Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[radamfi]

That tactic......I could reflect it back but why bother...

Walk around in life and look at pricing strategies in all manner of markets. It’s product augmentation - term one in most business courses incl. business and transport degrees.

But does the Manchester-type fare system lead to improved usage?

 

[radamfi]

That tactic......I could reflect it back but why bother...

(I don't use ... in my posts)

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

(I don't use ... in my posts)

Wasn’t referring to the use of ellipsis. More your Harold Wilson approach to questions.

 

[njlawley]

If GM had only one private operator, and under the proposed franchising scheme, tickets would be priced in line with current single operator tickets, not System One. System One is a rip-off. The only real discounting you get from operators is on the single route Middleton/Walkden/MagicBus tickets.

You pay less because you get less! You wouldn't pay the same price for one tin of beans compared with a multipack of beans!

One thing to note is that System One the Saver Travelcard, which was a GMPTE run multi-operator ticket.

 

[njlawley]

If GM had only one private operator, and under the proposed franchising scheme, tickets would be priced in line with current single operator tickets, not System One. System One is a rip-off. The only real discounting you get from operators is on the single route Middleton/Walkden/MagicBus tickets.

You pay less because you get less! You wouldn't pay the same price for one tin of beans compared with a multipack of beans!

One thing to note is that System One the Saver Travelcard, which was a GMPTE run multi-operator ticket.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

(I don't use ... in my posts)

Wasn’t referring to the use of ellipsis. More the Harold Wilson approach to questions.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

(I don't use ... in my posts)

Wasn’t referring to the use of ellipsis. More the Harold Wilson approach to questions.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You pay less because you get less! You wouldn't pay the same price for one tin of beans compared with a multipack of beans!

One thing to note is that System One the Saver Travelcard, which was a GMPTE run multi-operator ticket.

Indeed. Aldi tin of beans = 30p but beans and sausages = 40p.

It’s a pricing strategy.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You pay less because you get less! You wouldn't pay the same price for one tin of beans compared with a multipack of beans!

One thing to note is that System One the Saver Travelcard, which was a GMPTE run multi-operator ticket.

Indeed. Aldi tin of beans = 30p but beans and sausages = 40p.

It’s a pricing strategy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. Aldi tin of beans = 30p but beans and sausages = 40p.

It’s a pricing strategy.

It is a pricing strategy, but not a fair one when you consider a public transport system for the city.

The problem is that the bus industry is so ingrained in not considering a public transport system, just a collection of routes, some of which are theirs and some are not.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How is the funding being made to facilitate the original discussions in the process of being held and how is it proposed the system when in operation will be funded? Will it be a precept on Community Charge that will be levied?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is a pricing strategy, but not a fair one when you consider a public transport system for the city.

The problem is that the bus industry is so ingrained in not considering a public transport system, just a collection of routes, some of which are theirs and some are not.

A fair one is very subjective? You can make the argument that you can have full city coverage for a price but if you don't need all the features of the ticket, you could have fewer at a lower price.

Say if I lived in Redcar and needed a day ticket just for around the town - Arriva ticket £12.00 a week
However, I want to head from Redcar to South Tees Hospital - £17.00 that covers Stagecoach and Arriva buses a week

Your view would be that if I lived solely in Redcar, I'd be obliged to have the more expensive ticket even though I don't need the interavailability nor the geographic scope?

 

[radamfi]

A fair one is very subjective? You can make the argument that you can have full city coverage for a price but if you don't need all the features of the ticket, you could have fewer at a lower price.

Say if I lived in Redcar and needed a day ticket just for around the town - Arriva ticket £12.00 a week
However, I want to head from Redcar to South Tees Hospital - £17.00 that covers Stagecoach and Arriva buses a week

Your view would be that if I lived solely in Redcar, I'd be obliged to have the more expensive ticket even though I don't need the interavailability nor the geographic scope?

Different pricing by geographical area is reasonable. When London still used a zonal system for bus fares, they used to have bus passes for different areas of outer London at a lower cost than a Zone 4(5,6) bus pass, for example Croydon or Bromley. Your typical integrated fare system on the continent will have different prices for the number of zones crossed. But it would be silly to have three different Croydon bus passes, two where you could use half the routes and a higher priced one where you could use all the routes.

 

[radamfi]

How is the funding being made to facilitate the original discussions in the process of being held and how is it proposed the system when in operation will be funded? Will it be a precept on Community Charge that will be levied?

