Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[daodao]

What Macclesfield Park & Ride?

I think the Friday/Saturday evening only buses (which exist on two Macclesfield routes) are a good idea and should be expanded to more routes.

Thanks for the correction re P&R in Macc; I joined 2 sentences without checking fully for accuracy, and have now edited that post.

As for the Sat evening services, I once tried to use one (the 10 when run by Baker) and it didn't turn up, so had to walk 3 miles as a result. A complaint to Baker didn't produce a satisfactory response, and then the services were taken over by D&G.

 

[daodao]

Should London be deregulated now?

Yes, outside the congestion zone.

 

[radamfi]

Yes, outside the congestion zone.

Bus patronage in outer London has dropped dramatically since 1986 so, yes, deregulation is necessary to reverse that decline.

 

[northwichcat]

Thanks for the correction re P&R in Macc; I joined 2 sentences without checking fully for accuracy, and have now edited that post.

As for the Sat evening services, I once tried to use one (the 10 when run by Baker) and it didn't turn up, so had to walk 3 miles as a result. A complaint to Baker didn't produce a satisfactory response, and then the services were taken over by D&G.

There was a local report that Bakerbus made an 'admin error' in thinking they'd lost more contracts then they actually had. D&G took over their operations and continued running the services until the end of the contract. D&G didn't bid on the replacement contracts and they went to GHA and it's now they are with Arriva!

 

[HSTEd]

Bus patronage in outer London has dropped dramatically since 1986 so, yes, deregulation is necessary to reverse that decline.

Or more likely to finish the job of destroying the bus service.
Outer London bus patronage has likely been hit hard by the opening of the M25

 

[daodao]

There was a local report that Bakerbus made an 'admin error' in thinking they'd lost more contracts then they actually had. D&G took over their operations and continued running the services until the end of the contract. D&G didn't bid on the replacement contracts and they went to GHA and it's now they are with Arriva!

Bakerbus were still officially running the Fri/Sat evening service at the time; D&G didn't take over Bakerbus services until 1 month later.

 

[radamfi]

Or more likely to finish the job of destroying the bus service.
Outer London bus patronage has likely been hit hard by the opening of the M25

Sorry, I forgot the smiley. Patronage in both inner and outer London have gone up in recent decades.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Should London be deregulated now?

Jeez - you ALWAYS throw that one back in....

Firstly, let's get things straight. London has enjoyed some real benefits - in terms of population growth, it has massively outstripped the rest of UK - whilst the UK population grew from 1991 to 2016 by about 12-13%, London grew by twice that.

Secondly, the sheer level of traffic congestion, pressure on land use and the amount of other public transport (namely tube in the north but extensive rail infrastructure) means you have greater ease to not use cars but public transport and in that respect, all boats have risen.

Thirdly, they had a mayor in Ken Livingstone who was prepared to incur the wrath of the populace by having a congestion zone; note that Greater Manchester were only prepared to have a referendum and the general public voted it down.

Fourthly, London gets a massively enhanced amount of money compared to the rest of the UK. If other towns and cities had that level of money to spend, the results in patronage would be different.

Cash is the main issue here, and a number of things come into play here.... Firstly, in this age of austerity, where is the extra money coming from? I'm not asking for a justification on tax and spend and how they do it in Utrecht - I mean, what is actually committed. What will the GMPTA get extra from the government?

Then we have the actual sums involved. Assuming that London is a benchmark for franchising, then the actual margin is any business is going to be c.8% . The operators in Greater Manchester making what on average.... 10%? So the idea that creaming off the "excess profit" to fund improvements is piffle - that would be swallowed up by the administrative burden of management and control from TfGM. Of course, there is the concept of cross-subsidy but that does not work. All that happens is that you prop up a load of deadwood but to do that, you disadvantage the decent services as funds are diverted.

Put it another way.... A Tory administration come along and say "hey, here's a little bit of free cash" and you can "have control" and it will allow "promotion of integrated travel" and you don't think it just a little suspicious? Given the level of incompetence that Nexus made of their bid to landgrab, I don't have enormous faith in public bodies

 

[northwichcat]

Thirdly, they had a mayor in Ken Livingstone who was prepared to incur the wrath of the populace by having a congestion zone; note that Greater Manchester were only prepared to have a referendum and the general public voted it down.

