TfGM Bus franchising

Bletchleyite · 25 Jun 2019

radamfi said:
People from Huddersfield can change at Oldham Mumps or even get the train the whole way. The connection at Hollinwood is only needed for people going between Oldham and Hollinwood. Hollinwood surely is one of the better places for an interchange, given it is also a major park and ride site.

I think people need to get away from the "compete" mentality and understand the "complement" one. Which has never really been done in the UK.

That doesn't mean you should make everyone change at Gateshead, or whatever, but it does mean you don't for instance offer a cheaper fare for going X to Y on the bus when there's a parallel train, because you want them to take the high-capacity train.

Or for another example, the Oldham-Manchester bus is only intended for those who are not travelling between two Metrolink-served locations. That way you need a lower frequency, because you're not pricing people off the tram, it's the same price. You're just providing a service for those whose journey the tram does not serve.

Or another - no passengers should be going Piccadilly-Didsbury by bus. There are trams and trains. So there is no reason to provide a pricing model or timetable that encourages that.

High-capacity train. Oops.

RailUK Forums

duncombec · 25 Jun 2019

radamfi said:
One thing is sure, you won't get high levels of ridership unless people change, because it is impossible to run a direct service from everywhere to everywhere.

Which I don't dispute. But equally you may end up lowering ridership if you require existing direct journeys to make a change just to get some perceived network benefit from it.

radamfi said:
Patronage is often described as rising, stagnant or falling, but that is not really important. Suppose one place doubles mode share from 10% to 20% but another place is "stagnant" because it doesn't go above 40%. In this case, "stagnant" is good.

So in your opinion, it is better to have 40% ridership that has remained unchanged for 10 years, rather than see the benefits coming from the 100% increase in ridership from 10% to 20%? Surely it would be equally beneficial to see the 40% rise to 50%? Surely we should be aiming to get growth in public transport use everywhere, regardless of whether through direct or network services?

radamfi said:
People from Huddersfield can change at Oldham Mumps or even get the train the whole way. The connection at Hollinwood is only needed for people going between Oldham and Hollinwood. Hollinwood surely is one of the better places for an interchange, given it is also a major park and ride site.

They "can" change... you are implying they "must" change. What are the benefits of forcing people to change anywhere? What about the "network" benefits of the ultimate destination? Given the area, did it ever dawn on you that people might want to travel by bus to see the scenery from the top deck on the way, rather than be at car-height in a railway carriage?

Has any study been done anywhere, Manchester or one of your often-feted best practice examples, into people's preferences? History suggests that changing is unpopular in the UK... has anybody asked in Zurich whether people would prefer direct, if the opportunity was given them? I can think of a fair few (off-topic) examples where passenger preference has been disregarded to supply a supposedly better, but less popular, network.

carlberry · 25 Jun 2019

duncombec said:
Personally, I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned the shock-horror that a report commissioned by a pro-franchisng mayor should come out in favour of franchising...

I didn't realise the writers were given a second option!

duncombec · 25 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I think people need to get away from the "compete" mentality and understand the "complement" one. Which has never really been done in the UK.

That doesn't mean you should make everyone change at Gateshead, or whatever, but it does mean you don't for instance offer a cheaper fare for going X to Y on the bus when there's a parallel train, because you want them to take the high-capacity train.

Or for another example, the Oldham-Manchester bus is only intended for those who are not travelling between two Metrolink-served locations. That way you need a lower frequency, because you're not pricing people off the tram, it's the same price. You're just providing a service for those whose journey the tram does not serve.

Or another - no passengers should be going Piccadilly-Didsbury by bus. There are trams and trains. So there is no reason to provide a pricing model or timetable that encourages that.

High-capacity train. Oops.

To keep with a Manchester example (although the Gateshead one is the historical classic): TfGM is already a pseudo-Verkehrsverbund. They do not need to enforce franchising to perform what sensible, well-rounded discussions could create. They could produce network, rather than individual route, timetables. They could include trams in the System One ticket range (or whatever they are called now). They could engage with the bus operators for their thoughts on fares (My knowledge is scratchy here, but don't "PTEs" count as a body that can act as an intermediary for harmonising fares?).

Perhaps if the tram was the same fare as the bus people would be more inclined to use it. That it isn't (who sets tram fares?) explains why passengers may prefer to use the bus. What is the situation with ENCTS validity on the tram?

I can't help but think if TfGM used the money it must be spending on these reports and investigations into franchising on the currently existing network (publicity, etc.), it might not require the franchising to start with...

