News   Jul 29, 2024
 641     1 
News   Jul 29, 2024
 319     0 
News   Jul 29, 2024
 620     0 

Auckland's Privatized Transit a Warning for Toronto

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
Auckland transit blues


June 16th, 2010

Jim Stanford

gam_flag.png


Read More: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/auckland-transit-blues/article1605487/

##############################

Toronto’s main business lobby, the Board of Trade, recently called for the outsourcing of public transit services to private companies, part of their free advice to the next mayor on reducing the city’s deficit. On one level, it’s an unremarkable proposal: just the latest in a chorus of business demands that governments fix their deficits by selling, contracting out or eliminating public services. But it caught my eye because I am residing temporarily in Auckland, New Zealand’s biggest city, where the transit system is the most fragmented, expensive and maddening I’ve ever used. And it’s 100-per-cent private. The gory details provide a caution for those who believe the private market always does things better.

- In the 1980s and 1990s, New Zealand municipalities were forced by conservative national governments to sell off many public assets, including transit. They assumed free-market forces would cut costs and improve productivity. The reality has been the opposite. Indeed, since the 1980s, productivity has fallen far behind other OECD countries, yet costs and taxes remain relatively high. The government even had to buy back some of the privatized companies that failed entirely, such as Kiwi Rail and Air New Zealand.

- This hodge-podge is all the worse because each company accepts only its own tickets, and not those offered by competitors. Since inter-company transfers are impossible, bus routes can be insanely circuitous. My daughter’s bus trip to school takes three long detours through different neighbourhoods, doubling what should be a five-kilometre route.

- Tickets are expensive. Passengers pay according to how far they travel (and then pay again if they need a transfer). Trips of just a few stops cost as little as $1.70 – but another $1.70 is added each time the bus passes through another invisible “stage.†Travelling 40 kilometres from the city’s north to south costs $12.70 to $16.50 (depending which company is used) and takes two hours. A passenger travelling the same distance in Toronto (say, from Scarborough to Etobicoke) would pay $3 once, and require less than half the time.

- Yet Aucklanders still pay for transit – three times over. Once through taxes – subsidies to private transit consume half of all property taxes collected by the regional government. Then again at the fare box. And finally a third time through inconvenience. No wonder Aucklanders take transit one-quarter as often as Torontonians. So before you get carried away with enthusiasm for the inherent efficiency of the private sector, visit Auckland. It’s beautiful. But you’ll need to rent a car.

##############################




Take note, Toronto: The private sector doesn’t always do it better

auckland_706182gm-a.jpg
 
This isn't the only way to do it. You could just as easily contract out construction or operation, but make it seamlessly part of the fare structure of the rest of the system. The operator would be paid a fixed fee, plus a performance bonus based on quality of service KPIs. This might still result in a subsidy, but hopefully it would result in fewer cost overruns in construction and better service at lower cost in operation. Helpfully, this should keep unions under control in terms of bargaining power, which is essential for a system that has 80% of its cost in salaries.
 
Given what a disaster the contracts were in London to maintain and operate the tube were, and have cost London a small fortune, with the Conservative leader denouncing PPPs ... I'm surprised you'd choose London as a good example!

Referring to the bus network (London only, not the rest of the UK which did things a lot differently).. The UK in general is a bad example of privatization of transit, but from the studies I've read the London bus system saw significantly decreased costs and increased service with competitive tendering... the information I've seen on other systems like Stockholm, Helsinki, and Copenhagen was similar.
 
Last edited:
I think the bus portion in London was done similar to Viva in York, and GO Transit; simply operational.
 
I do believe in contracting out of services where appropriate, but I also know that the current collective agreement can sometimes make this easier said than done.

The private sector is not magic.
 
Referring to the bus network (London only, not the rest of the UK which did things a lot differently).. The UK in general is a bad example of privatization of transit, but from the studies I've read the London bus system saw significantly decreased costs and increased service with competitive tendering... the information I've seen on other systems like Stockholm, Helsinki, and Copenhagen was similar.

I rode London Transport, and to the average casual rider, privatization wouldn't seem like a big deal. All the buses are still red (with some corporate colouring, but secondary), there's a common route numbering, common maps, common fares. What's really screwy is what happened under weakened "Transport Executives" in other urban centres. Of course, behind the scenes and unnoticed by the average commuter, were major problems. The London model is what York Region does with multiple operators, but all but invisible to the average rider.

