TfGM Bus franchising

[Megafuss]

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.

Stagecoach are many things, but they know what they are doing with the 192.

Pre-covid they could make a short buck if they wanted by cutting the PVR and keeping a frequent interval. But they don't as they know if they start doing that they could eventually end up losing more revenue than they've saved with less resource. It's a fine balancing act.

 

[Goldfish62]

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.

While that is true to an extent, as I've stated before the franchising proposals pre-date Burnham's election by two years, and IIRC all the mayoral candidates in 2017 were pro-franchising.

 

[Purple Orange]

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?

Perhaps not in Merseyside, but their local rail stations and communities along the line are far better served than Manchester’s. Also the Hazel Grove to Manchester corridor is very densely populated and no matter how many additional stations you add and how many additional all-stop trains, there would still be a high frequency bus service too.

The best comparison would be Wilmslow Road from Didsbury. The bus service is still very busy and frequently used by people from the area, yet they also have several stations and 10 trams each hour to the city centre. The line to East Didsbury is no different to any heavy rail line, yet there needs to be a high frequency bus service too, to serve different needs. This would be the same for the 192 if there was a high frequency rail or metrolink service. There might be a reduction in frequency, but not a drastic cut in frequency.

Even if we look at the Bury Line and the Altrincam Line (again ex-heavy rail lines with a better frequency/service than merseyrail), there are still high frequency buses along the route.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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.

If a referendum had been held, you would already have your answer to your query. If a referendum was felt to be the correct course to follow as was the case last time when the two-ring congestion charge was said to finance a major public transport boost, where much publicity was circulated in advance to all households explaining the benefits that would accrue to the people of Greater Manchester. That was democracy in action. There was much "wailing and gnashing of teeth" by the proponents of that scheme when the electorate in all ten areas of Greater Manchester voted overwhelmingly in all those ten areas to reject that idea. Do you feel that people have changed so much since then?

 

[johncrossley]

Stagecoach are many things, but they know what they are doing with the 192.

Pre-covid they could make a short buck if they wanted by cutting the PVR and keeping a frequent interval. But they don't as they know if they start doing that they could eventually end up losing more revenue than they've saved with less resource. It's a fine balancing act.

Many London bus routes are very overcrowded but TfL has resisted increasing frequencies to silly levels to try and match demand as it would cost a lot of money with virtually no increase in revenue. It is hard to believe that the 192 suffers overcrowding to anywhere near the same extent as the busiest London routes.

If a referendum had been held, you would already have your answer to your query. If a referendum was felt to be the correct course to follow as was the case last time when the two-ring congestion charge was said to finance a major public transport boost, where much publicity was circulated in advance to all households explaining the benefits that would accrue to the people of Greater Manchester. That was democracy in action. There was much "wailing and gnashing of teeth" by the proponents of that scheme when the electorate in all ten areas of Greater Manchester voted overwhelmingly in all those ten areas to reject that idea. Do you feel that people have changed so much since then?

There was no mayor back then, hence the reason for a referendum for that. Now there is a mayor so it is a simple matter to vote for the Tory candidate if you want to cancel franchising.

 

[domcoop7]

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.

In theory yes. In practice, giving 2 million people a single vote for an individual whose policies cover planning, transport, police, some aspects of health, and economic development for an area of 500 square miles is not really as democratic as it sounds.

Especially when turnout last time was under 30% and the decision in reality is made by the voters of the central area (i.e. Manchester and Salford).

Once that vote has been counted, representatives of local areas don't get a say. The leaders of the 10 local councils have to sign off on certain (but not all) proposals, but voters don't get to choose them either, and they don't have to represent any particular views other than their own.

It's probably the least democratic "democracy" you could create if you set out to, and the check and balances are non-existent.

To top it off, most campaigning, such as it is, is not even on the issues that are relevant anyway - you have Andy Burnham currently talking a lot about "fire and rehire" (i.e. employment law, which isn't in his remit), coronavirus and NHS pay (again, not his remit). When he does mention bus franchising (as per Tweets and local newspaper articles I quoted above) he has misled people into thinking he's renationalising the buses. Laura Evans is unheard of by most people, and then the fringe candidates come out with all sorts of bizarre things they'd never have the power to do.

