Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[Bletchleyite]

Fair enough, thanks. I am in agreement that the comfort on Metrolink trams is inadequate - for the kind of system it is, a setup more like the Sheffield one with standee areas and a saloon for longer journeys would have been better. Indeed, with a high floor there's no need for the sort of layout they have chosen, it does look rather like they chose a low-floor design (with all the limitations they have) and then asked for it to be high-floored as is!

I don't *generally* support forcing changes, though I do support evening the keel somewhat to the fares being the same whatever mode or combination of modes you choose to use, and tweaking the bus routes for quality interchange i.e. running them into dedicated interchange facilities (in the kind of manner, say, the London 59 runs into Euston bus station rather than just turning right at the lights). That might mean through stopping buses are less popular (and so are trimmed a bit), it might not, but at least the passengers can decide that way.

For example, I'd have the 192 run via the station forecourt at Hazel Grove and Stockport for ease of interchange (possibly also Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme depending on the road layout), but I wouldn't bother splitting it up. (I'm not as familiar with the bus operations on the Marple corridor, I'm afraid).

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Took at step back to look at the various posts being made. To be fair, there has been a lot of good information shared.

My concern, and it is being shown by some of the comments, is that we could end up in some dogmatic fervour where, because it's cheaper to on a marginal cost basis (and some rather selective views on costs etc) that buses will merely be a means of feeding the Metrolink system for the most part.

All this talk on road space and time differentials - yet, there have been many things that the councils and GMPTE could have done to improve the competitiveness of buses vs. the private car. However, there seems to be the political will to do this but only if they have control - almost as if there is a view that they can't support (in whatever sense) private bus companies in the current regulatory framework.

My concerns, rightly or wrongly, is that you'll have a route like Cadishead to Manchester (67) and that they'll be forced decampment at Eccles. This being done because "it's cheaper on a marginal cost basis" or it "removes duplication" and NOT reflecting the needs of the travelling public.

As Dentonian is rightly pointing out, we shouldn't be disadvantaging those people who need those current links, being regarded as collateral damage as long as total modal shift is achieved.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However, there seems to be the political will to do this but only if they have control - almost as if there is a view that they can't support (in whatever sense) private bus companies in the current regulatory framework.

The problem is that cowboys like UK North showed that the real problem with the current regulatory framework is that there isn't a regulatory framework. UK North (eventually, and not without a fight) lost their O-licence because they killed someone. If they hadn't done that, there would have been very little TfGM/GMPTE could have done to prevent the gridlock caused by the on-road bus competition. Even the temporary order restricting bus numbers didn't prevent gridlock in Manchester city centre.

And it wasn't just UK North: every time UK North upped the ante, Stagecoach retaliated through Magic Bus. Stagecoach behaved just as problematically. The whole thing really only finally calmed down when EYMS sold Finglands to First and Bullocks sold out to Stagecoach.

But if a local authority gets their fingers burned like that, it's not a surprise that they don't trust any of the bus operators.

 

[nerd]

Took at step back to look at the various posts being made. To be fair, there has been a lot of good information shared.

My concern, and it is being shown by some of the comments, is that we could end up in some dogmatic fervour where, because it's cheaper to on a marginal cost basis (and some rather selective views on costs etc) that buses will merely be a means of feeding the Metrolink system for the most part.

All this talk on road space and time differentials - yet, there have been many things that the councils and GMPTE could have done to improve the competitiveness of buses vs. the private car. However, there seems to be the political will to do this but only if they have control - almost as if there is a view that they can't support (in whatever sense) private bus companies in the current regulatory framework.

My concerns, rightly or wrongly, is that you'll have a route like Cadishead to Manchester (67) and that they'll be forced decampment at Eccles. This being done because "it's cheaper on a marginal cost basis" or it "removes duplication" and NOT reflecting the needs of the travelling public.

As Dentonian is rightly pointing out, we shouldn't be disadvantaging those people who need those current links, being regarded as collateral damage as long as total modal shift is achieved.