It is explained on the consultation website. It also mentions the possibility of central government funding, meaning reduced or no impact on the Mayoral precept.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your view would be that if I lived solely in Redcar, I'd be obliged to have the more expensive ticket even though I don't need the interavailability nor the geographic scope?

You'd have the option of a cheaper ticket covering the smaller geographical area, which is much fairer than basing it on the routes of a specific operator.

But anyway, going back to more general points. Bus use is still in very heavy decline. Should we not at least have a trial of a different way of working in one city? Greater Manchester seems enthusiastic. The approach works well in London, though I think a provincial trial is worthwhile as in some ways London is a foreign country.

If it fails, I'm sure they could put the depots up for sale to operators, who could (and I'm sure would, as a profit can be made) then come in and go back to the old deregulated approach.

 

[WatcherZero]

How is the funding being made to facilitate the original discussions in the process of being held and how is it proposed the system when in operation will be funded? Will it be a precept on Community Charge that will be levied?

They are forecasting £134.5m net funding requirement over five years (costs in excess of farebox revenue and advertising) most of it would come from the same public subsidy revenue streams going to buses today but they are proposing a one off £17.8m contribution from the councils and £22.7m extra Mayoral Levy peaking at £11.2m per year in 2024/5 (the £11.2m would be the annual deficit once fully set up) at the Tory conference Boris volunteered that he would be willing for Westminster to fund this which would reduce or eliminate the need for the mayoral levy.

 

[carlberry]

But anyway, going back to more general points. Bus use is still in very heavy decline. Should we not at least have a trial of a different way of working in one city? Greater Manchester seems enthusiastic. The approach works well in London, though I think a provincial trial is worthwhile as in some ways London is a foreign country.

If it fails, I'm sure they could put the depots up for sale to operators, who could (and I'm sure would, as a profit can be made) then come in and go back to the old deregulated approach.

Because changing the deck chairs wont stop the ship sinking. Bus use is declining in London so 'The approach works well in London' isn't true and the approach in Manchester is going to be different anyway. The Manchester experiment is getting extra money which should guarantee it'll work but, even if it fails, the people who are spinning the current bovine TB cure should be able to call it a success anyway!

There are two fundamentals that need changing and it's irrelevant who runs the buses because both can be dealt with already by the very people who want to take control of the buses.

1. Do we want to put more money into them or do we expect them to pay for themselves?
Manchester is getting some extra money to prop up this experiment however this will just prove that if you put more public money into buses you get more people using them.
Any local authority that wants to put more money into buses can do it already, however they don't have any.

2. Removing the congestion that's slowing buses down.
This brings continual benefit because as buses speed up they get more attractive which removes even more congestion and reduces costs which reduces fares and makes them more attractive.
Any local authority that wants to make buses more attractive has absolute control over this issue but wont do anything because it annoys motorists (and costs money).

 

[radamfi]

Bus use is declining in London

Declining from a very high level and per capita usage in London is still way higher than in the 90s. Per capita usage in GM is poor even compared to some other major urban areas outside London. Improvement or otherwise is much less important than the actual performance. If someone at school improves from an E to a C, that doesn't make them better than someone who consistently gets an A but then slips to an A-.

The most important thing is the car mode share. If bus mode share goes down but car mode share also goes down because of bike or train improvements then that is a positive outcome. TfL have been prioritising bike improvements at the expense of other traffic including buses.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Declining from a very high level and per capita usage in London is still way higher than in the 90s. Per capita usage in GM is poor even compared to some other major urban areas outside London. Improvement or otherwise is much less important than the actual performance. If someone at school improves from an E to a C, that doesn't make them better than someone who consistently gets an A but then slips to an A-.

The most important thing is the car mode share. If bus mode share goes down but car mode share also goes down because of bike or train improvements then that is a positive outcome. TfL have been prioritising bike improvements at the expense of other traffic including buses.

Yes but what Carl is saying is correct.

The exemplar that has been London is no longer the case. The reasons for that are directly applicable to Manchester and most other places.

1. The growth in bus use was dependent on major subsidy increases to the bus network. It is a clear correlation
2. The reduction in spend is again mirrored in patronage decline
3. London is not immune from the other issues impacting bus operation across the UK - declining high street footfall and increasing traffic congestion
   • One reason why cycling has grown in popularity (which is a good thing in my eyes) is because of the pitiful road speeds that buses now have to work to

As Carl has said, and it echoes what I've said before, the local authorities could face into many of these problems without recourse to franchising. Reducing on street parking is dependent on that. Better bus priority isn't. Workplace parking levies aren't and yet some on this board suggest that nothing can be done because of the bus barons and the pernicious commercial world.

