InDaily Article

[Merc1107]

Article in the "InDaily", Can Koutsantonis fix Adelaide's public transport?

Would love to know how they think they can unravel private contracts without it costing the public a cent...

[Tim Williams]

Simple answer to the article heading Can he fix it?? - no, without a shadow of doubt!

The levels of operating subsidy, built into the contracts in regional towns in SA, are pathetic. You have to wonder how resentful the residents of towns, such as Mount Gambier, Port Augusta and Whyalla, must be when they see (in articles, such as today) the level of passenger transport subsidy, per passenger of Adelaide, compared to their towns.

I also think that it is totally pathetic that there are no regional rail services in SA. The railway line from Mt. Gambier to Adelaide was torn up, I wonder why?? No chance of replacing that one!!

[Eurostar]

Article in the "InDaily", Can Koutsantonis fix Adelaide's public transport?

Would love to know how they think they can unravel private contracts without it costing the public a cent...

Interesting how he wants to expand Keoride , maybe way to keep Keolis Downer happy for now

[Merc1107]

The levels of operating subsidy, built into the contracts in regional towns in SA, are pathetic. You have to wonder how resentful the residents of towns, such as Mount Gambier, Port Augusta and Whyalla, must be when they see (in articles, such as today) the level of passenger transport subsidy, per passenger of Adelaide, compared to their towns.

Not sure I would completely agree on that. For regional towns with very poorly-utilised services, I would expect the subsidy to approach 100%, and therefore the cost per boarding to be quite high (depending on the length of the runs, of course).

[Tim Williams]

Yes, they are poorly patronised services, but then the sparse timetabling (and the lack of congestion) would influence would be passengers.
With another chap I owned and ran Murtons in Broken Hill (from Adelaide) from 1985 to 2017 and quality of buses + the timetables has strong influence on passenger numbers. In NSW there is a much more enlightened approach to country town and regional operators where contracts are awarded for an area (maybe a country town) and the contract was for Town and SCHOOL services - I will not go into the detail, for confidentiality reasons, but the current contracts provide sufficient income to bus operaors to operate with good quality and not old equipment. Perhaps SA should look at the NSW model!!

[Merc1107]

With another chap I owned and ran Murtons in Broken Hill (from Adelaide) from 1985 to 2017 and quality of buses + the timetables has strong influence on passenger numbers.

I completely agree that the buses and timetables will affect utilisation, although my attitude is that you can use older buses for these types of services - but they need to be turned out in an acceptable (approaching immaculate) cosmetic, and mechanical state. Just as well there aren't more nitpicks like me around
If the service is grown, and/or passenger numbers increase, then newer buses absolutely should be considered.

In the past over in W.A., when high floors were sent to the regions (predominantly for school bus services, if memory serves correct), it seems as though many received fairly extensive cosmetic work - a fresh coat of paint, new windows (replacing those with years worth of graffiti etched into them), cleaned or new seat moquettes, and probably enough mechanical work to see that they made it to their destination and continued running. Those buses, even when they were withdrawn from service (with a number entering preservation) were immaculate - a stark contrast with their counterparts that remained in the metro area which were in a fairly poor cosmetic state for most of their latter years.

I presume the castaways from Adelaide didn't receive this sort of attention before they were sent to the regions?

[tonyp]

I don't think the Minister knows what he's doing, other than pursuing an ideological agenda. There's nothing wrong with the private operations - they're bringing greater efficiency and saving taxpayers money (not that that's usually a concern with a Labor government), but the responsibility for setting service levels and standards rests with himself via his own agency.

[Merc1107]

There's nothing wrong with the private operations - they're bringing greater efficiency and saving taxpayers money (not that that's usually a concern with a Labor government), but the responsibility for setting service levels and standards rests with himself via his own agency.

Although there is a valid question whether the fairly relaxed operational standards in Adelaide are where at least some savings are being found in the first place.

[tonyp]

Although there is a valid question whether the fairly relaxed operational standards in Adelaide are where at least some savings are being found in the first place.

The rail operation by KD is said to be saving taxpayers $10 million per year. I don't think there's any evidence of relaxed operational standards there. If the agency is doing its job, any instances of slacking contractors should be pounced on with penalties. In NSW, the State Auditor found that there were inherent back-end costs with government operation that couldn't be curtailed, by the very nature of how the public service works. Also, the performance of the government operators couldn't be enforced in the same way, as government wasn't going to fine itself for under-performance. So under-performance and inefficiency were rife and couldn't be policed. If there are relaxed operational standards in the private bus operations in Adelaide now, then people haven't seen anything compared with what will come with a government operation.

