Re: Sydney Public Transport Directory.

["Michael Walker" <walker@hotkey.net.au>]

>The problem with Sydney's transport system is that there are a large number
>of operators, many of whom are private, operating different modes of
>transport with widely varying levels of subsidy, and widely varying fare
>structures. At one end of the spectrum is the highly subsidised CityRail
and
>State Transit who enjoy high levels of government subsidy, at the other end
>is SLR, the monorail and the private ferries who recieve no operating
>subsidy, and somewhere in the middle is the private bus operators who
receive
>subsidy but at a lower level than the government operators. AFAIA private
bus
>operators do not receive their subsidy directly, but via payments for the
>carriage of school children.
>

This is no different to Melbourne. When the neighbourhood system was first
trialled around Moorabbin, the organisations involved were VicRail
(government railway operator operating similarly to CityRail) and private
bus companies, who at that time were operating as commercial concerns. When
the system was intorduced Melbourne wide, the MMTB and VicRail suburban
networks were merged to form the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA),
similar to the old NSWPTC. The government paid for the railways and tramways
and tramway buses whilst taking the fare revenue from ticjet sales. The
government paid private bus operators an allowance per route km travelled in
return for farebox revenue. I also believe the government either paid for or
contributed towards new buses for private operators. Since then, every time
the government wanted to cut costs, it simply reduced the services (or more
accurately route kms the buses ran which led to all sorts of route
rationalisations during the late 80s especially). The private operators
didn't care, they got paid and made a profit whether the bus ran full or
empty. Since then to give Uncle Jeff a fair go, the system has been changed
to the operators being paid per passenger. This is bad as unprofitable
services run the risk of being cut. However, a serious operator will often
enhance services to promote bus travel, after all more passengers = more
government payment. The new system pushes bus companies to care whether
buses run full or empty. An example of an enterprising operator fulfilling
the ideals of the new system would be Dysons who recently started running
Sunday services similar to those cut in the 80s.

<snip integtrated ticket discussion>


>I'm not sure exactly how Melbourne's competitive tendering system works,
but
>as the operators are included in the integrated ticketing system, I suspect
>that they are much less dependant on farebox revenue than are Sydney's. To

This used to be the case as operators were paid per bus km travelled, hence
to them farebox revenue was irrelevant, it was the MTA / PTCs problem. Now,
however, bus operators are paid per passenger so numer of passengers
carried, which is related to farebox revenue, is important.

>convince Sydney's operators that they would be better off in such a system
>would be a near impossible task, unless the government provided them with
>suitable cash incentives. Sadly, none of this bodes well for the future of
>integrated ticketing in Sydney, which I suspect is more likely to be a
>stored-value cash replacement than a proper integrated system like
>Melbourne's.
>
Sadly, you're right. Very few governments would introduce a system like
Melbourne's as it simply would cost them too much compared to the status quo
where the subsidies are relatively small compared to what would be required
if bus operators were paid by the government in return for ticketing
revenue. It was only because of unique circumstances at the time that it
happened at all in Melbourne.