ACTION, the ACT’s public bus system, is faced with cutting services just 10 months after introducing a new timetable and fare structure called Network 99. After some initial grumbles, Network 99 settled in and resulted in increased patronage of about 6 per cent.
Unfortunately, Network 99 is not sustainable in the eyes of the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Commission and ACTION itself. The increased patronage has not resulted in high enough revenue. Nor has a new enterprise bargaining agreement resulted in big enough reductions in costs. Low patronage school services are to be amalgamated. Some frequencies will go from 30 minutes to 40 minutes and others from 60 minutes to 90 minutes. The service cuts will be made in February.
A draft report by the commission issued last week agreed with the service cuts.
The commission also foreshadowed fare increases for later in the year. Cash fares are likely to remain unaffected but discount fares will be hit, according to the draft report, though it is subject to public comment.
The commission’s draft report paints a poor financial picture for ACTION. The commission said ACTION performs at the lower end of public bus companies, recovering about 24 per cent of operating costs, compared to Sydney 54 per cent. It also made unfavourable comparisons with private operators. It is also concerned that cost savings from down-sizing are being captured by continuing staff rather than going to reduce taxpayer subsidy.
It may well be that ACTION could be more efficient; that further cost savings could be made or fares be raised for extra revenue. But these are not going to make a very large impact on what is a very large government subsidy. More fundamental questions are needed.
If ACTION is to be judged as a financially viable operation, why not go the full monty and privatise it and allow full competition? Then there would be no subsidy. If, as is more likely, the Government and the community want a public-transport system that will give all residents the wherewithal to move about the city at a reasonable price, then a subsidy is appropriate. The subsidy is for a social service, not a commercial service.
And a third way to look at it is from the view of total community cost. We pay a very large cost for the benefit of being able to move about by car so easily: roads, car-parks, pollution, noise, accidents and so on.
The trouble for ACTION is profound. Canberra was built for the car. Immense infrastructure has been built for the car and it is easy to travel by car. It means bus patronage is bound to be poor. And if bus patronage is poor, services are bound to be less frequent and more costly, turning off even more people.
ACTION tried to cut this vicious circle with Network 99. It risked providing more frequent services as a loss leader. It spent money promoting it. But Government action has not been complementary, rather antagonistic to public transport, because it has provided more car-parks, announced new freeways and reduced parking fees. Politics, alas, demands such an approach because there are more car users than bus users.
The central difficulty is that the Government has an ACTION policy, not a transport policy, and its ACTION policy is to provide the minimum it can get away with for the minimum cost. A transport policy, on theotehr hand, might discourage cars to make public transport more attractive so it can support itself.