Posted in

NMBS / SNCB advisory committee explicitly opposes station access gates, while people on the ground express more enthusiasm

An independent advisory committee that advises NMBS / SNCB on rail and passenger policy has issued an official opinion explicitly opposing plans to install ticket gates at Belgian railway stations, arguing that the measure would be costly while delivering only limited benefits in tackling fare evasion, Het Nieuwsblad reports..

The Advisory Committee for Train Passengers (Raadgevend Comité van de Treinreizigers (RGCT), Comité consultatif pour les voyageurs ferroviaires (CCVF)), which brings together mobility experts, passenger and transport organisations, as well as representatives of employers’ organisations, rejects the installation of ticket gates even as a pilot project.

Currently, the railway station beneath Brussels Airport is the only station in Belgium equipped with ticket gates. Only passengers with a valid rail ticket can open the gates and access the platforms.

Long-running political debate

The committee’s opinion comes as ticket gates have climbed high on the political agenda. For years, politicians have advocated their introduction, while NMBS / SNCB itself had opposed the idea, citing practical challenges, high costs and limited benefits.

A 2023 study commissioned by the railway operator concluded that the resources required would outweigh the commercial, financial and social benefits that NMBS / SNCB could expect from the project.

However, at the request of the federal government, NMBS / SNCB is now carrying out a new study, with its final report expected in the coming weeks. Federal Mobility Minister Jean-Luc Crucke (Les Engagés) has previously indicated that a different conclusion from the 2023 study cannot be ruled out, arguing that circumstances have changed since then.

Eight arguments against ticket gates

In its advice, the RCGT / CCVF lists eight reasons why it believes ticket gates are not an effective solution.

The committee argues that their impact on fare evasion is more limited than it may initially appear. Instead, it says fare dodging is more effectively reduced through increased ticket inspections than by installing physical barriers.

The experts also point to international examples which, they argue, show that ticket gates can actually increase passengers’ perception of insecurity because fare evaders attempt to follow paying passengers through the gates.

According to the committee, ticket gates would also create practical difficulties for passengers changing platforms during transfers, as well as for travellers with reduced mobility or those travelling with bicycles.

In addition, many large railway stations serve as pedestrian thoroughfares for local residents. Installing gates would force them to take longer routes around the stations. The committee also warns that shops located inside stations could become less accessible to customers.

Finally, the advisory body highlights the significant financial cost of installing ticket gates, arguing that the money could instead be invested in measures that would provide greater benefits to passengers, such as employing more ticket inspectors or increasing train frequencies.

Wider debate over public transport

The discussion extends beyond the national railway operator.

The Flemish public transport company De Lijn is also preparing to install ticket gates at the entrances and exits of Antwerp‘s premetro stations, following calls from Flemish Mobility Minister Annick De Ridder (N-VA). The project is expected to cost around €15 million.

The plans have already drawn criticism from De Lijn’s trade unions and passenger organisation TreinTramBus, which argue that substantial funding is being allocated to ticket gates while dozens of bus and tram routes are being cut because of budget constraints.

Rail platform calls for balanced cost-benefit analysis

The advisory committee’s conclusions have also drawn criticism from rail platform Treinbestuurder En Fier (Train Driver And Proud), which argues that the opinion focuses almost exclusively on the drawbacks of ticket gates without sufficiently weighing their potential benefits.

The group says the report does not answer key questions, including the financial impact of fare evasion, the potential revenue gains from ticket gates, how comparable systems perform abroad, whether technical solutions could address accessibility concerns, or how the investment compares with alternatives such as hiring additional ticket inspectors.

According to Treinbestuurder En Fier, ticket gates could serve several purposes beyond reducing fare evasion. These include protecting NMBS / SNCB’s ticket revenue, ensuring platforms are primarily used by passengers, strengthening social safety, and supporting the railway operator’s new policy requiring passengers to hold a valid ticket before boarding.

The organisation argues that fare evasion costs NMBS / SNCB tens of millions of euros each year, depriving the railway of funds that could otherwise be invested in rolling stock, infrastructure, staffing and passenger services.

While acknowledging that ticket gates are not a cure-all, the group says they could provide an additional deterrent against fare evasion, reduce the number of people entering platforms without intending to travel, lower the likelihood of disputes over tickets on board trains and improve safety for both passengers and railway staff.

Treinbestuurder En Fier also argues that some of the committee’s objections deserve nuance. It notes that modern ticket gate systems include wider access lanes for wheelchair users, passengers with bicycles, pushchairs and large luggage, addressing many of the accessibility concerns associated with older gate designs.

The group accepts that ticket gates cannot eliminate fare evasion entirely and that passengers may still tailgate through barriers. However, it argues that no security or enforcement measure is completely foolproof, and that the key question is whether ticket gates provide a measurable improvement over the current situation.

It also believes ticket gates should not necessarily be installed at every station, but rather be considered for major stations with high passenger volumes, where the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs.

Treinbestuurder En Fier concludes that the debate should be based on a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis examining both the advantages and disadvantages of ticket gates, as well as international experience and their potential impact on fare evasion, passenger safety, staff safety and the overall travel experience.

NMBS / SNCB & Infrabel related news

🇧🇪 Blogger, keen vexillologist, train conductor NMBS/SNCB, traveller, F1 follower, friend of Dorothy.

Leave a Reply

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Find out more about Webmentions.)

Discover more from Sidetrack

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading