Cost of running a bus and break-even patronage

[miklcct]

I want to understand the reason why bus fares in the UK are much more expensive when compared to Hong Kong or other Asian countries. As bus companies in Hong Kong are also run on a commercial basis (but regulated) and take full commercial risk on their own network, we can have a comparison of the fares charged compared to the costs there. This is a highly debated topic in the bus forums there so I can quote some numbers. We can calculate the cost from the annual reports of bus companies, which offers the following figures of running a bus. There are some differences in cost between networks so let's take the largest KMB network as an example of a typical cost running buses in Hong Kong, which includes short and long distance urban routes, motorway expresses, and also rural routes. All numbers are in HK$ which is about 1/11 of a £:

- fuel cost: 2.18 / km
- staff cost: 2778 / day
- depreciation: 591 / day
- other operating overheads: 470 / day

Therefore the fixed cost of operating a bus is about 3840 per day, excluding fuel. Therefore, it's very easy for a bus company to earn money by putting additional buses into profitable peak-hour routes. For example, if a bus company uses an additional bus (with the driver working on it full day) to run a route for one round trip of 82.6 km in peak hours (morning to city, evening back), charging 19.3 for a single fare, the total cost of that bus is 4020 per day, which means the break even point is 208 total passengers in a day, or on average 104 passengers each trip. This is not an easy target to achieve.

However, if the bus is run for a full 18 hours per day, with 4.5-hours round trip time making 4 round trips per day, the total cost is 4560 per day, at 236 passengers per day to break even, just a mere 30 passengers per trip on average. This is not hard to achieve as getting 60-70 passengers for a typical off-peak trip is not that difficult for most of the long-distance route, which can compensate for the lack of passengers for the late night trips to city, for example.

If we use an example of an urban trunk route, charging only 7.6 for a single fare (that's impossible to be found in the UK), with 29.1 km each round trip taking 3 hours to run, running 6 round trips per day, the total cost including fuel is 4220 per day, equivalent to 555 daily passengers, or 46 passengers per single journey. However, as it is a trunk route, 46 passengers per trip is an extremely low barrier most of the day, and some routes with better patronage can achieve 150 or even 200 single fares in a single trip! (when we talk about fares being too cheap in Hong Kong, we are referring to routes which only charges HK$4 or less in a single trip in a long distance urban route, which will bring the break-even point to averaging 100 or more passengers per single trip. The cheap fare was a result of competing with trams, which is even cheaper at HK$2.6 per trip - however on such routes advertising revenue is significant).

Now I don't understand why the fares in the UK are so expensive. Even if we double the staff cost compared to HK, the single fares here should be only about £1.55 (the London level) for an urban route of reasonable patronage (about 50 passengers per single journey) to break even, or about £5 for a long-distance commuter express. London is a good example of getting enough bus passenger for an affordable fare. Why is the bus service in other parts of the UK so expensive?

 

[duncombec]

You may get more answers if you'd converted the HKD ($) prices to GBP (£) for us, and perhaps given further background rather than a lot of random calculations.

What is a "day" in terms of staff cost? Is that pure wages, or the whole package? Is that an average of driver pay rates by service, or is there no service-based progression? Fuel in the UK is generally unlikely to be measured in amount per kilometres. Different companies will have their own depreciation rates. What is the tax on fuel (if any) in Hong Kong? Are there more general vehicle taxes? What is included in "other operating overheads"?

Essentially, it will differ by company - and may not be the reason as to why fares are "so high". Given you say 46 passengers per trip is an "extremely low barrier" on a trunk route, yet would be substantially less likely in the UK, perhaps number of passengers has something to do with it?

 

[carlberry]

Now I don't understand why the fares in the UK are so expensive. Even if we double the staff cost compared to HK, the single fares here should be only about £1.55 (the London level) for an urban route of reasonable patronage (about 50 passengers per single journey) to break even, or about £5 for a long-distance commuter express. London is a good example of getting enough bus passenger for an affordable fare. Why is the bus service in other parts of the UK so expensive?

This is the answer, and your calculations are based on people actually paying full price. If buses were all double deckers, were mostly well loaded and there was a more realistic payment for concessionary travel then fares would be lower (essentially the low reimbursement for concessionary travel means a higher cost for full price travel).

It also comes down to a balance between making it attractive to travel by bus (not crush loading and an attractive frequency) and how much people are willing to pay; if you have little choice (i.e. a car just isn't an option which I suspect is the case for most journeys in Hong Kong) then these factors don't have to be considered.

 

[Roger1973]

It's a while since I've done anything involving operations costing, and even longer since I did the transport economics bit of the CI(L)T exams, but calculating staff costs 'per day' doesn't match anything I've done.

The staff cost per bus per day of running a school route with part time driver/s is going to be different to running a 24/7 London route (on average, London operators have about 3 drivers per bus.)

There's no absolute hard and fast way of doing it, but you're going to have a combination of -

Fixed costs - the 'head office' overheads

Semi-variable costs - the depot overheads that won't change much if the fleet goes up or down by one or two vehicles, but might do if the fleet goes up by a bigger number (e.g. depot space and equipment, supervisors and engineering staff.)

Peak vehicle costs - broadly speaking, the purchase / lease / finance / depreciation / annual test is going to be about the same whether your bus is out 18 hours a day or whether it just does a school run.

Having a bus that's just carrying a decent load for maybe 2 hours a day (or less) isn't all that financially viable, especially if discounted fares are expected for those (school) passengers. At one point in time, many buses that did a school run also did works journeys and / or a peak hour extra on a regular service, but the chances for those are less than they used to be.

Obviously very few buses will be out 24/7, and just how you try to cover these costs will depend what sort of work you're doing. If the bus is mainly there to do a school run, then you can't expect it to cover its costs over 52 weeks of the year when it's only going to run 38 weeks of the year (unless you also have summer seasonal services that you can divert it to.) Or if you have a classic bus that's mainly going to do wedding hires, then you need it to cover its costs over the season - mainly Saturdays during the spring / summer - if you're doing it as a commercial venture rather than getting a 'pet' bus to earn a bit of money.

The company I did get involved in this sort of thing for worked on the basis of expecting vehicles to cover their standing costs between 0800 and 1800 on Monday - Saturday. Anything operated outside these times didn't have vehicle cost allocated to it, on the basis that if that journey wasn't running, the bus would still be in the fleet but just parked at the garage.

Variable costs - and some of these will be per mile, some will be per hour - combination of things like fuel and drivers' wages, but also ongoing maintenance, tyres and so on.

TFL tender awards are public domain (here) and are pure cost of operating, since all fares revenue goes to TFL and isn't part of the operators' accounting. A couple of examples suggest a cost of about £ 250K per year per peak vehicle on the route (although the operator will need a spare vehicle or two) - routes that involve the 'new bus for London' type are probably more complicated, as TFL own the buses and I don't know what the arrangement is.

