The Megabus Disruption

Dale Moser
Dale Moser

James A. Bacon

In 2006 the Megabus inter-city bus line opened its Chicago hub serving a handful of Midwestern cities. Today the company has 300 buses operating in 100 cities across the United States and Canada. Not only does the bus line now serve millions of riders annually, the so-called “Megabus effect” has inspired numerous imitators to pile into the market for inter-city bus service. After 35 years of decline, inter-city bus service has rebounded.

Megabus, which is owned by the United Kingdom-based Stagecoach Group, has plenty of room to grow, said Dale Moser, president and COO of Coach USA Monday at the American Dream Coalition conference. The potential market is vast: all inter-city travel, especially travel in cars and airplanes. “We’re converting 60 percent of our customers from cars — it’s  a huge modal shift.”

Moser received a warm reception at the conference, attended by fiscal and free-market conservatives. Attendees were big fans of shared ridership travel modes — when they can be operated without government subsidies. And Megabus, Moser emphasized, can charge insanely low rates — only $7 to downtown Washington, D.C., in one of the six departures tomorrow from downtown Richmond — and yet receives no federal or state subsidies.

The Megabus business model has stripped out many of the costs associated with traditional inter-city bus carriers. Most notably, it has no terminals. It picks up customers curbside at pre-determined, city-center locations, and it books 98% of its customers online. (A few buy walk-up tickets.) Thanks to a double-decker configuration, the company also packs more customers onto a bus without sacrificing comfort. Wi-Fi and electrical outlets allow passengers to use their laptops and tablets during the trip.

Unlike some of the so-called “China buses,” Megabus has an impeccable safety record, Moser said. “We believe we’re the safest operator out there.”

Without a lot of fixed investment in terminals to tie it down, the company is extraordinarily flexible. It moves into new markets quickly — and leaves just as quickly. If business materializes — typically by word of mouth — the company stays. If it doesn’t, it packs up and leaves.

Needless to say, bus travel is more energy efficient and environmentally benign than riding in automobiles or airplanes., especially when the double-decker buses are traveling fully loaded. “When all other things are equal,” Moser said, “consumers turn to the green alternative.”

One of the company’s major hurdles is finding locations to pick up customers and drop them off. Megabus typically needs municipal approval to top at a particular location, and neighbors sometimes object. “People don’t like their quiet streets becoming a bus terminal,” Moser explained. But it’s a problem the company has been able to work around so far.

Bacon’s bottom line: No state or federal policy wonk foretold the revitalization of inter-city bus. We don’t need more government subsidies and industrial policy to solve our transportation problems — we need more innovation, more disruptive business models, more out-of-left-field thinking in a free-market economy.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

14 responses to “The Megabus Disruption”

  1. NewVirginia Avatar
    NewVirginia

    I recently completed a paper on this megabus effect and am largely in agreement with you. Buses are a great alternative to cars and Megabus has made them incredibly competitive without government’s subsidies and inefficiencies.

    That said, we do have to keep in mind that they are not truly “unsubsidized.” They work because of a comprehensive highway system that represents a massive capital investment by the Federal government and is increasingly unable to pay for itself. A better analogy would be if the government built a network of high speed rail lines that could be used for free by any company. A private company could run a successful and unsubsidized line by just purchasing some train cars and paying for fuel.

    Secondly, while buses provide a huge advantage under current market conditions, they are ill-equipped to handle long-term growth in demand for public transportation. They are susceptible to increasing congestion, reliant on raw materials whose costs will increase, and have limited room for labor efficiency gains.

    For now they are great though and may add to the densifying of central cities. They make it that much more feasible to not own a car (which is when customers start seeing the real cost savings). Right now, many people can move to an area where they don’t need a car but they will still need one to visit their parents, friends, etc. And since they still need a car for that, they might as well live somewhere they drive to work as well. Megabus’ growth may change that calculus for some.

