Privatization of Passenger rail networks does not work. PERIOD.
Transport Minister refuses to rule out privatising Adelaide trains and trams
Agreed but
Privatization of Passenger rail networks does not work. PERIOD.
Has not worked anywhere else in Australia but the Libs in South Australia think they know better. has Australia not learned anything at all by failed experiments?the above is a gross generalisation, PERIOD!
Privatization of Passenger rail networks does not work. PERIOD.
Transport Minister refuses to rule out privatising Adelaide trains and trams
Says who?
Metro Trains has been voted the worst run system in the country for the past 8 years. That says it in spades
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/metro-trains-rated-australias-worst-20110614-1g27t.html
Metro Trains has been voted the worst run system in the country for the past 8 years. That says it in spadesSays who?
If you survey the users of Mel rail and the users of Syd rail and users of Brisbane rail, how to they actually compare each other?
Mel suburban rail usage went up something like 50% or more in 20 years, yet ultimately the govt still controls the purse strings for expansion to handle this traffic. The operators just run trains!
So the STA and govt potentiallyover paid their staff and provided unsustainable Superannuation benefits all from the pockets of the Vic taxpayer for decades and by the mid 80's the state was facing near bankruptcy with a $60B (80's $) debt and privatisation is deemed a failure?You mean the South Australian taxpayer.
If the system is working, and by and large it is, and reasonably successfully, then I can't see franchising which I would hope would be the model used, would bring any benefits.
My comment is thisSo the STA and govt potentiallyover paid their staff and provided unsustainable Superannuation benefits all from the pockets of the Vic taxpayer for decades and by the mid 80's the state was facing near bankruptcy with a $60B (80's $) debt and privatisation is deemed a failure?You mean the South Australian taxpayer.
The old state super pension scheme, while generous, would not be a particular problem in today's environment: none or very low inflation. The major problem was that the government paid its contribution at pension time rather than fortnight by fortnight with the employee's contribution, and entitlements earned in a relatively low inflation period blew out with the very high inflation in the early 1980's as wages grew substantially. Something had to give and it was the scheme which was closed to new entrants.
It was not restricted to public transport employees but to all government employees, including the State Bank, but excluding the Police who had their own fairly generous scheme. It even extended to those ANR employees who had transferred from the SAR in 1978, but they were an exception.
It was not the superannuation liability that caused financial pain in South Australia, rather the in retrospect rather ill-advised guarantees the parliament had afforded decades before to depositors in the State Bank which basically overextended itself in the property bubble in the early 1980's and collapsed.
What franchising out the operation of the bus services did was to break up the integrated system that then existed, albeit a rather shaky integration since the Rail Division and the Bus and Tram Division were inclined to see themselves as separate entities. By having a number of operators they could not coordinate with each other if the occasion arose such as a passenger transferring from one operator's service to another. What had been easy to coordinate with a single radio call bus to bus became difficult due to different radio systems.
Whether or not the rail service is franchised I can't see how integration would work in the new regime unless the central authority steps in above the operator's controllers to provide that coordination day to day.
If the system is working, and by and large it is, and reasonably successfully, then I can't see franchising which I would hope would be the model used, would bring any benefits.
Agree, however we should acknowledge that he govt like any private operation, always look at all options to reduce costs and hence why the govt should never rule out privatisation as an option. Do the feasibility study, if it doesn't stack up then all good!, at least hey are being transparent.If the system is working, and by and large it is, and reasonably successfully, then I can't see franchising which I would hope would be the model used, would bring any benefits.
This is a very sensible observation. There are no glaring issues with the network (as an outsider). Compared to the late 90s Victorian network which was on the point of total collapse, it’s a dream. That suggests any motive for privatisation would be more, shall we say, political.
The strong evidence out of Melbourne is that the state will not save a cent. But it will put a layer of accountability between ministers and the performance of the network. And it will go some way to busting unions.
I also suspect the Privatisation of Mel Rail network also enabled the remaining govt operators to achieve productivity improvements a lot easier and faster than had Melbourne remained in govt hands.You are, of course, allowed to suspect whatever you like, but for those of us who actually live in Melbourne, the performance of Metro is abysmal.
I would agree. It's a pretty bare bones system, but they do a reasonable job of operating what they have most days.If the system is working, and by and large it is, and reasonably successfully, then I can't see franchising which I would hope would be the model used, would bring any benefits.This is a very sensible observation. There are no glaring issues with the network (as an outsider). Compared to the late 90s Victorian network which was on the point of total collapse, it’s a dream.