[Merc1107]

In NSW, the State Auditor found that there were inherent back-end costs with government operation that couldn't be curtailed, by the very nature of how the public service works. Also, the performance of the government operators couldn't be enforced in the same way, as government wasn't going to fine itself for under-performance. So under-performance and inefficiency were rife and couldn't be policed.

True as that may be, I still find it quite difficult to comprehend how our own Government operators are uncompetitive, yet multinationals that are majority-owned by state-run interests (e.g. Transdev) manage to out-do them. Has no-one ever considered forming this type of organisation in Australia, and if not, why not?

[tonyp]

True as that may be, I still find it quite difficult to comprehend how our own Government operators are uncompetitive, yet multinationals that are majority-owned by state-run interests (e.g. Transdev) manage to out-do them. Has no-one ever considered forming this type of organisation in Australia, and if not, why not?

Because our public services don't have the skills to run a business.

Anyway, if Koutsantonis wants to solve the problem of low patronage, the means of doing so lie within the government - his own department and AdMet. De-privatisation isn't going to do anything to address that issue.

[Lieselta]

I am a big proponent of bringing everything back in public hands. That being said, plenty of people don't understand that isn't a solution to poor services.

[tonyp]

I am a big proponent of bringing everything back in public hands. That being said, plenty of people don't understand that isn't a solution to poor services.

If SA is the same as NSW, WA etc, all of the public transport assets are already in public hands. It's only the maintenance and operation that's contracted. Given that government operation typically costs more, how far should this go because it becomes unsustainable for the taxpayer? Should we renationalise school cleaners and other services too? Where does the money come from?

[Merc1107]

Leaving aside who costs more, there's also the bother of a loss-making service (with the subsidy around 70-80% in most cities?) still turning a profit for whomever the private operator is, and this being paid for by the taxpayer.

Even if this is necessary under the capitalist economic model to attract, and retain private operators, who are still cheaper than the Government, it's still unpalatable as a concept.

[tonyp]

Leaving aside who costs more, there's also the bother of a loss-making service (with the subsidy around 70-80% in most cities?) still turning a profit for whomever the private operator is, and this being paid for by the taxpayer.

Even if this is necessary under the capitalist economic model to attract, and retain private operators, who are still cheaper than the Government, it's still unpalatable as a concept.

But if it ends up costing the taxpayer less (that is, reducing the losses to the taxpayer) isn't that a good thing? I read, for example, that the Adelaide train operation by KD saved the government $10 million in the first year. So, yes, KD made a profit (presumably), but the government (= taxpayers) benefitted from a reduced loss. How could that be unpalatable? I see renationalisation of these services as just pure ideology with no benefits whatsoever.

[Lt. Commander Data]

But if it ends up costing the taxpayer less (that is, reducing the losses to the taxpayer) isn't that a good thing? I read, for example, that the Adelaide train operation by KD saved the government $10 million in the first year. So, yes, KD made a profit (presumably), but the government (= taxpayers) benefitted from a reduced loss. How could that be unpalatable? I see renationalisation of these services as just pure ideology with no benefits whatsoever.

What is the main purpose of public transport at the end of the day? Is it to save as much money as possible? Or could it be to provide a decent network of services that provide a real alternative to driving, which creates a more equal and accessible city. Enticing more people on to public transport requires reliable, frequent, clean, and safe services over a large spread of hours. For sure, it should be made to run efficiently, and eliminate needless spending. But I'd be interested to hear which of these four points (reliable, frequent, clean, safe) Adelaide's PT is at the moment?

Driver shortages mean it is not reliable. Driver shortages are mainly due to low wages, poor working conditions, and safety issues on the network. So all this money saving from privatisation (which has largely been from cutting driver's wages) has now caught up, and we don't have enough drivers to operate the services. What a good look for the travelling public. Would re-nationalisation fix this? Possibly not, but it would go a long way to making the job more attractive, and retaining/attracting more employees.

Frequency on paper looks ok for many parts of inner-Adelaide. But a stingy government run by bean-counting, rubber-stamping, pen-pushing bureaucrats has meant an absolute stagnation of new services or major improvements for 10+ years. Where are new services in the fast growing areas in the Outer North, Outer South, and Mt Barker regions? We have a new development in Riverlea Park/Buckland Park which will house something like 20 000 people, yet not even a rudimentary bus service exists yet. Would re-nationalising fix this? Probably not, but in the 23 years post-privatisation there have been very few "new" service areas added so it would be hard to do worse.