 

[Titfield]

I am not sure that referring to London is helpful because TfL is unlike any other operation in the UK and receives a huge subsidy.

I think the answer is a much simpler one "the fares outside of London are much higher because those fares multiplied by the number of passengers carried enables the bus company to survive financially."

Cutting bus fares does not seem to generate the additional patronage required to ensure greater total revenue.

 

[miklcct]

You may get more answers if you'd converted the HKD ($) prices to GBP (£) for us, and perhaps given further background rather than a lot of random calculations.

What is a "day" in terms of staff cost? Is that pure wages, or the whole package? Is that an average of driver pay rates by service, or is there no service-based progression? Fuel in the UK is generally unlikely to be measured in amount per kilometres. Different companies will have their own depreciation rates. What is the tax on fuel (if any) in Hong Kong? Are there more general vehicle taxes? What is included in "other operating overheads"?

Essentially, it will differ by company - and may not be the reason as to why fares are "so high". Given you say 46 passengers per trip is an "extremely low barrier" on a trunk route, yet would be substantially less likely in the UK, perhaps number of passengers has something to do with it?

These are the numbers as calculated from the annual reports of bus companies. That means staff cost is calculated by the total cost per year divided by number of staff divided by days in a year. Fuel used by buses is tax-free in Hong Kong. Depreciation of a bus is considered to be 18 years because the life of a bus is fixed to 18 years by the regulator, plus depreciation of other fixed assets, such as depot facilities, and vehicle tax is not a significant amount by all means. Other operating overheads mean, for example, administration cost, etc., that's not included in staff, fuel or depreciation.

Also, 46 passengers per trip is a really low barrier. If the average patronage is less than that, the frequency will be reduced until about 30-minute headway, and if there is still no improvement it will be submitted for cancellation consideration, provided that alternative transport exists. Bus networks are regulated as franchises (like railway franchises in the UK) which guarantee socially-necessary routes in rural areas even if they may not make a profit.

This is the answer, and your calculations are based on people actually paying full price. If buses were all double deckers, were mostly well loaded and there was a more realistic payment for concessionary travel then fares would be lower (essentially the low reimbursement for concessionary travel means a higher cost for full price travel).

It also comes down to a balance between making it attractive to travel by bus (not crush loading and an attractive frequency) and how much people are willing to pay; if you have little choice (i.e. a car just isn't an option which I suspect is the case for most journeys in Hong Kong) then these factors don't have to be considered.

In Hong Kong, concessionary travel is charged half-price to adults, while the elderly pay HK$2 (about 18p in British money) and the government tops up to half the adult price. This scheme has only been introduced in recent years to encourage the elderly to become more active, while in the past they paid half price as 4-11 children (12+ are considered as adult passengers in HK). This will cause some routes to be unprofitable if most of the passengers are on concessionary travel if the adult price is cheap, and has resulted in cancellation of some routes with relatively low patronage but with majority of passengers on concessionary travel. The most common reason is that adults paying full prices take other premium modes of transport which provides a better service but doesn't offer concessionary travel to children and elderly, such as minibuses or share taxis. However, such routes are only a minority in the whole network.

Some bus companies, which used low fares to attract passengers, are now running a loss in their network because patronage decreased as a result of new railway lines. As the general fare level is controlled by the government, and cancelling a route is difficult (as it involves consultation), apart from submitting fare increase applications, they can use other methods to cut losses:
* to reduce frequencies, resulting in a large chunk of urban routes running at 20-30 minute unattractive frequencies. This will have two possible results:
** The bus is crush-loaded and returns to profit if there are no alternative attractive transport, such as a direct point to point express
** Passenger shifts to other transport because the service is unattractive, and the route is submitted for cancellation meeting the criteria
* to reorganise the network, turning slow urban routes to express routes to reduce running times, hence the staff cost
* to bid for new routes which is deemed to be profitable

Fixed costs - the 'head office' overheads

Semi-variable costs - the depot overheads that won't change much if the fleet goes up or down by one or two vehicles, but might do if the fleet goes up by a bigger number (e.g. depot space and equipment, supervisors and engineering staff.)

Peak vehicle costs - broadly speaking, the purchase / lease / finance / depreciation / annual test is going to be about the same whether your bus is out 18 hours a day or whether it just does a school run.

Having a bus that's just carrying a decent load for maybe 2 hours a day (or less) isn't all that financially viable, especially if discounted fares are expected for those (school) passengers. At one point in time, many buses that did a school run also did works journeys and / or a peak hour extra on a regular service, but the chances for those are less than they used to be.

We are now discussing the last paragraph back on a Hong Kong forum, to find out the loading required for a peak-only route to break even, which will be a large number (for example, 100+ passengers for a trip) to justify a peak-only bus. However, once the bus is deployed, the additional cost of running it off-peak is minimal so even if the bus company can get just 30-40 passengers on a typical off-peak run it will be worthwhile for it to run for the full day.

Another point of the discussion is the arrangement where a bus runs a commuter express in peak hours, but urban trunk in off-peak hours. These urban trunk routes are charged cheaply to compete with trams, but because the fare is low, it runs at a loss if we calculate using a model of a bus running on it the whole day. However, if a bus on a commuter express is used instead, the low fare can cover the marginal cost of running the urban trunk off-peak, where the farebox revenue is usually higher than the express in off-peak hours for some routes even if the fare is low. This has resulted in some urban trunk routes having a lower frequency in peak hours than off-peak hours.

 

[Stan Drews]

The annual cost to run a bus on local bus service work in the UK is around £125k, based on an 11 hour day, 6 days per week. If that rises to a full 18 hour day, with say 14 on a Sunday, then you’ll be looking at something nearer £200k. Clearly the specific vehicle type will influence those figures, as a Mercedes Sprinter doing 20mpg will cost a lot less to run than a B7TL decker doing 5.5mpg.

 

[Gloster]

On a related subject, I have been wondering just how much Islandline’s Ryde-Shanklin replacement bus service is costing per week. I reckon that four buses are needed to work the all day service, with one more for the odd school workings and another for the seasonal service to the steam railway. Allowing only one maintenance spare, that is seven buses minimum. Eight drivers would probably be needed for the basic service, with one each needed for the other services, and a PNB cover (unless they double on the schools’ service), making eleven minimum. (You might get away with one bus and one driver less outside term time.) There is also the cost of getting the drivers to Ryde: I don’t know if they travel daily, which probably would increase the number required as it is a slow process getting to the island, or whether they are lodging in the town.

Any thoughts about how much this is all costing on, say, a monthly basis?

