• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I note you mention LAs & shareholders but not passengers. I also note you say Liverpool and not Merseyside. The question is has this moderate increase been across all routes or does a big increase on QP routes mask a reduction elsewhere.

I'd suggest that the needs of customers are represented by the LA - otherwise, what other needs would they have?

The increase is in the "Liverpool city region" viz centred on Liverpool, and the local authority districts of Halton, Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens, and Wirral so basically Merseyside. As regards route by route detail, that is not provided. However, it is entirely likely and expected that it will vary in different areas.

In Bristol, which has experienced substantial passenger growth, not all routes have grown. This is especially in the southern part of the city because of the demographics - some large estates have been disproportionately impacted by things like the benefits cap, and other areas (1970s suburbia) are now dominated by ENCTS pass holders with no real reason to travel more than they were.

I'm sure that in Liverpool that "not all boats rise equally" but that is always determined by other factors such as demographics, economic activity, etc

Metrolink is proven at getting people out of cars.

Yes, the seats are a bit rubbish (and I believe that'd Dentonian's main issue with them) but that's just about the easiest thing to fix.

Can't agree more. The tram has proven to take car drivers though it has abstracted bus passengers. IIRC, the Altrincham line's ridership was approx. 30/40/30 split in terms of new passengers (either car drivers or people who made journeys they wouldn't have considered otherwise), rail passengers and bus passengers.

I do believe that bus and metro seating should be more comfortable rather than plastic seats covered in thin fabric but it's hardly the end of the world.

I was pleasantly surprised to read that in the last 2 years, bus patronage has increased in the Liverpool area. Whist comparing Manchester and Liverpool's transport needs is like comparing apples and oranges, the quality bus network is part of the way forward in my opinion. It is 2018 now and all of the assets and expertise of the bus industry are mainly in the hands of the Private Sector. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man or women to come up with a partnership that encompasses the requirements of local authorities and the needs of the shareholders.I stress the word partnership rather than the London model.

Likewise, I absolutely agree with you on this (I'm oddly agreeable today). The Nexus debacle showed the lack of skills and commercial nous in the public sector (something I see in my job sadly).

Much better to get a robust enforceable partnership that secures measurable improvements - a partnership that provides investment in better bus infrastructure (e.g. better bus shelters, better bus stations, bus priority) whilst at the same time ensuring that integrated ticketing and timetabling is delivered alongside tangible, defined investment in fleets.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
Interesting take, given the rail lobby and their media cohorts hate buses - but are quite happy for the bus industry to bail them out when their trains and trams implode - regularly, only for their customers to "diss" the industry coming to their aid. I wonder how many Stagecoach journeys will fail to run over the next fortnight whilst the Eccles/Cornbrook line is replaced by dozens of buses (peak hour). And that's assuming Sheffield Supertram aren't on strike again!
The problem is you & 158756 etc want the bus industry to be diluted so much that people have to acquire cars to access your inefficient, unreliable trams and trains. Surely, that has to increase car use not reduce it. Perhaps the problem is that the increase in congestion (as is already the case) will be hidden in the suburbs away from your hip, trendy city centre. Rail has its place, but it is not to abstract partonage from buses. Also, it has to dramatically improve its performance. Of course, the whole point on this thread is that rail (and especially Metrolink) does represent a great threat to some commercial bus services. If it takes revenue from them, then they will deterioriate faster, forcing more and more to acquire a car - as its too far to walk to a Rail Station for an appallingly unreliable train.
As for cycling - now you've raised it (and Metrolink and HS2/3/4 and Crossrail 2 and £31k a year per jailbird) THAT's why I'm not going to get into an argument about a few tens of millions of quid to improve oppurtunities and access for hundreds of thousands of car-less adults and hopefully drastically reduce congestion and even crime, personal debt etc. So yes, as for cycling, the reason people are against wasting massive amounts of money on cycling (£1.5 BILLION is it Mr. Boardman is demanding?) is because it will be a total waste whilst also disproving the adage "crime doesn't pay". Has the Oxford Road cycle lane stopped speeding cyclists going through the ped-x outside the MRI? NO. Has it reduced cycling on the pavement between the MRI and the city centre? NO. Did the Gorton cycle lane ever get used by a cyclist? NO.

Some interesting perspectives there Dentonian, but I think you may have been paying too much attention to the tame shills of the bus operators; as, while much of what you assert is a commonplace in these commentators; it does not appear to be substantiated in Greater Manchester in particular. If you are hoping that a GMCA franchising scheme would be constructed with those perspectives in mind; I suspect you are in for a big disappointment.

1. The bus operators have consistently blamed falling bus patronage in GM on the expansion of the tram network. While some abstraction has undoubtedly happened at the margin, there is little evidence for large-scale effects. On a corridor by corridor comparison, the routes that have lost patronage most are those where there is no direct competition from trams - Hyde Road, Stockport Road, Oxford Road. Whereas corridors with direct tram counterparts have often maintained their bus users - Ashton Road, Stretford Road, Cheetham Hill. Bus usage along Chapel street has increased enormously - but that is due to the guided busway. Only along Oldham Road are there clear signs of a move from bus to tram. As number of other posters have remarked; generally trams and buses fit well together (as in Nottingham and Croydon). The average Metrolink trip is more than 10 km; which is more than double the average trip length for a stopping bus trip in GM, so the demand for one does not overlap strongly with the demand for the other. The key issue driving changes in transport choices is car access; where lower income travellers have a car, they tend to use it for regular trips; even short ones. (higher income users are increasingly likely to leave their car at home; preferring a bike for short trips, or train/tram for longer ones). The crunch point comes when the car fails its MOT; do you spend a deal of money to keep it on the road, or do you switch to an alternative regular travel mode? The evidence is that those who switch to tram, train or bike rarely switch back; although those who switch to stopping buses are more likely to look to return to car use once they reckon they can afford it. So one key to increasing bus use is to improve service quality so that these adventitious switchers are retained in the future.

2. There is strong evidence that bus use and bike use are complementary; for many bike users, the assurance that they could catch a bus in foul weather (or if they are not feeling up to the trip) is a strong support to their decision to use a bike for regular travel. Both the Cambridgeshire busway and the Leigh busway report that persons who are already regular cyclists are more likely to switch from cars to using the busway for travel into town. So generally we may expect that the Beeline investment in cycle routes should also increase bus patronage; as will the investment in improved pedestrian routes, as most bus trips involve some walking at either end. Again, it is the pet commentators of the bus operators who have been attacking this investment.

