What to do about fare evasion?

% journeys where fare is evaded (Metlink data)

Metlink released its Metropolitan Fare Evasion Survey on the weekend, which apparently shows 13.5% of trips on public transport in Melbourne in the first half of 2011 weren’t paid for.

The figure for trams, where it’s easier to avoid paying, was much higher – The Age’s headline was One in five evading fares on trams (see exhibit).

Metlink’s disappointed me before with its slipshod approach to customer focus and they’ve done it again this time. The survey was released to the media, but not to public transport users, so we can’t read it (in fact the most recent media release available on Metlink’s web site as of today is 17 August!).

However fortunately The Age has cited some of the findings in this indignant editorial, Fare dodgers owe us all big time. I also stumbled across Metlink’s Network revenue protection plan 2010 which was released under FOI and made available publicly by The Age (I do like it when media use the power of the digital world to supply supporting documentation online).

Metlink’s Network Revenue Protection report provides some interesting findings based on focus group research. I found it surprising only a small proportion of travellers actually always pay the fare  – most people have not paid the fare at some time and some don’t pay frequently. The sorts of explanations offered are “because I didn’t have any change” or “because I could get away with it”.

Worryingly, the report argues that “fare evasion is seen as normative behaviour shared by the majority of the population”. Prevalent public attitudes are:

  • Even people who admit to occasional fare evasion do not see themselves as ‘fare evaders’ i.e.they don’t see what they do as wrong
  • Fare evasion is seen as socially acceptable i.e. it is perceived that everyone does it
  • Opportunistic or inadvertent fare evasion leads to more systematic fare evasion as people learn how to ‘get away with it’
  • Some customers are unwilling to pay for what they perceive as poor service delivery
  • The existing ticketing system is perceived as letting passengers down – it’s too confusing, too hard to use, etc
  • Poor value for money – despite the value provided by ‘bulk’ tickets, Melburnians are more likely than users in other Australian cities to consider public transport expensive
  • Some customers like the idea of  ‘playing the game’ and actively take on the system.

Many comments on The Age’s news report support this conclusion. Not paying fares is variously justified by difficulties with buying or validating tickets, inadequate information about ticketing requirements, poor quality of service, and expensive prices. Some suggest conductors should be restored to trams and some, with imaginative logic, say making public transport free would put paid to the problem of fare evasion (pun not intended).

Trams present a particular difficulty for protecting revenue because they’re relatively “open”. It isn’t practical to have barriers at city stops like there are at loop rail stations. Even with the best of intentions, ticket purchase and validation can be difficult on a crowded tram. Chronic evaders can “hover” near a validation point and only use it if an inspector comes aboard.

Whatever measures are adopted to increase fare compliance, there are limits. There’s always going to be a trade-off between minimising non-compliance, maintaining an attractive experience for bona fide travellers, and keeping costs within sensible bounds – this is public transport, so there’s a political constraint as well. Some lost revenue is inevitable: almost all retail businesses tolerate some degree of freeloading because beyond a certain point the cost relative to the saving in foregone revenue is too high.

The first thing I’d double check is the Government’s agreement with the operators – it needs to give them every incentive to increase revenue. Assuming that’s in order, a key strategy is to address systemic problems – make the ticketing system simple, easy to understand, easy to use and very accessible.

Travellers who’d ordinarily be mortified to be classed as fare evaders should not find themselves in a position where it’s too hard to comply or where they inadvertently fail to pay. The basis for the norm that “it’s OK to avoid paying because it’s too hard to comply” needs to be eliminated. In this context, the implications of actions like abolishing single-use tickets need to be thought about very carefully.

Another key strategy is enforcement, which is more suitable for targeting deliberate evaders. I’m doubtful about the value of restoring conductors to trams but it’s one option. The Age’s editorialist thinks penalties for evasion are too low ($180 or $61 if under 18) so increasing them is also an option. Another is increasing the probability of getting caught, although that requires more inspectors so it’s expensive.