It was also interesting because the referendum was open to all GM residents on the electoral role but it wouldn't have affected those travelling away from Manchester in the morning peak and those towards it in the evening peak. Yet those from Cheshire/Derbyshire/Merseyside/Lancashire etc. commuting to Manchester by car would have been affected but didn't get a vote.

However, it seemed one of the underlying reasons for it being voted down was a lack of trust - people didn't believe the extra funds would be used to improve public transport, or they thought the priorities were wrong e.g. why would someone in Bury vote for the charge if the money spent would create new Metrolink lines in other council areas?

 

[radamfi]

Jeez - you ALWAYS throw that one back in....

It was in reply to "There is no need for state interference in provision of bus services in major conurbations". Clearly London is as "major" as it gets in this country.

Cash is the main issue here, and a number of things come into play here.... Firstly, in this age of austerity, where is the extra money coming from? I'm not asking for a justification on tax and spend and how they do it in Utrecht - I mean, what is actually committed. What will the GMPTA get extra from the government?

Cash is important. At some point in the future we hope cash will arrive. Austerity may not last forever. What we do know is that the current system is unacceptable. Even if there is no cash now, if we set up the system in the meantime, it will be ready if and when cash becomes available. London was plodding along in the 90s largely starved of cash (when the other big cities were hemorrhaging big time) but because the regulatory system was already in place, massive improvements were possible at short notice when the money arrived.

 

[HSTEd]

Then we have the actual sums involved. Assuming that London is a benchmark for franchising, then the actual margin is any business is going to be c.8% . The operators in Greater Manchester making what on average.... 10%? So the idea that creaming off the "excess profit" to fund improvements is piffle - that would be swallowed up by the administrative burden of management and control from TfGM. Of course, there is the concept of cross-subsidy but that does not work. All that happens is that you prop up a load of deadwood but to do that, you disadvantage the decent services as funds are diverted.

In the GMPTEs case they can make drastic savings by reducing pointless overbussing that only exists because of competition.
First bus runs large numbers of buses in duplication of Stagecoach routes in south Manchester, and regular Stagecoach buses on the oxford road corridor run half empty as people wait for Megabus services.

There are rather drastic operational savings to be made - many of which will serve to make 'deadwood' routes significantly more economic

 

[radamfi]

Of course, there is the concept of cross-subsidy but that does not work. All that happens is that you prop up a load of deadwood but to do that, you disadvantage the decent services as funds are diverted.

You, Nicholas Ridley and many others have stated the undesirability of cross-subsidy. (Even myself in my MSc dissertation, although I was quoting others). We accept cross-subsidy in other areas of public service, notably including rail services where the franchisee is obliged to maintain services on unprofitable lines. Cross-subsidy in public transport is addressed in this book which I have quoted on occasion in the past, now available on Kindle. It's rather expensive I know, so maybe your local library might be able to get it. It is probably available at university libraries where they have transport courses.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Transport-Suburbia-Beyond-Automobile-Age/dp/1844077403

The evidence from abroad is clear. High overall patronage arises where all areas of the city are served properly. The "logic" in Britain (at least from deregulation supporters) is that it is unethical for poor people to pay for bus services in rich areas. The result of this dogma is that you get over-provision of service to peripheral social housing estates and limited service to other suburban areas.

You don't even have to go abroad to see cross-subsidy in action. TfL provide a good service across the capital, including middle-class suburban areas. People actually use buses in London, even people living in classical leafy outer London estates like in "The Good Life". The effect is clear at the fringes of Greater London where patronage levels drop like a stone once you cross the boundary, even though either side of the line look much the same. This example is in the book mentioned above.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Cash is important. At some point in the future we hope cash will arrive. Austerity may not last forever. What we do know is that the current system is unacceptable. Even if there is no cash now, if we set up the system in the meantime, it will be ready if and when cash becomes available. London was plodding along in the 90s largely starved of cash (when the other big cities were hemorrhaging big time) but because the regulatory system was already in place, massive improvements were possible at short notice when the money arrived.

To comprehensively respond....

You always throw in one of two lines - a) should London be deregulated/why wasn't it deregulated (or variations therewith) or b) if deregulation if so good, why hasn't it been replicated. At least you're consistent.....

