TfGM Bus franchising

[dm1]

As somebody who has studied transport planning in Europe, I think there are some fundamental points that have been touched on previously in the thread, but are worth mentioning in more detail.

Fundamentally it comes down to the purpose of a bus system. In the current model, the main motivation for private operators is profit - and generally for the operator alone, not for the network as a whole. In a more centralised, government controlled model you can take a much broader view. The aim of a public transport system as a whole can be summarised as follows:

• Allow residents to move around to where they need to go - in particular those who have no alternative (e.g. those with disabilities)
• Do so quickly, reliably, predictably, and at an affordable cost for all income levels
• Remove cars from the road, to reduce their environmental impact, congestion, and to improve residents' quality of life (noise, air quality etc)
• Do so at an affordable cost for the taxpayer

In most European cities, the public transport network seen in isolation is rarely profitable (a very rough rule of thumb is a cost recovery ratio of about 80%), but the benefits it provides to society as a whole both financially and in terms of public benefit more than make up for this. If people can move around easily, they can earn and spend money more easily too, which stimulates the economy and results in more taxable income, which can then be used for the subsidy, whilst providing societal benefits as well.

This systematic perspective of the transport system is extremely important, but it is extraordinarily difficult to implement in a privatised, unregulated model - precisely because it often conflicts with the pure profit motive of an operator. Obviously there are other issues in Manchester's current bus network that make it function less well than it should, but this single point is so critical it makes solving the other problems much harder

A few examples:

• Poor integration - a private operator has little incentive to encourage its passengers to use other operators' services
• A corridor has lots of bus services using it, so the local authorities decide to add some bus priority measures to increase reliability. The operator then decides to suddenly change its route to a parallel side street it thinks is slightly less congested, rendering the priority measures useless.
• The operator starts a new bus route. It later decides the route is unprofitable, so ceases to run it, leaving its passengers no alternative but to use a car.

Having a franchised model (if done well) gives a certain degree of stability - you know that a bus route is not going to suddenly disappear without any warning, to the point where you can buy a house near a bus stop and know that a bus service will remain available for as long as you own the house. Authorities can plan infrastructure measures (accessible bus stops, bus traffic priority) safe in the knowledge that they will be used and are built where they are needed. Routes can be planned by professional transport planners who can analyse the network as a whole rather than just one operator's routes, and can use public transport to stimulate demand and urban development rather than being reactive. Passengers have a reliable, integrated service which gets them from A to B quickly and reliably, even if they need to change modes along the way.

The aim of a franchised bus network is to make it as reliable and useful as a tram (a major reason why trams and trains are seen as more attractive than buses is that their tracks mean a route is unlikely to signficiantly change) and in doing so attract new users out of their cars onto public transport as a whole. Presumably this is where the extra income is expected to come from. This is also likely why TfGM is interested in controlling rail as well. If you make public transport attractive, people will use it instead of driving, but for that to work you have to take a whole-system approach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is also likely why TfGM is interested in controlling rail as well. If you make public transport attractive, people will use it instead of driving, but for that to work you have to take a whole-system approach.

Exactly. Too much time is spent on petty spats between bus companies, or bus and rail, or between TOCs, and all the while the petrol-engined elephant is in the room and is walking all over the lot of it without the bus or rail operators apparently even noticing.

Even if nothing else changes, the principle of a single public transport system is the benefit, and that benefit is immense.

I challenge any of the "anti" posters to go to Germany and say with a straight face that a single one of their fully-integrated systems in cities of comparable size to Manchester is, overall, inferior to Manchester's.

 

[carlberry]

Exactly. Too much time is spent on petty spats between bus companies, or bus and rail, or between TOCs, and all the while the petrol-engined elephant is in the room and is walking all over the lot of it without the bus or rail operators apparently even noticing.

Even if nothing else changes, the principle of a single public transport system is the benefit, and that benefit is immense.

I challenge any of the "anti" posters to go to Germany and say with a straight face that a single one of their fully-integrated systems in cities of comparable size to Manchester is, overall, inferior to Manchester's.