For example, in Sheffield, there's at least five transit operators, ranging from First Group (the largest in that city) to Stagecoach (operates the tram network as well as some buses) to local operators such as "Yorkshire Terrier" (no kidding!) and Powell. Each operator has its own fares, and will not recognize each others' passes/transfers. Every bus is in their operators' colours, from the red and white of First to the green of Yorkshire Terrier. Each has their own schedule guide and route map. I have a bus system map for Sheffield, but only for First Group's routes. It was nuts.

Other Ontario systems with contracted transit: Barrie (First Group, formerly Greyhound, formerly PMCL), Peterborough (Stagecoach/Trentway-Wagar), parts of Durham Region's "system", Port Hope, Cobourg.
 
Last edited:
^ While highly fractured transit systems like that certainly shows privatization / contracting is not magic, I think it's also more of a demonstration that certain private operators are "stupid". "Smart" transit operators (both public and private), like those in HK or Japan, will proactively develop common fare media and tariff systems to encourage transfers and through-ridership (to the extent that some are already on way to developing national or even international common systems).
 
Last edited:
What I would be curious about is just how much savings on a percentage basis will a private operator provide given all else (routing/schedule, maintainence standards, etc) remains exactly the same.

AoD
 
In an all-things-being-equal scenario, a public service should cost less than a similar private service because the public service isn't going to be looking for profit margins.

In a more realistic scenario, however, contracting out services to the private sector can be a workable solution for getting around longstanding collective agreements with union workers.
 
In an all-things-being-equal scenario, a public service should cost less than a similar private service because the public service isn't going to be looking for profit margins.

Which is a dangerous assumption. Instead of profit margins, with a public system you end up overly expensive labour costs.
 
Which is a dangerous assumption. Instead of profit margins, with a public system you end up overly expensive labour costs.
But how overly expensive? The same union members who drive the buses for TTC, drive the VIVA buses for that privatized service. There pay is a bit lower, but how much lower? Is it 10% lower? 20% lower?

If a company is looknig for a 20% profit margin, would we prefer the extra 20% get's paid to shareholders in Spain; or to people in Toronto who will spend the money locally?
 
this journal article has a chart with examples of the savings realized by some of the systems (p.6-8) and impacts on service levels
http://itls2.econ.usyd.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/25561/hensher-wallis-2005.pdf

The above appraisal of the evidence from developed countries worldwide
shows that the opening to competitive tendering (as part of a wider package
of regulatory and institutional reforms) of services previously provided by
(predominantly) publicly-owned operators under non-competitive area/
regional monopoly arrangements has in most cases resulted in substantial
cost savings in the shorter term. The extent of short/medium-term reductions
in (real) unit costs in the main countries for which good evidence is
available may be summarised as:

. Great Britain: 50–55 per cent
. Scandinavia: considerable spread of results (5–34 per cent), but most in
range 20–30 per cent
. USA: 30–46 per cent
. Australia: 22 per cent (Perth), 38 per cent (Adelaide)
. New Zealand: c. 40 per cent (public operators), c. 5 per cent (private
operators).

These cost reductions are very substantial, and overall on the high side of
the preconceptions of the authors (a crude ‘rule of thumb’ sometimes
used is for indicative cost savings of 30 per cent from competitive tendering/
outsourcing)


Note that in the actual article the authors are advocating negotiated performance based quality contracts, a different approach than competitive tendering.
 
Last edited:
It's not just pay. The private sectors gets freedoms to do things that the government could not necessarily do. For example, can the TTC sign its own long term fuel contracts or did they go with a city-wide pool? Are there contract rules that prevent the TTC from saving money (like requiring contractors to pay a "living wage" or a unionized wage)? Etc. There's a lot of little rules that hold behind the public sector at times. Anybody who's worked in the public sector can tell you that. Often they are created for one agency or another and then applied city-wide for the sake of simplicity. Sometimes they are created to address one problem and create another. For example, the recent spate of accountability rulings in Ottawa, has dramatically slowed project approvals, funding approval, etc. It's made the federal public sector much more risk averse. And so on.

Not to say these rules are wrong or bad. Just that from time-to-time, they can become unncessarily burdensome to one sector or another.

I would like to see more definitive studies on how much is saved through contracted ops.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top