(Option 3r)
Support
=


efficient
Fare structure
More complex fare
More complex fare structure
network design,
simple.
structure may add
may add costs to ticketing
operations and
All structures assume  costs to ticketing
system.
asset utilisation:  integrated ticketing
system.
All structures assume integrated
and free transfers.
All structures assume
ticketing and free transfers.
May increase more
integrated ticketing
Train to bus transfers in
use of train to bus
and free transfers.
morning peak would be with no
transfers in the
May increase more use  second flag fall and would add
morning peak as no
of train to bus
only small cost to overall fare
additional fare. May
transfers in the
reduce pressure on
morning peak as no
park and ride
additional fare. May
facilities
reduce pressure on
park and ride facilities
Deliver
=
=

sufficient
Predicted no change
Predicted no change in  Predicted 9% change in annual
revenue:
in annual revenue
annual revenue
revenue
Economic



efficiency:
Coarse zones have
Coarse zones have
Distance based fares have
‘loose’ relationship
‘loose’ relationship
strong relationship with
with economic cost
with economic cost of
economic cost of trip.
of different trips
different trips. Short
trip fare reflective of
cost of local trips

The feedback from the community and Reference Group is that the two key criteria are that
the structure is simple and easy to understand and use and encourages patronage growth.
Against these two criteria, the distance based fare structure performs less well than the seven
and eight zone structures mainly on the assessment of the complexity of the fare structure and
the impact on long distance journeys. Reducing the fare increment more steeply over the first
20km rather than 40 km would reduce some of the negative impact on patronage for medium
length journeys, and would reduce the overall predicted revenue.

The acceptability of a change to larger district based zone structure would depend on the one
zone fare level. The modelling indicates that a relatively high one zone fare ($4.50 cash or
$3.40 smart card) is required to maintain revenue at approximately current levels. The short
trip fare for trips less than 3km mitigates the issue of a high one zone fare in Wellington city,
however this is not effective in other parts of the region. The eighth inner Wellington zone
only addresses the issue in Wellington CBD, but not elsewhere in the region. User opinion of
the acceptability of the high one zone fare is unlikely to be favourable however the
acceptability may be increased by other perceived benefits through fare products that could
be developed.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
18
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Overall, neither a distance based nor a coarse zonal system performs significantly better than
the current 14 zone fare structure against the two top criteria of simplicity and encouraging
patronage. Against all other criteria, none of the options significantly outperforms the current
14 zone structure, except for the level of revenue generated from distance based fares. Given
the negative impact of distance based fares on short and medium length trips outside
Wellington city, transitioning to a distance based fare structure is not recommended.
10.  Peak / off peak fare differential
Off-peak fares are attractive as they have the potential to increase patronage in the off-peak
period and may encourage some users to shift their journey time from the peak to the off-
peak periods. Initial modelling work has been undertaken on a peak / off-peak fare
differential using two different definitions of off peak times. These were presented to the
Economic Wellbeing Committee in October 2012 and were that off peak was either

  limited to the inter peak period between 9am and 3.30pm Monday to Friday, or
  at all times outside the Monday to Friday morning and afternoon peak periods.
Whilst the modelling work presented to the Economic Wellbeing Committee included the
impact of an off peak fare under both definitions, this latter definition (i.e. all times outside
the Monday to Friday am and pm peak times) has been used in this evaluation as this is more
consistent with overseas examples.

Modelling results
Two options were modelled for how the peak / off peak differential is generated, either that
peak fares are increased to create the differential to retain overall fare revenue at current
levels (i.e. the revenue neutral scenario), or that the off peak fares were discounted from the
current fare. Using fare elasticities of -0.3 in the morning peak and -0.5 in the inter-peak, the
impact on patronage for each of the options is shown below:

Table 3:  Estimated revenue and patronage impact of implementing a peak /
off-peak differential
Modelled peak
Approximate
Peak / off
fare increase
Estimated increase
reduction in
Estimated increase in
peak
for revenue
in patronage for
revenue neutral
revenue if no
patronage if no peak
differential
neutral
scenario
peak fare
fare increase
scenario
increase

Bus
Rail

Bus
Rail
25%
8%
3.6%
-0.5%
$4.5m
6.4%
0%
50%
21%
5.5%
-0.8%
$12.0m
12.8%
2.9%

In the scenarios where there is no increase in peak fares, the revenue impact increases with
increasing off-peak fare differential.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
19
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

The modelling of the impact of introducing an off peak fare for rail is complicated by the
following issues
  the current rail off-peak cash fare discount varies between 14% and 23% when
travelling between 2 and 10 zones;
  the current multi-trip discount varies between 20-29% (which is greater than the rail
off peak discount), and
  many people travel on a monthly pass which gives a further substantial discount.
In the modelled revenue neutral scenarios, current off peak rail cash fares available in the
inter-peak are likely to increase slightly to maintain the constant 25% differential with peak
fares and no increase in patronage in the rail inter-peak period is predicted.  Extending an off-
peak fare to early mornings, evenings and weekends is likely to increase patronage in these
times.
Generally, patronage for rail is predicted to reduce slightly for all options as the negative
impact of an increase in peak period fares on patronage is not offset by a greater increase in
inter-peak patronage. This is a result of the around three quarters of the rail patronage being
in the peak periods. Patronage for bus is predicted to increase in each option. The most
balanced scenario in terms of increase in patronage and the potential increase in fares for both
rail and bus is a 25% differential.
If peak fares rise to maintain current revenue, a substantial predicted loss of patronage in the
peak period for bus is predicted (11%) with a 50% peak off peak differential, this is likely to
increase congestion in Wellington city centre. The small reduction in peak patronage with a
50% peak / off peak differential where there is no increase in peak fares is due to passengers
shifting their time of travel to take advantage of the cheaper off-peak fare. The modelling
work assumed that around 10% of the increase in patronage during the off peak was from
people shifting their travel time from peak to off peak to take advantage of the lower fare.
The majority of the remaining increase in patronage would be from existing off peak users
increasing the number of trips made, and a lesser proportion would be from new users. Any
increase in bus patronage for the off-peak period is unlikely to occur immediately after any
fare reduction and would be expected in the short to medium term.

An alternative option could be to introduce an off peak fare at a lower differential than the
25% and 50% modelled above. Any revenue and patronage impacts would be lesser than
those predicted above. Overseas examples of off peak fares generally use between 15 and
20% as the peak and off peak fare differential. Using a 15% off peak differential, the
estimated reduction in revenue with no peak fare increase is between $2.5 million and $3
million.

Both the revenue neutral and revenue impact scenarios have potential financial consequences
for the Council in the current contracting environment. Assuming the current NZTA
financial assistance rates and mix of gross and net contracts, the financial impact of a 25%
differential is estimated to be equivalent to be around 4% on the regional rates if the peak fare
remains at current levels. For a larger 50% differential with no peak fare increase, the impact
on the regional rates would increase to around 8.5%. These figures are indicative only.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
20
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

link to page 18
In the modelling of the fare structure options presented above in Section 9.2, the greatest
percentage impact of changing to an alternative fare structure is in the off peak period.
Introducing an off peak fare would mitigate some of the predicted negative impact on off
peak patronage under the various options, particularly outside Wellington city. Given that
patronage in the peak period is also impacted under the different fare structure for some trips,
increasing the peak fares to maintain a revenue neutral scenario is not desirable and is likely
to impact negatively on patronage.
10.1 Assessment against review criteria
The introduction of an off peak fare for bus and rail is assessed against the review criteria
below. The assessment does not include the revenue neutral option where peak fares are
increased to off set any revenue loss in the off peak period as the increase in peak fares is
unlikely to be acceptable to regular users on an affordability basis.