Who are the "anti" posters and what are they supposed to be anti?
The UK is not Germany. We don't have the same approach to lots of things and, a few years ago, we even had a referendum to underline that point. The UK doesn't like investing in public transport (other than rail mega projects), has an anti public transport bias and bus is seen as the lowest of the low. We also have a political system which encourages short term thinking and box ticking.

Manchester now has a little bit of money (not even the same amount that London has just been given to see if it's transport system can be kept afloat long enough for the Conservatives to get back in power there) to rearrange the deck chairs without dealing with the real issues that effect buses such as traffic congestion, however this will give it it ability to reduce choice, reduce the number of buses and increase prices (all already in the plan!).

Franchising isn't going to produce the land of milk and honey without a money tree, if it hasn't got a money tree it just produces a system that can be starved for cash at the whim of whichever local Councillor shouts the loudest.

 

[dm1]

Who are the "anti" posters and what are they supposed to be anti?
The UK is not Germany. We don't have the same approach to lots of things and, a few years ago, we even had a referendum to underline that point. The UK doesn't like investing in public transport (other than rail mega projects), has an anti public transport bias and bus is seen as the lowest of the low. We also have a political system which encourages short term thinking and box ticking.

All of the above is largely true. Nevertheless part of the reason that buses are seen as the lowest of the low is precisely because they are (generally speaking) so unreliable, expensive and plainly unattractive, that the only people who use them are those who have no other option. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The first step towards breaking it is making buses properly usable and franchising is (aside from complete nationalisation which comes with its own problems) one of the few feasible ways to make that happen.

 

[Robertj21a]

Exactly. Too much time is spent on petty spats between bus companies, or bus and rail, or between TOCs, and all the while the petrol-engined elephant is in the room and is walking all over the lot of it without the bus or rail operators apparently even noticing.

Even if nothing else changes, the principle of a single public transport system is the benefit, and that benefit is immense.

I challenge any of the "anti" posters to go to Germany and say with a straight face that a single one of their fully-integrated systems in cities of comparable size to Manchester is, overall, inferior to Manchester's.

I'm not sure that many of us would disagree that Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, Eastern Europe etc etc all have better integrated public transport systems than we have in the UK. I've spent plenty of time across Europe and much of the world to know that. However, I'm not convinced that many in the UK will be tempted to use public transport anyway unless they are virtually forced to do so - London is probably our only example where car use/parking has become so difficult as to make virtually anything else seem better.
What I don't get is how this approach for Manchester can achieve its aims without a truly massive injection of funds to both set up and then maintain it at the necessary service levels for ever more (much like TfL).
If the local tax payers are happy to pay up a good deal of money every year then so be it - but as most will still run their cars anyway I can't see their enthusiasm for increased taxation.

 

[47550]

Do we know if the new system includes the purchase of the depots. I believe it was one of the options being considered. Apologies if it has been covered earlier in the thread

 

[carlberry]

All of the above is largely true. Nevertheless part of the reason that buses are seen as the lowest of the low is precisely because they are (generally speaking) so unreliable, expensive and plainly unattractive, that the only people who use them are those who have no other option. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The first step towards breaking it is making buses properly usable and franchising is (aside from complete nationalisation which comes with its own problems) one of the few feasible ways to make that happen.

The Manchester franchise plan does nothing about unreliability (which requires reallocation of road use) or expense (it even hints at increasing bus fares, to reduce them involves putting money into the system). Areas like Brighton and Nottingham show what can happen if local authorities care more about the end result than political control of the resource.

 

[Stan Drews]

I challenge any of the "anti" posters to go to Germany and say with a straight face that a single one of their fully-integrated systems in cities of comparable size to Manchester is, overall, inferior to Manchester's.

I think those that you refer to as ”anti posters” are generally those that understand that if your aim is to reduce fares, increase services, and increase wages without tackling any of the issues affecting punctuality and reliability (amongst others), then it’s going to be quite a difficult task!
Personally I wish it well, as it could be a useful exercise to be used a benchmark for potential reforms elsewhere in the UK. However, I fear that without the necessary financial backing, other than fleecing the poor local tax payers, it could all become very 1970s/80s with endless cuts to services based purely on political dogma.
If it wasn’t for the fact that it will take forever, I’d suggest the best advice would be to buckle up!

