Is competition law actually negative in commercial bus operations?

[geoffk]

As many Forum members know, before 1986, when buses were deregulated outside London, many bus services were run jointly by two or more operators, who ran at regular headways and accepted each other’s return tickets. Revenue was apportioned on a mileage basis. The arrangement worked well for both operators and passengers but all this was blown apart by deregulation, when operators were forced to compete and co-operation of this kind was outlawed. Since then, the Office of Fair Trading and its successors have tried to pursue a single-minded approach to anti-competitive behaviour, backed by the penal force of the Competition Act, which totally disregarded the Government’s stated agenda to promote public transport as it fails to recognise the structure of the transport industry or the market in which it operates. Public transport integration, and many of the measures which help to promote it, will, by definition, distort competition in the way that the competition authorities define it. We have the usual British muddle, somewhere between a stated desire for integration on the one hand and the rigid application of free-market dogma on the other.

For public transport to succeed, Government has to encourage integrated operation, which means radical changes to the way the legislation is implemented. It means giving higher priority to integration than preventing collusion between operators, particularly when we consider just how small is the current share of the local travel market taken by the bus (around 6%, maybe less?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

For public transport to succeed, Government has to encourage integrated operation, which means radical changes to the way the legislation is implemented. It means giving higher priority to integration than preventing collusion between operators, particularly when we consider just how small is the current share of the local travel market taken by the bus (around 6%, maybe less?)

This, to me, is exactly it. There is very little to gain by competing within one part of a market where that part has such a tiny share. What bus companies need to concentrate on, other than serving their existing customers so they stay as customers and don't go off and buy cars instead (or use Uber or whatever), is on attracting people out of cars.

Sometimes "competing" offerings can diversify and grow the market. This is very much the case for the London Northwestern Railway (LNR) long distance "budget" operations plus to an extent Chiltern. While there is no doubt some to-ing and fro-ing between Avanti and LNR of passengers on various bases, be that price or preferring 350s or Pendolinos as per the individual's taste, this is not primarily what the split offering does - demonstrated by plenty of European nationalised railways "competing with themselves" in this manner. But most of the time, operators (and the law) would be better forgetting about whether they are Stagecoach or First, and paying more attention to the traffic jam in which the bus is sitting, which is not only its biggest competitor but also causes serious issues to its operation.

It very much seems that in only a few places - Trent and Transdev seem to be key ones (it's Alex Hornby and Ray Stenning again!), and then there's Stagecoach Gold etc - is serious effort put into how to make people move from car to bus, possibly because it's just a bit more effort than spatting with other bus companies by running a minute ahead or charging 10p less and sticking with the typical urban "captive market" of a mix of schoolkids, passholders, non-drivers and people for whom parking in the city centre costs way too much. But this could do better if companies were allowed to collaborate as they wished - hence the proposal of the thread.

 

[Dai Corner]

As many Forum members know, before 1986, when buses were deregulated outside London, many bus services were run jointly by two or more operators, who ran at regular headways and accepted each other’s return tickets. Revenue was apportioned on a mileage basis. The arrangement worked well for both operators and passengers but all this was blown apart by deregulation, when operators were forced to compete and co-operation of this kind was outlawed. Since then, the Office of Fair Trading and its successors have tried to pursue a single-minded approach to anti-competitive behaviour, backed by the penal force of the Competition Act, which totally disregarded the Government’s stated agenda to promote public transport as it fails to recognise the structure of the transport industry or the market in which it operates. Public transport integration, and many of the measures which help to promote it, will, by definition, distort competition in the way that the competition authorities define it. We have the usual British muddle, somewhere between a stated desire for integration on the one hand and the rigid application of free-market dogma on the other.

For public transport to succeed, Government has to encourage integrated operation, which means radical changes to the way the legislation is implemented. It means giving higher priority to integration than preventing collusion between operators, particularly when we consider just how small is the current share of the local travel market taken by the bus (around 6%, maybe less?)

Cardiff Bus and Newport Transport jointly run the 30 between the two cities with coordinated timetables. There are a variety of fares depending on whether you want validity on other CB or NT routes, both or all operators in the south-east Wales area.