Criteria
Peak / Off peak fare differential

Bus
Rail
Simple, easy to understand
  on smart card system
= already operating
and use:
  cash fares
Encourage patronage growth:    25% differential
=  25% differential
 50% differential
  50% differential

Affordability for users:
  25% differential
= 25% differential
  50% differential
  50% differential
Ease and costs of fare /
  on smart card system
= already operating
ticketing system
   cash fares
implementation and on-going
administration:
Support efficient network


design, operations and asset
differential needs to be
differential needs to be
utilisation:
sufficiently high to encourage
sufficiently high to encourage
users to switch their time of
users to switch their time of
travel
travel
Deliver sufficient revenue:
 25% differential
 25% differential
  50% differential
  50% differential
(currently no off peak rail fare
for longer journeys)
Economic efficiency:


differential needs to be
differential needs to be
sufficiently high to encourage
sufficiently high to encourage
users to switch their time of
users to switch their time of
travel
travel

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
21
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Introducing an off peak fare supports efficient network design and asset utilisation on the
basis that shifting patronage from the peak to the off peak is a more cost effective mechanism
than having to provide additional buses or trains to meet growing peak demand. However,
the differential between peak and off peak fares needs to be sufficient to encourage the ypes
of behaviour desired. The increases in patronage particularly on buses is significant, however
the negative impact on fare revenue and impact on regional rates are a disincentive.
11.  Fare products
11.1 Current issues
The current fare structure comprises a range of products including single, 10 trip tickets,
stored value and monthly passes. The range of different products adds complexity and
inconsistencies / anomalies to the current fare structure. Some of the current fare products
are a result of operators offering different fare products for travel on their services, some are
for historical reasons and others have been introduced to deal with a particular issue arising in
the past.

Other anomalies arise through the limited range of integrated fares offered to rail monthly
pass holders travelling from Kapiti, Wairarapa and Hutt Valley. For Kapiti users, the cost of
travel by bus to and from the train station is included in the purchase of a rail monthly pass.
For travel from the Hutt Valley and Martinborough, an additional fare is added to the rail
monthly pass for travel by bus to the train station, with the additional amount between 40%
and 70% of the fare for the bus journey.

Travel across Wellington city is charged at 3 zones if travelling on a route which crosses the
city centre but does not require a transfer. For example from Miramar to Karori (bus route
18), is charged as 3 zones, however the same journey is charged as 2 separate fares 3 zone
fares if travelling on a number 2 from Miramar to the city and a number 3 from the city to
Karori.

Overall, there are inconsistencies between products available on different modes, and on
buses, between products offered by different operators. These inconsistencies include
treatment of transfers, groups and the level of discount available under period passes.

Removing complexity from the fare structure through limiting the number and range of
products available is desirable, as is consistency of products between modes. Simplifying the
fare products and increasing consistency is intended to smooth the transition to a region wide
electronic payment system and integrated ticketing. The introduction of a region wide
electronic payment system also gives the Council the opportunity to look at other products
which can utilise the data processing and handling capabilities of a smart card.

No detailed modelling of the revenue and patronage impact of changing fare products has
been undertaken. All fare structure options have been modelled with the same fare products
as currently in place to enable a comparison with the existing 14 zone fare structure.
11.2 Possible future fare products
Three core products have traditionally been used by public transport operators and are used in
Wellington region. These core products are the single, multi trip and period pass. Any fare
structure must include a single ticket; however whether both a multi trip and period pass is
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
22
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

required is arguable. In addition, with the introduction of a stored value card, the need for
multi trip and period passes may dissipate.

The strengths and weaknesses of the various fare products are shown below:

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
23
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Fare product
Strengths
Weaknesses
Single:
  Premium revenue obtained    No discounts for user
One off ticket purchased
from trip
  No customer incentive or
on day for single journey
  Easy to purchase
reward for greater public
transport use
  Inconvenience of selling
and purchasing ticket each
time trip is made
  On bus ticket sales slow
buses and add to cost of
busy services
  Requires customer to have
cash
Multi trip:
  Convenience of pre
  Upfront cost of ticket may
Pre-purchased ticket for
purchase of ticket
be barrier for low income
specified number of
  Usually no time limit on
earners
journeys usually with
use
  Trips must be marked off
discount level applied
  No incentives to ‘share’
each time taken
tickets to obtain discounts
  No flexibility to use for
  Increases commitment of
different journey lengths
passenger over single trip
Period pass:
  Generally higher discounts    Purchase price may be too
Usually pre-purchased
for longer period passes
high for lower income
ticket allowing unlimited
  Discounts increase
passengers
travel within specified
depending on the number
  There may be revenue
origin and destination
of trips made within period
dilution as users may take
criteria within specified
  Improves cash flow with
more trips than the 'break-
timeframe (daily, weekly,
revenue upfront
even' trip rate
monthly or longer
  Can generate increased
  Potential for customers to
timeframe)
loyalty and patronage
share passes
amongst users
Stored value – single or
  Flexibility for users
  Needs to build trust and
other product
  Fare can be automatically
confidence
Card can be loaded with
calculated (if tag on tag
  Advantages gained through
dollars and fare
off)
higher levels of usage
automatically deducted
  Flexibility to make
  Upfront cost of card
from balance
different journeys/lengths
purchase unlike other
with the same card
products
  Users not locked into a set    Minimum loading values
journey as with monthly
may become a barrier to
and multi trip tickets
use
  Cards may be damaged
and hard to replace
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
24
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Fare product
Strengths
Weaknesses
Stored value - capped
  Flexibility for users
  Requires region wide
fare
  Fare can be automatically
integrated electronic
Card can be loaded with
calculated up to guaranteed
ticketing system
dollars and fare charged
maximum for specified
  Requires clearing house to
per trip up to maximum
period
reconcile revenue between
for predefined period
  Can cap fare over any
operators

predetermined timeframe
  Has potential
‘marketability’ benefits
  Provides discounts based
on usage with more usage
meaning greater the
savings

Single ticket
Any fare structure needs a single ticket. A key consideration for the single ticket is its
compatibility with integrated ticketing and how transfers are dealt. Overseas examples for
how transfers are dealt with are based on

  Time based single integrated ticket – for example a ticket valid for 2 hours with either
a set maximum or unlimited number of transfers

  Zonal based single integrated ticket – for travel within specified zones with either no
limits on the number of transfers, a requirements to travel in one direction, a set limit
on the number of transfers, or with a defined period a transfer must occur within (e.g.
30 minutes) otherwise the journey is considered a new fare.

The initial view of officers is that a time based single ticket valid for up to 2 hours with
unlimited transfers is preferable as the two hour timeframe enables the longest journey from
Masterton to Wellington city with transfers at either end of the rail journey. Further work on
how transfers will be handled in the future fare structure will be undertaken as part of the
business case for the integrated fares and ticketing project.

Cash vs stored value card
Current stored value fares are discounted by approximately 25% from the cash fare to
encourage users to switch from cash to smart cards to pay for fares. Removing cash from the
fare system has a number of benefits from speeding up boarding times, increasing safety and
security for drivers and minimising potential for fraud, fare evasion or overriding.

Retaining a premium for cash fares is supported for any future fare structure. The premium
could be set higher than the current 25% to further incentivise smart card usage once the
region wide smart card system is introduced or be set at larger increments with step
increments by zone 1,4, 6,8,10, 12, 14 rather than each zone.  Further work on the level of the
premium for a cash fare will be undertaken as part of the integrated fares and ticketing
project.

Fare capping
Other fare products are included in a fare structure to meet various other objectives such as to
encourage patronage, reward frequent users and build loyalty to public transport.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
25
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Fare capping is used in a number of cities including London, Melbourne and Christchurch
and provides for a pay as you go fare up to a maximum fare cap in any specified time period.
Fares can be capped over any length of time and typically capped at daily or weekly levels.
Fare capping uses the data processing capability of a smart card and has the loyalty benefits
associated with a period pass in that it provides a guaranteed maximum fare for travel within
a specified period.

Fare capping also manages the possible negative aspects of a period pass in that it does not
necessarily require the user to pay large upfront charges prior to travel as the cap is generally
over a shorter period of time than the period pass and only sufficient value needs to loaded on
the card for the next journey and not a whole month. This removes a potential barrier for
people with lower incomes who may be unable to purchase a period pass with higher
discounts and purchase single, cash fares or multi trip tickets with no or lower discounts. A
capped fare also removes the risk to the user of purchasing a period pass when their
circumstances or travel patterns may change and they can no longer obtain the benefit of the
period pass.