 

[domcoop7]

Do we know if the new system includes the purchase of the depots. I believe it was one of the options being considered. Apologies if it has been covered earlier in the thread

They plan (for reasons which to me aren't at all clear) to buy any depot from any operator who wants to sell. The operator won't be forced to sell. So if Stagecoach loses the South Manchester contracts, they could sell their depot to TfGM. But if they win other contracts, they can choose to keep it too. It could be a sop to the unions, as keeping a depot and its routes intact is more likely to make the TUPE regulations apply.

 

[carlberry]

They plan (for reasons which to me aren't at all clear) to buy any depot from any operator who wants to sell. The operator won't be forced to sell. So if Stagecoach loses the South Manchester contracts, they could sell their depot to TfGM. But if they win other contracts, they can choose to keep it too. It could be a sop to the unions, as keeping a depot and its routes intact is more likely to make the TUPE regulations apply.

That's an odd way of doing it, I assume theres been some pressure from companies that have recently spent money to buy companies in Manchester! The compulsory purchase made more sense (as it was a level playing field and would have made it easier for outside bids) whereas now operators appear to be free to sell on the open market. I don't know if many would be attractive for housing however even a sale as a distribution depot may make more money than a straight sale to the authority. A sale with a short term leaseback might be even more attractive if the new owners think they'll have the authority over a barrel!

 

[158756]

They plan (for reasons which to me aren't at all clear) to buy any depot from any operator who wants to sell. The operator won't be forced to sell. So if Stagecoach loses the South Manchester contracts, they could sell their depot to TfGM. But if they win other contracts, they can choose to keep it too. It could be a sop to the unions, as keeping a depot and its routes intact is more likely to make the TUPE regulations apply.

But if Stagecoach don't want to sell and aren't forced to if they lose the contracts, does anyone who wants to compete with them in South Manchester need to price in the construction of a new depot, thus handing a big advantage to Stagecoach?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just an idle thought. This move to Socialist Transport Utopia may well be the harbinger of the return of the former council house stock from the hands of housing associations back to their former owners. I see a comparison between the two.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just an idle thought. This move to Socialist Transport Utopia may well be the harbinger of the return of the former council house stock from the hands of housing associations back to their former owners. I see a comparison between the two.

I don't really, because housing associations are nonprofit social enterprises whereas bus companies are very much for profit companies, give or take the odd exception i.e. community transport operations. If bus companies were all CICs existing for the benefit of their users, things would be quite different.

It isn't "socialist", anyway, it is simply the default across the world.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I have to confess that the change to the depot position (an option to sell rather than a compulsory purchase) is one that passed me by.

Like @Robertj21a says, it isn't that we haven't experienced integrated transport systems in Europe. I've travelled in the Netherlands and Germany, arguably the exemplars of good quality public transport, as well as other places (though I'd mention that outside of NL/DE, quality is more variable). People on these forums are passionately pro-public transport; we're not anti integration or a retention of the status quo. We want to see public transport that is integrated and to a high standard like those countries.

Clearly, this is going to happen, and whatever then occurs, it will be painted as a success. It's a bit like Brexit - a one way bet that can only go one way and if you have dissention, then you're just being negative.

This has been sold on integration being able to move seamlessly between modes (which we want) and therefore better fares as a consequence (which we want). It hasn't been sold on the premise that you might have fewer buses, or the removal of direct links. Is it because this isn't going to happen, or are they simply keeping quiet. The "London style scheme" will take £135m in set up costs IIRC. Now if we're talking of a London style network, or those that we've experienced in Western Europe....well it comes at a price and there's no escaping that. If we think that we can have London style without the London price tag.....well, why isn't London doing that? Manchester can apparently have better transport, better integration, orbital routes, newer vehicles etc without the money and without downsides..... really? To be funded by the relatively minor margin erosion of bus operators

That's before we get onto the fundamental issues that aren't being tackled. Things like the lack of bus priority so instead of being stuck in a private sector bus in a traffic jam, you have a franchised bus stuck in traffic. That makes no sense; picking up on an earlier point, what's to stop a load of bus priority being put in and then a commercial operator rerouting their services down a quieter parallel road? Well, you can tie in operators on minimum service levels to ensure the expenditure is made/recouped but, in any case, bus priority if done well will make the main road the fastest route anyway.

