The report by The Age on 6th June about concerns that the process used for awarding the government contract for a new ticketing system is flawed is a concern, particularly given problems experienced with the ticketing system in the past. It is critical that government gets it right this time but is a new ticketing system such a high priority at a time when concerns are being raised about rapidly rising and unsustainable government debt?
Whilst there are problems with the existing system, the first question that should be asked is how serious are they, can they be fixed easily, if so how quickly and at what cost. Is it worth getting a new ticketing system and all the teething problems it would entail if the problems with the existing system can be fixed quickly at relatively little cost? That is the “do nothing” base case and must be used as the basis for ranking alternative options.
The second question that must be asked is how does this project rank with competing needs – other measures required to improve transport outcomes for the public transport system as a whole?
In the table provided in my blog dated 12/5/23, ticketing ranked 17th in terms of customer service priorities for public transport based on research by Prof Graham Currie which he presented at our annual forum in 2018. If one casts a wider net, by including priorities for other travel and transport modes including active transport, road safety and the imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions the ranking for a new ticket system would fall even further. So where is the business case that justifies funding for a new ticketing system and its ranking above other areas of need?
Whilst there have been some concerns about the need to improve the ticketing system, up until now there has been no urgency to fix it, so what has changed to make this a top priority and rush the process? Projects like this need careful planning. The user specification needs to be well thought out to ensure it delivers what we need. The premier is impressed with a system that uses only bankcard or a smart phone but forgets that there are many people who don’t have either of these and that provision must also be made for special tickets for concession card holders. Failure to provide for these would discriminate against people who are poor or socially disadvantaged.
The evaluation process for any contract must be carried out according to well established guidelines and procedures. The process must be transparent and open to scrutiny. It is normal practice to accept the lowest conforming tender. Government would require very good reasons to accept the highest bid, which in this case is almost double the lowest tender. Concerns have been raised about the experience of the successful tenderer Conduit, which is better known for its hardware than whole integrated systems, particularly when it is software issues that often end up becoming the most difficult to resolve.
The most likely conclusion one can draw from this situation is that the ticketing contract is another politically inspired project that will deliver a marginal improvement in public transport service outcomes at best, that the process appears to have been rushed and lacks transparency.
The public has a right to know more about the basis on which this contract has been awarded and how the government can justify awarding it to the highest tenderer. But even more important, the government needs to explain why a new ticketing system ranks ahead of other areas of far greater need, particularly when it ranks only 17th in terms of customer service priorities.
Adherence to proper process by government is critical. Without this we can expect more funds spent on projects that deliver minimal or suboptimal outcomes at best. If this project is rushed with insufficient planning it risks significant cost overruns, similar to what has occurred with many other major government projects today. If the vast sums of money spent on our transport system over the last decade had been invested wisely it would have generated far better transport outcomes than exist today. Some would argue that it would have been sufficient to provide Melbourne with a world class public transport system, a system that would have serviced the entire city – a far cry from what we have today.