Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah - remind me... Has there been any sort of multi million pound funding in London? Perhaps Manchester could introduce a congestion charge?

It voted against one last time, but if they can find temporary funding to allow a carrot (properly run public transport that isn't awful - both bus and rail - so more Metrolink, an S-Bahn-Manchester and bus routes linking it all up) before the stick (C-charge) there's just the chance it might go the other way next time.

While Londoners whine about the Tube, bus and whatever franchise it is this week, they really do have it good and so there is no reason to use the car to go into central London unless you have a disability (Blue Badge holders don't pay) or need to carry some really heavy kit (either that'll be rare in which case it won't break the bank to pay on that odd occasion, or if it's a business it's just part of your costs to pass onto the customer).

 

[jammy36]

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.

Which countries do you think you mean? There are no such thing as Anglo-Saxon countries.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which countries do you think you mean? There are no such thing as Anglo-Saxon countries.

English speaking countries (US, UK, Australia, NZ primarily) do seem to have a tendency to house-dwelling with gardens and lower density development rather than flat-dwelling with communal spaces and higher density development. The latter is much easier to serve with public transport than the former.

Scotland is somewhat of an exception to this in places, particularly cities, where European-style tenement living is and long has been popular.

Could this change? I think personally I'd want a change in how tenures work - buying a leasehold flat barely gets you any more rights than renting a social housing flat. We really do need more commonhold/condominium type ownership where owners own a share of freehold and mandatorily partake in the block management.

 

[nerd]

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)

In addition to the one-off purchase of 10 depots, the proposals envisage bus service development in Greater Manchester in two phases.

Phase 1 establishes the franchise regime - 10 big contracts (running 5+2) years; and up to 25 smaller contracts (running 3 + 2) years. There will be limits on the number of smaller contracts that any one operator can hold - so preserving a market for smaller operators. Also in Phase 1, establishment of service integration across modes; integrated ticketing across all bus routes; uniform branding across GM; and greater accountability in routes to TfGM.

Also in Phase 1 a new bus fare structure; all period fares (day, week, month, year) will be priced at the level of the lowest (non discounted) current main operator. In addition there will be a new single fare at a lower level than any, non discounted, route. Plus cross-mode tickets.

Phase 2 (not funded yet) should provide the opportunity for investment in infrastructure, new buses and new services. It is a major plus factor for the franchise option that it far better supports any Phase 2 investment.

They are projecting a short-term boost in patronage at franchising - driven by the lower fares and through ticketing - and hence too a net operating cost increase for the same reason. But they expect the underlying bus patronage trend to continue to decline without the extra Phase 2 investment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also in Phase 1 a new bus fare structure; all period fares (day, week, month, year) will be priced at the level of the lowest (non discounted) current main operator. In addition there will be a new single fare at a lower level than any, non discounted, route. Plus cross-mode tickets.

That's a start, but when would he see us moving to a true Verbundtarif, i.e. all public transport journeys within GM being priced on the same model regardless of the mode or combination of modes used thereon?

That has to be the long-term aim.

 

[nerd]

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?

We have been round this many times; bus patronage was indeed declining right up to 1980, but in the years immediately prior to deregulation, it was increasing in UK cities. That increasing trend continued in London, but outside London the gains of the early 80s were lost immediately in deregulation; and have never recovered.

 

[radamfi]

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.

It is a common misconception that Britain is dominated by out of town development and sprawling low-density suburbia. A large proportion of Britain was built before the car and therefore most towns started out being very compact. Planning regulations were historically very strict until the 1980s, when a lot of car-orientated development occurred, but this was reined in by the 90s in PPG13. The incorrect perception of Britain being low density has been exploited by people who prefer car-centric transport and development policy.

It is also assumed that high density is necessary for good public transport.

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

blows that out of the water. It shows that good public transport mode share is achieved in Switzerland even in areas of low density. It also confirms that densities in British towns are very high by international standards, and thus the mode share achieved in Britain is very poor by comparison. Los Angeles is supposed to be a hopeless case, the excuse given that it is too spread out, but the book shows that its density is high.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've just bought that book and it's waiting for me to read it. Looking forward to it.

 

[nerd]

That's a start, but when would he see us moving to a true Verbundtarif, i.e. all public transport journeys within GM being priced on the same model regardless of the mode or combination of modes used thereon?

