• long running

[QLD] All Fares $0.50 on Translink SEQ Public Transport Network (Bus, Train, CityCat/Ferry, G Link Tram) @ Translink

5681
[QLD] All Fares $0.50 on Translink SEQ Public Transport Network (Bus, Train, CityCat/Ferry, G Link Tram) @ Translink
Go to Deal
ilove on 26/05/2024 - 07:08 statements.qld.gov.au (4068 clicks)
Last edited 30/11/2024 - 14:27 by 4 other users

50c fares: Qld’s public transport fees slashed, no matter how far you travel.

Public transport fares will be slashed to an unbelievably low price, no matter how far you travel, under a major pre-election trial aimed at easing gridlock and easing cost-of-living pressures.

Update 01/06/2024:

Steven Miles announced Airtrain fares will be slashed by 50% for six months from the same date. Now permanent. See updates below.

Mod: Add started date, end date, linked to public source.

Update 30-Nov-2024

The Crisafulli Government Makes 50 Cent Public Transport Fares Permanent

  • The Crisafulli Government is making 50 cent public transport fares permanent on all Translink networks across Queensland.

The Department of Transport and Main Roads will now make the LNP’s 50 cent fares permanent on all Translink public transport networks in Queensland.

Queenslanders will now permanently continue to travel on South East Queensland (SEQ) bus, train, tram and ferry services, as well as Translink urban bus networks across the state, for a flat 50 cent fare.

Travel Public Transport

Related Stores

TransLink
TransLink
Queensland Government
Queensland Government

Comments

        • pennypincher98 on 26/05/2024 - 12:45

          You can easily use digital counters for that purpose

          No.. you really can't lmao. Even if you mean bidirectional counters (of which you'd still need to differentiate between entering and exiting) it tells you nothing about the network. I get you don't realise but a lot of data is about making links - your data is collected from origin to destination across all modes.

          Making everyone pay 50c so you can collect passenger data is unnecessary.

          Fares only recoup about 20-25% of the cost already, so fair enough they're wanting to make something back. Also the small fee will make more tap on and hence, better data. They're also able to link this to full fare comparisons.

          The ticketing system and enforcement are expensive. You save a lot of money not having them.

          The ticket system gets leased out on a contract spanning years and after the initial setup there's comparatively low maintenance costs - the ticket inspectors and technicians are providing jobs to the society, and unemployment is far more costly to the economy.

          Also, a big barrier to PT usage is the annoyance involved in dealing with tickets

          .. It's tapping a card? I also have to tap a card if I want to buy something, or even enter my workplace.

          Maybe you should get one of Musk's brain chips because there's clearly a lot of space inside your head to fit it.

            • pennypincher98 on 26/05/2024 - 15:05

              @Jigram: Well in the case I'm very glad you're in Victoria lmao, probably why the PT is so shit there 👍

              Can't be that high up or you would've actioned your own moronic ideas.

                • pennypincher98 on 26/05/2024 - 16:08

                  @Jigram: Lol but not high up enough to make your own moronic decisions a reality or pay for trams. Hmm you've even said how behind on transport Melbourne is behind Sydney 🤣

                  The only indication you're a government policy maker is the hypocrisy and double standards you show 😂

                  Thank you, I really needed that laugh today.

    • EspadaV8 on 26/05/2024 - 09:14
      +1

      Perhaps they will, if this is a success. They can't rip it all out for a trial. And if the trial goes well, perhaps they'll drop it to 0¢.

      • Jigram on 26/05/2024 - 09:57

        Here’s hoping. The ticketing companies are a total grift

    • ferguson on 26/05/2024 - 10:04
      +3

      When fees are as low as only $0.50, I think you'll find that fare evasion will also naturally drop substantially.

  • dealer453 on 26/05/2024 - 09:05

    Does that include the G:link in Gold Coast? Or just the train?

    • Blokeinhisundies on 26/05/2024 - 10:28
      +2

      As the announcement says all Translink fares then yes, it will include G:link services as well as buses and ferries across SE QLD.

      • dealer453 on 26/05/2024 - 10:55

        It says "50 cent fares will not apply to privately operated transport services." and the G:link is operated by Keolis Downer so I'm not sure if it will include

        • Blokeinhisundies on 26/05/2024 - 11:44
          +2

          It's a Translink service, KD just have the contract to operate and maintain it. The state owns the network and rolling stock. It will be included.