Cash is not just important.... It is essential. Put simply, the correlation between financial wellbeing and patronage is well established.

You cite the comparison between London and the rest of the UK. It cannot be denied that a massive change to the system as experienced in 1986 did not then lead to upheaval and passenger loss. The shockwaves took a time to dissipate and the market get back onto an even keel in terms of investment etc.

However, the correlation between is telling. London has grown by 25% in terms of population in that time. By the same token, the rest of the country has grown relatively modestly when you offset the London effect. Then look at the macro economic picture vs. the economic picture in the major northern conurbations.

I'm from the North East and the continued erosion in the industrial base is telling - compare places like Teesside with 30 years ago and it is day and night. The removal of the manufacturing base has decimated much of the North and Midlands, whilst London and the South has benefited from the increase in the Financial sector. So not only has grown much faster, it is much, much wealthier per capita. The economy has proven to be much stronger in the South and, before you say it, the idea that if people in the North are now poorer and would therefore be more inclined to use public transport is not correct. Buses are a good reflection on economic health - see the 1980s recession.

As for hoping for more cash, I commend your optimism and on that basis, may I give you some magic beans too. Fact is that if the brakes are taken off, what are the priorities for either of the two main parties? The NHS is the main consideration and what of education? Labour made great play about student fees - that is also a priority for them. Given that we're going to be Brexiting, do you suddenly think that propping up bus services is suddenly going to be funded? Rather than grandiose infrastructure schemes or anything else (like the divorce bill)?

Hope.... No Hope or Bob Hope!

 

[HSTEd]

Bus subsidies would be a negligible additional cost in national terms even if the entire country had London style bus services.
Hell you could abolish bus fares in England aand Wales for something like £3bn/a as more than half the cost of running buses is already subsidised by the state.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

And while I'm at it..... Well, I've never been compared to Nicholas Ridley but here we go!

To establish my credentials, I have an HND in business and transport, a degree in Logistics, and 20+ years in working in various aspects of the transport industry.

Now, you say that cross-subsidy works and then quote two examples that highlight that you don't actually know what it is. Let me explain...

Cross-subsidy is what underpinned the regulated bus industry from 1930 until 1986. The issue was that the good routes were supporting the bad and the problem is that once the rot set in, it was screwed. That decline was prompted by a disrupter that no-one appreciated - Television. Almost overnight, it destroyed evening bus service patronage but the fact was that bus companies were obliged to keep things as they were largely so services that were loss making lost more, marginal ones became loss making, half decent ones became marginal and the good ones had to work so much harder. Therefore, those half decent ones could no longer justify new vehicles so reduced investment etc and so it went on. Therefore, they began to dwindle and all to keep up an infrastructure of deadwood. The obligation being with the TC in order to protect anyone from muscling in on the good routes/territory.

What you think is cross-subsidy is not that, despite what you think. Firstly, the outer London example - that is outright subsidy as indicated that the subsidy to London's buses rose by >£600m in ten years.

Secondly, the PSR of rail franchising is not funded by cross-subsidy. The rail companies secure the business on a set minimum criteria. Their cost base is £x and they need to make £y to make money. They may elect to back themselves to make some very hefty commitments in revenue generation - that was where NX East Coast came unstuck but that is entirely separate from the PSR - that is a commercial decision.

Also, when NXEC then threw back the franchise and didn't give the government the required premiums (on what was a premium creating franchise), did that then mean that the PSR was affected/downgraded elsewhere by this loss of cross-subsidy? No - it wasn't a cross-subsidy.

Now, do I think that places should be adequately served? Yes. Am I against franchising - actually, no but not in it's current populist form. The view that you can get something materially better for the same money - it's bovine. It's smoke and mirrors. The correlation with funding is key - not regulation. As we saw with the very modest funding of RBC and ENCTS, that stopped the decline. Turn the tap off, patronage is now falling again, and in that respect, bus company managers are having to do their best in managing that as best they can.

There is this line that "if you ask any bus company manager, they'd want to be in a regulated environment" - let me tell you, that's bovine too. They want to be able to innovate, to experiment, and the idea of central diktat is something they hate. They have enough problems with the madness of the current PTAs or local authorities who seem to have precious little understanding of the real world and instead seem to rely on academic musings.