I see nothing in the current publications from TfGM to suggest that they envisage reworking stopping bus routes to feed into Metrolink stops or rail stations; in so far as redrawing the bus network is concerned, the chief change so far proposed is greatly to increase cross-city routes (and hence reduce services terminating at Parker Street and Shudehill). Otherwise the main focus of discussion has been about simplifying fare structures, and providing through-ticketing.

You do raise an intriguing point though TGW, in that I am not sure whether the schemes submitted to the independent auditor for testing may be formally inclusive of financial benefits to the Metrolink system. My impresssion is not; hence TfGM would not be able to justify cutting back bus services on the basis that profitability would be increased on their tram services.

You are right though that there has been a political inhibition against taking action to improve the competitiveness of buses over private cars; but this inhibition was built into the deregulated system at the start. The designers of deregulation assumed as an inescapable truth that bus use was second-best to car use; and so that as population income rises, so bus use will fall. The corollary of which being that road investment should always prioritise private cars over buses.

We see now - decades later - that this assumption (whether justified or not at the time) no longer applies. The underlying pressure creating continued increases in demand for public transport (and cycling) is that increasingly city centre travellers prefer not to drive themselves. But reconfiguring the road system to be optimised for buses and bikes will cost large amounts of money - and will inevitably result in some loss of functionality for private car users - either a loss of roadspace, or a loss of parking. In this context the reported profit levels and income bonuses of the bus magnates has proved to be a clear political barrier to public investment. Car drivers readily attack any proposed investment in bus infrastructure as simply lining the pockets of the bus operators. Rational of not, this is an important context for the likely form of bus regulation that may emerge from the assessment process.

But even were that political context to be removed; it remains true that the case for road infrastructure investment in support of bus services is much more difficult to make when the transport authority cannot commit in its planning documentation to any outcome service levels. Very much a matter of 'we will invest in the route in the expectation that the operators will run their services along it". Again this is was an inherent flaw in the deregulated system; once bus use becomes recognised as a long-term preference (not simply how you travel while you can't afford a car), then some assurance of permanence becomes important. Bus services are not like airlines; if we are to invest large amounts of money in support of them, we will want an assurance that the service we travel on now is likely still to be running in five and ten years time.

 

[HSTEd]

It is worth remembering that going from a 10 minute to a 12 minute headway allows operating costs to be reduced by a sixth, despite only increasing the average wait for a bus marginally.

We certainly wouldn't be talking about cutting buses to quarter hourly or even half hourly.

 

[radamfi]

It is worth remembering that going from a 10 minute to a 12 minute headway allows operating costs to be reduced by a sixth, despite only increasing the average wait for a bus marginally.

London buses are classed as "high frequency" at a frequency of 12 minutes or better. London bus routes running every 10 minutes carry much heavier loads than Manchester routes of higher frequency, of which there are several, if you look at routes on a corridor basis.

 

[Dentonian]

London buses are classed as "high frequency" at a frequency of 12 minutes or better. London bus routes running every 10 minutes carry much heavier loads than Manchester routes of higher frequency, of which there are several, if you look at routes on a corridor basis.

A bit of a generalisation, methinks. Haven't the preparatory studies into Franchising already revealed wide variances in average loads on different high frequency corridors? And again, don't assume that the heaviest loads are confined to Manchester. Besides, isn't the whole exercise designed to increase patronage?

 

[Dentonian]

I see nothing in the current publications from TfGM to suggest that they envisage reworking stopping bus routes to feed into Metrolink stops or rail stations; in so far as redrawing the bus network is concerned, the chief change so far proposed is greatly to increase cross-city routes (and hence reduce services terminating at Parker Street and Shudehill). Otherwise the main focus of discussion has been about simplifying fare structures, and providing through-ticketing.


In this context the reported profit levels and income bonuses of the bus magnates has proved to be a clear political barrier to public investment. Car drivers readily attack any proposed investment in bus infrastructure as simply lining the pockets of the bus operators.

(1) Increasing cross-city routes would be very welcome, but don't forget it was the City Council that banned them in the first place back in 1995. Albeit some cross city links for all except the eastern quadrant have been re-instated after a fashion since. Just like its the eastern quadrant that doesn't have cross-city heavy rail.