Bletchleyite · 25 Jun 2019

duncombec said:
So in your opinion, it is better to have 40% ridership that has remained unchanged for 10 years, rather than see the benefits coming from the 100% increase in ridership from 10% to 20%? Surely it would be equally beneficial to see the 40% rise to 50%? Surely we should be aiming to get growth in public transport use everywhere, regardless of whether through direct or network services?

It would be good to see 40 rise to 50 if that is feasible, but of course 40 is better than 10->20. Why would it not be?

The UK is obsessed with changing things and constantly tweaking - brands, networks, timetables. Mainland Europe much less so.

Xenophon PCDGS · 25 Jun 2019

radamfi said:
Keep the 83 and terminate the 180/183/184 at Hollinwood tram stop.

I am sure that travellers from either Greenfield on the 180 and Uppermill on the 184 would not be happy to decamp in the Hollinwood area in order to then take their chances on the tram into Manchester, especially in the morning and afternoon peak times when the tram would have filled in the Oldham town centre core tram stops.

I see that your favoured Sholver and Moorside travellers on the 83 are relieved by your decision to absolve them from this particular addition to their bus journey.

duncombec · 25 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
It would be good to see 40 rise to 50 if that is feasible, but of course 40 is better than 10->20. Why would it not be?

The UK is obsessed with changing things and constantly tweaking - brands, networks, timetables. Mainland Europe much less so.

So essentially, there is no benefit to anybody making any improvements anywhere. We should just stick with the ridership we have and be done with it?
Because if there is no point praising areas where there is a 100% increase, even if it remains less than somewhere else stagnant, where is the point of doing anything?

Manchester operates on a system of change dates, approx. every 2 months, and they are, I believe almost entirely, kept to by the operators. This isn't much different to "mainland Europe" with it's twice yearly changes.

Yorks185 · 25 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I think people need to get away from the "compete" mentality and understand the "complement" one. Which has never really been done in the UK.

That doesn't mean you should make everyone change at Gateshead, or whatever, but it does mean you don't for instance offer a cheaper fare for going X to Y on the bus when there's a parallel train, because you want them to take the high-capacity train.

Or for another example, the Oldham-Manchester bus is only intended for those who are not travelling between two Metrolink-served locations. That way you need a lower frequency, because you're not pricing people off the tram, it's the same price. You're just providing a service for those whose journey the tram does not serve.

Or another - no passengers should be going Piccadilly-Didsbury by bus. There are trams and trains. So there is no reason to provide a pricing model or timetable that encourages that.

High-capacity train. Oops.

There is a couple of issues with this idea,firstly some people simply do not like taking the tram for various reasons (Anti-social behaviour,overcrowding at peak times & such) with trains also being overcrowded already at rush hour,without trying to add what are currently bus passengers into the mix.

When you say buses should not offerent a cheaper fare for going X to Y if there is a train service,would you raise the bus fare or lower the train fare? (Eg,A Single from Greenfield to Manchester on the train is £5.30,using the bus would be around £4 (or £2 if you used purchase a bundle of tickets on the APP)

for your "no paseengers shoud be going Piccadilly-Didsbury by bus" suggestion - would you then introduce a 24hr service to the train or trams to replace the buses?

Bletchleyite · 25 Jun 2019

duncombec said:
So essentially, there is no benefit to anybody making any improvements anywhere. We should just stick with the ridership we have and be done with it?
Because if there is no point praising areas where there is a 100% increase, even if it remains less than somewhere else stagnant, where is the point of doing anything?

Clearly on a path to 40% you need to go from 10 to 20. However, 20 is not praiseworthy if you can have 40, no. But I never did like Americanised back-slapping.

TBH, 20% is half as rubbish as 10%. That's about as complimentary as I'd get to the appalling UK city transport approach. It's going from poor to slightly less poor. It still needs a massive kick up the regulatory backside.

Yorks185 said:
When you say buses should not offerent a cheaper fare for going X to Y if there is a train service,would you raise the bus fare or lower the train fare? (Eg,A Single from Greenfield to Manchester on the train is £5.30,using the bus would be around £4 (or £2 if you used purchase a bundle of tickets on the APP)

Probably a bit of both. The changes would need to be revenue neutral.

for your "no paseengers shoud be going Piccadilly-Didsbury by bus" suggestion - would you then introduce a 24hr service to the train or trams to replace the buses?

Plenty of German cities have night bus networks which follow their rapid transit rail lines fairly closely. Nothing saying that model could not be used.

radamfi · 25 Jun 2019

duncombec said:
So in your opinion, it is better to have 40% ridership that has remained unchanged for 10 years, rather than see the benefits coming from the 100% increase in ridership from 10% to 20%? Surely it would be equally beneficial to see the 40% rise to 50%? Surely we should be aiming to get growth in public transport use everywhere, regardless of whether through direct or network services?