That suggests any motive for privatisation would be more, shall we say, political.I'm not sure there is actually a motive at all.
Hard to argue against that, there's simply no redundancy in systems or with people any longer. Compared to the fifties when frequencies were even tighter than today you have to wonder why they seem to stuff it up so regularly.I also suspect the Privatisation of Mel Rail network also enabled the remaining govt operators to achieve productivity improvements a lot easier and faster than had Melbourne remained in govt hands.You are, of course, allowed to suspect whatever you like, but for those of us who actually live in Melbourne, the performance of Metro is abysmal.
The suburban network has grown a little since I used trains five days a week to get to school. I cannot remember those years having services failing to arrive, train faults, signal faults et al which are now standard practice. We made it to school on time, and there would have been hell to pay if we didn't. For a while, I tried having a lift with my father as he drove to work, and it was so unreliable a/c traffic, that I went back to the railway which could be trusted.
Once you have a private operator, whose sole raison d'etre is profit, routine preventative maintenance is pared to the bone because it costs money. Instead of proactive maintenance, we now have reactive "Oh bloody hell."
The latest fiasco is overhead collapsing onto a train. There used to be a dedicated overhead inspection train which was out and about all the time. Where is it now?
Where are the Signals Branch blokes checking and /or repairing cabling before it fails? We recently had a massive power failure because a one metre length of cable broke. Where was the back up piece? One could go on.
The privatisation of Melbourne's suburban rail network is an unmitigated disaster.
Hard to argue against that, there's simply no redundancy in systems or with people any longer. Compared to the fifties when frequencies were even tighter than today you have to wonder why they seem to stuff it up so regularly.The Met was burning money, passengers and punctuality if they were not on strike.
The Met was also pretty much a paradigm of how it should have been kept from what I've read - it was running extremely efficiently and within budgets before Kennett punished the unions for going on strike during Grand Prix by chopping up the whole thing into those stupid 'competing' franchises. In the United States nearly every system is run like the Met with an overseeing statutory body owning the infrastructure (not always actually delivering the services) but usually with an arms-length board - you'd think in the home of capitalism that if there were any cost savings to be made with privatisation that the various cities would have already done it.
I'd be less cynical about Stephen Marshall's privatisation brain fart if they actually had an idea what they were doing - why don't we have a state-wide body here like PTV in Victoria - a single ticketing authority? Country buses provided by Premiers and Link SA are too expensive, not well integrated into the overall transport system and are under-used from my experience - if Marshall was really trying to convince me he was governing for the whole state he'd do something like that for SA.
Depending on what sort of union they are?The strong evidence out of Melbourne is that the state will not save a cent. But it will put a layer of accountability between ministers and the performance of the network. And it will go some way to busting unions.What benefit does union busting provide to society ?
How is Christmas a critical time ?Depending on what sort of union they are?The strong evidence out of Melbourne is that the state will not save a cent. But it will put a layer of accountability between ministers and the performance of the network. And it will go some way to busting unions.What benefit does union busting provide to society ?
If like some of the CFEMU and other militant ones and other calling strikes at critical times like Xmas and GP's, alot!
If you don't think Xmas is a critical time of the year not to be interrupted by fuel, beer, PT etc, then you have blinkers on.How is Christmas a critical time ?Depending on what sort of union they are?The strong evidence out of Melbourne is that the state will not save a cent. But it will put a layer of accountability between ministers and the performance of the network. And it will go some way to busting unions.What benefit does union busting provide to society ?
If like some of the CFEMU and other militant ones and other calling strikes at critical times like Xmas and GP's, alot!
Isnt Xmas all about going out and buying consumerist gifts for people we dont really like and nothing more ?
The Met was burning money, passengers and punctuality if they were not on strike.The rest of this was just a blatant troll Shane, why not answer the question of what benefits the people of SA will see from a fully privatised rail and tram network?
...
Sorry, I could have worded that more clearly. In the context of the previous sentences it was meant to show that I didn't think it was a good thing, but a minister certainly might.The strong evidence out of Melbourne is that the state will not save a cent. But it will put a layer of accountability between ministers and the performance of the network. And it will go some way to busting unions.What benefit does union busting provide to society ?
We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.