• 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!

TfGM Bus franchising

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tim33160

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2019
Messages
104
  • Andy Burnham sets out his plan for a London-style integrated transport system for Greater Manchester: Our Network
  • Assessment into the future of bus market completed & recommends franchising
  • Our Pass to give free bus travel to 16-to-18 year olds
  • Contactless payment to be launched on Metrolink
  • New bike hire scheme launching in 2020
  • Ambition to take control of the local rail network: GM Rail
The Mayor today announced a key milestone in Greater Manchester’s bus reform journey, as an assessment into the future of the city-region’s bus market has now been completed and recommends franchising as its preferred option.

The assessment will be considered by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority on Friday 28 June. The GMCA will decide whether to proceed with the scheme and approve the assessment for independent audit. If this is approved, an independent auditor will be appointed. Once the audit has been completed, the GMCA would then decide whether to proceed with a statutory public consultation on the assessment.
https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/news/future-transport-network/
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
This is going to be an interesting one to sit and watch...

I wish him luck. It's about time a German-style Verkehrsverbund, hopefully with a German-style unified tariff or at least TfL-style contactless system, was introduced in our cities. Other than as a means of lopping subsidy and in a small number of bus companies (most of which have at some stage had something to do with Alex Hornby or are municipals anyway i.e. Lothian and NCT) deregulation has been an abject failure.

As for the rail network, there's plenty of stuff entirely inside GM or near to it he could control on a Merseyrail like basis - the Hadfields seeming the most obvious first go. Could a brand involving "Metrolink" be used perhaps?
 

Tim33160

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2019
Messages
104
This report 13 - Bus Reform confirms that the assessment has now been completed and recommends proceeding with the proposed scheme by obtaining a report from an independent auditor as required by section 123D of the Act. GMCA meeting on Friday
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Other than as a means of lopping subsidy and in a small number of bus companies (most of which have at some stage had something to do with Alex Hornby or are municipals anyway i.e. Lothian and NCT) deregulation has been an abject failure.

Whereas, the pre 1986 position was a world of increasing patronage and modal shift, characterised by highly efficient public sector operators. Remember that bus patronage halved between the mid 1960s and deregulation, and had begun declining in the 1950s.

This will be something to watch with interest and wonder what Souter is making of it. Should franchising be adopted, there will be undoubtedly some benefits in terms of ticketing and connectivity and that's to be applauded. That there is some massive dividend to be liberated from perceived over-bussing, I'm a little more sceptical, let alone the skills of TfGM to manage things.
 

winston270twm

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2012
Messages
1,899
Whereas, the pre 1986 position was a world of increasing patronage and modal shift, characterised by highly efficient public sector operators. Remember that bus patronage halved between the mid 1960s and deregulation, and had begun declining in the 1950s.

This will be something to watch with interest and wonder what Souter is making of it. Should franchising be adopted, there will be undoubtedly some benefits in terms of ticketing and connectivity and that's to be applauded. That there is some massive dividend to be liberated from perceived over-bussing, I'm a little more sceptical, let alone the skills of TfGM to manage things.

But how long has it already taken for the Andy Burnham to get this far with his proposals ?? It just create yet more uncertainty for existing bus operators in the area, they will only invest where they have too.

Most of that can be achieved via Quality Partnerships if setup & managed correctly, and at a fraction of the cost.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
But how long has it already taken for the Andy Burnham to get this far with his proposals ?? It just create yet more uncertainty for existing bus operators in the area, they will only invest where they have too.

Most of that can be achieved via Quality Partnerships if setup & managed correctly, and at a fraction of the cost.

And indeed, the option has been left open to a voluntary partnership agreement.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,155
This is going to be an interesting one to sit and watch...

I have mine ready but its impossible to tell which way it will go


giphy.gif
 

Stan Drews

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
1,569
This report 13 - Bus Reform confirms that the assessment has now been completed and recommends proceeding with the proposed scheme by obtaining a report from an independent auditor as required by section 123D of the Act. GMCA meeting on Friday

Is the Part B report that is referred to, and which presumably holds the all important financial figures, available online?
 

Lynford1976

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
128
Provided that includes full integration of ticketing and an outright ban on operator specific ticketing I would be in support.

I bet it wouldn't, though.

Why would you want an outright ban on operator-specific ticketing? For passengers who would only want to use the services of one operator, why should they pay potentially more for services they wouldn't generally wish to use?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Why would you want an outright ban on operator-specific ticketing? For passengers who would only want to use the services of one operator, why should they pay potentially more for services they wouldn't generally wish to use?