(2) This was exactly the propoganda used by MART etc in the TIF Referendum. Albeit, as has been revealed on another thread, the motoring lobby would also see Rail as an option for them to switch to, wheras Buses are for "others", and why should they help "others" to compete with them in the jobs market etc. Remember, the TIF Referendum was at the perceived height of the Recession, and since then many motorists have seen that investment in Rail (heavy and light) hasn't exactly delivered. Besides, many have found themselves with a new enemy on the roads....................and not just on the roads(!)

 

[radamfi]

A bit of a generalisation, methinks. Haven't the preparatory studies into Franchising already revealed wide variances in average loads on different high frequency corridors? And again, don't assume that the heaviest loads are confined to Manchester. Besides, isn't the whole exercise designed to increase patronage?

Many London routes running as infrequently as every 10-12 minutes regularly carry standing loads. On routes run by regular double deckers, crowding is often so bad that the drivers don't let on passengers until all the alighting passengers have got off at the centre exit. Buses are sometimes so full they don't even stop. Overcrowding on certain routes is often raised by London Assembly members.

Critics of the London system say that in a deregulated environment, there is more incentive to lay on extra buses to alleviate overcrowding. The theory being that outside London, operators would rather run more buses than necessary on major corridors because if they didn't, competing operators would fill the gap.

 

[Dentonian]

Took at step back to look at the various posts being made. To be fair, there has been a lot of good information shared.



My concerns, rightly or wrongly, is that you'll have a route like Cadishead to Manchester (67) and that they'll be forced decampment at Eccles. This being done because "it's cheaper on a marginal cost basis" or it "removes duplication" and NOT reflecting the needs of the travelling public.

As Dentonian is rightly pointing out, we shouldn't be disadvantaging those people who need those current links, being regarded as collateral damage as long as total modal shift is achieved.

Thanks for your support (lol). Seriously though, I am in full agreement with you (albeit GMPTE has now morphed via GMITA to TFGM), and you raise a good example with the 67 or anything else arriving in Eccles from the west of the town. For those not familiar with the area, the Eccles Metrolink line is hardly direct and I dare say that off-peak especially, it would take just as long (if not longer) to get to the city centre than buses using extended bus priorities through Salford. Also, Eccles Station is a fair walk from the Bus/Metrolink Interchange and town centre in general and as it stands only has the odd peak extra on top of a basic hourly service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With Eccles I'd like to see quality interchange being made available and fare disadvantage removed, but as the Eccles Metrolink line is mostly intended for going to/from Salford Quays it is slow and so withdrawing the "parallel" bus services would be silly.

OTOH, would long, slow through bus journeys on the 192 all the way to Manchester be particularly popular if there was quality interchange and no disadvantage fare-wise for a switch onto the train at Hazel Grove or Stockport?

 

[nerd]

Many London routes running as infrequently as every 10-12 minutes regularly carry standing loads. On routes run by regular double deckers, crowding is often so bad that the drivers don't let on passengers until all the alighting passengers have got off at the centre exit. Buses are sometimes so full they don't even stop. Overcrowding on certain routes is often raised by London Assembly members.

Critics of the London system say that in a deregulated environment, there is more incentive to lay on extra buses to alleviate overcrowding. The theory being that outside London, operators would rather run more buses than necessary on major corridors because if they didn't, competing operators would fill the gap.

Which in turn begs the question of whether such routes might not better be served by articulated 18m (or indeed double-articualted 23m) single-deckers with a much higher proportion of standing passengers? In general, I would expect high volume routes in the future not to use double-deckers at all.

Partly of course, the demonsation of 'bendy buses' was a poltical gimmick by a now discredited populist clown. Rescuing their reputation will require a fair amount of work; and also a willingness to spend much more on dedicated infrastructure than TfL thought they could get away with. But I can certainly envisage battery powered articulated single-deckers running from Fallowfield thourgh to Salford Uni; thereby carrying the same volume of university-related bus business; but in substantially fewer services, and taking up less road space.

 

[edwin_m]

There would be benefit in providing good bus/tram interchange at Eccles so that passengers from further west can connect by tram into Salford Quays. But from what little I know of the tram speed in that area I agree it would be pointless to expect people to use the tram into central Manchester.

