TfGM Bus franchising

[317 forever]

I picked out these two quotes and highlighted the main issues in red (keeping Neil's boldening).

It's incredibly easy to suggest that cost is not a factor. It clearly is. Good public transport costs money; that is demonstrated by London and it's demonstrated by Germany in that farebox revenue only covers about 80% of costs. Like you, I've traveled in Germany and Netherlands where public transport is good (although not perfect) and better than the UK. In the UK, we have not invested in public transport as much as we should have and much of the spend has been directed at rail. So we look at a system, largely left to the commercial realities and a reluctance to do anything that may upset voters car owners. Public transport is treated societally differently and that goes further such as in planning and development practices.

The "Gateshead example" is used to discredit the concept of bus/rail integration in much the same way that Oxford Road in Manchester is trotted out as an exemplar of the ills of deregulated buses and how it is hopelessly overbussed and so represents low hanging fruit; a veritable raft of competing services begging for rationalisation when, in reality, they aren't. It was in 1990 when all and sundry were competing, or in 2000 when UK North were jangling their spurs but not now. The competition is the private car not some cowboy with a load of ex GM Atlanteans.

The plans for franchising in Greater Manchester don't do any flipping thing to curbing private car use or to improve bus priority; stuff that could be done now. Today. Instead, TfGM have busied themselves with building self-aggrandising monuments like Wigan bus station.

Should these proposals go through (as I suspect they will - seems a fait accompli) then the argument that it can always be reversed is pointless. The property assets are being purchased at rock bottom prices and the business removed from the operator. If Go NW were not to win Queens Road depot (e.g. it was awarded to Abellio) and in 5 years time, it was decided that franchising hadn't worked, then said depot and fleet would simply revert back to Go Ahead....? Of course not.

Not that franchising will be a failure - it will be promoted by politicians as succeeding on whatever selective metric they choose. Apologies for the cynicism but it's oft been quoted by Burnham about how much bus patronage has fallen in GM. Treated in isolation and never linking that to the expansion of the Metrolink! We've seen in Brighton what an enlightened local authority and a similar bus company can do - a true partnership where both parties contribute and benefit rather than some centralised model where the answer will invariably be central decided and involve Metrolink. That's not to give operators a free pass - Stagecoach are a decent operator with consistent investment into the area whereas First and Arriva have been sporadic; their marketing is also poor (but so is TfGMs).

Mixing politics and public transport rarely ends well - see Cornwall!

A difference between Brighton and Manchester is that Brighton is mainly served by 1 operator, Go-Ahead subsidiary Brighton & Hove. Manchester potentially has the most fragmented network of any of the main cities in Britain. Most buses from central Manchester to the following towns are run by different operators, as follows:

Altrincham - Arriva
Eccles - Go North West
Bolton - Diamond
Ramsbottom - Transdev
Shaw - First
Stockport - Stagecoach

Although thankfully GM has System 1 and Get Me There tickets, people need to know in advance whether they need a multi-operator ticket or can make do with a single-operator ticket. At least with the London Oystercard, you can travel wherever you want, with buses treated as a single operation, and you are charged the minimum reasonable fare for your combination of journeys.

 

[Ianno87]

A difference between Brighton and Manchester is that Brighton is mainly served by 1 operator, Go-Ahead subsidiary Brighton & Hove. Manchester potentially has the most fragmented network of any of the main cities in Britain. Most buses from central Manchester to the following towns are run by different operators, as follows:

Altrincham - Arriva
Eccles - Go North West
Bolton - Diamond
Ramsbottom - Transdev
Shaw - First
Stockport - Stagecoach

It's only the recent breakup that has caused that gas caused that - previously near the whole of northern GM was First territory (what was GM Buses North), and Stagecoach in the South (GM Buses South), plus the odd "enclave" here and there (e.g. Rossi in parts of Bury/Rochdale, Arriva in Altrincham, etc)

 

[317 forever]

I can only suppose that when Go Ahead and Rotala bought the Manchester and Bolton depots from First, it was in the knowledge that franchising was a very definite aspiration for TfGM and Andy Burnham. These purchases would provide a ready-made footprint/base from which to tender for routes etc.

