TfGM Bus franchising

[radamfi]

Indeed, and it doesn't answer most the contradictions of the arguments.

Just because you don't have direct services between certain points doesn't mean that it should be preferable to remove existing ones? That they can sustain a commercial service shows that a demand exists.

That there are apparently cosy monopolies and people creaming it in, and yet, despite this we seem to have an overbussed network which is what you don't get in a monopoly situation. Oxford Road is often quoted but even if that was reduced modestly, the sums involved are minimal.

Or that if you reduce this overbussing on Service A, then those resources can somehow be redeployed. So you reduce the costs on Service A, yet despite reducing the service, trust that revenue will remain the same? Sound counter intuitive?

The costs saved on Service A can be used to sustain the uncommercially viable Service B. Really?

Just don't see where the money is actually coming from.

The vast majority of origin-destination pairs don't have direct services and are therefore left to the car if interchanging is not made attractive or at least not as easy as possible.

Competition is now not the primary cause of overbussing in Greater Manchester. There are several corridors that have multiple routes which split off into branches, meaning over-provision on the trunk. It is British tradition and it happened before 1986.

We should not think in terms of distinct services A and B. It is the overall network that counts.

 

[WatcherZero]

Is the Part B report that is referred to, and which presumably holds the all important financial figures, available online?

Not as far as I can see: Full meeting papers for the meeting here: https://www.gmcameetings.co.uk/meetings/meeting/712/greater_manchester_combined_authority

Council and government meeting 'Part A's are for public disclosure, 'Part B's are commercially sensitive information (such as discussing tenders, value of land that is to be sold, procurement budgets and how much they are willing to pay a contractor for something, wages of employees and applicants for vacancies, etc...) and not for public release, journalists and members of the public have to leave the room when these parts of the Agenda are discussed.

 

[Stan Drews]

Council and government meeting 'Part A's are for public disclosure, 'Part B's are commercially sensitive information (such as discussing tenders, value of land that is to be sold, procurement budgets and how much they are willing to pay a contractor for something, wages of employees and applicants for vacancies, etc...) and not for public release, journalists and members of the public have to leave the room when these parts of the Agenda are discussed.

It’ll be interesting to see if they airbrush out all the funding requirements when it goes out for public consultation, or if it will just be layer upon layer of sugar coating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We should not think in terms of distinct services A and B. It is the overall network that counts.

I agree. A good start would be to start surveying why people don't use the bus and try to find those journeys that it really isn't providing for.

But a first step (and it took London long enough) would be to stop penalising people for having to change bus, when they are already penalised by not having a through service. Paying per vehicle journey on boarding is an archaic and ridiculous method of charging.

 

[158756]

I agree. A good start would be to start surveying why people don't use the bus and try to find those journeys that it really isn't providing for.

But a first step (and it took London long enough) would be to stop penalising people for having to change bus, when they are already penalised by not having a through service. Paying per vehicle journey on boarding is an archaic and ridiculous method of charging.

Unless there's a situation involving Magic Bus I don't know about it never makes sense to buy four singles or two returns instead of a day ticket on the same company anyway. Eliminating operator specific tickets will make the biggest difference for connecting journeys. How successful has the hopper fare been in London?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How successful has the hopper fare been in London?

It's been used a slightly different way there - easier connections has allowed through services to be cut.

 

[radamfi]

It's been used a slightly different way there - easier connections has allowed through services to be cut.

That shows that even in London they didn't implement penalty-free interchange until it was forced upon them. Regulation is therefore no guarantee of having a proper integrated fare system and there is still poor fare integration with the Tube, DLR and National Rail.

Unless there's a situation involving Magic Bus I don't know about it never makes sense to buy four singles or two returns instead of a day ticket on the same company anyway. Eliminating operator specific tickets will make the biggest difference for connecting journeys.

Assuming a single fare of £2.90 (or more), a single journey involving a change between 2 Stagecoach buses is £4.80 and a single journey involving a change between a Stagecoach and other company bus is £5.80. Yes, it isn't so bad if you are coming back the same way later that day, but you shouldn't have to buy a day ticket when you are actually making just one journey.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I agree. A good start would be to start surveying why people don't use the bus and try to find those journeys that it really isn't providing for.

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't be pursuing franchising until we know what the problem actually is?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't be pursuing franchising until we know what the problem actually is?

I wouldn't say that. Franchising[1] will allow the decisions needed to be made on a network basis, so it has a strength in itself.

[1] I think "tendering" may be a better description - I don't think they intend to franchise out the whole network.

 

[158756]

I wouldn't say that. Franchising[1] will allow the decisions needed to be made on a network basis, so it has a strength in itself.

[1] I think "tendering" may be a better description - I don't think they intend to franchise out the whole network.

I don't know what it should be called, but I would assume the idea would be similar to London (but with much less money available), though I think it has been suggested before they'd tender groups of routes rather than individually like London.

