Re: New logic on Metcard

["David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com>]

Bill Bolton wrote in message <36f0a6ae.4440786@news.bigpond.com>...

>Sigh.  Lets go over this again.
>
>The Sydney ticketing basis is quiet different to that in Melbourne.
>Ignoring multiple-day periodical tickets, Melbourne tickets are
>primarly valid for a duration, irrespective of the trips involved,
>while Sydney tickets are primarily valid for a single vehicle trip,
>irrespective of duration involved.

So what is your point? We are not talking about problems with s-hour
tickets, or even daily tickets. It is people with weeklys, monthlies and
yearlies who are saying they will not validate because if they, the ticket
will wear out. It is the same usage pattern as the Sydney Weekly, Quarterly
and Yearly tickets. And you forget the TravelTen tickets in Sydney, and also
the Pensioner Excursion tickets (those pensioners get around, and validate
those tickets a fair bit!)

>The ticketing systems are driven by different imperatives, have
>different histories,  different performance expectations and
>maintenance standards (or lack thereof).

Still the same usage by periodical ticket holders.

>The Melbourne ticketing system is simply not very reliable when it
>comes to validating tickets, it fails far too often, is not backed up
>with enough random inspections and does not involve the drivers in any
>meanigful way. It definitely shouldn't be directly compared to the
>Brisbane or Sydney ticketing systems, and from what I know of overseas
>system probably not to them either.

It is directly comparable to the Sydney system - the only meaningful
difference is the lack of validators at railway stations (and I agree it is
silly to have to validate an already valid ticket at an ungated station).
You walk on the bus or tram (buses only in Sydney), if you do not have a
ticket, you buy one. If you do, you put it in the validator. End of story.

DaveP