Re: [Vic] Metcard - What could be done.

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"Michael Kurkowski" <mk@netstra.com.au> wrote in message
39486B6F.D55BEC1A@netstra.com.au">news:39486B6F.D55BEC1A@netstra.com.au...
> Dave Proctor wrote:
> >
> > But the point that I was making is that if fare evasion was not seen as
a
> > victimless crime, and everyone validated, then fare evaders would stand
out
> > (they would be the ones not validating).
>
> Failure to validate initially can be considered fare evasion. Failure to
> constantly revaldate is not fare evasion, since the ticket is already
> valid to expire at a certain time/date. This means, that for no reason
> other than bureaucratic convenience, people are forced to continually
> revalidate against their will.

And once again you miss the point. If everyone validated every single time,
then the fare evaders would stand out. If community attitudes did not
tolerate fare evasion, then people who did not validate would be abused by
other passengers. But since everyone with a ticket validates every time,
this abuse would be valid, as the person being abused would be fare evading.

> > But you still have to go and get the E-tag, removing the spontaneity of
the
> > trip. I cannot just go and use Citylink, I have to go and get the device
> > first.
>
> You are also required to buy a ticket before travelling. What you are
> implying is, it's okay to have to buy an etag, and never have to
> inconveniently stop to revalidate the etag every time you hit a toll
> point, but it's not okay to be able to purchase a train/tram/bus ticket,
> and not have to inconveniently stop to revalidate the ticket every time
> you hit a point of validation. Double standards? Keep digging.

No such double standards. My point was in response to the claim that people
should not have to buy tickets in advance, and that using cars does not
require any form of pre-purchase. I agree that people should not have to
pre-purchase a ticket for public transport, but they should be encouraged to
(preferably by making it slightly cheaper - the carrot rather than the
stick).

> > Security risks in people mugging bus and tram drivers to get the money.
> >
> > So why are they fitting security cameras to buses then? It was mainly a
> > union demand.
>
> Bus drivers still handle money even if people are encouraged to
> pre-purchase their Metcards. No member of parliament in their right mind
> would create a repeat of the scratch ticket fiasco whereby bus drivers
> did not require to handle money. Keep digging.

But again you miss the point. If you encourage the vast majority of
passengers to pre-purchase the amount of cash being handled by the driver is
signifigantly reduced, making them a much less attractive target for would
be thieves.

> > It doesn't encourage fare evasion, it is the community attitudes that
allow
> > it. The system in Adelaide (same system, buy on trains, validate on
every
> > boarding) works perfectly well (or at least, everyone seems to validate
when
> > I am travelling).
>
> It may not encourage fare evasion, but it encourages less people to use
> public transport. If people see public transport as a chore, they will
> drive instead. A person should be able to purchase their fare, and be
> able to travel on it, using any reasonable means to get into the station
> (i.e. if there is a barrier, THEN have a need to poke a ticket) without
> being pushed into being counted, or with the threat of being fined for
> doing something wrong.

I agree that having to validate at a non-gated ticket seems silly, but I
disagree with regard to trams and buses. Using your reaasoning people will
object to having to produce their tickets for RPO's (it is an inconvenience
to get it out).

> > It has not benefitted passengers because the system is not working as
> > designed. If everyone validated, then we would be able to argue the
issue,
> > but because so many people are refusing to validate as required, it is
> > impossible to argue either way.
>
> Most people do validate. Most also don't revalidate. Other than
> beancounting issues, as pointed out above, there is no logical reason
> for revalidating.

So you will be calling for the removal of gates at gated stations then?

> > Inferior only to Melburnians. The rest of the country manages to get by
> > perfectly well with tickets that require validation.
>
> Since when did Sydneys train system require you to constantly revalidate
> your ticket at each station? Sydney's system requries you to poke a
> ticket in the gate to get in and out, at gated stations only. I, like
> many people have no problem with this. What most-all of us do have a
> problem with is the need to poke a validated ticket in at each and every
> station, tram, bus to be counted.

And Sydney's bus system requires you to insert your ticket on each and every
boarding, which is directly comparable to Melbourne's trams.

> Why can't the fare allocation be worked out from the point of sale
> takings rather than journeys travelled? For retail tickets, and tickets
> not purchased directly from a
> Bayside/Hillside/Swanston/Yarra/[Buscompany of choice], THEN allocate
> the takings from the INITIAL validation.

Too sensible.

> The current system of continual revalidation is also flawed in such,
> that a private operator can send a person out with 5 or so tickets to
> revalidate them at each station all day long. The money made is
> incentive to do so. So based on this logic alone, it seems pretty
> impossible that REvalidation plays any part in fare allocation.

And I have never argued that it should.

Dave