How do they get away with that?

 

[RT4038]

As many Forum members know, before 1986, when buses were deregulated outside London, many bus services were run jointly by two or more operators, who ran at regular headways and accepted each other’s return tickets. Revenue was apportioned on a mileage basis. The arrangement worked well for both operators and passengers but all this was blown apart by deregulation, when operators were forced to compete and co-operation of this kind was outlawed. Since then, the Office of Fair Trading and its successors have tried to pursue a single-minded approach to anti-competitive behaviour, backed by the penal force of the Competition Act, which totally disregarded the Government’s stated agenda to promote public transport as it fails to recognise the structure of the transport industry or the market in which it operates. Public transport integration, and many of the measures which help to promote it, will, by definition, distort competition in the way that the competition authorities define it. We have the usual British muddle, somewhere between a stated desire for integration on the one hand and the rigid application of free-market dogma on the other.

For public transport to succeed, Government has to encourage integrated operation, which means radical changes to the way the legislation is implemented. It means giving higher priority to integration than preventing collusion between operators, particularly when we consider just how small is the current share of the local travel market taken by the bus (around 6%, maybe less?)

On a point of accuracy - in the 15 or so years prior to deregulation relatively few routes were jointly operated by different undertakings - it was mostly between different constituents of the same company (NBC / SBG / PTE). In this period generally revenue was kept by the subsidiary/depot where it was accrued. Joint working between subsidiaries/ divisions of different ultimate owners was relatively unusual, and even then pooling of revenue had become fairly unusual (except for long distance coaches), they tended to be joint timetables only. The privatisation and split up of the big undertakings, revealed all sorts of fault lines on these joint services, although it was possible to apply for a block exemption fee companies did this as they wanted full control of their route.

 

[carlberry]

Cardiff Bus and Newport Transport jointly run the 30 between the two cities with coordinated timetables. There are a variety of fares depending on whether you want validity on other CB or NT routes, both or all operators in the south-east Wales area.

How do they get away with that?

Because they've been 'getting away with it' for a long time! Any arrangement that predated deregulation could continue to operate in the same way, with each operator registering what it operated. Rhymney Valley and Islwyn (plus many others in the area) also operated joint routes at the time however, as operators have been taken over, the arrangements have been abandoned. Newport did stir things up with it's X30 a few years ago however this would be an example where a new joint operation would have fallen fowl of competition law.

 

[Citistar]

In this instance, @Citistar is stating First West of England (under James Freeman) wanted the Avon Rider ticket to have primacy (and it did carry a 50p premium on solely First products) but group got cold feet, and it certainly wasn't promoted on First buses. Mind you, some other firms drivers didn't even realise they were in the scheme! As an aside, the First products are increasing in value but don't know if the Avon Rider tickets are changing so some interesting price comparisons.... Another one for @Citistar - was this being brokered by an independent organisation. TravelWest would be the obvious one and would that have got around competition issues?

TravelWest would have been aware of the proposals as they had representation at the meeting where JF got excited enough to push for it to become reality. In my opinion, First WoE could or should have asked for the West of England Partnership (WEP, as was at the time) to have approached the Competition regulators on behalf of all concerned. Instead, First Group HQ fired back to say a straight "can't legally happen" and it all got dropped.

The answer to this is that it makes more sense to offer cheaper passes based on zones rather than on which arbitrary routes a given bus company operates - Merseytravel's long-running area/zone system is one of the best designed in my view. Though in some cases, such as Manchester, split by operator gives you a crude zonal system anyway.

My experience was that the Merseytravel system worked fairly well until it was significantly undercut by single operator offerings once MTL got broken up. I also wasn't a fan of the significant premium attached to peak hour ticket prices compared to the "SaveAway" off peak offering.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Something like what has happened in Oxford, as related by Roger French?