That is what really concerns me. No additional cash, any benefits of reduced operating margins being swallowed up by the cost of managing such a franchise scheme. The other comment is usually that the savings will come from the end of wasteful competition - this is usually just after firms are accused of being cosy monopolies and not competing enough! My real fear, as I never trusted Osborne (nearly as duplicitous as Boris), is that they'll pay a dowry, allow the Buses bill to be enacted in an area and then turn off the funding elsewhere.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Bus subsidies would be a negligible additional cost in national terms even if the entire country had London style bus services.
Hell you could abolish bus fares in England aand Wales for something like £3bn/a.

Given that there were 4.53 billion bus journeys in 2016 in England alone, you may wish to revise that statement. Oh, and not withstanding what price demand of elasticity might be realised....

 

[edwin_m]

Secondly, the PSR of rail franchising is not funded by cross-subsidy. The rail companies secure the business on a set minimum criteria. Their cost base is £x and they need to make £y to make money. They may elect to back themselves to make some very hefty commitments in revenue generation - that was where NX East Coast came unstuck but that is entirely separate from the PSR - that is a commercial decision.

There is cross-subsidy within each franchise. The bidders agree to run a basket of services to meet certain criteria against a certain level of subsidy/premium. If taken in isolation some of these would be loss-making and some would be profitable (or at least less loss-making).

Now, do I think that places should be adequately served? Yes. Am I against franchising - actually, no but not in it's current populist form. The view that you can get something materially better for the same money - it's bovine. It's smoke and mirrors. The correlation with funding is key - not regulation. As we saw with the very modest funding of RBC and ENCTS, that stopped the decline. Turn the tap off, patronage is now falling again, and in that respect, bus company managers are having to do their best in managing that as best they can.

...

That is what really concerns me. No additional cash, any benefits of reduced operating margins being swallowed up by the cost of managing such a franchise scheme. The other comment is usually that the savings will come from the end of wasteful competition - this is usually just after firms are accused of being cosy monopolies and not competing enough! My real fear, as I never trusted Osborne (nearly as duplicitous as Boris), is that they'll pay a dowry, allow the Buses bill to be enacted in an area and then turn off the funding elsewhere.

I don't think it's quite that clear-cut but I do agree that franchising on its own won't deliver London-style bus services and London-style bus patronage elsewhere. However, given that lack of funding is at the very least part of the problem, I suggest that some form of franchise system is a pre-condition to allow extra funding to be provided. You can't really inject public money into a degregulated system without falling foul of one or both of competition laws or state aid rules, unless you do something like subsidising per passenger ENTCS style - and I don't think anybody would favour that.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that there were 4.53 billion bus journeys in 2016 in England alone, you may wish to revise that statement. Oh, and not withstanding what price demand of elasticity might be realised....

See this post by me
Bottom line is that a very large fraction of bus revenue is already provided by the state and only about £3300m is provided by the non ENCTS farebox.

So you could abolish bus fares for about £3bn as I said, and would account for a small amount of uplift from improved efficiency -

• No ticket printing or money handling costs
• Every bus will have more than one set of doors and thus load and unload faster, reducig PVR
• A full bus costs little more to run than a lightly loaded one, so in the worst case crowding could be used to restrain patronage

 

[radamfi]

whilst London and the South has benefited from the increase in the Financial sector. So not only has grown much faster, it is much, much wealthier per capita. The economy has proven to be much stronger in the South and, before you say it, the idea that if people in the North are now poorer and would therefore be more inclined to use public transport is not correct. Buses are a good reflection on economic health - see the 1980s recession.

The area just outside Greater London is mostly very affluent. The continuous built up area stretches well outside the Greater London boundary into Surrey. The boundary here is rather arbitrary and Greater London could well have extended to where the M25 is now, if not beyond. That area is both rich and urbanised so by the above logic should support well patronised bus services. Of course, this area is famously devoid of commercial services.

What you think is cross-subsidy is not that, despite what you think. Firstly, the outer London example - that is outright subsidy as indicated that the subsidy to London's buses rose by >£600m in ten years.