40 > 20. That is all that matters.

duncombec said:
They "can" change... you are implying they "must" change. What are the benefits of forcing people to change anywhere? What about the "network" benefits of the ultimate destination? Given the area, did it ever dawn on you that people might want to travel by bus to see the scenery from the top deck on the way, rather than be at car-height in a railway carriage?

Public transport is primarily about getting from A to B as fast as possible, in order to compete with the car. Getting a good view from the top deck is of lower priority, and double deck buses in Britain suffer from steaming up which harm the view anyway.

duncombec said:
Has any study been done anywhere, Manchester or one of your often-feted best practice examples, into people's preferences? History suggests that changing is unpopular in the UK... has anybody asked in Zurich whether people would prefer direct, if the opportunity was given them? I can think of a fair few (off-topic) examples where passenger preference has been disregarded to supply a supposedly better, but less popular, network.

When you force people to pay again for changing, and don't coordinate services, no wonder people don't like changing! But again I need to reiterate that there are only a small proportion of possible journeys which can be carried out by direct service, so all this discussion about changing existing direct services is rather disproportionate. We should focus our efforts more on trips that are currently unattractive to make by PT because there is both no direct service and poor interchange, which are the vast majority of possible O-D pairs. Nobody prefers to change compared to having a direct and faster service, even where there is a well coordinated interchange, but if supplying a direct service causes someone else to have a worse service, then there is an overall net dis-benefit.

TheGrandWazoo · 25 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I think people need to get away from the "compete" mentality and understand the "complement" one. Which has never really been done in the UK.

That doesn't mean you should make everyone change at Gateshead, or whatever, but it does mean you don't for instance offer a cheaper fare for going X to Y on the bus when there's a parallel train, because you want them to take the high-capacity train.

Or for another example, the Oldham-Manchester bus is only intended for those who are not travelling between two Metrolink-served locations. That way you need a lower frequency, because you're not pricing people off the tram, it's the same price. You're just providing a service for those whose journey the tram does not serve.

Or another - no passengers should be going Piccadilly-Didsbury by bus. There are trams and trains. So there is no reason to provide a pricing model or timetable that encourages that.

The thing is that people AREN'T generally travelling by bus where the tram is parallel. The tram is quicker. That's why we've seen the abstraction of trade from those bus routes. Take the Eccles line. That used to have buses heading down the Eccles New Road all the time; there's now one every 30 mins. There are, of course, buses heading to Manchester from Eccles but they're heading via and to/from other places.

We'd all welcome improved modal share but where is the money going to come from? How much do they spend per capita on local tram/rail/bus compared to Manchester? Will this change?

Also, people would prefer not to change. No surprise that when bus services were re-extended from Gateshead to Newcastle that people didn't want to decamp off their Olympian, wander across a bus station, down into the Metro station escalator, wait for a metro and then go across the bridge. Why on earth would you want that?

radamfi · 25 Jun 2019

Xenophon PCDGS said:
I am sure that travellers from either Greenfield on the 180 and Uppermill on the 184 would not be happy to decamp in the Hollinwood area in order to then take their chances on the tram into Manchester, especially in the morning and afternoon peak times when the tram would have filled in the Oldham town centre core tram stops.

I see that your favoured Sholver and Moorside travellers on the 83 are relieved by your decision to absolve them from this particular addition to their bus journey.

Passengers from Greenfield, Uppermill and Sholver can change at Oldham Mumps. There is already a purpose built interchange at Oldham Mumps but it is hardly used at the moment because of the fare system.

radamfi · 25 Jun 2019

TheGrandWazoo said:
Also, people would prefer not to change. No surprise that when bus services were re-extended from Gateshead to Newcastle that people didn't want to decamp off their Olympian, wander across a bus station, down into the Metro station escalator, wait for a metro and then go across the bridge. Why on earth would you want that?

The vast majority of interchange between rail and bus in the world happens where the bus trip is relatively short compared to the rail trip. There's no need to focus on a very specific example where the reverse was the case and which hasn't existed for over 30 years.

Bletchleyite · 25 Jun 2019

TheGrandWazoo said:
Also, people would prefer not to change. No surprise that when bus services were re-extended from Gateshead to Newcastle that people didn't want to decamp off their Olympian, wander across a bus station, down into the Metro station escalator, wait for a metro and then go across the bridge. Why on earth would you want that?

Where did I say that that specific example was sensible?

To use a random example on a map, though, what isn't sensible is a through bus service from Winlaton to Newcastle when it has a railway station. The bus service should connect people to the train at Blaydon. Or Whickham should be connected by a frequent bus service to the Metrocentre to travel onwards by Metro or train as you prefer.