Officers consider that a fare capping regime around daily and/or weekly timeframes would be
appropriate. The maximum daily fare would be likely to be set at between 2 and 3 times the
single fare for the longest journey of that day. For zones, this would mean that someone
travelling only within one zone would have a maximum daily cap of between 2 and 3 times
the single fare. The daily cap would enable people of low income to ‘save’ their public
transport journeys and undertake multiple trips on one day with certainty of paying up to a
maximum fare. It could potentially enable shift workers and part time worker who only work
say three days per week to access also public transport discounts. A weekly cap could be
tailored towards providing a discounted fare for commuters and regular users. Preliminary
high level estimates indicate that the reduction in revenue from the introduction of a fare
capping regime could be of the order of $2 million to $5 million. The actual revenue impact
would be determined by how a cap operates.

Further work on the feasibility of capped fares and their potential impact will be undertaken
as part of the development of the integrated fares and ticketing business case.

Period passes
Currently period passes are offered on rail and for some bus journeys. The monthly pass on
rail offers a 25% discount on the 10 trip / smart card fare based on 40 trips per month. No
other product offers a similar discount level.  The bus monthly passes offer no or limited
discount depending on the number of zone boundaries crossed based on 40 trips per month.
Rail monthly passes are currently offered to address issues around ease of ticketing and
revenue collection on rail.

Consistency of products across bus and rail is a key objective to simplify the fare structure.
Providing a similar discount as the rail monthly pass to bus users would impact on revenue
(reducing current revenue by approximately 6%).  Removing the monthly pass and retaining
the 10 trip ticket for rail would negatively impact on rail patronage by 3% and increase
revenue from rail by 5% per annum or 2% of total revenue. Given that rail usage tends to be
for longer journey’s this would negatively impact on patronage on the longer journeys from
the Hutt Valley, Porirua, Wairarapa and Kapiti.

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
26
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Once electronic ticketing is introduced on rail, the current basis for providing a heavily
discounted rail monthly pass is no longer valid and the period pass could be discontinued. If
the rail period pass is removed, then this would need to be phased out slowly over time with
the discount offered slowly reduced at each annual fare review. Alternatively, a fare structure
with a lower long distance fare could be introduced which did not include a monthly pass or
an alternative product, such as capped fares could replace the monthly pass.

Other products
A number of other products are used overseas to build patronage from discounted travel at
weekends, free commemorative day passes on public holidays to bulk purchasing of public
transport fares.

Bulk purchasing of public transport fares has the potential to offer increased discounts over
period passes (or equivalent product) to the recipients and better cash flow for the public
transport operators. These are widely used in the US where there are tax incentives for
companies and individuals to become involved in schemes. Many universities use bulk
purchasing of public transport passes to offer students free public transport travel when
attending the university. Whilst the tax incentives regime does not exist in New Zealand, a
bulk purchasing scheme is an attractive option which could be explored further in the future.

The Council has little robust data on weekend travel patterns and the transport model
approximates weekend travel as being equivalent to the inter peak period. Many weekday
users of public transport do not consider using public transport at the weekends when
travelling with family as the combined cost of public transport is substantially higher than
using the car. For example, for a family of 2 adults and 3 school age children would cost
around $26 return to travel from Johnsonville, Island Bay or Miramar into the CBD at the
weekend. Once the cost of public transport is compared to free weekend parking, there is no
incentive to use public transport at the weekends for these types of users. A potential option
to attract more families to use public transport would be to introduce a weekend ‘family pass’
where up to 4 children travel free when accompanied by a fare paying adult. There are a
number of issues around defining the upper age for such a family pass which would need to
be worked through prior to any decision on its implementation. Combined adult and child
passes currently offered include the current Metlink Explorer ticket (allows a child under 15
years old to travel free with an adult ticket holder) and the family Somes Island pass on the
ferry (allows for 2 adults and up to 4 children under 15 years old to travel on the family pass).

High public transport usage is achieved when the cost of public transport is included in the
entrance fee of an event.  For example, the recent Round the Bay’s Run entry fee included
free travel on any Go Wellington and Valley Flyer bus all the day of the event. This resulted
in a high level of entrants relying on public transport to get to and from the event. Large
event organisers could be encouraged to work directly with the public transport operators to
make similar arrangements or the Council could build this opportunity into the next
contracting round.
12.  Fare concessions
The impact of concession fares has been calculated based on existing data held by GWRC.
This data is limited in its ability to differentiate between types of users and the following
impacts are estimates only.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
27
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

12.1 Concession fare for tertiary students
Modelling results
The initial modelling work presented to the October 2012 Economic Wellbeing committee is
summarised below. The modelling assumed a set number of public transport trips undertaken
by students at 8 single trips each week and that students are attending university for 75% of
the year. An approximate estimate of the number of rail and bus trips undertaken per year by
tertiary students was:
  1.6m student rail trips each year (15% of all rail trips)
  1.8m student bus trips (7% of all bus trips).
Under these assumptions, tertiary travel represents around 10% of all public transport trips
within the region.
In order to estimate the impact that reducing tertiary fares might have upon both demand and
patronage, elasticities of -0.25 and -0.4 were applied to tertiary rail and bus trips respectively.
Using these proportions as an approximation of the use of public transport by all tertiary
students, then the following table shows change to the general fares are required to maintain
current revenue, and the potential overall reduction in revenue if general fares are not altered.
Increase to
Estimated
Approximate
Potential tertiary
current adult
change in
reduction in
student discount
fares for revenue
tertiary student
revenue if no adult
neutral scenario
patronage
fare increase
25%
3%
7%
$1.5m
33%
4%
10%
$2.0 m
50%
7%
14%
$4.0m

The above increases in tertiary student travel are equivalent to between a 0.5% and 1%
increase in overall patronage.

Bulk purchase scheme
Based on the modelling work presented, the Economic Wellbeing Committee asked officers
to further investigate a bulk purchase option for students as an alternative to a tertiary student
discount.
Since this time, preliminary discussions around a bulk purchase option have been held with
VUWSA and the Victoria University. Similar bulk purchase schemes are operated overseas
whereby a university or business make a bulk purchase of public transport period passes for
their students or employees. The passes are then on sold or provided free to students or
employees as part of their university enrolment or employment package. In the USA, bulk
purchase schemes for employers and employees are seen as a mechanism to increase public
transport usage and are supported by local, state and / or federal tax incentives. Similar tax
incentives are not available in New Zealand. If a scheme of this nature is viable for tertiary
students, there is an opportunity to extend a similar bulk purchase scheme to other
organisations and businesses across the region.

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
28
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Options for how a bulk purchase option could work for tertiary students in Wellington were
discussed including
  the full cost of an annual pass is included in the compulsory student levy with all
students being issued a travel card as part of their enrolment package giving them
unlimited travel within either Wellington city or the region;
  adding a percentage of the cost of an annual pass to the compulsory student levy with
all students being offered the option to purchase either an annual or term travel card
giving them unlimited travel within the city or region.
A key issue is the pricing of any pass and further work and discussions on the price and other
aspects of the scheme are required. Currently compulsory fees at Victoria University are
between $600 and $700 per annum. Adding the full cost of an annual pass to the compulsory
fee could add as much as an additional 75% to 85% depending on the scope, how the cost of
the pass is calculated and what the anticipated take up rate would be. This is unattractive
from the University's point of view, and would be difficult for students to support.

Any bulk purchase scheme that has a component in the compulsory fees would require
political support from central government as the nature and quantum of any compulsory
student levy must be approved by the Minister for Tertiary Education.

