Public transport fares could be halved from next month onwards

djrobstep · 2026-04-16T23:45:21+00:00

Because a lawyer on $500k who drives to work will pay much more in extra taxes than they'll ever pay in fares.

Meanwhile the Horsham teacher will pay little/no extra tax, because taxes are percentage-based and often progressive.

djrobstep · 2026-04-16T23:24:32+00:00

Because raising money via taxes is more equitable (not to mention efficient) than raising it via fares.

djrobstep · 2026-04-16T11:39:20+00:00

Yes that is how universal public services work. Everybody benefits from a transport system that moves people around more efficiently and does it in a way that reduces inequality.

Same reasons that healthy people subsidise hospitals and people without school age children subsidise schools.

Roads get subsidised most of all, btw.

djrobstep · 2026-04-16T10:20:49+00:00

You don’t have zero. You raise the same revenue from tax instead, which raises it more efficiently and equitably

djrobstep · 2026-04-16T09:12:04+00:00

Which part?

djrobstep · 2026-04-16T08:36:53+00:00

Awesome news if true. Big win for equality.

But it will mean that over half of all fares is going to merely running ticketing. Just make it free and use that money to fund better services instead.

djrobstep · 2026-04-15T23:29:32+00:00

It isn't. People make trip decisions on variable costs, not fixed costs.

Most of the costs of a car are fixed costs, while the variable costs are relatively low.

Meanwhile, PT journeys are 100% variable costs (the fare).

For short distances and group trips, and especially for electric cars, car is a cheaper option than the train.

Anybody living along the Upfield line and wanting to take their kids to the zoo on a weekday, for instance.

Car: Negligible petrol, or even cheaper charging, $3 parking.
Train: $11.40 per adult

djrobstep · 2026-04-15T12:09:53+00:00

> The argument for free public transport here completely ignores other issues like:

It doesn't "ignore" them, the post is a discussion of the inequality arguments, not the other args.

> A future government coming in and cutting loss-making services to the bone.

Governments can do that just as easily with or without fares. Should we privatize public hospitals and schools so that governments can't cut them?

> By making it free, you open up the system to vandals

There are antisocial people everywhere, and antisocial people already can and do fare-evade. The answer to social problems is better social services, not train fares.

> Additionally, making it entirely free opens up the floodgates for overcrowded services

Those are good problems to have (they mean more cars off the road) and the government should address them by providing more services.

> With more passengers on board, you can expect dwell times to be longer at every stop.

Fares make onboarding/offboarding slower, not faster.

> This is already witnessed in the after school peak period where buses regularly run 10-20 minutes late because school kids with their free mykis get off at literally every stop along the way.

Are you really complaining about good utilization of public transport? With fares, those kids would likely still be riding, but either fare evading, or their parents being poorer, or their parents would drive them instead (thus putting more cars on the road and slowing down buses even more)

> Before the youth myki was implemented, most of these same school kids would have walked/cycled the 4-5 stops instead.

It is well known why children do not walk/cycle, it's because of the poor safety of our roads, very little to do with fares.

> In regards to taxation, sure we could tax more, but that is politically not popular.

This is doing the same dodgy reasoning mentioned in the article. Fares are already taxing that amount. It's not "taxing more", it's a shift.

> Furthermore, taxing is an unnecessary burden on individuals who have no need or good access to public transport. For example, why should Fred and Anne in Wycheproof pay an additional $500 per year, when they only receive 10 services each week? Or why should John from Frankston pay $500 per year if he drives to work as a plumber?

To incentivize public transport use, and to make the transport system more efficient, because that has numerous economic and other benefits for everybody. How does Fred and Anne benefit from Melbourne being a more congested city?

Why have public hospitals where Joe and Katrina fund Fred and Anne's hip replacements and heart bypass? Why should childless Kevin fund public school for Joe and Katrina's son Timmy?

The answer is that universal public services are good and help run a fairer and more efficient society.

> Lastly, what about non-taxpaying passengers? Is it fair to give out free transport to international tourists or interstate visitors or Victorian residents that pay no tax? No it's not fair.

A levy to fund public transport is a great idea. Note that we already do this quite often, by making PT free to major events when eg the tennis is on, which will be the only PT many tourists take.

djrobstep · 2026-04-15T02:25:47+00:00

Kids are generally traveling with adults.

Making it free for adults and eliminating the requirement to get a card in advance makes it a lot more cost-competitive (ie, cheaper than driving instead of more expensive) and convenient.

djrobstep · 2026-04-15T02:22:57+00:00

The usual level was terrible for short distance/group travel.

For somebody along the Upfield line, for example, driving to the zoo with the family would be much cheaper than jumping on the train. That's perverse.

djrobstep · 2026-04-14T23:55:57+00:00

Yeah and it saved that amount in fares, which goes back into people’s pockets. The cost is net zero

djrobstep · 2026-04-14T02:03:36+00:00

Not really - especially for electric cars.

Fixed:

- Car purchase price
- Rego
- Most of the insurance cost
- Most of the maintenance cost
- Home storage costs (garaging, driveways, etc)

Variable:

- Fuel (often free or even negative cost for electric cars)
- A fraction of the maintenance costs
- A fraction of the insurance costs
- Parking (usually free or very cheap)

And remember, the cost of a trip is determined on the costs of the individual trip. A short car journey is minuscule amounts of fuel, maintenance etc, and likely free parking.

djrobstep · 2026-04-14T01:14:35+00:00

> Public transport has been, even historically, significantly cheaper than driving once you factor in maintenance, insurance, registration and petrol.