I can’t “prove” this, but it seems to me it’s not healthy for a civil society when a majority of the population think there are occasions when it’s alright not to pay for travel on public transport. I can’t see that it builds respect for our public transport system either. Enforcement is necessary because there’ll always be people like this (X warning) but my feeling is getting the systemic problems right will deliver the biggest gains.

Note: See the poll conducted by The Age – When asked “Would you be more likely to pay for a ticket if there were conductors on trams?”, 80% of respondents said they would. Seems to confirm the view that most people don’t always pay.


BOOK GIVEAWAYfollow this link to be in the running for one of two copies of Jenny Sinclair’sWhen we think about Melbourne. Entries close midday on Saturday 3rd September.

42 Comments on “What to do about fare evasion?”

  1. RED says:

    I was incredibly disappointed that Myki didn’t have a ‘pay only for what you use’ system (capped at standard day ticket rates). It should be possible to jump on a tram in the city and ride for three stops and only pay 25 cents – you shouldn’t have to pay for a two hour ticket for a very short trip.

    I think if you asked people why they want connies back, many people would say that it’s just as much the sectional tickets as the connies that they miss. Myki was the ideal opportunity to bring back some PAYG into the system and the government muffed it.

    I would suggest that the reason many people refuse to pay for a ticket is because they believe that the ticket pricing structure is unfair, as it is aimed at regular commuters and not occasional users that just want a ride up the Collins Street hill!

    Public transport should be priced like tool roads – pay only for the sections you use.

  2. Liam says:

    I love the feeling I get when I save money by not validating a ticket! I’ll treat my self to an extra coffee! I ‘hover’ like hell and I’m proud! Tickets are a rip off, and I’m not standing for it!
    Evade away people!

  3. mdonnellan63 says:

    everyone benefits from PT – everyone should pay; through taxes. conductors on trams and staff at stations should be employed to help people use the service.

    • Sam says:

      The public transport system is heavily subsidised, so everybody does pay.

      It is hard to argue that those who use the system don’t benefit more than non-users and so should pay more, the ticket fare.

  4. Lynne says:

    It would be interresting to see the methodology, presumably evasion also means concession evasion, I can’t see how busses could be so high otherwise.

  5. rodney says:

    To discourage hoverers, they could occasionally send out “plain clothes” ticket inspectors who show their ID badge only when checking the ticket. Also they could put a sign in the tram: “Attention: Plain clothes ticket inspectors may be in operation on this tram.”

  6. Michael says:

    I got a fine – the first and last since I permanently switched to cycling – by inadvertently forgetting to validate my ticket. The fine is out of all proportion to the offence. I had previously used monthly tickets and had got into the habit of not going to the trouble of redundantly validating the ticket every time I took a short trip on a crowded tram. Over the Easter break I had switched to a 10×2-hour ticket because I was planning to take leave making the monthly ticket uneconomic. I forgot to use the machine on the tram I caught to the railway station and got written up a fine and had my ticket confiscated at Melbourne Central. I would have validated the ticket going into the railway station so my forgetfulness wouldn’t have saved me any money anyway.

    The ergonomics of having to validate tickets redundantly is just absurd. I agree a system like Singapore has would be much better. I have incidentally never looked back – even cycling in the shittest weather Melbourne has and getting soaked through is preferable to Melbourne’s crammed, rundown and unreliable public transport, but I’m not bitter 😉

  7. moonfriend says:

    I wonder why you object to a system that is free at the point of sale. It would operate largely like the roads do. I also wonder how much revenue this would save (eg, ‘revenue protection officers’, lawsuits, wages, maintenance of myki machines, other on-costs) compared to losses in ticket and fine revenue.

    I wonder why they haven’t caught that pissing guy either. His face is clear; one two-minute segment on Today Tonight would surely nab him.

    I don’t have the answers, so I wonder.

