Daniel Bowen has written a response to 'Myki: A Disaster from Touch On to Touch Off' on his Diary of an Average Australian blog, here. My own responses to his comments are below:
"The claim in government circles is that Metcard is broke — at least almost — and needed significant investment to keep it running reliably. I don’t know if they’ve ever presented the evidence to that effect, but given regular cases of cards getting jammed in validators, there seems to be something in it."
Before it was edited out by The Age, my original op-ed included the following:
"I’ve never much liked that particular adage [i.e., 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'], though. I quite like the idea of improvement. If a system has identifiable problems, and a new system would probably solve those problems, then sure, go for it. And even if there were no actual problems, if a new system promised to do what the old one did, only quicker, easier and cheaper, then … great!"
If the issue was that the existing infrastructure needed significant infrustructure spending, then its choices were: (1) identify the existing system as functional and upgrade the infrastructure; or (2) identify shortcomings in the existing system and tender for a replacement. In 2004 the Transport Ticketing Authority (TTA) chose option (2), and invited tenders:
"The TTA invites tenders for a New Ticketing Solution (NTS) to replace the current Metcard system in 2007. The NTS will be a Smartcard Solution based on proven technology adapted to the specific requirements of the Victorian public transport environment. The flexible ticketing solution we seek will support the delivery of a fast, easy, smooth and safe travel experience for public transport users."
The original tender invitation makes fascinating reading now. The new system was always going to be a "Smartcard Solution", despite obvious and inherent problems with the application of smart card technology to public transport ticketing. This was an unfortunate decision by the TTA which seems to have been based on little more than current ideas of technological fashion. There's no evidence of any sustained thinking on the part of the TTA about the limitations of smart card technology to public transport ticketing.
Major questions arise when we examine the original invitation. The invitation predicted that the new smartcard solution would "be based on proven technology". Why, then, did the TTA not simply purchase Oyster or Octopus more-or-less "off the shelf", instead of ordering the reinvention of the wheel? Research into the success or otherwise of large-scale IT projects shows enormous costs when organisations choose to redesign the wheel instead of buying it off the shelf and tweaking it to suit their needs.
As an aside, the invitation also wanted the new system to support a "fast, easy, smooth and safe travel experience". On all four counts, Myki fares worse than Metcard.
"Actually the original plan was for Myki to include ticket machines on trams which would accept notes."
A number of defenders of Myki make this statement, or a variation of it. I'm not sure what the point is. The situation as it is now is that passengers cannot use notes, or coins, or anything, to buy tickets when they board buses and trams. Myki can claim that this is the fault of the TTA and the Victorian government, and vice versa, but the fact remains that the ticketing system is a shambles because of the lack of a short-term ticketing option.
Legal tender does not mean every business selling something has to accept every form of Australian currency. See: No, the law doesn’t demand that Myki accept 5 cent coins, or that Metcard machines accept notes.
Again, I'm not sure what the point is here. Yes, if you're interested in being technically correct, the law does not require that every business accepts every form of Australian currency. But why are we thinking of the provision of public transport services as a "business"? Public transport services are provided by the State to (1) ensure the orderly flow of commuters, which has economic, social and environmental benefits to the society, (2) increase the attractiveness and access of the city to tourists and other visitors, and (3) provide a means of travel to those who cannot afford private transportation. In other words, public transport is supposed to be open and available to everyone to use. By creating tricky exceptions, such as ticket machines which only accept coins and not notes, the ticketing system serves its own technical requirements and not the interests of the public.
I wonder how he thinks the transaction gets from the Myki web site onto your card? Magic? Actually it gets transferred via wifi when trams (and buses) are in the depot… which is why they say it could take up to 24 hours.
And again, I'm not sure why Daniel is defending the ticketing system on its own grounds, rather than arguing for the interests of public transport passengers. I don't particularly care how the transaction gets from the Myki web site onto my Myki card. My bank seems to manage it with my debit card when I use telephone or internet banking. As far as I'm concerned it does happen by magic, because I can't hope to understand the technical explanations. But we need to remember what a ticketing system for public transport is for. If a particular system, erroneously called a "smart card solution", won't allow me to either purchase a ticket with coins or notes, or immediately transfer balance onto my smart card, then for goodness sake don't implement it in the first place!!
Myki themselves say 24 hours (although they hedge their bets and sometimes say “at least 24 hours”), though I’ve seen it work in about two hours.
I've responded to this point (and Daniel's subsequent points) already --- see here. Metcard allowed me to transfer currency into a ticket ready for validation immediately. If Myki can't do that, it fails.