    1. re: ” That said, we do have to keep in mind that they are not truly “unsubsidized.” They work because of a comprehensive highway system that represents a massive capital investment by the Federal government and is increasingly unable to pay for itself. A better analogy would be if the government built a network of high speed rail lines that could be used for free by any company. A private company could run a successful and unsubsidized line by just purchasing some train cars and paying for fuel.”

      that’s an exceptionally important point because much of the current rail right-of-way was a gift from the govt, an “investment” in hopes that rail could then operate at a profit if the right-of-way was provided.

      Amtrak would operate on rail right of way the same way that Megabus operates on road right-of-way instead of Amtrak having to pay CSX for the use of the tracks.

      Imagine how our roads would work today – if we can given the road right-of-way to companies that would own them and charge for their use -like CSX does.

      and when we talk about adding a 3rd rail between Washington and Richmond to operate at higher speeds – who would actually own that track and would Amtrak still have to pay to use it?

      Even now, with the agreement with Transurban and Fluor to operate HOT lanes, you’d think listening to some folks that we have been betrayed and it’s an outrage to have to pay tolls to a private company.

      but that’s the way rails work right now for everyone that uses CSX-owned tracks.

    2. DJRippert Avatar

      NewVirginia – I am not sure why you “recently completed a paper on this megabus effect”. I am sure that whoever received your paper should be very happy to have gotten that paper. If it was a school, you deserve an A. If it was a company, you deserve a promotion.

      You have neatly sliced through the billowing and suffocating cloud of blue smoke emanating from so-called free market thinkers. The roads are indeed heavily subsidized. And your analogy of the government building a free rail line that companies could use for their own rail cars is well conceived.

      Pseudo-conservatives have some bizarre dislike for rail although rail transit covers 54% of it operating costs through fares and fees while road transit covers 51%. Buses, on the other hand, cover 28%. To be fair, municipal bus companies are not the same as private megabuses but the point is still valid – there is no reason to believe that rail is more subsidized than roads. In fact, just the opposite seems to be true.

      Well done. Keep up the good work. And come back here and visit us from time to time. Logical thinking is always welcome.

  2. Megabus uses a European pricing model for ticketing. Buy a ticket early for a buck, or wait too long and end up paying $75.

    What they really need to work on is the ability for scheduling multiple routes on their website. I tried to take fictitious trips from Tidewater to Orlando or Dallas, which quickly became a nightmare to schedule. You had to take each leg separately and try to tie them together in some semblance of continuity. There’s nothing that will kill your trust in Megabus like arriving in Charlotte or Knoxville at 2am and then standing in the dark until the next bus in the itinerary arrives at 8am. The reality is that the Megabus business model works great as long as you NEVER leave the bus. Richmond straight to DC? Ok. Richmond to Atlanta with a change in Charlotte? Iffy.

    The Chinese buses had this figured out with terminals in late night Asian food stores and single destination overnight express runs. Bad things can happen if you leave the bus otherwise.

  3. there are some red flags:

    ” According to federal records, since August 2007, Chicago hub drivers have been cited 54 times by police: 21 times for not maintaining driver logs, 20 times for speeding, three times for following too closely, 2 times for improper lane changes, and 2 for windshield violations. There were 6 other violations of local laws.[34] Also, New York hub drivers have been cited 29 times by police: 14 times for speeding, five times for not maintaining driver logs, two times for failing to obey a traffic control device, two times for defects (windshield cracked and other), and 1 time for falsifying a log book. There were 5 other violations of local laws.[34] There have been four other accidents involving Megabus vehicles.[34]
    The safety of curbside bus services came under scrutiny after a 2011 crash in New York caused 14 fatalities.[35] The National Transportation Safety Board conducted a six-month study and found that while bus travel was considerably safer than by car, curbside buses had seven times the fatality rates of traditional bus lines.[36][37]”

    wiki

    and while I saw $7 trips, the majority were $26 which is in between Greyhounds $16 (web only) and %31 (standard fare).

