TfGM Bus franchising

[markymark2000]

Just some background on integrated travel in Manchester. Integrated travel is made harder by councils and TFGM (or whomever is developing Metrolink extensions) and when easy opportunities are available, they screw them up.

Central Park has the bus termini but you can't access it from one direction meaning buses would have to spend 5 mins extra looping around roundabouts just to serve the station. Alternatively, a 2-3 minute walk to the bus stops for the 114.

Hollinwood had the 151 which wasted it's time going into the station despite bus stops 1-2 minutes walk away on the A62 and also on the side road Tweedale Way. The 151 has been rerouted recently to remove this integration (clearly it wasn't used).

Stretford, since the Trafford Centre shuttle went (hang on, integrated bus.... It failed and rarely had any more than a few people on. Most of whom ended up using the Mall bus stops, not the tram stop), no buses go into the station.

Trafford Centre and Oldham have got new tram lines, why aren't these linked to the bus stations?

If integration is so good, why does Manchester City Council want to push buses out of the city centre, the main area where people connect between buses and trams?

I could go on. Integration is generally nothing more than just a car drivers excuse for not using public transport and politician easy policy to get more people on public transport. Buses and trams serve generally different markets and even where duplication exists, people make their choice because buses have more stops so can stop closer to home but trams can be quicker. It depends on your journey.

It's hard to point to an integration success in the UK because there isn't really many of them. It's just an easy political game to play to benefit a few select people while those who make regular journey's end up suffering from longer journey times and a possible change of mode.


The 2 best examples of buses Vs trams on the same corridor is Blackpool on route 1 and Manchester 219.
135 is a good example but does have some exclusive areas and different routings.


Oxford Road is an easy target for trams but you quite clearly are ignoring the fact Metrolink charges a lot more for its fares than Magicbus and for all the other buses, they branch off into separate areas. Just because they share the same road out of the city, doesn't mean they are all serving the same purpose. Adding to that, Trams don't run 24/7 (as the buses do on Oxford Road) and since trams run on tracks, you will have fun at nights when parking on Oxford Road becomes a free for all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Central Park has the bus termini but you can't access it from one direction meaning buses would have to spend 5 mins extra looping around roundabouts just to serve the station. Alternatively, a 2-3 minute walk to the bus stops for the 114.

That is wholly missing the point. With proper integration of fares, people would no longer be dissuaded from interchange onto the faster, higher quality mode of transport (the tram) and so that interchange would become primary over travelling through, and so that would be less important.

Hollinwood had the 151 which wasted it's time going into the station despite bus stops 1-2 minutes walk away on the A62 and also on the side road Tweedale Way. The 151 has been rerouted recently to remove this integration (clearly it wasn't used).

Because interchange is presently dissuaded through the fare and timetable system.

Stretford, since the Trafford Centre shuttle went (hang on, integrated bus.... It failed and rarely had any more than a few people on. Most of whom ended up using the Mall bus stops, not the tram stop), no buses go into the station.

Again, fares. Stagecoach undercut it. And to be honest, most people drive to the TC.

Trafford Centre and Oldham have got new tram lines, why aren't these linked to the bus stations?

Oldham bus station pre-dates the tram by a number of years (despite looking new). There is in my view now a strong case to move it. Similarly the TC bus station predates the Metrolink by over 20 years and could do with being moved accordingly (building the tram to the old bus station would be expensive compared with moving what is a very basic bus station).

If integration is so good, why does Manchester City Council want to push buses out of the city centre, the main area where people connect between buses and trams?

Because the city centre is not the best place for that to happen. The ideal is for city centres to be for people, not vehicles.

I could go on. Integration is generally nothing more than just a car drivers excuse for not using public transport and politician easy policy to get more people on public transport. I could go on. Integration is generally nothing more than just a car drivers excuse for not using public transport and politician easy policy to get more people on public transport.

I'm sorry but there is not a single grain of truth in that at all, and is blaming car drivers for inadequate public transport which is bang out of order.