Instead, the proposed scheme is that they could lose their purchases overnight and only receive the rock bottom price for the property. Rotala is seeking a full judicial review whilst Go Ahead initially held the same view but has now changed its position so that they don't lose everything overnight and that there's a phased transition to a world more akin to London.

It is unfortunate for these operators, and potentially Stagecoach, that there looks like being local network franchising not individual route tendering as in London. At least then they would stand a chance of retaining most routes or gaining some to compensate for losses. So for example, Diamond could lose route 163 to Go North West but gain route 33 from Go North West.

Picking up on posts #406 and #410, there are just 2 other remaining municipals: Ipswich and Warrington. Warrington have of course expressed interest in running buses in a regulated Greater Manchester. Also, as TfL do not own bus depots, this restricts bids for any route to operators relatively local to the route. There have also for several years been just 10 participants in TfL bus tendering.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is unfortunate for these operators, and potentially Stagecoach, that there looks like being local network franchising not individual route tendering as in London. At least then they would stand a chance of retaining most routes or gaining some to compensate for losses. So for example, Diamond could lose route 163 to Go North West but gain route 33 from Go North West.

Picking up on posts #406 and #410, there are just 2 other remaining municipals: Ipswich and Warrington. Warrington have of course expressed interest in running buses in a regulated Greater Manchester. Also, as TfL do not own bus depots, this restricts bids for any route to operators relatively local to the route. There have also for several years been just 10 participants in TfL bus tendering.

The remaining municipals are Blackpool, Warrington, Nottingham, Reading, Ipswich, Newport, Cardiff, and Lothian. As has been said, the number of operators was relatively small with First having most of the northern half of the conurbation and Stagecoach having the south and Wigan (purchased from First) until they sold Queens Road and Bolton. Arriva has a couple of niche areas in south Manchester and Bolton. Transdev really is a limited presence. And yes, Warrington would be interested..... however, just for argument, you expanded the franchise system to encompass Warrington so that their depot and operations were also on the line....would they be as keen???

Whilst you may say that having local depots restricts bids, it also means that having this type of large network tenders will automatically skew this towards the larger operators anyway.

And I'm still waiting for the answer as to how you get a London (or European) style system without the external funding that those examples require.

 

[Goldfish62]

And yes, Warrington would be interested..... however, just for argument, you expanded the franchise system to encompass Warrington so that their depot and operations were also on the line....would they be as keen???

It's happened with Rotala. In the first consultation they were keen because they saw it as an opportunity to expand. Then they bought Bolton off First and now they're violently opposed to franchising.

Horses for courses.

Regarding Warrington, it's simply doing what any business would do in the circumstances. Seeing potential new opportunities. Same with Transdev.

 

[AB93]

It's only the recent breakup that has caused that gas caused that - previously near the whole of northern GM was First territory (what was GM Buses North), and Stagecoach in the South (GM Buses South), plus the odd "enclave" here and there (e.g. Rossi in parts of Bury/Rochdale, Arriva in Altrincham, etc)

A break up, ironically, caused by the amount of money First were losing on their Manchester operations and a desire to sell out.

The resulting fragmentation aids the argument for franchising; it certainly doesn't come with any evidence of evil profits to be instead directed towards the new system, though...

 

[domcoop7]

The resulting fragmentation aids the argument for franchising; it certainly doesn't come with any evidence of evil profits to be instead directed towards the new system, though...

This is the key. Franchising or re-regulation has been pushed for a long time by organisations such as GMPTE in the 1990s (who were obviously the transport co-ordinating body after deregulation) / AGMA in the early 2000s (the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, a non-statutory organisation representing councils in the local area) / GMCA after 2011 (Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which is the statutory body AGMA turned into) and TfGM (the replacement after 2011 for GMPTE) and Andy Burnham after 2017. If any of them had been honest over the years as to why they were calling for Franchising, and what they hoped to achieve by it, then I could understand.