 

[Megafuss]

On a related subject, I have been wondering just how much Islandline’s Ryde-Shanklin replacement bus service is costing per week. I reckon that four buses are needed to work the all day service, with one more for the odd school workings and another for the seasonal service to the steam railway. Allowing only one maintenance spare, that is seven buses minimum. Eight drivers would probably be needed for the basic service, with one each needed for the other services, and a PNB cover (unless they double on the schools’ service), making eleven minimum. (You might get away with one bus and one driver less outside term time.) There is also the cost of getting the drivers to Ryde: I don’t know if they travel daily, which probably would increase the number required as it is a slow process getting to the island, or whether they are lodging in the town.

Any thoughts about how much this is all costing on, say, a monthly basis?

If you assume they need 10 duties a day Monday to Friday, possibly 8 on Saturday and for argument's sake 6 on Sunday. That is 64 duties a week. If the drivers are on a 5 day week then they'll need 13 drivers to cover the work. Chuck in a spare and it's 14 lines.

If they are on £11 an hour with a guarantee of 39 hours, that's going to cost nearly £6000 a week for your drivers basic wage. Plus a supervisor , that's another £600 a week.

I've known operators to put drivers up in caravans on the island, so if they spend £400 a week on 5 caravans for staff to use that's £2000 a week.

So you're already at £8600 a week before you get to travel, refreshments allowance and of course the vehicle costs.

 

[Man of Kent]

Rail replacement cost is likely to be cheaper than the cost of running trains (especially as the "new" trains for the Isle of Wight are still in the process of delivery and therefore not likely to being paid for).

When Island Line was a separate company, subsidy was about 3 times revenue (roughly £3m and £1m annually). That would pay for 20 to 32 buses on Stan Drews figures, which are in the right ballpark in my experience.

 

[whoosh]

I remember reading once about Hong Kong having night services because they were cheaper to run than than buying or renting the land to park them up at night!

 

[miklcct]

I remember reading once about Hong Kong having night services because they were cheaper to run than than buying or renting the land to park them up at night!

I don't think this is true. Bus garages are subsidised by the government. And recently lots of night services are being cut, by headway reduction (a lot of night services on 20 or even 15 minute headway in the past have been cut to 30-minute headway) because of low patronage, probably to save staff cost.

Also, bus companies can apply to park some of their buses in bus terminals overnight, and when major construction work resulted in reduction of garage space, the government would allocate some quiet road for bus parking overnight, as happened in the case when the South Island Line was built.

 

[whoosh]

@miklcct Thankyou for that. It was quite some time ago when I read it - plenty of room for the facts to become distorted/not remembered properly!

 

[markymark2000]

The annual cost to run a bus on local bus service work in the UK is around £125k, based on an 11 hour day, 6 days per week. If that rises to a full 18 hour day, with say 14 on a Sunday, then you’ll be looking at something nearer £200k. Clearly the specific vehicle type will influence those figures, as a Mercedes Sprinter doing 20mpg will cost a lot less to run than a B7TL decker doing 5.5mpg.

That number is so far off. It does vary massively but £110k-£130k per year is what Stagecoach want a bus to bring in each year (so included profits).

A large amount of independents though have significantly lower costs so could be around £70k (Think, A lot less depot costs. Also some older vehicles which will be cheaper and not have the lease payments. Also some operators do buses as more of a hobby rather than trying to make mega bucks so want a lot less profit).



I think something which is worth noting which isn't noted is the huge difference in operations between the UK and HK. HK operators tend to have a huge peak bus network 7am-9pm and 4.30pm-6.30pm. The UK doesn't have that really. Bus operators in the UK kind of give a set number of vehicles for a route and then retime the service at peak times to accommodate the extended journey times (so a half hourly bus off peak would be every 40 minutes in the peak) so all buses tend to be out all day, not really giving a huge opportunity where we have loads of buses sat around all day.
That is point 1.

Point 2, the UK has the most buses out at school times. The thing here is though that school times, we then have lot more operators out on the road. Many of these operators are coach operators who, outside of school time, head off and do private hire, day trips, school trips or whatever. Their vehicles aren't sat around all day doing nothing and even if they were, they are mainly coaches or double deckers which aren't suitable for the break even routes which are often in little housing estates and have to deal with grannys and their shopping carts.

Point 3. If we have a main operator who does have additional vehicles out in the peak times, whenever that may be, these buses act as a spare bus to reduce delays or these work out with a maintenance cycle so a bus which does the morning peak, can then have an MOT, service or whatever, in the afternoon (and vice versa) or if it's something which can be done quicker, it can even be sorted between the peak times so this means that if a maintenance thing takes 7 hours to complete, the bus can still earn money that day by sending it out for the morning or evening and swapping buses about on this sort of cycle.

For some examples, I can't provide evidence for commercial reasons but a normal operator bus depot of around 160 buses had only 8 AM and 8PM peak bus duties. Some school, some service. Not all these would be in the maintenance cycle. 2 buses did AM and PM duties and between were spares on the network at key points incase of breakdown or delay. Another 2 would likely do both AM and PM duties and then between would be a spare bus in the depot. That leaves 4 AM and 4 PM duties uncovered. These would likely be having maintenance done.


Hong Kong has this huge network at peak time which comes to life with express buses and more local buses etc. Similar to London. Outside of London though, the above is the reality. Operators who can do service work, tend to have buses out all day. Not many do just the peak times (those which have lots of peak buses buses, do often run middle of the day services. Brylaine & P&O Lloyds are some example that spring to mind. Quite a large school bus network and then between the schools, they run a fair few local bus routes. There will be plenty more operators but I was trying to think of some which have a good few routes.
Other firms generally do not have suitable vehicles for the local service routes or they have other private hire stuff which they do. Belle Vue is one example in Manchester. Huge School Bus fleet and they often end up doing school trips and things like that.



While I know and others will know of companies who do have their buses sat around through the day between peak or school times with absolutely no purpose, the vast majority of companies do not or if they do, the buses have purpose such as maintenance or strategic spares.

 

[RT4038]

That number is so far off. It does vary massively but £110k-£130k per year is what Stagecoach want a bus to bring in each year (so included profits).

I don't think the number is so far off! When I went to school, 125 came in between 110 & 130. I concur that £125k is approximately the cost (including profit) that a mainstream bus operator will ask for in most parts of the country. Yes there is some regional variation, largely to do with pay rates. This would be for a 7-19 Mon-Sat service. 6-24 Mon-Sun would come in at about £180-200k. In London, with higher labour costs (and an allowance for a proportion of all night service), £250k sounds about right.
Yes there may be some independents offering lower rates, but they will only be able to supply and man a small number of buses, and you'll get what you pay for [particularly drivers that the bigger companies won't employ for reasons I will leave to your imagination].

Looking at the assumptions of @miklcct , it struck me that the expected average loading seemed rather high: many contra flow trips will be lucky to carry 5-10 passengers, and the off peak 'flow' trips will not carry sufficiently above the assumed average to make up.

