Should the Victorian Government buy back the system?

[ronniem]

I've got a debate in about 2 weeks time, and the topic is "Should the Victorian Government buy back the public transport system?".
Unfortunately for me, I am Negative!! I really wanted to be affirmative...
Anyway, I've got some questions related to this argument.
1. Whose job is the maientenance, purchase and choice of the actual rollingstock? Government or Connex?
2. Whose job is the maientenance of track?
3. The actual train vehicles are owned by...?
4. The contract. What are the key points?

Anyone with an opinion (regardless of affirmative or negative - because affirmative arguments help develop rebuttals), could you please share your opinion and thoughts of this issue?

So far, as negative, my thoughts are that generally, if the Government did buy back the system, the system would become even worse because Connex will strive to do their best because they are a company and are getting paid $ and are fined if they run late. The Government couldn't care less if they were running it because no one will be there to issue fines.

EDIT: Forgot some important questions:
5. How are bus routes paid? I think it's by KM... any more detail than that?
6. How come there is no performance based pay and penalties for buses?
7. Who funds the actual vehicle purchases for bus companies?
8. Are you fussed that only 38.87% of the industry is Australian owned (mainly being bus operators)? (Probably less, calculated by 40% rail, 40% tram, 20% bus operators, divided bus operators up depending on number of routes, and CDC divided 51:49 between Singapore and Australia).

[Leyland B21]

im not gonna be much help, I think its a catch 22 scenario. there are both pro's and con's to both public and private sectors, far to many to mention.

[ronniem]

im not gonna be much help, I think its a catch 22 scenario. there are both pro's and con's to both public and private sectors, far to many to mention.

Yeah... There are lots of pros and cons and this showed in our brainstorm... But I need some facts right now to back up points, and I can't really find many facts on the Internet. DAMN! Just realised I posted this under Melbourne... Opps....

[Connex]

1. Whose job is the maientenance, purchase and choice of the actual rollingstock? Government or Connex?

It's up to the operator to maintain rollingstock. The Comeng, Hitachi and X'Trapolis trains are maintained by United Rail Group (UGR) at their various maintenance centres around town; and the Siemens fleet are maintained by Siemens at the Newport Workshops.
It's the responsibility of the State Government to purchase new rollingstock. During the last round of purchasing new trains, the State Government let the operators choose the vehicles the wanted (Connex - Alstom X'Trapolis and M>Train - Siemens NEXA MoMo)

2. Whose job is the maientenance of track?

Tracks are owned by the State Government's department VicTrack, and is maintained by the operator who has sub-contracted that job to Mainco.

3. The actual train vehicles are owned by...?

The Comeng, Hitachi and 10 Siemens trains (Second Order: 825M and crew through to 843M and crew) are assets of the State Government. The X'Trapolis and the remaining 62 Siemens trains (First order: 701M and crew through to 823M and crew) are leased from the Commonwealth Bank (I think)

4. The contract. What are the key points?

Basically, Connex is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the train system (running trains, paying staff wages). Infrastructure and rollingstock are Government assets, which basically means that the Government can be held responsible for crumbling infrastructure and Siemens trains that want to constantly run express. Major capital works, such as extensions and grade separations are the State Government's responsibility.
Under the contract, the operator has a duty to run services to the timetable to certain thresholds per month (I think 97% for Service delivery and 92% for Punctuality). An train is considered as on time if no later six-minutes or one-minute earlier than that of the printed timetable. Service delivery means the amount of trains that actually run that month.

I hope this helps, but I don't know much about the bus contracts, so I'll leave it to the people who know.
Also, you might want to also focus on the tram system as well, as its a vital part of our public transport network.

[Member1100]

Personally I think its a bit of both. I would prefer to see the rail network back in government hands as it seemed to work better that way in the past.

To be fair, Connex cant be blamed for all the rail networks problems. Many of the issues are with the tracks, infrastructure and signalling systems, which are still controlled by the government. As for rolling stock, well Connex inherited the Siemens trains and their braking issues when M>Train fell over, so they cant be held entirely accountable for that either.

As for trams, well I think Yarra Trams do a good job, and always have. They have never had any major issues and have always provided a pretty reliable and well regarded service. So in that case, privatisation seems to have worked.

And the same with buses. Private bus companies seem to generally do a very good job at running their services. It must be said that Melbournes bus network is probably one of the most reliable bus services in the country. It probably would be better in many ways to see 4 or 5 larger companies running the bus network all over, rather than the dozens and dozens of smaller operators, but thats just a personal preference for me.

