Under the Gov's plans, payment to the operator is largely based upon
patronage - ie: passengers (trips actually) "travelled" (and probably
some base "retainer" per annum) and not "tickets sold", since this would
essentially maintain the status quo in terms of service efficiency and
would result in an advantage to one of the operators (paricularly with
"possession" of the Lilydale/Belgrave services).
Under the governments plans for privatisation (ie: multi-operator), if
the OneLink system cannot allocate revenue to each operator (which they
seem to have ensured with the woeful tram implementation, let alone
system monitoring/tracking/accounting capabilities) then frankly the
gov's current privatisation schemes are up shit creek unless they change
the ball game rules and outsource the respective networks as a whole to
one operator in their own right (ie: A train operator, and A tram
operator). This then results in a status quo whereby an inefficient govt
entity with no incentive is replaced with an inefficient private-sector
entity with no incentive. The downside with the gov's current plans is
that it forces an operator to use profitbale lines like
Lilydale/Belgrave (in Hillside's case) and Pakenham/Cranbourne (in
Bayside's case) to subsidise shitty lines like St. Albans, Upfield, or
Altona/Werribee, ultimately at the detrement of the majority users of
the system (however it does provide for a guaranteed "equal" community
service! .... we all get toss all).
This ticket scam ... er I mean scheme is going to become a major, major
headache for the government. We aint heard the last of this; this will
be policy-crunching stuff. Either way things turn out, I still think
privatisation of the suburban system is a decision based upon stupidity
and ignorance, and it will only result in confusion amongst the locals,
and the tourists (particularly the latter). The system (and OPERATOR)
need to be one integrated entity to ensure consistancy and EFFICIENCY of
service delivery. I fail to see how creating (for Met Rail/Tram) four
sets of bueracracy as opposed to the current ONE, aids in way, shape or
form in a more efficient service. Sounds like some economist grad doing
a thesis came up with this latest crystal ball of shit and the govt
bought it!
Earl
David Bromage wrote:
>
> It's not all out privatisation. Just like with WCR, the private operator
> would be contracted to operate the service as dictated by the government.
> The government collects all ticket revenue and then pays the contractor
> for operating the service. If, as with WCR, the payment is per passenger,
> it is in the interest of the operator to increase patronage, and thus
> revenue. Remember that the majority of suburban buses have been privately
> operated for a long time, but the ticket prices are dictated by the
> government.
>
> Cheers
> David