          Same will appply for buses on the GC which are run by Kinetic and they are a private operator as well. If you pay by GoCard it will be included.

          EDIT: From the official government statement

          WHAT CONSTITUTES A “TRANSLINK PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICE”

          A Translink public transport service is one contracted by the government.
          https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/100402

          Also:

          This includes bus, train (excluding Airtrain), ferry, tram and on demand services in South East Queensland, and all regional buses.
          https://translink.com.au/tickets-and-fares/50-cent-fares

    • bisaya on 27/05/2024 - 11:17

      Includes light rail too

  • dnw213 on 26/05/2024 - 09:05
    -4

    It’s good but no such thing as a free lunch, eventually something has to give to balance the budget, tax hikes or something else will get taken away. Econ 101

    • EspadaV8 on 26/05/2024 - 09:12
      +12

      Yes. As it should be. Public infrastructure, transport, health care, should be paid by everyone via taxes and free for everyone, regardless of job (or lack of). That is the point of government. Make sure the distribution of money can go to those that need it.

      • x d on 26/05/2024 - 15:37

        Until it affects a struggling family who doesn't live near public transport, who suddenly get hit with a larger rates bill, making them unable to pay for their kids' medication?

        User pays has merits.

        Edit - toll roads are there for a reason

        • dnw213 on 27/05/2024 - 18:25

          and this is the things i was pointing at, but ppl are too short sighted to see that there will be consequences somewhere. if this was possible to be done offering cheap/free transport it would have been done AGES ago. obviously this will put a dent in the government's budget and somewhere sacrifices will have to be made.

          • x d on 30/05/2024 - 23:02

            @dnw213: Yes. The people who comment in favour of this obviously are the people who will make use of and benefit from it. They are not going to care that it's others who are footing the bill for them

      • dnw213 on 27/05/2024 - 18:21

        im just pointing out the obvious and ppl are getting butt hurt, i never said i disagreed, it's just the stupidity and ignorance of ppl i guess :)

    • 1st-Amendment on 26/05/2024 - 09:20
      +3

      Econ 101

      I did Economics 101 bit don't remember this part. There is actually such a thing as a free lunch because increases in productivity actual create wealth.

      This is a core component of economic liberalism. Reduce the constraints on the economy and the economy grows which benefits more people overall.

      • dnw213 on 27/05/2024 - 18:17

        yeah, that works in la la land but this is the real world where things have actual costs and benefits. it's like you're telling me F1 grand prix which melbourne hosts and foots the bill at something like $100 million each year creates wealth for everybody in melbourne? no i dont think so, maybe you just had trash econ teacher lol peace.

        • 1st-Amendment on 27/05/2024 - 19:05

          it's like you're telling me…

          That's some straw man you created there.

          Come back when you understand basic logic…

          • dnw213 on 27/05/2024 - 19:21

            @1st-Amendment: you need to redo ECON101 clearly you didnt pass lol, btw you're talking to someone with honours in economics, awkward bro.

            • 1st-Amendment on 27/05/2024 - 19:49

              @dnw213:

              you're talking to someone with honours in economics

              So you're backing up your straw man fallacy with an argument from authority fallacy. And you have no idea that you are doing it.

              awkward bro

              You got that part right…

              • dnw213 on 27/05/2024 - 20:20

                @1st-Amendment: it's pretty obvious you got an arts degree and dabbled in some economics, cause you're throwing round words like "economic liberalism" "authority fallacy" when you have no clue what you're talking about, you are way over your head and it's entertaining seeing you argue for the sake of argument.

                let me leave you with one last "straw man argument" for you to get around.

                If it was practical to have free/cheap public transport, it would have been done years ago, not just conveniently before a running election. Your "economic liberalism" idea is stupid because it doesnt factor in the costs with providing something cheap/free, (there is no such thing as a free lunch) and we don't live in fantasy land.

