Link to The Age article here
Oh, and in the current climate, I doubt everyone working for Metro would decline moving across to the new organisation, even on slightly less money (hey, pay them the same even I don't care). Its not like most would walk into a job short notice (some might) but you advertise a job if you have to.The 'Metro' brand is owned by the state, not MTR, so you wouldn't even need to change the name.
But to do it, or not to do it is the question. What is the government scared of?? Must have something to lose I'd they don't want to?
Thoughts.
Not to mention the millions in profits which go offshore to their foreign owners, funded by taxpayers and fare payers. That money should stay here, and be spent on maintenance, among other things.There is nothing wrong with profits going overseas. It is simply a return on funds invested and/or risks taken. No different than BHP repatriating money back to Australia for money it has invested in ventures overseas. Has nothing to do with what is 'spent on maintenance'. That is subject to the contract specifications.
Public transport isn't a business, we pay our taxes and fares for a public service to be run and what did jeff kennett do ? But John Brumby takes the cake as the coque that let MTR in, and I distinctly saw a thread in Railpage where someone warned us about MTR and what they are like. We shouldn't have to pay a third party to run our railway.Not to mention the millions in profits which go offshore to their foreign owners, funded by taxpayers and fare payers. That money should stay here, and be spent on maintenance, among other things.There is nothing wrong with profits going overseas. It is simply a return on funds invested and/or risks taken. No different than BHP repatriating money back to Australia for money it has invested in ventures overseas. Has nothing to do with what is 'spent on maintenance'. That is subject to the contract specifications.
There was nothing to stop any Australian company having a crack and likewise making profits on money invested.
There is nothing wrong with profits going overseas. It is simply a return on funds invested and/or risks taken. No different than BHP repatriating money back to Australia for money it has invested in ventures overseas. Has nothing to do with what is 'spent on maintenance'. That is subject to the contract specifications.Funds invested and risks taken?
There was nothing to stop any Australian company having a crack and likewise making profits on money invested.
And where do you think that money going overseas is coming from? It is coming out of money that would have been spent on the network if the system was still operated by the government. As a taxpayer I want to see 100% of the money handed over used to improve things, especially since it is a business run at a loss.Not to mention the millions in profits which go offshore to their foreign owners, funded by taxpayers and fare payers. That money should stay here, and be spent on maintenance, among other things.There is nothing wrong with profits going overseas. It is simply a return on funds invested and/or risks taken. No different than BHP repatriating money back to Australia for money it has invested in ventures overseas. Has nothing to do with what is 'spent on maintenance'. That is subject to the contract specifications.
There was nothing to stop any Australian company having a crack and likewise making profits on money invested.
I am NO fan of privatisation in general and the way our suburban system was privatised and split up ; Remember M-Train ? was a scandal . However I remember multiple disputes & disruptions galore when the system was previously directly in government hands and political interference was rife .Do we really think those days were better ?And where do you think that money going overseas is coming from? It is coming out of money that would have been spent on the network if the system was still operated by the government. As a taxpayer I want to see 100% of the money handed over used to improve things, especially since it is a business run at a loss.Not to mention the millions in profits which go offshore to their foreign owners, funded by taxpayers and fare payers. That money should stay here, and be spent on maintenance, among other things.There is nothing wrong with profits going overseas. It is simply a return on funds invested and/or risks taken. No different than BHP repatriating money back to Australia for money it has invested in ventures overseas. Has nothing to do with what is 'spent on maintenance'. That is subject to the contract specifications.
There was nothing to stop any Australian company having a crack and likewise making profits on money invested.
From Business Dictionary. Definition of a BusinessPublic transport isn't a business, we pay our taxes and fares for a public service to be run and what did jeff kennett do ? But John Brumby takes the cake as the coque that let MTR in, and I distinctly saw a thread in Railpage where someone warned us about MTR and what they are like. We shouldn't have to pay a third party to run our railway.Not to mention the millions in profits which go offshore to their foreign owners, funded by taxpayers and fare payers. That money should stay here, and be spent on maintenance, among other things.There is nothing wrong with profits going overseas. It is simply a return on funds invested and/or risks taken. No different than BHP repatriating money back to Australia for money it has invested in ventures overseas. Has nothing to do with what is 'spent on maintenance'. That is subject to the contract specifications.
There was nothing to stop any Australian company having a crack and likewise making profits on money invested.
We don't know whether or not we would have a 'better' system if it was government run. There are no benchmarks available so we are really just guessing. Eastern seaboard states have similar sized metro rail networks, but we have absolutely no data about efficiencies for each state such as maintenance or operational costs per passenger kilometre, safety KPI's or in fact any sort of KPI. Could be that the deal Victoria is actually great. Who knows?And where do you think that money going overseas is coming from? It is coming out of money that would have been spent on the network if the system was still operated by the government. As a taxpayer I want to see 100% of the money handed over used to improve things, especially since it is a business run at a loss.Not to mention the millions in profits which go offshore to their foreign owners, funded by taxpayers and fare payers. That money should stay here, and be spent on maintenance, among other things.There is nothing wrong with profits going overseas. It is simply a return on funds invested and/or risks taken. No different than BHP repatriating money back to Australia for money it has invested in ventinures overseas. Has nothing to do with what is 'spent on maintenance'. That is subject to the contract specifications.
