TfGM Bus franchising

[carlberry]

Most people seem to think that there will be considerably fewer buses in the city centre, because there will be a greater reliance on using connections and reduced frequency on main routes to allow for improvements in areas which are currently underserved. Most cities outside Britain seem to try to minimise the number of buses in the city centre.

I have a suspicion that a lot of people on enthusiast orientated forums such as this don't like franchising because it will make the scene more boring. Especially having fewer liveries and fewer service changes. When companies start up "innovative" routes there is a lot of excitement on here, even if most of the time they end up being withdrawn a few months later. See how few posts there are on London buses on here. On a more infrastructure related forum I read there seems to be hardly any debate about franchising and everyone seems to think it is obviously a good thing.

So anybody who's anti franchising is only anti it because of the colour of the buses, but it's OK to look forward to franchising reducing the attractiveness of public transport in the city centre! At least having less buses will give more space for cars!

I also hadn't noticed any lack of interest in London's buses, even back in the 1960s when they had one of the most boring bus fleets in the world!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So anybody who's anti franchising is only anti it because of the colour of the buses, but it's OK to look forward to franchising reducing the attractiveness of public transport in the city centre! At least having less buses will give more space for cars!

I also hadn't noticed any lack of interest in London's buses, even back in the 1960s when they had one of the most boring bus fleets in the world!

Looking at common European systems, reducing the number of buses in city centres by diverting those from the outer fringes of the city to the nearest rapid transit rail system for a quality connection and a faster end to end journey doesn't reduce the attractiveness of public transport, it increases it.

 

[carlberry]

Looking at common European systems, reducing the number of buses in city centres by diverting those from the outer fringes of the city to the nearest rapid transit rail system for a quality connection and a faster end to end journey doesn't reduce the attractiveness of public transport, it increases it.

Perhaps doing both and seeing which one people prefer would be a revolutionary idea!
Also the post I was replying to stated 'reduced frequency on main routes to allow for improvements in areas which are currently underserved', that just makes the main routes less attractive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps doing both and seeing which one people prefer would be a revolutionary idea!

As long as the financial disincentive to change is removed (i.e. an all-modes fare set), and the connectivity is improved, i.e. don't just run the bus up the main road 100 yards from the station, run it to as near to the station as is practicable, and align the timetables so the connections work, not so you end up stood around for 14 minutes on a 4 train/bus per hour route.

When the disincentives remain, it's not surprising that the through bus is chosen.

If, after a few years (it does take that long for people to establish travel patterns), the direct bus is still well-used despite all the disincentives being removed, then you've got a point. I'm almost certain it won't be.

 

[johncrossley]

Perhaps doing both and seeing which one people prefer would be a revolutionary idea!
Also the post I was replying to stated 'reduced frequency on main routes to allow for improvements in areas which are currently underserved', that just makes the main routes less attractive.

If such duplication is such a good idea, why is such duplication discouraged outside Britain? Where is the evidence that duplication is more successful?

If the 192 is every 3 minutes now, realistically how much difference would it make if it was reduced to every 5 minutes? Especially if speedier boarding and alighting methods are employed? That would save a lot of buses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If such duplication is such a good idea, why is such duplication discouraged outside Britain? Where is the evidence that duplication is more successful?

If the 192 is every 3 minutes now, realistically how much difference would it make if it was reduced to every 5 minutes? Especially if speedier boarding and alighting methods are employed? That would save a lot of buses.

That the 192 even exists is in a way mind-boggling - it parallels a railway line for its entire length. Let alone that it's as frequent as it is.

I get between Levenshulme and Piccadilly as there's a long gap there...is it mainly because Stockport station is so awkwardly located, I wonder? Or is the mentality in GM just not to use trains because they've been poor for so long?

With my Merseyrail mentality in place, if I lived in Hazel Grove (say) I wouldn't even consider going by bus. The train would be the default. Just like the only people who go from Ormskirk to Liverpool on the bus are passholders who get it for free but not the train (Lancs passes are bus only).

 

[carlberry]

That the 192 even exists is in a way mind-boggling - it parallels a railway line for its entire length. Let alone that it's as frequent as it is.