I hope my fears are unfounded but I fear that, yes, you can have the integrated ticketing, and that every bus will be the same colour (metrolink yellow?) but it won't be a public transport system. To make the sums add up, we'll have some hefty cuts on existing service corridors from perceived over provision or duplication when, in reality, it's a means to funnel people onto the trams whether it's convenient or not.

 

[edwin_m]

The Manchester franchise plan does nothing about unreliability (which requires reallocation of road use) or expense (it even hints at increasing bus fares, to reduce them involves putting money into the system). Areas like Brighton and Nottingham show what can happen if local authorities care more about the end result than political control of the resource.

Living in Nottingham, the bus service is better than in most other places but perhaps that's because the main operator is council-owned and, while it has to be treated at arms length, it's not as profit-motivated as the fully private companies. It's probably easier for the council to "sell" bus priority if the operator is working to a social objective rather than to maximise its profit. It probably isn't a coincidence that places like Edinburgh that also have good services also have public-owned operators.

Nevertheless the legally-enforced deregulation creates many of the same problems that exist elsewhere, the main one being lack of fares integration. In some areas the evening service from each operator is poor, but not too bad if all operators' services on nearby routes are considered. Particularly if returning home in the evening when services are less frequent, you face the choice in the morning of buying a cheaper single-operator day ticket or a more expensive multi-operator ticket or just a single, and you may have to wait longer or pay more for your bus home.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Living in Nottingham, the bus service is better than in most other places but perhaps that's because the main operator is council-owned and, while it has to be treated at arms length, it's not as profit-motivated as the fully private companies. It's probably easier for the council to "sell" bus priority if the operator is working to a social objective rather than to maximise its profit. It probably isn't a coincidence that places like Edinburgh that also have good services also have public-owned operators.

Though the other side of that is, to be fair, that the only municipals that have survived - Nottingham, Blackpool, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Newport and Reading, is that it? - are the better ones. The bad ones which were badly managed and not making any money were all flogged off because turning them round was too big a job.

Another thing worth considering is that the need in a smaller city is different from a bigger one. The benefits of interchange and "trunking" via rail are much better in a bigger city. Whereas in a smaller one, you probably only really need to consider getting "into town" and changing there. A smaller town is also more likely to be a natural monopoly. To use MK as an example, it doesn't save me any time to get a 4 to the station then a train to CMK, but if MK was the size of Manchester it might well do. It's quicker just to get the 4 all the way in. So the case for interchange in a smaller city is different from a larger one. The case for interchange somewhere the size of Nottingham or MK is (a) to get the train out of town, or (b) to switch to another bus route for another local destination where there isn't a through bus.

What we don't want to get into is a local bus lapping an estate then having to change to a bigger bus on the main road into town - people definitely won't accept that. Interchange onto rail carries benefits - it's faster and more comfortable - and so people will, if it's reliable and they aren't penalised for it - accept that, as demonstrated in Germany etc.

Nevertheless the legally-enforced deregulation creates many of the same problems that exist elsewhere, the main one being lack of fares integration. In some areas the evening service from each operator is poor, but not too bad if all operators' services on nearby routes are considered. Particularly if returning home in the evening when services are less frequent, you face the choice in the morning of buying a cheaper single-operator day ticket or a more expensive multi-operator ticket or just a single, and you may have to wait longer or pay more for your bus home.

Interestingly there doesn't seem to be anything to stop a Council tendering evening services to a different operator but mandating them to accept the main operator's tickets - the only thing is that they have to pay for that and the main operator isn't exactly going to give them money for it. That was done in MK until the point of the last big rationalisation. If you get rid of single-operator ticketing entirely you don't of course have that problem - each operator is paid "out of the pot" based on their contract.