That has to be the long-term aim.

As I read it; the aspiration for TfGM is more directed towards the goal off MaaS (Mobility as a Service). This is stated in respect of possible Phase 2 objectives. As I understand it, MaaS is rather wider than Verbundtarif, in that it also encompasses travel by autonomous vehicles and various demand-lead transport options. Basically, any transport that is not 'user-owned'. Point being that, in the long-term, all these transport modes (other than the private car) will need to co-exist (and hence integrate).

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It voted against one last time, but if they can find temporary funding to allow a carrot (properly run public transport that isn't awful - both bus and rail - so more Metrolink, an S-Bahn-Manchester and bus routes linking it all up) before the stick (C-charge) there's just the chance it might go the other way next time.

While Londoners whine about the Tube, bus and whatever franchise it is this week, they really do have it good and so there is no reason to use the car to go into central London unless you have a disability (Blue Badge holders don't pay) or need to carry some really heavy kit (either that'll be rare in which case it won't break the bank to pay on that odd occasion, or if it's a business it's just part of your costs to pass onto the customer).

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with the Manc CC comment.

We have been round this many times; bus patronage was indeed declining right up to 1980, but in the years immediately prior to deregulation, it was increasing in UK cities. That increasing trend continued in London, but outside London the gains of the early 80s were lost immediately in deregulation; and have never recovered.

So we ignore 25 years of decline and focus on five positive years? That's rather convenient.

Not quite au fait with the increases that you refer to nor, more importantly, what the factors that were behind the increases then? Might it have been something to do with massive rates support that was eventually the reason behind the abolition of metropolitan counties and rate capping? Certainly, the South Yorkshire max fare was about 25p which would be adjusted for inflation as being 73p now.

It is a common misconception that Britain is dominated by out of town development and sprawling low-density suburbia. A large proportion of Britain was built before the car and therefore most towns started out being very compact. Planning regulations were historically very strict until the 1980s, when a lot of car-orientated development occurred, but this was reined in by the 90s in PPG13. The incorrect perception of Britain being low density has been exploited by people who prefer car-centric transport and development policy.

It is also assumed that high density is necessary for good public transport.

The UK is indeed high density. It's a popular misconception with a broad disparity; urban areas are very urban (and should be easy to serve with public transport). You also rightly make mention of PPG13. The issue with that is it is two fold. First of all, the horse had already largely bolted by the mid 1990s in terms of PPG13. Also, it only reined in the worst excesses and so the issues of planning and public transport provision are still pretty awful. Contrast the public transport infrastructure and provision for parking in a development in Denmark and compare it to somewhere like Bicester (where I have the privilege of visiting) and it's totally different).

The difference is that planning in many Western European countries has sustainable transport at its heart. In the UK, it's more a box tick exercise rather than something embedded in the DNA.

That's a start, but when would he see us moving to a true Verbundtarif, i.e. all public transport journeys within GM being priced on the same model regardless of the mode or combination of modes used thereon?

That has to be the long-term aim.

That is clearly one area where deregulation and the competition authorities have worked against the greater good. However, we're missing much bigger points that just having a nice transferable bus ticket (and don't get me wrong, I would heartily support such moves).

On a national scale, we have had years of focus on the JAM's who are just about managing, and therefore daren't upset the motorists by increasing fuel duty. In fact, the figure was 61ppl in 2006, and was reduced being the same since 2010 at 57ppl. The cost of private motoring is considerably lower and had it gone up from then in line with inflation, the figure would be 88ppl. That at a time when bus companies' costs have continued to climb with the usual staff costs also being impacted by increased emissions targets (not reflected in private cars) AND other cost increases like pensions contributions.

Then you have issues such as poor transport infrastructure for buses in our major cities. Compare that to our European cousins. Of course, we could tackle that but instead, a massive mount (£6bn p.a) is being funnelled to road schemes.

Buses don't get priority so journey times suffer and then we make them disproportionately expensive. Oh, and we slash funding for socially necessary services. Until those fundamental issues are addressed, having a transferable bus ticket and painting buses orange are just tinkering at the edges.

Even redressing some of the inequalities of the relationship between the private car and sustainable transport would be a start. It has to be something more fundamental in terms of taxation and funding.

