The philosophically driven Conservative Government in NSW is hell bent on privatizing as much of the State’s essential public transport network as possible. All thinking people would agree public transport is an essential service which cannot be run simply as a profit making concern, without disastrous consequences. Either the Conservatives are believing otherwise, or they are trying desperately to hide the actual cost of privatization in political Mumbo Jumbo Land.

The questions being asked by those concerned about the direction public transport is heading in NSW include;

Are you sick and tired of long hours commuting to and from work?

Do you wish you had access to more convenient and reliable public transport services?

Are you frustrated that Governments find billions to spend on roads, but public transport is constantly overlooked?

Do you think it's time State and Federal Governments started taking public transport seriously?

And the voters are answering YES! To all these questions.

The judgement on privatization, is likely to be delivered at the next election. And its not going to be good news for these conservative ideologues.

Public transport in SA has long been operated by private contractors, instigated by SOCIALIST governments. When I used the service 20 odd years ago for getting to work, I was impressed by the improvement. Most of the old government drivers left, frightened of private system and we're replaced by cheerful, helpful drivers who appeared to be not resentful and grudging, and the buses actually turned up. I would hate to see our public transport system back in the hands of sour, resentful government unionists.

Quote. "All thinking people would agree public transport is an essential service which cannot be run simply as a profit making concern, without disastrous consequences" How typically green bureaucratic & arrogant of you Paul, if people don't agree with you they are wrong.

Well I couldn't disagree with you more. I find almost nothing more offensive than the sight of tens of thousands of public servants riding the obscenely highly subsidised public transport into their inner city "work" places, while those who pay their salaries are driving to work, paying huge taxes on their fuel to subsidise said public transport.

Public transport can never service anywhere but high number work places. It is useless for most of the working population who aren't city or large suburb centre workers. It is equally useless for parents who have kids to drop at childcare or school, or those who have to do chores on the way.

I don't give a damn who runs it, but all public transport must become not only full cost recovery, but profit centres. It is totally wrong for those covering their own full costs, [plus taxes] should have bludgers riding on their backs.

Private bus companies cost a hell of a lot less to run than the government variety. Meanwhile the total failure of the management of both Brisbane & Sydney metropolitan rail services prove bureaucrats should never be allowed to run anything. Even a pub chook raffle is beyond their meagre capabilities.

No transport system can be run by bureaucrats without huge cost overruns, & the total stuff ups seen in the Oz metropolitan services. Get the government sheltered workshops out of there, & public transport might just be viable, but only as a business, not a cost to tax payers who can't benefit from it. That is the way real disaster lies.

The South Australian Government is shelling out $300 million to replace Adelaide's ageing bus fleet. You call that being run by private enterprise.
Public transport run by private operators, ends up a second rate system that has to be propped up by taxpayer money.

The privatization of Sydney's ferries;

A report for IPART, by the consultant Sapere Research Group, said the economic benefit of running Sydney Ferries, mainly taking cars off the road, was only $700,000.

Against this, Sydney Ferries receives taxpayer subsidies of about $80 million a year.

Dear Paul,

This is what's happening in Victoria - it may be of
interest:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/privatise-public-transport-and-reap-the-benefits-infrastructure-australia-says-20170525-gwcymv.html

Paul -
There are many different models of privatization. Adelaide opted for large contracts to operate buses that remained in government ownership. It's not how I would have done it, but it did produce an improvement. The former STA had industrial relations problems that the private operators were able to sort out.

Regarding Sydney Ferries: AIUI the government were unwilling to make the long term investments needed, and their short tern budgetary restrictions led to false economies. Privatisation freed them from this constraint, leading to genuine efficiency improvements.

It is very very very important to note that (contrary to what some governments think) privatization is not a panacea and doesn't automatically bring any benefits. But it often brings some.

BTW that Sapere report on Sydney Ferries failed to take into account the effects of ferry services on land value.

public transport is only for privileged city folk. No doubt paid to a degree by miners and farmers don't share the privilege of empty buses running around on public holidays. I visited a city over January and was astounded how often buses run with so few people.

