See also: Frequently Asked Questions - about Melbourne’s Public Transport Ticketing System

Amid the ’scratch ticket’ controversy in 1990, the Public Transport Users Association’s policy on ticketing systems was adopted with overwhelming support from PTUA members. The policy was endorsed by the independent Met Ticketing Task Force in 1991, when market research showed that most members of the travelling public supported it. Given Melbourne’s subsequent history of high-tech ticketing disasters, we have seen no reason to substantially change this policy.

Staff cuts not an option

The PTUA rejects the myth that an adequately staffed public transport system cannot be economically viable. Even the private operators have admitted that the major reason for the poor financial performance of the system is low patronage. Since most of the costs of running public transport are fixed, and our public transport is grossly underutilised (particularly outside the peaks), cost recovery is heavily dependent on the number of passengers attracted to the system. Other PTUA documents explain this in detail.

People will not use public transport unless they feel safe and comfortable. Staffing levels must be adequate to ensure this, and provide information and assistance to passengers, especially the elderly and the disabled. This requires that railway stations be staffed at all times trains run, and that most trams have conductors (on services with low patronage and no security problems, the driver provides adequate security).

Some argue that automated ticketing frees staff to provide better customer service. This may be true if staff are present, but a ticket machine alone cannot provide information, assist passengers, or help them feel safe. If it is vandalised or malfunctioning, it cannot even fulfil its intended function of selling tickets. Conductors are necessary on trams to control fare evasion and for passenger safety, so they should also sell tickets, making ticket machines on trams redundant. Given the behaviour and attitude of ‘customer service’ staff, one might ask what happened to the service which was meant to appear with the advent of automated ticketing.

Many cities do use some form of automated ticketing, but those with a staff presence have been more successful. Amsterdam and Stockholm restored conductors to trams due to fare evasion and vandalism, while Singapore and Toronto staff all stations. By contrast, Paris uses a fully automated system and fare evasion is rampant. In Melbourne, there is also little goodwill among passengers (who have put up with dysfunctional ticketing systems for years) meaning that staff are essential to control fare evasion.

Technology not the answer

To attract patrons, a ticketing system must be user friendly, simple and reliable. The failed Metcard system does not satisfy these criteria; but neither does the Smartcard system that will replace it. The Smartcard system will cost almost half-a-billion dollars to implement - money that could be spent on more pressing priorities such as rail extensions.

The use of validators is already inconvenient to passengers. The mooted function of repeated validation as providing patronage information has failed - largely because passengers dislike revalidating an already valid ticket. The imminent Smartcard system will require passengers to scan (validate) twice, on boarding and leaving each vehicle. It isn’t hard to see that this won’t work - passengers won’t validate once, let alone twice.

The PTUA believes that, in replacing Metcard, the transport bureaucracy has started not from the question of “What is the most efficient, passenger-friendly method of collecting fares?” but from “What is the latest high-tech hardware, and how can we persuade the Government to buy it for us?” Smartcards do not solve the problems of fare evasion, difficulty of use (particularly for new users), security considerations or provision of customer information.

Travellers will still have to run the gauntlet of a lonely, unstaffed stations and vehicles, and risk encounters with aggressive ticket inspectors when machines are broken.

The current design of the Smartcard system will also undermine Weekly tickets, by making the weekly price cap only work from Monday to Sunday, meaning some semi-regular users will end up paying more. Weekly tickets (or an equivalent via a rolling weekly price cap) should continue to be available for any seven day period.

Making ticketing work for everybody

We should be moving to a more passenger-friendly system, based on the presence of staff on trams and at railway stations. As an immediate mitigatory measure, the government should move to return genuine conductors (selling a range of tickets at normal prices) and station staff to the system.

At a cost of more than a billion dollars over ten years, it is by no means clear that Smartcards are the best “hardware” for the ticketing system. It may well be that lower-tech machines to print and validate tickets alongside a full-time staff presence is the best and cheapest option.

Greater emphasis on periodical tickets can help by reducing the frequency of ticket purchasing. This also helps speed up buses and reduce queuing at stations (See the policy on Transport fare reform). Discounts on periodicals should be improved to make them more attractive. Refunds must be simplified and conducted at the point of purchase, with no charge where the problem is through no fault of the passenger, and a small fee for passengers whose circumstances have changed or have other good reasons.

The PTUA supports the sale of periodical and bulk tickets at retail outlets like newsagents, in addition to but not instead of sale on vehicles and at stations. A full range of tickets should be available for purchase at all railway stations and a wide range including dailies on all trams and buses.

Updated: July 2008