Oxford’s bus routes rationalised again

Saturday 8th January 2022 This week has seen further rationalisation between Go-Ahead owned Oxford Bus and Stagecoach Oxford simplifying which bus company operates which routes. Long gone are the d…

busandtrainuser.com

Yes, but two routes (1/5 City Centre-Blackbird Leys and 8 City Centre-Barton) are still joint Oxford Bus Company-Stagecoach routes. Although I do predict that joint operation will eventually end, with either Stagecoach or Oxford Bus Company entirely taking over these routes.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

TravelWest would have been aware of the proposals as they had representation at the meeting where JF got excited enough to push for it to become reality. In my opinion, First WoE could or should have asked for the West of England Partnership (WEP, as was at the time) to have approached the Competition regulators on behalf of all concerned. Instead, First Group HQ fired back to say a straight "can't legally happen" and it all got dropped.

Seems very odd when there were other agreements that, I think, were brokered by local councils - BaNES did something (was it the 349 or the A4?) and North Somerset for the Nailsea routes?

This might be a bit naive but surely First could've kept their own tickets but soft pedalled the promotion of them? The cerise price stickers for their Bristol product seemed aimed at actively promoting their product.

 

[johncrossley]

My experience was that the Merseytravel system worked fairly well until it was significantly undercut by single operator offerings once MTL got broken up.

Eh? How is this different to the situations in other places where the all operator ticket is supposed to be "acceptable" even though they are undercut by single operator offerings?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2022 ==

The point the poster concerned (might have been daodao?) made is whether you then want to spread that financial pain to people who don't need a multi operator ticket

If that issue is so important, then it would be better for a town operated by a single company to introduce additional brands within that town so that passengers who don't need the whole network in that town could get a cheaper ticket.

 

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

If this post were in regards to privatisation “or” nationalisation, right now I’d go with neither.

public bus transport has very low priority as a key service atm.

the GOV & local authorities atm don’t seems to be coming through with something that’s well funded to help keep fares low.

if you franchise something to operate as a “whole” does the ticket prices to people buy for these public services fall, surely prices could be reduced if there is no more competitive behaviour soaking up revenue?

 

[Dai Corner]

If this post were in regards to privatisation “or” nationalisation, right now I’d go with neither.

public bus transport has very low priority as a key service atm.

the GOV & local authorities atm don’t seems to be coming through with something that’s well funded to help keep fares low.

if you franchise something to operate as a “whole” does the ticket prices to people buy for these public services fall, surely prices could be reduced if there is no more competitive behaviour soaking up revenue?

Fares would be as high or low as the funding authorities wanted and that would depend on how much they were prepared to subside them or how much money they wanted to raise to keep taxes down and/or fund other services.

 

[RT4038]

if you franchise something to operate as a “whole” does the ticket prices to people buy for these public services fall, surely prices could be reduced if there is no more competitive behaviour soaking up revenue?

Well that surely depends on how much additional revenue the competitive behaviour generated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If this post were in regards to privatisation “or” nationalisation, right now I’d go with neither.

public bus transport has very low priority as a key service atm.

the GOV & local authorities atm don’t seems to be coming through with something that’s well funded to help keep fares low.

if you franchise something to operate as a “whole” does the ticket prices to people buy for these public services fall, surely prices could be reduced if there is no more competitive behaviour soaking up revenue?

Unlike my usual pro regulation line, this is more of a "how could we tweak the existing system to get better integration at no cost to the taxpayer".

 

[Trnsprt4Sctlnd]

Unlike my usual pro regulation line, this is more of a "how could we tweak the existing system to get better integration at no cost to the taxpayer".

There’s always going to be a heightened cost surely when the operator is a private one?

Even those private operators behind the TFL/London Buses franchise will be no doubt walking away with a healthy profit…

Until profit margins are reabsorbed back into the service it was generated from SURELY no public bus operation is going to be one wholly operated well & at low a cost as possible.

 

[johncrossley]

There’s always going to be a heightened cost surely when the operator is a private one?

Even those private operators behind the TFL/London Buses franchise will be no doubt walking away with a healthy profit…

Until profit margins are reabsorbed back into the service it was generated from SURELY no public bus operation is going to be one wholly operated well & at low a cost as possible.