                • leiiv on 27/05/2024 - 22:17

                  @dnw213: As long as the facts and logics are sound, why does your degree matter?
                  There are one country and some cities around the world where public transport is already free. So it definitely has been done before.
                  And of course the money needs to come from somewhere.
                  Cheap public transport does not really make sense, as you would still need to maintain the ticketing/payment system and staff for enforcement. Free on the other hand, you can cut all that go card/enforcement costs to zero, cut entering/exiting time, etc.
                  What's "practical" for the government in real life is actually driven by the interests of the ruling party and their billionaire donors and mates at that time.
                  This time, they may be afraid of the vote swings to the Green with their free public transport and pro-renter campaign, and come up with this pre-emptive move.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 28/05/2024 - 06:08

                    @leiiv:

                    As long as the facts and logics are sound, why does your degree matter?

                    It doesn't.

                    When I went to school I was taught that your degree doesn't make you right, it just gives you less of an excuse to be wrong.
                    Young fella here obviously didn't learn that bit. Awkward…

                • 1st-Amendment on 28/05/2024 - 06:01

                  @dnw213:

                  it's pretty obvious you got an arts degree

                  Since you've demonstrated that you don't understand simple logic, why start now…

                  If it was practical to have free/cheap public transport, it would have been done years ago, not just conveniently before a running election

                  It has been done, in multiple countries.

                  Your "economic liberalism" idea is stupid because it doesnt factor in…

                  It's not my idea. Wherever you got your degree I'd be asking for a refund…

                  • NigelTufnel on 28/05/2024 - 09:21
                    +1

                    @1st-Amendment:

                    Wherever you got your degree I'd be asking for a refund…

                    I don't often find myself agreeing with you, but as someone else with an economics degree this bloke is giving us a bad name. Someone's school forgot to teach them about positive externalities, and the fact that government budgets are not like households. Typical neoliberal crap.
                    Yes, there is no such thing as a free lunch, but that simply refers to everything having an opportunity cost. Instead of 'spending' the money on reduced public transport fees, that same money could be going somewhere else. But that doesn't mean that it's not the right thing to do. At some point you need to make a choice of what is the best use of your resources.
                    You can make that argument about absolutely every government cost.
                    Why spend money on hospitals when you could save it to pay off some very cheap debt (to what end?) or spend it on schools instead, or military. At some point you need to choose what is the best use of funds, and that is often a judgement call as the ROI is hard to quantify when there are significant unpriced externalities.
                    dnw213 obviously just thinks this is a bad use of money and is using 'economics' to back up his personal opinion.

                    • 1st-Amendment on 28/05/2024 - 09:44

                      @NigelTufnel:

                      and that is often a judgement call as the ROI is hard to quantify when there are significant unpriced externalities.

                      This is the sort of answer I was looking for from someone with a degree in the subject. It's glaringly obvious the difference in responses from you and old mate who actually knows the subject matter.

    • pennypincher98 on 26/05/2024 - 09:22
      +3

      The increased economic activity that comes from this initiative will likely balance it out (and other non financials like QALYs), and besides wouldn't you rather the money going into something like this and not a corporate wankfest of big coal and oil?

      • 1st-Amendment on 26/05/2024 - 11:38
        -6

        corporate wankfest of big coal and oil

        Let me know we've you stop using their products. Or are you the type of vegan that still eats meat?

  • pennypincher98 on 26/05/2024 - 09:06
    +15

    Can't believe public transport is reduced to just 50¢ and people are still complaining…

    • Iluvfreebies on 26/05/2024 - 09:58
      -5

      It is temporary reduce for 6 months and this has happened close to election. This is the problem. Once the elections are over, I doubt it would still be 50 cents. So, enjoy while you can.

      • pennypincher98 on 26/05/2024 - 10:09
        +2

        Not in QLD and I know it's an election sweetener but it's more than any other election has done.. I mean we got 5 fare free days on trains in Sydney once because of the industrial action caused by them not agreeing to anything but that was after over a month of a borderline unusable network lol

    • wesker on 26/05/2024 - 10:08
      +1

      Everyone will pay back to fill this hole, no free lunch. This is just best thing a politician can do in such a short period. 😓

      • pennypincher98 on 26/05/2024 - 10:23
        +7

        This but also yes - public services such as transport, health care and infrastructure should be where the taxpayers money goes… to benefit the taxpayer..

        It's like saying I don't want my taxpayer dollars to be wasted on public schools because I don't have children. It's in the social common interest to provide this.

      • CookieJacker31 on 26/05/2024 - 11:03

        Every government of every type wants something that can use for shameless self-promotion in lead up to an election and pass it off as government business and make it a the taxpayer expense. Expect millions in government advertising flooding every TV, news and web page with the initiative.

