• 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.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
We're not advocating the previous system. What is proposed is a privatised system like in London, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and probably elsewhere.

The most common model worldwide does seem to be a tendered one of some kind not dissimilar to how we empty the bins in most Council areas - publically specified and funded, privately delivered in some form.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
The most common model worldwide does seem to be a tendered one of some kind not dissimilar to how we empty the bins in most Council areas - publically specified and funded, privately delivered in some form.

Hmm. Perhaps not the best analogy. Our bins are emptied at unreliable times with the Council no longer publishing a calender of which bins are emptied which week and are left dumped in dangerous places often some distance from our house. Actually, if some people's idea of exploiting Franchising to replace buses with light rail is taken up then maybe it *is* the best analogy (lol)
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
There are several potential reasons why diesel buses are a good target for reducing emissions:
  • Bus engines are running for much longer each day than the average car and probably most vans too.
  • Buses spend proportionately more time in city centres where the pollution problems are greatest (in terms of the number of people breathing the air, even if the actual pollution is higher at somewhere like a motorway junction).
  • Buses are run by a relatively small number of operators with maintenance done by (mostly!) competent staff at a small number of depots. So it's relatively less difficult to introduce new technology.
  • To some extent bus operators are reliant on public funding so it may be possible to apply public pressure for them to improve (obviously limited under the current regime).
This suggests that buses would be a good place to start, as is actually happening. Many of the same factors apply to taxis or private hire vehicles and I would like to see tougher rules for these too, as London is starting to do. However taxis/PHVs are mostly owner-operated and serviced at a wide range of locations. Their drivers are also numerous and have considerable political clout.

Bullet points 2 and 4 are self contradictory Also, independant studies have shown that (in Gtr. Manchester) at least, the greatest pollution problems are *not* in the city centre. They are at/close to the most congested stretches of the M60 & M62 or on major corridors with relatively low numbers of buses (4 or less registered journeys in each direction).

Virtually all bus services in Manchester city centre are commercial run (at least during the day) so there is no public funding. Presumably, the same applies to all other cities identified as having a pollution problem. On the contrary, adult full fare payers are effectively paying fuel tax to the Government and (a much smaller amount) facility charges at Shudehill Interchange and at the outer end and/or intermediate bus stations on routes from the city centre. There is every reason to assume (certainly under continued de-regulation) that improvements in emissions standards will largely continue to be financed by the same fare paying passengers - whether or not their route receives these new or re-engined buses.

Buses are an easy target because (outside the South East) neither the Media nor the green lobby use them - wheras they are very big users/supporters of taxis and Rail. Also, its very "convenient" that having spent many millions on drastically reducing NoX and PM10 emissions, the goalposts have been moved and all of a sudden its PM2.5s that's the problem.

It has been suggested that Euro6 buses with suitable exhaust systems produce barely THREE per cent of NoX/PM10s as buses built in the 1960s. Further more, that 50 years has seen the number of buses in GM halved - albeit with more operating 14-18 hours a day. How many diesel cars/vans were there in the 1960s? How many diesel car/vans are there now?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Hmm. Perhaps not the best analogy. Our bins are emptied at unreliable times with the Council no longer publishing a calender of which bins are emptied which week and are left dumped in dangerous places often some distance from our house. Actually, if some people's idea of exploiting Franchising to replace buses with light rail is taken up then maybe it *is* the best analogy (lol)

And our bins are emptied weekly by a private firm (Serco I think) under contract (MK Council probably has the best domestic waste service in the country, and we have one of the cheapest Council Tax rates too - an excellent advertisement for unitary authorities).

What you describe is not an issue with tendering, it is an issue with cost-cutting, which is also evident where bus services are tendered solely to the cheapest bidder or where things are operated internally but with a low cost the priority.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Buses are an easy target because (outside the South East) neither the Media nor the green lobby use them - wheras they are very big users/supporters of taxis and Rail. Also, its very "convenient" that having spent many millions on drastically reducing NoX and PM10 emissions, the goalposts have been moved and all of a sudden its PM2.5s that's the problem.

If it is some great conspiracy by the bus-hating UK media, how do you explain the fact that other countries have been quicker in rolling out electric buses than the UK? The vast majority of electric buses in the UK are in the part of the country that the media care about most.

It has been suggested that Euro6 buses with suitable exhaust systems produce barely THREE per cent of NoX/PM10s as buses built in the 1960s.