You usually need compulsory tendering to get the best value for the taxpayer. That's usually cheaper than either a publicly owned and run service (hence the desire for privatisation in the first place) or a privately owned service that isn't subject to compulsory tendering (which is a worry regarding future partnerships). If there is a *genuine* threat of compulsory tendering, then you *might* be able to get value for money without actually doing it.

 

[Citistar]

Seems very odd when there were other agreements that, I think, were brokered by local councils - BaNES did something (was it the 349 or the A4?) and North Somerset for the Nailsea routes?

B&NES brokered the Abus/First 349 deal and renegotiated it on at least a couple of occasions. I've no idea how the A4 arrangements were arrived at. The North Somerset routes to Nailsea were a result of the North Somerset Coaches operation on services X54/55 which was taken over by Abus. As part of a kickstart scheme, the council offered to fund additional journeys and a joint bid was made for the money with Abus taking over all or part of the X8 and X9 services at various points.

This might be a bit naive but surely First could've kept their own tickets but soft pedalled the promotion of them? The cerise price stickers for their Bristol product seemed aimed at actively promoting their product.

First have made minimal effort with AvonRider products, even more infuriatingly so since the prices of adult day tickets were harmonised.

Eh? How is this different to the situations in other places where the all operator ticket is supposed to be "acceptable" even though they are undercut by single operator offerings?

As a consumer, I don't think a premium price for an all operator ticket is the correct state of affairs unless it is offering something significantly over and above the single operator offerings. Even as an operator around the margins of a dominant major operator network, i'd much rather be part of a wider network with as few barriers to usage as possible.

I was pointing out that use of the Merseytravel products must have slumped once MTL was split up and Arriva and Stagecoach introduced (and promoted) their own network tickets.

 

[johncrossley]

As a consumer, I don't think a premium price for an all operator ticket is the correct state of affairs unless it is offering something significantly over and above the single operator offerings. Even as an operator around the margins of a dominant major operator network, i'd much rather be part of a wider network with as few barriers to usage as possible.

Ah, OK I got confused and assumed that you shared the prevailing forum view on this matter.

 

[tbtc]

Has the whole concept of price segmentation escaped you?

I know it's been explained to you before, but let's try again. I think all posters on here would like multi-operator tickets, and in many places, they exist. The question is whether they should attract a premium as, in most walks of life, something that has more functionality usually attracts a price premium. Surely you recognise this as a thing?

If you then decide that you wish to have the enhanced product at a higher price, should someone that doesn't need that enhanced functionality be able to purchase a lesser product at a lesser price. Essentially, you can have Tesco or Tesco Value but you would seem not to want people to have the choice. Or that Tesco Value didn't exist but that you could have Tesco at the Value price. Hey, wouldn't we all want sirloin for the price of mince!

Agreed

I guess I'm lucky to live in an area (Sheffield) where I have the option of day/week tickets for just one operator or for multiple operators - I wish everyone had such choices

It's funny that we have rail pages here where the Received Wisdom seems to be that it's good to have price differentiation on certain corridors to grow the market (e.g. if you force everyone to pay for "all operator" tickets between London and Birmingham then fewer people will travel, as some of the price conscious folk who currently accept the slower Chiltern/LNW routes won't be prepared to pay for the "normal" tickets - we need to have the choice of saving money on a Northern 150 to travel between cities instead of a faster TPE service)...

...but on the bus pages the Received Wisdom seems to be that enabling passengers to save money with a one-operator ticket is A Bad Thing

Route specific day/weekly tickets seem to have gone out of fashion in recent years, but I used to be able to buy a weekly ticket only valid on certain Mainline services (e.g. a "Red" one for the 53/75/76 corridor between Ecclesfield and Lowedges) or a city-wide Mainline ticket or a city-wide ticket valid on all operators - each priced accordingly, letting people save cash by only buying just enough rather than forcing them to pay full whack for an "all you can eat" option

Similarly, I can choose whether I want to pay for just buses or include trams too

Enthusiasts like network-wide tickets that can allow us to travel on dozens of different routes/ several operators, but a lot of the bus passenger demographic are fairly price sensitive. Whilst a city wide all operator ticket seems to be much better value than a route specific/operator specific one, a number of people on the bus might not be able to take advantage of that (in the way that I can buy ten tins of beans at a much cheaper price per unit than buying them individually but if I only have a quid in my pocket then I can only afford a single tin)

