Action for Public Transport (N.S.W.) Inc.

As part of the review, and in accordance with the IPART Act, the tribunal will consider the need for greater efficiency and reliability in the provision of train services in order to reduce costs and improve quality and safety. More particularly, it is to consider how the cost of running CityRail is to be shared between the government, fare-paying passengers, and other beneficiaries.

IPART issued public discussion papers, which, among other things, canvassed the possibility of sharply increased fares as just one way of providing CityRail's future revenue requirements. The mass media made much of this, with the result that a large part of the community wrongly concluded that IPART had already recommended large fare increases.

In its discussion papers, IPART expressed certain views that it holds, but called for submissions from interested stakeholders and the public to validate or challenge those views. IPART also sought responses to 45 questions on specific issues.

APTNSW has lodged responses to both discussion papers.

The task was difficult. Economics is a complex subject and our resources are limited. The context in which government agencies are funded is also very fluid. The electronic ticketing debacle, rising petrol prices, and the quantification of the community benefits of a railway for those who don’t use it, add to the complexity.

In general, APTNSW did not give unequivocal support or opposition to IPART's views. Rather, we commented on the likely consequence of the proposals if they were implemented, and noted the likely barriers to their implementation.

In the end, IPART will only make recommendations to government. The government will determine policy. There is the risk, of course, that the policy might be more in the government's interest than in the public interest!