3. There is certainly a strong indication from TfGM that they are looking to establish a much simpler bus fare structure across GM; with smart ticketing, through-ticketing across bus, tram and train; and no penalty for connecting from one bus service to another. And the sorts of fare levels that you suggest in your earlier post do look like how such a structure might emerge. But overall, the intention is likely to be for franchising to break even in operational finance (allowing for continued concession funding at current levels). If the audit finds that a franchise system would require substantial subsidy support; where a partnership system would operate on a commercial basis, I strongly suspect that the mayor's decision would come down on the side of partnership operation. Again, pet commentators (and indeed some contributors to this thread) have taken at face value the assertion of the operators that their increasing fare levels are justified by their increasing costs. The big operators are monopolists; and monopolists always believe that they are maximising cost-effective delivery of the product - and they are invariably mistaken. Deregulation effectively excluded from competition around 95% of UK bus routes outside London; and it is entirely predictable that patronage on these routes would fall, fares would increase in real terms, and service levels would reduce. In principle, a franchising system creates an environment in which all these monopoly services (within Manchester) are contested. Which does not mean that buses will be fully commercial; the need to fund replacement of diesel units with electric/gas/etc low pollution alternatives hangs over the future of the industry. As too does the need to reconfigure roadspace away from private cars and toward public transport and bike users - which will also involve heavy investment. But I expect the franchised services themselves to operate commercially, at the overall GM level.

One further point of clarification; it is often asserted by the operators (and indeed on this thread) that in the years before deregulation, bus patronage outside London was falling. For metropolitan areas outside London this claim is demonstrably false - and those who make it do seem to be in thrall to a skewed agenda. Bus patronage in UK cities stopped declining around 1981 - and in all subsequent years it increased, right up to the day deregulation happened. That increase carried on into the late 1980s in London, but patronage in cities outside London crashed. It is beyond question that this drop was directly due to deregulation - as before then bus usage trends in London and other cities clearly mirrored one another. It was only some 10 years later, that special factors in London created an explosive growth in bus use there that was not observed in non-London metropolitan areas. But many of those 'special London' factors have since been observed in non-London urban areas - central area population growth; collapse in use of cars for work trips; increasing attractiveness of transport modes that support 'connectedness'; increased inner area affluent populations; increased in-migration of populations with a high propensity to use choose public transport modes. It is reasonable to assume that much (indeed maybe all) the drop in patronage in GM directly associated with the introduction of deregulation would reverse promptly once the inefficiencies, inhibitions and barriers to use created by deregulation, were to be removed.
 
Last edited:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Some interesting perspectives there Dentonian, but I think you may have been paying too much attention to the tame shills of the bus operators; as, while much of what you assert is a commonplace in these commentators; it does not appear to be substantiated in Greater Manchester in particular. If you are hoping that a GMCA franchising scheme would be constructed with those perspectives in mind; I suspect you are in for a big disappointment.

1. The bus operators have consistently blamed falling bus patronage in GM on the expansion of the tram network. While some abstraction has undoubtedly happened at the margin, there is little evidence for large-scale effects.

2. There is strong evidence that bus use and bike use are complementary; for many bike users, the assurance that they could catch a bus in foul weather (or if they are not feeling up to the trip) is a strong support to their decision to use a bike for regular travel. Both the Cambridgeshire busway and the Leigh busway report that persons who are already regular cyclists are more likely to switch from cars to using the busway for travel into town. So generally we may expect that the Beeline investment in cycle routes should also increase bus patronage; as will the investment in improved pedestrian routes, as most bus trips involve some walking at either end. Again, it is the pet commentators of the bus operators who have been attacking this investment.

Point 1 is scarcely credible - as we've seen with new rail openings and the like, it will always abstract from existing public transport users. It is risible to think otherwise - there's a brand new public transport link that runs along the same corridor but it won't affect bus services and will merely draw it's patronage from new users and car drivers? Really? It goes against common sense and, indeed, the experience of every other example in the country, whether that be the improvements to the LTS line (restoring reliability so removing the market for the Southend to London coach service), or more recently, the Borders reopening that has seen the bus service now halved in frequency....I could go on.

In fact (and I managed to locate it), there was a study from Leeds University that is now a few years old and relates to phase 1. Now, it does state that on a macro scale "Bus travel in Greater Manchester declined by 3% over this period compared with a 7% decline elsewhere, confirming the point made previously that Metrolink has not had a serious detrimental effect on buses in Greater Manchester." However, that is a macro level and once you look at the corridors themselves and the impact on bus services:

"An alternative calculation of the modal origins of the Metrolink trips from the University of Salford Monitoring Study is shown in estimated annual Metrolink patronage (millions) by previous mode.

They estimate that there are 4.5 million more trips on Metrolink than would have used the heavy rail lines that they replaced. Of these, 2.6 million (58%) were previously car trips, 36% were bus trips, 4% used other rail lines, and 4% were not made previously."

As regards "pet commentators of bus operators", who are they? Have you a source? The most strident opponents seem to be the car lobby as they have the greatest to lose.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
2. There is strong evidence that bus use and bike use are complementary; for many bike users, the assurance that they could catch a bus in foul weather (or if they are not feeling up to the trip) is a strong support to their decision to use a bike for regular travel. Both the Cambridgeshire busway and the Leigh busway report that persons who are already regular cyclists are more likely to switch from cars to using the busway for travel into town. So generally we may expect that the Beeline investment in cycle routes should also increase bus patronage; as will the investment in improved pedestrian routes, as most bus trips involve some walking at either end.

Not only that, but if you look at the Netherlands (and I do believe our big-city transport networks are now very much heading towards the kind of quality, if not integration, that theirs provide) you will see that people who wouldn't cycle say 10km from home to the city centre will cycle to the nearest bus stop on a high frequency, quality route if it's a bit far to walk (say perhaps 1-2km and reasonably flat). I would venture that a policy of, say, two Sheffield stands (which accommodates four bikes) at every bus stop that is busy enough to warrant provision of a shelter, maybe more at busier ones like the likes of Fallowfield, would be a very good policy to encourage that type of integration, and wouldn't be all *that* expensive when compared with the cost[1] of a shelter in and of itself.

[1] Yes, I know some cities have the likes of JCDecaux provide and maintain the shelters in return for advertising rights, and I generally support this kind of arrangement, but there's still a cost because if the local authority owned them they could themselves have that revenue. So it shouldn't be a case of people saying "the shelter costs £0 but a pair of fully installed Sheffield stands £500"[2], or whatever.

[2] A quick Google suggests each stand, basically a bent steel tube with fixings, costs at most about £50, so I reckon £500 with the ground prepared and fully installed is the top end of what it should cost.
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
As regards "pet commentators of bus operators", who are they? Have you a source? The most strident opponents seem to be the car lobby as they have the greatest to lose.

see above post 664 (and my response at post 669). An article by Julian Peddle in the July issue of 'Buses' magazine. A tissue of outright falsehoods and grossly distorted anti-fanchising advocacy. Also strongly pro-Stagecoach and anti-First - though that judgement is not necessarily so unsubstantiated.

Point 1 is scarcely credible - as we've seen with new rail openings and the like, it will always abstract from existing public transport users. It is risible to think otherwise - there's a brand new public transport link that runs along the same corridor but it won't affect bus services and will merely draw it's patronage from new users and car drivers? Really? It goes against common sense and, indeed, the experience of every other example in the country, whether that be the improvements to the LTS line (restoring reliability so removing the market for the Southend to London coach service), or more recently, the Borders reopening that has seen the bus service now halved in frequency....I could go on.