Cleanliness is something of a joke! Maybe the contracts outline some standards, but no one from SAPTA ever seems to be out auditing services or enforcing the standards in any way. And guess where an easy place for the money-saving beans-counting operators is - vehicle cleanliness. Would re-nationalisation fix this? Possibly not, but without such obsession with money saving it could certainly be fixed easily.

Safety - something which has deteriorated in recent years. While the publicly operated trains and trams had security on board after 7pm every night, despite drivers being safety locked in their own cab, buses have never received this luxury. Driver cab doors have only recently been added, and their effectiveness is up for discussion. Yet the publicly (until recently) run rail network had security guards. So would re-nationalisation make the network safer? Maybe not, but with direct accountability for the safety of their own drivers at stake, I'm sure there would suddenly be money available for guards to patrol buses.

All that being said, it's not to say this couldn't all be done with the current private operators. I just think it more likely to happen if the Government were running the services directly. Certainly a re-nationalisation would be costly, and if the same management was kept, unlikely to change much in the short term. But operationally decent savings could be made - less duplication of bean counters in every company plus the government, less duplication of General Managers, Operations Managers, Asset Managers, OWHS Managers, even service planning and scheduling could be streamlined, instead of having four different interests with their own departments dedicated to it. Maybe a united public transport operator could more successfully lobby Treasury to release more funds for improvements - in any case, I doubt it could be worse than what we have at the moment.

[tonyp]

What is the main purpose of public transport at the end of the day? Is it to save as much money as possible? Or could it be to provide a decent network of services that provide a real alternative to driving, which creates a more equal and accessible city. Enticing more people on to public transport requires reliable, frequent, clean, and safe services over a large spread of hours. For sure, it should be made to run efficiently, and eliminate needless spending. But I'd be interested to hear which of these four points (reliable, frequent, clean, safe) Adelaide's PT is at the moment?

The two objectives are by no means incompatible. Any government has a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that PT is run as efficiently as possible, including financial efficiency. The big financial issue that will arise with re-nationalisation is, not only that operating costs will rise, but there will have to be financial payouts - possibly enormous ones - to the current contractors. If subsequent operating costs will be higher and productivity is unlikely to improve, there's no way of recouping that other than by higher fares or taxes. This will reduce the government's ability to fund further improvements or undertake investment.

Driver shortages mean it is not reliable. Driver shortages are mainly due to low wages, poor working conditions, and safety issues on the network. So all this money saving from privatisation (which has largely been from cutting driver's wages) has now caught up, and we don't have enough drivers to operate the services. What a good look for the travelling public. Would re-nationalisation fix this? Possibly not, but it would go a long way to making the job more attractive, and retaining/attracting more employees.

I thought the current Australia-wide driver shortages were basically a reflection of the state of the labour market in this country at present. There is a general shortage of labour across many sectors.

[Merc1107]

I thought the current Australia-wide driver shortages were basically a reflection of the state of the labour market in this country at present. There is a general shortage of labour across many sectors.

Driver shortages and issues with staff turnover have existed for many years, to varying extents, but were not apparent because there were enough drivers willing (or coerced) to do overtime. The present shortages in the labour market have brought things to the point where even drivers working substantial amounts of overtime still will not cover the shortfall of staff.

[Lt. Commander Data]

The two objectives are by no means incompatible. Any government has a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that PT is run as efficiently as possible, including financial efficiency. The big financial issue that will arise with re-nationalisation is, not only that operating costs will rise, but there will have to be financial payouts - possibly enormous ones - to the current contractors. If subsequent operating costs will be higher and productivity is unlikely to improve, there's no way of recouping that other than by higher fares or taxes. This will reduce the government's ability to fund further improvements or undertake investment.

I agree - terminating any of these contracts before their time is up would be very financially irresponsible. But something needs to change soon or else by the end of the contracts, Adelaide PT will be a total basket case.

I thought the current Australia-wide driver shortages were basically a reflection of the state of the labour market in this country at present. There is a general shortage of labour across many sectors.

There is no real labour shortage. There is however, a major staff retention issue.