Paul,

There is nothing second rate about the running of SAs public transport, and your saying that doesn't make it so. You just like to disagree on principle. The less governments want to run businesses, the better in my view. They also handed the operations of SA Water over to a private manager some time ago, and that works fine also.

Just tonight we had a Queensland rail executive on the news trying to justify commuter trains being cancelled without notice.

They have a driver shortage, because the railways are being run by the unions, as happens with most government enterprises.

He even tried to justify the union preventing them hiring train drivers & trainee drivers from the general public, & not the unions members.

If ever there was second rate management bunch it has to be this mob.

No drivers.

Millions of dollars worth of new foreign sourced trains, that can't fit into the system.

Kowtowing to the unions, can it get worse. Hell Clive Palmer could do a better job.

Thanks Foxy, the far right ideologists with their blind belief that private is good, public is bad mantra, need to get down and take a look at the real world of conservative cost and benefit cover ups. using nothing other than smoke and mirror tactics to hide the real truth about privatization of public transport, the truth hidden from the taxpaying public.

The usual practice of Conservative governments is to spruce up the system, with fare hikes and a lick of paint, then a sell off at rock bottom prices. Not wishing to leave their mates, the new operators, holding the baby, these Tories will then play the Fairy Godmother by granting the private operator all that he wishes. Huge cash subsides, become the order of the day. By hiding the facts, it can then be claimed, there has been improvements and savings. when nothing of the sort has occurred.

Melbourne's tram system was held up as the shining light of privatization by the Conservative Federal Governments mouth piece Infrastructure Australia. The truth was somewhat different.

The truth can be found in this article from 'The Age'.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/billions-go-to-train-and-tram-operators-with-little-improvement-20151208-glilfc.html

Paul doesn't want to understand. The only thing 'private, and the best thing, is the actual running/management of SA's buses. "Best" because the private companies -there are more than one - manage and operate much better than government bureaucrats ever did. The government, on behalf of the SA public, still owns the buses and the infrastructure. Paul's ignorance stems from his blind socialist ideology - the same ignorance that has his beloved Greens waffling on about Australia Day dates and receiving a very small percentage of votes from level-headed, down to earth Australians who want service, not extreme left ideology. His biggest howler on this occasion is his linking the truth with The Age!

ttbn, I am not familiar with what they are doing in the provinces, given the size of the village of Adelaide, I would be surprised if their bus fleet consisted of more than one bus, which only runs on Thursday afternoon to take the old biddies to bingo.

tt, its not really private if the government has to pour in hundreds of millions to prop it up. Why aren't these private gurus, who you claim are so fantastic at running things, running the system at not cost to the taxpayer. They should stop wanting the best of both worlds, and stop befitting from socialism.

Paul,

Your sarcasm and put downs are no substitute for common sense and knowledge.

ttbn, one thing about all you conservatives you can't laugh at anything, your mob take everything, oh! so serious. Life is meant to be miserable. Correct.
Lighten up my friend, it was only a joke. I am not familiar with what goes on in SA. In Sydney there are around 600 million public transport journeys P/A. The system, its running and performance is vital to the well being of the city.

The uninformed like Hasbeen do not know what they are talking about when they make a silly statement like;

"I find almost nothing more offensive than the sight of tens of thousands of public servants riding the obscenely highly subsidised public transport into their inner city "work" places, while those who pay their salaries are driving to work, paying huge taxes on their fuel to subsidise said public transport."

The fact is only 23% of public transport journeys are work related, and how many of them are by public servants, I have no idea. Most fall into the category social/recreational/educational that is about 77% of all trips taken

"Most fall into the category social/recreational/educational that is about 77% of all trips taken" Don't believe a word of it. Sounds like more of those statistics plucked from thin air by academics, bureaucrats & greens. State the source if you want to be takes seriously.

However if it were true that would be the greatest possible reason for making public transport full cost recovery. There is absolutely no reason why some of us should subsidies any others in their social/recreational activities.

Hasbeen,
Which news report was that on?

_________________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
There is plenty second rate about the running of SA's public transport. All rail passengers have been affected by extended closures because they've been too incompetent to keep the lines open while they maintain them. But it has absolutely nothing to do with privatisation.