In fact (and I managed to locate it), there was a study from Leeds University that is now a few years old and relates to phase 1. Now, it does state that on a macro scale "Bus travel in Greater Manchester declined by 3% over this period compared with a 7% decline elsewhere, confirming the point made previously that Metrolink has not had a serious detrimental effect on buses in Greater Manchester." However, that is a macro level and once you look at the corridors themselves and the impact on bus services:

"An alternative calculation of the modal origins of the Metrolink trips from the University of Salford Monitoring Study is shown in estimated annual Metrolink patronage (millions) by previous mode.

They estimate that there are 4.5 million more trips on Metrolink than would have used the heavy rail lines that they replaced. Of these, 2.6 million (58%) were previously car trips, 36% were bus trips, 4% used other rail lines, and 4% were not made previously."

Not altogether correct TGW. You rightly quote the Leeds study confirming no overall detrimental effect on bus patronage in GM as a result of Phase 1 of Metrolink. But then you spoil it by misinterpreting the Salford study. What Salford estimated was that in households within walking distance of a Metrolink stop - of those travellers not converted from rail users along the same lines, 58% reported formerly travelled by car, and 36% (estimated equivalent to 1.6 million trips per year) reported formerly travelling by bus. But the simplification of grossing those reported former travel modes into current impact on bus trips and car trips, ignored differential former weekly frequency; persons who travel into Manchester by tram do so much more frequently than would have been the case had formerly they travelled by bus. So there is a lot of double-counting if you try to back-calculate from observed tram-trips to foregone bus trips. More than would be the case if back-calculating to foregone car trips. Since Salford were not interested in assessing impact on bus trips, only on car trips, they could ignore this simplification; but you cannot.

Moreover, this study only looked at travellers in the first year of operation (1993) - before and after opening. When there were some 12 million tram trips on Metrolink. In the most recent year, these same two lines carried around 19 million trips. But the count of former rail and bus users is effectively frozen, those who switched from train or bus would have done so on day one; the extra 7 million passengers added in subsequent years can only have come from the categories of 'new trips' or 'previous car user trips'.

No one is saying that there is no impact at all; some tram users once took the bus to do the same trip. But as a proportion of total annual bus trips across GM (201 million); these numbers are insignificant. Which is why the Leeds aggregate study of bus patronage could find no effect.

As you say, it ought to be possible to find more certain instances of impact by looking at each corridor individually. But when we do that (for the recent Metrolink expansion) there is no apparent effect - rather the contrary, it is the corridors with no Metrolink line along them that have seen the biggest reductions in bus patronage. Which may not in fact be unrelated. The prime factor leading to recent reductions in peak period bus patronage is undoubtedly service unreliability and delay due to increased peaktime traffic congestion. If it is the case that opening a tram line tends to attract former car users and reduce congestion; then this may well make bus use along the same corridor more attractive - and vice versa.
 
Last edited:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
see above post 664 (and my response at post 669). An article by Julian Peddle in the July issue of 'Buses' magazine. A tissue of outright falsehoods and grossly distorted anti-fanchising advocacy. Also strongly pro-Stagecoach and anti-First - though that judgement is not necessarily so unsubstantiated.



Not altogether correct TGW. You rightly quote the Leeds study confirming no overall detrimental effect on bus patronage in GM as a result of Phase 1 of Metrolink. But then you spoil it by misinterpreting the Salford study. What Salford estimated was that - of those travellers not converted from rail users along the same lines 58% reported formerly travelled by car, and 36% (estimated equivalent to 1.6 million trips per year) reported formerly travelling by bus. But the simplification of grossing those reported former travel modes into current impact on bus trips and car trips, ignored differential changes in former weekly frequency; persons who travel into Manchester by tram do so much more frequently than would have been the case had they travelled by bus. So there is a lot of double-counting if you try to back-calculate from observed tram-trips to foregone bus trips. More than would be the case if back-calculating to foregone car trips. Since Salford were not interested in assessing impact on bus trips, only on car trips, they could ignore this simplification; but you cannot.

Moreover, this study only looked at travellers in the first year of operation (1993) - before and after opening. When there were some 12 million tram trips on Metrolink. In the most recent year, these same two lines carried around 19 million trips. But the count of former rail and bus users is effectively frozen, those who switched from train or bus would have done so on day one; the extra 7 million passengers added in subsequent years can only have come from the categories of 'new trips' or 'previous car user trips'.

No one is saying that there is no impact at all; some tram users once took the bus to do the same trip. But as a proportion of total annual bus trips across GM (201 million); these numbers are insignificant. Which is why the Leeds aggregate study of bus patronage could find no effect.

As you say, it ought to be possible to find more certain instances of impact by looking at each corridor individually. But when we do that (for the recent Metrolink expansion) there is no apparent effect - rather the contrary, it is the corridors with no Metrolink line along them that have seen the biggest reductions in bus patronage. Which may not in fact be unrelated. The prime factor leading to recent reductions in peak period bus patronage is undoubtedly service unreliability and delay due to increased peaktime traffic congestion. If it is the case that opening a tram line tends to attract former car users and reduce congestion; then this may well make bus use along the same corridor more attractive - and vice versa.

Julian Peddle is well founded in having his opinion. After all, if someone was effectively removing the value of your business, I'm sure you would be equally strident. I can fully see why he would put forward that view and for very good reason. You refer back to the view of the select committee - now, given that both main parties (for different ideological reasons) are pro-franchising, it is very much a case of "well, they would say that, wouldn't they". It really is akin to someone marking their own homework!

I'm not aware of Mr Peddle's sources or figures and so cannot comment on their voracity, his interpretation etc.

However, back to the source I quoted and your comments. I am fully aware of the Salford figures and I am not misquoting.

As you say "as a proportion of total annual bus trips across GM (201 million); these numbers are insignificant. Which is why the Leeds aggregate study of bus patronage could find no effect." - which is exactly what I was referring to in terms of a macro level assessment. If you extend the Metrolink from Eccles to Trafford Centre, why would you record an effect in Hindley or Littleborough or wherever. The impact is clearly going to be largely confined to the corridor.

Now you rightly mention the Salford study and the study of where additional journeys came from over and above the baseline (i.e. the old rail patronage). Of those additional journey, 36% were estimated to have been taken from buses - you may question the simplification and try to obfuscate. It is clear, and I was clear, that the figures refer to a moment in time and arguably at the most appropriate time. You remark that "the count of former rail and bus users is effectively frozen, those who switched from train or bus would have done so on day one; the extra 7 million passengers added in subsequent years can only have come from the categories of 'new trips' or 'previous car user trips'". Indeed, my view wasn't saying that there wasn't organic growth subsequently, and that would have come from new trips or car drivers switching. Nonetheless, the fact is that where Metrolink has opened, it has abstracted trade from parallel bus services.

In fact, to think otherwise would be strange in the extreme. Are we to believe that we can open a new public transport corridor in Metrolink that has new facilities, high frequencies and faster journey times. It can retain its previous heavy rail patronage (if applicable), attracts new trips and can attract car drivers. Yet it doesn't bus passengers, the single most populous users of public transport - that is not credible.