Buses and trams serve generally different markets and even where duplication exists, people make their choice because buses have more stops so can stop closer to home but trams can be quicker. It depends on your journey.

It does however help a lot when the system does not actively dissuade interchange but instead encourages it.

It's hard to point to an integration success in the UK because there isn't really many of them. It's just an easy political game to play to benefit a few select people while those who make regular journey's end up suffering from longer journey times and a possible change of mode.

You've never been to London, then?

The 2 best examples of buses Vs trams on the same corridor is Blackpool on route 1 and Manchester 219.

I don't know the 219. The Blackpool 1 is pointless and should be withdrawn. It only served any useful purpose when the tram was basically a tourist gimmick that didn't have the capacity for normal day to day needs, certainly during the Lights. I suspect it mostly carries visiting tourists who have passes with no tram validity, which is a superb example of how the fares system dissuades otherwise sensible behaviour. (FWIW, I oppose ENCTS in its current form as well for this exact reason, better would be an area-restricted all-modes pass, perhaps with a simple add-on for adding another zone for the day - often the areas didn't make sense before, but that can be resolved by defining pass zones based on where people actually go in given areas rather than artificial political constructs).

135 is a good example but does have some exclusive areas and different routings.

The 135 makes sense, because it doesn't actually run on the same corridor, it's mostly about 2km from the tram line which is too far to walk. It's essentially similar to the 42, which might appear to duplicate the train but doesn't because it doesn't run near many stations. Though I do think enhancing interchange around Parrs Wood would be a good thing, e.g. it running into the Metrolink station rather than just the road by it.

Oxford Road is an easy target for trams but you quite clearly are ignoring the fact Metrolink charges a lot more for its fares than Magicbus and for all the other buses, they branch off into separate areas. Just because they share the same road out of the city, doesn't mean they are all serving the same purpose. Adding to that, Trams don't run 24/7 (as the buses do on Oxford Road) and since trams run on tracks, you will have fun at nights when parking on Oxford Road becomes a free for all.

The fare for all modes should be the same because it's one system; graduated fares can either be achieved through zones or kilometric distance.

Parking and loading on Oxford/Wilmslow Road needs banning at all times (except dedicated loading bays) and enforcing.

 

[johncrossley]

Stretford, since the Trafford Centre shuttle went (hang on, integrated bus.... It failed and rarely had any more than a few people on. Most of whom ended up using the Mall bus stops, not the tram stop), no buses go into the station.

That's really an example of the opposite of integrated transport. In other countries they would serve the station with normal bus services and you would be able to use the same ticket on the bus and tram.

Trafford Centre and Oldham have got new tram lines, why aren't these linked to the bus stations?

Almost all buses in Oldham stop at Mumps tram stop and most of the ones that don't stop near Oldham King Street.

If integration is so good, why does Manchester City Council want to push buses out of the city centre, the main area where people connect between buses and trams?

If you look at other big cities outside Britain, it is normal for buses to terminate outside the city centre with passengers continuing their journey by rail based modes. This improves the environment in the city centre (as mentioned above) and saves a lot of money in bus operating costs.

It's hard to point to an integration success in the UK because there isn't really many of them. It's just an easy political game to play to benefit a few select people while those who make regular journey's end up suffering from longer journey times and a possible change of mode.

Maybe because integration is severely hindered in the UK by bus deregulation! London could do a lot better but there are good examples of integration if you look for them. Buses generally serve the tube/train stations. Croydon buses were reorganised when the tram was built and a special bus station was built in quite a remote but strategic location to enable maximum integration. You can change between buses and Croydon trams without extra cost.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's difficult to do it in a financially viable way at present because the bus has to "wash its face" financially on its own for a bus company to be willing to do it, and if it's tendered they can't grab income from the railway/trams. In an integrated model you instead consider "does adding these buses cause an overall increase in income or social inclusion", because having a convenient, ideally electric bus service timed to connect with the tram will cause the sale of more tram* tickets (say).

* Mode-agnostic through tickets from Altrincham to Manchester, ideally.