 

[Goldfish62]

If a referendum had been held, you would already have your answer to your query. If a referendum was felt to be the correct course to follow as was the case last time when the two-ring congestion charge was said to finance a major public transport boost, where much publicity was circulated in advance to all households explaining the benefits that would accrue to the people of Greater Manchester. That was democracy in action. There was much "wailing and gnashing of teeth" by the proponents of that scheme when the electorate in all ten areas of Greater Manchester voted overwhelmingly in all those ten areas to reject that idea. Do you feel that people have changed so much since then?

I'm not in favour of endless referenda on this matter and that matter. There should never have been a referendum on the congestion charge because when you ask people a *single issue question with a binary choice* on whether they are willing to pay for something for what they see as of little or no tangible benefit to their individual lives they will almost always say no.

There has been statutory consultation on GM bus franchising TWICE now for which I think you'd have to be living in a cave not to have been aware about, plus there have been Stagecoach's and Rotala's very vocal public campaigns against it. How many more times do need people need to be asked about it? I'm not saying I'm necessarily in favour of the proposals, but they have most certainly been the subject of extensive democratic scrutiny!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There was no Mayor back then, hence the reason for a referendum for that. Now there is a mayor so it is a simple matter to vote for the Tory candidate if you want to cancel franchising.

However, that still does not answer the question as to the total lack of printed electoral publicity that would have been put through every door, explaining the benefits in full. Whilst I am fortunate to live exterior to the boundaries of the TfGM empire, I do speak to a number of residents in the Stockport area of Greater Manchester, who all claim no knowledge of the proposed franchising scheme. Would I be correct in thinking that Stockport was an area that voted against another recent proposal. Do you feel that this franchising scheme has been discussed by the television local media?

 

[Goldfish62]

In theory yes. In practice, giving 2 million people a single vote for an individual whose policies cover planning, transport, police, some aspects of health, and economic development for an area of 500 square miles is not really as democratic as it sounds.

Especially when turnout last time was under 30% and the decision in reality is made by the voters of the central area (i.e. Manchester and Salford).

Once that vote has been counted, representatives of local areas don't get a say. The leaders of the 10 local councils have to sign off on certain (but not all) proposals, but voters don't get to choose them either, and they don't have to represent any particular views other than their own.

It's probably the least democratic "democracy" you could create if you set out to, and the check and balances are non-existent.

To top it off, most campaigning, such as it is, is not even on the issues that are relevant anyway - you have Andy Burnham currently talking a lot about "fire and rehire" (i.e. employment law, which isn't in his remit), coronavirus and NHS pay (again, not his remit). When he does mention bus franchising (as per Tweets and local newspaper articles I quoted above) he has misled people into thinking he's renationalising the buses. Laura Evans is unheard of by most people, and then the fringe candidates come out with all sorts of bizarre things they'd never have the power to do.

There's no such thing as absolute democracy. Even the "most free" of countries still have a democratic deficit. Politicians talk nonsense all the time. It's nothing new or specific to Burnham.

 

[johncrossley]

However, that still does not answer the question as to the total lack of printed electoral publicity that would have been put through every door, explaining the benefits in full. Whilst I am fortunate to live exterior to the boundaries of the TfGM empire, I do speak to a number of residents in the Stockport area of Greater Manchester, who all claim no knowledge of the proposed franchising scheme. Would I be correct in thinking that Stockport was an area that voted against another recent proposal. Do you feel that this franchising scheme has been discussed by the television local media?

Why do you put so much emphasis on printed media? There is endless coverage on the internet and campaigning is increasingly done on social media these days. The Tory candidate has Tweeted a lot about her preference for a partnership. There is also local radio. People have more ways than ever to be informed. If they choose to be apathetic, then that is also their right.

Where was the referendum to introduce bus deregulation? That was imposed on the country by the national government. It could have avoided by the country voting Labour in 1983.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not in favour of endless referenda on this matter and that matter. There should never have been a referendum on the congestion charge because when you ask people a *single issue question with a binary choice* on whether they are willing to pay for something for what they see as of little or no tangible benefit to their individual lives they will almost always say no.