Off peak tertiary discount
An alternative option would be to offer an off peak concession for tertiary students. The
approximate reduction in revenue if an off peak concession for tertiary students is introduced
is estimated as follows based on the assumption that one third of tertiary student trips will
still occur in the peak period:

Estimated change
Approximate reduction in
Potential tertiary
student discount
in tertiary student
revenue if no adult fare
patronage
increase
25%
5%
$1.0m
33%
7%
$1.5m
50%
9%
$3.0m

Officers consider a bulk purchase scheme for tertiary students is preferred to an off peak
concession or tertiary students.
Availability of concession fares for tertiary students around New Zealand
The following table on the availability of tertiary student fares is  based on fare information
available on the web.
Region
Tertiary student concession
Bay of Plenty
Tertiary student concession in some towns; Concession level varies across
the region:
Murupara and Tauranga: 40% discount
Rotorua: None
Te Puke: 33% discount
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
29
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Region
Tertiary student concession
Horizons
Tertiary student concession with subsidy by UCOL and Massey
Universities:
UCOL and Massey staff and students have free bus travel within Palmerston
North and Wanganui
Auckland
Tertiary student concession on most services:
Reported as 35% discount from equivalent adult cash fare, not listed online
Taranaki
Tertiary student concession in New Plymouth only:
25% discount on adult cash fare; 33% discount on smart card fare within
New Plymouth only
Hawkes Bay
Tertiary student concession:
Tertiary students eligible for 33% discount from adult cash or smart card
fare.
Tasman /
Tertiary student concession
Nelson
$0.50 discount from adult cash fare (equivalent to between a 12.5% and
20% discount)
$1.50 to $0.50 on 10 trip cost of $20 to $32 (equivalent to between a 1.5%
and 7% discount)
Otago
No tertiary student concession funded by ORC.
Operator concession on one route (Forth Street to Concord) which is
available only on weekly or monthly pass with 33% and 38% discount from
multi-trip fare.
Wellington
No GWRC funded concession.
Victoria University subsidises trips between Kelburn and downtown
campus
Operator concessions on East by West Ferry -  20-30% discount
Operator concessions on Cable Car – students receive the same fares as
children, a 38-48% discount on the adult fare
Canterbury,
No tertiary student concessions
Gisborne,
Marlborough,
Northland,
Southland and
Waikato

12.2 Concession fare for all under 20 year olds
Modelling of the impact of extending a concession fare to all under 20 year olds has assumed
that 50% of young adults stay at school until 18 year olds, and are currently eligible for
school student fare discounts.  As a consequence, the modelling has assumed that only an
additional 25% of 16 to 19 year olds will use a concession fare if this is extended to all young
adults under 20 years old. As such, the impact on fares of extending a concession to all under
20’s is less significant than the tertiary option and is predicted to be as follows:
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
30
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Increase to current fares  Approximate reduction in
Potential ‘under 20’
discount
for revenue neutral
revenue if no adult fare
scenario
increase
25%
1.5%
$1.5m
50%
3%
$2.5m

This option was suggested as a potential mechanism to address the issue of a concession fare
for tertiary student. Victoria University stated in their submission in August 2012 that a
concession fare of this nature would not meet the needs of tertiary students as many first year
students live in halls of residence within easy walking distance of the university campuses.
As such, this option is not supported.
12.3 Concession fare for all school age students
The current concession for secondary school students is only available to students attending
school, and excludes most students being home schooled, at other education providers or
undertaking distance learning. An option considered as part of the formal consultation was to
extend the concession fare to all under 19 years olds. The current cut off age of 15 for
automatic eligibility for a secondary school concession fare is reflected of a time when many
students left school at 16. Nowadays, the majority students remain in secondary school
education until they are 18 and are eligible for concession fares. Raising the automatic
eligibility age for concession fares to under 19 year olds would remove any issues around
eligibility for 16 to 18 year olds who are home schooled, attend correspondence school or are
at other education providers.

Estimated costs for extending the discount to all under 19 year olds are given below:

Increase to current fares  Approximate reduction in
Potential ‘under 19’
discount
for revenue neutral
revenue if no adult fare
scenario
increase
25%
0.5%
$0.5m
50%
1%
$0.75m

Some secondary school students are permitted under the Education Act 1989 to continue to
attend school until their 21st birthday. Officers consider any students attending secondary
school beyond their 19th birthday should also be eligible for a concession fare.
12.4 Concessions for beneficiaries and people with disabilities
The New Zealand Disability Strategy identifies the need to provide accessible public
transport and routes and recognises the need for alternative transport options where accessible
transport options don’t exist. This strategy is generally focused towards removing physical
barriers to using public transport rather than financial ones. In the Wellington region, the
provision of physically accessible buses and trains and speaking real time signs meets in part
the needs of people with disabilities.

Overseas, most concessions for people with disabilities are often mandated at a national level,
even if not funded from a national level. Many surveys overseas identify that transport costs
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
31
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

are a significant barrier to social inclusion for people with disabilities. People with high
needs due to their disability are often low income and reliant on public transport to access the
services they need. Concession fares are provided to support people with disabilities
accessing the services they need and participating in the activities they wish to.

In New Zealand, there is no equivalent national scheme similar to the SuperGold card for
people with disabilities. WINZ provide financial assistance to people on the Invalids Benefit
for travel to medical appointments and a limited range of other specific purpose travel costs.
General travel is not subsidised through the current benefit allowances.

Current concessions in the region
Currently, concessions for people with disabilities are mixed, with none being specified by
Greater Wellington. Service providers do give concessionary fares to some people with
disabilities; however this is not consistent between operators or modes. The Total Mobility
scheme provides subsidised transport services to people with impairments that prevent them
from using public transport.

There are concessions for beneficiaries living in Wellington city through the blue card issued
by Wellington City Council and funded by GWRC. Beneficiaries must have a letter from
WINZ to obtain a card.  These cards are valid for 12 months and only for travel by bus in
Wellington city. Uptake of the card is low with around 300 beneficiaries holding a current
card.

Potential future concessions
The Council currently provides concession fares for users where there can be justified on a
decongestion basis or reflects central government policy. The Regional Public Transport
Plan also recognises that public transport has social good aspects and services are provided
where these are not justified on commercial basis but on an access basis. As such, the
Council does not have a strong policy framework around concessions for people with
disabilities, other than through the current Total Mobility scheme.

The Total Mobility scheme is a central government scheme aimed at assisting “people with
impairments to access appropriate transport to enhance their community participation.” To
be eligible person for the scheme, a person must have an impairment that prevents them from
accessing and travelling on public transport unaccompanied. The impairment must not be
temporary, and may be psychological, psychiatric, physical, neurological, intellectual,
sensory or other impairment.

The Total Mobility scheme recognises that some people with impairments do have periods
where their condition may improve and they are able to use public transport. This does not
exclude them from the scheme. Given this is an existing scheme administered by the
Council, there is an opportunity to extend the purpose of the Wellington scheme and develop
eligibility criteria for a concession fare for public transport users meeting the Total Mobility
eligibility criteria, and using the Total Mobility card for identification purposes when using
public transport.

The Total Mobility scheme currently has 6000 registered users of Total Mobility. If the
scheme is extended to be the eligibility test for a concession on public transport, then there
are likely to be additional administration costs for the scheme in the future. Officers consider
this option is potentially viable if the Council wished to offer a concession fare for people
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
32
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

with disabilities, however further work would need to be completed to assess the financial
impact of broadening the scheme both in terms of the revenue impacts from a concession fare
but also on the cost of the subsidised taxi service provision component of the scheme.

An alternative option is to provide concessions for all people with a disability who receive
the Invalids Benefit. The Invalids Benefit is provided to people over the age of 16 who are
permanently and severely restricted in their capacity for work because of sickness, injury or
disability or are totally blind. Currently there are around 60,000 people in the Wellington
region who receive the Invalids Benefit. Given the eligibility criteria for the Invalids Benefit,
those receiving the benefit are likely to be low income and little capacity to earn higher
income at any time in the future. As noted above, WINZ provide limited support for
transport costs for medical related travel, however this is does not address wider travel related
costs. If the Council considered that a concession fare for people with a disability and on low
incomes is desirable, then providing a concession to people on the Invalids Benefit is an
alternative eligibility criteria to the Total Mobility scheme. Eligibility could be managed in a
similar manner to the current Blue Card for beneficiaries, in that WINZ could provide a letter
confirming receipt of the benefit which would entitle the holder to an annual pass entitling
the holder to travel at a concession fare rate.