That doesn't mean to say that there should just be a single level of ticketing for Greater Manchester, as that would be rather expensive if you just wanted to go from Fallowfield to the Uni or whatever, and no German system I know of has that. What you do is to determine price based on different factors. The usual German one, very closely copied by Merseyside, is to have cell-like zones, but if we were to be launching a new scheme now other options, such as the kilometric approach used by the Dutch OV-Chipkaart, may be preferable, as zones aren't designed for and don't work that well with tap-in, tap-out contactless, which is certain to become the main means of payment in the new GM system.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Living in Nottingham, the bus service is better than in most other places but perhaps that's because the main operator is council-owned and, while it has to be treated at arms length, it's not as profit-motivated as the fully private companies. It's probably easier for the council to "sell" bus priority if the operator is working to a social objective rather than to maximise its profit. It probably isn't a coincidence that places like Edinburgh that also have good services also have public-owned operators.

Nevertheless the legally-enforced deregulation creates many of the same problems that exist elsewhere, the main one being lack of fares integration. In some areas the evening service from each operator is poor, but not too bad if all operators' services on nearby routes are considered. Particularly if returning home in the evening when services are less frequent, you face the choice in the morning of buying a cheaper single-operator day ticket or a more expensive multi-operator ticket or just a single, and you may have to wait longer or pay more for your bus home.

Though Nottingham have also introduced a parking levy?

Brighton and Bristol don't have council-owned bus companies; they do have very good bus company managers and supportive local authorities though. Bristol is an interesting point in that there is a multi-operator day ticket that isn't promoted by First....but also doesn't form part of the tender requirements for the local authority tenders.

The binary "public sector good, private sector evil" is overly simplistic. Take Cardiff Bus who are a decent operator but seemingly thwarted by their council whereas along the road in Newport.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I hope my fears are unfounded but I fear that, yes, you can have the integrated ticketing, and that every bus will be the same colour (metrolink yellow?) but it won't be a public transport system.

That's a risk, yes. But the thing is, you can't have an effective system without central control - even the partnership approaches don't quite allow the level of network planning it needs. Thus, we get to choose between "no chance" and "some chance" - hopefully that makes it clear why I am so much in favour of at least giving this a go.

If, as I said, it's an abject failure, it should not be considered for elsewhere. But based on what basically every other country in the world in a similar economic position does - yes, even the super-capitalist USA - I don't see for a minute how it practically *could* be worse.

Brighton and Bristol don't have council-owned bus companies; they do have very good bus company managers and supportive local authorities though. Bristol is an interesting point in that there is a multi-operator day ticket that isn't promoted by First....but also doesn't form part of the tender requirements for the local authority tenders.

Brighton seems a success story as an effective monopoly (I think) but other than Hove doesn't have much in the way of local rail to integrate with, so is perhaps similar to MK but with a more proactive management* than Arriva ever seems to have. If you have a single monopoly operator they will tend to integrate with themselves if they think the business is there. For example, Stagecoach in the Lakes do through single tickets with interchange (though they don't seem to promote them, it was a proactive driver who offered one to me when I asked for a day ticket).

Bristol...I think I'd say "don't make me laugh" on that one (sorry) - I know a number of people who live there and have never heard a single good thing about their bus network - First are utterly reviled over there.

* MK is hard to serve by bus, but I genuinely think Arriva are poorly-managed and don't take even half the marketing opportunities that are there for them, and other than a bit of Stagecoach interloping on regional routes have a near-total monopoly, too. They basically act like an old-style NBC subsidiary, just managing a process of slow decline, grabbing planning gain routes then making no effort to grow them and them being binned off when it runs out.

 

[lincman]

I look 30 miles down the M62 to Merseyside, who seem to have more idea as to integrating public transport using a cooperative approach between operators and the authorities. I feel this franchising is just a politically motivated method of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

 

[domcoop7]

I have to confess that the change to the depot position (an option to sell rather than a compulsory purchase) is one that passed me by.

Yes they seem to have slipped that in. The consultation response in June 2020 talks about using Compulsory Purchase Orders still, but also talks a lot about "alternatives" and that GMCA would attempt alternative approaches first.

But buried away, in paragraph 17.5 at page 58 of the 23rd March report recommending proceeding, in a section about Human Rights Act challenges, it says:-

In this case the Proposed Franchising Scheme does not involve the expropriation of any depots or fleet, or any other property used in providing or supporting local services in Greater Manchester that any bus operator may own or lease. It has, however, the practical effect of limiting the use to which they may be put in providing or supporting such local services for the purpose of the business in which they are now employed. It will also effectively deprive any operator of any goodwill it has built up in respect of such services in Greater Manchester if it is unable to provide them under its brand.

