The Metrolink trip distances are from the official statistical series.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/light-rail-and-tram-statistics-lrt. Maybe British Rail got their numbers mixed up? Wouldn't have been the first time.
The figures I quoted were from GMPTE not BR. Using the DfT figures, it shows that the average journey length in phase 1 was just c.4 miles, declining from 5 miles.
The only answer is that both of those propositions do seem to be apparent in the data
Are they apparent in the data? Seems to be more a hunch. Still doesn't really explain why many existing bus passengers would not transfer their journeys to Metrolink, especially if they would selectively do so as you now suggest.
As to your second question; this is a consistent characteristic of light rail travel in cities
Indeed, the improved accessibility, frequency and overall attraction of new infrastructure will certainly increase patronage from existing rail users, new trips and transfer from cars. That I can't deny and the same applies to bus passengers. Moreover, if we're talking "consistent characteristics" then it's equally characteristic that trains and trams will take trade off buses.
GMPTE did get their numbers wrong; they thought the busway might eventually carry 2.0 million trips per year - but it exceeded that in the first 12 months. Second year was 2.7 million; third year likely more than 3 million
They may have understated their projections in order to ensure the perception of success!!! However, two points I could perhaps point to.
1. Yes, the scheme may have beaten its projections but did GMPTE really get the split of new/car/existing bus that far out? Undoubtedly they will have used some methodology to ascertain that split, possibly based on experience elsewhere in GM (Metrolink) or similar schemes. I can't believe it would have been some arbitrary figure or use the random number function in Excel.
2. If they have got their numbers wrong on that, and on the rail figures earlier, I could rather mischievously question whether TfGM should be running or franchising anything!
Don't disagree with that at all TGW; expanding the tram network will reduce bus patronage on specific corridors. My criticism was of those (as with Mr Peddle) who put this forward as a major inhibition against expanding bus usage; and as threatening the financial viability of any franchising (or other partnership) scheme. Certainly a railway (or tramway) that links towns along a corridor is likely to be fatal for a bus service that attempted to do the same thing. But in a major conurbation, the conflict in business share is much less apparent. That is true for Merseyrail as it is for Metrolink.
Indeed, whilst I think we have opposing views in many respects, we clearly have common ground as well. I can understand and appreciate your views - I may not agree entirely but I do respect them.
To my mind, franchising in and of itself won't correct the issues. Some of them are outside of the control of TfGM, bus operators and even the local authorities. The internet shopping explosion isn't going away but will continue to impact on bus service patronage in many areas and I don't see Rochdale reinventing itself with artisan bakeries or niche boutiques. You have areas with a lack of economic activity and the benefits cap has really impacted those areas that used to be the bedrock of bus services. Those macro-economic issues are difficult to avoid.
The Liverpool example (and others) show it is possible to turn the tide in the current environment and that franchising isn't a necessity. Perhaps the threat of franchising is the catalyst for a real, genuine and enforceable partnership where Metrolink can expand, bus operators can react around it, and they can benefit from decent bus priority that gives them cost benefits (lower PVR) and improved competitiveness vs the private car, and in return, they have enforceable conditions on ticketing, investment in fleet etc.
The other reality is that there are probably corridors where growth may well be achievable (e.g. Bolton to Bury, for instance). Some are not simply because Metrolink is now the primary public transport link (e.g. Denton to Manchester) and some will just have little potential because of the wider social and economic factors that influence travel. Hence why I think growth is achievable (see Liverpool), it may be difficult to necessarily repeat that level or that seen n Bristol.
Finally, think this has been a really good discussion. I think we both respect each others knowledge and opinions, whilst not necessarily sharing them! However, I will dip out now, only as I really am beginning to repeat myself and perhaps the thread (and perhaps the board or world) and me, needs a little rest.