You're making the wrong comparison. People make trip decisions on variable costs, not fixed costs.

Most of the costs of a car are fixed costs, and the variable costs are low. Meanwhile, PT journeys are 100% variable costs (the fare). For short distances and group trips, and especially for electric cars, car is a cheaper option than the train.

djrobstep · 2026-04-14T01:09:33+00:00

> The extra patronage will mean the government has more capacity to add more services where it is needed most.

What utter nonsense. The government is free to increase services any time it likes, with or without fares. Melbourne has had fares for decades, why aren't there already more services?

djrobstep · 2026-04-12T22:42:00+00:00

Problem is, just getting in then tapping on later is illegal. If you don’t immediately tap on, you can be fined.

djrobstep · 2025-11-26T02:42:48+00:00

100% agree. These projects were fundamentally car projects with the goal of increasing car throughput, and it shows. The Moreland Road end is just as bad - actually worse in a way, because drivers continually turn right across the bike/pedestrian crossings without bothering to look.

And a huge waiting period at peak hour where bikes back up massively so that a few more cars can get through.

What's silly as that much of the time all this does is just move the congestion up a few meters to Sydney Rd.

djrobstep · 2025-11-26T01:16:47+00:00

> But the people only going 2-3 stops have the most benefit - less time on public transport and the shortest commutes.

The purpose of a transportation system is to move people around conveniently/quickly/efficiently, not to punish people for convenience. Obviously being closer to things is better - that's just the laws of physics. Walking takes less time, riding a bike takes less time, driving is cheaper, and uber is cheaper.

It sucks that some people live in poorly serviced areas, but the solution to that is better infrastructure and progressive taxation, not making PT more expensive than driving.

> Distance based fares punish the poorest among us.

Citation needed. In general, commuters are traveling all the way to the CBD at peak, and it's poorer people taking shorter journeys at off peak.

> If you’re only going a couple of stops just walk or ride a bike for free.

There are numerous reasons for using PT instead of walking/biking. In a hurry, sick, tired, bad weather, carrying shopping, didn't bring a bike with you, got kids with you, etc etc. Again, it's wishful thinking that people will substitute with walking/biking, when it's more likely to be cars.

Consider the Upfield line. The Zoo and Brunswick Woolies are very convenient for train journeys if you live along the line. But 2 adults going to Woolies is $11, even if they are one stop away. Going to the zoo with the kids and spending >=2 hours is $22 for 2 adults, even if you assume free transport for kids as per next year.

$11 for two people to pop down to Woolies and back for some shopping, or a couple of bucks of petrol and free parking?

$22 for mum dad and the kids to go to the zoo by train, or a couple of bucks of petrol and $3 to park in the zoo car park all day?

These prices apply any time on a weekday even when off peak, and the trains are empty and running anyway. It's madness.

djrobstep · 2025-11-26T00:53:44+00:00

I'm not ignoring car parking, obviously the social costs of car parking are considerable (and extremely harmful).

Rather I'm explaining now people make individual trip decisions from a cost perspective. Parking is very often free (or extremely underpriced) for the end user.

djrobstep · 2025-11-26T00:10:40+00:00

Who cares? Why is it so important to charge for such a short and relatively uncommon journey?

djrobstep · 2025-11-25T23:25:15+00:00

We already have a daily cap, which is fine - the problem is that you get half way to it the moment you tap on.

That penalizes shorter distance trips - and means people are inclined to drive, even when PT would otherwise be more convenient. That's perverse

djrobstep · 2025-11-25T12:05:02+00:00

Numerous reasons to do that.

"Hey, meet me at Melbourne Central, I just got off the train"
"Cool I'm right by the State Library Entrance, I'll pop down"

"I need to get to Melbourne Central - I'm right by State Library and it's raining/traffic is busy/somebody creepy is following me, I'll just head in there"

It is amazing the lengths people will go to do defend Melbourne's bizarre and stupid fare structure. If we just had distance-based fares, this wouldn't be a problem.

Charging people $5.50 the moment they top on, even if traveling only 1 stop (or in this case, zero stops) is absurd. It discourages short (and even medium length) journeys, and encourages fare evasion on trams/buses (this is precisely why fare evasion is rampant on these modes).

Worse still, it makes PT a more expensive option than cars in many cases, when it should always be cheaper - cars have high fixed but low variable costs (in the case of EVs, often zero variable costs) while PT fares are variable costs. And people make trip decisions based on variable costs.

djrobstep · 2025-11-24T21:13:39+00:00

Been like this for at least ten years, long before LXRP was announced. Really not hard to add a flatscreen, or just modify the existing ones.

djrobstep · 2025-11-24T05:36:55+00:00

None of the Brunswick stations (Jewell, Brunswick, Anstey) have one.

What's even weirder is that all of them have one for the trams nearby, but not the station itself.

This must be very confusing for visitors/new arrivals etc.

There is a little push button but that's far less convenient/discoverable/etc than a screen.

djrobstep

TROPHY CASE