One thing we can be pretty sure of - if there was some valhalla of cheaper fares and more frequent services to make bus services in the UK super profitable, at least one company would have found it by now! I suspect that a closer examination of costs between HK and London, and particularly passenger demand, will provide the answers as to why the economics of running buses in the two places are so different.

 

[markymark2000]

I don't think the number is so far off! When I went to school, 125 came in between 110 & 130. I concur that £125k is approximately the cost (including profit) that a mainstream bus operator will ask for in most parts of the country. Yes there is some regional variation, largely to do with pay rates. This would be for a 7-19 Mon-Sat service. 6-24 Mon-Sun would come in at about £180-200k. In London, with higher labour costs (and an allowance for a proportion of all night service), £250k sounds about right.
Yes there may be some independents offering lower rates, but they will only be able to supply and man a small number of buses, and you'll get what you pay for [particularly drivers that the bigger companies won't employ for reasons I will leave to your imagination].

6-24 Mon-Sun services, maybe but in reality, how many buses would do that, even in HK. Services may run that long but not with every bus out. Frequencies drop and journey times reduce so probably in the region of 20% of buses are out for that time. London, your figures vary but yes, seems to be right but that is not just higher labour costs but significantly higher operating costs including a lot of extra office staff and a lot more equipment on the buses.

You can get what you pay for but a service is a service to many people. A number of cowboy operators still exist and if it wasn't for them, there would be a lot less buses on the road. Look at GHA. They ceased and the number of buses in Flintshire, Wrexham, Cheshire East especially dropped massively overnight because GHA were cheap, it enabled more services to be ran with the pot of money.

Looking at the assumptions of @miklcct , it struck me that the expected average loading seemed rather high: many contra flow trips will be lucky to carry 5-10 passengers, and the off peak 'flow' trips will not carry sufficiently above the assumed average to make up.

I agree here. Contra flow is dismal in the UK but then again, operators are partly to blame for that with the majority not wanting to serve office parks or out of town retail etc so people working out of towns, can't get there. I think patronage could be increased accross the industry but it requires innovation. Something which 90% of the industry lacks.

One thing we can be pretty sure of - if there was some valhalla of cheaper fares and more frequent services to make bus services in the UK super profitable, at least one company would have found it by now! I suspect that a closer examination of costs between HK and London, and particularly passenger demand, will provide the answers as to why the economics of running buses in the two places are so different.

I don't agree here. I think there is stuff which can be done but operators find it easier to do nothing because it costs less, isn't a risk and takes a lot less effort. Buses may not be super profitable but they could be more profitable if ran correctly, not ran into the ground as a number of operators are doing here. Hong Kong, at least from an outsiders perspective, looks to be innovative. Trying to get people onboard. I, as a user say, 'why should I get on your bus' and the HK operators response is, 'we are regular, cheap, have express buses, we believe we have the best features onboard etc etc'. In the UK, the response is literally 'I don't know, because you have no alternative'. There are only a few innovative operators out there now who are taking advantage of opportunities. IF we had more innovation and less sitting on hands, the UK market would be considerably different. Too many people who graduated in hairdressing and not enough people who are in the industry because they want to be and to improve it to get more passengers and make more money.

The economics will be very different, I agree there, doesn't meant to say there isn't a lot more the UK operators could do.

 

[miklcct]

Looking at the assumptions of @miklcct , it struck me that the expected average loading seemed rather high: many contra flow trips will be lucky to carry 5-10 passengers, and the off peak 'flow' trips will not carry sufficiently above the assumed average to make up.

A contra-flow trip will be lucky to carry 5-10 passengers if the express route is purely residential - downtown. However, if the service runs through schools, industrial areas, etc. in the mainly-residential area, it can often carry 30+ passengers on a reduced headway (e.g. 2-minute headway in the peak flow but 20-minute headway in the reverse direction). Some services have their contra-flow service cut to the extent that passengers complain that the contra-flow trip is full!

The reason is that bus companies in Hong Kong now prefer to dead run buses from downtown back to the residential area to minimise round-trip times, as motorway network in Hong Kong is so extensive that dead running can often save 30+ minutes compared to a revenue trip. The standard loading of peak-flow trip is 100+ passengers on a double decker, while off-peak trips can commonly carry 60+ passengers as well in one direction. It was also common to see buses heading back to residential areas loaded to the extent of standing passengers even at midnight on 10-minute headway as there was a large nightlife scene in Hong Kong before the pandemic. Old routes have seen rounds of headway reduction in the contra-flow direction and new routes often do not serve the contra-flow direction at all, having the first bus back to residential town after morning peak hours. Passengers who do contra-flow commutes frequently petition for addition of morning peak-hour service in the contra-flow direction as these express routes are much faster than the other routes.

A key difference between Hong Kong and London is that, London has nearly no express bus services because London has no motorways inside the city. Express buses are profitable in Hong Kong because they generally use a mileage-based fare. Express means high fare, low cost, and attractive by passengers.

 

[RT4038]

6-24 Mon-Sun services, maybe but in reality, how many buses would do that, even in HK. Services may run that long but not with every bus out. Frequencies drop and journey times reduce so probably in the region of 20% of buses are out for that time. London, your figures vary but yes, seems to be right but that is not just higher labour costs but significantly higher operating costs including a lot of extra office staff and a lot more equipment on the buses.

Yes, you may well be right that only 20% of the buses are operating long days and Sundays - but I am unsure what you are arguing about? If the 7-19 buses cost £125k per year, and the 6-24 incl Sundays cost £200k (but only 20% are like that), the average cost of a bus will be about £140k.

You can get what you pay for but a service is a service to many people. A number of cowboy operators still exist and if it wasn't for them, there would be a lot less buses on the road. Look at GHA. They ceased and the number of buses in Flintshire, Wrexham, Cheshire East especially dropped massively overnight because GHA were cheap, it enabled more services to be ran with the pot of money.

That may well be right, but companies like these do not usually last that long. For various reasons.

I agree here. Contra flow is dismal in the UK but then again, operators are partly to blame for that with the majority not wanting to serve office parks or out of town retail etc so people working out of towns, can't get there. I think patronage could be increased accross the industry but it requires innovation. Something which 90% of the industry lacks.

But the problem usually is that those working out of towns in office parks or out of town retail are coming from out of town residential areas, rather than being true ' contra flow', in too diffuse a number to make a bus service economically viable. Add in the problem that these out of town developments often have road systems designed for private car access from major roads, results in lengthy indirect bus service if more than one is to be served. Patronage could be increased across the industry, but generally only at a cost higher than the fares that would be taken. So what would be the point for these bus companies?