The benefits from this reduce as you get nearer the city centre, which is why Gateshead is a poor example of it.

duncombec · 25 Jun 2019

radamfi said:
Passengers from Greenfield, Uppermill and Sholver can change at Oldham Mumps. There is already a purpose built interchange at Oldham Mumps but it is hardly used at the moment because of the fare system.

So let's revise the fare system first, see the effect it has, and then go changing the network? I still think you and Bletchlyite are in the world of good theoretical ideas, but little focus on the fundamental basis to public transport usage: personal preferences of the passenger.

Bletchleyite · 25 Jun 2019

duncombec said:
So let's revise the fare system first, see the effect it has, and then go changing the network? I still think you and Bletchlyite are in the world of good theoretical ideas, but little focus on the fundamental basis to public transport usage: personal preferences of the passenger.

Public transport is about compromises to provide efficiently for as many journey possibilities as feasible. The key is absolutely not personal preference, which will in almost every case be for a direct service.

carlberry · 25 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
To use a random example on a map, though, what isn't sensible is a through bus service from Winlaton to Newcastle when it has a railway station.

If it isn't sensible then why are there enough people using it to justify it running?

TheGrandWazoo · 25 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Where did I say that that specific example was sensible?

To use a random example on a map, though, what isn't sensible is a through bus service from Winlaton to Newcastle when it has a railway station. The bus service should connect people to the train at Blaydon. Or Whickham should be connected by a frequent bus service to the Metrocentre to travel onwards by Metro or train as you prefer.

The benefits from this reduce as you get nearer the city centre, which is why Gateshead is a poor example of it.

Apologies - the Gateshead reference wasn't in relation to you; I know you'd actually said the opposite!

radamfi said:
The vast majority of interchange between rail and bus in the world happens where the bus trip is relatively short compared to the rail trip. There's no need to focus on a very specific example where the reverse was the case and which hasn't existed for over 30 years.

Or doesn't meet your criteria? I mean, have you actually waited at Mumps for a bus....a more soulless and desolate place in which to wait it is hard to imagine. However, you're reckoning that people AREN'T getting the tram and interchanging because of the cost penalty? Hmmm....so no abstraction of trade from the buses? A booming Metrolink service is not impacting the local bus network - not at all evidenced by a collapse in First's Manchester business (though I accept there's other factors at play)? They're all ex car or train users....? I don't think so. This is part of the problem - that there's some peace dividend from the withdrawal of parallel bus services when, in reality, it's not the case. The bus passengers are already gone.

Bletchleyite · 25 Jun 2019

carlberry said:
If it isn't sensible then why are there enough people using it to justify it running?

Because, for one, they are dissuaded from making a connection because of un-coordinated timetables and a penalty in the fares system too.

TheGrandWazoo · 25 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Because, for one, they are dissuaded from making a connection because of un-coordinated timetables and a penalty in the fares system too.

Winlaton doesn't have a station. Do you mean Blaydon?

radamfi · 25 Jun 2019

TheGrandWazoo said:
Or doesn't meet your criteria? I mean, have you actually waited at Mumps for a bus....a more soulless and desolate place in which to wait it is hard to imagine. However, you're reckoning that people AREN'T getting the tram and interchanging because of the cost penalty? Hmmm....so no abstraction of trade from the buses? A booming Metrolink service is not impacting the local bus network - not at all evidenced by a collapse in First's Manchester business (though I accept there's other factors at play)? They're all ex car or train users....? I don't think so. This is part of the problem - that there's some peace dividend from the withdrawal of parallel bus services when, in reality, it's not the case. The bus passengers are already gone.

I don't see how that Mumps interchange is significantly worse than how people in the rest of the world change. The bus stops are arranged conveniently around the tracks so there is hardly any walking required, and no busy roads to cross. Even Zurich has interchanges that aren't as good as this.

You are talking about previous bus passengers. I'm talking about people who currently drive, but might use the bus to the tram stop if there is a good interchange available. Currently their options are either driving the whole way or driving to a tram stop.

carlberry · 25 Jun 2019

radamfi said:
You are talking about previous bus passengers. I'm talking about people who currently drive, but might use the bus to the tram stop if there is a good interchange available. Currently their options are either driving the whole way or driving to a tram stop.

They also have the option to catch a bus! If they're not considering a bus at present I cant see how they're going to be more likely to consider one if it involves a change as well.

Bletchleyite · 25 Jun 2019

TheGrandWazoo said:
Winlaton doesn't have a station. Do you mean Blaydon?