Because that results in a loss of network benefits and unfairly penalises those who need to use more than one operator/bus through no fault of their own.

Ticketing should be based on distance travelled or by zones, not by operators, and should not discourage interchange. Take a look at how Merseytravel do it - their Areas and Zones model is basically the German concept, or failing that you've got the TfL concentric zone model.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Why would you want an outright ban on operator-specific ticketing? For passengers who would only want to use the services of one operator, why should they pay potentially more for services they wouldn't generally wish to use?
Depending on the partnership model, you wouldn't need one as there would be no competitive advantage to be had?

There will be some benefits but also some downsides. My concerns would be the loss of direct links. For instance, if you travel from Cadishead then you'd have to change onto Metrolink at Eccles as that's theoretically more efficient to sweat the tram asset as done in <insert name of European city where they spend much more on public transport> There were several instances of silly enforced changes in Tyne and Wear, the rain lashing down in Gateshead as you waited for your connecting bus whilst contemplating that's how they do it in Salzburg...
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
20,382
Location
0035
Whereas, the pre 1986 position was a world of increasing patronage and modal shift, characterised by highly efficient public sector operators. Remember that bus patronage halved between the mid 1960s and deregulation, and had begun declining in the 1950s.
Fair point but when you consider the way in which rail usage has increased over just the past 20 years compared to how much not only bus journeys but also bus mileage has decreased it prevents a shocking picture. Couple this with the fact that urbanisation is increasing (and it is in urban areas where Public transport is more feasible) and that the elderly & disabled are being bribed with free bus travel and it presents quite a depressing picture! Even now London is decreasing in terms of bus use and mileage the decline would be even more sharp. And it is not just in rural areas; patronage is declining sharper in metropolitan areas compared to non-metropolitan areas.
 

Stan Drews

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
1,569
Fair point but when you consider the way in which rail usage has increased over just the past 20 years compared to how much not only bus journeys but also bus mileage has decreased it prevents a shocking picture. Couple this with the fact that urbanisation is increasing (and it is in urban areas where Public transport is more feasible) and that the elderly & disabled are being bribed with free bus travel and it presents quite a depressing picture! Even now London is decreasing in terms of bus use and mileage the decline would be even more sharp. And it is not just in rural areas; patronage is declining sharper in metropolitan areas compared to non-metropolitan areas.

I wonder how rail usage would have faired during the last 20 years if it had seen the same major reductions in funding and journey times?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Depending on the partnership model, you wouldn't need one as there would be no competitive advantage to be had?

It is competition that causes the main problem, to be honest. Even without regulation it would be better if public transport was excepted from monopolies legislation. Bus operations are mostly monopolies in smaller towns, and by and large do not take the mick. So it would be better if they could collude on fares. Indeed, while the regulated German system is often held up as a superior one to the UK (and I do hold that view), it actually came about not through legislation but through co-operation between bus companies as a cartel, I believe, and later became statutory.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
Is there any timescale for when this might happen? Burnham's been Mayor for two years already.

How will this affect First's attempts to sell their remaining operations in the area? I suppose this is what Go Ahead were banking on when they bought Queens Road, but does anyone else want to get involved?
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Fair point but when you consider the way in which rail usage has increased over just the past 20 years compared to how much not only bus journeys but also bus mileage has decreased it prevents a shocking picture. Couple this with the fact that urbanisation is increasing (and it is in urban areas where Public transport is more feasible) and that the elderly & disabled are being bribed with free bus travel and it presents quite a depressing picture! Even now London is decreasing in terms of bus use and mileage the decline would be even more sharp. And it is not just in rural areas; patronage is declining sharper in metropolitan areas compared to non-metropolitan areas.

It is a complex picture but I guess I wanted to illustrate that yes, whilst it's correct that patronage has declined since deregulation, it wasn't the land of milk and honey beforehand as some might have us believe. This is despite some rather large subsidies in outright council and fare support subsidy, new bus grants, writing off of debts etc. Deregulation and privatisation reduced that (it was the primary aim) - note that when ENCTS arrived and was properly (ish) funded, that arrested the decline of passenger figures and that when austerity hit, the fall began again.