There was nothing to stop any Australian company having a crack and likewise making profits on money invested.
Yep - Not only Government Interference but the waste we get with reinventing the wheelI am NO fan of privatisation in general and the way our suburban system was privatised and split up ; Remember M-Train ? was a scandal . However I remember multiple disputes & disruptions galore when the system was previously directly in government hands and political interference was rife .Do we really think those days were better ?And where do you think that money going overseas is coming from? It is coming out of money that would have been spent on the network if the system was still operated by the government. As a taxpayer I want to see 100% of the money handed over used to improve things, especially since it is a business run at a loss.Not to mention the millions in profits which go offshore to their foreign owners, funded by taxpayers and fare payers. That money should stay here, and be spent on maintenance, among other things.There is nothing wrong with profits going overseas. It is simply a return on funds invested and/or risks taken. No different than BHP repatriating money back to Australia for money it has invested in ventures overseas. Has nothing to do with what is 'spent on maintenance'. That is subject to the contract specifications.
There was nothing to stop any Australian company having a crack and likewise making profits on money invested.
Then in view of the reality, surely the contract specifications are inadequate, or are being ignored, and need to be looked at?Not to mention the millions in profits which go offshore to their foreign owners, funded by taxpayers and fare payers. That money should stay here, and be spent on maintenance, among other things.There is nothing wrong with profits going overseas. It is simply a return on funds invested and/or risks taken. No different than BHP repatriating money back to Australia for money it has invested in ventures overseas. Has nothing to do with what is 'spent on maintenance'. That is subject to the contract specifications.
There was nothing to stop any Australian company having a crack and likewise making profits on money invested.
Then in view of the reality, surely the contract specifications are inadequate, or are being ignored, and need to be looked at?Most probably all of the above. Have been involved in contracting out government services and it is just as easy to get it totally wrong as it is totally right.
I suspect the old VR ALWAYS run at a loss but happy to be corrected.
In the old VR days, the suburban system regularly made large losses which had to be subsidised by taxpayers, but at least it was all local money. Now, we have a commercial operator which does not run at a loss but makes profits to send offshore. Much of those profits are again subsidised by taxpayers.
Still having no problems getting sub $100 fares to Sydney, and Aldi showing no signs of going anywhere as the Duopoly constantly drop prices to compete. Coles or WOW buyout of Aldi?. Can't see it.But competition is what drives prices down.Only for a limited time.
The robust businesses buy out the weaker ones or just wait for them to go bust (maybe with a little help). Private enterprise does not tolerate sustained healthy competition, it is an anathema and contrary to the mindset.
You are right to a degree though. However businesses that grow too big become inflexible and slow to respond. What happens then is smaller players start to niggle at big ones heels again. This is more so these days where cheap plant, equipment and materials to some extent have lowered barriers to entry.But competition is what drives prices down.Only for a limited time.
The robust businesses buy out the weaker ones or just wait for them to go bust (maybe with a little help). Private enterprise does not tolerate sustained healthy competition, it is an anathema and contrary to the mindset.
The single "card" is not so much due to private enterprise but the lack of co-ordination of it to encompass all transport is due to Government lack of vision.Yep - Not only Government Interference but the waste we get with reinventing the wheel
We now have at least 3 smart cards in 3 states , all developed at great cost, but all do exactly the same thing.
Compare this with private enterprise where with a single 'card' in my car I can travel on any toll freeway in any state (and there are at least 5 different operators as far as I know), and it all comes back to me as a single bill. Not rocket science this stuff.
If the states can be so profligate and wasteful in this small area, why do many think there are so much better than private enterprise at running a rail system?
There is a reason, and that is because the Australian Constitution divides powers between the States and the Commonwealth, and one of the powers the States got was transport. The Australian Government can't suddenly legislate or demand that States do something different.Yep - Not only Government Interference but the waste we get with reinventing the wheelThe single "card" is not so much due to private enterprise but the lack of co-ordination of it to encompass all transport is due to Government lack of vision.
We now have at least 3 smart cards in 3 states , all developed at great cost, but all do exactly the same thing.
Compare this with private enterprise where with a single 'card' in my car I can travel on any toll freeway in any state (and there are at least 5 different operators as far as I know), and it all comes back to me as a single bill. Not rocket science this stuff.
If the states can be so profligate and wasteful in this small area, why do many think there are so much better than private enterprise at running a rail system?
The ultimate answer to this is seen in Singapore. They started with two different cards appearing to do much the same thing. The Government there quickly halted these before they got too entrenched. The Singapore Government then created the EZ-Link card which covers public transport, road tolls, car parking and cash free purchases.
There is no reason why our Federal Government shoudn't have stepped in and done the same here. That would have been far more efficient than each state contracting a private enterprise, at vast taxpayer expense, to build each incompatible, propriety smartcard system.
Anyway the long and the short of it, is that economic modelling has been off for a long time, and it has let ideology take it over. How can we ever see competition between corporations if only one of them is running the railway network? It's not like customers have a choice either? There are six companies running the same commuters services into the city, all competing with each other. Even using your idea that competition naturally draws down prices, there is no competition!But where you have a natural monopoly it does not mean you throw out all options and say 'too hard'. In the absence of competition you need to establish benchmarks as I mentioned in one of my posts.
Subscribers: bevans, doyle, prwise, TheMeddlingMonk
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.