 

[telstarbox]

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority have launched their consultation into bus franchising - closes 8 January.

We are proposing a franchising scheme for the whole of Greater Manchester.

This would mean that bus services would be under Greater Manchester’s control and they would decide which services would be provided - like the way buses are run in London and some other major cities around the world. We would set the routes, timetables, tickets and standards, while the bus operators would run the services.

This would allow buses to work better with the rest of our public transport – as part of Our Network– Greater Manchester’s vision for a joined-up transport system.

We are now consulting on the proposed franchising scheme so you can share your views.

https://www.gmconsult.org/strategy-team/gmbusconsultation/

 

[nerd]

So we ignore 25 years of decline and focus on five positive years? That's rather convenient.

Not quite au fait with the increases that you refer to nor, more importantly, what the factors that were behind the increases then? Might it have been something to do with massive rates support that was eventually the reason behind the abolition of metropolitan counties and rate capping? Certainly, the South Yorkshire max fare was about 25p which would be adjusted for inflation as being 73p now.

The data can be downloaded here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus01-local-bus-passenger-journeys

the data series I referred to is on BUS0103. This shows increased bus usage in Metropolitan areas outside London from 1981 to 1985/6 from 2,033 million to 2,068 million; in London the increase was from 1,079 million to 1,152 million. In 2017/18 the counterpart Metropolitan figure was 907 million, while the London figure was 2,225 million.

The reason for the previous long term decline flat-lining in the early 1980s (and to a small degree reversing), seems to be agreed as being due to adoption of more cost-effective subsidy regimes in Metropolitan cities; combined with promotion of local transport system integration. What seems to have happened, is that local transport planners in these cities (at last) woke up to the long term impact of increased car ownership on bus service finances; so they tried to break the circle of using subsidy simply to prop-up services that had become uneconomic, but were politically 'protected'; and instead tried to get ahead of the game by directing subsidy into services with long-term growth potential. Needless to say, neither Thatcher's ministers nor commercial bus operators were happy with these success stories; so they were buried. They were what Stalinist called "living false witnesses'; while what they was claiming was true; nevertheless in political necessity, it had to be condemned as false; and their successful activities, banned.

The financial effect of deregulation is not really in dispute. This is from a House of Commons Library research paper of 1995:

"Costs per vehicle km have been reduced. Many restrictive practices have disappeared and the numbers employed have decreased. Reduced costs in some areas may also have come about from a reduction in wages in real terms and through lack of investment in new vehicles. In some cases reduced costs have meant fewer services at expensive times, such as in the evenings or on Sundays. Bus operators in the metropolitan areas have trimmed their operating costs by rather more than in the shire areas. However the decrease in passengers has meant that although the cost per km has been reduced there is little change in the real cost per passenger km."

So, although deregulation greatly reduced unit costs per vehicle mile (outside London) it did not reduce operator costs per passenger carried. Hence the entire 'efficiency gain' from competitive operation was swallowed up in reduced passengers carried. What happened was effectively straight cost-shifting - subsidy costs in metropolitan cities were halved, but those 'savings' simply transferred into above-inflation passenger fare increases. With no overall community gain at all. This is the classic monopolistic pricing strategy; increasing prices to well above their marginal cost, so as to leave substantial numbers of prospective consumers underserved, which maximises profit per passenger carried.

Whereas in London, costs per vehicle only reduced a little, but the continued increase in passengers carried meant that cost per passenger reduced dramatically.

Underlying this was the Thatcherite social-engineering assumption that bus subsidy was a bad thing in itself, because bus travel was sub-optimal compared with travelling in your own car; so it was good policy to reduce it overall; even if the consequent drop in passengers served meant that there was little saving in subsidy per passenger carried. By encouraging the bus-using public to become car travellers, they would adopt economic habits more congenial to neo-liberal economic theory. Whereas we would now tend to see bus travel as generating high levels of social benefits (in reducing pressure on road space, increasing healthy activity levels, and encouraging agglomeration benefits in urban economies). So reducing overall subsidy entirely at the expense of bus travellers was a 'bad'; what should have happened was redirecting subsidy towards investment in new bus-only infrastructure, taking urban roadspace away from private cars.

