Last week, we took aim at CUPE's critical report on privatization, and urged Canadians to consider the source. And we went a step further by claiming that "for-profit" companies can deliver public services "for the public good." This week we show how.

Metropolitan busing. In cities around the world, a well functioning transportation system is essential for the conduct of commerce and quality of life. But many cities run these systems at a big financial loss due to declining ridership and increasing costs for capital (new buses) replacement. In cities around the world, a well functioning transportation system is essential for the conduct of commerce and quality of life. But many cities run these systems at a big financial loss due to declining ridership and increasing costs for capital (new buses) replacement.

In response several cities have parcelled out some of their routes, suburban and core, to private sector providers. Union rhetoric would cry of massive job losses, reduced service and lost routes as the only way the private sector would deliver bus services.

But this is not the case. The way the contracts are structured the private operators get a small monthly subsidy and the opportunity for a larger bonus based on ridership levels and service benchmarks. If more people ride the buses and determine that the service is good (ie: buses are on time, drivers are courteous, buses are clean, remote routes are serviced) then the private sector company makes more money.

This is how public policy motives (more people using public transit) converge with the profit motive of a private company. The private sector also uses its own capital to upgrade the bus fleet and in many instances hires the drivers who used to drive the routes when they were public.

In the end, cities can save scarce dollars for other purposes, passengers get the same or better service and internal competition allows city governments to benchmark their public routes vis-à-vis the private routes.

On and Off-Street Parking. Parking operations are a large source of revenues for many cities. But the costs associated with meter maintenance (replacement, repairs, vandalism) and ticket enforcement are also very high. Parking operations are a large source of revenues for many cities. But the costs associated with meter maintenance (replacement, repairs, vandalism) and ticket enforcement are also very high.

By letting long-term contracts to the private sector, capital costs are decreased and innovative pricing schemes actually increase revenue. Usually the private company will bring in new equipment and provide more off-street parking through the acquisition of vacant lots.

In addition, private sector operators allow their ticket writers the latitude to forgive tickets on the spot as well as setting up shopping-mall type kiosks for ticket payment or dispute. Revenue targets are agreed to in the contract and if targets are exceeded, revenues are shared between the city and the company. If revenues are below target, the private company takes the hit. Again we marry public services with private motives.

Recreation Centres.. The focal points of many communities, large and small, are recreation centres. But building them is costly and upkeep on a 12 to 18 hour daily cycle is difficult.

Again, outside involvement can help. New management will keep most staff because they know the users of the centre better than anyone. But investments in pool and rink repairs, new exercise equipment or expanded aerobics studios can be done by the private entity whereas stretched municipal budgets have prevented such expenditures while under public operation.

Fee schedules are agreed to by the city so public input is possible and price gouging is avoided.

In the end, taxpayers want excellent and safe public services at a fair price (read: reasonable taxes). As we stated last week, governments have a responsibility to set a policy and accountability framework to ensure that services are delivered - but they don't necessarily have to deliver the services.