If the Council decides to provide an off peak fare, this will in part address some affordability
issues for people with low incomes or disabilities. This report recommends a small off peak
discount be introduced, however the level of discount for the off peak fare is likely to be less
than the child fare which the current concessions provide for.

If the Council is of a mind to introduce a concession fare for people with disabilities and low
income, then it is recommended that eligibility for a concession fare be set around anyone
with a disability receiving the Invalids Benefit.

In addition, it is recommended that the Council approach NZTA and central government to
raise the issue of affordable transport for people with disabilities and the respective roles of
local and central government in this regard.
12.5 Extending the SuperGold card concession
The SuperGold card scheme is a government funded scheme providing free travel for war
veterans and people over 65 years old between 9am and 3pm and after 6.30pm. Currently
there are very few trips undertaken by seniors in the afternoon peak period (less than 1% of
senior trips). Around 7% of senior trips are made after 6.30pm. If these trips shifted to the
afternoon peak, there would be no revenue impact, however the shifting of travel by people in
the off peak trips to the peak times is not desirable as this would impact on capacity issues in
the peak times.

The issue would be whether new trips would be generated from an extension of the time.
Throughout the day, the use of the Super Gold card is fairly steady, and extending to the
afternoon peak may increase overall patronage as new trips are generated. Given they are
likely to be new trips rather than replacement trips, the revenue impact is likely to be small,
however GWRC has no data which can be used to quantify the impact.

NZTA do not fund any extension of the SuperGold scheme to the afternoon peak. Auckland
are the only Council that currently funds SuperGold in the afternoon peak and have signalled
that this will be reviewed in the future. Officers do not consider that additional concessions
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
33
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

for SuperGold card holders is a priority for GWRC funding given the existing concessions
they receive and the extension of the SuperGold scheme to the after peak is not supported.
It is not recommended that the Council agree to extending the Super Gold concession to the
afternoon peak times.
13.  Possible packages
Based on the recommendations above, four potential fare structure packages have been
developed. All packages assume that PTOM has been implemented and new contracts are in
place. In addition, a fully integrated smart card system has been deployed across the region
with free transfers as part of the integrated ticketing.

The packages are based around:

Package 1:
Current 14 zones
Package 2:
Eight zones including a Wgtn CBD zone
Package 3:    Seven zones plus short distance fare
Package 4:
Distance based with $0.75 flag fall & steep decline in fare /km
increment

Each package would have the following suite of products
  Single smart card for use on all MetLink services
  No transfer penalties
  Fare capping
  Family pass at weekends with up to 4 kids travel free with a fare paying adult
  Bulk purchase scheme for large groups.

The following concessions would apply
  Under 5’s travel free
  5 to 19 year olds – 50% concession
  All people with a disability receiving the Invalids Benefit
  Retain existing SuperGold concession.

Each of the fare structure options in the packages have been assessed against the review
criteria and are included in the packages based on their positive contribution towards the
review criteria. The review criteria also indicate an off peak fare is favourable. The table
below identifies the overall revenue and patronage impacts for the 4 packages with and
without a 25% peak / off peak differential.

25% peak / off peak differential

No peak / off peak differential
with no increase in peak fares
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

impact on
impact on
impact on
impact on
revenue2
patronage1
revenue2
patronage1
Package 1:
-2%
-1%
-7%
3%
14 zones
Package 2:  8 zones
including a Wgtn CBD
-1%
-1%
-6%
3%
zone
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
34
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

25% peak / off peak differential

No peak / off peak differential
with no increase in peak fares
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted
Predicted

impact on
impact on
impact on
impact on
revenue2
patronage1
revenue2
patronage1
Package 3: 7 zones plus
-3%
-2%
-8%
2%
short distance fare
Package 4:  Distance
based with $0.75 flag
7%
-2%
2%
2%
fall & steep decline in
fare /km increment
1 All patronage figures exclude any positive impacts on patronage anticipated from integrated fares
and ticketing and capped fares
2All revenue figures exclude an estimated 3% negative revenue impact for implementing integrated
fares and ticketing. The revenue impact of capped fares has not been quantified.

13.1 Assessment of packages
The above table shows that revenue impact is a central issue in considering the future fare
structure. As noted above, these revenue estimates exclude any impact on revenue and
patronage from the implementation of integrated ticketing and fare capping. The preliminary
estimates of the impact of integrated ticketing show that potentially the integrated ticketing
may reduce revenue by just over 3%.

The only package that is revenue positive with a peak / off peak fare differential is based on
distance based fares. Whilst distance based fares are not considered simple and easy to use,
this package both increases revenue and patronage. Distance based fares present some
challenges. These include

  increasing the complexity of the fare structure
  reducing the transparency.as it is harder for users to know the fare before they
undertake a journey
  setting of fares for indirect routes or collector routes which by their nature will be
longer and therefore cost more than a direct service and
  managing the transition to the new structure.

Based on the above implementation issues and the negative impact on patronage outside
Wellington, this option, whilst attractive from a predicted revenue and patronage view point,
is not recommended.

The three remaining options are the status quo, 8 zones plus an inner CBD zone and 7 zones
with a short distance fare with no peak / off peak differential.

Both the 8 zone and 7 zone plus short trip fare packages have a modelled single zone fare of
$4.50 cash or $3.38 smart card. The smart card fare is high by international comparison and
the acceptability of such a fare may be a significant issue for users. Reducing the one zone
fare below this level significantly impacts on the revenue from Wellington city and the
overall revenue generated from fares. The inner CBD zone resolves this issue in central
Wellington but not in other parts of the region. The short trip fare also works better in
Wellington than other parts of the region, mainly due to the lower fares currently in place in
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
35
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

these centres and the longer average trip length outside Wellington city. Given these issues
with the negative impact on the fare for short trips neither of these options is supported.

The only remaining option is to retain the status quo 14 zones and install the suite of products
and concession identified above in the packages. The key issue remains whether an off peak
fare should be implemented. An immediate introduction of an off peak fare will have
substantial impact on regional rates as public funding makes up the shortfall in fare revenue.
One option is to gradually phase in an off peak fare over a number of fare reviews as peak
fares are increased and off peak fares are maintained at current levels. A gradual phasing in
of the off peak fare will delay the realisation of any positive impacts from anticipated
patronage increases and peak users shifting their time of travel. As such, whilst an off peak
fare may be desirable in the long term, it is not recommended in the short to medium term.
14.  Next steps
The integrated ticketing project will undertake further modelling work on the impact of
changing the fare structure on revenue and patronage. As part of this, further investigation of
the current travel patterns of public transport users will be undertaken particularly around the
number of public transport trips per day users take, as well as the number of transfer trips.
The results of these surveys will influence the acceptability and impact of fare capping and
the appropriate fare cap, plus the revenue impacts of integrated ticketing.

Further discussion with the universities and students associations is required around
developing a tertiary bulk purchase scheme. This is anticipated to be implemented after the
implementation of the network wide smart card system in 5 to 7 years’ time.
Public consultation on the preferred fare structure will be undertaken through the consultation
around the Regional Public Transport Plan in 2013/14 where trade-offs between the cost of
implementing initiatives to generate more patronage through changes to the fare structure and
through other service enhancements can be made.
15.  Conclusion
It is recommended that the Council adopt in principle a preferred fare structure which will
enable appropriate contracting arrangements to be developed in preparation for the next
round of tendering of public transport services.