  8. Paul says:

    Well I am sitting here in a cafe in Copenhagen and speaking to the locals they are suprised by this statistic for two reasons.

    Firstly the habit of evasion is unfortunately a pointer to our psyche in Australia – In Denmark, there are no strict enforment procceedures, but everyone appears to pay. Its their view that all public goods are just that – for the public and they are happy to pay a nominal cost. Its they way they have been brought up.

    The second is that such a staistic is even collected – because really who cares – as long as there are cars off the street then thats good. But this is a country where the govenment does provide a logical alternative
    for the less well off than resulting to fare evasion – they provide bikes for free in this country – Its amazing and it works

    We need to be looking at how they are doing things in Europe because they are way way ahead!

  9. wilful says:

    I have wondered before what the economics of a completely free public transport system would be like, supported only by rentals of retail space in stations and the absence of a vastly expensive ticketing system.

    But I do accept that there’s a version of ‘moral hazard’ there – people wont love PT if it’s free.

  10. Jane Doe says:

    I agree with the point that fare evasion being normal is unhealthy but people also regularly download pirated music and movies with little concern about committing that crime too. The reality is if people can avoid paying for something they will.

    Statistics as discussed above tend to throw weight behind the argument for harsher penalties and more inspectors. Yet I believe half the problem with fare evasion is the stigma created by ticket inspectors. I believe the public attitude to inspectors (e.g. aggressive, excessive force and bullies) further embeds a culture of fare evasion in that respect for the authority governing fare compliance is virtually non-existent and perhaps in some cases, encourages further defiance.

    Another thing I believe further indoctrinates fare evasion is the nature and process of the way people are fined. Take speeding for example. If you are caught speeding you are either a) caught by a camera and sent a fine in the mail or b) pulled over on the side of the road by a police officer. If you are caught by method b) you are often alone, or in a car with people you know. More often than not, the police officer is alone or accompanied by one other officer. Passing motorists may notice you as they drive by but they are well removed from the situation, leaving you to experience your guilt, anger or humiliation in relative privacy. You also know (whether you agree with current speed limit policy or not) that you have broken a law that is in place to protect the lives of people. Most people accept and respect these terms.

    Fare evasion is also treated in much the same way however there are a few subtle differences.
    The nature of the fare evasion means there is only one way people can be caught: by ticket inspectors on or disembarking public transport vehicles/infrastructure. This means that fining almost always occurs in public spaces most of which experience a steady flow of people. When fare evaders are discovered they are often pulled aside by an inspector . More often than not the inspector is then joined by a group (4-6) of his/her colleagues where they proceed to ask the evader a series of questions. This is often witnessed involuntarily (or not!) by fellow passengers or people in the vicinity. Unlike speeding motorists, fare evaders are not shielded by their vehicles and are subsequently left to process their situation, guilt, anger or humiliation with no privacy. Some may think that this is deserved however we need to ask whether not paying a fare (eg. $6, 2hr, Zone 1/2, full fare) warrants such a heavy handed process. Is it right that the punishment for fare evasion is equal to or worse than a crime that places lives at risk such as speeding? Does this kind of policy inconsistency that contribute to and further inflame the level of outrage that embeds the culture of defiance when it comes to fare evasion?

    In Japan inspectors only fine fare evaders if they can prove there was no intention to pay. i.e. not carrying enough money to purchase a ticket in the first place. Those public transport users found without a valid ticket are asked to pay their fare, those who had no intention of paying are fined. While this might be viewed as some evasion hard-liners as soft or weak I believe this is something our State Government should consider. Evaders would still be forced to pay (could even introduce a premium fare, say $20?) and it would help reduce the negative stigma that currently exists in regards Victoria’s fare evasion policy. It would also begin to align the punishment with the crime and change the role of inspectors to a more service based role much like the beloved inspectors you have mentioned in your article.