There's words to similar effect elsewhere.

Now I may have misunderstood what they are saying, and they still plan to compulsorily purchase the depots. But the strong impression is that instead they are going to pressurise owners to sell instead. I expect it's legal advice. Rotala, in particular pointed out the Bolton depot is used by them as their management base for the whole North West, and also their driver training centre. Compulsorily purchasing it and requiring them to close down part of their business and relocate it elsewhere (with no compensation) would probably not get very far in the courts if they challenged it. Which they inevitably will.

I think they just expect that the depot owning groups will just hold out for sufficient cash to buy them off if necessary.

But I don't understand the rationale for the local authority to own the depots (TfL don't) other than empire building. They say it's to help bidders for the large franchises. But these are going (inevitably) to be the large groups, who are capable of getting by without any help. On the other hand, the smaller franchises (where depot provision would be an issue for anyone other than a nearby incumbent) are going to be left to their own devices, despite the fact these are the people who would need the help. Like I said above, the only other explanation is as a sop to the unions to make sure TUPE works and try to keep it so that the day to day job for the drivers remains the same, just with a different name on the top of the payslip.

Saying that, there's a clip of Burnham talking to some driver representatives on BBC North West Tonight. He seems completely clueless. The drivers ask questions like "will our pay and conditions be the same?" He mumbles about his "aim" is to have a Greater Manchester social contract for employers to guarantee terms and conditions. But doesn't answer the question. More tellingly, another driver asks how this is going to be paid for in the future. Again more mumbling (which isn't like Andy Burnham usually) and he starts talking about London gets lots of subsidy so he's hoping we will too, but if we don't we'll work it out!!!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I look 30 miles down the M62 to Merseyside, who seem to have more idea as to integrating public transport using a cooperative approach between operators and the authorities. I feel this franchising is just a politically motivated method of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

Can you give some examples, in particular of where there is no fare or timetable disadvantage to an integrated journey?

That said, Merseyside, because it's had an effective local rail service for far longer than Manchester, as well as an integrated season and day ticket system since the 1980s at least, has integration culturally more ingrained than Manchester, where it's more of a case of a decidedly lacking local rail service and a totally separate bus network laid on top, and Metrolink only relatively recently getting to (and arguably surpassing in some ways) the standard of Merseyrail. It also has had a history of very conservative main operators (MTL then Arriva), only shaken up really by Stagecoach's arrival on the scene after buying GTL. I've criticised Arriva's conservatism when it comes to MK, but when it comes to a PTE led partnership it's actually much better than operators minded to innovate to compete with other operators.

Saying that, there's a clip of Burnham talking to some driver representatives on BBC North West Tonight. He seems completely clueless. The drivers ask questions like "will our pay and conditions be the same?" He mumbles about his "aim" is to have a Greater Manchester social contract for employers to guarantee terms and conditions. But doesn't answer the question. More tellingly, another driver asks how this is going to be paid for in the future. Again more mumbling (which isn't like Andy Burnham usually) and he starts talking about London gets lots of subsidy so he's hoping we will too, but if we don't we'll work it out!!!!

The correct answer is, as for London, "that is between you and your employer and any Union you are a member of". I suspect he hasn't got the guts to say that in the left-leaning North, though.

 

[carlberry]

But I don't understand the rationale for the local authority to own the depots (TfL don't) other than empire building. They say it's to help bidders for the large franchises. But these are going (inevitably) to be the large groups, who are capable of getting by without any help. On the other hand, the smaller franchises (where depot provision would be an issue for anyone other than a nearby incumbent) are going to be left to their own devices, despite the fact these are the people who would need the help. Like I said above, the only other explanation is as a sop to the unions to make sure TUPE works and try to keep it so that the day to day job for the drivers remains the same, just with a different name on the top of the payslip.