However the same can't be said about the SA water contract. The way it was granted may have been corrupt. And the technical mismanagement of the Bolivar sewage works resulted in the Big Stink. Eventually they got their act together, but overall the water privatisation has been far from fine.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Paul,

Far left ideologues are as bad as far right ideologues. Where the cost of outsourcing something to the private sector is genuinely cheaper than the public sector doing it themselves (and the cost advantage does not come at the expense of quality) it's stupid to oppose private sector involvement as you do. Anyone who doesn't want the best of both worlds is a complete moron.

And if you want less private sector involvement, the most sensible response is to encourage reform of the public sector, to make it more efficient than the private sector. That includes (but is not limited to) ensuring the decision makers allow it to exploit its natural advantages such as cheaper finance.

Your insulting our nation's fifth biggest city is not at all funny. You seem to be totally clueless about how to make jokes, so here's a hint: if the joke needs so much explanation that you have to include the insult in the premise not the punchline, it's usually not worth bothering with.

Aiden, your reference to me as a complete moron is offensive and I'll treat it so. I give you facts, and you call me a moron. Where do you sit?

Not withstanding that, I will make my position clear. I have not made any reference to any other "privatization" other than public transport. Which at the end of the day, the vast majority expect to be treated as an essential service, and not a profit making concern, like banking for instance. Which unlike public transport is open to competition in a relatively free market, and therefore it can be cost effective for government to leave that to private enterprise, I do not dispute that.

cont

cont

What I contend is, ideologically driven conservative governments push the "privatization" of public transport as being some kind of economic panacea for the taxpayer, trumpeting "its a win, win situation for all", when it is clearly not the case, so the actual facts show. On the one hand, the "privatization" venture has to satisfy the profit motive of business (the private operator), and at the same time meet the service expectations of the general public (the voter). Often all that happens is the profit is privatized, while the service cost is left for the taxpayer. Sydney Ferries privatization, independent report, positive benefit to the taxpayer = $700K, negative cost to the taxpayer = $80M. The ferries run no better under the private operator than previously. The difference now is there's a $79.3 miliion cost burden on the taxpayer to maintain the service.

In NSW, we had private enterprise build and operate the 'Airport Link' rail line. But due to outrageously high fares, the occupancy rate fell to a miserable 8%, in other words the trains were running 92% empty, stopping at deserted stations, picking up non existent passengers. The taxpayer through the government was forced to make a $900M "loan" to the operator, to prevent him from going under. Not only that, the government was forced to pay a fair subsidy at the 3 non airport stations, bring their fares into line with those of the general suburban network. This resulted in a massive boost in patronage. The 'Airport Link' occupancy rate is now on a par with the rest of the suburban network. Thanks to the generosity of the taxpayer.

"Most fall into the category social/recreational/educational that is about 77% of all trips taken" Don't believe a word of it. Sounds like more of those statistics plucked from thin air by academics, bureaucrats & greens. State the source if you want to be takes seriously.

Hassy; NSW Transport Statistics website.

"the sight of tens of thousands of public servants riding the obscenely highly subsidised public transport into their inner city "work" places, while those who pay their salaries are driving to work, paying huge taxes on their fuel to subsidise said public transport"

Hassy; Unless they have the words "PUBLIC SERVANT" tattooed on their foreheads, how do you know they are public servants?

State the source if you want to be taken seriously.

Haven't you noticed the smug, arrogant look of stupidity that public servants all develop within a few months of joining the free loaders society called the public service Paul? You can pick them a mile off. Besides no one but public servants, & those who cater to them travel into cities any more.

You can pick them from a mile off, by the glazed look in their eyes. Doing nothing all day can do that to almost anyone.

Then of course there is the smell, or should I say stink. It starts to offend real people who venture within miles of Canberra, or any luxury highrise in any city inhabited by these bludgers.

It is even worse at the lower level, in councils. While inflation has increased wages by about 80% in my time in my current home, all residents rates have increase by 525%. For this we have got absolutely nothing. In fact they have taken away one of the 2 half days our little library used to open, & closed our rubbish transfer station. Evidently it is more cost effective for hundreds to drive 20 Kilometres to another one, than run a truck 3 times a week.