Outer London buses are cross-subsidised by inner London ones. Both inner and outer London buses are subsidised but outer London services are subsidised more. There are a lot of severely overcrowded bus routes in inner London. It would be nice if extra buses were be laid on to alleviate this, but there is no funding at the moment. TfL could cut service in the suburbs to pay for it and end this cross-subsidy, but IMO that would be unacceptable. London buses typically run about every 10 minutes, both on overcrowded inner London routes and on less overcrowded suburban ones. If deregulation was introduced, the inner London routes would have their extra buses, and indeed there would probably be overbussing like on major corridors in major cities outside London. There would probably also be cuts in outer London as they may no longer justify a 10 minute frequency.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

See this post by me
Bottom line is that a very large fraction of bus revenue is already provided by the state and only about £3300m is provided by the non ENCTS farebox.

So you could abolish bus fares for about £3bn as I said, and would account for a small amount of uplift from improved efficiency -

• No ticket printing or money handling costs
• Every bus will have more than one set of doors and thus load and unload faster, reducig PVR
• A full bus costs little more to run than a lightly loaded one, so in the worst case crowding could be used to restrain patronage

First of all, you are now quoting £3.3bn which is England only when you originally said £3bn for England AND Wales. So in reality, you're talking £3.5bn - at a time when funding for schools has just been cut by £3bn. Just not gonna happen :roll:

Secondly, the idea that you're going to have savings from dwell time and smart ticketing. Well yes, but those are going to have to be delivered now if only to stand still in the face of increasing congestion.

Thirdly, have you learnt nothing of the ENCTS debacle. The whole fiasco is that based on that principle of minimal cost increase and that all boats rise equally. The fact is that the popular corridors will rise exponentially whilst the dud routes (where few or nobody wants to travel) will still be lightly loaded.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There is cross-subsidy within each franchise. The bidders agree to run a basket of services to meet certain criteria against a certain level of subsidy/premium. If taken in isolation some of these would be loss-making and some would be profitable (or at least less loss-making).



I don't think it's quite that clear-cut but I do agree that franchising on its own won't deliver London-style bus services and London-style bus patronage elsewhere. However, given that lack of funding is at the very least part of the problem, I suggest that some form of franchise system is a pre-condition to allow extra funding to be provided. You can't really inject public money into a degregulated system without falling foul of one or both of competition laws or state aid rules, unless you do something like subsidising per passenger ENTCS style - and I don't think anybody would favour that.

You might suggest it - this is the point. There's a framework that seemingly promises something for nothing and for that, I'd be deeply suspicious!

As I said, I'm not against London style franchising but it will only work with London style finance and the idea of changing something in the hope that cash appears seems a bizarre approach.

In terms of rail franchising, we may be arguing semantics but I can tell you that a franchise iss done on the case of "that's the PBR" and cost of (tick), the rest of the costs (tick) then known revenue (tick) - what's called the base case. Then they add in cost savings (tick) revenue generation (tick) offset by any additional costs in obtaining that revenue (tick) and then margin/contribution (tick).

Now, in any organisation, you can argue about things like central overhead and apportionments etc but in rail franchising, the PBR is simply a cost line not a cross subsidy.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The area just outside Greater London is mostly very affluent. The continuous built up area stretches well outside the Greater London boundary into Surrey. The boundary here is rather arbitrary and Greater London could well have extended to where the M25 is now, if not beyond. That area is both rich and urbanised so by the above logic should support well patronised bus services. Of course, this area is famously devoid of commercial services.



Outer London buses are cross-subsidised by inner London ones. Both inner and outer London buses are subsidised but outer London services are subsidised more. There are a lot of severely overcrowded bus routes in inner London. It would be nice if extra buses were be laid on to alleviate this, but there is no funding at the moment. TfL could cut service in the suburbs to pay for it and end this cross-subsidy, but IMO that would be unacceptable. London buses typically run about every 10 minutes, both on overcrowded inner London routes and on less overcrowded suburban ones. If deregulation was introduced, the inner London routes would have their extra buses, and indeed there would probably be overbussing like on major corridors in major cities outside London. There would probably also be cuts in outer London as they may no longer justify a 10 minute frequency.

A line there that really doesn't make sense

I've explained as much as I can do but clearly, you have an entrenched view, live in a filter bubble, and start with a view and then selectively interpret facts to support that view.