Experience shows it isn't likely - there are plenty of examples (e.g. South Wales valleys, Borders, West Lothian) where improved or reopened services have had a major impact on local bus patronage. It is also evident the other way round - when such restrictions on operators were removed in Tyneside (such as removing the enforced change in Gateshead) that suddenly made direct bus services more attractive, the result was a decline in Metro traffic.

Now, I'm not Dentonian - I spend my time being one of the Metropolitan elite, sipping lattes and twisting in my middle class angst ;) I am fervently pro-public transport in ALL its facets. I've enjoyed Metrolink (being a former denizen of Stretford). It isn't just Radamfi who likes a European transport system :) However, franchising in and of itself is not the answer. It doesn't address the funding issues nor the planning delays.
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
However, back to the source I quoted and your comments. I am fully aware of the Salford figures and I am not misquoting.

As you say "as a proportion of total annual bus trips across GM (201 million); these numbers are insignificant. Which is why the Leeds aggregate study of bus patronage could find no effect." - which is exactly what I was referring to in terms of a macro level assessment. If you extend the Metrolink from Eccles to Trafford Centre, why would you record an effect in Hindley or Littleborough or wherever. The impact is clearly going to be largely confined to the corridor.

Now you rightly mention the Salford study and the study of where additional journeys came from over and above the baseline (i.e. the old rail patronage). Of those additional journey, 36% were estimated to have been taken from buses - you may question the simplification and try to obfuscate. It is clear, and I was clear, that the figures refer to a moment in time and arguably at the most appropriate time. You remark that "the count of former rail and bus users is effectively frozen, those who switched from train or bus would have done so on day one; the extra 7 million passengers added in subsequent years can only have come from the categories of 'new trips' or 'previous car user trips'". Indeed, my view wasn't saying that there wasn't organic growth subsequently, and that would have come from new trips or car drivers switching. Nonetheless, the fact is that where Metrolink has opened, it has abstracted trade from parallel bus services.

In fact, to think otherwise would be strange in the extreme. Are we to believe that we can open a new public transport corridor in Metrolink that has new facilities, high frequencies and faster journey times. It can retain its previous heavy rail patronage (if applicable), attracts new trips and can attract car drivers. Yet it doesn't bus passengers, the single most populous users of public transport - that is not credible.

Experience shows it isn't likely - there are plenty of examples (e.g. South Wales valleys, Borders, West Lothian) where improved or reopened services have had a major impact on local bus patronage. It is also evident the other way round - when such restrictions on operators were removed in Tyneside (such as removing the enforced change in Gateshead) that suddenly made direct bus services more attractive, the result was a decline in Metro traffic.

Now, I'm not Dentonian - I spend my time being one of the Metropolitan elite, sipping lattes and twisting in my middle class angst ;) I am fervently pro-public transport in ALL its facets. I've enjoyed Metrolink (being a former denizen of Stretford). It isn't just Radamfi who likes a European transport system :) However, franchising in and of itself is not the answer. It doesn't address the funding issues nor the planning delays.

I am not claiming anything about the impact on bus services of rail investment in the Valleys or the Scots Borders - which are clearly very different transport environments. Nor in respect of the Tyne & Wear Metro - where the former integrated transport system forced bus passengers to switch onto the Metro just to cross the Tyne. The issue here is the impact of Metrolink on bus patronage in Greater Manchester; and specifically on the bus usage in the corridors where Metrolink operates.

The problem being that these numbers are relatively small as a proportion of overall bus usage for each of these corridors. The Salford study asked residents of Bury and Altrincham, which transport mode they would use to travel into Manchester City Centre; and for those reporting now using the tram, how they would have travelled into Manchester City Centre before the heavy rail line closed. But the vast majority of bus users in Altrincham and Bury are not travelling all the way into Manchester City Centre by bus, and never have done.

The specific complication with Metrolink, which the Salford study was designed to allow for, was that in the period of Metrolink construction, express replacement bus services were run along the route. So in surveys of early tram users, a high proportion reported that before the trams started running, they had previously travelled by bus. (which is why Julian Peddle was able to claim that 60% of Metrolink use was extracted from bus services; and yes, I do regard his saying so as culpably misleading). The Salford study was intended to allow for this; but as pointed out, the figure of 1.6 million they quote as the apportioned number of annual 'additional' tram trips extracted from buses was a gross overestimate. While it was true that 36% of current additional tram users travelling into Manchester reported formerly (before the train services closed) doing so by bus, their weekly historic bus trips into Manchester were much fewer on average than each such person's current tram trips. Unfortunately the Salford researchers had no robust way of adjusting for this difference. The 'true' Phase 1 extraction figure is likely to have been less than 1 million; and if we take the current Phase 3 system as roughly twice the patronage of the Phase 1 system, then it may be reasonable to assume that around 2 million (out of the current 42 million) annual Metrolink trips would otherwise have been done by bus. 2 million trips per year (if that is indeed the approximate figure) isn't altogether insignificant; but it is far from being the scale of demand reduction that would make the difference between an economically viable GM bus network, and one that could not pay its way. Which is essentially the argument that Julian Peddle and his ilk are trying to maintain.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
2. At least 25% of Councillors on Transport related committees should be non-motorists and live at least 800 metres from any form of Rail. If its ok to have a "quota" system based on race, sex, sexual orientation etc.etc then its ok to have more directly relevant "quotas" on specific committees.

So I (with some detailed knowledge of transport by both career and interest) would be barred from any transport-related committee simply by virtue of holding a driving licence?

Incidentally I'm unaware of any "quotas" on local authority committees related to race, sex or sexual orientation. Care to give any examples?
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
The specific complication with Metrolink, which the Salford study was designed to allow for, was that in the period of Metrolink construction, express replacement bus services were run along the route. So in surveys of early tram users, a high proportion reported that before the trams started running, they had previously travelled by bus. (which is why Julian Peddle was able to claim that 60% of Metrolink use was extracted from bus services; and yes, I do regard his saying so as culpably misleading). The Salford study was intended to allow for this; but as pointed out, the figure of 1.6 million they quote as the apportioned number of annual 'additional' tram trips extracted from buses was a gross overestimate. While it was true that 36% of current additional tram users travelling into Manchester reported formerly (before the train services closed) doing so by bus, their weekly historic bus trips into Manchester were much fewer on average than each such person's current tram trips. Unfortunately the Salford researchers had no robust way of adjusting for this difference. The 'true' Phase 1 extraction figure is likely to have been less than 1 million; and if we take the current Phase 3 system as roughly twice the patronage of the Phase 1 system, then it may be reasonable to assume that around 2 million (out of the current 42 million) annual Metrolink trips would otherwise have been done by bus. 2 million trips per year (if that is indeed the approximate figure) isn't altogether insignificant; but it is far from being the scale of demand reduction that would make the difference between an economically viable GM bus network, and one that could not pay its way. Which is essentially the argument that Julian Peddle and his ilk are trying to maintain.