 

[Stan Drews]

Judging by the comments on an article on the MEN website, Mr Burnham is going to have quite a challenge on his hands to persuade the masses, once he actually has to reveal the costs to deliver his wonderful utopia. I was expecting lots of comments slagging off the bus coys, but could only see a small number (out of around 95) when I looked.
Also interesting that the BBC regional news reports was suggesting the bizarre ‘map’ that he included in his presentation, indicated lots of new bus routes, when it just appears to represent the current network. I assume they have done so, due to how it has been worded in accompanying media release, rather than down to any diligent researcher.

 

[Megafuss]

Burnham does like to put on a show doesn't he?. Still, I am reminded of one of the lessons NEXUS themselves learned from the doomed franchising process a few years back

"Manage expectations for the scheme – set clear parameters for network growth and fare increases, hardwire them into analysis to ensure affordability"

Good look Andy....

 

[WatcherZero]

Theres some bus routes added forming an outer circular of the towns.
We also know how much the free bus travel for 16-18 year olds will cost, £1m set up then £9.3m per annum.

 

[158756]

Theres some bus routes added forming an outer circular of the towns.
We also know how much the free bus travel for 16-18 year olds will cost, £1m set up then £9.3m per annum.

If you mean on the circular diagram I can only notice the links either side of Irlam which don't currently exist? They make the map look nice but I doubt they'll be at the front of the queue for limited funds. Also the diagram seems to imply the Airport replacing Wythenshawe centre as an interchange - not sure that'd be a great idea either.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Oxford Road would be the classic, though it's not as bad as it was.

Oxford Road, it must be remembered, carries the extremely large numerical Manchester University student population from their accommodation to and from the university, in addition to being on the line of many bus routes that serve the southern suburbs of the conurbation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you mean on the circular diagram I can only notice the links either side of Irlam which don't currently exist? They make the map look nice but I doubt they'll be at the front of the queue for limited funds. Also the diagram seems to imply the Airport replacing Wythenshawe centre as an interchange - not sure that'd be a great idea either.

Wythenshawe town centre is an long-established central shopping centre with its precinct and its new bus station is far better in all respects than the triangular shaped one it replaced. It has its own Metrolink station and meets all existing interchange requirements. Only Woodhouse Park, of all the Wythenshawe districts, would benefit directly from what seems to be intimated above, whereas people from other areas of Wythenshawe would face longer journey times to and from an interchange at the airport.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I wouldn't say that. Franchising[1] will allow the decisions needed to be made on a network basis, so it has a strength in itself.

[1] I think "tendering" may be a better description - I don't think they intend to franchise out the whole network.

The question still persists - would/should you consult the people who don't use buses to find out why before making a fundamental change, whatever that is? Forgive me, I am being a little provocative on that one, so I'm not really expecting a discussion on that point

For me, there are two main areas where I struggle to see how this is all going to be funded. Stagecoach is often cited as making exorbitant profits (c.15% on the latest financials) and they made £17.6m in 2018. If it made half of that (a realistic 7.5% in a franchised world), then you've £9m. A minimal sum given the sums involved in London's buses. Then you have the over-bussing argument (and so savings to be had) again just doesn't stand up to the real world. That there are supposedly great corridors where the stem is overbussed because of the need to create direct links just doesn't hold up when you have a commercial operation. That is especially so these days when operators are truncating services and simplifying them because the amount of MIR that ticket machines produce means you know more than ever when and where people travel.

I would love to see improvements to buses in Greater Manchester and elsewhere, but the funding is the elephant in the room.

 

[Stan Drews]

If you combined the annual Stagecoach profit and the First loss, there probably isn’t enough to fund the 16-18yo freebie. However, I’m sure the money tree plantation will be expertly cultivated.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If you combined the annual Stagecoach profit and the First loss, there probably isn’t enough to fund the 16-18yo freebie. However, I’m sure the money tree plantation will be expertly cultivated.

Don't forget that you will also need to fund the managerial and administrative resource to manage this new regime too!

 

[radamfi]

TThat there are supposedly great corridors where the stem is overbussed because of the need to create direct links just doesn't hold up when you have a commercial operation. That is especially so these days when operators are truncating services and simplifying them because the amount of MIR that ticket machines produce means you know more than ever when and where people travel.

You don't need so many routes going the same way between Manchester and Middleton, or between Manchester and Oldham, or between Manchester and Eccles, or between Manchester and Denton. Just a few examples.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You don't need so many routes going the same way between Manchester and Middleton, or between Manchester and Oldham, or between Manchester and Eccles, or between Manchester and Denton. Just a few examples.

One of the criticisms of the current system is that there are two many cosy monopolies and that firms maximise profit. That doesn't promote excessive empty capacity. Manchester to Oldham/Eccles have already been massively impacted by the tram so I very much doubt that there's some massive dividend there. Manchester to Eccles routes provide the connectivity and other links (e.g. Pendleton, Hospital) that the tram doesn't.