What we have got is an expensive large new office block to house the 400 more staff, [they serve no one so can't be public servants], that are costing us so much.

Aidan, channel 10 or channel 7. Can't tell you which, as I pay little attention to what is supposed to pass as TV news today. Since it became mandatory for TV journalist presenters to have long straight blond hair, & boobs, I only see something like this, which caught my attention, while doing something else. My wife watches the garbage, & sometimes actually believes some of it.

Paul.
I think Aidan referred to people with a certain behaviour as morons, & not directly to you Paul. Those who don't want the best running of things like public transport. If you chose to put yourself into that group, it proves his point. If not, he was not referring to you.

Your point about fares on the "Airport Link" simply proves how ridiculous public transport has become. I can see no reason for people living many miles from any rail or bus transport, having to accommodate the full cost of transporting themselves, should subsidise others, just because they live near such "services". If the damn things can't cover their costs with fares, they should be thrown on the tip, where all other uneconomical things should be thrown. Governments have no place rewarding some people, simply because of where they live.

Nah Hassy, the only ones I can pick, are the silly old deluded blowhards who wouldn't have a clue. You should be familiar with that type, they are characterized by their negative opinions of all others who don't fit their social norm, women, gays, public servants etc, people who are not of their image, they consider are of no earthly good. You should be able to recognize them as they are prone to continually run off at the mouth.
If you put a mirror in your back yard, possibly such a type will eventually walk by and you too will be able to identify him, possibly by name.

Paul,
After the insults you hurled at my city, I'm glad I offended you. You're a hypocritical moron who can dish it out but can't take it!

As Hasbeen has already pointed out, it's not because you gave me facts that I regard you as a moron; it's because you don't want the best of both worlds, and I regard everyone with that view as morons, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.

I suggest you reread my previous comments on this thread - if you do you'll see I'm VERY strongly against governments treating privatisation as a panacea. But the fact remains that private sector SOMETIMES finds significant efficiency gains that the the public sector does not. In the case of Adelaide's buses, there were significant savings from the private sector being better at handling industrial relations than the public sector was. In the case of Sydney Ferries, it was due to the government's unwillingness to allow long term investments to be made while it was under public sector control.

Regarding Sydney Ferries, your comprehension is very poor. The Sapere report for IPART had nothing to do with privatisation - the figure you refer to was their calculation of the externalities of running ferries compared to not running them. However I regard the report as rather shoddy, as it made no attempt to include the effects of ferry services on land value nor the economic effects of increased connectivity.

However, although that report was unrelated to privatisation, the NSW Audit Office investigated the effects of ferry service privatisation. You can find their report at http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/671/01_Franchising_Sydney_Ferries_Network_Services.pdf.aspx

As for the Airport Link, you claim the government was forced into the choices it took. Have you any evidence for that? Your claim that "the trains were running 92% empty" is very dubious, as the trains continued on to the East Hills line which was always in public ownership.

IMO the government should simply have bought the line when its owners were in financial trouble.

Some people don't seem to understand that Australia is a capitalist, private enterprise country. Governments are meant to make rules, regulate and protect. They have no business acumen whatsoever, and have no business being in business. They don't manage what they are supposed to be doing very well. Can anyone think of a single politician anywhere in Australia with an MBA?

Paul,

You can be a pain in the bum, but I regret that you were called a moron, which you definitely are not.

Some people don't seem to understand that Australia has a mixed economy. Making rules, regulating and protecting are important functions of the government, but they aren't the limits of what the government should do. One of he other functions of government is the provision of services - and when doing so, it's a big mistake to blindly assume that contracting something out to the private sector is the most efficient way to get it done. Likewise it's a big mistake to blindly assume that it isn't.

MBAs do not equate to business acumen, and nor are public sector businesses directly run by the politicians. Rest assured there are plenty of people in the public sector who do have business acumen, and plenty with MBAs too.

Thanks ttbn, I really take no offence.