However the picture could well be different for, say, Waterhead and Lees where a change at Mumps would access Metrolink on former railway which must be far quicker and more reliable than the trek along the A62 into Manchester. A local Oldham-Manchester bus service would still be needed as many bus stops on the A62 don't have a tram stop nearby, but to improve reliability services might terminate in Oldham rather than running through.

 

[edwin_m]

Which in turn begs the question of whether such routes might not better be served by articulated 18m (or indeed double-articualted 23m) single-deckers with a much higher proportion of standing passengers? In general, I would expect high volume routes in the future not to use double-deckers at all.

Partly of course, the demonsation of 'bendy buses' was a poltical gimmick by a now discredited populist clown. Rescuing their reputation will require a fair amount of work; and also a willingness to spend much more on dedicated infrastructure than TfL thought they could get away with. But I can certainly envisage battery powered articulated single-deckers running from Fallowfield thourgh to Salford Uni; thereby carrying the same volume of university-related bus business; but in substantially fewer services, and taking up less road space.

Given the concerns about standing on a tram, the less controlled motion of a bus, and the population being accustomed to double deckers where most passengers are seated, I do wonder if this would work for relatively long journeys in Manchester. Weren't the bendies in London used mostly in the centre where the presence of the Tube means most bus journeys are short and the traffic means most bus journeys don't get up much speed so are relatively smooth?

 

[Dentonian]

Critics of the London system say that in a deregulated environment, there is more incentive to lay on extra buses to alleviate overcrowding. The theory being that outside London, operators would rather run more buses than necessary on major corridors because if they didn't, competing operators would fill the gap.

Trouble is overcrowding is too unpredictable on most corridors, as its largely to do with "incidents" creating bigger gaps in buses than are scheduled advertised. Also, the "competition" element of De-reg has sort of completed a circle. Its sort of "grown old disgracefully". Certainly in GM, it started with "new" Operators who were effectively ex GMT employees (often managers) who seemed to be motivated by revenge rather than creating a long-term business based on innovation. Then after GMS sold out, any competitor was effectively low quality operators making an almost quasi-political stance against Stagecoach in particular, in the hope that they would be enough of a thorn in Stagecoach's side to "make them an offer". In reality, Stagecoach just swamped them in the knowledge that most were operating "on the edge of the law" to put it diplomatically, and that would be their eventual downfall. Amazingly, Stagecoach were able to do this without it impacting notably on heir remaining network. The exceptions being Bluebird and Maynes who were relatively decent Operators, but sold up for other reasons. I don't know if its just my poor memory, but First didn't seem to have as much competition (other than pre-existing Ops), which tells a story in itself. Now, we have a situation where the only* overt competition is between Walkden and Manchester and to a lesser extent along Middleton Road. Yet, this seems to have impacted negatively on the rest of the network (certainly as regards Stagecoach) more than all the previous "bus wars".

*Possibly due to the on going dispute at Rusholme depot, First are reducing both their 41 and 42 along Oxford Road from 29 January - noting that Finglands pre-dated First on these routes (or broadly similar ones) before 2014 anyway.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to see which services in GM are the most profitable (percentage wise) nowadays. Back in the 1980s, so covering both GMT & GM Buses, the same three services consistently made the biggest operational profits - and only one went near the "Regional Centre"!

 

[radamfi]

There would be benefit in providing good bus/tram interchange at Eccles so that passengers from further west can connect by tram into Salford Quays. But from what little I know of the tram speed in that area I agree it would be pointless to expect people to use the tram into central Manchester.

However the picture could well be different for, say, Waterhead and Lees where a change at Mumps would access Metrolink on former railway which must be far quicker and more reliable than the trek along the A62 into Manchester. A local Oldham-Manchester bus service would still be needed as many bus stops on the A62 don't have a tram stop nearby, but to improve reliability services might terminate in Oldham rather than running through.