[MAN 16.242]

6. How come there is no performance based pay and penalties for buses?
.

Thats a bit hard to do, since most buses don't have GPS.
Also even if all buses had AVM or GPS i don't think it would be fair to make bus companys fines for running late, as its ofthen beyond there control e.g. MBL's 232 can often run up to 40 mins late if there is a crash/heavy traffic on the West Gate Freeway or if Footy is on in the City.There nothing MBL can do to stop buses running late when things likes this happen.

[ronniem]

Thanks a lot.

Just one more question about trains.
1. Who's responsible for the timetables? Who makes them? Who commissions the runs? I'm guessing the State Government?
And also, just generally, what does the Government do and what does Connex do?

And similarly, with trams, who buys the trams (I mean who pays for them) and who chooses which trams? Also, who owns the tracks, and who maintains them?

[Connex]

Thanks a lot.

Just one more question about trains.
1. Who's responsible for the timetables? Who makes them? Who commissions the runs? I'm guessing the State Government?
And also, just generally, what does the Government do and what does Connex do?

Generally speaking, Connex just runs the system, where as the State Government is responsible for nearly everything else.
Not too sure about timetabling - maybe the State Government's job?

And similarly, with trams, who buys the trams (I mean who pays for them) and who chooses which trams? Also, who owns the tracks, and who maintains them?

The tram contract are exactly the same as the train contract. Yarra Trams is paid to run the system, maintain tracks and trams, give their opinion on what trams should be purchased and meet service benchmarks.
VicTrack is also responsible for the track, but unlike the train system, Yarra Trams itself maintains the track.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, here's my opinion on whether or not the Government should buy back the system.

So far, as negative, my thoughts are that generally, if the Government did buy back the system, the system would become even worse because Connex will strive to do their best because they are a company and are getting paid $ and are fined if they run late. The Government couldn't care less if they were running it because no one will be there to issue fines.

Basically that's pretty much what most people would think. You can use V/Line as a case study. V/Line is a State Government entity, which means that if they get fined for failing to meet punctuality and service delivery benchmarks, the money just goes back into the State's budget and goes out again into another portfolio or on some other Government waste of time. V/Line has their service results on the net - have a look through them, some of them aren't all that favourable.

Another issue is that if the Government takes over the reigns again, every train and tram has to be rebranded from Connex/Yarra Trams to whatever the Government wants to call it. That would cost millions of taxpayer dollars and would also cause trams and trains to be taken out of service, travel to a maintenance facility and have its livery stripped off, and then returned to service without any livery (as per the ex-M>Train period).

The Government probably doesn't even want to run the system. Let's face it - the system is a disgrace. If the State Government took back the network and it didn't improve almost overnight (as most commuters want ) the Government's going to be in all sorts of bother as everyone will start blaming them, instead of Connex.

Privatisiation works - It's introduced 95 new six-carriage trains (though not the best of quality), more services, and done basically what the Government wanted privatistation to do: increase patronage. It's not the fault of the operator that the Goverment has neglected a very complex and outdated train system that hasn't been upgraded since the opening of the City Loop.

What would you rather want? A private operator trying to keep a train system working when its held together with gaffer tape, or a succession of State Governments which haven't done anything for commuters in the last 30 odd years?

Anyway, that's my rant. I'd like to hear other opinions on this subject.

[RailwayBus]

Thanks a lot.

Just one more question about trains.
1. Who's responsible for the timetables? Who makes them? Who commissions the runs? I'm guessing the State Government?

Connex write the timetables, however there are a set of requirements in the franchise agreement that must be met, which are set by the DOT and agreed to by Connex.

[RailwayBus]

There's going to be a process of re-branding anyway regardless. A clause in the new franchise states that the operator is to use a name that is related to Melbourne. Yarra Trams already meets this requirement but Connex does not.

[John]

I am not sure I would really call the current tram and train arrangements privatisation as such. To me, it comes across more as a partnership in which the Government outsources particular functions of Public Transport to a third party private company. In this case, the operation and maintenance of the system is outsourced whilst the Government maintains ownership of assets such as rolling stock, infrastructure, etc. Its a case of "we'll pay you to use our facilities and hold you responsible for service delivery".

There is little the operator can do about rolling stock and infrastructure problems without the Government intervening. Two examples spring to mind - the Siemens train debacle and the Comeng air conditioning problems. The Siemens trains were inherited, as Eratik pointed out. Likewise, the Comeng air conditioning problem has been in existence long before Connex took over, so why should they be forced to pay money to fix a problem that they did not cause? True that Connex is paid to maintain rolling stock, but the air con issue is far beyond "general maintenance" in my opinion. Connex does, however, have control over communication to commuters and this is one area sometimes I think they fall down in.

