One of the central policy decisions for the Bracks Government this year will be whether to continue the private operation of Melbourne's public transport.
While Public Transport Minister Lynne Kosky has given some indications that she opposes the Government regaining control of the system, it would be reassuring to have it confirmed.
The decision should be an easy one. While there is still plenty of scope for reform, it is clear there have been improvements since public transport was privatised in 1999.
Patronage has risen strongly -- 37.6 per cent on trains and 25.5 per cent on trams. In fact, some of the problems the system is now experiencing, such as overcrowding, are problems of success rather than failure.
Reliability and punctuality have improved, although more consistently in trams than trains, and 65 new trains and 95 new trams have been introduced. Users have also had new services (an 11.4 per cent increase in the overall number of service kilometres).
A key feature is that commuters no longer experience the huge inconvenience caused by strikes and stoppages that historically plagued Melbourne's public transport.
While privatisation has not delivered the reductions in subsidy forecast by the bidders in 1999, it has not led to increased subsidies. As the auditor-general commented in 2005, under privatisation "the cost has remained (and is expected to remain) relatively constant" -- quite an achievement compared with the rapidly expanding public sector in Victoria.
Yet despite these solid gains, some public transport activists are still calling for a return to public ownership.
This should not come as a surprise, as the debate around public transport has been riddled with red herrings for many years.
Too often public transport has been seen not as a transport option for potential customers, but as a social service structured to meet social needs. It has been regarded as a means of providing jobs for its employees, mobility for the socially disadvantaged, or environmental benefits.
Too often in its life in the public sector, it has been the battle ground between competing interest groups, such as when the heritage and disability lobbies battled over the historic, but inaccessible, W-Class trams.
Too often it has been advocated by planning fanatics who see it as the panacea for urban sprawl and yet, at the same time, it has often been unable to commercially develop its property, or conduct routine maintenance efficiently, due to local "nimbyism".
For the foreseeable future, public transport will continue to play a major role in moving people. While it is true that public transport's share of motorised trips has declined to about 8 per cent, it takes 70 per cent of trips to the CBD, with 55 per cent of journeys to work in the CBD by train.
The current train and tram franchises expire in November next year unless the Government gives notice by November this year that it wants to extend them.
As well as confirming the continuation of private train and tram operation, the Government needs to spell out whether it intends to have a negotiated renewal process with existing operators, or re-tender.
Given the degree of disruption in the public transport system in recent years, there is at least a reasonable argument to provide a short extension (three years) to the existing arrangements so that the performance of the incumbents can be tested in a more stable environment. This will also enable the new ticketing system to be implemented without any other dislocation.
However, it is vital that tendering for the franchises must be periodically conducted to ensure that both commuters and taxpayers are getting the best possible value from their transport operators.
The government monopoly of train and tram operation continued uninterrupted from the 1920s to the 1990s, the seven decades leaving a legacy of declining service, recurring strikes, ballooning deficits and declining patronage.
By contrast, private operation has been given seven years and, while there are certainly many areas that can be improved, it is clear that overall it has been a positive.
The choice is clear: Re-nationalise and return to the seven decades of decline; persist with private operation and continue building a cycle of commercially driven growth.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment