Discussion: Options for competitive tendering / privatisation of rail

[Gazza]

James, can you point me to the rules that say Qld govt can't say "I choose you".

https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/marketing-sales/tendering/understanding-buyer/procurement

Limited tender
Government agencies may make direct approaches to a supplier(s) of their choice, inviting them to submit an offer. Limited tenders usually only occur in very specific circumstances, such as under extreme urgency or if goods and services can only be provided by one supplier (e.g. a commissioned work of art).

[#Metro]

Funny that. Nothing seems to have stopped Queensland Government doing exclusive contact with QR and all private bus operators.

Maybe it is not enforced. Key word is "usually"'.

Sounds like there is a lot of room for discretion.

[#Metro]

From: Easter Timetable https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12713.msg190337#msg190337

If people insist on monopoly operation then that is incompatible with service standards enforcement.

The need to protect and defend the monopoly operation takes #1 precedence over everything else, including service standards and delivery.

It doesn't even need to be a public monopoly - the private bus monopoly contracts would have the same effect too.

Where a monopoly operator meets the service standards, there is no issue. It is only on the way down the issue with inability to enforce
the standards reveal itself.

A few months ago I said that we would reach peak denial - where we have a public monopoly operator and insist on keeping it despite the fact that it will run no trains.

Well, these coming two weekends we are going to see a LIVE demonstration of that.

People who insist on delaying or not introducing CT have no bottom limit to how low service standards fall.

Because for these people the answer must always be "only QR can".

This demonstration will also reveal the true utility of the CityTrain Response Unit (CRU) - Zilch!

[James]

Funny that. Nothing seems to have stopped Queensland Government doing exclusive contact with QR and all private bus operators.

But those haven't been competitive tenders, and in theory, there is the ability to sack the operator in the case of private operators.

My point was, that if RATP decides to not make an offer to run QR Citytrain, we can't force it to. That's the risk we run with competitive tendering.

[Gazza]

The question is, how does the public view it?

You can make the case for privatisation, everyone knows the pros and cons of it on this forum.

What are the broader travelling public going to think?
It's safe to say that most voters just view QR and the Government as one and the same.
If you floated the idea of privatisation, people are going to turn around and ask "hang on, how about funding QR properly? how about reducing fares etc etc?"

There's also that lingering scepticism around privatisation in general, explaining the difference between having a private company do the operations and diffusing the idea that the whole railway would be privatised and services cut.

Obviously RBoTers have an overall view of the situation, and know what is fear mongering, and what is not.

Interested to hear peoples specific thoughts on how you'd sell the idea to the general public?

[#Metro]

But those haven't been competitive tenders, and in theory, there is the ability to sack the operator in the case of private operators.

My point was, that if RATP decides to not make an offer to run QR Citytrain, we can't force it to. That's the risk we run with competitive tendering.

Is it a risk? The greatest risk is that we keep the current operator and they destroy all patronage and service reliability long term. Any number of tenders above 1 is an improvement on the current situation.

Perhaps you would support an Expression of Interest (EOI) process that would test the state of interest beforehand?

The Queensland Government routinely goes on overseas trade missions, perhaps they should schedule the next one for Paris, France.

[Gazza]

I don't see how you see this as a "risk". The greatest risk is that we keep the current operator and they destroy all patronage and service reliability long term.

I think the thing is, its basically foaming to come up with fantasy lists of who you want to enter the Australian market.

My personal view is that the only ones you could really bank on bidding would be Keolis Downer and MTR due to their presence in the Australian market.

[#Metro]

No, not really. Just run an EOI process to find out.

You do support running an EOI process, don't you??

[Gazza]

EOI is the only way you can commence a process like this, if you want a good outcome.

[#Metro]

The question is, how does the public view it?

You can make the case for privatisation, everyone knows the pros and cons of it on this forum.

What are the broader travelling public going to think?
It's safe to say that most voters just view QR and the Government as one and the same.
If you floated the idea of privatisation, people are going to turn around and ask "hang on, how about funding QR properly? how about reducing fares etc etc?"

There's also that lingering scepticism around privatisation in general, explaining the difference between having a private company do the operations and diffusing the idea that the whole railway would be privatised and services cut.

Obviously RBoTers have an overall view of the situation, and know what is fear mongering, and what is not.

Interested to hear peoples specific thoughts on how you'd sell the idea to the general public?

These are good points. There is no known way to prevent people launching scare campaigns, mistruths and fake news as we have seem with the bus reforms in 2013.

I can only suggest focus on the following points:

* We already have private operators deliver services - bus, tram, ferry and AirTrain/freight rail. Want to experience privatisation? Ride a CityCat. 

* The current setup has led to a situation where there are no enforceable penalties as the Government is simply fining itself (or not at all).

* CT is a reversible thing (just let the contracts expire if you want to return it to public operation)

* Knowing the step-by-step mechanisms behind the Melbourne example (a franchise collects all revenue and this is linked to patronage levels) and why that is not applicable in the Queensland context (a fee-for-service has the gov't collect all revenue and is not linked to patronage). The Queensland model is known and proven to work (private bus, tram, ferry etc).

*A public EOI process where all operators are in the same room at the same time and have to give a public presentation and take questions from the public. Such a meeting could be broadcast live over the internet if there were concerns about heckling or disruption from the crowd at the venue. Think Tony Jones and Q&A format.

Perhaps people have other suggestions they can offer and add them here. It is all about discussing the different issues and challenges and finding a way to move forward.

A second possibility (and an attractive one) is to do the privatisation internally by passing Queensland Rail to the Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC) and SunSuper. These funds like to hold low return low risk assets as older people tend to value certainty of income stream over high and riskier returns.

Because both QIC and SunSuper are Queensland Government owned, nobody can claim that this is a privatisation or asset sale to a private investor. It still achieves the effect of (a) being able to dismiss the operator for poor performance, (b) penalise the operator with fines that stick, (c) put the organisation under constant review by financial analysts.

Maybe others have more to contribute on this topic.

[Gazza]

* The current setup has led to a situation where there are no enforceable penalties as the Government is simply fining itself (or not at all).

But if you put that line to the public, would it wash? Wouldn't people just see that as the government being spineless, passing the buck, and not running their own network properly. Again, QR was supposed to be closer to government under the LNP restructure.

People may even question why QR is a separate organization that gives rise to these issues.

[#Metro]

But if you put that line to the public, would it wash? Wouldn't people just see that as the government being spineless, passing the buck, and not running their own network properly. Again, QR was supposed to be closer to government under the LNP restructure.

People may even question why QR is a separate organization that gives rise to these issues.

The government is already spineless, passing the buck (to the CRU etc) and can't run the network properly. That's not news.

People think that already.

Anyone can think anything. The real test is when you run it in the field. Go do focus groups etc.

I must say that the biggest proponent of privatising Queensland Rail is QR itself. Just keep everything as it is and the penny will

soon drop that it means no services... Come back and check in the next 2 weeks!

[James]

Is it a risk? The greatest risk is that we keep the current operator and they destroy all patronage and service reliability long term. Any number of tenders above 1 is an improvement on the current situation.

The risk is that you end up with another Connex.

The ultimate question is if the LNP goes down this path, whether it can withstand the union tantrum/scare campaign.

[#Metro]

Queensland Rail IS Connex. Cancelled both Christmas AND Easter. Are they going to do the same for this coming Christmas too?

Do what Melbourne did - fine them and boot them.
CT is reversible.

[HappyTrainGuy]

At least we still have a better network mtce than Metro

[cartoonbirdhaus]

At least we still have a better network mtce than Metro

Probably because with 3'6" gauge, you can't let maintenance slide as much.

[ozbob]

^ true to a point.  One thing QR does well is track, no doubt about it.  Every time I visit Melbourne I am shocked by the general condition of the track, it is really a sight to see!

[SurfRail]

I'm biased, but in terms of ride quality I consider Melbourne to be more or less the same these days.

The worst part of my trip is between Coomera and Helensvale, no doubt because it is the most used stretch of track on the line - it's like being in a jumping castle most days, although it depends entirely on the individual set.  There are good and bad examples in each class it seems.

In Melbourne, you get a less than satisfactory ride in the Xtrapolis sets due to their crappy suspension, but honestly they seem to sway less than they used to until you get into the boonies where there is a lot of curvature and at lower speeds (eg beyond Upper Ferntree Gully or Eltham).  All the new and realigned track associated with the LX elimination works helps.

The original track in that section needs to be completely reconditioned once the second track opens later this year.

[#Metro]

Some history about QR - Emerson banned bonuses for 12 months at QR.

Now, could the former Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe do that. After the bonuses were paid the general attitude seemed to be "Oh Well". Stopping new bonuses being paid was suggested but that went nowhere.

This ABC article shows that there is a precedent for a bonus freeze. It has been done before:

No bonuses for Qld Rail managers over failed targets
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-22/no-bonuses-for-qld-rail-workers-over-failed-targets/4385426

By Francis Tapim
Updated 22 Nov 2012, 8:17am

Qld Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson

Queensland Rail managers will not be receiving any bonuses this year after failing to meet targets set by the State Government.

Transport Minister Scott Emerson says he will not be signing off any bonuses this year because managers have not improved standards and trains are not turning up on time.

He says the previous government set aside $11 million for bonuses, but that money will stay where it is.

"I have said to Queensland Rail you have got to do better - the public expects you to do better and it is not fair to be paying out these bonuses when you performance hasn't been up to scratch," he said.

"We want them to do better particularly on that issue of rail reliability of getting the trains there on time."

Mr Emerson says in future bonuses will only be paid if there are significant improvements.

He denies he is being a 'Grinch' for denying the bonuses.

[#Metro]

POLL: Should Queensland Rail be subject to Competitive Tendering? (April 2017)
https://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=12721.0

^ Poll now open. 14 days. Change vote at any time until poll close.

May run another one in six months or so to gauge people's thoughts and any changes.

[#Metro]

Rebuilding NSW
Gladys Berejiklian (then Transport Minister)

We've done a lot in the last three years but there's so much more to do.
And that will be possible if the government is able to lease long term 49% of its electricity assets.
That means we can build Sydney's Rapid Transit System.

[#Metro]

Time that some of these monopoly bus contractors in Queensland (both public and private) faced competition!

Sydney bus privatisation plan sparks accusations of betrayal from drivers

The NSW government will privatise the running of scores of bus routes in Sydney's inner west, risking a major dispute with thousands of heavily unionised bus drivers.

Transport Minister Andrew Constance has justified contracting the tender for bus region six – covering suburbs from Kensington in the city's south-east to Strathfield and Olympic Park in the west – out to the private sector by citing poor performance.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-bus-privatisation-plan-sparks-accusations-of-betrayal-from-drivers-20170515-gw56i3.html

[ozbob]

I am very certain that should the blue mob prevail at the next #qldvotes Queensland Rail will suffer the same fate.

LNP will use the poor performance of Queensland Rail as the major justification to privatise/franchise.  Nothing surer ... it's in their DNA.

[#Metro]

Infrastructure Australia (IA) has today released a review into the international privatisation of public transport services.

Improving Public Transport
Customer Focused Franchising
May 2017

http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/publications/files/Customer-Focused-Franchising.pdf

It shows a number of significant cost reductions, both on bus and rail when privatisation is applied. IA recommends that competitive contracting should now be the default option.

Recommendation 6.14
Governments should adopt a default option of
exposing public transport services to contestable
supply through franchising.

The focus of reform should be to improve
customers' experience by exposing delivery to
contestable supply and selecting the best operator
to provide services. Private operation of public
transport through time limited, exclusive franchises
– where providers compete to deliver services – is
a proven model both in Australia and overseas in
raising service quality and value for money for
customers.

It should be the default option for public
transport provision, with capital city bus and rail
services as immediate candidates for franchising.

IA lists a table showing that introducing competitive contracting to rail in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands generally resulted in 20% cost reductions.

Public support may also be forthcoming, particularly in Queensland where services are a mess:

The research by GA Research concluded that, once people understood the principles of franchising, they were much more supportive of the policy. In addition, most respondents understood there were benefits to involving the private sector, including greater efficiency and access to international expertise.

The study found that the public has a limited understanding of what franchising actually is. The policy is often confused with reforms such as privatisation and deregulation. But when the policy was explained, the majority were supportive of the reform.40

I think telling people to go catch the CityCat if they want to experience ' Privatisation ' would do the trick.

And selling something like a power station or two to fund Cross River Rail is a valid option:

By creating a link between the sale of assets and investment in infrastructure, the NSW Government
was able to generate support for the reform. Market research undertaken by Infrastructure Partnerships
Australia found that about 60% of the sample surveyed supported the lease or sale of these assets if the proceeds were re-invested into new
infrastructure.47

[tazzer9]

If you have been on a city cat then you would know why privitisation isn't that great.   They are exempt from free public transport for when events are held at the gabba and suncorp stadium.  The TV on them plays the same garbage, and that it will loop back on itself while on the same journey (loops around every 25 minutes).  The A/C on them is terrible.  The vending machine on them is a waste.

[verbatim9]

Brisbane Times reports the 3 Billion saved can go towards CRR

Sent from my XT1562 using Tapatalk

[verbatim9]

If you have been on a city cat then you would know why privitisation isn't that great.   They are exempt from free public transport for when events are held at the gabba and suncorp stadium.  The TV on them plays the same garbage, and that it will loop back on itself while on the same journey (loops around every 25 minutes).  The A/C on them is terrible.  The vending machine on them is a waste.

The Cats are meant to be supplied by the Government. Very rarely have I noticed the Air con on except mid summer. No need really. Yes just water from vending as I guess the ferry operator doesn't want to promote consumption of food and drink on the ferries and Cats.The media content could be better? Live feed of a mixture of Sky news, ABC News, Local Tourism News and a music channel?

[#Metro]

If you have been on a city cat then you would know why privitisation isn't that great.   They are exempt from free public transport for when events are held at the gabba and suncorp stadium.

But how do you know that is specifically due to the fact that Brisbane City Council uses a contractor?

Melbourne's trams are privatised, yet they have no trouble providing ' free ' tram services to the Australian Open, a comparable event that also have large numbers of people. https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/media-centre/media-releases/free-shuttle-trams-for-the-australian-open-ptv-hub-pops-up-at-federation-square-to-help-people-travel/

Free shuttle trams for the Australian Open: PTV Hub pops up at Federation Square to help people travel

Added: 11 January 2013

Tennis fans travelling to the 2013 Australian Open can catch free shuttle trams running frequently between the city and Melbourne Park.

The free shuttle trams will display Route 70a and are available for all Australian Open ticket holders.

Customers must remember to carry their Australian Open ticket valid for that day and present it to transport staff on request.

[#Metro]

Thanks for the tip Verbatim9. Story now up at BrisbaneTimes website.

Public transport 'franchising' could fund Cross River Rail: report
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/public-transport-franchising-could-fund-cross-river-rail-report-20170525-gwdf4x.html

Savings of over $3 billion could be made by having private operators run Brisbane City Council's buses and Queensland Rail's passenger trains by 2040, according to a research from independent project study group Infrastructure Australia.

And look at Queensland Rail:

Allowing extra competition into public transport bodies like Queensland Rail – which is wholly-owned by the Queensland Government - and Brisbane Transport run by Brisbane City Council - was a recommendation of the Australian Infrastructure Plan, released in February 2016.

"So in Queensland the savings are just over $3 billion and the bulk of that is from Queensland Rail," Adrian Dwyer, Infrastructure Australia's executive director of policy and research said.

[SurfRail]

If you have been on a city cat then you would know why privitisation isn't that great.   They are exempt from free public transport for when events are held at the gabba and suncorp stadium.  The TV on them plays the same garbage, and that it will loop back on itself while on the same journey (loops around every 25 minutes).  The A/C on them is terrible.  The vending machine on them is a waste.

The special events fare exemption is due to idiotic TransLink reasoning, not public v private.  The same kind of reasoning that produces stupidity like being able to get a train to Nambour for free to and from an event, but not a 555 to Springwood.

The rest of it is probably driven by the fact that Transdev's contract is with BCC and not TransLink - see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/coba2010155/s91.html

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Public transport 'franchising' could fund Cross River Rail

Savings of over $3 billion could be made by having private operators run Brisbane City Council's buses and Queensland Rail's passenger trains by 2040, according to a research from independent project study group Infrastructure Australia.

Australia-wide, savings of $15.5 billion by 2040 (in 2016 dollars) are identified into Australia's public transport industry by consultants Price Waterhouse Coopers for Infrastructure Australia.

Infrastructure Australia's Improving Public Transport report says: "In Queensland, the savings could help pay for Cross River Rail," but it contains little other data from Queensland.

The report was immediately described as a "political document" by Queensland's Rail, Tram and Bus Union state secretary Owen Doogan.

"There have been two elections where the people of Queensland stand when the issue of the privatisation of public transport system is concerned," Mr Doogan said.

"And both governments got the message that the people don't want it."

The report will however re-open the debate in Queensland about leasing government assets.

The full report will be released on Friday and is the result of 12 months of research by consultants PwC into the impact of letting extra competition into providing public transport services around Australia.

Allowing extra competition into public transport bodies like Queensland Rail – which is wholly-owned by the Queensland Government - and Brisbane Transport run by Brisbane City Council - was a recommendation of the Australian Infrastructure Plan, released in February 2016.

"So in Queensland the savings are just over $3 billion and the bulk of that is from Queensland Rail," Adrian Dwyer, Infrastructure Australia's executive director of policy and research said.

There are already many versions of the model, described as "franchising", operating in south-east Queensland, Sydney and Melbourne, as well as in the United Kingdom and parts of Europe.

In Brisbane, CityCats are franchised to the company TransDev, which is the same company that runs Sydney's Harbour City Ferries.

    "So it is really not a new idea."
    Infrastructure Australia's director of policy, Adrian Dwyer

Brisbane City Council runs about 70 of the city's bus routes and allowing private sector contestability was a policy of the previous LNP state government in 2014.

On the Gold Coast, the successful light rail service is run by the GoldLinQ franchise, which won the tender in May 2011 from the Bligh Labor government.

GoldLinQ is a consortium that includes McConnell Dowell Constructors, Bombardier Transportation and international tram operator Keolis.

Melbourne's trains are run by the Metro franchise, which is a joint venture between the John Holland Group, the MTR Corporation and UGL Rail.

"So it is really not a new idea," Mr Dwyer said.

"There is a breadth of experience across the country."

"And all the rail in the UK is operated in this way."

How franchising works

    Government keeps ownership of buses, trains and ferries, sets timetables, keeps control of buying any new assets;
    Government sets the outcomes and expectation for services including frequency and service routes;
    Train or bus services go out to tender to run the day to day operations;
    Government would announce successful winning tender and sign contract for new operator to run passenger trains and Brisbane's buses; and
    Contracts can vary between 8 and 12 years.


The report says averaged public transport wages were "similar" in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, regardless of public or private operator.

Where do the claimed savings come from?

Mr Dwyer said the PwC research showed savings came from;

    Improved productivity and labour costs;
    Optimising vehicle and carriage configurations;
    Improved scheduling of maintenance;
    Ensuring maintenance facilities are located to avoid empty vehicle running, and;
    Improved network design which optimises routes and fleet utilisation.

The report contained only limited discussion about subsidies paid by government to operators. Fares paid by passengers cover between "20 to 30 per cent" of operating costs.

What do the case studies in the Improving Public Transport study show?

The study predicts an extra 460,000 public transport trips by 2040 in Southeast Queensland, similar to predictions in the latest Cross River Rail project study showing rail commuters will double in 10 years.

In Melbourne

Franchising began in the late 1990s and the on-line running "improved by 2.6 per cent."

Staff numbers dropped from 18,000 to 8400 between 1992 and 1997, saving $245 million.

On-time running worsened between 2003-04 as patronage grew, however it has improved, the study finds.

"Metro Trains Melbourne, have significantly improved punctuality since 2009–10," the report says.

Reliability of train services under Melbourne's franchised system is between 98 and 99 per cent.

In Sydney

Sydney's City Ferries are run by TransDev since 2012, which also runs Brisbane's CityCats.

- "Improved on-time running, consistently achieving 99 per cent of services on-time since taking over the contract."

- "Customer complaints have also declined."

- "In 2014–15 the complaint rate was about 2.2 per 100,000 boardings, which was about 30 per cent lower than the final year of public sector operation in 2011–12."

- "These improvements were made while also reducing the contract price to government by 12% per annum."

What the Rail, Tram and Bus union says.

"It is based on the philosophy of the federal government from 2014 from a government that wanted to privatise," Owen Doogan said.

The report includes sections on the previous federal government's asset recycling scheme.

"We understand there has been no communication with any of the key stakeholders."

[ozbob]

Premier @AnnastaciaMP
"Starting to think Infrastructure Aust not seriously considering our proposal.. changing goalposts." @abcnews #qldpol https://t.co/uKBvOFuOt5

— Chris O'Brien (@COBrienBris) May 26, 2017

^

Public transport 'franchising' could 'fund Cross River Rail' > https://t.co/XgcsxYyPMy via @brisbanetimes #qldpol

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) May 26, 2017

[ozbob]

Poor State ALP  ... the Feds are conspiring to give a leg up to Tim et al.

Nothing surer that QR will be franchised if the colour of the next mob is blue ... nothing surer.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Government report says Queensland Rail should be privatised to pay for Cross River Rail

QUEENSLAND Rail should be privatised to pay for building the long-delayed Cross River Rail project, an government report has proposed.

Up to $6.3 billion could be saved over 24 years if the government outsourced the running of its train services to private enterprise, according to an Infrastructure Australia report released this morning.

Brisbane City Council could save up to $1.9 billion over the same period of time if it outsourced bus operations.

Tensions between the State and Commonwealth over the $5.2 billion Cross River Rail have heated up recently after the project was left out of the Federal budget in May.

The Infrastructure Australia report stated the outsourcing, or "franchising", was not an asset sale and should be sold to the public as a way of paying for new infrastructure and services.

It said the savings would come from cutting costs, rather than raising more revenue.

"In Queensland, the savings could help pay for Cross River Rail," the IA report stated.

The actual amount of savings ranged dramatically depending on the model used.

For Queensland Rail, savings ranged $1.8 billion to $6.3 billion over 24 years depending on the model, while Brisbane Transport's bus savings were between $1.3 billion and $577 million.

It is based on if the outsource was introduced this year and ran until at least 2040.

The report stated the savings would come from improving inefficiencies in labour productivity as well as the maintenance and use of rolling stock through a competitive tender process.

But it warns if more people start using the trains costs would rise, reducing or eliminating any savings.

It also pointed out the in previous cases around the world there were examples of private operators experiencing financial problems, due to contract issues and other factors, which led to a disruption in services.

Infrastructure Australia Chief Executive, Philip Davies said a competitive tender process, with incentives and penalties for private operators, would encourage savings for state governments.

"There is an important role for the Australian Government to play in encouraging the states and territories to embark upon public transport reform under the Customer Focused Franchising model," he said.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said she didn't believe Infrastructure Australia was genuinely interested in building Cross River Rail.

"I'm starting to think about Infrastructure Australia not really being serious about considering our projects," she said.

"Once again we're changing (the) goal posts."

Ms Palaszczuk said the State Government was committed to clearing up any misunderstanding about Cross River Rail to start the project as soon as possible.

"My Director-General is today, this morning, meeting with Infrastructure Australia to clarify any issues that they have straight away," she said.

"Our business case that we sent to Infrastructure Australia and to the Federal Government was comprehensive - and I've reiterated that to the Prime Minister."

[ozbob]

 



#FleeQLD

[HappyTrainGuy]

Poor State ALP  ... the Feds are conspiring to give a leg up to Tim et al.