      • Flying Ace on 26/05/2024 - 12:05
        +6

        No one seems to complain much about the government handouts to big businesses to keep them running, or the mining companies, but something to help the average person always gets this kind of reaction.

  • ZIngerBurgR on 26/05/2024 - 09:08
    +19

    It's so crazy how people can still find excuses to complain about this.

    • belongsinforums on 26/05/2024 - 12:22
      +5

      just the loud minority. some one nation voters. ignore them

  • ceej11 on 26/05/2024 - 09:16
    +12

    This is actually a really good move.

  • shutuptakemymoney101 on 26/05/2024 - 09:20
    +2

    It's nothing but an election sweetener that I hope voters can see through but I also hope it's a huge success packing trains full and taking cars off the road.

    A lot of people have been touting the benefits of free public transport, 50 cents is nearly free (or as close as we've ever seen it for a longer term) so it should be a pretty good litmus test.

    • pennypincher98 on 26/05/2024 - 09:26
      +2

      Lol did you just unpublish your comment because it got negged only to republish the exact same link 🤣

        • pennypincher98 on 26/05/2024 - 09:31
          +1

          I'm from Sydney lol so that means nothing to me unless this is the date of Quexit

        • Flying Ace on 26/05/2024 - 12:06
          +3

          Liberation to the days of Campbell Newman and selling everything under the sun and leaving us in the shit as is usual under a Liberal government? Sure.

  • kytosol on 26/05/2024 - 09:25
    +6

    This is actually fantastic. I'm sure a lot of low socioeconomic folk are the ones that use public transport the most and are being hurt by the current cost of living pressures so this should offer them some targeted relief. Even with this being an election bribe from Labor, if we can show it works and keeps less cars on the road than there's a chance it'll go longer than 6 months.

  • hawktalk on 26/05/2024 - 09:27
    +7

    The Victorian government should do this as well!!!

    • EspadaV8 on 26/05/2024 - 09:32
      +1

      And the Tasmanian one… Oh, wait, people still voted in the Libs… Damn. That's never going to happen then.

    • skinny on 26/05/2024 - 11:35

      Unlike QLD they are in deep $hit with huge debt.. and the election is 2 years away.

      But Victorians can come and enjoy 50c .. and they may even move to QLD !

  • shutuptakemymoney101 on 26/05/2024 - 09:33
    +2

    This will still be 50 cents too much for a lot of Queenslanders.

    https://translink.com.au/about-translink/who-we-are/revenue-…

  • Jamie777 on 26/05/2024 - 09:37
    +4

    To cover this cost, there might be thousands of speed camera vans on the road :D

    • theguyrules on 26/05/2024 - 09:45
      +2

      Good

    • Springfield on 26/05/2024 - 10:33

      Waze is your friend.

      • skinny on 26/05/2024 - 11:35

        unless you are the first one to notice!

    • belongsinforums on 26/05/2024 - 12:21

      what if i told you that speed camera programs cost millions?

  • TechieARG on 26/05/2024 - 09:39

    Amazing news: we pay our taxes so that they can lower public transport fees… I'd rather pay less in taxes.

    • Russ on 26/05/2024 - 21:43

      Your taxes also pay for roads and highways. Once a city gets beyond a certain size (depending on population density), it is often cheaper for the government to buy/build more public transport than to build highways with ever-increasing numbers of lanes.

      • TechieARG on 27/05/2024 - 06:17

        I don't disagree with public transport or your comment; I just disagree with the decision to choose a 'popular' mechanism instead of help implementing an Australian tax offset for this FY to help combat the cost of living."

  • payless69 on 26/05/2024 - 09:40

    Work creation Mao style:
    https://translink.widen.net/s/kf8rr5js5p/20230701-public-tra…

    Bogans can earn up to $100/hr to pay off them fines!

    • AmperSand on 26/05/2024 - 10:31
      +1

      At what point do we just call the fine the "309"

    • aqoz on 26/05/2024 - 11:29
      +1

      How can we get permission to drink on the train? 🤔

  • Choc0 on 26/05/2024 - 09:41
    +6

    cries in myki

  • FOX on 26/05/2024 - 09:59
    -6

    Yeah people who don’t use public transport pay for this and become the immediate losers.

    • nephilim on 26/05/2024 - 10:40
      +3

      You think petrol tax only pays for roads?