I don't know the 33. The 135 works because the main road runs mostly (other than around Whitefield) about 2km (or more) away from the tram line, so they are not really competing even though they have the same two ends. This is a bit like the fact that a Stockport-Manchester 42 doesn't compete with the railway because Wilmslow Road is nowhere near one.

Having said that I reckon at least some people would connect to tram at Besses or Whitefield to avoid the long slog through Cheetham Hill if the fares were integrated.

Edit: looked at a map, and the 33 is similar through Salford itself - the tram is too far away to serve places near the M62, and it's so close into Manchester that a connection wouldn't make sense (see Gateshead).

That's the point. Even though there are seemingly parallel services, they really aren't so there's no great dividend to be realised. The 33 runs parallel along Eccles New Road before the tram heads into Salford Quays into the city centre. So you could truncate it as a Worsley to Eccles Metrolink feeder but it would then deprive those users of a service that is not a total copy.

And as Altrincham locals ARE tendered then they are free to make them integrated in terms of ticketing...

As for people travelling from outlying areas may look to interchange at Whitefield. I might question how many that would be as the time differential (23 vs 35 mins) isn't great enough when you factor in the faff issue.

Can you give examples from outside the UK where 'ideological' integration occurs where, in terms of overall patronage and/or value for taxpayers' money, 'British style' operation would be preferable?

That old chestnut. Other countries plough a lot of taxpayers money into public transport. We don't. IIRC, there was a party that advocated expansion of public spending in both the 2017 and 2019 elections.... think didn't win either.

 

[johncrossley]

That old chestnut. Other countries plough a lot of taxpayers money into public transport. We don't. IIRC, there was a party that advocated expansion of public spending in both the 2017 and 2019 elections.... think didn't win either.

I don't see the relevance of money, because integration saves money rather than costs money.

 

[daodao]

Manchester 219

You have mixed up:

• Ashton New Road, served by the 2nd generation tram line and the 216 bus (formerly the 216 trolleybus and the 26 tram before that); and
• Ashton Old Road, served by the 219 bus (formerly the 218/219 trolleybuses and the 28/29 trams before that).

Altrincham has an integrated bus/tram/rail station, but the local town bus routes are now so infrequent (mostly hourly) to be useful as connecting services.

 

[carlberry]

I don't see the relevance of money, because integration saves money rather than costs money.

How does integration save money? If the fares are integrated then, without raising bus fares, tram fares would have to be reduced so needing more subsidy. If buses are extended/diverted to serve rail stations there is additional costs involved. There would only be a saving if, eventually, enough people decided to move between the modes as a result. That's hardly going to be a major saving.

 

[johncrossley]

How does integration save money? If the fares are integrated then, without raising bus fares, tram fares would have to be reduced so needing more subsidy. If buses are extended/diverted to serve rail stations there is additional costs involved. There would only be a saving if, eventually, enough people decided to move between the modes as a result. That's hardly going to be a major saving.

Most of the operating cost saving comes from removal of buses from routes where duplication occurs. See the Croydon example above. Fare integration should and could happen independent of funding. There's no logical reason to have independent fare scales for buses and trams. If it means bus fare increases then so be it. Even London does this, even though it fails on bus and tube fare integration.

 

[Robertj21a]

Most of the operating cost saving comes from removal of buses from routes where duplication occurs. See the Croydon example above. Fare integration should and could happen independent of funding. There's no logical reason to have independent fare scales for buses and trams. If it means bus fare increases then so be it. Even London does this, even though it fails on bus and tube fare integration.

So bus fares increase to pay for integration?

 

[carlberry]

Most of the operating cost saving comes from removal of buses from routes where duplication occurs. See the Croydon example above. Fare integration should and could happen independent of funding. There's no logical reason to have independent fare scales for buses and trams. If it means bus fare increases then so be it. Even London does this, even though it fails on bus and tube fare integration.

So you're suggesting saving money by removing transport facilities, even if people actually want to carry on using them. And bus users have to pay more just to subsidise those who can use trams/trains.