I don't agree here. I think there is stuff which can be done but operators find it easier to do nothing because it costs less, isn't a risk and takes a lot less effort. Buses may not be super profitable but they could be more profitable if ran correctly, not ran into the ground as a number of operators are doing here. Hong Kong, at least from an outsiders perspective, looks to be innovative. Trying to get people onboard. I, as a user say, 'why should I get on your bus' and the HK operators response is, 'we are regular, cheap, have express buses, we believe we have the best features onboard etc etc'. In the UK, the response is literally 'I don't know, because you have no alternative'. There are only a few innovative operators out there now who are taking advantage of opportunities. IF we had more innovation and less sitting on hands, the UK market would be considerably different. Too many people who graduated in hairdressing and not enough people who are in the industry because they want to be and to improve it to get more passengers and make more money.

The economics will be very different, I agree there, doesn't meant to say there isn't a lot more the UK operators could do.

What incentive is there for the bus operators to be innovative? If their profits go up, they know that Government (National and Local) will seek to strip it from them in one way or another (increasing the regulatory burden, awarding themselves cheap Concessionary fare re-imbursement, operation of uneconomic services etc etc). Are those operators you allege that are making the effort to be innovative getting a worthwhile return from that innovation? Probably not, because the innovation costs almost as much as the extra revenue produced.
The problem with 'not enough people who are in the industry because they want to be' is because there are so few of them out there. Buses are not exactly a sexy industry with the financial rewards to attract the quantity of best brains. The current fad for recruiting from outside the industry is because those inside the industry appear to have been allowing it to decline from about 1956 onwards. Surely bringing people in from profitable industries will show the way? I jest, but I suspect that is the reality. Most people who travel by bus do so because they have no alternative. We are so far down the road (literally) of private transport hegemony, of everything being as favourable as possible for that mode, that there is little chance of turning back.

I really don't think much can be gained by comparing HK to the UK. The social and infrastructure conditions are just so different, as @miklcct has pointed out.

 

[miklcct]

But the problem usually is that those working out of towns in office parks or out of town retail are coming from out of town residential areas, rather than being true ' contra flow', in too diffuse a number to make a bus service economically viable. Add in the problem that these out of town developments often have road systems designed for private car access from major roads, results in lengthy indirect bus service if more than one is to be served. Patronage could be increased across the industry, but generally only at a cost higher than the fares that would be taken. So what would be the point for these bus companies?

In Hong Kong, there are also a few out of town office parks (such as Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate, Cyberport and Science Park) connected directly to a trunk road or motorway exit. They are generally considered not economically viable to run all-day buses unless there is also a residential development nearby, however, contraflow peak-hour commuter services are viable to run serving a single place only.

The standard bus service provided in such area is generally only one or two 20-minute headway shuttle to a nearby town centre, combined with a few peak-hour contraflow services from the city centre, making off-peak access extremely inconvenient. These contraflow services are popular for those actually living in the city itself, or need to go through a city to get there, making it full in commuting hours. Office parks also run time-limited private staff buses to various residential towns which are not served by a commercial bus company to enable commuting. Therefore, overtime work is less common compared to the city because people have to get to these time-limited staff buses to get home.

For example, there were only a single bus route and a single minibus route running whole day serving Science Park, connecting to the town in the south only, before the residential properties were built, which can get full if there is a major event (such as a 10 km running race) nearby. There are also a few routes going direct from a major interchange from the city itself to Science Park in the morning and return in the evening, which are extremely popular by commuters. Now there are multiple bus and minibus routes connecting to the towns both in the north and south as homes are built.

Another example is Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate. In the past, there were only bus routes to the nearest town. Recently there is a new route connecting it directly to a major interchange in the city itself, and it immediately becomes the best performing route in the region because the routing is so direct that, if there is no traffic accident, it can provide cross-city transfers on an identical routing as a taxi or private car for a significant portion of the territory. This kind of service improvement can lead people to ditch their cars for buses.

The road network plays a major factor whether bus services can be commercially viable. Grid network is good for buses but a typical American suburbia full of curved cul-de-sacs is not. A trunk-distributor road network is good if the demand is large enough for an express bus, but bad if a route needs to serve multiple areas before entering the trunk road. Rural areas with only a single thoroughfare may be good or bad, depending on how many residents can actually walk to the bus stop.

As motorways and trunk roads (with speed limit at 70 km/h or above without any obstructions) plays a major part of day-to-day travel in Hong Kong, because Hong Kong is a mountainous city where the connection between towns and the city centre, or between towns, can only be done on one or two trunk roads, when everyone coming from different place in a town to a different place in a city needs to travel on the same road, an interchange station there can redistribute passengers between different bus routes, such that everyone travels on the most direct route from home onto the highway, get off the bus if needed and get on another bus which runs direct to the destination in the city, making the routing of the whole journey extremely similar of even identical to driving.

The numbers quoted for running buses in the UK is not much different to HK actually, but now I suspect it's the geography which makes the main difference. This has become an urban planning problem.

Another question comes up to my mind is that, why isn't a huge peak hour network in the UK, even in the direction towards the centre? Don't people outside London need to commute?

 

[markymark2000]

That may well be right, but companies like these do not usually last that long. For various reasons.

Some of them have been going for a while and still going now. Most areas will have their own firm which is known locally as the one to avoid but wins all the tenders because they are cheap.

But the problem usually is that those working out of towns in office parks or out of town retail are coming from out of town residential areas, rather than being true ' contra flow', in too diffuse a number to make a bus service economically viable. Add in the problem that these out of town developments often have road systems designed for private car access from major roads, results in lengthy indirect bus service if more than one is to be served. Patronage could be increased across the industry, but generally only at a cost higher than the fares that would be taken. So what would be the point for these bus companies?

Disagree in part. Some will be from out of town areas but not all. Town centres are getting more and more residential, especially high rise residential which would bring things a little bit like Hong Kong in terms of the mixed use areas, bit less home, work, leisure separation which is currently most common. Difficult to win lots of passengers, maybe. Impossible, no. I'd go way too off topic to go into more detail.

What incentive is there for the bus operators to be innovative? If their profits go up, they know that Government (National and Local) will seek to strip it from them in one way or another (increasing the regulatory burden, awarding themselves cheap Concessionary fare re-imbursement, operation of uneconomic services etc etc). Are those operators you allege that are making the effort to be innovative getting a worthwhile return from that innovation? Probably not, because the innovation costs almost as much as the extra revenue produced.

Many networks are in a state where if you change nothing, nothing will change, it will be a forever decline working off networks built back in the 2000s and unchanged since. We aren't in the 2000s, times have moved on and as have peoples needs. Buses need to adapt to that and innovation is needed to get people back onto buses. Using Hulleys as an example. No one would touch the Snake Pass with a barge pole. Everyone abandoned it until Hulleys came along and now they are making fair money on it. Whether it goes quiet eventually, time will tell, but for now, they are making some decent money on it. It's an example of innovation, taking a gamble and it paying off. I'd certainly be interested to hear more on what HK operators do/are doing in terms of innovation. I can only say what I see but perhaps someone from over there has more details.