In the words of a failed ice cream merchant, "I'm oot"

 

[HSTEd]

First of all, you are now quoting £3.3bn which is England only when you originally said £3bn for England AND Wales. So in reality, you're talking £3.5bn - at a time when funding for schools has just been cut by £3bn. Just not gonna happen :roll:

I never made any statement about hte likelihood of it happening.
I am well aware this will never happen when we have a state smashing right wing government that decrees that the meerkat must be worshipped.

And £3.5bn to 'about £3bn' is a reasonable measurement, considering Wales is effectively a rounding error in this calculation.

Secondly, the idea that you're going to have savings from dwell time and smart ticketing. Well yes, but those are going to have to be delivered now if only to stand still in the face of increasing congestion.

But there won't be any smart ticketing in this scenario, because there is no ticketing at all.

Dwell times would be determined entirely by the time required to load and unload buses.

Thirdly, have you learnt nothing of the ENCTS debacle. The whole fiasco is that based on that principle of minimal cost increase and that all boats rise equally. The fact is that the popular corridors will rise exponentially whilst the dud routes (where few or nobody wants to travel) will still be lightly loaded.

And popular corridors would promptly be restrained in growth terms by overcrowding, and dud routes would still be lightly loaded.
I am not sure how this would cause costs to rise overall.
Especially as the entire ENTCS infrastruture could be swept away.

With fare related constraints removed we would then be in a better position to determine how to get the most benefit for the bus budget in terms of passengers moved.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I never made any statement about hte likelihood of it happening.
I am well aware this will never happen when we have a state smashing right wing government that decrees that the meerkat must be worshipped.

And £3.5bn to 'about £3bn' is a reasonable measurement, considering Wales is effectively a rounding error in this calculation.

But there won't be any smart ticketing in this scenario, because there is no ticketing at all.

Dwell times would be determined entirely by the time required to load and unload buses.


And popular corridors would promptly be restrained in growth terms by overcrowding, and dud routes would still be lightly loaded.
I am not sure how this would cause costs to rise overall.
Especially as the entire ENTCS infrastruture could be swept away.

With fare related constraints removed we would then be in a better position to determine how to get the most benefit for the bus budget in terms of passengers moved.

You said "you could" and I said "it ain't gonna happen" - don't think there's any disconnect there.

However, a variance of £0.5bn on £3bn is perhaps a bit more than a rounding error.

As for popular corridors be promptly restrained in growth terms by overcrowding.... Have you really thought this through? After all, that was not the experience with ENCTS, was it? The idea that the PVR and operating costs won't be affected? You need to take more water with it

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I've kept out of this debate so far as it is, as usual populated by the usual suspects arguing the same tired arguments, but a thought has just struck me.

To all those extolling the virtues of re-regulation/ franchising/ LA control....

your argument, as I see it, is that if you take control of bus service network planning from the bus operator and hand it to a local authority then profits, instead of going to shareholders, will be ploughed back into improving the network and so by virtuous circle will grow patronage... leading to more buses... leading to more passengers etc etc...

Now lets look at some facts shall we?

Councils are short of money due to austerity and are making cutbacks in all areas where they currently have responsibility.

One of the hardest hit areas are tendered bus services... an easy target as, to be frank, they are of little concern to the majority of the electorate when the majority of households are car owners... in fact probably most households now have at least TWO cars if not more.

Also these same councils are currently doing all sorts of devious things to reduce their payments for Concessionary passes... NOTE THIS IS NOT A SUBSIDY IT IS A PAYMENT FOR SERVICES PROVIDED

NOW let us assume council A takes over a network in Anytown, Somewhereshire... they sequestrate the network of Cashcow PLC as well as the routes of 2 or 3 local operators... they then find out that the network has an overall profit margin of 10% realising approx £1 million/ annum.. do you think the council will use that profit for:

a) to improve their daycare provision for elderly
b) subsidise meals on wheels
c) pay for out of school clubs
d) subsidise their libraries
l) enable them to provide company cars for all middle management
Z) improve the bus network that is generate the profits.....

just a thought before you answer... what do all you re-regulators fervently believe the PLCs do with their profits... cos the councils will be no different in that respect!

 

[HSTEd]

As for popular corridors be promptly restrained in growth terms by overcrowding.... Have you really thought this through? After all, that was not the experience with ENCTS, was it? The idea that the PVR and operating costs won't be affected? You need to take more water with it

Well that's because private operators are not permitted to turn ENCTS holders away, even if carrying them loses money - so they have to run enough busses to carry everyone if they actually want to carry passengers.