 

[johncrossley]

So bus fares increase to pay for integration?

You decide on the fare system when you know how much money you need to fund your public transport system. If you are afraid of increasing any fare above its previous level then you will be forever locked into an non-integrated fare system. You could argue that London should split off trams from the bus fare system. You could argue that bus fares could be lower if tram fares were allowed to increase to a more "commercial" level. London trams used to be more expensive than buses. Similar in other countries with integrated fare systems. No doubt Berlin could have cheaper bus fares if U/S-Bahn trains and buses were split into different fare structures.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Most of the operating cost saving comes from removal of buses from routes where duplication occurs. See the Croydon example above. Fare integration should and could happen independent of funding. There's no logical reason to have independent fare scales for buses and trams. If it means bus fare increases then so be it. Even London does this, even though it fails on bus and tube fare integration.

Good lord - have you not got it yet? There isn't duplication. Even @Bletchleyite has conceded that routes like the 135 and 33 that would seem to parallel Metrolink routes, don't actually duplicate them.

I can remember before Metrolink appeared in Eccles that there were loads of buses on that stretch. I mean, GMT had a depot on Eccles New Road (the former Weaste tram/bus depot). It now only sustains a half-hourly service as, not surprisingly, people have moved to Metrolink. That decline is mirrored on Oldham to Manchester, Rochdale to Manchester, the Washway Road services etc so that the ones that do remain have a very distinct yet important niche.

If you seriously think that there is some major saving to be had from duplication, then you're much mistaken. Same as the benefit from cutting margins - there's not that much and if there is, that will be taken up by the increased management of the new regime.

The money has to come from somewhere and I don't believe that it was stated that bus fares would have to go up?

 

[johncrossley]

So you're suggesting saving money by removing transport facilities, even if people actually want to carry on using them. And bus users have to pay more just to subsidise those who can use trams/trains.

There is no reason to segregate passengers into "bus" and "tram/train" users, they are all public transport users. Why should a bus service be guaranteed to run in perpetuity when there is an adequate alternative?

If you seriously think that there is some major saving to be had from duplication, then you're much mistaken. Same as the benefit from cutting margins - there's not that much and if there is, that will be taken up by the increased management of the new regime.

But you continually talk about "ideological" integration. It has been mentioned that many city centres outside Britain have a lot fewer buses because of forced interchange either just outside the city centre or in the suburbs. Would you be keen to avoid this kind of integration in Britain? If so, why is it OK outside Britain?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There is no reason to segregate passengers into "bus" and "tram/train" users, they are all public transport users. Why should a bus service be guaranteed to run in perpetuity when there is an adequate alternative?



But you continually talk about "ideological" integration. It has been mentioned that many city centres outside Britain have a lot fewer buses because of forced interchange either just outside the city centre or in the suburbs. Would you be keen to avoid this kind of integration in Britain? If so, why is it OK outside Britain?

You have been to Berlin or Paris? There are loads of buses because whilst they do feed to nodes, they also have distinct requirements away from the S/U Bahn/Metro lines etc. We have already seen the decline of direct buses on those routes that are directly paralleled by Metrolink, as I'm sure you will know.

So if there aren't this surfeit of duplicate services, and the margins aren't likely to be that much different, where does the money come from?

Also, what is the definition of success in patronage/modal shift to see understand what the tangible benefit is?

 

[johncrossley]

You have been to Berlin or Paris? There are loads of buses because whilst they do feed to nodes, they also have distinct requirements away from the S/U Bahn/Metro lines etc. We have already seen the decline of direct buses on those routes that are directly paralleled by Metrolink, as I'm sure you will know.

I don't rate Paris anyway because of poor fare integration between buses and metro. But there are many other cities with hardly any buses in the centre. For example, there are very few buses in Rotterdam city centre because most of the longer distance routes terminate at outlying metro stations. Why is this acceptable?

 

[carlberry]

There is no reason to segregate passengers into "bus" and "tram/train" users, they are all public transport users. Why should a bus service be guaranteed to run in perpetuity when there is an adequate alternative?