Carl didn't mention car modal share but what he did say was that it is congestion that is killing buses.

The idea that Manchester will somehow achieve London style patronage on the back of a bit of margin erosion and saving a few buses where competition and perceived overbussing exists is ridiculous, especially when the initial funding runs out. It needs some hard decisions to be taken in terms of limiting car use and freeing up buses from the quagmire rather than some populist "stick it to the man" and a promise to return orange buses to Hulme.

Had enough of public engagement based on populist catchphrases, spurious financial claims and a headlong rush to return to a nirvana that never actually existed.

 

[radamfi]

The reduction in spend is again mirrored in patronage decline

The latest statistic DfT statistics show per capita usage in London is no worse than in 2006, several years after the start of the dramatic expansion of the bus network. Even in the 90s there were modest improvements in service and patronage when subsidy was scarce. If someone had said in 2000 that per capita usage in 2018 would be over a third higher you would have settled for that!

Most importantly, car mode share hasn't gone up. From Travel in London Report 11, car mode share fell from 47% in 2000, to 43% in 2006, to 36% in 2017. PT mode share went up from 28% in 2000, to 31% in 2006, to 37% in 2017. So, even though per capita bus usage is at 2006 levels, overall PT mode share has gone up markedly.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The latest statistic DfT statistics show per capita usage in London is no worse than in 2006, several years after the start of the dramatic expansion of the bus network. Even in the 90s there were modest improvements in service and patronage when subsidy was scarce. If someone had said in 2000 that per capita usage in 2018 would be over a third higher you would have settled for that!

Most importantly, car mode share hasn't gone up. From Travel in London Report 11, car mode share fell from 47% in 2000, to 43% in 2006, to 36% in 2017. PT mode share went up from 28% in 2000, to 31% in 2006, to 37% in 2017. So, even though per capita bus usage is at 2006 levels, overall PT mode share has gone up markedly.

Don't think anyone is arguing that London has done well; it's very laudable.

However, when you're spending £740m in subsidy, it really should do well in a geographically limited, high density area.

 

[WatcherZero]

I would argue part of the financial problem is the London buses are priced too low (far lower than other regions), it offsets the congestion issue and low average speed but does mean it needs the extra funding.
Arguably whats hurt London buses however has been the expansion in rail and underground lines since the 90's, the London Overground in particular introducing better links between districts rather than just to the city centre as well as more capacity on commuter services in and depopulation of the city centre (greater proportion being second homes).

 

[Rod Harrison]

Yes but what Carl is saying is correct.

The exemplar that has been London is no longer the case. The reasons for that are directly applicable to Manchester and most other places.

1. The growth in bus use was dependent on major subsidy increases to the bus network. It is a clear correlation
2. The reduction in spend is again mirrored in patronage decline
3. London is not immune from the other issues impacting bus operation across the UK - declining high street footfall and increasing traffic congestion
   • One reason why cycling has grown in popularity (which is a good thing in my eyes) is because of the pitiful road speeds that buses now have to work to

As Carl has said, and it echoes what I've said before, the local authorities could face into many of these problems without recourse to franchising. Reducing on street parking is dependent on that. Better bus priority isn't. Workplace parking levies aren't and yet some on this board suggest that nothing can be done because of the bus barons and the pernicious commercial world.

Carl didn't mention car modal share but what he did say was that it is congestion that is killing buses.

The idea that Manchester will somehow achieve London style patronage on the back of a bit of margin erosion and saving a few buses where competition and perceived overbussing exists is ridiculous, especially when the initial funding runs out. It needs some hard decisions to be taken in terms of limiting car use and freeing up buses from the quagmire rather than some populist "stick it to the man" and a promise to return orange buses to Hulme.

Had enough of public engagement based on populist catchphrases, spurious financial claims and a headlong rush to return to a nirvana that never actually existed.