I agree with the general point, but 2 million trips sounds like an underestimate to me. On the later phases (Ashton, Didsbury, Wythenshawe) there wasn't an existing rail line as there was to Bury and Altrincham. Many public transport users on the initial lines would have used the train rather than bus, on the newer lines bus was the only public transport before. Also since 1992 congestion and buses in general have got worse, so more passengers may have transferred later, and new passengers gravitated more towards the tram.

Plus the Eccles line has shut the bus operators out of the biggest growth area of the city in the last 20 years.

Metrolink has undoubtedly had an effect on bus patronage, but that shouldn't be a huge problem because the bus network should have adapted to the new environment (rather than wasting dozens of buses duplicating Metrolink carrying far fewer passengers than before). What it needs is integration, especially of fares, but also routes, to maximise usage of both modes. That is only likely to happen if the same organisation is in charge of both.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
So I (with some detailed knowledge of transport by both career and interest) would be barred from any transport-related committee simply by virtue of holding a driving licence?

Incidentally I'm unaware of any "quotas" on local authority committees related to race, sex or sexual orientation. Care to give any examples?
I said 25pc not 100pc
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
And that's just "off the top of my head". I've deliberately not talked about "what it will cost" (other than revenue streams from criminals) as you only have to look at the spending/wastage on other forms of transport both locally and nationally - and indeed other areas of spending such as the cost of keeping criminals in the lap of luxury - to know that this will boil down to a question of priorities and ethics.

Don't know if you've ever seen the inside of a cell, but "lap of luxury"? I think not.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
Don't know if you've ever seen the inside of a cell, but "lap of luxury"? I think not.

£31,000 a year per inmate doesn't buy much then. Besides, they must like something about prisons if they are so eager to keep going back.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
£31,000 a year per inmate doesn't buy much then. Besides, they must like something about prisons if they are so eager to keep going back.

I don't intend taking this off-topic but if you think there are easy savings to be made in that budget by removing "luxury" I fear you are mistaken. Having seen the inside of a cell on many occasions.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
Fair point. Missed that.

As regards "positive discrimination", it is/was a blunt instrument for getting a representative number of women or people from ethnic minorities into politics. I would argue it is more important on individual committees because of knowledge/experience of the subject and a closer appreciation of the consequences of their decisions.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
Other than the regulated fares, then yes they are!

Fair enough. However, would I be right in thinking that Regulated fares are amongst the most relevant in this context. As I understand it, Regulated Fares include all peak hour fares amongst others. Also, these rates directly influence off-peak fares on the same lines, certainly for relatively short journeys. For instance, many off-peak Rail fares in GM are still cheaper than the "parallel" bus service. This may also apply in Leeds as the DfT identified Manchester and Leeds as having "artificially" low fares for short commutes where commercial bus services were available. I mention GM rather than just Manchester, as I know Hindley to Wigan rail fares undercut bus fares when the consultation about post 2016 franchises was taking place. That may not be the case now.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
I said Liverpool area which would encompass Liverpool City Region which is Merseyside plus Halton. Local Authorities are passenger representatives. Both Arriva and Stagecoach have recorded increase in passenger numbers. If you look at a map of Merseyside bus routes, the area is well served by buses. Being on the coast helps as well . The City Centre is a natural tetminus.There are a number of routes which cross the City without touching the city centre as well. If you can't make a buck in Merseyside on the buses, there's something wrong, in my opinion. I actually think Merseytravel do a good job in spite of having a toy to play with, namely Merseyrail.

You've partly answered my question insofaras the QPs go beyond Liverpool (and the Wirral). I knew cross river services 1 & 2 are/were part of a QP and recall some of the major routes from south Liverpool into the city (80 series numbers?) are. My question as regards GM and noting the phrase *Enhanced* Quality Partnership is; would it incorporate *all* bus corridors or just ones that already enjoy competition between the "big two". Ie. a straight swap from competition to co-operation with even headways and common fares?
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
I agree with the general point, but 2 million trips sounds like an underestimate to me. On the later phases (Ashton, Didsbury, Wythenshawe) there wasn't an existing rail line as there was to Bury and Altrincham. Many public transport users on the initial lines would have used the train rather than bus, on the newer lines bus was the only public transport before. Also since 1992 congestion and buses in general have got worse, so more passengers may have transferred later, and new passengers gravitated more towards the tram.

Plus the Eccles line has shut the bus operators out of the biggest growth area of the city in the last 20 years.

Metrolink has undoubtedly had an effect on bus patronage, but that shouldn't be a huge problem because the bus network should have adapted to the new environment (rather than wasting dozens of buses duplicating Metrolink carrying far fewer passengers than before). What it needs is integration, especially of fares, but also routes, to maximise usage of both modes. That is only likely to happen if the same organisation is in charge of both.

I fully agree with your last paragraph, 158756.

And, on reflection, I think you may be right in regarding 2 million as an underestimate - at least as at last year. The big drop in bus patronage since 2014 had been in the services along Oxford Road. Our most recent data on bus passenger numbers is for mid 2017; which is when the Oxford Road upgrade works were still causing major delays; and I think it more than likely that some bus users along the 42/43 routes may have taken to catching the tram as a way to avoid these delays. What will be interesting will be to see whether the bus services have won back some of these lost passengers when we see the 2018 data. Now the bus-only roads and cycle lanes are fully operational.
 
Last edited:

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
This debate has moved on quite a bit whilst I've been at work today, so I may be missing a few details by not employing a fine toothcomb. Firstly, I'm amazed that in the course of 24 hours I've gone from having a personal vendetta against Stagecoach Manchester to lapping up their media output! FTR, I do not take *anything* I read/hear at face value - and definately not anything I read in the Media.
More relevantly, I have personally not read any criticism from Stagecoach (or First) about Metrolink, even though it should be their biggest argument by far against local politicians. The *only* thing Stagecoach complain to the media about is city centre congestion - and I stress "city centre". Yes, they may have alluded to a lot of the congestion caused by 2CC but not the concept.
As regards Metrolink abstraction more specifically, I note differences of opinion and I don't have any stats to work off so can't comment with great authority. However, common sense tells me (shock horror) TGW is probably closest to the truth and certainly the study's claiming bus use in GM is dropping slower than "elsewhere" can only rely on very short and untypical period of time. The latest actual bus patronage figures (2016/7) quote 196.5 million which I think is a drop of about 46% since de-reg. I read somewhere recently that the overall decline in England and Wales (excluding London) since 1986/7 was 34% and that will include rural areas and shire counties where subsidised services (or indeed entire services) no longer run.

Back to Metrolink - and I accept the words eggs, teach, grandma and suck being thrown at me:

Phase 1 was the conversion of an existing heavy rail line to LRT between Bury and Altrincham. The fact that it was already a rail line plus the Altrincham side, in particular, served higher car ownership, middle income areas suggests abstraction from bus was relatively low. Back in GMPTE days (and probably before), Altrincham depot was consistently the poorest performing depot, alongside Rochdale.