The problem with 'not enough people who are in the industry because they want to be' is because there are so few of them out there. Buses are not exactly a sexy industry with the financial rewards to attract the quantity of best brains. The current fad for recruiting from outside the industry is because those inside the industry appear to have been allowing it to decline from about 1956 onwards. Surely bringing people in from profitable industries will show the way? I jest, but I suspect that is the reality. Most people who travel by bus do so because they have no alternative. We are so far down the road (literally) of private transport hegemony, of everything being as favourable as possible for that mode, that there is little chance of turning back.

I really beg to differ on that one. There are a lot of people who are in buses and want to make them better. The issue is lack of experience. All the companies want experience but refuse to give it unless you are a graduate, god knows what people graduate in, I think hairdressing because half of them can't tie their own tie in the morning, let alone run a bus network. Inside the industry, there are plenty of people whom given the chance and resources would do a great job and would reverse decline within months. The key thing here though is listening and working with these people not having the current industry attitude of 'youre just a driver, what do you know' or 'yes, we will think about it' just to shut them up (which, trust me, is what the industry is doing). This part if off topic but it helps the point, if you have public transport growth minded people in charge, things can change. Look at Transdev! To bring this section slightly more on topic, with the British National Visa welcoming in a lot of people from Hong Kong, I wonder if any of their expertise will enter the industry and possibly help it grow. Could some of them start up their own operations using their own knowledge and mindset, adapting it to the UK market. We will have to see.

I really don't think much can be gained by comparing HK to the UK. The social and infrastructure conditions are just so different, as @miklcct has pointed out.

I think some things could be learnt with both operators and governments. An identical system may not work but Hong Kong seems to be public transport focussed and operators are more innovative enticing people onto their bus. A lot can be learnt by some operators and governments in that respect.

 

[miklcct]

I'd certainly be interested to hear more on what HK operators do/are doing in terms of innovation. I can only say what I see but perhaps someone from over there has more details.

The obvious difference is that the regulatory framework and also the geography.

In Hong Kong, public buses are run under franchises like the rail network here. In the past it was regional franchises, i.e. complete monopoly, but now the government wants limited competition so it's now route-based franchise.

The government has a final say on route approvals but, unlike London, the government does not plan all the routes themselves. Instead, bus companies are required to submit route development plans every year, which is consulted in the district councils, which the bus companies and government will take the opinions to improve. Plans are usually abandoned if it is objected by the district council but that's not a power. Bus companies are expected to make a profit, but on the whole network not individual routes. Therefore the availability of rural unprofitable routes is protected, and bus companies have an incentive to use these routes to feed passengers into their profitable routes, for example, by having interchange discounts between unprofitable routes and attractive routes.

The government has written criteria on when a route should have is frequency changed, cut short or cancelled, however it also has unwritten policies preventing too many buses in the city centre causing congestion, or running routes parallel to the railways. There were strict policies preventing bus companies from running direct routes from outer suburbs into the city centre, but they were cancelled when the underground was overloaded. Instead, now they are actually encouraged to run some such routes as some underground lines are expected to become overcrowded.

Limited competition here means that, for example, if a bus company runs an A-B route, other companies will be prevented from running a mostly the same route (in fact some routes have stops omitted because there is a competing route serving there). However, if other companies have an A-C and a C-B route, than there is competition. Or if company X runs an A-B-C route and company Y runs an A-B-D route. Here, bus companies can use different methods to attract passengers leveraging their existing networks, for example, one company may have a monthly pass for frequently commuters and more direct routing, but requiring a transfer, while another company has more destinations not requiring transfers and luxury buses.

When there is a new development area requiring a significant of new bus routes, or when there are multiple companies interested in the same route, the government will put up routes for tendering. When this results in another operator entering the market in an area, there will be competition and bus companies will try to improve services.

If this franchise model is applied into the national railways in the UK, it will be like e.g. Weymouth - Waterloo run by company A, Salisbury - Waterloo by company B, Portsmouth - Waterloo by company C; at the same time company A also runs St Pancras to Dover, company B also runs London Bridge - Dover, company C also runs St Prancas - Margate, each can have own fares set under a regulatory maximum and, in such case, they can use their own advantage to compete for passengers, e.g. offering TOC-specific through fare, improving travel experience, etc. (This can be further discussed in another thread)

 

[RT4038]

The numbers quoted for running buses in the UK is not much different to HK actually, but now I suspect it's the geography which makes the main difference. This has become an urban planning problem.

Another question comes up to my mind is that, why isn't a huge peak hour network in the UK, even in the direction towards the centre? Don't people outside London need to commute?

It is not only the geography, it is the housing and business density (much higher in HK than on average in the UK) and the incidence of car ownership (much lower than the UK) and availability of parking. The conditions are quite different.

People outside London need to commute as much as those inside London. However, most will do so by car, as they can afford to and it is more convenient than by bus. This leaves a residual small number of people (owing to the low population density in most suburbs) to travel by bus, where only the main artery routes have sufficient to operate in a profitable manner. This inevitably means that any cross-suburb journeys [to an out of town business or retail park] mean travelling on the arterial routes into the centre and back out again at a massive time penalty, further reducing the attractiveness of public transport over the car.

If car ownership and parking in the UK was as (relatively to earnings) expensive and difficult as in HK, and housing as dense, there would be a similar outcome here too.

Some of them have been going for a while and still going now. Most areas will have their own firm which is known locally as the one to avoid but wins all the tenders because they are cheap.

Some are, but many aren't. They come and go.

Disagree in part. Some will be from out of town areas but not all. Town centres are getting more and more residential, especially high rise residential which would bring things a little bit like Hong Kong in terms of the mixed use areas, bit less home, work, leisure separation which is currently most common. Difficult to win lots of passengers, maybe. Impossible, no. I'd go way too off topic to go into more detail.

You may well be right, but it is a gradual process that is by no means complete. There is plenty of evidence to show that bus companies are adjusting their contra-flow services to cater for this where it is economical. I am sure there is also evidence where they are not on the ball as well.

Many networks are in a state where if you change nothing, nothing will change, it will be a forever decline working off networks built back in the 2000s and unchanged since. We aren't in the 2000s, times have moved on and as have peoples needs. Buses need to adapt to that and innovation is needed to get people back onto buses. Using Hulleys as an example. No one would touch the Snake Pass with a barge pole. Everyone abandoned it until Hulleys came along and now they are making fair money on it. Whether it goes quiet eventually, time will tell, but for now, they are making some decent money on it. It's an example of innovation, taking a gamble and it paying off. I'd certainly be interested to hear more on what HK operators do/are doing in terms of innovation. I can only say what I see but perhaps someone from over there has more details.