But that is an abrogation of democracy and when the powers-that-be at the time of the only previous referendum held the view that they were so sure that a YES vote was bound to happen, the print budget for rather high quality scheme publicity was not small at all.

With regards to extra cost to area residents, do you see any comparison between that congestion charge and the Council Tax bill increase said to be coming when this congestion charge fait accompli is fully effected.

 

[Goldfish62]

However, that still does not answer the question as to the total lack of printed electoral publicity that would have been put through every door, explaining the benefits in full. Whilst I am fortunate to live exterior to the boundaries of the TfGM empire, I do speak to a number of residents in the Stockport area of Greater Manchester, who all claim no knowledge of the proposed franchising scheme. Would I be correct in thinking that Stockport was an area that voted against another recent proposal. Do you feel that this franchising scheme has been discussed by the television local media?

It's been all over the local media!!!!!!!

There will always be people who claim not to know about this or know about that and in most cases it's their fault for taking no interest in what's happening around them. The "Why wasn't I personally informed?" brigade. It's total nonsense to suggest that bus franchising hasn't been a high-profile subject.

I think it's time just to accept that, notwithstanding Stagecoach's and Rotala's applications for judicial reviews, it's been through the due democratic processes, and for better or worse it is proceeding. If you disagree you are free to apply for a judicial review. The relevant forms can be found on-line.

 

[domcoop7]

It's been all over the local media!!!!!!!

There will always be people who claim not to know about this or know about that and in most cases it's their fault for taking no interest in what's happening around them. The "Why wasn't I personally informed?" brigade. It's total nonsense to suggest that bus franchising hasn't been a high-profile subject.

I think it's time just to accept that, notwithstanding Stagecoach's and Rotala's applications for judicial reviews, it's been through the due democratic processes, and for better or worse it is proceeding. If you disagree you are free to apply for a judicial review. The relevant forms can be found on-line.

With respect, it really hasn't!

"Burnham takes buses back under control, leading to lower fares, and more frequent services" has been all over the media.

"Bus Franchising by private companies leading to all bus routes being planned from Manchester Town Hall, declining ridership until 2050, probable higher fares and definitely higher Council Tax" hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I know of.

 

[507021]

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.

Large parts of Liverpool are pretty well connected by bus yet aren't served by rail at all, and for a city of this size it's simply not acceptable. I live in the inner suburbs of Liverpool and I'm a mile and a half away from the nearest station on the City Line, and over three miles away from a Merseyrail station. What makes this even more frustrating is that the Canada Dock Branch is just sitting there, waiting to be re-opened to passengers. The benefits of doing so would be huge.

The simple fact is, investing in expanding Merseyrail coverage will have far more economic and environmental benefits than franchised bus routes. I applaud Steve Rotheram for putting decarbonisation on his manifesto, because it's something I'm particularly passionate about, but wasting millions of pounds on introducing a TfL-style bus system will do absolutely nothing towards attaining that goal. All it'll do is drive up council tax bills.

An expanded Merseyrail network will create new, long term jobs as well as provide more job opportunities to others as a result of better rail connectivity. The new fleet of hydrogen buses will also have an economic benefit to the region as a result of the refuelling facilities which are due to begin construction in the very near future.

I'm not anti-bus by any means, but speaking as someone who works in the industry, bus franchising is absolutely not the sunshine and daisies solution which Andy Burnham seems to think it is. In the case of Greater Manchester, I think the money would be better spent on continuing to expand the excellent Metrolink network.

 

[johncrossley]

Large parts of Liverpool are pretty well connected by bus yet aren't served by rail at all, and for a city of this size it's simply not acceptable. I live in the inner suburbs of Liverpool and I'm a mile and a half away from the nearest station on the City Line, and over three miles away from a Merseyrail station. What makes this even more frustrating is that the Canada Dock Branch is just sitting there, waiting to be re-opened to passengers. The benefits of doing so would be huge.