Nothing surer that QR will be franchised if the colour of the next mob is blue ... nothing surer.

Since 2009.

[#Metro]

For Queensland Rail, savings ranged $1.8 billion to $6.3 billion over 24 years depending on the model, while Brisbane Transport's bus savings were between $1.3 billion and $577 million.

It is based on if the outsource was introduced this year and ran until at least 2040.

Privatisation of QR and Brisbane Transport do not constitute an asset sale, nor do they constitute a loss of profit revenue stream from a commercial state-owned business.

Therefore, they are not in contradiction to the "No asset sale" policy of Annastacia Palaszczuk.

[Stillwater]

Why is it 'political' as the Premier states, for IA to look at efficient ways for governments to provide services at least cost to the taxpayer, while retaining government ownership of the transport asset?  IA's franchising proposal is 'political' while four-person crews to operate NGR trains is a sound proposition?   

Here's the issue - the Queensland Government regards any money from the feds as 'free money'.  It does not have to raise it, it is not accountable to taxpayers for how it is spent, or whether it is spent efficiently, or well. Hence we get bizarre situations where Queensland promises electorally popular stuff, such as a new stadium or a piece of infrastructure on the basis that the Commonwealth pays for it.  The state banks on the public's desire for the new toy as being leverage against the Commonwealth to cough up the dough in circumstances where there might be a more worthy project, or where the proposal runs counter to federal policy guidelines.  The argument put is that 'Queensland deserves its fair share'.  And, as we have seen, the propensity is for a 'special deal' (yes, one of them) without the need for a Business Case, or a completed one.  Best not submit a Business Case that shows the desired project is a dud.  IA might see that it has a low or negative BCR and draw comparisons with good quality and cost-effective projects in other states and territories.

State Labor is sending out some very bad messages in taking the stance it has:

- it shows that Queensland Labor wants to keep cosy to the unions
- it is not interested in running PT efficiently
- it won't countenance new structures and ways of doing things outside the QR/TransLink/TMR failed model
- it won't at least model the IA proposal, rather, dismiss it outright with the 'it's political' line.

Ms Palaszczuk says goalposts are being changed, well even the NRL rules change from time to time to create a better game.  To accommodate the demands of television, we no longer have eight balls an over in the cricket we all love to watch in our lounge rooms.

The Premier paints herself as a 'change denier'.

Public Transport Queensland represents the best structure for implementing a PT franchise model.

Is the Premier seriously arguing that it is better not to grab a $3b saving and waste a billion dollars of federal 'free money' instead?

[#Metro]

Public Transport Queensland represents the best structure for implementing a PT franchise model.

SEQ already has private operators, however with the exception of Gold Coast Light Rail and Brisbane CityCats, these private

operators are essentially a monopoly. They will always get their contracts renewed, no matter what. Awarding contracts this way

is against the merit principle.


Contracts should not go to suppliers based on the idea that "we have always done it this way".

[ozbob]

... State Labor is sending out some very bad messages in taking the stance it has:

- it shows that Queensland Labor wants to keep cosy to the unions
- it is not interested in running PT efficiently
- it won't countenance new structures and ways of doing things outside the QR/TransLink/TMR failed model
- it won't at least model the IA proposal, rather, dismiss it outright with the 'it's political' line.
...

This gets to the essence.

Step back for a minute and I think most astute observers can see this scenario is playing right in to the blue team's dreams.

Franchise/competitive tender of operations does have a checkered history here in Oz and elsewhere. 

My own view is that we need a proper authority such as the PTA in WA, or the PTV in Victoria.  Then all operators put on notice that competitive tendering will be commenced after a period of say 3 years.  Work would commence prior to that in terms of tenders etc.

The heavy rail division of Public Transport Queensland (or whatever the authority is) would look after the public ownership and management and so forth  of the assets etc.  Infrastructure delivery for rail.

Queensland Rail would be an operator.  They would in time be part of the competitive tendering process.  They could win it as an operator as could MTR or whomever. Operator would conduct and schedule maintenance - NGR maintenance would be outsourced under the present arrangements in place for 32 years.