  11. Person A says:

    I agree with the first comment. To encourage greater compliance there needs to be a fairer price structure. It should not cost the same to travel six stops on a tram, say 2km, that I do some mornings than it is to travel a much greater distance say 20kms on a train. Pricing needs to be proportional to reflect the cost of the journey – can’t Myki be used for this? And while they’re at it, couldn’t have they made Myki so that it works on a different frequency to my other cards – access, credit, etc so that I don’t have to take it out of my pocket.

  12. Urt says:

    I’ll pay 100 per cent of the time when they run the trains at 100 per cent punctuality.
    Exacerbating everything is a population of ticket inspectors in which sociopathy is over-represented…

    • Sam says:

      You don’t pay anywhere near 100 per cent of the costs even when you pay 100 per cent of the time. You already get a substantial discount even when you pay for non-punctual services.

    • T says:

      I agree – since Metlink thinks 6 minutes late is “on time” then I think not paying 10% of the time is a tolarable compliance level.

  13. George says:

    There’s a pretty straightforward solution to cutting out fare evasion (at least on the train network) – 6ft physical barriers at each and every entry point to each and every railway station in Melbourne.

    i.e. No valid ticket\myki, no access to the system. Unless of course you’re willing to clearly break the law in front of everyone and jump onto the station via other means, or maybe physically (and metaphorically) piggyback off a paying passenger through the barriers.

    If it’s good enough for Barcelona, Paris and Brussels, I don’t see why it can’t be good enough for Melbourne.

  14. Mikez says:

    I too wonder on the economics of a fully `free’ system:

    – reduce the need for wanker ticket inspectors or the ones who just sit on a chair watching you go past (in the station)
    – increase the use of public transport, therefore reducing the road load, car accidents, hospital load
    – less air pollution, less carbon
    – less cars, safer roads, more encouraged to walk or cycle (last time the oil price hit $140+/barrel, this change was noticeable)
    – more walking in general for other improved health outcomes
    – more people using the system, creating potentially safer `high visibility’ public space, reducing the need for guards

    One wonders if the benefits would outweigh the costs.

    Punishing people for avoiding fares just seems petty, Jane Doe’s description of Japan sounds better – just pay and go. If you treat people like criminals and children it’s hardly surprising they don’t behave responsibly.

    • Sam says:

      Can the public transport system actually accommodate more people? It would have to be able to do so to achieve the benefits you are proposing.

      Perhaps during off-peak periods there is spare capacity and an argument for lower fares, but not during the peak hours.

  15. john says:

    General comment: current Melbourne tram ability to buy ticket on board is a huge convenience which should not be lightly discarded. But needs to be backed up by adequate inspectors. I travelled on trams like this in Zurich ion the 1960s. It’s not rocket science.

    RE Jane Doe on the more lenient Japanese system of inspection:

    Possible compromise system that would be less insulting to inadvertent, basically honeset non-payers:

    First offence – little or no fine above paying the fare, but your name is recorded. Second offence: bigger fine; etc. If no second offence, your name is wiped from the list of offenders after a period (much like how points on the drivers licence expire).

    Why public transport should NOT be free:
    Because it would greatly strengthen the hand of the Treasury types who see public transport as no more than a drain on the public purse. If patronage growth will simply lead to higher public subsidy, then clearly (from their point of view) improvements that would cause patronage growth should be avoided. If there is fare revenue, improvements that will increase it have a better chance of support.

    • You’ve summed up why PT shouldn’t be free quite well there. One other reason free public transport would be very difficult is that once the economy hits a downward trajectory you could bet that public transport funding and therefore services would be cut quickly.

  16. There are no good public transport systems anywhere in the world that are free all the time. There are elements, i.e. a bunch of free buses in Perth, free public transport on Christmas and NYE in Melbourne, but public transport systems cost a hell of a lot to run.