There are already good interchanges at Eccles and Oldham Mumps in terms of the fact that Eccles bus station is right next to the tram terminus, and the new Oldham Mumps tram stop has got bus stops right by each side of the tram platforms, making the connection as seamless as it could be. Maybe some people are changing there today, but there is a significant financial penalty for doing so.

Much of the chat on this thread concerns changing between buses and trams or trains, but of probably even more importance should be changing between buses. I mentioned the London overcrowding on relatively infrequent routes to demonstrate that you can get good ridership levels without flooding the road with buses. We have some corridors in GM with 12 or more buses per hour, but clearly they aren't carrying anything like what London bus routes are, showing that the high frequency of service in GM isn't attracting passengers. Once services are running reliably and quickly, every 10 minutes should be attractive enough. If there is overcrowding then use longer/bigger buses and faster boarding methods in the first instance, then increase frequency only if that isn't enough.

One main reason why such corridors exist is the requirement to run as many direct services as possible. Each route individually may only be every 10 minutes or worse, but when they combine along the main corridor the frequency is much higher. Taking Eccles as an example, the Eccles to Manchester route via Pendleton is very frequent, because there are several through routes continuing beyond Eccles. The Eccles to Manchester section could be rationalised to every 10 minutes, maybe with artics and ideally with improved infrastructure to make it reliable. Then you could use the resources saved to run more frequent services into Eccles from the surrounding area, including some of the routes which currently have relatively infrequent but direct links along the main corridor via Pendleton. This would mean some severed links, but more people overall would have good access to both the bus via Pendleton and tram via Salford Quays.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The problem is that cowboys like UK North showed that the real problem with the current regulatory framework is that there isn't a regulatory framework. UK North (eventually, and not without a fight) lost their O-licence because they killed someone. If they hadn't done that, there would have been very little TfGM/GMPTE could have done to prevent the gridlock caused by the on-road bus competition. Even the temporary order restricting bus numbers didn't prevent gridlock in Manchester city centre.

And it wasn't just UK North: every time UK North upped the ante, Stagecoach retaliated through Magic Bus. Stagecoach behaved just as problematically. The whole thing really only finally calmed down when EYMS sold Finglands to First and Bullocks sold out to Stagecoach.

But if a local authority gets their fingers burned like that, it's not a surprise that they don't trust any of the bus operators.

Granted, there's a limited amount in terms of traffic control regulations. However, not a complete absence and nothing to stop the introduction of traffic measures to speed buses up. Of course, stuff like BRT can have quality standards imposed that almost are a defacto way of controlling competition.

 

[edwin_m]

There are already good interchanges at Eccles and Oldham Mumps in terms of the fact that Eccles bus station is right next to the tram terminus, and the new Oldham Mumps tram stop has got bus stops right by each side of the tram platforms, making the connection as seamless as it could be. Maybe some people are changing there today, but there is a significant financial penalty for doing so.

Absolutely. There are several good tram/bus interchanges in GM but I doubt many people use them for modal interchange because of the fares issue.

 

[Dentonian]

And it wasn't just UK North: every time UK North upped the ante, Stagecoach retaliated through Magic Bus. Stagecoach behaved just as problematically. The whole thing really only finally calmed down when EYMS sold Finglands to First and Bullocks sold out to Stagecoach.

.

Those two events were quite far apart, Bullocks sold their commercial ops to Stagecoach in the Summer of 2008, retaining contracted service 147, some schools and of course, coaching ops. Indeed, they acquired the Finglands coaching business when EYMS sold up some 6 years later.
Also, at the same time all eyes were on Oxford Road services, UKN were competing just as fiercely on the 192 - and some of he antics there around April 2006 would have left both companies looking ridiculous if the media had ever ventured round to Newton Street/Piccadilly. In an earlier guise UKN also competed on the 201, including (allegedly) throwing passengers off the bus at Belle Vue and doing U-turns in a four lane highway, if they saw a GMS bus approaching in the opposite direction.

 

[Dentonian]

Absolutely. There are several good tram/bus interchanges in GM but I doubt many people use them for modal interchange because of the fares issue.