Aiden said "As for the Airport Link, you claim the government was forced into the choices it took. Have you any evidence for that? Your claim that "the trains were running 92% empty" is very dubious, as the trains continued on to the East Hills line which was always in public ownership."

What an ignorant statement, the train could run 100% full, but the 'Airport Link' in the same train is running at 92% empty. Wow, that would tax your brain, now would it not Aiden.

The train in question runs from Town Hall on the City Circle to Macarthur some 33 stations, the vast majority are part of public South T8 line only 4 stations are operated privately as 'Airport Link' stations Green Square, Mascot, Domestic Airport, International Airport. From memory the carrying capacity of a standard 8 carnage train is 1300. If 1300 got on at Town Hall and all got off at Macarthur the good news is occupancy on the South line is 100%, the occupancy on the "Airport Link' is zero. The revenue to the private operator is therefore zero, as no passengers got on, or off, at one of his stations. To hard to comprehend a Aiden, that is basically how it works. You could run trains from Town Hall to Macarthur via Sydenham and you would have no use for an Airport line.

Not been called the East Hills line for sometime, showing your age there Aiden.

What I should add is, that when the State government started to subsidize fares at Green Square and Mascot Stations the patronage surged. And in fairness, after much residence to the now $17 CBD to airport fare the patronage has increased and the government is now collecting decent revenue off the $13 airport station access fee. It took a while but the privatization in this case is starting to work, but it has cost the taxpayer a lot of money.

"What an ignorant statement, the train could run 100% full, but the 'Airport Link' in the same train is running at 92% empty."
The ignorant statement is entirely on your part! The Airport Link is NOT in the train; the train is in the Airport Link!

If you wanted to accurately state the situation, you could have said something like "passengers to and from Airport Link stations used only 8% of the service capacity". But you didn't; you instead chose to falsely claim the TRAINS were running 92% empty.

I'm well aware of the route of the Airport and East Hills Line (as they've referred to it as the last few times I've been in Sydney). Your claim that it's "not been called the East Hills line for sometime" is at odds with my experience - how old do you imagine me to be?

Old enough to know better. Given your use of juvenile insult you might only be a 12 year old. I will concede my wording is rather bad in regards to the number of bods sitting in the train. Although when it first kicked off, the trains did appear to be rather empty at times. State Rail were still running trains through Sydenham on the 'East Hills' line, but that's no longer the case. The big boosts was created with the Wolli Creek interchange station linking the Macarthur line with Woolongong line along with big apartment developments around Mascot, Green Square and Wolli Creek, plus the population growth in the south west of Sydney. All combined it has seen a boost in patronage.
The irony is the chaotic road conditions around Sydney Airport has made the train the most effective way to get to the airport from the CBD if you want to catch your flight, so pay your $13. Looking at this 'Airport Link' closely over many years, from the days Old Barry Unsworth conducted an inquiry into the best way to go with the project to now. Was the private partnership the best way, or should have the government simply built the whole thing themselves. Well, the private partnership was like a breech birth, where a straight forward state run infrastructure project might have been a normal birth. But, today both mum and baby are doing well.

The biggest clown in the New South Wales Parliament, Transport Minister Andrew Constance has done it again. Not content with making a total cock up of the rail system, and doing his best to bring on a train drivers strike, the fool has fallen fowl once again. Firstly, he wastes $100,000 of taxpayer money running some dumb arse competition to name Sydney's newest ferry. The ministers silly competition threw up the name of Clean Up Australia's Ian Kiernan, who incidentally has done much to clean up Sydney Harbour where the new ferry operates. I would say Ian Kiernan's name for a ferry on the harbour is a good choice, so did the vast majority of participants in Crazy Constance's $100k competition, Ian Kiernan's name won by a wide margin.

What does 'Cock Up' Constance do, he names the ferry himself, a sort of Captain's Pick, a Captain Dumbo that is, but what a dumb arse name does he choose, wait for it...'McFERRYFACE', sounds more like a stupid ice cream from Macca's, than a ferry! To top it off, the fool minister then claims McFerryface was the popular choice of the people in his competition, no such luck fool. Not only a jerk, but a liar as well!