    Whilst in Melbourne there is a hell of a lot of expenditure that only exists because of ticketing problems (i.e. myki, metcard and inspectors) its worth remembering we paid a hell of a lot more than we should have for both Metcard and Myki, ticketing isn’t the problem, it’s the choice of ticketing that is.

    As for the connies debate, I’m certainly for bringing them back, they served a purpose a lot greater than the ability to sell tickets and they’d still be able to serve this greater purpose now. They helped passengers with boarding/ticketing inquiries/stop locations/transfer suggestions/etc, calmed rowdy passengers adding to perceived safety levels, and yes reduced fare evasion greatly.

    Especially with the newer tram fleet having a driver behind a screen of plate glass with no way of talking to them, a public face could be a great benefit.

    Pretty much all the same can be said for re-staffing the stations.

    I’ll be very interested in seeing what proportion of the population fare evade after single use tickets are eliminated with the Metcard cut-off and no top-up machines are installed on trams. That’s got to be up there with stupidest PT decisions by the Baillieu Government so far.

    “Hang on this ticketing system isn’t working very well, lets make it more difficult for people to buy tickets and force everyone, including tourists and occasional users to purchase an expensive smart card! That’ll solve all our problems!”

  17. john says:

    PS Agree that it is extremely irritating when newspapers coyly refer to ‘information obtained under FOI’, but the document which they used for their article is still not available to readers (unless they do their own FOI on it).

    I understand that recent changes to the Commonwealth FOI Act include: ‘if a document is released under FOI, the agency must also publish it on its own website’. This is a very powerful idea. It may encourage agencies to be more forthcoming in publishing things separately from FOI before they get an FOI application, since then the document would not have the implied tag ‘published under FOI = something we may have preferred to hide ‘.

  18. Danny Lanfranco says:

    Public Transport should be Free!!! The networks are like arteries, the people like blood,the city is the body. One cannot charge the blood to move around the body to achieve what it needs to do. Like the 1st home owners grant… the city of Melbourne would make $100 billion in one year with a $3 billion outlay. Imagine… the M.C.G would be FULL every weekend with Free Public Transport. Imagine the economy…? Instead of buying 1 item at the stores … we would be able to buy 2 or 3!! Invite relatives to our state to see the sites & a cappuccino … *Because we have FREE PUBLIC TRANSPORT! The economy of Melbourne would be doing Star Jumps! Reduce Carbon emissions due to less vehicle use. Imagine not having to fork out up to $40+ just to get your family to the Royal Melbourne Zoo or Aquarium. Melbourne City could lead the way as one of the greenest cities on the planet with Free Public Transport. With all the money waisted chasing proverbial tails(fare evaders) we might as well make it Free for everyone. How much would it cost for someone to purchase a yearly ticket for everyone who lives in Melbourne? 3million x $1000? We could have in/out sections at major train stations. Like a heart, Blood in- Blood out to regulate flow. Blue areas and red areas like veins or arteries. Obviously existing networks would need major overhauls and fine tuning to cope… but it is still better than paying someone $30 000 a year to run around chasing other lost revenue. $ x $30 000 = $120 000 a year for the next group of Train Nazi’s one sees making life miserable for some poor in between soul.

  19. Tanya says:

    I would never knowingly travel without a valid ticket- I just couldn’t handle the humiliation of getting caught- I even get embarrassed when I witness someone getting caught. One lad I saw get caught had about 10 different drivers’ licenses on him….& he seemed like such a nice young uni student. I don’t usually re-validate my ticket on the trams though, as although ‘they’ say you must do it, no information is provided on why you have to, so it irks me. Sometimes I absentmindedly forget to validate a ticket (forgetting it’s been over two hours etc) and luckily I haven’t been caught, as being vague is not seen as a valid excuse :/

    • Michael says:

      I wonder if there are any figures on this, but I suspect with the old tickets most travellers with valid tickets don’t re-validate them when they board a tram – mostly because it is redundant and you feel like a bit of an idiot standing there validating a valid ticket. They should have got rid of the zoned system when they ditched paper tickets. Although for all I know they might still be using paper tickets on this dinosaur of a system somewhere.