 

[carlberry]

The data can be downloaded here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus01-local-bus-passenger-journeys

the data series I referred to is on BUS0103. This shows increased bus usage in Metropolitan areas outside London from 1981 to 1985/6 from 2,033 million to 2,068 million; in London the increase was from 1,79 million to 1,152 million. In 2017/18 the counterpart Metropolitan figure was 907 million, while the London figure was 2,225 million.

This is very selective quoting! If we take 1980 to 1985/6 it becomes 2207 to 2068, continuing the previous trend. 1981/1982 was also a time of recession of course.
It's very easy to blame deregulation for the 1985-1987 change however the other big change was the sudden removal of subsidies at the same time in areas like South Yorkshire. Basically the way you run buses might impact how successful they are but the amount of public money that's available to subsidise them and provide their infrastructure is always going to be a bigger issue.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This is very selective quoting! If we take 1980 to 1985/6 it becomes 2207 to 2068, continuing the previous trend. 1981/1982 was also a time of recession of course.
It's very easy to blame deregulation for the 1985-1987 change however the other big change was the sudden removal of subsidies at the same time in areas like South Yorkshire. Basically the way you run buses might impact how successful they are but the amount of public money that's available to subsidise them and provide their infrastructure is always going to be a bigger issue.

Very selective - 3 years of growth in 30 years of decline and, as you say, in the aftermath of the biggest collapse in employment in 1980/1 where unemployment increased by 35% YoY!

Statistics mean little without context.

 

[nerd]

This is very selective quoting! If we take 1980 to 1985/6 it becomes 2207 to 2068, continuing the previous trend. 1981/1982 was also a time of recession of course.
It's very easy to blame deregulation for the 1985-1987 change however the other big change was the sudden removal of subsidies at the same time in areas like South Yorkshire. Basically the way you run buses might impact how successful they are but the amount of public money that's available to subsidise them and provide their infrastructure is always going to be a bigger issue.

Taking five continous years immediately before the change is not 'selective'. There was a definite change in the long-term trend; with the turning point around 1981 (trust me, this is the nerd's day job; it is so far different from the previous trend that it cannot simply be year-on-year variation). Then a different trend from 1985/6 onwards.

As to your second point, I should perhaps have spelled it out more explicitly. It was indeed the change to the subsidy regime that was the primary cause of the loss of bus patronage in the years following deregulation. But the subsidies were not 'removed'; they were 'transferred'. Where before the public had subsidised bus services through local rates; they subsequently subsidised them through higher bus fares. The total subsidy charge to the public was the broadly same after as before. That is a matter of public record.

The difference in the two subsidy regimes, was that the level of bus usage was lower following the subsidy transfer; which is not unexpected, if most bus passengers were now having to pay well over a theoretical 'market' economic rate to travel on the bus. But that then ignores the loss in community benefit when someone who could have travelled by bus, instead travels by private car (or does not travel at all). These community benefits are very substantial; which is why, across the world, a general level of fare subsidy is an essential component of any efficient urban stopping bus system.

It was exactly the blindness of the proponents of deregulation to this basic economic truth; that lead them to disregard subsidy benefits altogether in their economic assessment of their bus policy.

 

[158756]

Reducing fares isn't really the point of franchising. Manchester doesn't have the same sort of money as TfL to throw at it. From a passenger perspective, the initial plans seem to amount to rebranding and abolishing route or operator specific tickets. Both those things are probably good, but it's nothing earth shattering. I note one of the documents identifies stakeholders raising expectations too high as one of the risks of the scheme.

 

[edwin_m]

Yeah - remind me... Has there been any sort of multi million pound funding in London? Perhaps Manchester could introduce a congestion charge?

Manchester has invested in a guided busway and quite a lot of bus priority on other routes, not to mention well over a billion on Metrolink which shows it has the capacity and willingness to spend on public transport. It is actually impossible for it to spend much more under current legislation, because any significant further improvement would involve subsidizing operations and would be deemed anticompetitive (we've discussed this point before and you agreed with me at the time). Deregulation also ensures that the bus network is fragmented and hard to understand, no matter how good individual operators are.

As a minimum, a regulated system could keep all the existing routes and timetables but introduce fares that are integrated across the network but at similar levels to today's - and market it as a uniform and stable network. The costs of running it would stay the same but it's likely the extra demand would outweigh any marginal loss from a few people finding cheaper fares.