    I don’t see this as a genuine disruptive business model. It’s closer to a skimming for a abbreviated typed service rather than a full-service transit carrier and if it ever went to full service, it would have to charge more.

    and the red flags bother me.

    so I wonder if they are a legitimate competitor to Greyhound or whether they’re essentially weakening greyhound by skimming the easier trips which will end up making some of Greyhounds marginal trips on their full-service schedule – less profitable to the point where they would go to a less frequent schedule.

    the interesting thing is I can find an Amrak seat for $33.00 (though others are more).

    I think what this really brings to the fore – is ..the difference between regulation and de-facto unregulated.

    My suspects are than one serious bus crash with deaths and injuries will run this company into bankruptcy because they probably lack the same level of insurance
    that a company like Greyhound might have.

    I’m not opposed to competition but it needs to be apples to apples and if it’s not, consumers need to know the differences. You kinda get what you pay for.

    1. Are any of those “red flags” you haphazardly cite attributed to Megabus or are you just using them to slander? Megabus has an impeccable safety record and deserves better than guilt by association with the Chinese buses.

      Government rail and buses are fortunate in that they always operate above the law, don’t they? Should we go into their safety record?

      I give Megabus another 5 years or so until they’re shut down by the feds through regulatory torture. The unions already got their hooks in with the bus drivers, it is only a matter of time. No private enterprise goes unpunished in the age of Obama.

      1. Johns – did you see the actual cites for MegaBus drivers?

        Did you see where several of the cites were for not maintaining logs?

        that’s a red flag. that’s the problem with the Chinese buses.

        that’s one of the significant costs for buses and the place where savings can be made – but at what cost to safety?

        I don’t think the Chinese buses are unsafe because they are chinese. I think they are unsafe because they shave the safety – like using drivers
        that have been too long at the wheel.

        If Megabus is engaging in that same type of activity – they should be shut down right now – not five years from now.

        Here’s the question. Do you think the current regulations are wrong and that if Megabus (or the Chinese) can ignore these regs and run a less expensive service – that they are entitled to do that and the govt is wrong for “using” regulations to shut them down?

        so you are opposed to the current regulations? yes or no.

        because that’s what this is about. It’s not about squashing innovation or better competitors… it’s about who has to obey the regulations and who does not – and if those regulations are warranted in the first place.

        so what’s your more detailed view?

        do you think the current regulations are unwarranted and the way to “break” them is to have new start-ups ignore them – and in doing that
        out-compete the companies who still obey those regs?

        what say you? ( I think its truly a debatable point).

  4. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    Perhaps this mega bus disruption is just the tonic for these times and this place. Simplicity is the key to success now. It offers far less opportunity for building in the abuse that today so often occurs in building heavy new heavy infrastructure. See: https://www.baconsrebellion.com/2013/10/subsidies-as-usual-for-mass-transit.html

    And, while the subsidy may be heavy technically, its cost is mostly already build into the system and unavoidable without these buses who cost impact now is likely quite low given the amount of people moved over a few rubber wheels as opposed to auto commuters and trucks.

    So, at the place we find ourselves in today, this bus solution is most likely a very economical solution on all economic fronts until we find better long term solutions for a host of circumstances, if we ever do.

  5. I think the MegaBus deal is similar to the unregulated taxi movement.

    and it boils down after all the shouting is done – to insurance:

    1. – how much insurance is enough and who decides that?

    2. – can passenger carriers “self insure” or buy insurance from any
    company that claims to be an insurance company – unregulated?

    so here’s the question – Should 1. and 2. be purely a free-market issue with no involvement of government?

    Are we basically saying that insurance should not be required anymore
    and any carrier – Greyhound, Yellow Cab, Amtrak does not need insurance and the purchasers of those services know this and have their own insurance or just go bare?

    More and more, I’m coming to the view that either Libertarian leaning folks don’t understand the concept of insurance or they just flat reject it.

    but you cannot have multiple diverse companies providing services to the public and some of them are required to have minimum coverage insurance and their competitors – not.

    so what’s the answer?

