Transportation, 12 (1983) 1-2 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

EDITORIAL

Public Transport and Privatisation

Over recent decades, direct responsibility for the provision of transport services has increasingly been assumed by Governments, with bus and rail operators being transferred from private sector to public sector ownership. In many cases, Governments reluctantly became owners as the only way of main- taining what were regarded as essential public services in the face of financial failure of private sector operators. In other cases, Governments actually sought to acquire operators in the pursuit of their political ideologies. For whatever historic reasons, much of the public transport industry in the industrialised world is in the public sector.

Now, in a number of countries, Governments are seeking a greater private sector participation in the provision and maintenance of transport infrastruc- ture, as well as services. "Privatisation" is a particularly important element of the policies of the current Government of the United Kingdom. One of its proposals envisages control of London Transport being transferred from the Greater London Council to a new private sector company, which would become wholly responsible for bus and underground rail services in the metropolis.

Public transport is most surely a public service, providing the access re- quired by important sectors of the population to employment, to education, to welfare services, and to so many of the facilities and opportunities reasonably considered to play a n essential role in a civilised style of life. If public transport is a public service, then it is undoubtedly the proper responsibility of the govern- ment of the day to regulate and control services in order to ensure that both the quality of service provided and the costs of those services to the community as a whole, and to passengers, accord with the standards established by them, the elected government, be it central or local. The transfer of these responsibilities, in part or in whole, to private sector organisations, or indeed any organisation other than an elected authority, cannot be right.

Notwithstanding these arguments, there is some evidence which suggests that public sector transport operators are not as efficient as operators in the private sector; Pucher and Markstedt's recently published paper in this Journal (Vol. 11, No. 4) is one such source. In the light of such evidence, the course of privatisation would be best pursued by seeking to separate the responsibilities for policy (and the concomitant need for public accountability) from those of

0049-4488/83/$03.00 © 1983 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

2

actual service operation. Thus, a reasonable course would be to seek to harness the beneficial attributes of private enterprise, while leaving the control of service standards and fares in the hands of elected authorities. Since urban public transport is local, much of the relevant policy should be locally determined. The determination of local service patterns and standards is not an appropriate function of central government, al though setting a general policy framework may be.

One way of introducing private enterprise while maintaining public control would be to cont rac tout , periodically, the provision of a given set of services. The contractor would be required to meet specified standards of service and collect any on-vehicle revenues. In return, he would receive a fee, but would be penalised if he failed to meet the pre-determined service standards.

While it is right that public transport standards are determined by govern- ment, it is essential that the needs of the public are put before the political dogma of those in government, be that of the left or the right. It is also right that the services are provided as cost effectively as possible; if private enterprise can do that better than public enterprise, then the re-introduction of private operators will be beneficial. If public operators can match private sector costs, then there would seem to be no case for privatisation.

Martin Richards