Research conducted by Transport for London (TfL) in 2010 shows that there are three main factors to be considered when combating fare evasion.
The introduction of Metcard did not initially address many of these issues, particularly with regard to environmental factors.
Operator |
Year
|
Fare evasion penalty (current prices, original
currency)
|
Average daily earnings (pre-tax, current prices,
original currency)[8]
|
Equivalent working days
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Melbourne Tramway & Omnibus Company |
1907
|
40/-
|
7/-
|
5.7
|
Melbourne & Metropolitan Tramways Board |
1958
|
40/-
|
£3/4/10
|
0.6
|
Transport for London |
2008
|
£1000
|
£88.30
|
11.3
|
Victoria (Metcard/Myki) |
2011
|
$180
|
$277.90
|
0.6
|
Table 1. Comparative fare evasion penalties and equivalent working days.
Fines for fare evasion have not been set at the draconian levels seen in London, the standard penalty as at 2012 being a fine of $180. A number of advertising campaigns have been run using a combination of print media, posters and television advertising to address the fare issue. However, in Melbourne fare evasion on trams has been consistently higher than on other forms of transport as shown in the graph below primarily due to the open nature of the system, and the apparent risk/reward ratio.
Clearly, the low risk of detection evading fares in combination with the value of fines in Melbourne as per Table 1 are viewed as sufficient reason by a significant proportion of the travelling public to evade fares on a regular basis, making a purely economic decision that the risk of occasional fines is cheaper than legally paying fares. This has been addressed in London by making fare evasion a criminal rather than civil matter, and by setting fines at a draconian level – over twenty times the level in Melbourne. The State Government is placed in an invidious position, where increasing fines to an economically effective level will be attacked in the media as a revenue grab. The relatively small increase of fines from $180 per offence to $207 as from 1 July 2012 is unlikely to materially affect existing levels of fare evasion.
In response, a group called Tramsurance was formed to ‘insure’ fare evaders against the imposition of fines, as reported in ‘The Age’ of 5 July 2012. While such schemes will no doubt be found illegal in the long run, it is a worrying development for the State Government. Until it is prepared to suffer the opprobrium of the press and public in setting fines at a cost that will truly deter evaders, fare evasion levels will not substantially decrease – even with the current ticket inspection levels and anti-evasion public relation campaigns.
[8] Note that MTOC figure for average daily earnings is based on minimum unskilled male labourer rates. M&MTB figure for average daily earnings is based on male rates of pay. All daily rates of pay are based on pre-tax earnings. Sources are as follows:
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012), Average Weekly Earnings, Australia, Nov 2011, catalogue number 6302.0, 23 February 2012
Australian Council of Trade Unions (2009) Harvester Judgement, 27 May 2009
Office of National Statistics (2012) EARN01: Average Weekly Earnings, last updated June 2012
Public Transport Victoria (2012) Victorian Fares and Ticketing Manual (myki), 1 January 2012
Reserve Bank of Australia (2012) Australian Economic Statistics 1949-1950 to 1996-1997 Occasional Paper No. 8, Table 4.17 Wages & Earnings
State Government of Victoria (1883) Melbourne Tramway & Omnibus Company Act (1883), Hansard
State Government of Victoria (1958) Melbourne & Metropolitan Tramways Act (1958), Hansard