Plus the waiting time, poor seating etc

 

[Tetchytyke]

Also, at the same time all eyes were on Oxford Road services, UKN were competing just as fiercely on the 192 - and some of he antics there around April 2006 would have left both companies looking ridiculous if the media had ever ventured round to Newton Street/Piccadilly

Oh definitely, the 192 shenanigans were worse even than on Oxford Road. And yes, the sale of Finglands and Bullocks was quite a while after, my point was more Stagecoach only really started to calm down after their sale.

And I'd agree with TheGrandWazoo, BRT does help drag up quality without needing to franchise. The problem is that not all improvements will be BRT, and its what you do the rest of the time that is the issue.

 

[Tetchytyke]

nothing to stop the introduction of traffic measures to speed buses up.

Not Manchester, but Go pressurized for several bus gates built around South Tyneside to speed up services. Following their upcoming service changes, one of these bus gates- built at considerable expense- will lose all but one hourly daytime off peak only bus service.

It's no wonder LAs are wary of big investment without control

 

[HSTEd]

Probably want some modifications to the staircase at Oxford Road - if it could be extended over the dip at its base so that its a direct descent straight onto the Oxford Road busstops.
The climb up the cobblestones is a little disconcerting to people, and the signage is not easy to see from the road if you don't already know there is a station entrance there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Trouble is overcrowding is too unpredictable on most corridors, as its largely to do with "incidents" creating bigger gaps in buses than are scheduled advertised.

A more active approach to operations control as well as a move to off-bus ticketing can significantly reduce the effects of bunching (if not remove it).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plus the waiting time, poor seating etc

It's possible to minimise waiting time through sensible timetabling (or high frequency services). Seating becomes less important if waiting time is minimised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And I'd agree with TheGrandWazoo, BRT does help drag up quality without needing to franchise. The problem is that not all improvements will be BRT, and its what you do the rest of the time that is the issue.

And that sometimes BRT is a very expensive solution compared with what is actually needed.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's possible to minimise waiting time through sensible timetabling (or high frequency services). Seating becomes less important if waiting time is minimised.

Indeed it is but let's not kid ourselves. Even in the much vaunted T&W Metro, the reliability of services (of both modes) would mean the punters would enjoy the esoteric delights of various windswept locations. Interestingly, Four Lane Ends has been essentially rebuilt to reflect this but Heworth Interchange still has all the ambience and charm of a cold war ballistics missile test centre. You could have a running day with period Nationals and Atlanteans and it would be relatively easy to recreate the 80s!

To be fair, TfGM and its various predecessors have built some very good places to wait for your bus (like Eccles) despite being labelled as "bus palaces" by one poster. Interchange should be made easier but it is the idea of compelling change and, irrespective of what you do, there is always the "buggeration factor" of having to grab your bag etc, making your way to the next bus/train/tram and then having to recamp.

With the example I gave, there is already the ability to interchange from the Cadishead bus onto the tram at Eccles. Currently, you can do so and save time (though don't know what the price penalty is) rather than stay on the bus. Doubtless, the bus is considerably cheaper though a lot slower should you wish to commute into the city centre. So make interchange easier (?) and cheaper but don't then think "hey, we can simply truncate the 67 at Eccles" - it will remove a number of other passenger journeys.

Just to respond to Nerd's mentions of Thatcherite rules/opinions etc.... The quote from Thatcher that "a man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself a failure.” may well be apocryphal but probably accurately reflected her views. The 1985 Transport Act may have been badged as being about competition etc but the reality was about removing/reducing the burden from the public purse. My fear is that we may be seeing something equally insidious!

 

[Dentonian]

It's possible to minimise waiting time through sensible timetabling (or high frequency services). Seating becomes less important if waiting time is minimised.

Possibly a slight misunderstanding; I meant poor seating on the Tram, not at the stop - but now you mention it, I assume they have just steel seats at stops. The last time I used a tram beyond the city centre zone was about 15 years ago, when they were still the original type, so I don't know what the waiting environment is like. However, I can see it is more of a problem to maintain cushioned seating when its open to the elements (we are talking Manchester here!) than on an enclosed vehicle.