That may be so, but is irrelevant if people are still dying prematurely because of pollution from road traffic.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
If it is some great conspiracy by the bus-hating UK media, how do you explain the fact that other countries have been quicker in rolling out electric buses than the UK? The vast majority of electric buses in the UK are in the part of the country that the media care about most.



That may be so, but is irrelevant if people are still dying prematurely because of pollution from road traffic.

I was thinking more about local media especially the BBC. BBC NW on June 14th twisted already inaccurate IPPR North statistics and virtually said that Buses and HGVs were the sole cause of traffic pollution in Manchester. Private cars, taxis and vans (not to mention 33 year old diesel trains) are totally blameless.

Your second para is a poor effort. You clearly didn't read my comments about the worst hotspots being nowhere near high frequency bus services. It is NOT irrelevant if you are saying that a mode responsible for a tiny proportion of the problem has to pay (literally) to solve the whole problem - especially if it means yet more people being priced off buses and into diesel cars and taxis.

The general gripe about the Media (and many politicians) is not they "hate" buses - its that they deny the existance of bus passengers. What was that quote "No taxation without representation"?
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Your second para is a poor effort. You clearly didn't read my comments about the worst hotspots being nowhere near high frequency bus services. It is NOT irrelevant if you are saying that a mode responsible for a tiny proportion of the problem has to pay (literally) to solve the whole problem - especially if it means yet more people being priced off buses and into diesel cars and taxis.

But if you read edwin_m's post earlier: "Buses spend proportionately more time in city centres where the pollution problems are greatest (in terms of the number of people breathing the air, even if the actual pollution is higher at somewhere like a motorway junction)."

It is not just diesel buses getting a bad rap. Diesel cars have been demonised and sales have fallen dramatically. Ubers/private hire taxis are often petrol hybrids nowadays.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
But if you read edwin_m's post earlier: "Buses spend proportionately more time in city centres where the pollution problems are greatest (in terms of the number of people breathing the air, even if the actual pollution is higher at somewhere like a motorway junction)."

It is not just diesel buses getting a bad rap. Diesel cars have been demonised and sales have fallen dramatically. Ubers/private hire taxis are often petrol hybrids nowadays.

But city centres already have the highest proportion of Euro6 & hybrids and don't forget the engines automatically cut out to avoid idling.
Diesel cars may get a bad rap from some quarters but not the BBC! They've even changed out of date footage of Hybrids passing their former HQ on Oxford Road with new footage of a Hybrid on Stockport Road to use when talking about pollution. And they still have the deliberately misleading use of infra-red filming of a London E400's emissions, pretending the film shows pollutants. Any amatuer physicist knows that all it shows is heat, but they are pandering to ignorant populists who believe everything the Media and motoring lobby tell them.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
But city centres already have the highest proportion of Euro6 & hybrids and don't forget the engines automatically cut out to avoid idling.

Hybrids are still polluting. It is notable that Britain has embraced hybrids more than other countries, yet (other than London) the UK is behind when it comes to fully electric buses.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
Hybrids are still polluting. It is notable that Britain has embraced hybrids more than other countries, yet (other than London) the UK is behind when it comes to fully electric buses.

Notice the pattern; First it was Easy access buses; get Government to pay for a few trials (especially in London) then get the Adult fare payer to do the rest. Once that's done, its realised they aren't as effective as they should be because of bus stop blocking and other obstacles reaching the stop.

Then it was hybrid buses (and Euro upgrades), again get Government to "kickstart" the process then get the fare payer to do the rest only to move the goal posts; sorry, muggins fare payer it wasn't PM10s after all, it's PM2.5s.

So, what's next; a bit of money up front before the fare payer finances electric buses. Then someone say's; sorry, can't get batteries efficient enough or charging points practical enough. It'll have to be CNG folks and so it goes, and so it goes.

And please, stop saying "except London". This is a debate about Buses; "except London" is automatically assumed.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Then it was hybrid buses (and Euro upgrades), again get Government to "kickstart" the process then get the fare payer to do the rest only to move the goal posts; sorry, muggins fare payer it wasn't PM10s after all, it's PM2.5s.

So, what's next; a bit of money up front before the fare payer finances electric buses. Then someone say's; sorry, can't get batteries efficient enough or charging points practical enough. It'll have to be CNG folks and so it goes, and so it goes.