 

[edwin_m]

The UK is indeed high density. It's a popular misconception with a broad disparity; urban areas are very urban (and should be easy to serve with public transport). You also rightly make mention of PPG13. The issue with that is it is two fold. First of all, the horse had already largely bolted by the mid 1990s in terms of PPG13. Also, it only reined in the worst excesses and so the issues of planning and public transport provision are still pretty awful. Contrast the public transport infrastructure and provision for parking in a development in Denmark and compare it to somewhere like Bicester (where I have the privilege of visiting) and it's totally different).

The difference is that planning in many Western European countries has sustainable transport at its heart. In the UK, it's more a box tick exercise rather than something embedded in the DNA.



That is clearly one area where deregulation and the competition authorities have worked against the greater good. However, we're missing much bigger points that just having a nice transferable bus ticket (and don't get me wrong, I would heartily support such moves).

On a national scale, we have had years of focus on the JAM's who are just about managing, and therefore daren't upset the motorists by increasing fuel duty. In fact, the figure was 61ppl in 2006, and was reduced being the same since 2010 at 57ppl. The cost of private motoring is considerably lower and had it gone up from then in line with inflation, the figure would be 88ppl. That at a time when bus companies' costs have continued to climb with the usual staff costs also being impacted by increased emissions targets (not reflected in private cars) AND other cost increases like pensions contributions.

Then you have issues such as poor transport infrastructure for buses in our major cities. Compare that to our European cousins. Of course, we could tackle that but instead, a massive mount (£6bn p.a) is being funnelled to road schemes.

Buses don't get priority so journey times suffer and then we make them disproportionately expensive. Oh, and we slash funding for socially necessary services. Until those fundamental issues are addressed, having a transferable bus ticket and painting buses orange are just tinkering at the edges.

Even redressing some of the inequalities of the relationship between the private car and sustainable transport would be a start. It has to be something more fundamental in terms of taxation and funding.

I agree with all that. But until deregulation is reversed we can't even start to return the bus to the position it ought to occupy in the public transport network.

 

[carlberry]

As to your second point, I should perhaps have spelled it out more explicitly. It was indeed the change to the subsidy regime that was the primary cause of the loss of bus patronage in the years following deregulation. But the subsidies were not 'removed'; they were 'transferred'. Where before the public had subsidised bus services through local rates; they subsequently subsidised them through higher bus fares. The total subsidy charge to the public was the broadly same after as before. That is a matter of public record.

The difference in the two subsidy regimes, was that the level of bus usage was lower following the subsidy transfer; which is not unexpected, if most bus passengers were now having to pay well over a theoretical 'market' economic rate to travel on the bus. But that then ignores the loss in community benefit when someone who could have travelled by bus, instead travels by private car (or does not travel at all). These community benefits are very substantial; which is why, across the world, a general level of fare subsidy is an essential component of any efficient urban stopping bus system.

It was exactly the blindness of the proponents of deregulation to this basic economic truth; that lead them to disregard subsidy benefits altogether in their economic assessment of their bus policy.

The 'proponents of deregulation' had no problem disregarding this, they would have seen the reduction in subsidy and moving people onto cars as part of what they wanted to achieve. The basic problem is still the same if people want better public transport they have to pay for it either directly or indirectly. British governments prefer directly and until we have one that dosent very little is going to change whatever delivery method is used.

 

[carlberry]

Manchester has invested in a guided busway and quite a lot of bus priority on other routes, not to mention well over a billion on Metrolink which shows it has the capacity and willingness to spend on public transport. It is actually impossible for it to spend much more under current legislation, because any significant further improvement would involve subsidizing operations and would be deemed anticompetitive (we've discussed this point before and you agreed with me at the time). Deregulation also ensures that the bus network is fragmented and hard to understand, no matter how good individual operators are.

As a minimum, a regulated system could keep all the existing routes and timetables but introduce fares that are integrated across the network but at similar levels to today's - and market it as a uniform and stable network. The costs of running it would stay the same but it's likely the extra demand would outweigh any marginal loss from a few people finding cheaper fares.

There is nothing to stop a general subsidy under the current regime. An example is the 100% subsidy that's given to pensioners who can use it on any bus.