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
36
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Appendix 1:  Comparison of current and proposed fare structure

COMPONENT  CURRENT FARE STRUCTURE
PREFERRED OPTION
FARE STRUCTURE
Basic
  ‘zonal’ based with tickets valid
  Zonal for cash and stored value fares
structure
for single boarding only. Very
limited free transfers on
identified special purpose
tickets
Zonal based
  Concentric zones radiating out
  Retain 14 zones with some minor
principles,
from Wellington’s CBD
changes to zone boundaries
numbers and
  14 zones
  Fares calculated according to number
geographic
of zones travel within (for trips
structure
  Fares calculated according to
longer than short trip fare distance)
number of zones travel within
(unless on cross Wgtn city
routes then maximum fare = 3
sections)
Transfer
  Very limited free transfers on
  Transfer penalties removed
ticket
identified special purpose
conditions
tickets
  Limited free transfers (between
services of same operator)
Fare vs
  Most current fares are based on    14 zones as proxy to distance based
distance
the number of zones travelling
fares; shift zone boundaries to align
in. As the zones are
with similar distance travelled along
geographically more spaced the
Porirua/ Kapiti line and Hutt/
further away from Wellington
Wairarapa lines
CBD, longer journeys tend to
have a lower cost per km, and
shorter journeys closer to
Wellington CBD have a much
higher cost per km
Fare vs time
Some off peak discounts
  Peak / off peak differential in the
period

longer term
Rail – inter peak fares (20 to
25% off the cash fare with off
  Time based single ticket
peak defined differently on

various lines
  Bus – no off peak discount for
single or return trips but some
day tickets valid after 9am
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
37
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

COMPONENT  CURRENT FARE STRUCTURE
PREFERRED OPTION
FARE PRODUCTS
Cash tickets
Single ride tickets based on
Single ride tickets based on
  Zone based
  Zones travelled in
  Adults / children
  Adults / children
  Same fares for bus and rail
  Same fares for bus and rail
  No transfers generally
  Multiple transfers allowed
  Priced at 25% above SV card
  Priced at premium set above SV card
(bus) or 10 (rail) trip ticket
fare
  Fares for commercial services
separately prices
Stored value
SV card (bus) or 10 (rail) trip
Stored value card with single ride
and multi-
ticket
tickets based on
trip tickets
  Zone based
  Zones travelled
  Adults / children
  Adults / children
  No transfers generally
  Same fares for bus and rail
  Fares for commercial services
  Multiple transfers allowed
separately prices
Daily and / or weekly fare capping
Periodicals
Rail monthly (paper) tickets
  Fare capping only
  Station to station basis
  School term passes retained
  Adults/children
  Price 25% below the 10-trip
tickets
Bus monthly stored-value card
  3 different smart card systems
  Commercially set fare
  Adults only
School term passes – rail (paper)
  Station to station basis
  Price 25% below 10 trip tickets
Special
  Group passes
  Weekend family pass which allows
passes
up to 4 children to travel free when
accompanied by one or more full fare
paying adult
FARE CONCESSION GROUPS
Infants and
  Free
  Free
pre-schoolers
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
38
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

COMPONENT  CURRENT FARE STRUCTURE
PREFERRED OPTION
School
  General trips – discounts
  All under 19 year olds to receive a
children (5-
typically 50% (longer trips) with
concession fare of 50%
15) and high
school ID or uniform
  Weekend family pass which allows
school
  To/from school – school term
up to 4 children to travel free when
children (16-
passes, discounted 25% from
accompanied by one or more full fare
19)
SV card/ 10-trip tickets
paying adult
Tertiary
  No concession for tertiary
  Explore bulk purchasing scheme for
students
students
tertiary students
Seniors (65+)    Free except during weekday
  Free except during weekday peak
peak periods (before 9am, 3pm
periods (before 9am, 3pm to 6.30pm)
to 6.30pm)
  Government scheme (SuperGold
  Government scheme
card)
(SuperGold card)
Beneficiaries,    Limited concessions for specific    Concessions for people with a
people with
disabilities (e.g. blind)
disability on receiving the Invalids
disabilities

Benefit if no off peak fare
  Only available on some services
implemented
  Advocate for national scheme for
concession fares for people with
disabilities, low income and tertiary
students
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
39
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Appendix 2: Summary of relevant current travel patterns

Length of journey
There are significant differences in PT trip length in the peak and interpeak times with just of
50% of all adult morning peak trips being 10km or less compared to 74% in the interpeak.
% of PT trips in Morning peak and interpeak
periods by journey length
100%
d
oir 80%
e
p e 60%
mit  40%
ni spi 20%
rt fo 0%

%
1 km or  2 km or  3 km or  4 km or  5 km or  6 km or  7 km or  8 km or  9 km or  10 km or
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
less
Length of journey
AM Peak adult trips
Interpeak adult trips
AM Peak child trips
Interpeak child trips

95% of bus journeys are 4 zones or less; 80% of train journeys are 3 zones or more

Overall, approximately 27% of all journeys are less than 3km and 23% less than 2.5km.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
40
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Generally more short trips occur in the interpeak period when 40% of all trips are less than
3km,  compared to  the morning  peak when 18%  are less than 3km.   Approximately 57% of
short trips in the interpeak originate in the inner city Wellington zone.
The  table  below  shows  the  percentage  of  total  morning  or  interpeak  trips  that  are  under  or
over 3km by where the journey originates.

AM peak
Interpeak
% of
% of
% of
% of
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
Origin Sector
>3.0km
<3.0km
Total
>3.0km
<3.0km
Total
Wellington Zone 1
3%
7%
10%
13%
23%
35%
Wellington Zone 2
10%
5%
14%
6%
6%
12%
Wellington Zone 3
24%
2%
26%
14%
3%
18%
Porirua
15%
0%
15%
7%
2%
9%
Kapiti
5%
0%
5%
4%
1%
4%
Lower Hutt
21%
1%
22%
14%
4%
18%
Upper Hutt
5%
0%
5%
3%
1%
4%
Wairarapa
3%
0%
3%

Total
85%
15%
100%
60%
40%
100%

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
41
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Ticket products used

Types of Rail fare products used
(Source: Rail survey 2010)
60%
50%
s 40%
pirt  30%
f
o
% 20%
10%
0%
Am peak
Inter-peak
Annually. All trips
Cash
10-trip
Monthly pass
School Term Pass
Concession
SuperGold
Other

Types of bus fare products used
as percentage of total weekday trips
60%
psi 50%
rt  40%
y
da 30%
k
e 20%
e
w  10%
of  0%
ega
Smart Card
Cash
SuperGold
Go
GetAbout
BusAbout
Other
nt
Card
Wellington
30 Day
Day
ecr
30 Day
e
P

Over 50% of Smart cards are used only once a day.  Of the 30% of bus users that use their
smart card twice a day, just under 2/3rd use it for one trip in the morning and one trip in the
evening peak.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
42
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Journey Origin in Morning Peak

The above diagrams show the number of trips between the main origin and destination points
in the region. The width of the lines are proportional to the number of trips between those
two points, the numbers in the circles are the average trip length within a particular area.
These show that the majority of bus use is within Wellington city in the morning peak.
Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
43
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Fare per in-vehicle distance travelled

Fare paid per PT km travelled by journey origin
Adults, am Peak
4000
y
dak 3000
e
e
w / 2000
psirt  1000
of r
be
0
m
$0.0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1.0
$1.2
$1.4
$1.6
$1.8
$2.0
nu laot
Kapiti Coast District
Lower Hutt City
Porirua City
T
Upper Hutt City
Wairarapa
Wellington City

Fare paid per PT km travelled by journey origin
Adults, Interpeak (2 hour period)
1200
y
da 1000
k
e
e
800
w / 600
psir 400
t
of  200
r
be
0
m
$0.0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1.0
$1.2
$1.4
$1.6
$1.8
$2.0
nu laot
Kapiti Coast District
Lower Hutt City
Porirua City
T
Upper Hutt City
Wairarapa
Wellington City

Fares paid by Wellingtonians on a per km basis are generally higher than that paid for by
public transport users in other areas of the region.  This is a result of a number of factors
including

  the closer spacing of the zones in Wellington,
  most trips in Wellington use the bus (and therefore cannot access the monthly pass
discounts on rail)
  a higher proportion of shorter trips in Wellington compared to the rest of the region
making the flag fall component a great proportion of the total fare.

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
44
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Frequency of public transport use in a week

Around 50% of all SV cards used in a week are used on any given day. On any working day:

  over 50% of the SV cards are used only once a day
  30% of SV cards are used 5 days a week
  just 39% of SV cards are used by people who make 2 trips on the day and only 1/3rd
of these travel 5 days a week
  just 10% of SV cards are used 3 or more times during the day.