[tonyp]

Adelaide public transport has been a bit of a basket case for years. The patronage is microscopic for a city of its size. I don't think that has much to do with the quality of the service or whether it's private or public, but more to do with how easy it is to drive around and park. Perth is the same. If you're able to drive right into the city centre and park there, let alone to anywhere else in the metropolitan area, public transport doesn't have a chance. It's basically for those too poor to own a car. It's not really going to work until it becomes problematic to drive and, especially to park. Sydney has reached this stage. Melbourne should have, but the flow-on to public transport hasn't happened to the extent it has in Sydney. Brisbane - a little bit. Other Australian cities, no chance, except that Perth has gained a little with its remarkably quick journey times that do challenge car use to some extent. A first step would be to close city centre car parks, or make them very expensive with a parking space levy that could help fund public transport. Another measure is to design motorways to bypass the city centre, not aim towards it. The issue is finding a government that's brave enough to do these things.

[Lt. Commander Data]

Adelaide public transport has been a bit of a basket case for years. The patronage is microscopic for a city of its size. I don't think that has much to do with the quality of the service or whether it's private or public, but more to do with how easy it is to drive around and park. Perth is the same. If you're able to drive right into the city centre and park there, let alone to anywhere else in the metropolitan area, public transport doesn't have a chance. It's basically for those too poor to own a car. It's not really going to work until it becomes problematic to drive and, especially to park. Sydney has reached this stage. Melbourne should have, but the flow-on to public transport hasn't happened to the extent it has in Sydney. Brisbane - a little bit. Other Australian cities, no chance, except that Perth has gained a little with its remarkably quick journey times that do challenge car use to some extent. A first step would be to close city centre car parks, or make them very expensive with a parking space levy that could help fund public transport. Another measure is to design motorways to bypass the city centre, not aim towards it. The issue is finding a government that's brave enough to do these things.

What a negative, pessimistic, and somewhat classist response. Not to mention inaccurate.
https://chartingtransport.com/2010/11/1 ... ge-trends/ - the graphs here are old, but you can clearly see usage on Adelaide's network was on the rise until 2010 - just prior to new contracts being signed which included Light-City Buses (and all the reliability and late-running issues they had). These contracts also had different allowances for time, which encouraged operators to pad out timetables (and create far slower journeys) to avoid late-running fines. Since then, patronage has declined for sure. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-04/ ... 9/11669344
But it isn't irreversible - if the network was marketed as it was during the 2000s, with service improvements and reform it would encourage more usage. The failed New Network in 2020 was likely too much at once, but reform needs to happen soon. 10-15 years (more in some parts) with no real reform has hurt the network.

As for only poor people using public transport, you must either have no idea on the socio-demographics of Adelaide, or no idea on well-patronised routes (or both). The Parade, Magill Road, Unley Road and Henley Beach Road are among some of the best serviced and most patronised routes in Adelaide, and also happen to service (high-density) affluent areas. https://adelaideaz.com/articles/adelaid ... ban-infill

I agree closing city car parks would be a big help - unfortunately I can't see it happening this century. Not sure what you mean with motorways considering how few there are, and that none come within 5km of the CBD. The North-South Motorway/South Road upgrade is essentially for freight that travels from north to south (or south to the docks, etc) - not for commuters to the city.

Carparking is already fairly expensive (by Adelaide standards) - if DIT/SAPTA marketed how much cheaper PT is than driving and parking (especially with the price of fuel) I'm sure more people would switch to it. In the 2000s they marketed this fact. Unfortunately I think that they are purposely avoiding marketing the system with the current reliability issues at the moment. So I'd say quality of service is everything, rather than not relevant.

[tonyp]

What's the patronage of the O Bahn nowadays? I understand that it was the most successful public transport route in Adelaide with patronage up to about 12 million per year at one stage?

Is there any tram or bus priority at traffic lights yet. I remember that the trams had long waits at city traffic lights that stretched out the journey time.

[Lt. Commander Data]

What's the patronage of the O Bahn nowadays? I understand that it was the most successful public transport route in Adelaide with patronage up to about 12 million per year at one stage?

Is there any tram or bus priority at traffic lights yet. I remember that the trams had long waits at city traffic lights that stretched out the journey time.

Not sure. I am not good at deciphering the GFTS feed data, and don’t recall seeing it published anywhere recently. Anecdotally I’d say it is certainly one of the busiest, but can’t confirm if thr Seaford or Gawler Central railways are busier.

Some lights have a “B” light sequence - a handful in the city (usually allowing buses to turn right from the leftmost lane), plus a few on arterial roads. Trams don’t seem to get the priority they really should have - if you just miss a tram, many trips in the CBD are then quicker to walk rather than wait for the next one.

[tonyp]

I recall from the last paper I read some years ago that the O Bahn had as much patronage as the entire Adelaide rail system and more than the tram system.