Fares

The current fare system, with time-based ticketing and fare zones, is one of the best available. It's convenient and suits the way Melbourne commuters travel - by changing from one service to another as much as necessary.

There are of course anomolies in the system - for instance, from Camberwell it costs more to travel to Box Hill than to Laverton. But any multi-zone system is going to have quirks like that, so there isn't much point changing things unless there is some serious benefit to be had.

Free public transport, while initially attractive due to removing the need for the costs of a ticketing system (and ticket inspectors) and increasing patronage (with associated environmental benefits), is not a good idea.

• It reinforces the idea which is already widespread in Melbourne that public transport is the poor people's option - only for people who can't afford to run a car. We want it to be seen as the responsible people's option - for people who don't want to contribute to congestion and pollution.
• It will probably not bring the expected significant modal shift away from car usage. Public transport is already significantly cheaper than running a car, but remains with only 11% of the market. Also, among people who are already entitled to free public transport (eg public transport employees), many still use a car. These factors indicate that price is not the only factor influencing people's decisions on travel mode - for example availability (does it run where and when I'm travelling?) and convenience (will it take me half an hour less if I use the car?) are more likely to be considered.
• The loss of fare revenue would require a significant increase in operating subsidy (up to $50 million per year). This money would be better put to use improving the system.

Ticketing

In the last few months and years, various people and organizations have been indulging in some equine dentistry (ie examining the mouths of horses) by saying that the ticketing system replacement project is a waste of money.

Smart Passengers holds the opinion that these people have not adequately understood the advantages of the system. It is true that the replacement will cost a relatively large lump of money. But anything worth doing is going to cost something, and I submit that the figure stated is worthwhile for the advantages which commuters will gain.

Advantages of the Myki system over Metcard

• Faster validation, because instead of a slot to put the ticket into there's an all-aspect wide range sensor
• Allows commuters to change their travel plans at any time and never be charged for what they don't use
• Scan-off as well as scan-on means more reliable figures for assessing patronage
• Contactless tickets means no more worrying about bent or damaged tickets
• No need to worry about getting exact change - you can leave the last few cents on the card for next time
• Less cash handling, therefore better on-time running for buses
• Less chance of losing the ticket because you don't have to take it out of your wallet
• No mechanical bits means lower maintenance costs and less downtime
• Easy to implement new fare structures (no need to drill holes in vending machines for extra buttons, just a software upgrade)
• Easy to implement off-peak fares without risking misunderstanding or abuse
• Concession fraud will be virtually eliminated, because special Concession Mykis will only be issued to people who are entitled to them
• Eliminates confusion of multiple choices - if in doubt, just swipe and it will give you the best price
• Concept of Company Myki instead of company taxi charge card, potentially increasing PT usage

Advantages of changing to a new ticketing system

• "Second mouse effect" ("The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese") - changing systems allows for correction of errors made in the Metcard system, eg DDA compliance without making things too easy for fare evaders; two validators at the front of a bus to double passenger loading speed
• The act of changing gives an opportunity for some marketing, which can include general PT marketing
• Designing a system today means taking advantage of modern "open standards" communications technology, so:
  • OneLink can't hold the government to ransom and charge through the nose for any changes (a la RFR, Spencer St, etc)
  • Rolling upgrades can be made to hardware and software because it's easy to make them all talk to each other (which means errors are easier to correct, new features easy to implement, and worn out equipment can be replaced at any time)