  6. Andrew Moore Avatar
    Andrew Moore

    Thanks for bringing up Megabus for discussion. I have long thought that this piece of the public transportation network was underreported and under appreciated. In all of the furor over the potential for Main Street Station to be a multi-modal center, the Megabus has been quietly and successfully operating in the shadow of the bridges there with little notice. Let’s celebrate a viable, free market alternative to the automobile in Richmond – notable indeed.

  7. […] blogger Jim Bacon attended the American Dream conference and has a few words to say about Dale Moser’s presentation about Megabus. Bacon also comments on the debate that […]

  8. […] the Bacon’s Rebellion blog, James Bacon explains the “Megabus Disruption” in an excellent post about how the market-based model of Megabus and has revolutionized and […]

  9. Always the first refuge of statists: “Well, it isn’t really free market. The government created the roads. Therefore, it’s not unsubsidized” More sophistic reasoning is hard to find. Of course government created the roads. It is the only entity in a position to do so efficiently, though we can all question the “efficiently” part We all remember how many years I-95 south of Richmond was “under repair”. Even Illinois (that’s right, Illinois) does a better job. A 20 mile stretch of I-94 north of Chicago, six lanes plus pull off lanes, was completely rebuilt from 8 feet below the surface in two years (actually 1 year, they can only work six months of the year). But I digress.
    Libertarians don’t claim there is no role for government. Even the stinking EPA is a justifiable governmental function. No one else is in a position to do their task. What libertarians claim is that government should have minimal role. It’s fine to have regulations re: safety. It’s not fine to restrict entry to markets based on…what? Protectionism. Go see what Institute for Justice has to fight against and tell me government is just a fine kettle of fish.

    Now let’s take some of the statements here:
    >”they are ill-equipped to handle long-term growth in demand for public transportation.>
    Based on what? Your assertion?
    Did Jim ever say they were? No, he’s saying it works now and for the foreseeable future. When that no longer works (Remember, Megabus pull up stakes and leaves when it doesn’t work), something else will take its place. That’s the nature of the free market.
    >>It all boils down to insurance.
    Larry G: Yes. I’d want to travel on a fully insured bus. I can ask for their insurance certificates, like I do with any contractor who comes to work on my house. If they don’t have it, I can go elsewhere. I know how much insurance I want that bus to have. The information is all over the internet. You want the nanny state to dictate that. I wouldn’t require that the first group you mention, the one now “required” to have insurance, to have it. You are probably also for Obamacare’s “required standards” for health insurance, ignoring the side effects of the policy. It would fit your argument.

    >>I don’t see this as a genuine disruptive business model. It’s closer to a skimming for a abbreviated typed service rather than a full-service transit carrier and if it ever went to full service, it would have to charge more.>>

    Yes, and your point would be? Costco is a skimmer. I don’t see you complaining about that. If people want full-service, the market will supply it. What’s the beef? I know. You want the government to make them provide full service. You would complain about anything that can’t be regulated or mandated by the government.

    1. re: ” Larry G: Yes. I’d want to travel on a fully insured bus. I can ask for their insurance certificates, like I do with any contractor who comes to work on my house. If they don’t have it, I can go elsewhere. ”

      what I love about Libertarians is what they take for granted. WHERE did that certificate come from and who says what’s got to be on it – and if what’s on it is the truth?

      who says that XYZ insurances offers the bus all inclusive insurance for a a dollar a bus? do you think that might be good insurance? Who would you expect to make sure the insurance company had the financial resources to pay for a catastrophe and not just declare bankruptcy and disappear?

      are you assuming the govt is going to do these things or are you assuming they will be done voluntarily or what?

      can anyone declare themselves to be an insurance company and sell insurance?

      seriously. please come back and talk about this.

      I know how much insurance I want that bus to have. The information is all over the internet. You want the nanny state to dictate that. I wouldn’t require that the first group you mention, the one now “required” to have insurance, to have it. You are probably also for Obamacare’s “required standards” for health insurance, ignoring the side effects of the policy. It would fit your argument.

Leave a Reply