Even in this country many people were sceptical about hybrid diesels yet thousands have gone into service. Fully electric is different. In mainland Europe, few hybrids were sold and most operators are going straight from regular diesel to fully electric.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Even in this country many people were sceptical about hybrid diesels yet thousands have gone into service. Fully electric is different. In mainland Europe, few hybrids were sold and most operators are going straight from regular diesel to fully electric.
That may have something to do with our preference for double deckers, which are space and weight critical.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Bullet points 2 and 4 are self contradictory Also, independant studies have shown that (in Gtr. Manchester) at least, the greatest pollution problems are *not* in the city centre. They are at/close to the most congested stretches of the M60 & M62 or on major corridors with relatively low numbers of buses (4 or less registered journeys in each direction).

My points 2 and 4 are below for reference. I don't see any contradiction, and someone else has pointed out that I already addressed your second point.

  • Buses spend proportionately more time in city centres where the pollution problems are greatest (in terms of the number of people breathing the air, even if the actual pollution is higher at somewhere like a motorway junction).
  • To some extent bus operators are reliant on public funding so it may be possible to apply public pressure for them to improve (obviously limited under the current regime).
To be honest I've had enough of trying to respond reasonably to the points you make when some like this one are plainly incorrect and you don't show much respect for the views of others. I'm out of this thread.
 

Dentonian

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2017
Messages
1,192
My points 2 and 4 are below for reference. I don't see any contradiction, and someone else has pointed out that I already addressed your second point.


To be honest I've had enough of trying to respond reasonably to the points you make when some like this one are plainly incorrect and you don't show much respect for the views of others. I'm out of this thread.

I accept that someone else later clarified your comments about city centres, but what is "plainly incorrect" about my other comments. OK. I can't remember which study it was (there are so many), but i'm sure it was actually commissioned by the DoE or the green lobby, which identified the 10 locations with the worst roadside pollution in GM - and they didn't include the city centre. Similarly, there is very little public funding of buses in Gtr. Manchester and less still in the city centre apart from the MetroShuttle.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I accept that someone else later clarified your comments about city centres, but what is "plainly incorrect" about my other comments. OK. I can't remember which study it was (there are so many), but i'm sure it was actually commissioned by the DoE or the green lobby, which identified the 10 locations with the worst roadside pollution in GM - and they didn't include the city centre. Similarly, there is very little public funding of buses in Gtr. Manchester and less still in the city centre apart from the MetroShuttle.
You may not agree with the two bullets I quoted above, but there is nothing self-contradictory between them as you allege.

And I don't disagree about the most polluted places in Manchester not being in the city centre - I was pointed out that with more people close to the source of pollution the city centre pollution may be causing more damage.

As I say, I've had enough of trying to clarify points that were quite clear in the first place.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Worth Noting that in 3 months since the relaunch of OneBus the bus operators attempt to present an alternative to franchising they've produced a grand total of one fake news newspaper article usually horribly skewed statistics and arbitrary comparison dates to portray a false timeline, and 4 tweets (one announcing relaunch, two advertising a free weekend for 16-18 year olds and one advertising their newspaper article). But then what do you expect when their leader and spokesman is on an 8 day a month contract.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
I posted this in the other, lesser used Manchester bus franchise thread.
Bit of an update on this. The agenda for the Combined Authority meeting next month contains a number of documents relevant to the proposed franchising scheme.
https://democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=136&MId=2678&Ver=4

It looks like the audit has been completed and between October and January they will undertake the consultation with stakeholders.

It is proposed that franchising will be brought in in three phases - contracts to be let in 2021 for an area roughly comprising Bolton, Wigan and Salford, 2022 for Oldham, Rochdale and the Northern half of Manchester, 2023 for South Manchester, Tameside, Trafford and Stockport.

The list of services included in the scheme appears to only include routes wholly within Greater Manchester, so there's going to be a lot of routes needing a permit to continue operating.

No doubt we'll find out more fairly soon, but it sounds to me like the contracts taking until 2023 to introduce might just be to replicate the current service, and any change might take even longer?
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
Consultation now open: https://www.gmconsult.org/strategy-team/gmbusconsultation/

The Consultation and Assessment documents can be viewed in PDF format by going into the supporting documents section.