I'm referring to connecting Winlaton with Blaydon station, yes.

radamfi · 25 Jun 2019

carlberry said:
They also have the option to catch a bus! If they're not considering a bus at present I cant see how they're going to be more likely to consider one if it involves a change as well.

Not if the bus involves an unacceptable cost penalty, or if there is currently no bus route.

Xenophon PCDGS · 25 Jun 2019

radamfi said:
Passengers from Greenfield, Uppermill and Sholver can change at Oldham Mumps. There is already a purpose built interchange at Oldham Mumps but it is hardly used at the moment because of the fare system.

Oldham Mumps is not exactly an interchange where passengers from either the Uppermill or Greenfield areas can shelter from the cold winds that so blow there in inclement weather nor is it a place that I would welcome changing from a direct Manchester-bound service in the bitterly cold winter months. I speak from experience here as I was working on project work in that area in the early 1980s and I am sure that both the Oldham Mumps area and the terraces at Boundary Park are two of the coldest places that it has ever been my misfortune to visit in the middle of winter.

I am now wondering if you have changed your mind about passengers to and from Sholver, as you now claim passengers from there could change at Oldham Mumps, whereas you absolved the 83 bus service users from such a change earlier in this thread, claiming that service would not be subject to any change.

Bletchleyite · 25 Jun 2019

It absolutely does make sense for Sholver to be served by a connection to the tram at Oldham.

radamfi · 25 Jun 2019

Xenophon PCDGS said:
Oldham Mumps is not exactly an interchange where passengers from either the Uppermill or Greenfield areas can shelter from the cold winds that so blow there in inclement weather nor is it a place that I would welcome changing from a direct Manchester-bound service in the bitterly cold winter months. I speak from experience here as I was working on project work in that area in the early 1980s and I am sure that both the Oldham Mumps area and the terraces at Boundary Park are two of the coldest places that it has ever been my misfortune to visit in the middle of winter.

I am now wondering if you have changed your mind about passengers to and from Sholver, as you now claim passengers from there could change at Oldham Mumps, whereas you absolved the 83 bus service users from such a change earlier in this thread, claiming that service would not be subject to any change.

Last time I looked, Switzerland has more severe winters than Oldham, yet people in Switzerland are prepared to change in the open air. If there is no direct service, there is no choice anyway. Yet again, you are fixated by *existing* direct services. The vast majority of origin-destination pairs have no direct service *today*.

I didn't change my mind. I just chose one route to keep direct. I could have easily chosen the other one. Just because there is a through service doesn't mean you have to use it when there is a quicker option by changing. The bus is still required for people who need places between Oldham and Hollinwood. Similarly to how stopping trains get passed by fast trains at main stations and people shuffle between the stopping train and fast train.

Xenophon PCDGS · 25 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Public transport is about compromises to provide efficiently for as many journey possibilities as feasible. The key is absolutely not personal preference, which will in almost every case be for a direct service.

I can picture an old-style political cartoon, featuring a bemedalled uniformed dictator, in my minds eye, being 74 years of age, with the caption..."Ve haff vays to make you change".

duncombec · 25 Jun 2019

Xenophon PCDGS said:
I can picture an old-style political cartoon, featuring a bemedalled uniformed dictator, in my minds eye, being 74 years of age, with the caption..."Ve haff vays to make you change".

Indeed! To ve fair to Bletchleyite, I think he and I are looking at it from slightly different perspectives. Of course in terms of network planning and overall availability, you should look to maximise opportunity. Whether anyone uses that network once it has been created will absolutely be down to personal preference.

I have a bus into my nearest town every 10-12 minutes, 30 on Sundays. Unless it is raining, or I have a lot to carry, I often prefer to cycle (including back up a steep hill) because I am not subject to expensive fares, potentially absent buses and I can leave whenever I please. I am slower to the trains station in time travelled alone, but I can get a train I would miss if I got the bus if I cycle, because I do not have that "dead time" at the start of the journey. I can travel by bus, and the journey opportunity is there, but I prefer to travel by other means because the network alone doesn't have the answers.

Andrew Holland · 25 Jun 2019

158756 said:
I don't know what it should be called, but I would assume the idea would be similar to London (but with much less money available), though I think it has been suggested before they'd tender groups of routes rather than individually like London.

Traditionally TfL (and previously, LRT) tendered routes in tranches, not individually. TfL still do that, it's just the tranches are smaller and may just be one route rather than the whole town area or whole LB garage operation as was done back in the late 80s/early 90s (still shudders remembering Bexleybus...)

In fact, you can see the current tendering schedule and all the tranches here:

https://tfl.gov.uk/forms/13923.aspx

TfGM Bus franchising

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member