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
45
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Overall, around 70% of trips are paid for using a SV card. Use of cash is highest in the inter-
peak period.

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
46
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
47
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy

Appendix 3: Summary of modelling results – fare structure options
Table A: Summary of modelling results – 7 zones

7 zones (1a)
7 zones (3k)
Current fares
Fare to
Fare to
Trip origin
Demand
Revenue
Demand
Revenue
to Wgtn CBD
Wgtn CBD
Wgtn CBD
AM peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
$2.63
-8%
20%
$3
-12%
29%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
$2.63
0%
0%
$3
-3%
11%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
$2.63
5%
-22%
$3
3%
-13%
Wellington - Total

1%
-11%

-2%
-1%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
$4.88
1%
-5%
$4.5
2%
-10%
Kapiti
$8.84
$9.38
-1%
-2%
$7.5
3%
-17%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
$4.13
1%
-6%
$4.5
-1%
1%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
$6.75
-1%
3%
$6
0%
-3%
$11.95 (south)
$11.6 (south)
$7.5 (south) or
Wairarapa
or $14.05
or $13.1
-1%
1%
5%
-26%
$9 (north)
(north)
(north)
All regions - Total

1%
-6%

-1%
-6%

Inter peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
$2.63
-13%
2%
$3
-20%
5%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
$2.63
-3%
1%
$3
-9%
8%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
$2.63
2%
-13%
$3
-2%
-6%
Wellington - Total

-7%
0%

-13%
2%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
$4.88
-7%
-3%
$4.5
-9%
-2%
Kapiti
$8.84
$9.38
-13%
-5%
$7.5
-14%
-8%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
$4.13
-6%
2%
$4.5
-11%
9%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
$6.75
-9%
4%
$6
-13%
7%
$11.95 (south)
$11.6 (south)
$7.5 (south) or
Wairarapa
or $14.05
or $13.1
-
-
-
-
$9 (north)
(north)
(north)
All regions - Total

-7%
-2%

-12%
2%

Annual
All regions – Total

-4%
-6%

-6%
-2%
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
48

Table B: Summary of modelling results – 8 zone model, Wellington split into 2 zones
8 zones with Inner
8 zones with Inner
8 zones with large inner
8 zones with Inner

Wgtn CBD and
Wgtn zone with zone 2  Wgtn suburbs and CBD
Wgtn CBD zone (3a)
suburbs zone (3m)
as overlap zone (3c)
zone (zones 1 & 2) (3b)
Current
Fare to
Fare to
Fare to
Fare to
fares to
Trip origin
Wgtn
Demand  Revenue
Wgtn
Demand  Revenue
Wgtn
Demand  Revenue
Wgtn
Demand
Revenue
Wgtn
CBD
CBD
CBD
CBD
CBD
AM peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
$1.13
2%
-9%
$1.50
-1%
4%
$1.50
0%
-4%
$2.25
-6%
17%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
$3.38
-6%
19%
$3.75
-8%
27%
$1.50
8%
-36%
$2.25
2%
-10%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
$3.38
1%
-6%
$3.75
0%
0%
$3.75
0%
0%
$3.75
-1%
1%
Wellington - Total

-1%
0%

-3%
7%

2%
-10%

-1%
0%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
$5.25
-1%
-1%
$5.25
-1%
-1%
$5.25
-1%
-1%
$5.25
-1%
-1%
Kapiti
$8.84
$9.75
-1%
0%
$9.75
-1%
0%
$9.75
-1%
0%
$9.75
-1%
0%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
$4.50
0%
-2%
$4.50
0%
-2%
$4.50
0%
-2%
$4.50
0%
-2%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
$7.50
-3%
10%
$7.50
-3%
10%
$7.50
-3%
10%
$7.50
-3%
10%
$11.95
$11.3
$11.3
$11.25
$11.3
(south) or  (south) or
(south) or
(south)
(south) or
Wairarapa
-1%
1%
-1%
-57%
-1%
1%
-1%
1%
$14.05
$13.1
$13.1
or $13.1
$13.1
(north)
(north)
(north)
(north)
(north)
All regions - Total

-1%
0%

-3%
-2%

1%
-4%

-1%
-1%

Interpeak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
$1.13
2%
-6%
$1.50
-3%
3%
$1.50
2%
-6%
$2.25
-10%
6%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
$3.38
-6%
16%
$3.75
-11%
12%
$1.50
13%
-29%
$2.25
0%
-4%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
$3.38
-1%
-3%
$3.75
-1%
-2%
$3.75
-1%
-2%
$3.75
-2%
0%
Wellington - Total

1%
-1%

-4%
3%

3%
-9%

-6%
2%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
$5.25
-5%
-5%
$5.25
-5%
-5%
$5.25
-5%
-5%
$5.25
-5%
-5%
Kapiti
$8.84
$9.75
-9%
-8%
$9.75
-10%
-9%
$9.75
-10%
-9%
$9.75
-10%
-9%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
$4.50
-3%
0%
$4.50
-4%
-1%
$4.50
-4%
-1%
$4.50
-4%
-1%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
$7.50
-6%
6%
$7.50
-8%
4%
$7.50
-8%
4%
$7.50
-8%
4%
$11.95
$11.3
$11.3
$11.25
$11.3
(south) or  (south) or
(south) or
(south) or
(south) or
Wairarapa
-
-

-
-
$14.05
$13.1
$13.1
$13.1
$13.1
(north)
(north)
(north)
(north)
(north)
All regions - Total

-2%
-1%

-4%
1%

0%
-6%

-6%
-16%

Annual
All regions - Total

-1%
0%

-3%
1%

0%
-5%

-3%
0%
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy               Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
49

Table C: Summary of modelling results - 7 zone system with short trip fare
7 zones with all short
7 zones with all short
7 zones all short trips
7 zones all short trips

trips (less than 2.5km)
trips (less than 2.5km)
(less than 3.0km)
(less than 3.0km)
charged at $1.13 (3h)
charged at $1.50 (3hi)
charged at $1.13 (3i)
charged at $1.50 (3ii)
Current
Fare to
Fare to
Fare to
Fare to
fares to
Revenu
Revenu
Revenu
Trip origin
Wgtn
Demand
Wgtn
Demand
Wgtn
Demand
Wgtn
Demand
Revenue
Wgtn
e
e
e
CBD
CBD
CBD
CBD
CBD
AM peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
$3.38
2%
-8%
$3.38
-4%
8%
$3.38
3%
-13%
$3.38
-3%
5%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
$3.38
-2%
9%
$3.38
-4%
12%
$3.38
0%
0%
$3.38
-3%
6%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
$3.38
1%
-6%
$3.38
1%
-6%
$3.38
2%
-7%
$3.38
1%
-6%
Wellington - Total

0%
-3%

-1%
-1%

1%
-6%

-1%
-2%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
$5.25
0%
-1%
$5.25
-1%
-1%
$5.25
0%
-1%
$5.25
-1%
-1%
Kapiti
$8.84
$9.75
-1%
0%
$9.75
-1%
0%
$9.75
-1%
0%
$9.75
-1%
0%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
$4.50
0%
-3%
$4.50
0%
-2%
$4.50
0%
-3%
$4.50
0%
-2%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
$7.50
-2%
9%
$7.50
-3%
9%
$7.50
-2%
9%
$7.50
-3%
9%
$11.95
$11.25
$11.25
$11.25
$11.25
(south)
(south)
(south)
(south)
(south)
Wairarapa
or
-1%
1%
-1%
1%
-1%
1%
-1%
1%
or $13.1
or $13.1
or $13.1
or $13.1
$14.05
(north)
(north)
(north)
(north)
(north)
All regions - Total

0%
-1%

-1%
0%

1%
-3%

-1%
-1%

Inter peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
$3.38
4%
-8%
$3.38
-1%
5%
$3.38
6%
-10%
$3.38
0%
4%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
$3.38
-1%
0%
$3.38
-4%
7%
$3.38
2%
-7%
$3.38
-2%
3%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
$3.38
-1%
-3%
$3.38
-2%
-1%
$3.38
0%
-5%
$3.38
-1%
-2%
Wellington - Total