We accept a world where mobile phone contracts allow the choice of mega data bundles or Pay As You Go for the people who can't afford that, we accept supermarkets selling us different levels of "luxury", we accept only having to pay for what you actually use with several other markets

There's also the issue that a lot of bus passengers are just doing a simple return journey (e.g. from home to work/shop and back again), they don't have time or need for ten different routes - it's nice that there's the option to make multiple journeys but forcing people to pay for the freedom to tour the entire city is meaningless for many people

Plus there's the problem that, if you force operators to accept tickets sold by other companies (that don't attract the premium paid for PTE tickets) you are going to make some services uneconomical - e.g. at the moment I might have the choice of Corporate Coaches operating an all day service but with a competitive daytime service from Speedy Bus as well - if I know that I can buy a Speedy Bus ticket in the morning and return home in the evening on any Corporate Coaches service then that's great for me but it now means that the big operator are effectively allowing people on board for free, meaning they are getting less revenue, meaning the validity of their evening service may be called into question (and evening services are already a struggle in a world of pub/ bingo closures etc). Heck, some operators may game the system by only operating in the morning peak, why bother to run at tea time when you've got the money from flogging lots of "day tickets" in the morning, might as well let some other sucker take these people home without getting paid for it!

Again though, this is another thread where some people are taking the attitude that "this works in one place, so should be rolled out as standard across the UK" - it doesn't work like that - some cities have different price elasticities to others - some cities may have two operators that can trust each other to work together for a shared network but others have an uneasy relationship and forcing them to accept each other's tickets for no extra money would cause services to be reduced

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If that issue is so important, then it would be better for a town operated by a single company to introduce additional brands within that town so that passengers who don't need the whole network in that town could get a cheaper ticket.

Well, you'd have to speak to the poster who originally made the point. However, in the same instance, you'd doubtless want the distinction between modes removed as well and all for the same low price?

I guess I'm lucky to live in an area (Sheffield) where I have the option of day/week tickets for just one operator or for multiple operators - I wish everyone had such choices

It's funny that we have rail pages here where the Received Wisdom seems to be that it's good to have price differentiation on certain corridors to grow the market (e.g. if you force everyone to pay for "all operator" tickets between London and Birmingham then fewer people will travel, as some of the price conscious folk who currently accept the slower Chiltern/LNW routes won't be prepared to pay for the "normal" tickets - we need to have the choice of saving money on a Northern 150 to travel between cities instead of a faster TPE service)...

...but on the bus pages the Received Wisdom seems to be that enabling passengers to save money with a one-operator ticket is A Bad Thing

Route specific day/weekly tickets seem to have gone out of fashion in recent years, but I used to be able to buy a weekly ticket only valid on certain Mainline services (e.g. a "Red" one for the 53/75/76 corridor between Ecclesfield and Lowedges) or a city-wide Mainline ticket or a city-wide ticket valid on all operators - each priced accordingly, letting people save cash by only buying just enough rather than forcing them to pay full whack for an "all you can eat" option

Similarly, I can choose whether I want to pay for just buses or include trams too

Enthusiasts like network-wide tickets that can allow us to travel on dozens of different routes/ several operators, but a lot of the bus passenger demographic are fairly price sensitive. Whilst a city wide all operator ticket seems to be much better value than a route specific/operator specific one, a number of people on the bus might not be able to take advantage of that (in the way that I can buy ten tins of beans at a much cheaper price per unit than buying them individually but if I only have a quid in my pocket then I can only afford a single tin)

We accept a world where mobile phone contracts allow the choice of mega data bundles or Pay As You Go for the people who can't afford that, we accept supermarkets selling us different levels of "luxury", we accept only having to pay for what you actually use with several other markets

There's also the issue that a lot of bus passengers are just doing a simple return journey (e.g. from home to work/shop and back again), they don't have time or need for ten different routes - it's nice that there's the option to make multiple journeys but forcing people to pay for the freedom to tour the entire city is meaningless for many people