  20. Russ says:

    Ultimately fares ought to be an economic question. The problem with raising revenue through ticketing is that tracking and policing trips and collecting revenue from a widely dispersed system with a fairly low density of usage outside peak hour is really expensive. Back when railways were invented and labour was cheap, ticketing each trip made some sense.

    But labour isn’t cheap, and the best an authority can do is take account of the rational choice for fare evasion (probability_of_being_caught x fine vs. cost_per_trip) and the marginal decrease in fare-evasion per inspector, given the fine. You culd argue too, fare evasion isn’t really costing revenue, because if the operator ought to have optimised their revenue collection already: any increase in inspectors is likely to cost more than they add in value.

    Or find a new way of raising revenue that is less costly. In theory MetCard and Myki are supposed to do that, but technology can’t police fares, even if we dispense with the people selling them. Last year, another blogger estimated the cost of revenue collestion at at least 52% of the total revenue raised. No other business would come close to that level.

    I don’t necessarily think P/T should be free, but there are a lot of good reasons to think the current method of revenue raising is worth changing. A system of land taxes that meant people paid for having a service delivered, regardless of use (as other essential services do even if they monitor use) could raise a lot more revenue far more efficiently.

  21. john says:

    PS re claims that ‘if PT was free, more people/ lots more people/ everyone would use it.’

    Perhaps some more, but not lots more. For most people the major constraint on use is not disinclination to pay a fare, but the fact that no adequate service exists. If driving takes 10 minutes and PT by some infrequent roundabout outer suburban bus route takes an hour, is saving a dollar or two going to make you use the bus, if you’re not using it already?

    Free PT would discourage the authorities from improving services and would entrench the pressent inequity in which the inner suburbs, for historical reasons, enjoy better services than the outer suburbs.

  22. I agree with free public transport in principal (it’s not really that different to free roads) but I wonder if it’s one of those “can’t get there from here” issues. I.e. with the system so run down and suffering such capacity issues, it would be unfeasible to impose the patronage leap that would arise were it to suddenly become free. I’d be interested if research about this kind of transition exists, or if someone who knows more about this issue could comment.

    I always pay the fare but can understand why people get fed up and stop. I agree poor fee structures are a big disincentive: the short trip issue and the ridiculous retention of zone 2 on trams (necessitating confusing rules about when touching off is required) come to mind. And the practical difficulties of purchasing or validating on board trams are very real, especially at peak hour.

    • the practical difficulties of purchasing or validating on board trams are very real, especially at peak hour.

      It certainly is, I often wonder if the peak hour crush the continues to feed Metlink (or whoever is responsible for dealing with this data) incorrect data demonstrating that some trams are not crowded, when in fact they’re so crowded no body can move.

      When I lived just off Brunswick St there would be frequent mornings where I’d watch two trams go past before I could get onto the third (still packed) tram. When I asked Metlink why they never ran longer trams on the 112 route they said they were all being used by the supposedly much busier 109 route, which I never had any difficulty getting on if I walked the 15 minutes to where the 112 met the 109.

      I’m not sure if this is still the case now, that was about 5 years ago, but when I complained they told me the problem would be fixed when the new rolling stock arrived in 3 years!

  23. Johnyboy says:

    I do not have enough information to make a decision. I am lacking the total cost of the public transport and how much the fairs cover. Then i want a break up of renumeration of the people who actually manage and the ones who work. Then I can make a better informed choice on the public transport system.

    A quick response would be I think that there should be no tickets at all. Its just scam. Its like transfer pricing. The public transport system is already heavily subsidized. If they didnt waste money on the ticket system they could use the money to make it free.

    Why free? It would get alot of people out of cars. This means less congestion. MIght even lead to less need to work on the roads or building more roads. I think all residents should pay the whole public transport thing in the rates they pay.