"The claim in government circles is that Metcard is broke — at least almost — and needed significant investment to keep it running reliably. I don’t know if they’ve ever presented the evidence to that effect, but given regular cases of cards getting jammed in validators, there seems to be something in it."
Before it was edited out by The Age, my original op-ed included the following:
"I’ve never much liked that particular adage [i.e., 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'], though. I quite like the idea of improvement. If a system has identifiable problems, and a new system would probably solve those problems, then sure, go for it. And even if there were no actual problems, if a new system promised to do what the old one did, only quicker, easier and cheaper, then … great!"
If the issue was that the existing infrastructure needed significant infrustructure spending, then its choices were: (1) identify the existing system as functional and upgrade the infrastructure; or (2) identify shortcomings in the existing system and tender for a replacement. In 2004 the Transport Ticketing Authority (TTA) chose option (2), and invited tenders:
"The TTA invites tenders for a New Ticketing Solution (NTS) to replace the current Metcard system in 2007. The NTS will be a Smartcard Solution based on proven technology adapted to the specific requirements of the Victorian public transport environment. The flexible ticketing solution we seek will support the delivery of a fast, easy, smooth and safe travel experience for public transport users."
The original tender invitation makes fascinating reading now. The new system was always going to be a "Smartcard Solution", despite obvious and inherent problems with the application of smart card technology to public transport ticketing. This was an unfortunate decision by the TTA which seems to have been based on little more than current ideas of technological fashion. There's no evidence of any sustained thinking on the part of the TTA about the limitations of smart card technology to public transport ticketing.
Major questions arise when we examine the original invitation. The invitation predicted that the new smartcard solution would "be based on proven technology". Why, then, did the TTA not simply purchase Oyster or Octopus more-or-less "off the shelf", instead of ordering the reinvention of the wheel? Research into the success or otherwise of large-scale IT projects shows enormous costs when organisations choose to redesign the wheel instead of buying it off the shelf and tweaking it to suit their needs.
As an aside, the invitation also wanted the new system to support a "fast, easy, smooth and safe travel experience". On all four counts, Myki fares worse than Metcard.
"Actually the original plan was for Myki to include ticket machines on trams which would accept notes."
A number of defenders of Myki make this statement, or a variation of it. I'm not sure what the point is. The situation as it is now is that passengers cannot use notes, or coins, or anything, to buy tickets when they board buses and trams. Myki can claim that this is the fault of the TTA and the Victorian government, and vice versa, but the fact remains that the ticketing system is a shambles because of the lack of a short-term ticketing option.
Legal tender does not mean every business selling something has to accept every form of Australian currency. See: No, the law doesn’t demand that Myki accept 5 cent coins, or that Metcard machines accept notes.
Again, I'm not sure what the point is here. Yes, if you're interested in being technically correct, the law does not require that every business accepts every form of Australian currency. But why are we thinking of the provision of public transport services as a "business"? Public transport services are provided by the State to (1) ensure the orderly flow of commuters, which has economic, social and environmental benefits to the society, (2) increase the attractiveness and access of the city to tourists and other visitors, and (3) provide a means of travel to those who cannot afford private transportation. In other words, public transport is supposed to be open and available to everyone to use. By creating tricky exceptions, such as ticket machines which only accept coins and not notes, the ticketing system serves its own technical requirements and not the interests of the public.
I wonder how he thinks the transaction gets from the Myki web site onto your card? Magic? Actually it gets transferred via wifi when trams (and buses) are in the depot… which is why they say it could take up to 24 hours.
And again, I'm not sure why Daniel is defending the ticketing system on its own grounds, rather than arguing for the interests of public transport passengers. I don't particularly care how the transaction gets from the Myki web site onto my Myki card. My bank seems to manage it with my debit card when I use telephone or internet banking. As far as I'm concerned it does happen by magic, because I can't hope to understand the technical explanations. But we need to remember what a ticketing system for public transport is for. If a particular system, erroneously called a "smart card solution", won't allow me to either purchase a ticket with coins or notes, or immediately transfer balance onto my smart card, then for goodness sake don't implement it in the first place!!
Myki themselves say 24 hours (although they hedge their bets and sometimes say “at least 24 hours”), though I’ve seen it work in about two hours.
I've responded to this point (and Daniel's subsequent points) already --- see here. Metcard allowed me to transfer currency into a ticket ready for validation immediately. If Myki can't do that, it fails.