Phase 2 was Eccles via Salford Quays to Manchester. Whilst the Eccles bit is/was more good bus territory, a lot of Eccles New Road was run down and has largely gone over to light industry. Also, the winding diversion through the Quays negates any time saving on the bus. As already pointed out Salford Quays/MediaCityUK are modern developments anyway, so there was very little patronage to abstract from bus given the Docklands and factories immediately to the east (towards Trafford Park) had been dying for many decades. What was left was very difficult to serve economically by bus as there was virtually no off-peak demand at all. So, again abstraction was relatively small.

Phase 3/3A is very much a change in policy, as these lines very much duplicated pre-existing commercial bus services; many of which have reduced or disappeared completely. To give an indication of how the politicians view public transport; when the final bit of the Airport line was opened beyond Wythenshawe, the local MP or maybe a local councillor was quoted as saying that this was wonderful for Wythenshawe because until now it had NO public transport to the Airport. In fact, at the time, it has 16 buses per hour running five different routes through the various individual estates, by two different Operators. Needless to say, all the Mon-Sat daytime and most of the Sunday daytime services are/were fully commercial. Of course, the abstraction goes way beyond Wythenshawe (one of he poorest parts of the country and therefore low car ownership). Someone claimed very little abstraction by the Ashton line. However, the "frequent intervals" nature of the timetable hides the 216 being reduced from 10bph to 6bph and the former Maynes network barely exists. I think its well known locally that Maynes decided to sell up well before the deal actually happened, because they knew Metrolink would wipe them out. North east Manchester and some parts of Oldham and Rochdale have also lost their bus routes to the city, although First had begun to wind the Rochdale ones down anyway.
It is logical therefore to assume that Phase 3/3A has had and is having a far more detrimental effect than the previous two phases.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
I fully agree with your last paragraph, 158756.

And, on reflection, I think you may be right in regarding 2 million as an underestimate - at least as at last year. The big drop in bus patronage since 2014 had been in the services along Oxford Road. Our most recent data on bus passenger numbers is for mid 2017; which is when the Oxford Ropad upgrade works were still causing major delays; and I think it more than likely that some bus users along the 42/43 routes may have taken to catching the tram as a way to avoid these delays. What will be interesting will be to see whether the bus services have won back some of these lost passengers when we see the 2018 data. Now the bus-only roads and cycle lanes are fully operational.

Doubt it; I regularly go to MRI as an outpatient and there has been no improvement in journey times - at least off-peak. Besides, student numbers are falling especially at MMU - hence the withdrawal of the 141. Indeed, after only about three years, staff are beginning to vacate Birley.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,908
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
There has been a huge loss of bus services (approximately 60%) in the SW sector of Greater Manchester over the last 45 years, both in the inner city (Chorlton) and the outer suburbs. There are now only 2 all day bus services from the city centre to Chorlton - routes 85 (formerly 80/88) and 86 (formerly 82). Other routes (62/81/94) were run down and have now completely disappeared. Most of these changes happened before Metrolink opened in this area, although it might have been the final straw for route 84 (formerly 94). While there are still routes (mostly subsidised) radiating from Sale and Altrincham Metrolink stations, few operate more than hourly and they are mostly empty. There are no longer any buses from Ashton-on-Mersey, Baguley, Northern Moor and Sale Moor direct to the city centre; some of these were finished off by Metrolink. There are now only 8 stopping buses per hour (peaks included) along Princess Road, compared to 13 stopping buses per hour and 6 limited stop buses per hour off-peak in 1973.

Bus franchising will not address this decline.
 
Last edited:

goldisgood

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2018
Messages
408
There are no longer any buses from Ashton-on-Mersey, Baguley, Northern Moor and Sale Moor direct to the city centre; some of these were finished off by Metrolink.
Northern Moor and Sale Moor have the 41, whilst Baguley has the 101 - the 41 isn't the most direct route, but it's not too indirect and you can get to the city centre without change.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,908
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Northern Moor and Sale Moor have the 41, whilst Baguley has the 101 - the 41 isn't the most direct route, but it's not too indirect and you can get to the city centre without change.

The 101 doesn't really serve Baguley. The 41 is not a direct route to the city centre from places west of Princess Parkway, although I accept it is a through route.

The 108/109 (formerly 44) ceased recently and the 99 a little while ago; the limited stop peak hour route 111 disappeared a long time ago. The buses from Sale Moor via Stretford (formerly route 49 and later 112/113) ceased some years ago, although there is still an extremely roundabout infrequent subsidised route (278).
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
1. The bus operators have consistently blamed falling bus patronage in GM on the expansion of the tram network. While some abstraction has undoubtedly happened at the margin, there is little evidence for large-scale effects. On a corridor by corridor comparison, the routes that have lost patronage most are those where there is no direct competition from trams - Hyde Road, Stockport Road, Oxford Road. Whereas corridors with direct tram counterparts have often maintained their bus users - Ashton Road, Stretford Road, Cheetham Hill. Bus usage along Chapel street has increased enormously - but that is due to the guided busway. Only along Oldham Road are there clear signs of a move from bus to tram. As number of other posters have remarked; generally trams and buses fit well together (as in Nottingham and Croydon). The average Metrolink trip is more than 10 km; which is more than double the average trip length for a stopping bus trip in GM, so the demand for one does not overlap strongly with the demand for the other. The key issue driving changes in transport choices is car access; where lower income travellers have a car, they tend to use it for regular trips; even short ones. (higher income users are increasingly likely to leave their car at home; preferring a bike for short trips, or train/tram for longer ones). The crunch point comes when the car fails its MOT; do you spend a deal of money to keep it on the road, or do you switch to an alternative regular travel mode? The evidence is that those who switch to tram, train or bike rarely switch back; although those who switch to stopping buses are more likely to look to return to car use once they reckon they can afford it. So one key to increasing bus use is to improve service quality so that these adventitious switchers are retained in the future.

Whilst , I take your point about car access, as in "I can't afford NOT to drive", the average trip length for (stopping) bus being less than 5km is probably a bit misleading. Apart from journeys below 5km (or more specifically 4km/2.5 miles) offering the worst value, there are many, many thousands of non motorists who not only live more than 5km from Manchester, but also more than 5km from their nearest major town.

I would also be very interested to know how you have evidence about patronage drops on Hyde Road, Stockport Road and Wilmslow Road - not least from when this apparent decline started and also how far from Piccadilly your study covers. The three corridors are, of course, completely different in concept and complexity (ie. Stockport Road isn't complex!)

Stockport Road is effectively the 192. A straightforward single route from Piccadilly along the A6 to Hazel Grove. Just to clarify for those not famiiiar, there are 18 buses an hour to Stockport College; 12 bph continuing to Stepping Hill Hospital (about 3 miles beyond Stockport) and 6bph continuing to Hazel Grove Park & Ride. From my experience of the route, morning peak loadings are very high largely with students rather than traditional commuters. That logic follows through to observations at Undercroft in the evening peak (1630-1800), when loadings seem considerably lower - maybe 20 or 30 per bus leaving Piccadilly. During the middle of the day (weekday), I have occasionally travelled from Stockport to Piccadilly and I don't think I've ever seen double figures on the bus at any one time.