    • Jigram on 26/05/2024 - 10:53
      +11

      I don’t have kids, yet I pay tax so other people’s kids can go to school.

      … see where I’m going with this?

      • CookieJacker31 on 26/05/2024 - 11:06

        Think of it as paying back for your own schooling.

      • 1st-Amendment on 26/05/2024 - 11:40
        -2

        see where I’m going with this?

        I see where you started but I can't see where it ends. And that is the problem.

      • belongsinforums on 26/05/2024 - 12:21
        +1

        you broke some people's brains with this one-liner lol

  • Repstar on 26/05/2024 - 10:00
    +4

    This is a 50c increase to me. An extra $1 for the round trip. Unreal!

  • justtoreply on 26/05/2024 - 10:08
    +6

    This is the price it should be. And paid by everyone's taxes. If you choose not to use what you're paying for that's up to you

  • tessel on 26/05/2024 - 10:13
    +10

    God bless QLD. No daylight saving, can ride mopeds with a car licence and now this. The last bastion of humanity.

    • payless69 on 26/05/2024 - 11:00
      -2

      Actually it is a bogans paradise.
      Tax payers might get accidental fines and then foot the bill for a broken justice system.
      Unjust fine outstanding? Gone is your drivers license!

      • tessel on 26/05/2024 - 11:09
        +1

        Yup, absolutely beautiful place.

        • payless69 on 26/05/2024 - 11:20

          Great state, near perfect vacuum in governments heads.
          So smart they had to print the word smart onto their plates!

          • tessel on 26/05/2024 - 11:38
            +3

            @payless69: Yup, everyone moving there because great weather, great people and much more.

    • montorola on 26/05/2024 - 11:02
      +2

      And much better weather than Melbourne

    • AmperSand on 26/05/2024 - 11:11
      +7

      Shhh. You dont want to encourage more interstate (profanity) to move here. Rent is already high enough!

      • 1st-Amendment on 26/05/2024 - 11:44
        +2

        You dont want to encourage more interstate (profanity) to move here

        Too late. If you look at the migration stats Australia is having record migration numbers. Internationally it is mostly Indians and Chinese coming to NSW and VIC. Domestically it is mostly Aussies moving from NSW and VIC to QLD. You don't have to think about it too hard to figure out the end result if this pattern continues.

        • tessel on 26/05/2024 - 13:03
          +3

          Yup, sunshine state. Lot of people in NSW and Victoria like to give QLD shit but they've been moving to QLD en masse for decades. Yes, it can get hot and dry but it's better then wet, cold and miserable. For me QLD just has a much better quality of life.

        • CodeExplode on 26/05/2024 - 17:26
          -1

          Australia also had a record drop in migration during covid and went negative, nobody ever mentions this context while talking about the temporary spike from some approved migrants arriving late due to that delay.

          • 1st-Amendment on 26/05/2024 - 20:43
            -1

            @CodeExplode:

            nobody ever mentions this context while talking about the temporary spike

            It was at record levels period to COVID. And it just keeps going up. One negative year has very little impact on the millions of people moving here every few years for decades on end.

            • CodeExplode on 27/05/2024 - 05:07
              -1

              @1st-Amendment: Looks like net migration was flat over the last decade to me? https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/overseas…

              Those are absolute numbers too. Adjusted for population growth it seems that net migration has been trending down.

              • 1st-Amendment on 27/05/2024 - 08:56
                -1

                @CodeExplode:

                Looks like net migration was flat over the last decade to me?

                Maybe you need to go to Specsavers…
                The migration number in the chart starts at 482k people per year in 2013 and rises steadily to a peak of 618k in Mar 2020 immediately before Covid. For those 8 years that works out to just over 4 million extra people, mostly from India and China, mostly moving to Sydney and Melbourne. Last year it was 700k. So we're at nearly 5 million immigrants in 10 years, almost 20% of the population.

                Adjusted for population growth it seems that net migration has been trending down.

                'Net migration' is a trick to hide what is actually going on. If 25 million Australians were replaced with 25 million Indians you could put your hand on your heart and claim that population growth is zero. But do you want to live in India? I don't, and neither do millions of Indians. This helps explain why QLD has the highest domestic migration.

                • CodeExplode on 27/05/2024 - 12:07

                  @1st-Amendment: I said net migration. It was 230k in June 2013, and 239k in March 2020 before the huge drop in migration due to the pandemic.

