سفری از رقیب به اصلاح اتوبوس مشارکتی در دنیو ساوت ولز
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3447||2008||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||8645 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Research in Transportation Economics, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 137–145
This paper continues to debate the importance of understanding in the NSW Bus reform process of the relationship between central agencies, service providers, the academic community, key consultants and contractors within the setting of the transport service organisation framework. Sydney is a modern city with heavy rail, light-rail, monorail and an extensive Harbour, with bus services owned by Government as well as private interests. The paper addresses the case for reforms, the approach taken, competition policy, the subsequent development of partnerships, performance of the regulator, passenger benefits, growth and the differences between Metropolitan/Outer Metropolitan and Regional and Rural bus services.
Over the last decade the New South Wales Government has recognized the importance of bus transport as part of its commitment to the provision of public transport (State Plan, 2006). Prior to that time, heavy rail and Government owned and run bus services were the Government's focus despite the urban sprawl and land use policies in place. The quality of public transport, particularly in Sydney, has been of concern to the community for some time with the standard of the public transport subject to public scrutiny and media attention. This is despite Sydney's public transport performing better than other major cities. The Australian transport culture has been dominated by the use of the car (State Plan, 2006). A large part of the transport task for a bus operator has been to transport school children to and from school under the Government's free school travel scheme. The further away from the highly populated urban areas, the more the Operators’ revenue was dependent upon the free school travel scheme. Rapid Bus transit has not been a serious contender for Sydney's proposed new major corridors.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Metropolitan and Outer Metropolitan bus reform was required, and, although the reforms have delivered financial viability, they have not provided policy settings to provide best value for money. Although a high degree of accountability and transparency has been built into the reforms, the ability of the regulator to effectively manage and utilise the additional data has not been present. Effective bus priority and ticketing systems have not been introduced. Although the Government is aware of the need to achieve a modal shift from motor vehicle to public transport, the progress with bus reform is not adequately delivering the desired outcomes although the Government has increased its powers and control over services. This outcome (greater control) and improvements to fares and fleet standards appears to be sufficient for Government in the present political climate. Regional and rural reforms are midstream but the signs are that the Government's desire for increased control, accountability and transparency will influence the efficiency and service delivery that can be achieved. The Government acknowledges that the more services are provided by private operators under effective contracts the greater the value for money from the community. Government is still hesitant to enter trusting partnerships to manage the risk and instead rely on prescriptive contracts without providing the necessary expertise to effectively use their control. The Government is the best stakeholder able to provide leadership in creating partnerships with industry as they control the legislative process and the purse strings; however the lack of stability and strategic planning continues to hinder the quality of bus services that could be provided. There have been many improvements, but too many lost opportunities. Private operators have struggled to migrate to the new contract regime that places significant new burdens on their organizations, which has seen the increase in demand for quality staff and new technology. The journey was initially epitomized by a Government bent on introducing bus reform through new legislation at whatever cost to their relationship with the industry. This approach manifested itself in late night parliamentary sittings to rush through legislation that had been heavily criticised for the unlimited powers that it gave to its civil servants. The approach leads to non-conforming bids from bus operators invited to negotiate contracts and ultimately threats of discontinuance of services and the receivership of the largest private operator. It took these incidents and the intervention of foresighted individuals, from both sides, who understood the need for co-operation in a difficult process. The journey changed during the journey to an environment of recognition of the BCA's genuine concerns, identified in their 10 Point Plan, joint co-operation in the six BCA/MoT Workshops to date and a different, more consultative approach to rural and regional reforms. The journey from adversary to partnership has not yet been achieved, but the signs are good.