The simple fact is, investing in expanding Merseyrail coverage will have far more economic and environmental benefits than franchised bus routes. I applaud Steve Rotheram for putting decarbonisation on his manifesto, because it's something I'm particularly passionate about, but wasting millions of pounds on introducing a TfL-style bus system will do absolutely nothing towards attaining that goal. All it'll do is drive up council tax bills.

An expanded Merseyrail network will create new, long term jobs as well as provide more job opportunities to others as a result of better rail connectivity. The new fleet of hydrogen buses will also have an economic benefit to the region as a result of the refuelling facilities which are due to begin construction in the very near future.

I'm not anti-bus by any means, but speaking as someone who works in the industry, bus franchising is absolutely not the sunshine and daisies solution which Andy Burnham seems to think it is. In the case of Greater Manchester, I think the money would be better spent on continuing to expand the excellent Metrolink network.

No city has complete metro/heavy rail coverage. There are always buses or trams to fill in the gaps and to provide links unavailable by train. Even London, which is perceived to be saturated with rail lines, still relies heavily on buses. Given that trains will never go everywhere you need buses to reach rail stations and to provide orbital links. In the most successful systems in the world people don't feel "left out" because they don't live near a station because they have good bus or tram connections. Even though buses are dirt cheap compared to building new rail lines, it is necessary to do both.

 

[Goldfish62]

With respect, it really hasn't!

"Burnham takes buses back under control, leading to lower fares, and more frequent services" has been all over the media.

"Bus Franchising by private companies leading to all bus routes being planned from Manchester Town Hall, declining ridership until 2050, probable higher fares and definitely higher Council Tax" hasn't been mentioned anywhere that I know of.

The level of scrutiny by the media has been no worse than it has with anything else in recent memory. Remember that £350m a week that was promised to the NHS?

The bottom line is that the statutory criteria for determining whether a franchising scheme should be introduced are laid out in the Bus Services Act 2017. In addition public consultation (one of the laid-down requirements for determining a franchising scheme) in the UK has since 1985 been governed by the Gunning Principles.

They consist of four principles, which if followed, are designed to make consultation fair and lawful:

Gunning 1 – Consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage
Gunning 2 – Sufficient reasons must be put forward for any proposal to permit “intelligent consideration” and response
Gunning 3 – Adequate time is given for consideration and response
Gunning 4 – The product of consultation is conscientiously taken into account by the decision maker(s)

A judicial review can be sought by anyone and may be granted if it is considered that there may be a case that any of the above have been breached.

 

[507021]

No city has complete metro/heavy rail coverage.

I didn't say this was the case, and nor did I suggest it should be.

There are always buses or trams to fill in the gaps and to provide links unavailable by train.

There's already a good level of bus coverage in large parts of Liverpool, in fact it's one of the few places in the country (pre-COVID) which has bucked the trend of declining bus patronage. However, this is a weak and poor justification to not invest in improving rail connectivity in the city, particularly when there's such a large amount of infrastructure already in place. To reiterate my earlier point, the cost of re-opening the Canada Dock Branch and North Mersey Branch to passengers, as well as extending to Skelmersdale (which doesn't have any form of rail link whatsoever), would be a far more beneficial long-term investment for the Liverpool City Region than bus franchising.

In the most successful systems in the world people don't feel "left out" because they don't live near a station because they have good bus or tram connections. Even though buses are dirt cheap compared to building new rail lines, it is necessary to do both.

It's nothing to do with feeling "left out", if Steve Rotheram wants the Liverpool City Region to achieve net zero by 2040, he needs to realise that franchised buses will contribute absolutely nothing to reaching this target. They, unlike investment in local heavy rail and fuelling facilities for our publicly-owned hydrogen powered buses, won't create long term jobs and good quality job opportunities either.

 

[Goldfish62]

I'm not anti-bus by any means, but speaking as someone who works in the industry, bus franchising is absolutely not the sunshine and daisies solution which Andy Burnham seems to think it is. In the case of Greater Manchester, I think the money would be better spent on continuing to expand the excellent Metrolink network.

I agree. It's unfortunate that at the time that the momentum was with franchising we didn't have the national bus strategy. With the strategy essentially forcing operators into statutory enhanced partnerships with local authorities pretty much all of the arguments for franchising would have been nullified. However, the decision has been taken and it's going ahead.