Why should the existence of a railway line stop people using a bus service? Car drivers are still allowed to use the roads, but public transport users aren't allowed the choice? The bus service even pays for itself!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why should the existence of a railway line stop people using a bus service? Car drivers are still allowed to use the roads, but public transport users aren't allowed the choice? The bus service even pays for itself!

Because trains are superior to buses - faster and more comfortable. I'm not saying we should be pulling the 192 tomorrow, it clearly works. But it is strange that people choose the bus when the train is on offer, and I do wonder if it's the "local rail is rubbish" mentality in GM that is doing that - or maybe just that the bus is cheaper! The 192 is like there being an Ormskirk to Liverpool bus every 3 minutes (it's not, it's hourly).

 

[lincman]

Because trains are superior to buses - faster and more comfortable. I'm not saying we should be pulling the 192 tomorrow, it clearly works. But it is strange that people choose the bus when the train is on offer, and I do wonder if it's the "local rail is rubbish" mentality in GM that is doing that - or maybe just that the bus is cheaper! The 192 is like there being an Ormskirk to Liverpool bus every 3 minutes (it's not, it's hourly).

I agree that trains are faster and in most case is more comfortable, but to compare the train to the 192 is no contest. The vast users of the 192 are short riders hop on- hop off the train would not even be considered apart from the locations of the stations the bus is just more convenient.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Tory mayoral candidate is anti-franchising. Let's see how well she does.

I was discussing the local election literature where any increase or decrease in Council Tax precepts can be put in front of the electorate, not the mayoral issue. There is a difference, if you are unaware of that.

 

[Purple Orange]

Because trains are superior to buses - faster and more comfortable. I'm not saying we should be pulling the 192 tomorrow, it clearly works. But it is strange that people choose the bus when the train is on offer, and I do wonder if it's the "local rail is rubbish" mentality in GM that is doing that - or maybe just that the bus is cheaper! The 192 is like there being an Ormskirk to Liverpool bus every 3 minutes (it's not, it's hourly).

Frequency, frequency, frequency... and stops. If there were an additional 3 or 4 stops along the route between Piccadilly & Hazel Grove, with at least 10 tph, it would be a contender. Alas, it is the WCML we are talking about and only the communities near the existing stations really find any use from it.

 

[507021]

I was discussing the local election literature where any increase or decrease in Council Tax precepts can be put in front of the electorate, not the mayoral issue. There is a difference, if you are unaware of that.

As much as I like him, it was Andy Burnham who decided that introducing franchising is a good idea, so I think it should be him explaining why he thinks franchising is such a good idea and how it's going to massively improve bus travel in Greater Manchester. I personally don't think it will at all, and the lower fares which will come with franchising will be very quickly overshadowed by the more expensive council tax bills which Greater Manchester taxpayers will be receiving to subsidise this pointless exercise. Give with one hand and take away with the other comes to mind.

I really hope that the Liverpool City Region decides against franchising and focuses its transport investment on improving rail connectivity, which I believe will bring far more long term economic benefits to the region than franchised bus services ever could. I like the idea of the Liverpool City Region owning the new Merseyrail trains and upcoming fleet of hydrogen buses for the 10A between Liverpool and St Helens, but they really need to leave the actual running of them to people who know what they're doing.

I'm a lifelong Labour supporter, and massively against single issue voting, but I'm very much considering voting for someone else in the LCR mayoral election simply because of my strong stance against introducing franchised bus services in the region.

 

[Megafuss]

If such duplication is such a good idea, why is such duplication discouraged outside Britain? Where is the evidence that duplication is more successful?

If the 192 is every 3 minutes now, realistically how much difference would it make if it was reduced to every 5 minutes? Especially if speedier boarding and alighting methods are employed? That would save a lot of buses.

If you have fewer buses but the same number of people using them then the potential for overcrowding exists. This make the service less appealing and you eventually start losing custom.

