It may not be the first in the country (as the press releases state) but it probably is the most significant & all-embracing.
We’re referring to the Oxford Solution new deal that will come into operation in a month’s time. The 2008 Local Transport Act-inspired partnership sees:
- Combined timetables replacing competitive services along four main corridors
- Inter-availability of tickets on most (though not all) routes within the city boundary
- For passengers, the network becomes open to all, with season & transfer tickets accepted by the Oxford Bus Company, Stagecoach & Thames Travel
- For operators, there’s a reduction in PVR along four corridors by as much as a third, something that improves the bottom line but offers no less a service since there’s now widespread inter-availability
- For the city centre, there will be reductions in buses, congestion and emissions. Larger buses and the use of double rather single decks maintain capacity while Oxford with its hybrids will see one of the most environmentally friendly systems in the country.
So, everybody wins. And even the transport minister is excited by the results of using his predecessor’s Act. “This is exactly the sort of operation that I want to encourage more of. Oxford is leading the way in providing better local transport services by using a partnership approach and making good use of smart ticketing technology”.This means deregulation’s dead in Oxford, then? Not really, it is just entering its fourth phase. Recently, Oxford is one of those few urban areas to which operators like to point to show the benefits of deregulation. Here, we have two main opponents whose competing services are both high frequency & high quality. And Oxford will continue to be under the spotlight because of its new partnership approach.
The only suburb that will suffer under the Oxford Solution is Barton. Currently served by Oxford Bus Co (8/hr) & Stagecoach (10/hr), the new service reduces to 10/hr along the Headington & London Roads but, after Headington, 2/hr head for Risinghurst, leaving two 12-minute gaps for Barton
It wasn’t always like this. The 1987 arrival in Blackbird Leys of Thames Transit’s high frequency 16-seaters signalled changes, gradual at first, that would eventually see the 1994 Go Ahead purchase of City of Oxford, replacing its tired vehicles and in 1995 an unsustainable 18-month bus war of epic proportions, along almost every available Oxford bus route. There followed some retrenchment as not all corridors could sustain such frequencies & fares reductions. In 1997, Transit Holdings promptly sold to Stagecoach and thereafter the two groups have competed on a virtuous upward spiral of quality improvements. Till now.And to think, this could’ve all ended in tears. Recently, Oxfordshire council demanded buses terminate shy of the city centre, with passengers having to transfer onto local shuttles to reach their ultimate destination. Next month’s changes are as much a reaction to the shuttle proposal than anything.
And what might the Competition Commission make of this? It’s still difficult to understand exactly from where the CC is coming. It refuses, for example, to accept that the car is a competitor yet, in Oxford, the bicycle is often the main rival. Has it taken cycling into account?
The new deal does not restrict new entrants or the freedom of other operators, such as there are. One is Heyfordian, that operates buses at low frequency along several corridors including the busy Cowley Road. Heyfordian hardly represents much extra choice, though.Indeed, with fewer Oxford Bus Co & Stagecoach buses, entrance into the market would be easier (in theory, though access to the new ticketing system would be key). And the Oxford Bus Company’s Brookes Bus network is not included.
To date, competition has incentivised Oxford’s operators. Under the new scheme, will the service loose its edge? Or will it grow and develop? And, if the latter, where else might it apply?
16 comments:
There are many benefits to passengers through co-operation between providers and interavailability of tickets. The new ticket freedoms may in themselves lead to further service alterations as passenger flows redistribute. But you hint at a possible problem, this is not a tightly controlled network as franchised sur le continent. Deregulation is not dead and knowing full well (a) that honey attracts bees and (b) that the "best laid plans o' mice an men gang aft agley" what happens if a low price operator attacks a key route with a fleet of second hand vehicles.
Or what about a higher quality operator joining the party ? That would transform the situation.
Can anyone suggest other locations where this type of duopoly would work or be allowed to work?
Low quality operators can be dealt with, and the two university cities already have plans in place.
I understand Oxford is seeking to control buses in the central area by having its own equivalent of the London low emission zone, while in Cambridge only operators with a permit are allowed to use layover space on the city's streets.
However, interchange between routes is a lot easier in Cambridge than it is in Oxford, where most services are now marooned on either side of pedestrianised Queen Street, with passengers facing a quarter-mile plus walk between stops.
Like the previous commenter i too worry about the plethora of termini in oxford.I know operators seem to dislike bus stations and gloucester green is too small,but i still feel that the council and operators should have addressed this problem.
Perhaps this could be taken further to a true "Verbundtarif", where there is only one set of fares and they are all interavailable for journeys within Oxford on all operators.
Operators could still compete commercially, just not on price - so they'd have to find something else to compete on, e.g. quality, running at the time the passenger wants etc. So probably not a bad thing, as it'd discourage cowboys - who would get on a mucky old bus with ripped seats if a nice new one was just behind it?
