Hi,
So we know that if a bus makes it back to the terminus, say 10 mins before the scheduled time of arrival, the next departure will not be earlier but at the same time. So we have a fixed number of departures everyday.
Consider the possibility that a bus traveling slower and taking longer to reach the next stop provides more time for the length of the queue to grow, so when the bus arrives at the stop there are more pax boarding the bus now than there would have been if the bus reached the stop several minutes earlier. If the bus driver were racing against time to make it to the next stop to pick up more pax, then in the process he will have missed those extra pax he could have had on board driving slowly.
Therefore, on the same route, he will have picked up more passengers. While the cost may be more or less the same at a lower speed, revenue is maximised for that same run.
I can see this working on, for instance, the 973 (Citybus) route from Stanley Market to Tsim Sha Tsui East. On much of this route, this is the only service operating between these two destinations. Frequency is mostly p!ss-poor and the buses are sluggish, but it has been operating for years and years. I think it is profitable.
Now let's take a look at bus services running between Central and Hang Hau. KMB's service is the 692 and they also have a 690 that runs from Central to Tsui Lam. Citybus/NWFB's service on this route is (gasp!)... the 692!!! Suffice it to say that KMB owns this route. Okay there is the MTR, maybe the red minibuses and taxis. But there are no other bus services that operate between these two routes.
The point is this, driving faster does not equal higher revenue, especially when you do not have other buses picking up your pax, and you operate a fixed number of runs everyday.
This driver wanted a longer break. Blame him, or blame KMB for not giving drivers longer breaks that they have to resort to speeding. But how long a break is long enough?