But all along these various organisations have always stuck to two key issues:

1. London bus patronage grew from 1985, whereas Manchester declined (and if we have the same regulatory system as London, our bus services will magically become the same as London's)
2. London fares are cheaper than Manchester's and allow use of the tube, trams and some trains, whereas Manchester's don't. (and if we have the same regulatory system as London, all the profits the evil bus companies are making will be removed and prices will come down).

None of those two things follow from re-regulation.

I know Twitter isn't real life, but it reflects the views of the political class. So here's some quotes as to how this has been sold.

@tribunemagazine, 25th March:- "Today, Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham announced that the region's buses will be brought back into public ownership – it's a victory for campaigners and a model the whole country should follow." - 2,256 likes, including one Jeremy Corbyn replying "Well done and Manchester. End the legacy of Thatcherite destruction of public services!"

The Guardian newspaper, 27th March:- "Andy Burnham is taking back the buses – and it could be transformative. By Andrew Fisher. Privatisation and austerity have decimated Britain’s bus routes. The Manchester mayor is right to intervene"

@stuartmaconie - 26th March - "Since you ask, yes. Gtr Manchester's buses are back in public ownership. They should never have left it. Read about it in my book The Nanny State Made Me. And thanks Andy Burnham" - 1,400 likes

A member of the public: on 25th March:- "Will we get affordable London style fares and touch in touch out payment too?". Reply from Andy Burnham:- "We will [thumbs up]" = 1,100 likes.

This selection of tweets, implying that the buses will be renationalised (or in one case have already been(!)) and will suddenly become cheaper have all been re-tweeted by Andy Burnham himself.

People are going to be in for a big shock, when they find out that all that's happened is they've painted the buses yellow, cut back some services to end at rail stations and Metrolink, and put the council tax up.

 

[Ken H]

He would be better creating a region-wide ticketing system like London has. No need to issue cards, people can use their bank cards. If he could get Burnley -Blackburn - Preston in the scheme it would be a winner. Who actually runs the buses is irrelevant, as is the livery they have.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is there anything in the documentation of this project that will say what the likely financial precept on Council Tax bills will be?

 

[Bletchleyite]

He would be better creating a region-wide ticketing system like London has. No need to issue cards, people can use their bank cards. If he could get Burnley -Blackburn - Preston in the scheme it would be a winner. Who actually runs the buses is irrelevant, as is the livery they have.

You've got to start somewhere, and "the area you're responsible for" is a good start.

In any case who other than ENCTS passholders is going to do that journey by bus when it'd be loads quicker by train?

 

[Ken H]

You've got to start somewhere, and "the area you're responsible for" is a good start.

In any case who other than ENCTS passholders is going to do that journey by bus when it'd be loads quicker by train?

Doing anything for an artificially created area is daft. Manchester is important to a larger area than the county. For work, shopping and leisure venues.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When this new system is fully operational, will ENCTS pass holders no longer have to pay the current £10 annual surcharge that allows them to use the tram and train in the "Greater Manchester" area administered by TfGM.

 

[Ianno87]

When this new system is fully operational, will ENCTS pass holders no longer have to pay the current £10 annual surcharge that allows them to use the tram and train in the "Greater Manchester" area administered by TfGM.

Probably not decided yet. Though it's not obvious why removal of the fee would be in anyway related to bus franchising.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When this new system is fully operational, will ENCTS pass holders no longer have to pay the current £10 annual surcharge that allows them to use the tram and train in the "Greater Manchester" area administered by TfGM.

I suspect no, it won't, nor do I see why this has anything to do with franchising.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I suspect no, it won't, nor do I see why this has anything to do with franchising.

In answer to your franchising query, I thought that bus, train and tram were all to be put on a level playing field. Am I wrong in this assumption?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In answer to your franchising query, I thought that bus, train and tram were all to be put on a level playing field. Am I wrong in this assumption?

