Bus Deregulation Creates Confusion Which Deters
Potential Passengers From Using The Buses.
In Britain just about anyone can provide a public bus service - all they need to do is buy an often pre-used bus, decide upon a route & timetable and register the services with a local traffic commissioner - who will want to be satisfied that the bus operator is financially sound, will maintain the vehicles to the appropriate safety standards, is capable of operating the published timetable etc.
At no time does a potential bus operator need to pay any regard to any other bus services which might also be operating along the routes it wishes to serve.
Indeed, this means that buses can - and often do - compete against each other for passengers. For many towns and cities on-street "bus wars" became commonplace as vehicles jostle for position and race to be the first to the bus stop - and pocket the fares. After all, its a dog-eat-dog world, and just as people have a choice from which supermarkets they can buy their food so people should be able to also choose which bus company transports them. (quote / unquote government reasoning - see below).
As with the supermarkets most of the bus companies are reputable entities which value their patron's custom and try to give a good service. Nevertheless at times there has been some very shoddy behaviour - especially by bigger companies with deeper pockets - for instance by offering free transport until the incumbent local government company went into receivership. Some very canny bus companies also became very wealthy by buying incumbent bus operators at a knock-down price and then selling the land used by the bus stations; often the value of that land was far greater than the rest of the bus company's assets combined! This was seen to be "good business" even though the subsequent closure of the bus stations - for redevelopment - meant that passengers were then forced to use inconvenient street-based bus stops which offered inadequate facilities (weather protection / shelter, public toilets, etc...)
The stated aims of the national government which introduced this system of deregulated "hands off" bus operations was that it wanted to see bus patronage increase and to control costs by preventing unfettered subsidies. It believed in the free market and hoped that bus companies would become like supermarkets and provide a choice of "high quality luxury" as well "cheap'n'cheerful" services. They cited as an example a situation whereby every year the municipal bus companies would tell their local governments' finance ministers the size of the revenue shortfall - and automatically expect the pre-signed "blank cheque" to cover that amount as if by "divine right". So whilst it was true that some aspects of the bus industry may have been in need of reform the national government seemed to forget that buses were already competing against both the railways and private motoring - and many years (plus a change of government) later these other transports are still favoured by people who, had there been a real (and not a cynical "typical politicians") desire to improve bus transports could have been attracted to using the buses.
The government believed that increasing competitiveness was the only way to increase bus patronage, and to increase competitiveness used its position to force the breakup of existing bus companies which it deemed to be "too big" - even in cities such as Manchester where cut-throat on-street competition between some 70-odd bus companies already existed. The government also wanted to create a situation where the privatised companies would bear the brunt of paying for the necessary investments (to attract increased bus patronage) via funds raised from the stock market, commercial banks, etc
Since then "market forces" has seen the formation of three large groups which can - and it is alleged sometimes do - abuse their size within their own spheres of operations.
In theory all bus operations should now be commercial, ie: pay their way through farebox revenues, however local governments are allowed to "buy-in" services which they feel to be socially needed but the commercial companies are not providing. This costs extra money (ie: is an added burden on local council tax payers) when previously profits from the more profitable bus services would help cross-subsidies the socially necessary services. Nowadays those profits go towards stock market shareholder dividends.
http://www.garden.force9.co.uk/Buses01.htm#Con
Login
Register
FAQ