TfGM seems to be really strong at infrastructure projects, creating one of Europe's larger tram networks seemingly with ease (contrast that with London's painful attempts at extending the Tramlink network). Plus there's the Leigh Busway which in partnership with First operating the services seems to be a notable success.

 

[johncrossley]

There's already a good level of bus coverage in large parts of Liverpool, in fact it's one of the few places in the country (pre-COVID) which has bucked the trend of declining bus patronage. However, this is a weak and poor justification to not invest in improving rail connectivity in the city, particularly when there's such a large amount of infrastructure already in place. To reiterate my earlier point, the cost of re-opening the Canada Dock Branch and North Mersey Branch to passengers, as well as extending to Skelmersdale (which doesn't have any form of rail link whatsoever), would be a far more beneficial long-term investment for the Liverpool City Region than bus franchising.

Why does there have to be a choice of doing rail or bus, but not both? Given how little buses cost in comparison to rail improvements, you might as well do both. Certainly it is worth seeing how far you can take the partnership route but there needs to be a strong emphasis on making bus and rail work together instead of being largely independent networks. Crucially you need (properly) integrated fares to maximise rail usage.

It's nothing to do with feeling "left out", if Steve Rotheram wants the Liverpool City Region to achieve net zero by 2040, he needs to realise that franchised buses will contribute absolutely nothing to reaching this target. They, unlike investment in local heavy rail and fuelling facilities for our publicly-owned hydrogen powered buses, won't create long term jobs and good quality job opportunities either.

Incidentally, why such emphasis on hydrogen buses? London and some other European cities seem to be rolling out battery buses at a considerable rate. I don't see what's so special about Merseyside that it needs hydrogen.

 

[507021]

I agree. It's unfortunate that at the time that the momentum was with franchising we didn't have the national bus strategy. With the strategy essentially forcing operators into statutory enhanced partnerships with local authorities pretty much all of the arguments for franchising would have been nullified. However, the decision has been taken and it's going ahead.

TfGM seems to be really strong at infrastructure projects, creating one of Europe's larger tram networks seemingly with ease (contrast that with London's painful attempts at extending the Tramlink network). Plus there's the Leigh Busway which in partnership with First operating the services seems to be a notable success.

What really frustrates me is that these authorities are regularly complaining about cuts to their budgets, but they insist on wasting whatever funding they do get on ridiculous pie-in-the-sky schemes like bus franchising. Another good example of this is the obscene amount of money which was allowed to be wasted on the non-starter Merseytram scheme.

Why does there have to be a choice of doing rail or bus, but not both? Given how little buses cost in comparison to rail improvements, you might as well do both. Certainly it is worth seeing how far you can take the partnership route but there needs to be a strong emphasis on making bus and rail work together instead of being largely independent networks. Crucially you need (properly) integrated fares to maximise rail usage.

I genuinely don't know what gives you the impression I'm against integrated multi-mode transport in any shape or form, because I'm absolutely not and I haven't stated otherwise. Much of the southern half of Liverpool is fortunate enough to have good quality multi-operator, multi-mode transport options. It's no coincidence that areas in this part of the city are generally more affluent than those in the northern half, which would benefit enormously if the rail re-opening schemes I have suggested went ahead instead of wasting money on franchised bus services. Said schemes, as well as the additional 777s which would be required, will also cost less money and provide much, much better economic value in the long run. As I've already said, most of the infrastructure is already there.

Incidentally, why such emphasis on hydrogen buses? London and some other European cities seem to be rolling out battery buses at a considerable rate. I don't see what's so special about Merseyside that it needs hydrogen.

I've already clearly explained the benefits of the upcoming hydrogen buses, but as I'm in a good mood today I'll do so again. The facilities to provide the fuel for these zero-carbon vehicles will be within the Liverpool City Region, providing long term, sustainable jobs for the local economy. The buses themselves will be built within the United Kingdom, so their introduction will benefit the national economy as well. This isn't an one-off scheme either, because there are plans to introduce significantly more than the initial batch of twenty in the future.