Ah, I see. I'm sure TfGM would like to apply the fee to all passes but they can't legally do that. We shall see.

 

[Goldfish62]

doing anything for an artificially created area is daft. manchester is important to a larger area than the county. For work, shopping and leisure venues.

Are you referring specifically to the City of Manchester, or to Greater Manchester?

 

[edwin_m]

Several contributors are saying franchising won't deliver various desirable outcomes. This is true as far as it goes, but isn't particularly helpful. Franchising or something very similar is a necessary condition to achieve actual benefits, of which fares integration is the probably the most significant. I believe if it is followed through with appropriate funding and commitment to bus priority etc, it's probably the only way of improving the present fairly dismal situation.

 

[domcoop7]

Several contributors are saying franchising won't deliver various desirable outcomes. This is true as far as it goes, but isn't particularly helpful. Franchising or something very similar is a necessary condition to achieve actual benefits, of which fares integration is the probably the most significant. I believe if it is followed through with appropriate funding and commitment to bus priority etc, it's probably the only way of improving the present fairly dismal situation.

If there's money for funding and bus priority, etc., then it could happen without franchising. If there isn't money for these things, then franchising won't achieve much (or anything) save for network rationalisation.

They'll paint the buses yellow (but they can insist on this anyway without franchising under the partnership model that's going to be compulsory from next March).

They'll have price-capped multi-modal tickets (which they can also insist on anyway under a partnership model).

And we have £135m to pay just to set it up and an unspecified amount funded by a combination of council tax rises under the "mayoral precept", and further council tax rises or service cuts under the "borough contribution".

And services will be taken off routes where there's so-called "overbussing" (i.e. the routes people actually use) and directed to where the local authority's bureaucrats have decided people should be forced to use instead.

 

[carlberry]

Several contributors are saying franchising won't deliver various desirable outcomes. This is true as far as it goes, but isn't particularly helpful. Franchising or something very similar is a necessary condition to achieve actual benefits, of which fares integration is the probably the most significant. I believe if it is followed through with appropriate funding and commitment to bus priority etc, it's probably the only way of improving the present fairly dismal situation.

Franchising doesn't change anything other than who's in control, plus puts a serious amount of money down the toilet changing the system. And the point here is the waste in changing the system, not defending one method or another. Some people don't like the current system because of politics, some because they cant stop people using the buses they want to use.

Bus priority would make a difference, but doesn't need franchising.

Appropriate funding would make a difference but doesn't need franchising. (Oddly the Blair government managed to introduced loads of new bus services all over the place without franchising but with appropriate funding).

Fares integration doesn't need franchising (it's easier with franchising, however it's perfectly doable with the current legal framework if the parties involved actually talked to each other instead of having already decided they wanted absolute control).

 

[edwin_m]

Fares integration doesn't need franchising (it's easier with franchising, however it's perfectly doable with the current legal framework if the parties involved actually talked to each other instead of having already decided they wanted absolute control).

Is there anywhere with full fares integration across multiple operators under a deregulated system?

"Full fares integration" includes no penalty if a journey involves travelling with more than one operator.

 

[carlberry]

Is there anywhere with full fares integration across multiple operators under a deregulated system?

"Full fares integration" includes no penalty if a journey involves travelling with more than one operator.

ENCTS operates under deregulation. Manchester current day tickets operate under deregulation. Whatever 'full fares integration' is defined at is quite possible under deregulation with discussions and the finance to operate it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It just means "Transport Union". Associating anything German with the Nazis in the 21st century comes across just a little xenophobic imho.

It's a concept used all over western Europe to integrate public transport within and across municipal areas/regions.

After leaving the EU, why do people persist in gloryfying Germanic phrases on any British transport undertaking, this website in particular being prone to such matters. It makes it worse, when it comes to British transport places, such as Manchester Airport, when a certain website member does exactly what you mention as "just a little xenophobic" when he refers to that airport as Ringway.

