 |
Eric Tuck
President ATU107
|
1. In a recent Spectator editorial, the paper, in its view, expresses grave concern over the incremental costs of having HSR/ATU run the LRT system. It cites an expected $750,000.00 annually for the next seven years in incremental costs if the system is run locally. This 5.2 million dollar seems staggering. Then there is the added costs of training. How do you respond to these concerns?
It is our expectation that there will be a cost to Operating and Maintaining an LRT System. We are also very much aware that the Private operator will have those costs built into their bid along with certain profit margins. No matter how we look at it, Public or Private operating and maintenance costs will be paid for . The City and Metro-linx MOA have left that conversation open. That being said, if Metro-linx was prepared to subsidize the private sector then why wouldn’t we expect those same subsidies to flow to our Public system? Why wouldn’t we want our Public Taxpayers dollars used to support Public Transit over a Private for Profit operator?
Can you describe the elements of the case for having HSR run the system. Why does it make sense to go that route as opposed to opening it up to competition?
First off Public Transit isn’t profitable - never has been, so competition only takes away from the public system. HSR has spent 31years building the B-Line ridership up to where it is today and will continue to build that ridership base until 2024 when the first LRT starts running.
38 years of investment to build a ridership base and then we are going to turn the keys over to a private company to profit off of LRT for the next 30 years?
We are going to give up local autonomy and any public accountability of the main transit line through the center of our city? Think about that.
It reminds me of the 407 when we were convinced that we should build this super hi-way that was going to relieve congestion and then we sell it to a private consortium to profit off of for the next 100 years. It is now one of the most expensive roads to drive on in North America. York Region privatized their transit system and the fares are $4.40 a ride and receives government subsidy of more than $4.00 a ride. Hamilton can’t stand by and allow this to happen here.
We recently faced, and are still dealing with a transit crisis at HSR but because it is under local control we were able to hold those people in charge accountable and called on our city council to act to address those shortfalls. This is only possible when you have local and public control.
3. What do you say to those who might suggest that HSR/ATU considerations are resulting in the project being delayed, based on amendments that will have to be done to the RFQ. Are you of the opinion that the HSR/ATU stipulation should have been incorporated from day one, rather than to leave it to a point where a delay in the RFQ process is inevitable?
RFQ- Request for Qualifications?
Simply a process to ensure those who are interested in bidding on the job have the resources and means to do the job. In the scope it clearly defines “May include DFBOM” key word for me is “may” I would say if Metro-linx wanted to expedite the process they have had 4 months to start these negotiations with the City- why the lengthy delay? Then to respond with fear-mongering and misinformation is wrong spirited and disingenuous. The fact of the matter is we have been advocating for public ownership of operations and maintenance since the day this project was announced. These conversations started years ago . We were repeatedly put off and told that we would discuss this during the RFP Process which is where we are at right now.
4. Is there anything else you’d like Hamiltonians to know about this issue?
There is still a strong will amongst Hamiltonians to support a world class public transit system in Hamilton and if Metro-linx, HSR,bATU and the City can work collaboratively, we still believe that goal is attainable but the political rhetoric needs to be replace with honest dialogue and goodwill negotiations amongst the stakeholders.
Thanks respectfully Eric Tuck
President ATU107
Verster's response was certainly interesting.
ReplyDeleteChief among his "concerns" was the revelation that the successful operator will be required to collect fares, create a lost&found department, provide security,and formally address questions and complaints.
Is he serious?
This is supposed to be onerous? Collecting fares?
Absolute nonsense.
As for the "training and certification"...I can't imagine how we are supposed to "train and certify" ourselves.Whoever was going to "train" the private bidder can train the HSR. If we have to pay for that upgrade, so be it.
That $750,000.00/annual figure is troublesome, and should not be the responsibility of the local taxpayer. We are not "investing" in "their" system. Period.
Any investment of that magnitude HAS to serve to improve HSR deficiencies, not enhance a Provincial directive.
Fred needs to demonstrate leadership. Don't count on it.
The reality here is that regardless who gets to operate the LRT, the HSR will continue to play a vital role on the route, with buses still required to provide an acceptable level of service. Does anyone believe "competitive tensions" will somehow improve if HSR is expected to cooperate with a private partner?
A recipe for dysfunction.
"we are going to turn the keys over to a private company to profit off of LRT for the next 30 years?"
ReplyDeletePublic Transit isn’t profitable - never has been.
Jolley Cut
yet private transit is expected to make buckets full of cash.....bit of a head scratcher, eh?
Delete"why we'll remove your largest revenue producing route,whilst doing absolutely nothing to address identified deficiencies,this is the plan"
Remove the wheat, leave the chaff.