Most of the idea is based on empire building, however owning the depots means you remove an issue for any sized company, and one which happens in London quite a bit with depots suddenly having space they cant use or running services that need a significant amount of dead running. Instead of each company only bidding for it's area and smaller companies having to find somewhere all anybody is bidding for is to run the routes, each tender states which depot they're being run out of and, once the tender is won, they setup their own admin from that depot. In theory you could have 10 different companies running from a depot each with their staff. Again the likely outcome is more cost because of all the admin required, however it would mean that all tenderers would start in much the same position.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most of the idea is based on empire building, however owning the depots means you remove an issue for any sized company, and one which happens in London quite a bit with depots suddenly having space they cant use or running services that need a significant amount of dead running. Instead of each company only bidding for it's area and smaller companies having to find somewhere all anybody is bidding for is to run the routes, each tender states which depot they're being run out of and, once the tender is won, they setup their own admin from that depot. In theory you could have 10 different companies running from a depot each with their staff. Again the likely outcome is more cost because of all the admin required, however it would mean that all tenderers would start in much the same position.

I think we may be overdoing the fairness angle here. The point of tendering (as distinct from direct operation, rather than as distinct from deregulated commercial operation) is to drive down costs. Whether Jock's Scottish Buses of Wick might be able to bid for Manchester contracts is really neither here nor there.

There are already a number of bus companies that operate out of Manchester or nearby - obviously First and Stagecoach, but also a lot of smaller operators, and coach companies that were once bus operators and easily could be again as they already have depots.

Thus I think fiddling with depots is pointless.

 

[lincman]

i have read through a lot of the posts here and there is something I would really like clarifying over TUPE. If an operator just for the sake of discussion First in Oldham does not win the local franchise and another operator moves in, what is the new operator taking over from First that would require it to offer TUPE to any of the staff it takes on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

i have read through a lot of the posts here and there is something I would really like clarifying over TUPE. If an operator just for the sake of discussion First in Oldham does not win the local franchise and another operator moves in, what is the new operator taking over from First that would require it to offer TUPE to any of the staff it takes on.

That is fairly standard for any tendering, isn't it? Though it might of course be that First gets other routes instead and offers to keep the staff.

I wonder does much TUPEing go on in London or do staff tend to stay with the operator as it's often a bit of a "routes go round" scenario?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Though the other side of that is, to be fair, that the only municipals that have survived - Nottingham, Blackpool, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Newport and Reading, is that it? - are the better ones. The bad ones which were badly managed and not making any money were all flogged off because turning them round was too big a job.

Another thing worth considering is that the need in a smaller city is different from a bigger one. The benefits of interchange and "trunking" via rail are much better in a bigger city. Whereas in a smaller one, you probably only really need to consider getting "into town" and changing there. A smaller town is also more likely to be a natural monopoly. To use MK as an example, it doesn't save me any time to get a 4 to the station then a train to CMK, but if MK was the size of Manchester it might well do. It's quicker just to get the 4 all the way in. So the case for interchange in a smaller city is different from a larger one. The case for interchange somewhere the size of Nottingham or MK is (a) to get the train out of town, or (b) to switch to another bus route for another local destination where there isn't a through bus.

What we don't want to get into is a local bus lapping an estate then having to change to a bigger bus on the main road into town - people definitely won't accept that. Interchange onto rail carries benefits - it's faster and more comfortable - and so people will, if it's reliable and they aren't penalised for it - accept that, as demonstrated in Germany etc.

I think we all agree that the premise as described is right. The ability to have buses that feed into key entry points/hubs/interchanges etc. That happens now with people being to travel into places like Eccles from, for example, Worsley or Patricroft and we've seen that along Eccles Old Road, the metrolink has reduced trade so that only a 30 min service is now commercially viable (but it is commercially viable).

What we don't want to see is the idea that the Worsley to Manchester route is simply truncated at Eccles and people popped on a tram to travel to Weaste. Avoiding the "Gateshead principle" is key. Where the tram exists, it has naturally decimated bus travel. That is, in many respects, fine as it means that people are using public transport per se. However, it means that there isn't overcapacity on parallel bus routes; those bus routes serve a purpose.

I have real concerns that if there's a promise of lower fares and integration and even additional orbital routes without the required funding, then we'll see headways and bus routes sacrificed. And yet we still won't have faced into the pro-car weighting of cheap parking, low car ownership costs, on-street parking providing both convenience for drivers whilst taking up road space that could be used for bus priority. Those cities that have been picked out as having increasing bus patronage aren't connected by having municipal council-owned, lower profit operators - they are connected by having good operators and, crucially, pro-active local authorities that work in partnership to make bus travel more reliable.

