It’s official. Research by consultancy Réseaulutions shows that towns & cities with monopoly bus services perform better than networks subject to competition. OFT, put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Réseaulutions has undertaken a comparison of urban bus systems in 131 centres in England. Its findings are available on the web, for the OFT to see.
This, then, is an important study that aims to benchmark towns of similar populations. What it doesn’t consider, unfortunately, is population density and external factors such as affluence (car availability) and honey pots. Taken together, these simple facts may determine why seemingly similar towns have so different a level of service.
Chances are your town will be included. If it is not (Scotland, Wales), you can use the methodology on the web site to benchmark your own area
Nevertheless, the results indicate that single supplier networks *tended* to offer higher frequency routes to more of its population. Conversely, the consultants show that where there are two or more dominant operators, there *tended* to be a smaller proportion of the population with access to a good service. A good service was defined at levels at or up to every 10 minutes during the day.
Percentage of good services (y axis) v population (x axis) (population is show logarithmically owing to the large range of values). Monopolies are in yellow. The higher up the graph, the better the service. Click to enlarge
This, however, isn’t the end of the story. By the consultant’s measure, duopolies Leicester (Arriva, First) and Oxford (Oxford Bus Co, Stagecoach) were among the best performers. And the scatter graph showing the levels of activity and the proportion of good bus networks needs some scrutiny. The preponderance of yellow ‘A’ dots to the top of the Percentage of Good Services v Population graph certainly indicates that towns with a single provider networks have a higher proportion of good bus services. But this is by no means universal, as the yellow ‘A’ dots appear lower down.Because the research’s clickable, you can have hours of fun with this report. Pick your town and compare it to others of a similar population and operator structure. Here are two examples.
The Bournemouth with Poole conurbation has a network by Transdev Yellow Buses and Wilts & Dorset. The percentage of good bus services is 53. Similarly-sized Middlesborough (Arriva, Stagecoach) is 65 per cent; and Stoke on Trent (First) is 47. Quite some variance.
Thinks are more conclusive if you compare Salisbury (W&D—57%) with nearby similarly sized neighbour Winchester (Stagecoach—55%). Both are similarly affluent and both enjoy a monopoly. Yet, the figure declines for Newark and Folkestone, towns of similar size to Salisbury, both with a Stagecoach monopoly (both around 35 per cent).
As for the competition authorities, this study excluded such factors as fares and vehicle standards, so the OFT will no doubt claim it still has a remit.
And I suppose the $64,000 question is, why do monopolies *tend* to have a better service in terms of frequencies? Operators spend less time defending their routes and can spread their benefits more widely, perhaps?
i Comparison of Urban Bus Systems from Réseaulutions
2 comments:
... but then again, there is almost no competition between Arriva and Stagecoach on Teesside.
A lot of the duopolies don't actually see any appreciable level of competition. Each operator has its own patch, and they often don't encroach on each other's for fear of starting a price war in which they both lose. This gives all the downsides of competition (fragmentation and lack of interoperability across the network) with all the downsides of a monopoly (risk of higher prices and lack of investment or development).
If competition is to mean anything here, it has to be bus companies going head-to-head on busy corridors. But to make that attractive to both the operators and the passengers, there has to be enough demand for both operators to run high-frequency routes, whether in direct competition or targeting different market sectors. And there are few towns or cities that have any routes that have high enough demand to sustain that.
Take York as an example. First runs the majority of urban services, with Transdev and a local independent running a handful of them under council contract. Arriva, Transdev and various independents run the interurban and rural services out of York. On some key routes, particularly where local services run parallel with long-distance, there are decent levels of service by two operators, but for the most part that just doesn't work. And while a lot of people were pleased to see contracts being given to companies other than First, to dilute their monopoly, what it has meant for the under-60s is that they will often have to pay a lot more, because they need to buy 2 tickets rather than 1, or the choice of bus is limited if they restrict themselves to one operator's tickets, but there is still little incentive for First to improve services to compete against the hotch-potch of subsidised routes.
Monopolies can work well, where the incumbent operator is keen to invest and to build up the market. Most people in the East Riding and former Blazefield country are quite happy to have more or less a single operator, because they do a very good job. People living just a few miles away in York or Selby have First and Arriva to deal with, and don't get such a good deal.
Post a Comment