Wilmslow Road is just as well known and from memory the Withington to Piccadilly section reaches a massive 72bph at peak times during University terms. Beyond Withington, buses fan out to serve the two "Didsbury's" and then thin out to various points South and South East of the city. In recent years, I have generally managed to keep my hospital appointments to the middle of the day and loadings can vary for predictable reasons; student lecture times vary and bunching on such corridors is inevitable. It isnt unknown to come out of the hospital and see 7 buses at or approaching the M'cr bound stop (on the opposite side of the road and a good 100 metres from the ped-x), but then have to wait nearly 10 minutes for the next bus.

Hyde Road is different again. Some years ago a national study determined (and let me see if I can get the wording right) that Hyde Road corridor had the second highest percentage of commuters dependant on the bus to get to work outside London. The highest being one in Birmingham (Hagley Road?). From Piccadilly (many Hyde Road services were kicked out of the city in 1995), the main corridor runs along the A57 through Belle Vue and Gorton to Reddish Bridge. This section currently has about 14 bph at peak times, but was nearer 20 before TIF (2007/8) and considerably more before De-reg. The 201 then continues pretty much due east through Denton and Hyde before continuing to the Manchester "overspill" estate at Hattersley. Consequently numerous markets are served. The 203 meanwhile turns south to run through Reddish to Stockport. These both run about every 10 minutes, but complimentary services have been reduced in recent years. Then there is the 205 and 206 running round the "backs" of West Gorton before rejoining Hyde Road in the centre of Gorton and crossing Reddish Bridge towards Denton. The 205 then turns off to serve Dane Bank (the only settlement with average or slightly above average car ownership in the whole of Hyde Road corridor's catchment area) and doubles back to Denton town centre, whilst the 206 continues to Denton and turns right to Haughton Green -a highly remuniterive (or was) mixed housing estate of around 11,200 people - and then looping back to Hyde. Before dereg, this estate had nine peak buses an hour to Manchester with journey times between 28 & 43 minutes. It now has 2-3 and thanks to the 206 replacing he direct 204 plus the disasterous effects of the M60 and local planning decisions - as in let's knock down the estate's only secondary school and build 200+ unwanted (according to market forces) houses on the land, one journey takes 68 minutes. Driving distance is 7.1miles, btw.

The upshot being, I had heard that despite the claims of reduced patronage above, the average am peak load on Hyde Road was one of, if not the highest, of all corridors surveyed. Albeit, this was some months ago, so maybe only a few corridors had been surveyed for the Reform studies. Also, off peak loadings on parts of the routes can be high, and I would say that the 203 carries more passengers (at all times of the day/week) at the Stockport end than the Manchester end.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I am not claiming anything about the impact on bus services of rail investment in the Valleys or the Scots Borders - which are clearly very different transport environments. Nor in respect of the Tyne & Wear Metro - where the former integrated transport system forced bus passengers to switch onto the Metro just to cross the Tyne. The issue here is the impact of Metrolink on bus patronage in Greater Manchester; and specifically on the bus usage in the corridors where Metrolink operates.

Are you Dentonian in disguise.... looking to selectively interpret information and discard information?

The fact is that there are legions of examples where the opening of a new rail/metro line has opened and it has adversely affected bus patronage. It would strange were it not to? That Metrolink can keep the existing rail passenger base (if applicable) and can attract non public transport users (either new trips or attracting car drivers). However, bus passengers (the main public transport segment) would be somehow immune to the attractions of a shiny new tram service? That doesn't make sense. It has happened everywhere else but Greater Manchester is a place apart? Not in my experience, it isn't.

The Salford study asked residents of Bury and Altrincham, which transport mode they would use to travel into Manchester City Centre; and for those reporting now using the tram, how they would have travelled into Manchester City Centre before the heavy rail line closed. But the vast majority of bus users in Altrincham and Bury are not travelling all the way into Manchester City Centre by bus, and never have done.

I believe that rail patronage for the Bury and Altrincham lines prior to closure and conversion was about just over 7m p.a. On reopening, this increased to 11m by 1994 and 12m by 1995; that is total passenger usage not just to/from Manchester. Therefore, the 4.5m is reflective of all journeys. Losing 1.5m bus journeys on a total of 256m in GMPTE land is statistically minimal - not much more than 0.5%.

On that corridor though, it is massive.

Other data suggests that on journeys into Manchester, bus market share fell from 28% to 9% and, to be honest, you'd expect it to!

in surveys of early tram users, a high proportion reported that before the trams started running, they had previously travelled by bus. (which is why Julian Peddle was able to claim that 60% of Metrolink use was extracted from bus services; and yes, I do regard his saying so as culpably misleading).

The Salford survey specifically seeks to address this, as you rightly point out. However, and I would ask someone to provide the text as I don't have it, as to exactly what Julian Peddle said. I don't know if his sources or methodology were specifically quoted so can't comment on what he said. I'd be surprised if he was confining himself to just phase 1 and something that happened 25 years ago but, without the context, it is difficult to know what his 60% means. As I say, if someone can post the transcript...

The 'true' Phase 1 extraction figure is likely to have been less than 1 million; and if we take the current Phase 3 system as roughly twice the patronage of the Phase 1 system, then it may be reasonable to assume that around 2 million (out of the current 42 million) annual Metrolink trips would otherwise have been done by bus. 2 million trips per year (if that is indeed the approximate figure) isn't altogether insignificant; but it is far from being the scale of demand reduction that would make the difference between an economically viable GM bus network, and one that could not pay its way.

The figure of 1m looks to be an underestimate based on the 36% figure being directionally correct and the differential between the old BR patronage and the mature Metrolink figure of patronage.

Now, let's be honest.

It would be a massive surprise if trams were introduced on major corridors and all their passengers came from the private car and new trips. However, given the experience everywhere else in the UK and the figures for phase 1, Metrolink will undoubtedly take trade from buses.

Also, it is incorrect to state that all the ills of bus companies are tram related - that is equally fatuous.

The decline in bus patronage in Greater Manchester is partly the fault of operators, partly attributable to demographics/social change (as seen elsewhere in the UK) and on those main killer corridors where Metrolink has been built, by the trams.

You may say that it is statistically minor - increase your sample enough and anything can be (and you can skew it the other way). However, on those major corridors (which incidentally are some of the most important traffic flows for bus operators - that's why they put a tram there!), it will be a major taker of trade.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Surely it doesn't really matter to anyone other than bus enthusiasts whether people are using the bus or tram? Instead of focusing on bus patronage statistics, it might be better instead to look at the modal split of trips within the conurbation. What is the proportion of total distance travelled in GM that is by car, and how has that changed over the years? It would also be interesting to see this trend split by individual borough. There's been a lot of discussion on this thread about trips to the city centre, but I suspect the car modal share for those trips has gone down a lot. Maybe someone here has the stats. If indeed PT is "winning" on that front, it would be more worthwhile to see what could be done about trips not to the city centre, which are presumably a lot more numerous and which are presumably dominated by the car.
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
The fact is that there are legions of examples where the opening of a new rail/metro line has opened and it has adversely affected bus patronage. It would strange were it not to? That Metrolink can keep the existing rail passenger base (if applicable) and can attract non public transport users (either new trips or attracting car drivers). However, bus passengers (the main public transport segment) would be somehow immune to the attractions of a shiny new tram service? That doesn't make sense. It has happened everywhere else but Greater Manchester is a place apart? Not in my experience, it isn't.

