"More seamless transfers for commuters with new fare structure" scream the headlines.
Seamless means ’smoothly continuous or uniform in quality’.
Then you learn that it basically means those with transfers would pay less. Nothing to do with how transfers would be better aligned to make the journey more convenient.
If transfer based fares can cost up to 50% more than those on direct services for the same distance, then cutting cost is one issue but the question is why you have to end up transferring when a direct service should be doing the job. Or transfers should be such that you can easily get a train / bus for transfer without waiting too long, or having to miss overcrowded buses / trains.
And you learn that the other 60% who do not use transfers would probably be paying more.
Wow, some initiative that benefits 40% while disadvantaging 60% is something to really scream about.
Despite these figures, the restructuring should largely be ‘revenue-neutral’ to the operators.
Seriously, why is there so much emphasis on operators’ interest when the Public Transport Council should be focussed on the public’s interest? The way the PTC makes decisions, it sounds more like a board of directors for the operators than a council to safeguard the public’s interest. Don’t worry about the operators. With our version of ‘competition’ - which means one operator cannot operate in the other’s zone - the operators are totally safe.
You talk about getting people to switch to public transport and this is what you come up with? Purleez!