And leaving people behind regularly will likely get them in trouble with the Traffic Commissioner.

But in this system we just accept that the buses only have limited capacity and hold (at least in the short term) the routes at the same PVR/overall operating cost as currently, and just accept that some people will be left behind.
In the interim whilst we do a proper review of where the bus money is best spent.

 

[nerd]

I've kept out of this debate so far as it is, as usual populated by the usual suspects arguing the same tired arguments, but a thought has just struck me.

To all those extolling the virtues of re-regulation/ franchising/ LA control....

your argument, as I see it, is that if you take control of bus service network planning from the bus operator and hand it to a local authority then profits, instead of going to shareholders, will be ploughed back into improving the network and so by virtuous circle will grow patronage... leading to more buses... leading to more passengers etc etc...

Now lets look at some facts shall we?

Councils are short of money due to austerity and are making cutbacks in all areas where they currently have responsibility.

One of the hardest hit areas are tendered bus services... an easy target as, to be frank, they are of little concern to the majority of the electorate when the majority of households are car owners... in fact probably most households now have at least TWO cars if not more.

Also these same councils are currently doing all sorts of devious things to reduce their payments for Concessionary passes... NOTE THIS IS NOT A SUBSIDY IT IS A PAYMENT FOR SERVICES PROVIDED

NOW let us assume council A takes over a network in Anytown, Somewhereshire... they sequestrate the network of Cashcow PLC as well as the routes of 2 or 3 local operators... they then find out that the network has an overall profit margin of 10% realising approx £1 million/ annum.. do you think the council will use that profit for:

a) to improve their daycare provision for elderly
b) subsidise meals on wheels
c) pay for out of school clubs
d) subsidise their libraries
l) enable them to provide company cars for all middle management
Z) improve the bus network that is generate the profits.....

just a thought before you answer... what do all you re-regulators fervently believe the PLCs do with their profits... cos the councils will be no different in that respect!

No.

The argument was well put by the CEO of HCT (quoted a few pages back)

Regardless of the intention of the 1985 Act, we have effectively replaced public monopolies with private ones. This lack of competition has had a devastating effect on the market. Prices have risen, mileage operated has fallen and passengers have stayed away as a consequence. When you catch a depot head at a major operator in a reflective moment, they will tell you that their job is to manage decline profitably. We can all point to the outlier examples of where this is not the case, but the over-arching national numbers tell the real story. We are on the glide-path to history.

Deregulation created the conditions in which over 90% of urban bus routes are operated as monopolies. Hence it has inhibited the development of free competition, and so cut off bus operations in English metropolitan cities from the potential benefits of competitive markets. This might not have mattered when the demand for public transport generally was falling; but now that falling trend has clearly reversed in Manchester. Any bus system has to function within an environment where the demand for decent public transport into city centres is increasing by 10%-20% per year.

Franchising is a mechanism for re-introducing competition - by effectively preventing operators from applying anti-competitive market manipulations (perverse cross-subsidy; predatory pricing, predatory scheduling). All of these anti-competitive market manipulations have the effect of suppressing passenger demand below economic levels - so a deregulated urban public transport network necessarily carries fewer passengers than would be the case for a corresponding franchised network; and generates lower aggregate operating profit.

London here is a confusing exemplar; a better model for how Greater Manchester might configure a franchised system would be Edinburgh. As you will know, Lothian buses are massively profitable; specifically because (by distinction with operators in Manchester or other equivalent English cities) there are no monopolistic market manipulations.

TfGM are, of course, well aware of this; as they have just undertaken what (from their perspective) amounts to a highly successful franchising of the expanded Metrolink system. Experience from Metrolink demonstrates a very large potential market of reluctant car users, willing to pay economically viable fares to travel by public transport into the city centre; but for whom the current 'lowest common factor' deregulated bus services are simply not an acceptable option on most radial corridors.

What is not clear as yet, is just how big the 'franchising boost' to passenger numbers may be expected to be. It is highly unlikely that bus usage will increase to the levels reported in London; but those currently observed in Edinburgh, Nottingham or Reading would likely be realistic. That would imply increasing passenger numbers of some 40%-60% over current levels. Since, even at peak, few buses in Manchester (except along the busway) operate anywhere near capacity, this increase should be readily accommodated within current service levels and costs.