Plus there's the problem that, if you force operators to accept tickets sold by other companies (that don't attract the premium paid for PTE tickets) you are going to make some services uneconomical - e.g. at the moment I might have the choice of Corporate Coaches operating an all day service but with a competitive daytime service from Speedy Bus as well - if I know that I can buy a Speedy Bus ticket in the morning and return home in the evening on any Corporate Coaches service then that's great for me but it now means that the big operator are effectively allowing people on board for free, meaning they are getting less revenue, meaning the validity of their evening service may be called into question (and evening services are already a struggle in a world of pub/ bingo closures etc). Heck, some operators may game the system by only operating in the morning peak, why bother to run at tea time when you've got the money from flogging lots of "day tickets" in the morning, might as well let some other sucker take these people home without getting paid for it!

Again though, this is another thread where some people are taking the attitude that "this works in one place, so should be rolled out as standard across the UK" - it doesn't work like that - some cities have different price elasticities to others - some cities may have two operators that can trust each other to work together for a shared network but others have an uneasy relationship and forcing them to accept each other's tickets for no extra money would cause services to be reduced

Some very well made points.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed

I guess I'm lucky to live in an area (Sheffield) where I have the option of day/week tickets for just one operator or for multiple operators - I wish everyone had such choices

It's funny that we have rail pages here where the Received Wisdom seems to be that it's good to have price differentiation on certain corridors to grow the market (e.g. if you force everyone to pay for "all operator" tickets between London and Birmingham then fewer people will travel, as some of the price conscious folk who currently accept the slower Chiltern/LNW routes won't be prepared to pay for the "normal" tickets - we need to have the choice of saving money on a Northern 150 to travel between cities instead of a faster TPE service)...

Yes and no. A lot of the difference is because bus is primarily a local mode of transport (this thread has not gone towards coaches), and rail is more mixed.

My personal view is that local, and certainly urban, transport systems need to be integrated well. This is because you are never going to provide direct routes that serve all or even most urban transport needs unless you have connections, and the most efficient way to do that (financially, and in most cases in terms of journey speed) is going to be to have each mode doing what it does best, so a short bus journey to connect to a longer rail journey. We also want to avoid people being charged more for a short journey involving two vehicles than a long journey involving one, because that is doubly disadvantaging them.

Long distance, it is much less of an issue, because generally people want either the quickest or cheapest route, and a direct train or coach if there is one, and it is of no relevance as to whether they can use their ticket on any collection of obscure routes enthusiasts might want to use. Not to mention that it is very often cheaper to ticket legs separately. We can also put coaches here. So does it matter that Megabus and NatEx have separate ticketing systems? Nowhere near as much as it does for urban buses and only really at all in severe disruption; the useful thing would be to allow an online through booking in the manner of PlusBus, though, and if competition law does dissuade that being done unless Bob's Buses want in, then that needs changing too. (Though I am not sure it does)

So it is not incongruous at all. It is the very different needs of an urban transport network (which needs to act as a network) and the long distance one (which still does, but much less so and in a different way).

Edit: But this is off on a tangent with regard to this thread, which is more about removing legislation that really benefits almost nobody when it comes to public transport, but prevents bus companies making a commercial decision to collaborate, which would bring benefits. It would not remove single operator tickets unless bus companies wished to do so.

 

[JamesT]

It's interesting that we will do that for energy (where companies can only set prices of "£X per day standing charge plus £Y per kWh" - no other formats are allowed other than fixed time-based variation of Y for Economy 7 and Economy 10 - the reason being to ease comparison) but not for bus travel.

I’m not sure how concrete a rule that is that that’s the only format allowed. It would seem to preclude Octopus’s Agile tariff which tracks the wholesale rate every half hour?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2022 ==

Yes, but two routes (1/5 City Centre-Blackbird Leys and 8 City Centre-Barton) are still joint Oxford Bus Company-Stagecoach routes. Although I do predict that joint operation will eventually end, with either Stagecoach or Oxford Bus Company entirely taking over these routes.

Those are probably the most well used routes in Oxford, I can’t see either company willingly giving up a share of them.