Yarra Trams I think do a good job, the system seems to work given trams are subject to road and traffic conditions. One area I think they fall down in is fleet presentation and communication. Some of the trams are looking very sad and tatty, I always perceived things being better looked after 5-10 years ago. Their communication can sometimes be limited and last minute, there seems to be less staff roving the system nowadays too but that could be a result of Government funding levels.

Personally, I think the Public Private Partnerships should continue, but the media and commuters need to be aware that rallying for the removal of Connex, for example, will not fix the system. More accountability needs to be put onto the Government for issues arising from infrastructure and planning. The next operators can fix a few things, namely fleet presentation and communication.

Also even if all buses had AVM or GPS i don't think it would be fair to make bus companys fines for running late, as its ofthen beyond there control e.g. MBL's 232 can often run up to 40 mins late if there is a crash/heavy traffic on the West Gate Freeway or if Footy is on in the City.There nothing MBL can do to stop buses running late when things likes this happen.

By that logic, Yarra Trams too should probably not be made to pay fines. Most of their network is shared roadway, subject to traffic conditions, etc. There is nothing YT can do to stop trams running late when they are caught in traffic, etc.

Personally, I believe OPR has an important role to play in minimising early running and ensuring service delivery. If the OPR is shown to improve reliability, then I think implementing it to the bus system should be looked into.

[MAN 16.242]

Also even if all buses had AVM or GPS i don't think it would be fair to make bus companys fines for running late, as its ofthen beyond there control e.g. MBL's 232 can often run up to 40 mins late if there is a crash/heavy traffic on the West Gate Freeway or if Footy is on in the City.There nothing MBL can do to stop buses running late when things likes this happen.

By that logic, Yarra Trams too should probably not be made to pay fines. Most of their network is shared roadway, subject to traffic conditions, etc. There is nothing YT can do to stop trams running late when they are caught in traffic, etc.

Well true, but many bus routes seem to have running times that are years old, and can no longer keep to time because of these running times.Some don't get delayed by traffic much, but still run late due to no where near enough running time.Also drivers selling tickets can also make the bus more late.

[RailwayBus]

Well true, but many bus routes seem to have running times that are years old, and can no longer keep to time because of these running times.Some don't get delayed by traffic much, but still run late due to no where near enough running time.Also drivers selling tickets can also make the bus more late.

And some bus routes have running times that are about 2 weeks old, and still can't keep to time (a certain 86km long route comes to mind), so you can't use old running times as an excuse. If running time is inadequate, then it's not good enough, whether it's old or not.

[tonyw]

well, this is a really interesting debate and I wouldn't mind attending ronniems debate, i think it would be fun. When I first came on here in Feb as a new memeber I was heavily pro-return to govt. But having read a lot on here in that time I'm now not so sure.

As a user, not an employee or operator, I make the following observations:

- Generally I think the bus system is very good and relaible. Buses are clean and comfortable and generally run to time. As a pro-PT person, of course I think there should be more services and I also believe routes could be improved a hell of a lot, ie; made more direct especially.
- The tram system is and always has been very very good. I agree the vehicles are starting to look a bit shabby.
- The trains have always been the worst. It is a far more complex system. Communication has always been a problem right back to the 70s. Overcrowding is no worse now than it was in the 70s. Overall, taking everything into consideration, I think the train system is probably marginally better now than it was in the 70s.

But, now here's what I think is the interesting point- In Iraq the United Staes, under the previous administration outsourced many functions to companies like Haliburton on what is a called a "cost plus basis", that is the company bills the government for whatever it costs to provide the service plus an agreed mark up. So, no accountability.

Now, I'm not saying the transport system is run on a cost plus basis. But what 'm saying is that in a sense it is. The government is paying a private operator an amount of money to run a system, plus a profit margin.

So why can't the governemtn just spend the same amount of money to run the system, and keep the profit margin for itself?

To perhaps over simplify- if it costs $1,000,000 to run BlahBlah bus company's routes, but you are paying BlahBlah $1,200,000 so BlahBlah family can make a nice living, why wouldn't you just run the show yourself for $1,000,000?

Happy to read arguements from those better informed to knock over all of the above.

Cheers ...

[Connex]

- The tram system is and always has been very very good. I agree the vehicles are starting to look a bit shabby.
- The trains have always been the worst. It is a far more complex system. Communication has always been a problem right back to the 70s. Overcrowding is no worse now than it was in the 70s. Overall, taking everything into consideration, I think the train system is probably marginally better now than it was in the 70s.

I've too have noticed that with the current Yarra Trams contract, they've kept the Melbourne's pride in the tram system which has kept the system running smoothly - something that has been passed through from the days of the MMTB. And I think that's probably why the train system is in such a state of disarray - because it's lost that sense of pride in the system - replaced with the a cold corporate trading face, where profits mean more than passengers - a trademark from the early days of PTC control of the train system.