 

[nerd]

Just to respond to Nerd's mentions of Thatcherite rules/opinions etc.... The quote from Thatcher that "a man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself a failure.” may well be apocryphal but probably accurately reflected her views. The 1985 Transport Act may have been badged as being about competition etc but the reality was about removing/reducing the burden from the public purse. My fear is that we may be seeing something equally insidious!

To be fair to the Thatcherites TGW, it wasn't simply about reducing the burden of subsidy (though that certainly was achieved); there was also an explicit objective to build and maintain (and here Thatcher is correctly quoted) "the Great Car Economy". As Nicholas Ridley said in introducing the deregulation legislation as Transport Minister "The motorist is an individual, and he likes being a motorist because he can exercise freedom of choice. That is a good thing. He should not be hampered with petty rules and restrictions on his liberty". For the Thatcherite ideologues, private cars were economic, moral and political weopons in their struggles against social collectivism. Hence their goal to reconfigure bus services as adjuncts to, not as competing with, private cars. For Ridley, all bus riders ought to aspire to be private car drivers; and consequently, long term investment in building and maintaining public transport as a collective alternative to private motoring was to be avoided - whether this was efficient in the use of public money or not.

But I am puzzled by your 'fear of something equally insidious'. Can you be specific? Which of TfGM's public statements of strategy, policy or intentions in respect of bus services do you think carries such a threat? You talk of compelling bus riders to interchange with trams; but I nowhere find this in TfGM's statements. So what specifically have they said that is so worrisome; chapter and verse please?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

To be fair to the Thatcherites TGW, it wasn't simply about reducing the burden of subsidy (though that certainly was achieved); there was also an explicit objective to build and maintain (and here Thatcher is correctly quoted) "the Great Car Economy". As Nicholas Ridley said in introducing the deregulation legislation as Transport Minister "The motorist is an individual, and he likes being a motorist because he can exercise freedom of choice. That is a good thing. He should not be hampered with petty rules and restrictions on his liberty". For the Thatcherite ideologues, private cars were economic, moral and political weopons in their struggles against social collectivism. Hence their goal to reconfigure bus services as adjuncts to, not as competing with, private cars. For Ridley, all bus riders ought to aspire to be private car drivers; and consequently, long term investment in building and maintaining public transport as a collective alternative to private motoring was to be avoided - whether this was efficient in the use of public money or not.

But I am puzzled by your 'fear of something equally insidious'. Can you be specific? Which of TfGM's public statements of strategy, policy or intentions in respect of bus services do you think carries such a threat? You talk of compelling bus riders to interchange with trams; but I nowhere find this in TfGM's statements. So what specifically have they said that is so worrisome; chapter and verse please?

I have said this earlier but for clarity, I wasn't referring to TfGM's statements.

In reference to those statements, I have said that it does seem like arguing against motherhood and apple pie. We would all like to see more investment, better connectivity, more transport options and a means to improving public transport ridership. Now, whether those laudable aims can be achieved is something I am sceptical about. Not least because it doesn't tackle some of the fundamental changes in society - the reduction in spending power in the socio economic groups who are the greatest user of bus services through the reductions in welfare spending, and the move to internet shopping causing a collapse in retail footfall. This is less evident in the booming Manchester city centre, but is all too apparent in places like Wigan and Bolton where more than a quarter of shops are empty.

However, my concern surrounds the Buses Bill itself and the reasons behind it. Now, it could be a very altruistic, positive move courtesy of George Osborne. However, I question why the government would suddenly look to do this especially when it wasn't in the 2015 manifesto?

Remember the "big society" - the idea that there could be more social cohesion and greater social involvement to improve the society as a whole, that again sounds very laudable. In truth, it was a way of reducing the state's involvement, reducing expenditure and moving the burden to the voluntary sector. Now, I may be being very pessimistic but can you see a situation where they push this to a local controlling body and then remove BSOG? Even BusUsers state:

"The Buses Bill offers no new funding for any of the requirements associated with the opportunities made available in the Bill." and "It is not clear how the cost of the requirements involved will be found as “spare” cash for bus service provision is just not available in most local authorities."

Given how poor Nexus's proposal for a QCS was put together, it is only fair to sound a note of caution.