Styrning av företag i nätverk. En studie av länstrafiken i Västernorrland

Sammanfattning: This study deals with the social control of public transportation in Sweden. In this context the society is represented by the Transport Authority of the county – i.e. County Transport Company (CTC). By controlling we mean how socety can govern and have an influence on different transportation companies – in everyday speech named bus companies – which carry out public transport. The study is based on the situation in Västernorrland county and describes how the governing of public transportation by the County Transport Company (CTC) developed during the years 1991-1998. To conclude, a model is presented on how CTC could change its governing from financial control to operational control. this in order to achieve improved efficiency. the study is rounded off by presenting some examples of how government in Sweden tries to govern public transportation. The examples are derived from government bills and official reports from the period 1997-2003. Public transport in Sweden has a long history. A need to travel together arose at an early stage – personal transport was lacking and travelling together was usually the most economical and efficient way for people to transport themselves and their goods. Development has gone from the horse-drawn wagons and boat traffic of bygone days to today’s public sector financed transportation. At the end of the 1970s a comprehensive reform took place, in that municipalities and county councils in every county were given joint responsibility for public transport (SFS 1978:438) – and thus become responsible for county transport. This responsibility at first covered bus traffic but was later extended to other means of transport as well locally as regionally. The act mentioned expired on 1st January 1998 when it was replaced by the Act on Responsibility for Certain Passenger Transport (SFS 1997:734) The act resulted in every county forming an organisation – an authority responsible for public transport. In most cases the transport authority took the form of a company – a County Transport Company (CTC) – but in a few cases statutory joint authorities were created. The owners were the relevant county councils and municipalities – a situation that still exists. Operations by CTSs are financed by fares and public funding, i.e taxes. The CTC in each county is a politically governed organisation with the task of ensuring that the county’s inhabitants are offered public transport. the transport authority has the concession/right to execute public transport in the county. However the authority does not normally carry out the transport activities itself, but allocates transports by means tendering procedures among various transport companies – usually called bus companies. This is achieved by diving up the county into different transport areas or routes and appointing a transport company by means of tendering procedures to be responsible for public transport in the area for a period of, usually, four years. there are two main forms for the procurement of public transport: • Gross contract • net contract Gross contract means that a transport company’s tender only contains the cost of carrying out public transport within a stated geographical area. The CTC plans and markets public transport. Fares are transferred in full by the transport company to the CTC, while the transport company receives compensation for the cost of public transport carries out. The gross contract is the dominant form of procurement, which means that both the CTC and the transport companies are concentrate on minimizing costs. Net contract, means that the transport company’s tender is based on fares with a deduction for the costs of running public transport. In this case fares are kept by the transport company, which also within certain limits will carry out the planning, market public transport and procedure transportation. The use of gross contracts has meant that companies have concentrated their interest all too much on costs in order to cope with their commitment. The tendering procedures favour a transport company that presents the lowest tender for implementing the transport. Therefore there is a clear risk that interests of the users/passengers are set aside. This may in the long-term result in public transport finding it more difficult to assert itself against other means of transportation. From the point of view of the community and in pace with increasing environmental awareness, it is important that more travelers make use of public transport. Improved use of public transport would provide socioeconomic gains such as increased self-financing of public transport (less financing by taxes), a better environment in the form of reductions in exhaust emissions because of reduced use of private cars, and perhaps less need for infrastructure investments in the form of roads and car parks.