t and Worst Things about Bus Deregulation (Read 3,061 times)

[bususer]

Hi,

I've been a member on here for a couple of years but this is my first post. My main interest lies in bus deregulation around the early 1990s period, from say 1992-94 when in Sheffield at least dereg was at it's height. From my recolection almost every route in Sheffield was operated by SYT (as it then was) and one other private company at least during peak time.

I'd be interested to learn others opinions of the Sheffield bus scene at this time. For me this is one of the most interesting, and perhaps controversial, periods in Sheffield's public transport history. In many ways it trancended mere comercial competition between rival companies but seemed to be as much an ideological war between two oposing visions of public transport provision, and in the wider context between state provision and privatisation.

Like any major change there are likely to be both pluses and minuses. I was wondering if as a forum we could establish some sort of relatively unbiases (as far as that is possible) list of the pros and cons of dereg.

Any takers?

Thanks.

[lysander]

What an interesting post...and I am surprised it hasn't received any comment. I am not very interested in buses except as an occasional customer. I say this because my use of public transport is usually limited to the tram and train. Of course, deregulation was entirely a matter of political ideology as, indeed, has been the entire privatisation of so much else.

Good points...I can't think of a single one given that we had a remarkably good bus system beforehand ( I used to use buses regularly back in the 80/90s) operated by a publicly accountable body. I wonder, has subsidy been reduced by all that much? On the other hand, the capital cost of replacing bus fleets has been transferred from the public to private arena.

Bad points...Too many to enumerate for an old Socialist like me...but one is the chasing of profit which seems to be a problem, especially in areas where there is less demand. Profit versus Public service is a dimension that seems not to have been addressed.

[jamiekku120w]

One good point I can think of is from an enthusiast's point of view de-reg gave us a chance to view a wide variety of different vehicles operating in Sheffield for various operators(andrews,terrier and sheafline) to name a few. I quite admire the way terrier amassed a fleet of 2nd hand mk1 nationals and gave them an extra 5-10 years of service that they otherwise wouldn't have had. My favourite mk1 of theirs was CBV771S which lived on with tracky as a trainer vehicle

[lysander]

De-reg allowed some operators to provide a service with buses long past their sell by date...A bit like Northern Rail and the use of the nodding donkeys ( class 142/4)

[mrmoose]

Bad - Services that don't make enough money require subsidy. This results in a "cheapest bidder" situation, and routes being ran by operator A during the day, and B during the evenings and sundays. Under regulation, the profitable daytime journeys would generally be offset against the loss making/marginal runs.

Good - A tough one to think of any, although I am generally pro-deregulation.

IMO, there is no such thing as a perfect, and the grass always looks greener on the other side!

[bususer]

Thanks for the replies so far. Please keep them comming.

[dimtim]

The first question that needs to be answered is ‘are local bus services a public service or to be left to the market.’

In the days of Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster municipal transport fleets they set out to provide a service to their local residents. All services did not make a profit, but most areas of the boroughs saw a decent bus service on a daily basis and throughout the day – say 0600 to 22.30. Unprofitable routes subsidised by the profitable and as I understand it perhaps by subsidy from the council budget if the transport department didn’t make a surplus.

Deregulation brought the ‘profit’ motive with, both in South Yorkshire and many other areas, queues of buses on profitable route and the abandonment of more rural lightly used services. In my own particular case (route 258) the morning standing room only double decker was rerouted down the motorway to become a midibus then, finally, terminated due to lack of use.

If the public are to use public transport then it needs to offer a service. The ‘whole’ needs to be considered rather than each particular part. The ‘London model’ whereby Transport for London specify the service and operators tender to operate those services appears to have increased public use of buses – although as many argue – at a cost!

Of course in South Yorkshire deregulation also brought about the end of the ‘low fares policy’. How much that changed the use of public transport in this region must also be factored in to what can be seen as the demise.

[bususer]

interesting points. It's true that in a purist free market system there would be loads of buses on commercially viable routes but none at all on rural routes or at off peak. However, we have never had such a system but always had some state (PTE) involvment in providing unprofitable buses (contracted out to the private sector).

Actually with SYPTE cuts we could be closer to a purist system min the future. If the SYPTE cut back on off-peak and rural routes then these will not be provided commercially. Conversley, companies like TM Travel and SCT will suffer disproportionately more than say First & stagecoach from the loss of this business and may be forced to statrt competing on the commercial routes to try and make up for loss of revenue from tendered work. Not sure what their chances of success will be though.

[bususer]

I believe that at the start of Dereg there were very few competative routes but most new operators took on tendered work instead. I think it was Mike Groves that had some sort of commercial presence but I could be wrong.

Also, who remembers some of the slogans painted on buses in this era - eg - "the best bus in town" or "Sheffield's friendly buses". i often wondered how they could have justified these claims if they had to.

[duncan]

Jun 5, 2015 14:51:54 GMT bususer said:

Also, who remembers some of the slogans painted on buses in this era - eg - "the best bus in town" or "Sheffield's friendly buses". i often wondered how they could have justified these claims if they had to.

As bad as Trent Barton claiming to be a really good bus company.

[bususer]

Does anyone know how much commercial competition there was initially at the start of dereg in Oct 1986? I know there were various new bus companies like Sheffield & District but I think many of their routes were tendered.

[bususer]

I have to say I never minded buses running around half (or more than half) empty as long as they turned up quickly at the stop, which they did at the hight of dereg. In fact I preferred a largely empty bus and certainly a whole seat to myself (especially if I had shopping with me)

[37elton]

The only winners from bus de-regulation were bus enthusiasts. Our hobby wouldn't be half what it is without it.

The Main losses:

Drivers wages forced down!
Fare levels in the name of profit not the environment!

It could all have been different as in better for all IMHO, if a few rules had been applied:
1) No registering of 'copycat' timetables - identical routes permitted but buses kept at least 5 minutes apart (say).
2) Operators taxed heavily on profits up to the amount paid to them in public subsidy.
3) Forcing bus companies to remain 50.1% owned by passengers & employee's.

Any thoughts?

[bususer]

I don't know if any data exist which compares the total travel length (ie. waiting time + journey time)of a journey taken in say 1992/93 and that same journey today. It would be interesting to see how much quicker (if at all) it is today compared to at the hight of dreg. Personally I'm not sure it is quicker at all as waiting times are longer today than then on almost all routes. As for journey time I'm not so sure.

[cuthbert]

No pro's at all in the socalled bus "deregulation" of 1985/86...