- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,300
- Reactions
- 17,537
This is why smurph and others say, some things should remain public utilities.
To put them in private hands, has to end up with a reduced service or an increased cost.
A real example that used to happen here in Hobart with most of the city having a public (government run) bus service whilst part of it was served by a privately owned company.
As a teenager I lived in an area served by the private company. Bottom line - doing night school (TAFE) I caught the public (government) bus that went closest to where I lived then walked the last 6km. Private buses stopped at 7:30pm, government ones kept running until close to midnight.
There's no money to be made running buses after the peak commuting times, hence the private company didn't do so. In contrast a publicly owned service has a broader objective that doesn't involve making a profit, it exists to provide transport to those who need it, so they run a lot more services.
The downside to providing an extensive service is, of course, cost. It's no secret that Metro (government owned) loses a lot of money in order to provide bus services. But to be fair, that loss is largely because 80% of the people riding on buses aren't paying full fare, they are students, pensioners, unemployed and so on eligible for a concession.
So it basically comes down to welfare provision. Commuter services for city workers make a profit since just about everyone on board would be paying full fare and the buses would normally be quite full. But other services are either running late at night with very few people on board or are primarily used by those who don't pay full fare. As such they lose money. But from a broader social perspective, I'd argue that there's a need to provide services of an evening, weekends and so on even if they aren't profitable. Hence public ownership rather than private makes sense given that making a profit is not the intent.