 

[radamfi]

Funding might not be so much of an issue:

"Since the assessment of a proposed franchising scheme for Greater Manchester was completed, the government has indicated that it will support Greater Manchester to “deliver a London-style bus system in the area” which could include revenue funding. If government funding becomes available, this could offset any local contribution – including any requirement from the council tax/Mayoral precept."

 

[158756]

Funding might not be so much of an issue:

"Since the assessment of a proposed franchising scheme for Greater Manchester was completed, the government has indicated that it will support Greater Manchester to “deliver a London-style bus system in the area” which could include revenue funding. If government funding becomes available, this could offset any local contribution – including any requirement from the council tax/Mayoral precept."

It would be wise not to rely on an idea the government have floated with no funding. The current government might not be around much longer, and who knows it the funding would actually be forthcoming under this or any other government? And London isn't a great example to follow - TfL's government funding has been cut.

 

[edwin_m]

There is nothing to stop a general subsidy under the current regime. An example is the 100% subsidy that's given to pensioners who can use it on any bus.

Which has distorted the market in all sorts of ways, as discussed on various threads on this forum. It doesn't create any network integration other than that the minority of the population who enjoy free travel don't have to worry about the mishmash of operators and fares in somewhere like Manchester. I don't think there are any other examples of operating subsidy other than the tendering for non-commercial routes, which can't compete with commercial routes and (where they haven't succumbed to funding cuts) are usually run by a different set of operators and not integrated with the core commercial routes.

It would be wise not to rely on an idea the government have floated with no funding. The current government might not be around much longer, and who knows it the funding would actually be forthcoming under this or any other government? And London isn't a great example to follow - TfL's government funding has been cut.

Agreed reliance on central government funding is not a good idea, although the railways have managed to lock in historically high ongoing funding via a franchise system. I don't think buses are seen as politically important enough to achieve that. Franchising on its own won't make much difference without a commitment to an ongoing funding stream - although there will be some savings such as from eliminating overbussing, which can be ploughed back into the network.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I agree with all that. But until deregulation is reversed we can't even start to return the bus to the position it ought to occupy in the public transport network.

Deregulation doesn't preclude improved planning guidelines, doesn't preclude spending on better designed bus infrastructure. It doesn't preclude the restoration of some price parity with the car - restore the full BSOG and increase fuel duty. None of that is pre-decated on a regulated bus network.

I look at the metrobus network in Bristol. £240m spent on improvements but when you look at it, a large chunk has been spent on new roads that happen to have bus lanes but also promote private car travel. In one area, new bus lanes have been provided but they're not 24 hour so out of peak, they have parking spaces in them. It's crazy.

Then you have cities where massive motorway expansion has taken place, like Glasgow. Allied to that, you have oodles of low cost on street parking, taking up space that could be used for bus priority. Only a few cities have begun to grasp the nettle with better bus priority and parking levies.

Political will and sufficient finance is the key.

ps the peace dividend from stopping overbussing is a strange one given that all too often, the view is espoused that bus companies are exploiting a monopoly position by cutting services and raising fares. In truth, the areas to save money are not as great as some may feel.

 

[Man of Kent]

Taking five continous years immediately before the change is not 'selective'. There was a definite change in the long-term trend; with the turning point around 1981 (trust me, this is the nerd's day job; it is so far different from the previous trend that it cannot simply be year-on-year variation). Then a different trend from 1985/6 onwards.

Perhaps comparison with the other part of the UK where deregulation did not take place might be useful?
Ulsterbus carried 55.4m passengers in 1995-96 (the earliest I can find easily) and Citybus 25.4m
Four years later the equivalent figures were 48.2m and 21.3m.
2017-18 figures are 38.1m and 28.0m.

As far as I understand it, at least some of the Citybus increase can be attributed to a simplified network, very much in the mould of mainland practice. No issues with competition law over joint ticketing though, presumably...

 

[markymark2000]

Just completed the survey. Not sure how much difference it will make but hey, let's hope.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is a common misconception that Britain is dominated by out of town development and sprawling low-density suburbia. A large proportion of Britain was built before the car and therefore most towns started out being very compact. Planning regulations were historically very strict until the 1980s, when a lot of car-orientated development occurred, but this was reined in by the 90s in PPG13. The incorrect perception of Britain being low density has been exploited by people who prefer car-centric transport and development policy.