If the alternative were 'adequate' then people would use it. Oddly people are quite happy to define bus users as something that can be swept up onto trains/trams, however they become 'public transport users' when the subject changes to expecting them to pay more, be inconvenienced by changing modes or having facilities withdrawn.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for people travelling from outlying areas may look to interchange at Whitefield. I might question how many that would be as the time differential (23 vs 35 mins) isn't great enough when you factor in the faff issue.

Of course a well-designed system removes as much of the faff as possible. The bus stops aren't exactly miles from Whitefield station entrance, but in Germany or the Netherlands they'd redesign the junction so they were directly outside. Add to that the tram having a better choice of city centre destinations and a properly coordinated timetable and it soon looks better.

 

[johncrossley]

If the alternative were 'adequate' then people would use it. Oddly people are quite happy to define bus users as something that can be swept up onto trains/trams, however they become 'public transport users' when the subject changes to expecting them to pay more, be inconvenienced by changing modes or having facilities withdrawn.

There used to be a 353 bus between Bromley and Croydon. I used to get it to work. It used to run every half hour. When they built the tram they cut the 353 so it only went between Croydon and Addington Village where you have to get the tram into Croydon. But the 353 now runs every 15 minutes. Which is better?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So bus fares increase to pay for integration?

Instead of having "bus fares" and "train fares" you just have "fares", and you pay less for a shorter journey than a longer one. Much fairer. The "social inclusion" issue is better dealt with by offering targetted discounts, and allows those people to use all modes rather than being pushed onto buses. There's a reason they get known as "peasant wagons" by some, and there is no sense in perpetuating that with fares differentials that force poorer people onto the slower, inferior service provided by the bus against the faster, superior one of rapid transit rail. Buses, as the word "omnibus" implies, are for all - as should be trains and trams.

You've got to do it in steps, though, so with London my first would be that any Tube or rail journey has a free bus transfer at either end if you want it. Maybe that would be a first step for Manchester too, as a prelude to equalising fares?

If the alternative were 'adequate' then people would use it.

Completely agree. Which is why timetables, stop locations etc need setting up to enable and encourage connection, and fares need to stop penalising it.

 

[johncrossley]

So if there aren't this surfeit of duplicate services, and the margins aren't likely to be that much different, where does the money come from?

There is a lot of scope for cutting back on routes on major corridors. On major corridors there can be multiple routes combining to make a very high frequency. Some of the direct links could be cut to reduce the frequency on the corridor to a more sensible level meaning that more people have to change, like what TfL has done in London.

Also, what is the definition of success in patronage/modal shift to see understand what the tangible benefit is?

It doesn't matter. Whatever the outcome there will always be excuses. If Manchester does well there will be the excuse that it is only because of the funding, just like they do regarding London. If it doesn't, how do you know that it wouldn't have done even worse without franchising?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't rate Paris anyway because of poor fare integration between buses and metro. But there are many other cities with hardly any buses in the centre. For example, there are very few buses in Rotterdam city centre because most of the longer distance routes terminate at outlying metro stations. Why is this acceptable?

You may not rate Paris but it's a major city. And it happens in Berlin, and Barcelona, and Valencia. It's a realisation that yes, you can and you should have integration but that unless you have a tram/metro/train line on every conceivable access, then you have to have bus services entering the city centre.

Where Metrolink exists in Manchester, bus services have already consequently declined. You do recognise this, don't you?

Is your expectation is that we remove Bolton to Manchester routes and instead direct them all to Eccles? Please identify where are all these low hanging fruits are because, and I concede, I'm less well versed in the East side of the city), I'm just not seeing them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You may not rate Paris but it's a major city. And it happens in Berlin, and Barcelona, and Valencia. It's a realisation that yes, you can and you should have integration but that unless you have a tram/metro/train line on every conceivable access, then you have to have bus services entering the city centre.

Where Metrolink exists in Manchester, bus services have already consequently declined. You do recognise this, don't you?