 

[johncrossley]

I genuinely don't know what gives you the impression I'm against integrated multi-mode transport in any shape or form, because I'm absolutely not and I haven't stated otherwise. Much of the southern half of Liverpool is fortunate enough to have good quality multi-operator, multi-mode transport options.

The fares aren't really "properly" integrated though. No conurbation in Britain enjoys that, not even London. Changing from a bus to a train costs more than the bus or train only for the same journey.

I've already clearly explained the benefits of the upcoming hydrogen buses, but as I'm in a good mood today I'll do so again. The facilities to provide the fuel for these zero-carbon vehicles will be within the Liverpool City Region, providing long term, sustainable jobs for the local economy. The buses themselves will be built within the United Kingdom, so their introduction will benefit the national economy as well. This isn't an one-off scheme either, because there are plans to introduce significantly more than the initial batch of twenty in the future.

There is clearly huge uncertainty regarding hydrogen as a fuel. London has been testing fuel cell buses for getting on for two decades now but has basically decided on battery, as have most other operators outside Britain. The vast majority of buses used in Britain are made in Britain (or Northern Ireland) so that's nothing new. British operators (even London) don't want to pay for higher quality buses from mainland European.

 

[GusB]

Could we please stick to the topic, which is bus franchising in the Greater Manchester area? Let's not get side-tracked into discussing what appears on political parties' election leaflets, or whether or not a referendum should have been held.

 

[507021]

The fares aren't really "properly" integrated though. No conurbation in Britain enjoys that, not even London. Changing from a bus to a train costs more than the bus or train only for the same journey.

I didn't say anything about integrated fares, I said integrated multi-mode transport, which where available, offers public transport users the ability to use both bus and rail services as they see fit in order to complete their journey in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. This option isn't currently available in large parts of Liverpool. However, in areas of the city (and county) where multi-mode transport is possible, Merseytravel's SaveAway multi-modal saver ticket represents excellent value. In fact, you can also also use them on Merseyrail services to Ormskirk in Lancashire as well as Chester and Ellesmere Port in Cheshire.

In future, if you're going to reply to my posts, then I'd appreciate it if you had the decency to read what I've actually said first. You've claimed I said something I haven't at least twice during this discussion, which is both disrespectful and bad manners.

The vast majority of buses used in Britain are made in Britain (or Northern Ireland) so that's nothing new.

Last time I checked, Northern Ireland is a also a part of Britain.

Anyway, this is getting off topic and for reasons stated earlier in this post, I'm disengaging from this conversation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Last time I checked, Northern Ireland is a also a part of Britain.

It's part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but it is not part of the island of Great Britain. There isn't a construct just called "Britain".

 

[507021]

It's part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but it is not part of the island of Great Britain. There isn't a construct just called "Britain".

I'm guessing that's what he meant, but fair point.

 

[johncrossley]

I didn't say anything about integrated fares, I said integrated multi-mode transport, which where available, offers public transport users the ability to use both bus and rail services as they see fit in order to complete their journey in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. This option isn't currently available in large parts of Liverpool. However, in areas of the city (and county) where multi-mode transport is possible, Merseytravel's SaveAway multi-modal saver ticket represents excellent value. In fact, you can also also use them on Merseyrail services to Ormskirk in Lancashire as well as Chester and Ellesmere Port in Cheshire.

In future, if you're going to reply to my posts, then I'd appreciate it if you had the decency to read what I've actually said first. You've claimed I said something I haven't at least twice during this discussion, which is both disrespectful and bad manners.

I merely pointed out that I think integrated fares (as opposed to simply having two separate modes in the vicinity) are important. For me (and others on this thread) this is absolutely fundamental. I didn't claim you said anything. Quoting a post doesn't necessarily imply such a claim.

 

[lincman]

I didn't say anything about integrated fares, I said integrated multi-mode transport, which where available, offers public transport users the ability to use both bus and rail services as they see fit in order to complete their journey in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. This option isn't currently available in large parts of Liverpool. However, in areas of the city (and county) where multi-mode transport is possible, Merseytravel's SaveAway multi-modal saver ticket represents excellent value. In fact, you can also also use them on Merseyrail services to Ormskirk in Lancashire as well as Chester and Ellesmere Port in Cheshire.