Which, of course, translates into a lot more money coming into TfGM. This will be transport monies; it cannot be spent on libraries, school clubs, older persons day care centre; because those are local authority spending responsibility; whereas TfGM is part of the Combined Authority. Certainly,, none of the operating surpluses generated by Metrolink have been siphoned off into non-transport uses; instead they have been a major source of funding for the capital programme of route extensions (which then generates extra passengers, whose fares pay for yet more extensions).

By definition, unregulated monopolies generate sub-optimal levels of service delivery. There are two options to remedy this: enforce a break-up of the monopolies; or take control of pricing and scheduling, so that monopolistic practices cannot be effected. 30 years of experience has shown that the first option is not realistic in British cities; the factors leading to monopoly concentration are too strong, So the second option is the preferable course; and franchising is simply the most straightforward way of achieving this.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Well that's because private operators are not permitted to turn ENCTS holders away, even if carrying them loses money - so they have to run enough busses to carry everyone if they actually want to carry passengers.

And leaving people behind regularly will likely get them in trouble with the Traffic Commissioner.

But in this system we just accept that the buses only have limited capacity and hold (at least in the short term) the routes at the same PVR/overall operating cost as currently, and just accept that some people will be left behind.
In the interim whilst we do a proper review of where the bus money is best spent.

Sorry but you're just not getting it. First of all, you are ignoring simple economic theory (you're in good company with Gordon Brown there) and aside from your facts being wrong, you have ignored the experience of what actually happened with ENCTS not withstanding the contradiction in your argument viz...

"leaving people behind regularly will likely get them in trouble with the Traffic Commissioner" and the suggestion that "in this system we just accept that the buses only have limited capacity and hold (at least in the short term) the routes at the same PVR/overall operating cost as currently, and just accept that some people will be left behind."

However, leave that aside and think about it practically for a second.... How will that actually pan out. Let's pick a service, say Cadbury Heath to Bristol - a typical city service. In peak, that is quite busy. Say load factor is conservatively c.80%.

Your idea would suddenly make buses free so suddenly the stops at the very eastern end of the route get twice as many passengers. That means that by the time it reaches Kingswood, it's probably full. The reality is that you have effectively removed the capacity from a sizeable part of the route as you head into the city - you have actually removed the service from that part of the population. :roll:

 

[daodao]

@ Nerd

"This might not have mattered when the demand for public transport generally was falling; but now that falling trend has clearly reversed in Manchester."

While Metrolink has been developed, there are continuing cuts to bus services in Greater Manchester, even on major corridors, indicative of reduced demand. For example, Princess Road now has only 8 buses per hour on weekday times (reduced from 10/hour within the last 6 months); this is far fewer than in the past, when there were limited stop buses as well every 10 minutes. Local services radiating from Altrincham are now hourly, compared to every 30 minutes until last year, and every 20 minutes historically. Many former tram routes have virtually no bus services, for example Lloyd Street, Seymour Grove and Slade Lane.

 

[radamfi]

While Metrolink has been developed, there are continuing cuts to bus services in Greater Manchester, even on major corridors, indicative of reduced demand. For example, Princess Road now has only 8 buses per hour on weekday times (reduced from 10/hour within the last 6 months); this is far fewer than in the past, when there were limited stop buses as well every 10 minutes. Local services radiating from Altrincham are now hourly, compared to every 30 minutes until last year, and every 20 minutes historically. Many former tram routes have virtually no bus services, for example Lloyd Street, Seymour Grove and Slade Lane.

The point is that there is a huge potential demand for public transport in GM, and when an attractive service is offered, like Metrolink, it is heavily used. As your examples show, the current bus service is not being used very much as it is unattractive, leading to further service cuts. A franchised network could mean integration between buses and Metrolink. Altrincham is a good example as before deregulation it used to have the "Interlink" branded routes which were scheduled to connect into the train service. Under franchising we could offer attractive through fares between Altrincham local buses and trams. If we had a typical German type zone system, you would simply pay from "Altrincham zone" to "city centre zone" (or whatever zone you wanted to go to), meaning that if you connected from a bus within "Altrincham zone" to the tram, it would cost no extra compared with using the tram only.