Is your expectation is that we remove Bolton to Manchester routes and instead direct them all to Eccles? Please identify where are all these low hanging fruits are because, and I concede, I'm less well versed in the East side of the city), I'm just not seeing them.

I'm unclear why there need to be any Bolton to Manchester bus services. Bolton is a separate town and quite distinct. What Bolton should have is buses to the railway station for connections to Manchester, plus perhaps a Farnworth circular timed to meet the train.

Looking out towards Wigan, you've got a load of towns that have grown alongside their railway station - so a Hindley circular, a Westhoughton and Daisy Hill circular, a loop of Atherton to Atherton station, Little Hulton and on to Bolton station etc.

The component towns of GM are quite different to the contiguous built-up city and require a different approach to that.

(Yes, the train service is deficient, but solve that)

 

[johncrossley]

You may not rate Paris but it's a major city. And it happens in Berlin, and Barcelona, and Valencia. It's a realisation that yes, you can and you should have integration but that unless you have a tram/metro/train line on every conceivable access, then you have to have bus services entering the city centre.

Where Metrolink exists in Manchester, bus services have already consequently declined. You do recognise this, don't you?

Is your expectation is that we remove Bolton to Manchester routes and instead direct them all to Eccles? Please identify where are all these low hanging fruits are because, and I concede, I'm less well versed in the East side of the city), I'm just not seeing them.

Just one example:

Even though Oldham to Manchester buses have declined there are still two routes every 10 minutes, plus some more routes coming onto the route at Broadway. The Oldham to Manchester routes vary on the approach to Oldham, so just replace one of these with a local bus. Terminate the Broadway services at Newton Heath and Moston tram stop.

 

[carlberry]

Just one example:

Even though Oldham to Manchester buses have declined there are still two routes every 10 minutes, plus some more routes coming onto the route at Broadway. The Oldham to Manchester routes vary on the approach to Oldham, so just replace one of these with a local bus. Terminate the Broadway services at Newton Heath and Moston tram stop.

So integration means bus passengers (the majority of public transport users in Great Manchester) pay more and are expected to change more often (because why would they be allowed direct services). Overall some of them may arrive slightly earlier (however it's likely to be somewhere different from where they arrive now), lots will take longer and all will have a less convenient journey. Well that's me sold on the idea then!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So integration means bus passengers (the majority of public transport users in Great Manchester) pay more and are expected to change more often (because why would they be allowed direct services). Overall some of them may arrive slightly earlier (however it's likely to be somewhere different from where they arrive now), lots will take longer and all will have a less convenient journey. Well that's me sold on the idea then!

It's all about using each mode for what it's good at. Rail is good for moving lots of people longer distances. Bus is good at filling in the gaps and widening the reach of rail by providing connecting services.

Either mode is weaker without the other one.

 

[johncrossley]

So integration means bus passengers (the majority of public transport users in Great Manchester) pay more and are expected to change more often (because why would they be allowed direct services). Overall some of them may arrive slightly earlier (however it's likely to be somewhere different from where they arrive now), lots will take longer and all will have a less convenient journey. Well that's me sold on the idea then!

Routes to the city centre are already well served so it makes sense that they should take the brunt of cost savings. The whole point is to redeploy these resources elsewhere.

 

[markymark2000]

That's really an example of the opposite of integrated transport. In other countries they would serve the station with normal bus services and you would be able to use the same ticket on the bus and tram.

On the Trafford Centre Shuttle, there was a combined ticket. It was rarely purchased, hence the bus ceased. People preferred to get the 250/X50 direct from Piccadilly Gardens rather than faff at Stretford (or other direct buses from wherever they start their journey)

Almost all buses in Oldham stop at Mumps tram stop and most of the ones that don't stop near Oldham King Street.

'Almost all'..... Hmmm... May want to check that. A large number of buses don't stop at Mumps. Those which do tend to be First buses (because of the depot there) or buses to the east. A lot of buses don't go there though.