Lots to read. Most interesting thing I've seen is that the GMCA intend to buy 10 depots (Arriva Wythenshawe, First Oldham, Rotala Bolton, Go Ahead Queens Road, Stagecoach Hyde Road, Sharston, Stockport, Ashton, Middleton, Wigan)
 

Alexbus12

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2018
Messages
387
Consultation now open: https://www.gmconsult.org/strategy-team/gmbusconsultation/

The Consultation and Assessment documents can be viewed in PDF format by going into the supporting documents section.

Lots to read. Most interesting thing I've seen is that the GMCA intend to buy 10 depots (Arriva Wythenshawe, First Oldham, Rotala Bolton, Go Ahead Queens Road, Stagecoach Hyde Road, Sharston, Stockport, Ashton, Middleton, Wigan)

Which document is this in?
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
Which document is this in?

It's briefly mentioned prior to Question 22 of the Consultation document, which directs you to section 26.1 of the Assessment for the details. The cost is set out in section 42.3 as £58m plus tax, plant and refurbishment costs for a total of £85m.
 

Alexbus12

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2018
Messages
387
It's briefly mentioned prior to Question 22 of the Consultation document, which directs you to section 26.1 of the Assessment for the details. The cost is set out in section 42.3 as £58m plus tax, plant and refurbishment costs for a total of £85m.

Appreciate it, thanks
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,908
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
The whole franchising proposal is meddlesome and originates from a communist perspective, for example the compulsory expropriation of bus depots mentioned above. It it completely contrary to the deregulation philosophy of bus operation introduced in October 1986. It will not reduce any general decline in bus usage, and will stultify any commercial initiatives to improve bus services, with the dead hand of socialist bureaucracy. It will increase the financial burden on Greater Manchester taxpayers.

State interference in bus services should be confined to providing limited support for non-commercial routes, where the local authority feels that some bus service provision is essential to ensure significant population centres are not cut off entirely from public transport. It should not generally be needed in urban areas. Other Labour-run local authorities such as Stoke-on-Trent don't meddle in this way, so why is Greater Manchester intending to do so.

The really effective way to increase public transport usage would be better land use planning, but the dispersed nature of residential, retail, industrial and service (e.g. hospital) development in the UK, particularly prevalent in Anglo-Saxon countries, inhibits effective public transport provision.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The really effective way to increase public transport usage would be better land use planning, but the dispersed nature of residential, retail, industrial and service (e.g. hospital) development in the UK, particularly prevalent in Anglo-Saxon countries, inhibits effective public transport provision.

Have a quick nose at how those countries do public transport?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
originates from a communist perspective, for example the compulsory expropriation of bus depots mentioned above.

...

The really effective way to increase public transport usage would be better land use planning, but the dispersed nature of residential, retail, industrial and service (e.g. hospital) development in the UK, particularly prevalent in Anglo-Saxon countries, inhibits effective public transport provision.
So OK to expropriate land for residential, retail, industrial and service as long as it's not an existing bus depot?

Better land use planning is definitely needed but bus deregulation actively works against it because it's entirely up to the bus operator whether they choose to serve a new development.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You do remember that bus patronage fell sharply for THIRTY years before deregulation despite regulation, nationalisation and massive state subsidy.

To be fair the UK has never been able to operate buses properly.

I still hold the strong view, as I think @radamfi also does, that we need the German model in our towns and cities - one network, one set of fares agnostic of mode, buses connect to trains rather than compete with them. That will get people travelling - like it does in London where the bus simply isn't seen as it is elsewhere.

It simply cannot be done without full regulation. (I don't care who runs the buses, provided they are run to the appropriate tightly-specified standard - the cheapest way of doing this should be chosen, really).
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
You do remember that bus patronage fell sharply for THIRTY years before deregulation despite regulation, nationalisation and massive state subsidy.

You do remember that? Don’t you?
And it continued to do so after deregulation despite the thrusting vigour of the private sector. Except in London where the franchising system allowed the Mayor to use buses as a tool to improve public transport, cut pollution and make life better for Londoners. Are the likes of Manchester to get this opportunity too, or are buses just going to sink into irrelevance?
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
And it continued to do so after deregulation despite the thrusting vigour of the private sector. Except in London where the franchising system allowed the Mayor to use buses as a tool to improve public transport, cut pollution and make life better for Londoners. Are the likes of Manchester to get this opportunity too, or are buses just going to sink into irrelevance?

Yeah - remind me... Has there been any sort of multi million pound funding in London? Perhaps Manchester could introduce a congestion charge?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top