Take the funding to the rail industry. In real terms, it was c.£1.6bn at the end of the 1980s. That grew to £5bn in 30 years in real terms. That is the difference. If we decided to put in £1bn a year on improving bus priority and infrastructure, I'd suggest that would massively improve things. We've just seen Bristol roll out Metrobus - £250m worth of improvements but when you look in detail...much of the spending is on new roads that, shock horror, also open to cars. Also, remember that there hasn't been a fuel duty increase since 2011 so to protect "hard pressed families" (aka voters) but at the same time, bus drivers' wages have increased (with increased pensions contributions, NI) and BSOG being reduced.

With that backdrop, burgeoning congestion as private car travel becomes ever cheaper in real terms, Clean Air Zones that apply to commercial vehicles but not to "hard pressed families" so increasing costs, an underprovisioned ENCTS scheme and the basic structural changes to how we live, work and shop, I'd be flapping amazed if patronage wasn't going down!!
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
where they spend much more on public transport

Surely if money is tight, you don't want to be wasting money duplicating services?

There's a lot of fuss about those who currently enjoy direct services but hardly anyone talks about the people who currently have no direct service for the trips they make today who might benefit from a network orientated system.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Where is money being wasted duplicating services?

My point was that if indeed there are routes that are, at least partly, duplicated then you would be more likely to be able to afford duplication in a well funded system.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
If the services are commercially viable, is it a waste of money though?

Yes, if you could run fewer buses without losing many passengers - which you can if the buses are only a minute apart and not full, or if you could ramp up fares in the absence of competition - i.e abolish magic bus.
 

Stan Drews

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
1,569
Yes, if you could run fewer buses without losing many passengers - which you can if the buses are only a minute apart and not full, or if you could ramp up fares in the absence of competition - i.e abolish magic bus.

If the buses you ‘save’ are running profitably, doesn’t that mean that whatever new route you transfer the resource to, faces any even greater challenge to be viable, or the subsidy has to be even greater to maintain the same revenue pot?
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
If the buses you ‘save’ are running profitably, doesn’t that mean that whatever new route you transfer the resource to, faces any even greater challenge to be viable, or the subsidy has to be even greater to maintain the same revenue pot?
Indeed, and it doesn't answer most the contradictions of the arguments.

Just because you don't have direct services between certain points doesn't mean that it should be preferable to remove existing ones? That they can sustain a commercial service shows that a demand exists.

That there are apparently cosy monopolies and people creaming it in, and yet, despite this we seem to have an overbussed network which is what you don't get in a monopoly situation. Oxford Road is often quoted but even if that was reduced modestly, the sums involved are minimal.

Or that if you reduce this overbussing on Service A, then those resources can somehow be redeployed. So you reduce the costs on Service A, yet despite reducing the service, trust that revenue will remain the same? Sound counter intuitive?

The costs saved on Service A can be used to sustain the uncommercially viable Service B. Really?

Just don't see where the money is actually coming from.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,426
If the buses you ‘save’ are running profitably, doesn’t that mean that whatever new route you transfer the resource to, faces any even greater challenge to be viable, or the subsidy has to be even greater to maintain the same revenue pot?

If a hypothetical bus route costs £100k to run and has revenue of £120k, the buses satisfy your condition of profitability. If you can reduce costs to £80k by eliminating over capacity, but keep revenues the same, or even increase them by raising fares, the route is now more profitable, and you have more cash and more buses to use elsewhere.

Edit: This also works where buses are competing with trams - eliminating the buses would leave the tram route more profitable than the bus and tram combined are today.
 
Last edited:

Stan Drews

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
1,569
Indeed, and it doesn't answer most the contradictions of the arguments.

Just because you don't have direct services between certain points doesn't mean that it should be preferable to remove existing ones? That they can sustain a commercial service shows that a demand exists.

That there are apparently cosy monopolies and people creaming it in, and yet, despite this we seem to have an overbussed network which is what you don't get in a monopoly situation. Oxford Road is often quoted but even if that was reduced modestly, the sums involved are minimal.

Or that if you reduce this overbussing on Service A, then those resources can somehow be redeployed. So you reduce the costs on Service A, yet despite reducing the service, trust that revenue will remain the same? Sound counter intuitive?

The costs saved on Service A can be used to sustain the uncommercially viable Service B. Really?

Just don't see where the money is actually coming from.

Indeed!
I’m just astounded that after spending millions of pounds already investigating the possible advantages of ‘Bus Reform’, that none of these great minds appears to have encountered this dilemma ...or at least, they haven’t admitted publicly to doing so!
If there’s going to be a significant change to the level of funding available, then that’s great, and I’m sure everyone will welcome the benefits it can bring. However, if that is the case, much could be done within the current system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top