Re: Daily Telegraph (Sydney) today (5 July)

["Derick Wuen" <cullend@webone.com.au>]

WhaleOilBeefHooked wrote in message ...
>Today's Daily Telegraph has a full front-page story on fare evasion in
>Sydney, focussing mainly on the way that some barrier attendants (the
>article calls them "guards") are letting people through the barriers - even
>opening the gates to let them out - without even asking for a ticket.
>
>According to the article, the reporter made ten trips, purchasing a ticket
>on each occasion. They were only asked to show that ticket twice. Some of
>the journeys involved major stations, such as Central, Circular Quay,
>Parramatta, Fairfield, Liverpool and Campbelltown.
>
>The PTU spokesperson claims that station staff have been instructed by
>CityRail not to check/collect tickets, in an attempt to downgrade the
>positions prior to the abolition of the positions.
>
>DaveP
>
If Cityrail had a decent automatic ticket issuing and collection system, say
like Washington DC subway, the resources it saved could be used (partly) to
improve security, say like Washington DC subway. Reluctance to invest
capital in such a system for ALL entry and exit points is a political, not a
Cityrail management problem.

The lax/strict ticket inspection regimes seem to cycle around.

 There must be some argument that says the system is subsidised to the hilt,
and that spending money on fare evasion detection is counterproductive. The
system is there to ensure the better functioning of society as a whole, thus
justifying a subsidy. Resources devoted to detecting fare evasion, using
current methods, does not recover costs, thus actually increasing the
subsidy! Evidence of counterproductivity of evasion detection can be seen
when queues start to form of non-ticketed riders to pay to get out of CBD
stations. They are most likely unticketed because of queues at ticketing
facilities at outer stations. The time spent in either of these queues by
riders, who are now late for work, could be better spent going about their
jobs, thus adding value to society. Better to open the gates and let them
get on with it.

Can't the troglodytes at the Tele see this? What do they want? A
commercially viable system or a vital service to both business and the
public? What is their constructive answer to the problem they raise?