I would not take Hulley's as an example quite yet - they need to go through a few winters yet. Remember the much vaunted (at the time) successful innovation of the X53 Jurassic Coaster - where is that now?
There has been lots of innovation since the 2000s, some of it successful and plenty not. But the industry has been drained of money and it is tired of taking risks and not getting a decent reward. Look at Transdev indeed - lots of effort but not rewarded by decent profits - in fact rewarded by an Enhanced Partnerships for greater control.

I really beg to differ on that one. There are a lot of people who are in buses and want to make them better. The issue is lack of experience. All the companies want experience but refuse to give it unless you are a graduate, god knows what people graduate in, I think hairdressing because half of them can't tie their own tie in the morning, let alone run a bus network. Inside the industry, there are plenty of people whom given the chance and resources would do a great job and would reverse decline within months. The key thing here though is listening and working with these people not having the current industry attitude of 'youre just a driver, what do you know' or 'yes, we will think about it' just to shut them up (which, trust me, is what the industry is doing). This part if off topic but it helps the point, if you have public transport growth minded people in charge, things can change. Look at Transdev! To bring this section slightly more on topic, with the British National Visa welcoming in a lot of people from Hong Kong, I wonder if any of their expertise will enter the industry and possibly help it grow. Could some of them start up their own operations using their own knowledge and mindset, adapting it to the UK market. We will have to see.



I think some things could be learnt with both operators and governments. An identical system may not work but Hong Kong seems to be public transport focussed and operators are more innovative enticing people onto their bus. A lot can be learnt by some operators and governments in that respect.

For every hopeless graduate there are 10 dreamy drivers who have lots of ideas but little practical knowledge and experience of the economics and constraints that the industry works under. If your owners are tired of taking financial risks because, by bitter experience, the potential reward is just not there sufficiently, or is taken from you, what are you going to do? Leave the industry for somewhere else?

As for the relevance of HK experience, see the reply to @miklcct above.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I really beg to differ on that one. There are a lot of people who are in buses and want to make them better. The issue is lack of experience. All the companies want experience but refuse to give it unless you are a graduate, god knows what people graduate in, I think hairdressing because half of them can't tie their own tie in the morning, let alone run a bus network. Inside the industry, there are plenty of people whom given the chance and resources would do a great job and would reverse decline within months. The key thing here though is listening and working with these people not having the current industry attitude of 'youre just a driver, what do you know' or 'yes, we will think about it' just to shut them up (which, trust me, is what the industry is doing).

I'd beg to differ. I don't know how many bus company managers you know well, and I mean very well? I know a few and the description you give is frankly insulting. @RT4038 is right to highlight the lack of experience and it's not for the reasons you specify.

Firstly, the industry is not well remunerated. Certainly not when you're comparing to other facets of the transport industry. That is one reason why people haven't been leaping into the bus industry. There are many good managers, and let's be honest, plenty of less good ones; that is without question. The ones I know have done their degrees and, you might be surprised to learn that they have degrees and other quals in areas such as Transport, Logistics, Business Administration, Business Studies.... exactly the sort of degree that you might expect, and not hairdressing. I toyed with the idea but when I started with student loans and overdrafts, the attraction of another 10-15% wages ensured that buses would not be my career.

Another issue is that you have a gap in recruitment, now evidenced now by senior figures retiring. From the mid 1980s until the mid 1990s (i.e. the period of preparation before de-reg until the consolidation of the industry), the usual means of recruiting trainee managers were turned off especially as firms sought to reduce their cost base. New entrants were rare and others left the industry; some prematurely as they trousered some good sums as part of management buy outs who then realised their investment. Those people who would've entered the industry (i.e. would now be mid 40s to 50s) are conspicuous by their absence in senior management positions because they weren't being recruited so there's a gap from those who joined in the late 70s and early 80s, and later entrants.

You can and should listen to drivers and engineering staff. However, being the son of a driver and having been brought up in smoky canteens and card schools, you can be assured for the ones that do talk sense, you have plenty of BS to plough through. There's also this view of "what do graduates know" and having "real bus men up from the ranks" who know what's what. I can think of a number who were promoted from within and they were/are hardly stellar, and arguably promoted beyond their capability. Poor managers are poor....irrespective of their origins!

The idea that a decline that can be reversed in a few months against all the challenges of town centre decline, car centric modern developments, internet shopping, decline in the evening hospitality trade (notice how many closed pubs there were BEFORE Covid hit), reductions to BSOG, increases to legislative requirements (e.g. pensions, accessibility, emissions), and an ever-widening gap in the cost base vs a private car that is effectively subsidised as fuel duty is frozen for 10 straight years.... Really?

I'll happily slaughter bus companies and have done in the past with First, Newport Bus, Diamond etc, and more recently with Arriva but often, you have talented managers who are simply constrained in a corporate straight jacket. That was the case with First who lost loads of really good people under the Lockhead regime, and I'd hate to be in Arriva at the moment.

Apologies for the off-topic rant but the hoary old chestnut of "these graduates not knowing anything" is something that really bugs me

 

[markymark2000]

The obvious difference is that the regulatory framework and also the geography.

In Hong Kong, public buses are run under franchises like the rail network here. In the past it was regional franchises, i.e. complete monopoly, but now the government wants limited competition so it's now route-based franchise.

The government has a final say on route approvals but, unlike London, the government does not plan all the routes themselves. Instead, bus companies are required to submit route development plans every year, which is consulted in the district councils, which the bus companies and government will take the opinions to improve. Plans are usually abandoned if it is objected by the district council but that's not a power. Bus companies are expected to make a profit, but on the whole network not individual routes. Therefore the availability of rural unprofitable routes is protected, and bus companies have an incentive to use these routes to feed passengers into their profitable routes, for example, by having interchange discounts between unprofitable routes and attractive routes.

The government has written criteria on when a route should have is frequency changed, cut short or cancelled, however it also has unwritten policies preventing too many buses in the city centre causing congestion, or running routes parallel to the railways. There were strict policies preventing bus companies from running direct routes from outer suburbs into the city centre, but they were cancelled when the underground was overloaded. Instead, now they are actually encouraged to run some such routes as some underground lines are expected to become overcrowded.

Limited competition here means that, for example, if a bus company runs an A-B route, other companies will be prevented from running a mostly the same route (in fact some routes have stops omitted because there is a competing route serving there). However, if other companies have an A-C and a C-B route, than there is competition. Or if company X runs an A-B-C route and company Y runs an A-B-D route. Here, bus companies can use different methods to attract passengers leveraging their existing networks, for example, one company may have a monthly pass for frequently commuters and more direct routing, but requiring a transfer, while another company has more destinations not requiring transfers and luxury buses.

When there is a new development area requiring a significant of new bus routes, or when there are multiple companies interested in the same route, the government will put up routes for tendering. When this results in another operator entering the market in an area, there will be competition and bus companies will try to improve services.