Looking back on the "good ol' days" the VR had a lot of pride in its system - train presentation, staffing, customer service, all the areas which have fallen down in the last 20 odd years. It's good that Yarra Trams has kept the "trammie" tradition alive, especially during the period when Hubert Guyot was CEO, it's this sort of mentality that has kept our tram system in such good nic (even though tram presentation has dropped significantly in the last two or so years).

It's not really a matter of whether or not the Government should buy back the system, it's a matter of whether or not the new operator/Connex can restore the VR way of doing things.

Slightly off topic, I know, but it's something in which I believe has contributed to the poor standards of the train system.

[ronniem]

Thanks everyone for your help. I've gotten a lot of good ideas from these responses.

well, this is a really interesting debate and I wouldn't mind attending ronniems debate, i think it would be fun.

Well, it's a D Grade (D Grade just means anyone up to Year 9) debate organised by the Debaters Association of Victoria. It's held at all regions: Ballarat, Bendigo, Berwick, Brighton, Camberwell, Caulfield, Coburg, Essendon, Geelong, Glen Waverley, Hawthorn, Ivanhoe, Keysborough, Mount Eliza, Ringwood, South Yarra, Toorak, Watsonia and Williamstown. Dates are different but they're on the internet. Not too sure, don't think it's officially open to public but they don't really mind too much about the audience.
List and dates (It's round 2): http://www.debating.netspace.net.au/local/DAV%20Dates%202009.pdf

[tonyw]

So when and where is this debate going to be?

[John]

It's good that Yarra Trams has kept the "trammie" tradition alive, especially during the period when Hubert Guyot was CEO, it's this sort of mentality that has kept our tram system in such good nic (even though tram presentation has dropped significantly in the last two or so years).

From what I understand, Hubert was passionate about trams and had experience with tram systems where as the current CEO has come from a different background (Air Liquide) and probably has a different perspective on things.

[ronniem]

So when and where is this debate going to be?

Hmm.. I'd rather I didn't publicly identify myself, so I'll just say the following:
It's at Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School on Thursday 14 May 2009. 8:00pm.
Look for any D Grade debate (A grade is on at same time, but they got a different topic).

[John]

The Government couldn't care less if they were running it because no one will be there to issue fines.

This could easily be rebutted because public transport is still an important topic at election time and a Government could hurt their image with voters by not caring. I'm not saying there is no truth in your comment, just pointing out something the opposition could easily grab.

[xxpunkimothexx]

i'm also attending that debate but at a diffrent time, i'm in the team East Doncaster 2, maybe we could help eachother out? i'm also negative

[xxpunkimothexx]

So when and where is this debate going to be?

Hmm.. I'd rather I didn't publicly identify myself, so I'll just say the following:
It's at Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School on Thursday 14 May 2009. 8:00pm.
Look for any D Grade debate (A grade is on at same time, but they got a different topic).

i'm also attening that debate but at a different time ( had 2 get it postponed) i'm also in the ivanhoe district
i'm negative as well
maybe we could help eachother out?

[red_railway]

Privatisation and nationalisation are interesting topics and historically most capitalist countries have moved back and forward between the two poles. The movement is the one constant. In England, it was the steel industry and coal mining that went public after it fell in disarray largely due to fragmented standards and low rates of investment. The car industry in France has wavered between public and private. The steel and shipbuilding industries in Australia were private but enjoyed tariff walls and grants. Whoever drives the public transport industry can change, but at the heart of it is whether there is enough strength in government to ensure it has sufficient continuing investment to enable it to run as a first class system, not merely as welfare measure.

[form09]

i am also in the debate
i need some arguments to rebutt the affirmative team

[ronniem]

Wow! So many of us! Umm... Well, I'm the 1st speaker (I think - we still haven't come down to an agreement) negative...

I've kinda started my speech. I've come down to three main key points. Hopefully, the team I am versing which I won't say doesn't find this and uses this to counterattack my arguments... If they do, I will be very angry (and most likely resign...). Therefore, I will have to prepare counterattacks for possible counterattacks to these arguments...

NOTE: I have removed this speech because I think someone has already copied it. I've changed my speech anyway. if anyone still wants it, PM me!

To everyone else doing this debate, good luck, especially if you're on the negative team (I personally am FOR this cause, but these points have started to change my opinion towards AGAINST). Err, to the team I am versing (which I will not name), please don't copy these and use them for rebuttals... Other affirmative teams, hope these give you some ideas for rebuttals...

Just one question... Did everyone doing this debate Google the topic, and is this what came up? Because I've noticed a few of you's are on 1 posts (aka: new)...