Page 294 of 294

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:31 am
by SRW
muzzamo wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:15 am
ChillyPhilly wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:51 pm
robably not, given they have basically been gagged from even commenting on it. Some PSAs (Passenger Service Assistants) found out about the privatisation through word of mouth - some even from passengers.

The debate over privatisation of Adelaide's light and heavy rail will not so much be about the taxpayer cost, but about jobs. An example is London's North Eastern Railway. A public asset, it was sold off to 'Virgin Trains East Coast'. Customer satisfaction dropped and prices rose. About 60% of jobs were axed. Virgin asked for more money to run it, which they got, but soon afterward walked away from the contract. Customer satisfaction predictably rose sharply following the return to government hands.
You are still missing the point

The trains and trams are not being sold off. The trains and trams are not being sold off.

The management of the trains and trams is being outsourced. The better place to look would be the privately managed but government owned busses within SA. The government will define the services, how much they will cost, when they will run, collect the ticket revenue, define the SLAs, and will own the infrastructure and rolling stock.

Jobs will probably be lost. And the management will be by private companies that are accountable under a contract with the government, rather than unaccountable public servants ("sorry mate, i'm on a flexi.")
I think you've caught yourself up in semantics and entirely missed his point. Whatever corporate-speak euphemism or public sector bludger tropes you want to use, there are many real world examples of the downsides to public service of the process (as with East Coast rail).

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:37 am
by muzzamo
SRW wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:31 am
I think you've caught yourself up in semantics and entirely missed his point. Whatever corporate-speak euphemism or public sector bludger tropes you want to use, there are many real world examples of the downsides to public service of the process (as with East Coast rail).
And my point - which is that the SA busses are the best place to look for an example of this model - is being lost as well.

The losers in the whole process will be the workers, rather than the public who will be consuming services. Even now, years after the outsourcing, SouthLink etc are hiring "trainees" and 457-visa holders rather than experienced bus drivers in order to cut costs. This impacts the drivers who were previously in well-paying middle class jobs and are being displaced by 457-visa holders and trainees. But by and large it doesn't impact the public, because the public impacting aspect - including pricing, rolling stock, infrastructure, and service definition - is defined by the government via the contract.

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:19 am
by SRW
muzzamo wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:37 am
SRW wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:31 am
I think you've caught yourself up in semantics and entirely missed his point. Whatever corporate-speak euphemism or public sector bludger tropes you want to use, there are many real world examples of the downsides to public service of the process (as with East Coast rail).
And my point - which is that the SA busses are the best place to look for an example of this model - is being lost as well.

The losers in the whole process will be the workers, rather than the public who will be consuming services. Even now, years after the outsourcing, SouthLink etc are hiring "trainees" and 457-visa holders rather than experienced bus drivers in order to cut costs. This impacts the drivers who were previously in well-paying middle class jobs and are being displaced by 457-visa holders and trainees. But by and large it doesn't impact the public, because the public impacting aspect - including pricing, rolling stock, infrastructure, and service definition - is defined by the government via the contract.
That's a rather loose parameter for public impact. For mine, I'd rather not ride a service that races to the bottom of worker's rights and human dignity.

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:08 am
by Nort
Yup. Taxpayers should get good services for the money, but we should also be treating workers well and increasing the number of casual and short term workers is bad for society.

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:57 am
by Brucetiki
Looks like the tram is being lumped in with the 'North-South' bus contract.

https://indaily.com.au/news/business/20 ... -services/

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:22 am
by Spotto
Brucetiki wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:57 am
Looks like the tram is being lumped in with the 'North-South' bus contract.

https://indaily.com.au/news/business/20 ... -services/
Surely it would be a better fit in the East-West contract? Maybe because the tram actually runs west? :|

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:26 am
by ChillyPhilly
Spotto wrote:
Brucetiki wrote:
Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:57 am
Looks like the tram is being lumped in with the 'North-South' bus contract.

https://indaily.com.au/news/business/20 ... -services/
Surely it would be a better fit in the East-West contract? Maybe because the tram actually runs west? :|
Now, now; don't speak too much sense.

Re: News & Discussion: Trams

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2019 6:51 pm
by Eurostar
If Sealink did get to run the trams they could run the 248 as a feeder between Marion Centre and Plympton Tram Stop. Kilometres saved by not running 248s between Plympton Tram Stop and City could be used elsewhere to run short running of the 100 between Plympton and Arndale or between Plympton and Glen Osmond.