If this franchise model is applied into the national railways in the UK, it will be like e.g. Weymouth - Waterloo run by company A, Salisbury - Waterloo by company B, Portsmouth - Waterloo by company C; at the same time company A also runs St Pancras to Dover, company B also runs London Bridge - Dover, company C also runs St Prancas - Margate, each can have own fares set under a regulatory maximum and, in such case, they can use their own advantage to compete for passengers, e.g. offering TOC-specific through fare, improving travel experience, etc. (This can be further discussed in another thread)

Seems a little bit like our current bus service improvement plans in terms of innovation but I don't think it's in the pipeline to change how profit is done. Does the Hong Kong model hinder smaller operators with the legal framework of making it very difficult to scrap a route and limited competition means not much chance for a small bit of revenue extraction which helps on the startup of services.

For every hopeless graduate there are 10 dreamy drivers who have lots of ideas but little practical knowledge and experience of the economics and constraints that the industry works under. If your owners are tired of taking financial risks because, by bitter experience, the potential reward is just not there sufficiently, or is taken from you, what are you going to do? Leave the industry for somewhere else?

There are many good managers, and let's be honest, plenty of less good ones; that is without question.

100% agree. From personal experience, there are more bad graduates than good. Some have done excellent for themselves and prove themselves day in, day out. Others struggle tying their own tie. Stagecoach ones especially don't care about the local areas because they up and leave every few months to another area. Good for their experience in different areas but not good for the depots who need consistency to thrive and they become more of a hinderance than a help to local operations.
As I say, only my experience. If the industry was cheaper to start up, a lot of innovative companies would come about from the talented drivers who aren't given the right opportunities.

You can and should listen to drivers and engineering staff. However, being the son of a driver and having been brought up in smoky canteens and card schools, you can be assured for the ones that do talk sense, you have plenty of BS to plough through. There's also this view of "what do graduates know" and having "real bus men up from the ranks" who know what's what. I can think of a number who were promoted from within and they were/are hardly stellar, and arguably promoted beyond their capability. Poor managers are poor....irrespective of their origins!

I'm sure there are examples of both that as well as people who haven't been listened to and given the right opportunities. Can only speak from my experience. Where you are, it could be extremely different of course.

The idea that a decline that can be reversed in a few months against all the challenges of town centre decline, car centric modern developments, internet shopping, decline in the evening hospitality trade (notice how many closed pubs there were BEFORE Covid hit), reductions to BSOG, increases to legislative requirements (e.g. pensions, accessibility, emissions), and an ever-widening gap in the cost base vs a private car that is effectively subsidised as fuel duty is frozen for 10 straight years.... Really?

Some decline can be revered with the growth attitude and doing the right things. Look at Transdev with Rosso. 15% increase in passengers in the first year. Is it hard to completely change operations, yes. Is it doable though? Yes. Stop the spiral of decline and stop chasing immediate quick wins (drop the frequency so we get more people per bus) because they tend not to work and take the time to understand what the people want, why they aren't using the buses and what can be done to get them back. There is things which can be done but you have to want to expand and want to get people onboard. That said, I do agree with your point that I haven't quoted that it could be down to uncooperative PLC management rather than the individuals abilities.

 

[RT4038]

Some decline can be revered with the growth attitude and doing the right things. Look at Transdev with Rosso. 15% increase in passengers in the first year.

At what cost though?

Stop the spiral of decline and stop chasing immediate quick wins (drop the frequency so we get more people per bus) because they tend not to work and take the time to understand what the people want, why they aren't using the buses and what can be done to get them back. There is things which can be done but you have to want to expand and want to get people onboard. That said, I do agree with your point that I haven't quoted that it could be down to uncooperative PLC management rather than the individuals abilities.

This rather gives me the impression that you have not experienced the financial pressures of running a bus company. I presume 'uncooperative PLC' is a euphemism for senior management being sceptical about throwing good money after bad (by perpetuating [i.e. funding] uneconomic operations until a distant point when it'll all come right?)

 

[markymark2000]

At what cost though?

You have to invest to get money back.

This rather gives me the impression that you have not experienced the financial pressures of running a bus company. I presume 'uncooperative PLC' is a euphemism for senior management being sceptical about throwing good money after bad (by perpetuating [i.e. funding] uneconomic operations until a distant point when it'll all come right?)

Money can be made if you play things right. Don't invest, you get nothing back. There is more to it than that but i'd go way too off topic.

 

[RT4038]

You have to invest to get money back.


Money can be made if you play things right. Don't invest, you get nothing back. There is more to it than that but i'd go way too off topic.

Money can also be lost too (lots of it), by chasing will o' the wisps.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is fair to say that there are certain elements of best practice that can and should be employed within the bus industry. However, to pick examples of "it can be done", it is also to be recognised that there isn't a silver bullet. Transdev may have reported a 15% increase on Rosso services (note: I'd be interested to know how that was calculated) and it was undoubtedly ripe for some pruning and rationalisation. I'm generally impressed by what they do in terms of service delivery, marketing and entrepreneurial flair but they have had their share of reverses - see Cityzap Manchester, RedExpress X41, Red4. Similarly, for all the success of the South West Falcon from Stagecoach, the same trick didn't work further north for the Belles Express. First's North Somerset routes are getting an almighty prune and that's despite improved services, marketing etc over recent years.

Building back better (Boris loves the old 3 card trick and it's a long established marketing ploy beloved of politicians - see Get Brexit Done, Education Education Education, Yes, We Can, or Labour Isn't Working, etc) is going to be a very, very hard slog over the next 2-5 years. I was chatting on Saturday to a friend who works for a large employer locally - they employ thousands of staff within a financial services centre locally. So far, about 5-10% are back working in the office and it may never return to the levels previously experienced. Similarly, the change to the high street is massive and permanent and how that impacts commuting (for shop workers) and shopping is yet to fully be determined.

Investment has been limited in certain businesses anyway (e.g. First, Arriva) and the opportunity to loosen the purse strings further is perhaps unlikely given the current financial constraints. As @RT4038 suggests, some routes may justify it but others simply won't.

As for Hulleys, it is too early to gauge how successful financially they are.

 

[johncrossley]

(but regulated)

I think you can stop there. HK may be commercial but are they allowed to raise fares to any level they like? In the UK there is no fare regulation and so they can raise fares to the maximum level that it wouldn't be worth getting a taxi. In Britain the only criteria that matters is profit. It is probably possible to cut fares and carry more passengers but they would make less profit.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I think you can stop there. HK may be commercial but are they allowed to raise fares to any level they like? In the UK there is no fare regulation and so they can raise fares to the maximum level that it wouldn't be worth getting a taxi. In Britain the only criteria that matters is profit. It is probably possible to cut fares and carry more passengers but they would make less profit.

Or lose £700m a year in London....