                  Overall net migration didn't change over the decade prior to covid, yet you claimed that it was at record levels in the period before covid.

                  And that's absolute numbers, adjusted for population net migration has been trending down.

                  'Net migration' is a trick

                  If you've reached a point where basic math literacy is described as a 'trick' I can't help you. You sound like a primitive stone age person amazed by a roof and calling it a trick.

                  Your weird fantasy where the entire Australian population leaves the country to claim that net migration is thus invalid is you playing a trick on yourself to feed your panic which isn't matching reality, and a particularly ridiculously one at that.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 27/05/2024 - 12:37
                    -1

                    @CodeExplode:

                    I said net migration

                    Yeah and I started with all migration, then clarified why your attempt to deflect from this is not valid.

                    It was 230k in June 2013, and 239k in March 2020

                    So it increased… as did the total number of people coming here… Which part of that confuses you?

                    adjusted for population net migration has been trending down

                    No it hasn't. This is a statistics trick you have bought into. This is covered in year 12 stats which I can assume you never made it to.
                    As a percentage it is lower, but the number of bodies coming into the country keeps on increasing.

                    If you've reached a point where basic math literacy is described as a 'trick' I can't help you

                    If you are unaware of basic tricks of using dodgy statistics to misinform then I can't help you.
                    Statistical tricks are used all the time to trick the unwitting. Try not to be one of them.

                    You sound like a primitive stone age person

                    You are the one that fails to grasp that that the nearly 5 million people that came here in the last 10 years results in a significantly higher population.

                    • CodeExplode on 28/05/2024 - 18:51

                      @1st-Amendment:

                      So it increased… as did the total number of people coming here… Which part of that confuses you?

                      230k in 2013 to 239k in 2020 does not match your statement: "It was at record levels period to COVID."

                      You lied, now you're digging rather than admitting it, and it's embarrassing.

                      • 1st-Amendment on 28/05/2024 - 20:20
                        -1

                        @CodeExplode:

                        does not match your statement

                        Can you read? Your own stats support this claim…

                        You lied, now you're digging rather than admitting it, and it's embarrassing.

                        Your ability to read is embarrassing. Come back when you learn how to read a chart.

                        • Nom on 28/05/2024 - 21:49

                          @1st-Amendment: It's probably worth pointing out here that these migration numbers are entirely planned and deliberate - the Australian economy operates on the basis of a continually growing population.
                          These immigrants aren't just rocking up here uninvited and making the numbers bigger than expected - these are the planned numbers given permission to arrive each year by both sides of Government.

                          When 239,000 people arrived here in 2020, this was exactly the number that were supposed to arrive in 2020.

                          There is absolutely an argument to be made that five million in the last 10 years was too high a rate - but this was the number that both sides of Government permitted, and infact invited.

                          The part that I think is a bit weird, is the targeting of Melbourne and Sydney - it seems to me that a very easy correction for the existing migration policies would be to simply spread at least some of the load around Australia's states and cities and towns. Letting all the people gravitate to just a couple of locations, has some pretty obvious problems !

  • joshk on 26/05/2024 - 10:17
    +9

    I assume paid for by mining super-profits tax. Nice to see some of the benefits go back to qld residents.

  • BOGOF on 26/05/2024 - 10:32

    What will all the QR ticket inspectors do for six months?

    • payless69 on 26/05/2024 - 11:20

      Issue 309 tickets all day long!

    • Meowcat on 26/05/2024 - 12:11
      +3

      They’ll still be able to issue fines.

      Imagine getting a $309 infringement notice for avoiding a $0.50 fare

    • Mad Max on 26/05/2024 - 12:40

      What will all the QR ticket inspectors do for six months?

      They are being reassigned to support the government re-election campaign 😜

    • tessel on 26/05/2024 - 13:56

      Catch Pokemon.

  • Sye on 26/05/2024 - 10:43
    +3

    There will be less traffic on the roads, but us Camry drivers will still drive at 10kph under the speed limit.

  • falcine on 26/05/2024 - 10:55
    +2

    Is there enough spare capacity in the rail network to accommodate all the new passengers from 5 Aug onwards?

    • bcYield on 26/05/2024 - 11:02
      +2

      Plenty of standing seats during off-peak hours

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join