 

[johncrossley]

As much as I like him, it was Andy Burnham who decided that introducing franchising is a good idea, so I think it should be him explaining why he thinks franchising is such a good idea and how it's going to massively improve bus travel in Greater Manchester. I personally don't think it will at all, and the lower fares which will come with franchising will be very quickly overshadowed by the more expensive council tax bills which Greater Manchester taxpayers will be receiving to subsidise this pointless exercise. Give with one hand and take away with the other comes to mind.

I really hope that the Liverpool City Region decides against franchising and focuses its transport investment on improving rail connectivity, which I believe will bring far more long term economic benefits to the region than franchised bus services ever could. I like the idea of the Liverpool City Region owning the new Merseyrail trains and upcoming fleet of hydrogen buses for the 10A between Liverpool and St Helens, but they really need to leave the actual running of them to people who know what they're doing.

I'm a lifelong Labour supporter, and massively against single issue voting, but I'm very much considering voting for someone else in the LCR mayoral election simply because of my strong stance against introducing franchised bus services in the region.

Surely one of the main ways of improving rail connectivity in a big city is to make connections with the bus as seamless as possible? Rail receives a lot of investment and subsidy, much more than buses, so why don't you mind that? No other developed country expects public transport to be subsidy free.

If you have fewer buses but the same number of people using them then the potential for overcrowding exists. This make the service less appealing and you eventually start losing custom.

I highly doubt the 192 (pre-Covid) was running close to capacity. A few years ago Stagecoach put out a press release boasting about how the 192 was the busiest bus route in Britain because it carried 9 million passengers a year. TfL route 25 (which was actually the busiest route) was carrying more than double that despite running at a lower frequency, even before its recent frequency cut. Patronage has fallen so much in GM that I suspect overcrowding is not a significant problem and even if it is they can improve capacity significantly by speeding up boarding times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that trains are faster and in most case is more comfortable, but to compare the train to the 192 is no contest. The vast users of the 192 are short riders hop on- hop off the train would not even be considered apart from the locations of the stations the bus is just more convenient.

So just so I understand properly - you're saying most users of the 192 aren't going to Manchester city centre?

Frequency, frequency, frequency... and stops. If there were an additional 3 or 4 stops along the route between Piccadilly & Hazel Grove, with at least 10 tph, it would be a contender. Alas, it is the WCML we are talking about and only the communities near the existing stations really find any use from it.

Yet there doesn't seem to be a market for a bus service of that frequency along the full length of any Merseyrail line (though there are some sections with frequent bus services, but nothing like every 3 minutes) - what's the tipping point I wonder, 4tph?

 

[Robertj21a]

As much as I like him, it was Andy Burnham who decided that introducing franchising is a good idea, so I think it should be him explaining why he thinks franchising is such a good idea and how it's going to massively improve bus travel in Greater Manchester. I personally don't think it will at all, and the lower fares which will come with franchising will be very quickly overshadowed by the more expensive council tax bills which Greater Manchester taxpayers will be receiving to subsidise this pointless exercise. Give with one hand and take away with the other comes to mind.

I really hope that the Liverpool City Region decides against franchising and focuses its transport investment on improving rail connectivity, which I believe will bring far more long term economic benefits to the region than franchised bus services ever could. I like the idea of the Liverpool City Region owning the new Merseyrail trains and upcoming fleet of hydrogen buses for the 10A between Liverpool and St Helens, but they really need to leave the actual running of them to people who know what they're doing.

I'm a lifelong Labour supporter, and massively against single issue voting, but I'm very much considering voting for someone else in the LCR mayoral election simply because of my strong stance against introducing franchised bus services in the region.

Lower fares.......??

 

[Goldfish62]

Lower fares.......??

It's not like it's some revelation. It's stated in black and white. The price of the day and period tickets are proposed to align with the current lowest operator-specific ticket prices.

 

[Robertj21a]

It's not like it's some revelation. It's stated in black and white. The price of the day and period tickets are proposed to align with the current lowest operator-specific ticket prices.

Let's see these proposals become reality. I'm waiting for the local residents (most of whom use cars) to get a little concerned once they realise that they are going to be contributing financially.