I couldn’t agree more. To try and compare London and Manchester is like comparing chalk and cheese. Given the congestion charge subsidies in London which enable much cheaper public transport is not available (yet) in Manchester. Bus usage has fallen for many reasons over the past 50 years with much enhanced car usage and the Metro is also a big factor. It is a pure, and costly, political stunt for Burnham. The fact that there are so few cross city services due to Manchester council policy of closing off the city centre doesn’t help. Two things on funding, firstly, I live outside the GM boundary but my taxes will subsidise bus usage there although I will never use it and GM must have better use for the money, maybe by reducing congestion. How would franchising contribute anything to improving matters as we have regulation already? Maybe they should improve that!

 

[radamfi]

Arguably whats hurt London buses however has been the expansion in rail and underground lines since the 90's

I'm not sure "hurt" is the most appropriate word here, although I agree with the sentiment. We shouldn't be in the business of assessing individual modes separately. When rail improvements are made there should be no qualms about adjusting the bus network accordingly. In Amsterdam, they even reduced *tram* services following the opening of a new metro line. They went to the trouble of singling a double track tramway in order to improve cycling:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/10/09/the-battle-for-the-ferdinand-bolstraat/

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I'm not sure "hurt" is the most appropriate word here, although I agree with the sentiment. We shouldn't be in the business of assessing individual modes separately. When rail improvements are made there should be no qualms about adjusting the bus network accordingly. In Amsterdam, they even reduced *tram* services following the opening of a new metro line. They went to the trouble of singling a double track tramway in order to improve cycling:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/10/09/the-battle-for-the-ferdinand-bolstraat/

It is true that we should be looking at non-car modes holistically.

By the same token, we often hear how much bus patronage in Greater Manchester has fallen. Whilst some of that is undoubtedly because it reflects the national picture (subsidy cuts, high street decline etc), the welcome expansion of Metrolink has also abstracted trade from buses. On the Oldham/Rochdale axis, that has been reflected in cuts to bus services; when rail improvements are made, often that is reflected anyway in the commercial world anyway.

Depopulation of the city centre (greater proportion being second homes).

Interesting mention of demographic change. In Greater Manchester, the population has grown but the vast majority of that has been in Manchester itself with some growth in Trafford. Most of the others have seen very little change and Wigan borough actually fell quite markedly.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

"Depopulation of the city centre" seems to be somewhat at odds with the countless number of blocks of apartments that have been constructed over recent years in the Manchester/Salford inner core area.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

"Depopulation of the city centre" seems to be somewhat at odds with the countless number of blocks of apartments that have been constructed over recent years in the Manchester/Salford inner core area.

That's the point I was making. WZ was saying this about London but in Greater Manchester, the population growth is concentrated in Manchester rather than the other boroughs.

 

[158756]

That's the point I was making. WZ was saying this about London but in Greater Manchester, the population growth is concentrated in Manchester rather than the other boroughs.

In Manchester however that growth is concentrated in such a small central area that the residents have no need of buses - and growth is primarily made up of young (working) adults, a demographic likely attracted to Uber and cycling for whatever trips they do make beyond walking distance.

 

[robertclark125]

I was going to also mention, in Dublin, when the Luas system started, Dublin Bus saw a fall in demand on some services, which led to some cuts or reductions in service. So, I agree, there is the possibility that expansion of the metrolink has seen people use the tram, as opposed to the bus.

 

[radamfi]

I was going to also mention, in Dublin, when the Luas system started, Dublin Bus saw a fall in demand on some services, which led to some cuts or reductions in service. So, I agree, there is the possibility that expansion of the metrolink has seen people use the tram, as opposed to the bus.

It is better to amend the bus service at the same time as opening a new tram line. That's what happened when the Croydon tram system opened and buses were reorganised to provide convenient connections with it. Whereas when Metrolink opened in 1992 GM Buses tried to compete with it by running express buses. Dublin is a reminder that regulation does not necessarily mean good integration. State ownership may well be worse for integration than franchising.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is better to amend the bus service at the same time as opening a new tram line. That's what happened when the Croydon tram system opened and buses were reorganised to provide convenient connections with it. Whereas when Metrolink opened in 1992 GM Buses tried to compete with it by running express buses. Dublin is a reminder that regulation does not necessarily mean good integration. State ownership may well be worse for integration than franchising.

I would agree - Dublin Bus is a law unto itself.

The key to it working is that the authority specifying routes, timetables and fares (and quality, and what colour it's painted etc) is the same authority for all modes of transport in a given urban area, so they can manage the network as an interconnected whole. It matters not who operates them - this should essentially be the cheapest option.