 

[radamfi]

One of the criticisms of the current system is that there are two many cosy monopolies and that firms maximise profit. That doesn't promote excessive empty capacity. Manchester to Oldham/Eccles have already been massively impacted by the tram so I very much doubt that there's some massive dividend there. Manchester to Eccles routes provide the connectivity and other links (e.g. Pendleton, Hospital) that the tram doesn't.

Frequencies are kept unnecessarily high because of the perception that everywhere needs a direct bus to the city centre and to stop potential competition. There is surely more than enough capacity between Oldham and Manchester with the 83 at least every 10, 180/183/184 every 10 and the tram every 6 minutes. Keep the 83 and terminate the 180/183/184 at Hollinwood tram stop. You could choose one high frequency route between Manchester and Eccles, say the 67. All other routes via Salford could interchange with that at Salford Crescent or Pendleton Shopping Centre.

 

[carlberry]

Frequencies are kept unnecessarily high because of the perception that everywhere needs a direct bus to the city centre and to stop potential competition. There is surely more than enough capacity between Oldham and Manchester with the 83 at least every 10, 180/183/184 every 10 and the tram every 6 minutes. Keep the 83 and terminate the 180/183/184 at Hollinwood tram stop. You could choose one high frequency route between Manchester and Eccles, say the 67. All other routes via Salford could interchange with that at Salford Crescent or Pendleton Shopping Centre.

This works wonderfully for electricity and parcels, not so well for self loading cargo. It's the kind of attitude that drove people off of buses back in the 'golden age' and lots of them then use cars instead.

 

[radamfi]

This works wonderfully for electricity and parcels, not so well for self loading cargo. It's the kind of attitude that drove people off of buses back in the 'golden age' and lots of them then use cars instead.

This "attitude" is normal outside the UK and works well. Even London exists does this to an extent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This works wonderfully for electricity and parcels, not so well for self loading cargo. It's the kind of attitude that drove people off of buses back in the 'golden age' and lots of them then use cars instead.

Have a nose at the ridership in Germany, where the purpose of a bus is to take you to the nearest rapid-transit railway station (i.e. Metrolink), and think again.

 

[duncombec]

This "attitude" is normal outside the UK and works well. Even London exists does this to an extent.

It might work well elsewhere, but you cannot just force-reproduce behaviour. We're in "continental cafe culture" [for which read: French] territory again here.

As Carl says, it has been tried before and did not go down well. There is great disgruntlement in London because of the enforced changing. You cannot force people to like changing any more than you can increase the price of fuel/driving and force people out of their cars. One person's "overbussing" is another person's "convenience". One person's "simple change" is another person's "complex public transport".

Your idea that someone travelling through from Huddersfield on the 184 should be thrown off at a tramstop in the middle of the proverbial nowhere to continue their journey defies explanation, not least because you can stand in Huddersfield and see "Manchester" and go "oh, a direct link." Seeing "Hollinwood" is more likely to provoke reactions of "where's that". Hollinwood is also on an embankment, which requires use of stairs or a lift... it is not the sort of "cross-platform interchange" that appears in a small minority of places in limited areas of Europe that are so popularly quoted.

Personally, I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned the shock-horror that a report commissioned by a pro-franchisng mayor should come out in favour of franchising...

 

[duncombec]

Have a nose at the ridership in Germany, where the purpose of a bus is to take you to the nearest rapid-transit railway station (i.e. Metrolink), and think again.

Would that be ridership in Germany which is generally stagnant, with no effort made to increase patronage (to quote the Director of a German-based bus firm to the Omnibus Society last year)?

What about the vast areas of Germany where the bus is the _only_ public transport?

 

[radamfi]

As Carl says, it has been tried before and did not go down well. There is great disgruntlement in London because of the enforced changing. You cannot force people to like changing any more than you can increase the price of fuel/driving and force people out of their cars. One person's "overbussing" is another person's "convenience". One person's "simple change" is another person's "complex public transport".

One thing is sure, you won't get high levels of ridership unless people change, because it is impossible to run a direct service from everywhere to everywhere.

 

[radamfi]

stagnant

Patronage is often described as rising, stagnant or falling, but that is not really important. Suppose one place doubles mode share from 10% to 20% but another place is "stagnant" because it doesn't go above 40%. In this case, "stagnant" is good.

 

[radamfi]

Your idea that someone travelling through from Huddersfield on the 184 should be thrown off at a tramstop in the middle of the proverbial nowhere to continue their journey defies explanation, not least because you can stand in Huddersfield and see "Manchester" and go "oh, a direct link." Seeing "Hollinwood" is more likely to provoke reactions of "where's that". Hollinwood is also on an embankment, which requires use of stairs or a lift... it is not the sort of "cross-platform interchange" that appears in a small minority of places in limited areas of Europe that are so popularly quoted.

People from Huddersfield can change at Oldham Mumps or even get the train the whole way. The connection at Hollinwood is only needed for people going between Oldham and Hollinwood. Hollinwood surely is one of the better places for an interchange, given it is also a major park and ride site.