Remember how Manchester saw the answer to the city-based high-density old property (mostly privately rented) areas around the city core, after the Second Word War, by their slum-clearance programme which saw overspill council house estates being constructed far away from the central Manchester core, such as Darn Hill in Heywood, Langley in Middleton and Hattersley in the Back of Beyond.

Mike Harding, always one for a topical matter that could be used in his folk singing, came up with the following chorus to one such song.....
Oh dear, what can the matter be
Some silly bugger has sent us to Hattersley
We've been up Hattersley three weeks on Saturday
O how I wish we weren't here

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just an idle thought whilst catching up on this thread. If Brexit does occur, will that see the end to all the Germanic transpoprt references on postings on this thread?

 

[njlawley]

Manchester has invested in a guided busway and quite a lot of bus priority on other routes, not to mention well over a billion on Metrolink which shows it has the capacity and willingness to spend on public transport.

The problem there is that those schemes have increased competition against existing services. The Busway has resulted in other routes being axed, and those away from the service being neglected. Meanwhile, Metrolink has extracted bus passengers by direct competing against bus services, particularly where lines run along or very close to bus routes - look at the likes of the Ashton line, which runs on top of the 216, a route which was every 5 minutes, but is now half that.

It's like TfGM have used Metrolink as a long term tool to provide an excuse to take control of buses.

 

[edwin_m]

Deregulation doesn't preclude improved planning guidelines, doesn't preclude spending on better designed bus infrastructure. It doesn't preclude the restoration of some price parity with the car - restore the full BSOG and increase fuel duty. None of that is pre-decated on a regulated bus network.

I look at the metrobus network in Bristol. £240m spent on improvements but when you look at it, a large chunk has been spent on new roads that happen to have bus lanes but also promote private car travel. In one area, new bus lanes have been provided but they're not 24 hour so out of peak, they have parking spaces in them. It's crazy.

Then you have cities where massive motorway expansion has taken place, like Glasgow. Allied to that, you have oodles of low cost on street parking, taking up space that could be used for bus priority. Only a few cities have begun to grasp the nettle with better bus priority and parking levies.

Political will and sufficient finance is the key.

ps the peace dividend from stopping overbussing is a strange one given that all too often, the view is espoused that bus companies are exploiting a monopoly position by cutting services and raising fares. In truth, the areas to save money are not as great as some may feel.

Improved planning guidelines are no good if the bus operator chooses not to serve the new developments. In most cases this is unlikely, but the worry that the shiny new bus facilities might not have any buses would make any councellor pause to think of the electoral consequences.

As I pointed out Manchester has spent on bus infrastructure already, and what Bristol is doing tends to confirm my point that there's a limit to what local government can spend to improve deregulated bus services before hitting diminishing returns. Unlike Glasgow, Manchester hasn't done much to increase radial road capacity in recent years. BSOG and fuel duty are the hands of central government and Manchester has tried congestion charges once already.

I'd agree with the political will and the finance, but I still maintain that some sort of franchising system is a pre-condition for that to happen.

Overbussing happens when there is competition on a route, mostly to the disbenefit of the passenger. Underbussing may happen when there is no competition, also to the disbenefit of the passenger.

The problem there is that those schemes have increased competition against existing services. The Busway has resulted in other routes being axed, and those away from the service being neglected. Meanwhile, Metrolink has extracted bus passengers by direct competing against bus services, particularly where lines run along or very close to bus routes - look at the likes of the Ashton line, which runs on top of the 216, a route which was every 5 minutes, but is now half that.

It's like TfGM have used Metrolink as a long term tool to provide an excuse to take control of buses.

The routes near to the busway illustrate how private operators concentrate on the most profitable routes leaving the others to wither, thus taking out one layer of a network that should be accessible to nearly everyone living in an urban area. To some extent that gap can be plugged with tendered services, but they are unlikely to be integrated with the core routes so those relying on them will probably face poor connections and (unless eligible for ENCTS) higher fares.

In any sane transport policy there wouldn't be an intensive bus service (and 10min is still pretty intensive) using the same road as a tramway which cost the taxpayer millions to build. The decision should be made either to provide a high quality bus service or to re-plan the bus network to feed into the tramway and if necessary to provide through journeys on parallel roads instead. The first option is arguably possible under deregulation (as with Leigh) but the resulting route wouldn't be integrated with the rest of the transport network. The second requires some form of franchising.