@ Nerd - an interesting list of factors. Let's take them in turn and see if the 1986 brains on sticks were right.
- Subsidy. Well yes it has declined but concessionary revenue and BSOG remain and are significant earners for many operators. Blame Gordon Brown for the concessionary scheme issues.
- Smaller buses. Pretty much completely wrong on that. Double deckers remain a significant force in many fleets. The demand for low floor vehicles has pushed up vehicle sizes.
- More frequency variation. Pretty much wrong on that. Congestion means peak services are often less frequent than off peak. I don't see vast variations in frequencies at route level because it's easier to market easy to remember frequencies.
- Route not network. Varies this one. Where an operator has a local monopoly or dominance then networks are marketed. Obviously viability / profitability is assessed at route level given the way investment in service levels / vehicle specs now operates.
- Cross subsidy gone. Ridley, of course, expected no cross subsidy within routes so contra peak direction buses would run oos to then take up busy peak direction jnys. Of course this doesn't happen - operators run the same levels both ways on almost all services. By Ridley's definition there is cross subsidy at route level and I think there may be some at network level with some operators. Clearly the large scale cross subsidy which supported longer service hours / bigger networks has gone - to the detriment of the poor souls who relied on such services.
- High levels of competition on busy routes. Nope not really. Existed short term until competition was crushed out of the way. Only a few examples remain of multi operator competition and even in Oxford it has been "regulated" to reduce city centre congestion. Barriers to entry are immensely high because of the ability of incumbents to sustain high levels of competition and protect their investment. Running 1 or 2 bph against a 12bph service is pointless IMO.
- Low demand routes. Yep pretty much destroyed in many places and more destruction to come courtesy of funding cuts.
- Weekly / monthly tickets. Pretty much survived and prospered at operator level as a way of buying customer loyalty. Multi operator ticketing has been neglected and, if you a competition authority, actively discouraged.
- Operators much smaller. Hardly. A few survive in odd places like Harlow and in some rural corners but big groups predominate.
- Quality factors. Ironically much of what you list is important to bus users and has been emphasised and promoted by bus companies and some local authorities.
So overall a complete failure if set it against the "savants'" desires. :roll:
First of all, I don't think you can say it is a complete failure even against those stated desires (though confused by your savant reference)
Of course, it's almost impossible to predict what can happen especially with external factors etc. Had you predicted what would happen in 1956, what would you have expected to happen? That bus journeys would decline from 15.5m to 5.6m over that time? That there would be factors such as massive complacency in bus operators, fare increases outstripping inflation for reasons attributable and independent of the operators, and then social factors (e.g. TV to a mass market destroying evening leisure trips to cinemas) etc
BSOG does indeed still exist but the overall level of subsidy is much reduced. However, and I do get bored of saying it,
ENCTS remuneration is NOT a subsidy. It's payment for services provided.
Vehicle design has indeed changed and, to be honest, such a thing tends to be cyclical. In the 1960s, it was standee single decks (because of union rules etc regarding what was called OMO). By the late 70's, deckers were coming back into vogue heavily as staff shortages meant headways were widened or to improve efficiencies. Then we had minibuses, then into the super mini as the Dart appeared, and now back to deckers. However, when you look outside London (and perhaps a few other locations), the number of deckers is still much less than it used to be. And yes, you're right to cite the issue of low floor design as pushing the designs to be larger to accommodate the same number of passengers.
Cross subsidy in it's broadest sense has gone and that is actually no bad thing in some respects. The idea that a good route should be milked and adversely affected to prop up some dead duck has been demonstrated to be counter productive. Arguably, it is better to be upfront and levy tax and then subsidise which is what was happening until this austerity agenda, a hollowing out of state support for ideological reasons under the camouflage of some necessity.
The consolidation of operators was ALWAYS going to happen. As in any market, the law of duopoly kicks in unless the authorities act at a certain point! Therefore, we have some large players and that was always going to happen unless they legislated (which they didn't). Same as the ENCTS debacle was an example of ignoring price elasticity on demand. Why politicians think economic theory suddenly won't apply....well, perhaps it's just a bit expedient, eh?
That said, there are many more operators than there were even with these obvious statements. My home county of North Yorkshire was home to three main NBC operators viz United, West Yorkshire and West Riding predominantly with only a very few independents (e.g. Handleys of Middleham, Burrells of Newsham, John Smith in Dalton).
Now we have Arriva NE and EYMS (in place of United), Arriva (in place of West Riding) and Transdev and First (in place of West Yorkshire) in the main commercial areas. Moreover, large tracts notably the Vale of York and into the Dales have been vacated by the large groups even before the NYCC subsidy cuts. Instead, we have a raft of lower cost independents instead.
I know what was said prior to deregulation but any prediction of 30 years hence is based only what we know now being extrapolated. The only certainty is that it will be wrong - an affirmation of the wider "Half life of facts".
BTW, whilst I may not agree with all you've said Paul, I can't deny that you have a lot of very valid points!