    Then again I think that the pay from centerlink should be conditional on some work for the public good. If they are not looking for work or incapable of work I think the unemployed should work as ticket inspectors one day a week. This would make it more practicle to police the system during peak hours.

    Id like the centerlink receipents to maybe work the gardens and nature strips dividing roads or in parks and make them better. I would only require it once a week. Its just to get them out of the house and to keep them part of the community.

    How could we pay for this? Cut down the Council CEO pay of $300k to $150k. The $150k can go to uniforms and tools and plants for the unemployed to plant.

    There is always a solution.

  24. Richard says:

    The report is upside down. Well for the 86 tram at least. As a regular on the 86 I’d be very surprised if as many as 20% of passengers validated.

    The problem is the crappy system, don’t any of these beurocrats travel overseas and witness some brilliantly elegant systems that are supported by the customers?

  25. T says:

    I was surprised when I arrived in Melbourne and took a tram. In Toronto, when you get on the tram, you pay your fare or show your metropass, to the tram driver. That eliminates the need for “fare inspectors” and reduces fare evasion. Why can’t they do that in Melbourne? It’s a very simple system – no fare, no getting on the tram. They can also do the same with trains by having access gates at all stations and staffing the stations properly. They do it in Perth and in many other countries around the world. I’m sure Melbourne can manage. If they can’t, they should stop complaining about fare evasion. It’s an opportunistic crime and most people will do it if they can (just like downloading music etc). Just stop making it so easy!

    • Russ says:

      T, the biggest problem with showing a ticket to a driver is that it slows the vehicle down a lot, particularly as only one door can be used for boarding, and exacerbates problems with vehicles queuing on regular routes. That doesn’t matter much on Melbourne buses because hardly anyone takes them and they are rarely regular, but it would on a tram.

      • RED says:

        False logic Russ. Have you any information on bus patronage statistics?
        I used to live on the 203 bus route and, like all public transport, it was packed out in peak hour and relatively empty the rest of the time. It is much easier to enforce ticket inspection with buses, although I can remember (just) when we had connies on buses too. They were canned in about 1987.
        I will never understand the Melbournian prejudice against buses – they are cheap and easy to buy, can be run on a variety of fuels, can be flexible and change their routes if demographics change and, to cap it off, they don’t need dedicated and expensive infrastructure for their exclusive use. Buses rock!

  26. […] post on fare evasion last week prompted a number of commenters to suggest that public transport should be made free. Roads are […]

    • rod whar says:

      without fare evasion they would go broke.the fines,you are forgetting to add the fines,the media and everyone forgets they fine you,if they lose $80,000,000 in a year,thats a lie,they fine you and its $180 add all that and then you will no they are lying to you.the need you not to pay,all the ticket stuff and late trains is too make you not pay,so they can fine you,to make a profit.

  27. rod whar says:

    no one spoke about what happens after you evade the fare,if you do not get caught,good luck,if you do its a $180 fine as you said,well here’s a statistic for you.97% of people caught pay the fine,so that would be making a load of cash and not losing anything,in a society trying to become a less violent place,beating up and grabbing at people and pushing kids of trains is going a little far,over $2.00 or $3.00 dollars,so what,some pay some don’t,if you have no money,you still should be able to travel.public transport,like city link,you have 2 weeks to pay or you get fined,its more about rejects getting a job.l will never buy a ticket unless traveling with my children.the make enough money now.without fare evasion they would go broke,simple sum,$80,000,000 lost in fare evasion x $180 for the fine,its fun if you work it out your self.

  28. […] honest credit card wouldn’t buy a concession ticket with a student card from 2002“. Fare evasion has been a big issue in Melbourne for years, and this advertisement piggybacks off the issue in a positive way.My second example of an […]

  29. […] of those options is clawing back evaded fare revenue, but I doubt it is the goldmine many imagine. I don’t find the argument that the private […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s