 

[AB93]

I highly doubt the 192 (pre-Covid) was running close to capacity. A few years ago Stagecoach put out a press release boasting about how the 192 was the busiest bus route in Britain because it carried 9 million passengers a year. TfL route 25 (which was actually the busiest route) was carrying more than double that despite running at a lower frequency, even before its recent frequency cut. Patronage has fallen so much in GM that I suspect overcrowding is not a significant problem and even if it is they can improve capacity significantly by speeding up boarding times.

You are making an assumption there though about the passenger turnover on each service, which without knowing the stats, makes any comparison of how close to capacity they were pointless.

 

[Goldfish62]

Let's see these proposals become reality. I'm waiting for the local residents (most of whom use cars) to get a little concerned once they realise that they are going to be contributing financially.

That particular aspect was a key element of the business case, possibly the biggest element, so it will be made to happen. Remember that it is distinct from single and return fares for which little in the way of specific promises have been made.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is there an ability for people to opt-out of the scheme?

 

[Goldfish62]

Is there an ability for people to opt-out of the scheme?

What scheme?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What scheme?

TfGM Bus Franchising.

 

[Glenn1969]

No. It would be a Council Tax precept like has happened with Police and Fire

I know Bolton voted against Franchising but think they will have to implement plans now they have been approved by Burnham

 

[Goldfish62]

TfGM Bus Franchising.

Ah excellent idea, and while we're about lets allow people to opt out of everything else that local councils spend council tax on and have a central data base to check that people don't try to use public services that they havent contributed towards. That would work well...

The only ways of opting out are to vote in an anti-franchising mayor or moving house.

 

[lincman]

So just so I understand properly - you're saying most users of the 192 aren't going to Manchester city centre?



Yet there doesn't seem to be a market for a bus service of that frequency along the full length of any Merseyrail line (though there are some sections with frequent bus services, but nothing like every 3 minutes) - what's the tipping point I wonder, 4tph?

I would consider that significant numbers if not most of passengers on the 192 use for short journeys between local points along the route which runs through highly populated areas, and serves several shopping areas such as Stockport and Longsight it would be interesting to see the breakdown by sections.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In these days, with many people affected by the commercial effects of the Covid-19 viral infection on job security, the last thing to give them to worry about is a new addition to their Council Tax bills.

 

[lincman]

No. It would be a Council Tax precept like has happened with Police and Fire

I know Bolton voted against Franchising but think they will have to implement plans now they have been approved by Burnham

Burnhams plans for franchising has held back development of bus services in Greater Manchester the whole period he has been in office as he has droned on and on about this creating uncertainty. The announcement for to go ahead was extremely interesting coming just days before purdah for the local elections, whether this will go forwards I believe will depend on the true costs of the scheme being realised.

 

[domcoop7]

Just to clarify, you mean the post-deregulation operator, not the pre-deregulation PTE operator Greater Manchester Transport? If you really mean GM Buses, rather than GMT, what was good about GM Buses? It was on its knees for most of its existence with virtually no fleet replacement for many years. Patronage declined dramatically during the GM Buses era.

Not much was good about GM Buses. As with many things (and it's been alluded to by other posters on here and other threads), it's just nostalgia. I remembered them when I grew up. I didn't remember much of GM Transport (apart from that in 1986 the number 15 bus to Weaste changed to the 33, and all the posters on bus shelters talking about "D Day").

But as a younger person, it just seemed "common sense" to me that evil profit making bus barons should be taken over by the PTE so that profits can be reinvested in public transport.

Only when I've got older, and thought back to the couldn't care less drivers, and dirty Atlanteans that seemed to have last been cleaned in 1976 with the smell I can still remember of diesel fumes inside the cabin when seated at the back, that it occurs that public sector ownership doesn't mean better.

 

[Goldfish62]

In these days, with many people affected by the commercial effects of the Covid-19 viral infection on job security, the last thing to give them to worry about is a new addition to their Council Tax bills.

We have a representative democracy in this country. Politicians are elected periodically based on a range of policies and they are left to get on with it until the next election.

If the good people of Greater Manchester are really so unhappy with bus franchising above all else they can vote in an anti-franchising candidate in May, if one exists.