 

[RT4038]

There’s always going to be a heightened cost surely when the operator is a private one?

Only, perhaps, if you assume that the franchising/tendering authority is as commercially astute as the private operator will likely be, and that is one huge, huge assumption. Cost is not only that from the operator, it is also the administration of the system (including cost of ensuring compliance) and any difference between revenue and tendering costs.

Even those private operators behind the TFL/London Buses franchise will be no doubt walking away with a healthy profit…

With TfL picking up a very large tab, of the difference between revenue and the tender prices.

Until profit margins are reabsorbed back into the service it was generated from SURELY no public bus operation is going to be one wholly operated well & at low a cost as possible.

Turning this on its head, SURELY no public bus operation is going to be wholly operated well & at as low a cost as possible until the bureaucratic administration of a franchising/tendering operation, and the political interference endemic in such systems, has been removed.

 

[johncrossley]

Well, you'd have to speak to the poster who originally made the point. However, in the same instance, you'd doubtless want the distinction between modes removed as well and all for the same low price?

Where rail is an integral part of the urban transport system then if you don't include it then you are not fully taking advantage of connection possibilities. You don't want people avoiding changing mode because of the fare. Where "rail" means metro or tram, particularly when they are part of the same organisation as the buses, then they are commonly included (outside Britain and Ireland).

 

[daodao]

Where rail is an integral part of the urban transport system then if you don't include it then you are not fully taking advantage of connection possibilities. You don't want people avoiding changing mode because of the fare. Where "rail" means metro or tram, particularly when they are part of the same organisation as the buses, then they are commonly included (outside Britain and Ireland).

For the elderly with free bus passes, there is a strong financial disincentive to using rail (or tram, where it exists) for local journeys.

 

[johncrossley]

For the elderly with free bus passes, there is a strong financial disincentive to using rail (or tram, where it exists) for local journeys.

Discounted or free transport schemes in urban areas in other countries often include the same modes that regular tickets are valid for. So if you can use a full priced ticket for a single journey involving a connection between bus and tram, the same will typically apply for such schemes. It probably wouldn't even cross someone's mind that a ticket valid on a bus might not be valid on a tram. Ireland's free travel scheme includes all transport, even long distance trains.

 

[Meerkat]

There’s always going to be a heightened cost surely when the operator is a private one?

Even those private operators behind the TFL/London Buses franchise will be no doubt walking away with a healthy profit…

Until profit margins are reabsorbed back into the service it was generated from SURELY no public bus operation is going to be one wholly operated well & at low a cost as possible.

Didn't tendering German rail services get the local authorities up to 30% discounts on what DB were charging them? If there is no competition there is little reason to be efficient - which is hard work and makes you less popular with your staff than just normal jogging. That applies to public services as well as private companies.
To fit with what the thread starter wants I guess that means an authority picking the routes/timetables/fares and tendering them out, maybe with some looser specs so operators can suggest cheaper and/or more effective plans.

 

[tbtc]

Yes and no. A lot of the difference is because bus is primarily a local mode of transport (this thread has not gone towards coaches), and rail is more mixed.

My personal view is that local, and certainly urban, transport systems need to be integrated well. This is because you are never going to provide direct routes that serve all or even most urban transport needs unless you have connections, and the most efficient way to do that (financially, and in most cases in terms of journey speed) is going to be to have each mode doing what it does best, so a short bus journey to connect to a longer rail journey. We also want to avoid people being charged more for a short journey involving two vehicles than a long journey involving one, because that is doubly disadvantaging them.

Long distance, it is much less of an issue, because generally people want either the quickest or cheapest route, and a direct train or coach if there is one, and it is of no relevance as to whether they can use their ticket on any collection of obscure routes enthusiasts might want to use. Not to mention that it is very often cheaper to ticket legs separately. We can also put coaches here. So does it matter that Megabus and NatEx have separate ticketing systems? Nowhere near as much as it does for urban buses and only really at all in severe disruption; the useful thing would be to allow an online through booking in the manner of PlusBus, though, and if competition law does dissuade that being done unless Bob's Buses want in, then that needs changing too. (Though I am not sure it does)

So it is not incongruous at all. It is the very different needs of an urban transport network (which needs to act as a network) and the long distance one (which still does, but much less so and in a different way).