Claremount
As I have mentioned many times in the past, privatization is not an insurance against risk, it is incurring another type of risk. Consortiums are drivin by profit. They will perform as expected as long as it enables them to reach their profit expectations. When it breaks down, they walk away. Sure- build in penalties, but I have some peers that would mop the floor in a courtroom. There are always ways to mitigate or sometimes walk away almost cleanly. The days where privatization was a magic bullet are over. Both public and private can work. But neither is fool proof and each requires good management and good leadership.
ReplyDeleteSorce
I have been managing projects for many years and am PMI accredited. The PPP thing- private partners have one interest- profit. Public management can fall apart when public servants get too comfortable- money not coming out of their pockets, but the public's.
DeleteSo the provate end needs strong public managemennt of private behaviour. The Public option needs strong accountability for public servantrs. "act as if it IS your money."
An excellent point was made here about managing stakeholders. If you treat thme poorly, the project is doomed. That simple. With all these consultants and teams managing LRR, I'm surprised that this is happening.
PMI
I'm sorry but I have lost all confidence in the front line staff of the HSR. In the past, I have experienced rude behaviour and the opposite of customer service. I think it is pretty rich to blame management. I applaud management efforts to shake things up but when one does such it is expected that such unionized employees will act out such as calling in sick and blaming management and saying morale is at an all time low. Not all HSR operators are like that, most are thankful to have such a great paying job with a pension and benefits.
ReplyDeleteI think introducing the private sector is a smart move to start to chip away at the monopoly ATU 107 has. Just like garbage service that is a mix of both City forces and private sector. Keep them on their toes.
Sorry, should have signed off to my post. Balance
ReplyDeletelets privatize the Fire Department too then, those guys once looked at me mean, and they get to put out all the fires!
ReplyDeleteMonopoly!
Police? Paramedics?
Lets get every Municipal employee up on their toes. Lets treat employees impartially.Respectfully
Imbalanced
You are correct, I've never understood why the fire service isn't privatized. Hopefully, with advances in technology you no longer need a person to hold a hose and spray water on a fire.
ReplyDeleteThankfully, the Province is amending the Police Act to define what a Police officer's duties, hopefully no more highly paid police officers sitting around at construction sites on paid duty (people say the contractor pays for them, but I ask, who do you think pays the contractor, the taxpayer.
I would like to see a reduction in fire services and an increase in Paramedic Services. It is well known that Fire Services are scrambling for work as structure fires are decreasing given education and new building standards, so they are trying to pick up work that should be done by highly trained paramedics. A paramedic, although highly trained earns less than a firefighter therefore more affordable to the taxpayer. I remember when I had a family member having a medical emergency. Firefighters showed up first and did little, had three of them standing around in the living room, we didn't feel good until the highly trained paramedics arrived a couple of minutes later.
Balance
Public: Transit costs taxpayers too much
ReplyDeleteCouncil: Don't worry, we have plan to offload operating costs, which should reduce your taxes
Public: Sounds good. Tell me more
Council: Will do. Right after we petition the province to lock us into a 30 year operating contract for a technology that we have no experience in operating
Public: You know, this is how they negotiate in the bizarro world
Rimshot
Public: We want better transit
ReplyDeleteCouncil: Sorry, you will have to settle for LRT,a billion dollar investment that does absolutely nothing to improve transit.
Nada,
Buzzerbeater.
Bombardier misses yet another deadline for Toronto LRT.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should let them run the consortium.
Why would Alstom fare any better?
Monde
"Conservatives confirm LRT position"
ReplyDeleteAndrew Dreschel, Hamilton Spectator, 1/06/18
So we can have the transit system we want...
We can have the transit system we need.
Say "so long" to Ms. Kathy.
Say "arrivederci" to Mayor Fred
Adios LRT, don't let that bus hit you in the back.
And say hello to Provincial Transport Minister Skelly.
(We couldn't have done this without you Donna.)
Sigma Cub
"yes it's true: I completed the membership form and paid my $15 and am now a card carrying Conservative"
DeleteRyan McGreal,"Why I joined the Conservative Party of Canada" Raise the Hammer,11/28/16
(Thank-you Ryan,your contribution was unreasonable and irrational,and as such, irreplaceable))
Peewee
Q. will LRT be negatively impacted by power outages and weather events?
ReplyDeleteA. 5cm of snow, and Toronto's trains-hundreds of them-are stuck in the yard. Useless.
Buses? No problems, adequately and efficiently picking up the slack.
Monde
"City must abandon bus tickets or lose Provincial gas tax money"
ReplyDeleteMetrolinx...their way, or the highway, literally.
As an incentive for compliance, Metrolinx will raise our contribution from $422,000 (current) to $4M annually.
(or 10% of overall fare revenue.)
That's right. 100% of fare revenue on the route.....bye, bye,....and 10% of everything else.
Thanks for stopping by.
It is encouraging to see that Metrolinx appears committed to treating users and non-users fairly.
Poorly.
Monde
Good news,...we'll save $900,000.00 by phasing out paper tickets.
ReplyDeleteSad reality....we'll pay $4.5M for the privilege.
Fred.