 

[Deerfold]

ENCTS operates under deregulation. Manchester current day tickets operate under deregulation. Whatever 'full fares integration' is defined at is quite possible under deregulation with discussions and the finance to operate it.

But there is a penalty for travelling with more than one operator - single operator tickets are cheaper than System One tickets.

After leaving the EU, why do people persist in gloryfying Germanic phrases on any British transport undertaking, this website in particular being prone to such matters. It makes it worse, when it comes to British transport places, such as Manchester Airport, when a certain website member does exactly what you mention as "just a little xenophobic" when he refers to that airport as Ringway.

No-one was glorifying anything. They were using a German phrase. Germany is still in the same place.

Not sure of your point with Manchester Airport, though its original name was Ringway

 

[Bletchleyite]

It just means "Transport Union". Associating anything German with the Nazis in the 21st century comes across just a little xenophobic imho.

It's a concept used all over western Europe to integrate public transport within and across municipal areas/regions.

It's a bit like TfL in concept (basically an overarching controlling organisation integrating and managing/contracting all public transport in an area) but because we only have one of them (TfL) there isn't an English word for it - it is much more than a PTE. A bit like we have to write a sentence to describe a Taktfahrplan.

If we'd actually done that, "integrated transport authority" would work, but the actual ITAs were nothing of the sort.

Is there anywhere with full fares integration across multiple operators under a deregulated system?

"Full fares integration" includes no penalty if a journey involves travelling with more than one operator.

It's not possible under competition law; it would be seen as anticompetitive/a cartel to withdraw all operator specific fares in a commercial market.

After leaving the EU, why do people persist in gloryfying Germanic phrases on any British transport undertaking, this website in particular being prone to such matters. It makes it worse, when it comes to British transport places, such as Manchester Airport, when a certain website member does exactly what you mention as "just a little xenophobic" when he refers to that airport as Ringway.

Because Germany is the model for such things and there isn't a UK word to describe those concepts a lot of the time as we don't tend to do them.

I use Ringway as somewhere between historic reference and a bit of light hearted banter. I use Taktfahrplan, say, because typing out "clockface timetable with integrated planned connections" is rather an effort.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's not possible under competition law; it would be seen as anticompetitive/a cartel to withdraw all operator specific fares in a commercial market.

It is possible - it just needs to be brokered by an impartial third party like.... a local authority or a PTE. You can travel on any bus between Bath and Bristol via Keynsham and fares/tickets are interavailable as brokered by Bath and North East Somerset council. The same also existed between Bristol and Nailsea though it has now reverted to First only

 

[carlberry]

But there is a penalty for travelling with more than one operator - single operator tickets are cheaper than System One tickets.

This only mirrors the current setup for the all operator tickets where there is a different price for bus and bus/tram (the price changes depending on how useful it is). Again, this can be fixed with discussions and the finance to operate it. Decide what tickets you want to offer, decide on a price then agree with the operators how they're going to be reimbursed. The ability for local authorities to do this already exists and the latest buses bill suggests they'll have even more ability to do it.

 

[Stan Drews]

Is there anywhere with full fares integration across multiple operators under a deregulated system?

"Full fares integration" includes no penalty if a journey involves travelling with more than one operator.

Is it a penalty for travelling with more than one operator, or a discount for travelling with only one operator?

 

[Glenn1969]

Remember that this was not a unanimous vote (Bolton said no) and that in a referendum GM said no to a Congestion Charge which meant that a Transport Investment Fund that would have funded many public transport improvements was rejected and didn't happen

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it a penalty for travelling with more than one operator, or a discount for travelling with only one operator?

It doesn't matter what it's called - either way it's a highly unfair and quite regressive[1] way of setting up the fares on urban public transport. Clearly one fare level won't work either, but things like zones or simple kilometric distance are a fairer way.

[1] Because it's more likely poorer people will work outside the centre so need 2 buses, and more likely they won't just drive instead as they can't afford a car.