In future, if you're going to reply to my posts, then I'd appreciate it if you had the decency to read what I've actually said first. You've claimed I said something I haven't at least twice during this discussion, which is both disrespectful and bad manners.



Last time I checked, Northern Ireland is a also a part of Britain.

Anyway, this is getting off topic and for reasons stated earlier in this post, I'm disengaging from this conversation.

I use public transport in both areas when I go to visit my relatives, and I find the Merseytravel system of cooperation with operators far more beneficial than the apparent confrontational system that seems to apply in Manchester.

 

[markymark2000]

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.

IT does both improve and worsen the attractiveness of public transport depending on who you are and what your needs are. Many people don't like changing between buses or modes of transport and so they would be put off by the forced change. For those travelling regularly multiple modes and don't have a link to the other modes, it would improve the situation here. It depends how transport savvy you are and what journeys you want to make. Buses and trains can run side by side and both make money. As Carlberry says.

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.

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?

You may wish to take a look at buses adjacent to most of the Merseyrail lines.
Eport - Birkenhead and Liverpool: Stagecoach 1/X1 every 10-20 mins.
Eastham Rake & Bromborough to Birkenhead - Stagecoach 41/42 every 10-12 minutes.
Bebbington, Rock Ferry and Green Lane to Birkenhead - Arriva 410 every 20-30 mins (plus the Stagecoach 38 at Bebington or 41/42 regularly from Rock Ferry and Green Lane)
West Kirkby line duplicated mainly by Stagecoach 38 and Arriva 407 to Birkenhead.
Hunts Cross has the 82 route groupings every 4-5 minutes very close by.
Kirkby line duplicated by Stagecoach 20/21 every 6 minutes.
Ormskirk Line from Old Roan south covered mostly every 10 minutes by the 300, 310 and 345.
Southport line south of Crosby covered by the 53 service every 7-8 minutes.


This is just services running very close to the railway. There are even more which people use which call at a few random train stations (Arriva 437 every 7 minutes from Liverpool, Birkenhead and then through to West Kirkby. Arriva 47 and Stagecoach X2 running 5 buses per hour from Southport to Liverpool). I think you might want to make a trip to Liverpool as well and see the amount of people who go through the tunnel by bus and then change buses using bus stops closer to their place of work and then changing within the bus station onto some of the many other bus routes. Your logic does no body any favours.

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.

The issue is in some areas, unless there becomes a huge rebellion like seen in the North East, there are some seats in the North West where Labour could put forward a zoo monkey with no policies and still win because people are just 'anti conservative' and the other parties don't normally put up much opposition. Even when someone has done extremely badly, people don't vote them out because they believe in the parties policies, not always the individuals and so even if an opposition promised £300 per week for all residents as a universal basic income, they still probably wouldn't win the vote purely because people have loyalties and agree more strongly with Labours policies overall rather than the specific franchising policy.

 

[Goldfish62]

IT does both improve and worsen the attractiveness of public transport depending on who you are and what your needs are. Many people don't like changing between buses or modes of transport and so they would be put off by the forced change. For those travelling regularly multiple modes and don't have a link to the other modes, it would improve the situation here. It depends how transport savvy you are and what journeys you want to make. Buses and trains can run side by side and both make money. As Carlberry says.




The issue is in some areas, unless there becomes a huge rebellion like seen in the North East, there are some seats in the North West where Labour could put forward a zoo monkey with no policies and still win because people are just 'anti conservative' and the other parties don't normally put up much opposition. Even when someone has done extremely badly, people don't vote them out because they believe in the parties policies, not always the individuals and so even if an opposition promised £300 per week for all residents as a universal basic income, they still probably wouldn't win the vote purely because people have loyalties and agree more strongly with Labours policies overall rather than the specific franchising policy.

Very true, and the same exists in the South with the Tories.

 

[Deerfold]

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

Most users of the 192 are not wanting to go to Piccadilly Rail station. Or from Stockport station. Both are several minutes walk from any housing or most central locations that people are going to. I've travelled between the two many times and my choice of transport has varied depending on my exact start and end points (and travel time - not many trains running after midnight).