Edit: But this is off on a tangent with regard to this thread, which is more about removing legislation that really benefits almost nobody when it comes to public transport, but prevents bus companies making a commercial decision to collaborate, which would bring benefits. It would not remove single operator tickets unless bus companies wished to do so.

re the bit in bold - most bus passengers are doing simple return journeys - e.g. into town and home again - you're focusing far too much on connecting between different services and different modes of transport and longer journeys, which is all well and good, but it suggests that you're more focussed on enthusiasts galavanting around than ordinary members of the public

Put it another way - I read recently that 75% of crisps sold in the UK are Ready Salted/ Cheese & Onion/ Salt & Vinegar - maybe that doesn't sound very exciting to a lot of people but that's what the Great British Public want - it feels like we spend a lot of time on here doing the equivalent of arguing about whether we need to have a Spicy Hedgehog flavour of crisps for those who aren't satisfied with "regular" Hedgehog flavour and missing the point that this would only benefit a tiny fraction of the population

It's the same with the "all bus routes must be diverted to serve the city centre train station" arguments that keep getting brought up - all well intentioned no doubt but we'd get a lot more cars off the road and create "greener" towns and cities if we focussed more on the basics of providing people with a simple and reliable service from their suburb into the town/city centre

 

[johncrossley]

re the bit in bold - most bus passengers are doing simple return journeys - e.g. into town and home again - you're focusing far too much on connecting between different services and different modes of transport and longer journeys, which is all well and good, but it suggests that you're more focussed on enthusiasts galavanting around than ordinary members of the public

The British fare system is actually geared towards favouring heavy usage with single tickets typically being very expensive and day tickets often being only slightly more expensive, meaning that even simple there and back journeys, particularly ones that involve a change, need a day ticket. Day tickets in other countries are sometimes quite high priced compared to single tickets, meaning that passengers who do a simple there and back journey just get a single each way, because singles allow interchange.

 

[Statto]

As many Forum members know, before 1986, when buses were deregulated outside London, many bus services were run jointly by two or more operators, who ran at regular headways and accepted each other’s return tickets. Revenue was apportioned on a mileage basis. The arrangement worked well for both operators and passengers but all this was blown apart by deregulation, when operators were forced to compete and co-operation of this kind was outlawed. Since then, the Office of Fair Trading and its successors have tried to pursue a single-minded approach to anti-competitive behaviour, backed by the penal force of the Competition Act, which totally disregarded the Government’s stated agenda to promote public transport as it fails to recognise the structure of the transport industry or the market in which it operates. Public transport integration, and many of the measures which help to promote it, will, by definition, distort competition in the way that the competition authorities define it. We have the usual British muddle, somewhere between a stated desire for integration on the one hand and the rigid application of free-market dogma on the other.

For public transport to succeed, Government has to encourage integrated operation, which means radical changes to the way the legislation is implemented. It means giving higher priority to integration than preventing collusion between operators, particularly when we consider just how small is the current share of the local travel market taken by the bus (around 6%, maybe less?)

There were a few joint services long after deregulation, the X8 Chester to Banks being jointly operated by North Western & Crosville, as was the daytime 21 Chester to Runcorn.

Joint services do operate these days, normally with agreement by the travel authority. There are a few Arriva, Stagecoach joint services in Merseyside, under the bus quality partnership. I think Sheffield has a couple of routes under this scheme too

 

[RT4038]

To fit with what the thread starter wants I guess that means an authority picking the routes/timetables/fares and tendering them out, maybe with some looser specs so operators can suggest cheaper and/or more effective plans.

And what check would there be that the authority was picking the most effective routes/timetables/fares? Would these looser specs mean operators suggesting cheaper and/or more effective plans for them to be stolen by the authority and retendered on some pretext?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jan 2022 ==

Unlike my usual pro regulation line, this is more of a "how could we tweak the existing system to get better integration at no cost to the taxpayer".

I think that is a holy grail which the DfT are desperately searching for.