The difference in Greater Manchester is that the bulk of the business on stopping bus services are short trips (< 3miles); where the bulk of the business on Metrolink is for longer trips (> 4 miles). The reason why there appears to have been relatively little abstraction from bus to Metrolink for passengers from, say, Bury, Altrincham or East Didsbury, is that only a small proportion of the regular bus travellers boarding at these points are going all the way into central Manchester. Even where the bus runs all the way, very few passengers stay on the bus the full distance. As a number of posters have pointed out; deregulation had killed off most longer bus trips long before the recent Phase 3 expansion of Metrolink.

I believe that rail patronage for the Bury and Altrincham lines prior to closure and conversion was about just over 7m p.a. On reopening, this increased to 11m by 1994 and 12m by 1995; that is total passenger usage not just to/from Manchester. Therefore, the 4.5m is reflective of all journeys. Losing 1.5m bus journeys on a total of 256m in GMPTE land is statistically minimal - not much more than 0.5%.

That is the issue though; the Salford study apportioned 1.6 million annual Metrolink journeys as associated with persons who formerly reported travelling into Manchester from Bury or Altrincham by bus. But the Salford researchers had no way of knowing how many annual bus trips those persons had taken; only that it was a lot less than 1.6 million. In respect of the former rail travellers, the Salford researchers did obtain these data, because they contacted a sample of 500 users before the rail service closed, and then recontacted the same persons after the tram service opened. So for former rail users they knew how much average weekly usage increased in the change from train to tram; from memory I think the factor was about 20%. So the 7 million train trips translated to around 8 million tram trips. But there was no equivalent before/after sample of bus travellers into Manchester. So if a former bus user reported making 12 tram trips per week on average, they could not tell whether this equated to 6, 8 or 10 former weekly bus trips.
 
Last edited:

gnolife

Established Member
Joined
4 Nov 2010
Messages
2,028
Location
Johnstone
The 101 doesn't really serve Baguley. The 41 is not a direct route to the city centre from places west of Princess Parkway, although I accept it is a through route.

The 108/109 (formerly 44) ceased recently and the 99 a little while ago; the limited stop peak hour route 111 disappeared a long time ago. The buses from Sale Moor via Stretford (formerly route 49 and later 112/113) ceased some years ago, although there is still an extremely roundabout infrequent subsidised route (278).
The 101 serves the bit of Baguley between Southmoor Road and Hall Lane, a fair chunk of which is served by the Baguley, Roundthorn and Martinscroft Metrolink stops.
As for saying that the 41 isn't direct, it isn't much slower than the 108 between Sale Circle and Manchester (the 108 takes just under 40 minutes, compared to just over 45 on the 41)
(As an aside, the Sale Moor - Manchester via Stretford bus used to have the number 114, at least at the point at which it was withdrawn - I used to use it regularly between Wythenshawe and Manchester)
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,908
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
The 101 serves the bit of Baguley between Southmoor Road and Hall Lane, a fair chunk of which is served by the Baguley, Roundthorn and Martinscroft Metrolink stops.
As for saying that the 41 isn't direct, it isn't much slower than the 108 between Sale Circle and Manchester (the 108 takes just under 40 minutes, compared to just over 45 on the 41)
(As an aside, the Sale Moor - Manchester via Stretford bus used to have the number 114, at least at the point at which it was withdrawn - I used to use it regularly between Wythenshawe and Manchester)

The timings for the residual service 108 are for peak hours; it used to be quicker off peak. The fast limited stop services along Princess Road used to take no more than 25 minutes from Piccadilly to Wythenshawe Road (20 minutes to Southern Cemetery).

My recall of bus services in Greater M/c has a gap between 1982 and 2005 when I lived elsewhere, mostly in Cardiff, so I don't remember route number 114 for the Sale Moor bus service.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
The difference in Greater Manchester is that the bulk of the business on stopping bus services are short trips (< 3miles); where the bulk of the business on Metrolink is for longer trips (> 4 miles). The reason why there appears to have been relatively little abstraction from bus to Metrolink for passengers from, say, Bury, Altrincham or East Didsbury, is that only a small proportion of the regular bus travellers boarding at these points are going all the way into central Manchester. Even where the bus runs all the way, very few passengers stay on the bus the full distance. As a number of posters have pointed out; deregulation had killed off most longer bus trips long before the recent Phase 3 expansion of Metrolink.

That is the issue though; the Salford study apportioned 1.6 million annual Metrolink journeys as associated with persons who formerly reported travelling into Manchester from Bury or Altrincham by bus. But the Salford researchers had no way of knowing how many annual bus trips those persons had taken; only that it was a lot less than 1.6 million. In respect of the former rail travellers, the Salford researchers did obtain these data, because they contacted a sample of 500 users before the rail service closed, and then recontacted the same persons after the tram service opened. So for former rail users they knew how much average weekly usage increased in the change from train to tram; from memory, I think the factor was about 20%. So the 7 million train trips translated to around 8 million tram trips. But there was no equivalent before/after sample of bus travellers into Manchester. So if a former bus user reported making 12 tram trips per week on average, they could not tell whether this equated to 6, 8 or 10 former weekly bus trips.

The bus had a 28% market share for journeys into Manchester on phase 1 - that dropped to less than 10%. I'd suggest that the bus typically benefited from areas such as Stretford or Old Trafford for example; places where the time disbenefit of bus was outweighed by the frequency disbenefit of the train. Remove the frequency disbenefit and why wouldn't someone travel by tram - it stands to reason!

In phase 1, the longer journeys (ex Alt/Bury) would have been the core of the existing rail customer base. That a former bus user (who would typically be shorter duration journeys) would suddenly be taking many more with Metrolink - why? Average journey length is just over 4 miles (for the entire network) and given that the longer distance journeys would have been skewed towards rail users, then where are the shorter journeys coming from to drag the average down?

Also, that on subsequent phases that weren't on an existing rail alignment, you are suggesting that virtually all that passenger base has been drawn from new trips and car users?

I really don't understand why you believe that something as good as Metrolink, despite a few flaws like the seating, wouldn't be seen as worthwhile alternative to people's travel needs over a bus and that abstraction will occur.

Instead, it seems that you would wish to place the decline of bus services solely at the door of the operators. Are operators culpable? Yes. Are they totally culpable? No. Has Metrolink had a major impact on bus services on those corridors where it has been introduced - Yes, and rightly so.

ps I know you mentioned Julian Peddle and the voracity of his claims - any view of the transcript from Buses? Also, you mentioned him being an apologist for Stagecoach. To be fair, he's been consistent in his views of the big 5 in the UK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top