2%
-5%

-2%
3%

4%
-8%

-1%
2%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
$5.25
-2%
-10%
$5.25
-3%
-7%
$5.25
-1%
-11%
$5.25
-3%
-7%
Kapiti
$8.84
$9.75
-9%
-11%
$9.75
-10%
-10%
$9.75
-9%
-11%
$9.75
-9%
-10%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
$4.50
1%
-5%
$4.50
-1%
-2%
$4.50
1%
-6%
$4.50
-1%
-2%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
$7.50
-3%
-1%
$7.50
-5%
3%
$7.50
-3%
-2%
$7.50
-5%
2%
$11.95
$11.25
$11.25
$11.25
$11.25
(south)
(south)
(south)
(south)
(south)
Wairarapa
or

or $13.1
or $13.1
or $13.1
or $13.1
$14.05
(north)
(north)
(north)
(north)
(north)
All regions - Total

1%
-6%

-2%
1%

2%
-8%

-1%
-1%
Annual
All regions - Total

0%
-3%

-2%
0%

1%
-5%

-1%
-1%
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
50

Table D: Summary of modelling results – Distance based - $0.75 flag fall
$0.75 FF + flat
$0.75 FF + slightly
$0.75  FF + slightly
$0.75  flag fall plus


(0.12c) increment
increasing increment  decreasing increment
'severe' decreasing
per km (3o)
per km (3p)
per km (3q)
fare per kilometre (3r)
Current  Approx
Fare
Fare to
Fare to
Fare to
fares to
dist to
to
Deman
Revenu
Revenu
Deman
Revenu
Trip origin
Wgtn
Demand
Wgtn
Wgtn
Demand  Revenue
Wgtn
Wgtn
Wgtn
d
e
e
d
e
CBD
CBD
CBD
CBD
CBD
CBD
AM peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
4
$1.13
13%
-41%
$0.98
15%
-46%
$1.31
12%
-36%
$1.65
0%
-1%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
6
$1.43
19%
-49%
$1.28
20%
-54%
$1.88
17%
-44%
$2.55
5%
-11%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
10
$1.88
18%
-47%
$1.65
21%
-54%
$2.63
16%
-41%
$3.75
4%
-5%
Wellington - Total

17%
-47%

20%
-53%

15%
-41%

3%
-6%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
20
$3.00
11%
-26%
$2.63
14%
-36%
$4.35
8%
-16%
$6.00
-4%
25%
Kapiti
$8.84
45
$5.84
6%
2%
$4.80
7%
1%
$7.35
5%
2%
$9.98
-5%
23%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
20
$3.00
10%
-26%
$2.63
14%
-37%
$4.35
7%
-16%
$6.00
-4%
27%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
30
$4.13
7%
-18%
$3.68
10%
-27%
$5.93
5%
-10%
$8.40
-8%
28%
$11.95
(south)
Wairarapa
or
75
$9.8
0%
5%
$8.63
0%
9%
$8.63
1%
0%
$12.75
-2%
9%
$14.05
(north)
All regions - Total

13%
-28%

16%
-35%

11%
-22%

-1%
12%

Interpeak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
4
$1.13
22%
-35%
$0.98
26%
-40%
$1.31
19%
-30%
$1.65
-2%
-4%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
6
$1.43
31%
-43%
$1.28
35%
-48%
$1.88
28%
-39%
$2.55
7%
-10%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
10
$1.88
27%
-40%
$1.65
32%
-47%
$2.63
23%
-34%
$3.75
1%
-2%
Wellington - Total

25%
-38%

29%
-44%

22%
-33%

1%
-5%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
20
$3.00
13%
-31%
$2.63
17%
-38%
$4.35
9%
-24%
$6.00
-10%
7%
Kapiti
$8.84
45
$5.84
-1%
-11%
$4.80
2%
-15%
$7.35
-4%
-7%
$9.98
-21%
15%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
20
$3.00
17%
-25%
$2.63
22%
-33%
$4.35
13%
-18%
$6.00
-9%
13%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
30
$4.13
11%
-22%
$3.68
15%
-29%
$5.93
7%
-15%
$8.40
-12%
11%
$11.95
(south)
Wairarapa
or
75
$9.8
0%
0%
$8.63
0%
0%
$8.63
0%
0%
$12.75
0%
0%
$14.05
(north)
All regions - Total

21%
-33%

25%
-39%

17%
-27%

-4%
2%

Annual
All regions - Total

15%
-29%

18%
-36%

13%
-24%

-1%
9%
Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy               Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
51

Table E: Summary of modelling results – Distance based - $1.5 flag fall
$1.5 FF + slightly
$1.5 FF + slightly
$1.5 flag fall plus
$1.5 FF + flat (0.12c)

increasing increment
decreasing increment  'severe' decreasing fare
increment per km (2a)
per km  (2b)
per km  (2c)
per kilometre (3l)
Current
Fare to
Fare to
Fare to
Fare to
fares to
Trip origin
Wgtn
Demand  Revenue
Wgtn
Demand  Revenue
Wgtn
Demand  Revenue
Wgtn
Demand
Revenue
Wgtn
CBD
CBD
CBD
CBD
CBD
AM peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
$1.88
0%
-6%
$1.73
1%
-11%
$2.06
-1%
-1%
$2.40
-8%
29%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
$2.18
5%
-20%
$2.03
6%
-24%
$2.63
4%
-15%
$3.30
-4%
15%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
$2.63
7%
-26%
$2.40
8%
-32%
$3.38
5%
-20%
$4.50
-3%
13%
Wellington - Total

5%
-22%

6%
-27%

4%
-16%

-4%
16%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
$3.75
4%
-9%
$3.38
6%
-18%
$5.10
2%
0%
$6.75
-8%
40%
Kapiti
$8.84
$6.59
2%
11%
$5.55
3%
10%
$8.10
1%
11%
$10.73
-7%
32%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
$3.75
2%
-6%
$3.38
4%
-16%
$5.10
0%
3%
$6.75
-9%
44%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
$4.88
1%
-4%
$4.43
3%
-12%
$6.68
-1%
4%
$9.15
-11%
40%
$11.95
(south)
Wairarapa
or
$10.5
-2%
11%
$9.38
-3%
15%
$9.38
-1%
7%
$13.50
-4%
15%
$14.05
(north)
All regions - Total

4%
-9%

5%
-15%

2%
-4%

-6%
28%

Inter peak
Wellington - Current Z1
$1.60
$1.88
2%
-9%
$1.73
3%
-13%
$2.06
0%
-5%
$2.40
-13%
16%
Wellington - Current Z2
$2.66
$2.18
7%
-16%
$2.03
9%
-20%
$2.63
6%
-13%
$3.30
-7%
11%
Wellington - Current Z3
$3.54
$2.63
7%
-19%
$2.40
9%
-25%
$3.38
5%
-14%
$4.50
-9%
13%
Wellington - Total

4%
-14%

6%
-18%

3%
-9%

-11%
14%
Porirua (inc Tawa)
$4.86
$3.75
-2%
-12%
$3.38
0%
-19%
$5.10
-5%
-6%
$6.75
-18%
21%
Kapiti
$8.84
$6.59
-10%
2%
$5.55
-8%
-2%
$8.10
-12%
5%
$10.73
-26%
25%
Lower Hutt
$3.98
$3.75
1%
-4%
$3.38
3%
-11%
$5.10
-2%
2%
$6.75
-18%
29%
Upper Hutt
$7.83
$4.88
-3%
-5%
$4.43
0%
-12%
$6.68
-5%
1%
$9.15
-19%
23%
$11.95
(south)
Wairarapa
$10.5

$9.38

$9.38

$13.50

or $14.05
(north)
All regions - Total

2%
-10%

4%
-16%

0%
-5%

-14%
19%

Annual
All regions - Total

4%
-14%

6%
-19%

3%
-9%

-10%
24%

Background report – not Wellington Regional Council policy               Public Transport Fare Structure Review: Exploration of Options, June 2013
52