 

[domcoop7]

i have read through a lot of the posts here and there is something I would really like clarifying over TUPE. If an operator just for the sake of discussion First in Oldham does not win the local franchise and another operator moves in, what is the new operator taking over from First that would require it to offer TUPE to any of the staff it takes on.

It depends.

And those words are manna to heaven from lawyers who can take years long court cases to thrash it out and get paid significant fees for doing so!

Let's say TfGM split Oldham into two contracts. First win one of them, and Go Ahead win the other. If Go Ahead decide they can operate it from their own depot using their own buses and some of their own drivers, I'd say that any additional drivers taken on from First would not be subject to TUPE, because it isn't the transfer of a business from one owner to another, it's the change of a business. To use another example, if Debenhams goes bust, and then Primark buy their building, Primark aren't required to TUPE over the old Debenham's staff even though they're doing the same thing from the same location.

On the other hand, if Oldham was one entire contract, consisting of all the services from the depot, and Go Ahead wins it, and First sells the depot to TfGM, and Go Ahead operates the service from the depot, then TUPE would apply, as it's the same business (in effect) just a different name on the threshold of the front door.

They are the two extremes. Anything in between would be decided by the Employment Tribunal on a case by case basis if it ever got that far. I suspect the unions would be onto it long before hand to try to get some sort of deal done.

I wonder does much TUPEing go on in London or do staff tend to stay with the operator as it's often a bit of a "routes go round" scenario?

I wondered that too. Can't seem to see anything about it online though. Again I'd guess a single route is not going to be a TUPE situation, as the buses used and the drivers who drive aren't really tied to a single route so closely to make it a self-contained business unit. There could be 10 drivers rostered onto a particular route at any time of the day, who then go on to drive a different route later on. The new operator might choose to do it self-contained with the same 4 drivers, so it would be silly for TUPE to require the new operator to take all 10 drivers of the old company on.

 

[carlberry]

i have read through a lot of the posts here and there is something I would really like clarifying over TUPE. If an operator just for the sake of discussion First in Oldham does not win the local franchise and another operator moves in, what is the new operator taking over from First that would require it to offer TUPE to any of the staff it takes on.

A proper answer would require a lawyer, however as a public body is handing out contracts to operate bus services in Oldham it's likely that the new operator would be required to TUPE staff from existing operators of the same services (where they wanted to TUPE across). Given that it's a Labour authority doing it I cant imagine that offering a TUPE like transfer wouldnt be a starting point anyway, even if there might be some legal wiggle room if people wanted to take it to court.

 

[edwin_m]

Though Nottingham have also introduced a parking levy?

Brighton and Bristol don't have council-owned bus companies; they do have very good bus company managers and supportive local authorities though. Bristol is an interesting point in that there is a multi-operator day ticket that isn't promoted by First....but also doesn't form part of the tender requirements for the local authority tenders.

The binary "public sector good, private sector evil" is overly simplistic. Take Cardiff Bus who are a decent operator but seemingly thwarted by their council whereas along the road in Newport.....

The parking levy would probably have been politically more difficult if it was seen as shovelling money to bus barons, rather then helping an operator who is motivated by social objectives.

I agree municipal doesn't automatically mean good, but it's easier to implement improvements if the operator isn't purely profit-driven.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The parking levy would probably have been politically more difficult if it was seen as shovelling money to bus barons, rather then helping an operator who is motivated by social objectives.

I agree municipal doesn't automatically mean good, but it's easier to implement improvements if the operator isn't purely profit-driven.

I wonder how this has worked in Jersey where Libertybus is operated, I believe, by one of the community transport CICs? A CIC would seem to be a natural structure for the provision of public transport, indeed, as you don't have the profit layer, but you do have business-like operation. Very similar indeed to the way housing associations provided not-for-profit social housing outside of direct Council operation.

Of course Manchester could go that way if someone set up an operator CIC and successfully underbid the commercial operators, as they might reasonably be able to do as they won't want a 10% profit margin (or thereabouts).