"It refuses, for example, to accept that the car is a competitor yet, in Oxford, the bicycle is often the main rival. Has it taken cycling into account?"
The bicycle is an environmentally friendly mode of transport, like walking, that is good for the health of those partaking in it. Thus public transport should really complement rather than compete with it.
The car, OTOH...
Neil said...
"The bicycle is an environmentally friendly mode of transport, like walking, that is good for the health of those partaking in it."
....until you fall off!
(Written just a couple of hours after a clinic appointment resulting from a cycling accident!)
"....until you fall off!
(Written just a couple of hours after a clinic appointment resulting from a cycling accident!)"
Hope you're OK. I should maybe add to it a weak knee I have as a result of, umm, a cycling accident. But overall I think it is a good thing for my general health.
Neil said...
"Hope you're OK."
Thanks, yes. The accident was a few weeks ago, this was just a 'follow-up' appointment.
I agree in general, it is healthy. I suspect (with the benefit of hindsight) that the bike was not a suitable design, so I'll be taking a break. The area where I live is hinterland to a university city, so there are probably some parallels to Oxford or Cambridge, though I suspect the infrastructure provision for cyclists is better in Germany than in the UK. Despite that, there are some irritating 'gaps'.
I also suspect some people cycle in summer, and use buses, etc, in the winter - does that make public transport and cycling complementary, or competitors? Both, I suppose, just as Stagecoach and Go Ahead are now complementing each other in Oxford, yet also competing!
Kidlington suffers a 50% cut - worse than Barton - from 24 to 12 bph.
Also Barton now receives 6bph OBC and 8bph Stagecoach - falling to 10bph.
"I also suspect some people cycle in summer, and use buses, etc, in the winter - does that make public transport and cycling complementary, or competitors? Both, I suppose, just as Stagecoach and Go Ahead are now complementing each other in Oxford, yet also competing!"
Also true to an extent - cycling to the (rural) bus stop should perhaps be a more common option if cycle racks were provided. And of course the car does integrate via Park and Ride.
"Kidlington suffers a 50% cut - worse than Barton - from 24 to 12 bph."
"Also Barton now receives 6bph OBC and 8bph Stagecoach - falling to 10bph."
A bus every 5 or 6 minutes is more than adequate a frequency so long as the capacity is there. But this sort of frequency is to me proof that Oxford is crying out for a tram system.
Neil said...
"A bus every 5 or 6 minutes is more than adequate a frequency so long as the capacity is there. But this sort of frequency is to me proof that Oxford is crying out for a tram system."
This House of Commons Briefing Note refers to a peak passenger flow of 2000 passengers per hour on UK LRT (Tram) systems - section 4.2:-
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03307.pdf
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03307.pdf (in case the Blogger linking isn't working!)
I seem to recall a figure around this level (perhaps slightly lower - 1800) being regarded as that needed to justify investment in LRT in the 1980s and '90s. Of course, it doesn't take into account transfer from car to tram - generally reckoned to be greater than achievable from car to bus, but a service operated with 12 buses per hour has a rather lower capacity (unless the buses are artics running at full capacity - which I don't think is the case in Oxford).
I would also suspect that the current dispute regarding the Edinburgh tram system has damaged the cause of LRT in the UK. Oxford is also rather smaller than most of the other cities in the UK with LRT systems, although there are several cities in Germany which have retained trams with even lower populations, even in the former West Germany - notably Freiburg and Heidelberg. Heidelberg still has a similar population to Oxford, but Freiburg has expanded in recent years. Both have built extensions to their tramways in the last 10 years.
Re providing direct hyperlinks in comments on Blogger - I think that is a theoretical possibility, but the blog author (in this case Busing) can disabled that attribute (i.e. to ward off link spamming).
Back to the topic - I'll proceed to provide what will invariably turn out to be a non-hyperlinked URL of the webpage on OBC's site (thus reinforcing my assertion above!) which outlines the new scheme, which is to be known by the name of Oxford SmartZone:
www.oxfordbus.co.uk/main.php?page_id=224
If frequencies are effectively halved on the formerly competing routes, that suggests to me that neither company was making a great deal of money out of the situation. Otherwise, they would have seen value in offering frequencies at a level somewhere between the old & new situation.
Of course, it's never been possible to determine the exact situation at individual subsiduaries, but does it suggest that neither Go-Ahead nor Stagecoach were prepared to suffer the loss of face that a withdrawal would have been seen as? And, further, that, even in Oxford (the shining light of competition), full-on battle just isn't profitable?
"If frequencies are effectively halved on the formerly competing routes, that suggests to me that neither company was making a great deal of money out of the situation."
Quite possibly. On the "pinnacle of competition" - the Wilmslow Road corridor in Manchester - many buses seem to operate nearly empty.
That route is crying out for trams, or if not a FTR or London bendy-style fake tram kind of thing with all-door boarding and penalty fares to make it a far more effective people-mover.
Post a Comment