You have mixed up:

• Ashton New Road, served by the 2nd generation tram line and the 216 bus (formerly the 216 trolleybus and the 26 tram before that); and
• Ashton Old Road, served by the 219 bus (formerly the 218/219 trolleybuses and the 28/29 trams before that)

216, you're right. Sorry. The Ashton line has the 216 running follow the whole line minus 2 stops on Lord Sheldon Way. If the 216 can run every 10 minutes and the Metrolink every 6 minutes and both make money side by side, why shouldn't they remain running together.

I'm unclear why there need to be any Bolton to Manchester bus services. Bolton is a separate town and quite distinct. What Bolton should have is buses to the railway station for connections to Manchester, plus perhaps a Farnworth circular timed to meet the train.

Bolton to Manchester buses don't solely fulfil the role of getting people from Bolton to Manchester. Each route runs a different way linking people to different places. Whether it be Farnworth to Salford, Walkden to Bolton or Manchester to Swinton. People aren't all using buses for the end to end. The buses have a lot of different purposes and uses. Should we split the Bolton to Manchester routes into 3 smaller services (Bolton - Swindon, Farnworth - Salford, Walkden - Manchester) and ban anyone from connecting between buses to force them onto trains? Might as well do based off some of the ideology going on here.

Routes to the city centre are already well served so it makes sense that they should take the brunt of cost savings. The whole point is to redeploy these resources elsewhere.

Using your logic, why does London have any buses within the congestion charge zone? London is well equipped with the tube and trains to get people around. Reality is, people prefer choice. Infact, looking at how often GoNorthWest are accepting Metrolink tickets, it's a good job that buses follow the tram lines since if no buses were available, people would be stuck on the outskirts of the city most of the time.

 

[507021]

It's all about using each mode for what it's good at. Rail is good for moving lots of people longer distances. Bus is good at filling in the gaps and widening the reach of rail by providing connecting services.

Either mode is weaker without the other one.

This is exactly the point. In south Liverpool, you've got good bus and rail coverage which work really well together.

North Liverpool is crying out for rail to supplement the buses, but it appears Mr Rotheram thinks publicly owned buses is a better investment than re-opening the Canada Dock Branch and North Mersey Branch to passengers. I'm voting for Gary Cargill (Green) next month simply because I put my trust in Mr Rotheram last time, and the minimal investment in my part of the LCR since then has actually been a result of our trio of Liberal Party councillors campaigning for it. We'll see if anything changes during his inevitable second term.

Apologies for the slight deviation from the topic, but wanted to expand on why I agree with Neil's comments.

Using your logic, why does London have any buses within the congestion charge zone? London is well equipped with the tube and trains to get people around. Reality is, people prefer choice. Infact, looking at how often GoNorthWest are accepting Metrolink tickets, it's a good job that buses follow the tram lines since if no buses were available, people would be stuck on the outskirts of the city most of the time.

I agree with what you're saying, but you're wasting your time unfortunately. For a member of a rail enthusiast forum I consider his views to come across as very anti-rail.

 

[johncrossley]

On the Trafford Centre Shuttle, there was a combined ticket. It was rarely purchased, hence the bus ceased. People preferred to get the 250/X50 direct from Piccadilly Gardens rather than faff at Stretford (or other direct buses from wherever they start their journey)

That's the point, there shouldn't ever have needed to be a special combined tickets just for that journey.

Bolton to Manchester buses don't solely fulfil the role of getting people from Bolton to Manchester. Each route runs a different way linking people to different places. Whether it be Farnworth to Salford, Walkden to Bolton or Manchester to Swinton. People aren't all using buses for the end to end. The buses have a lot of different purposes and uses. Should we split the Bolton to Manchester routes into 3 smaller services (Bolton - Swindon, Farnworth - Salford, Walkden - Manchester) and ban anyone from connecting between buses to force them onto trains? Might as well do based off some of the ideology going on here.

There is certainly already a highly developed BRT route along the A580/A6 so some routes via Swinton and Pendlebury could easily be truncated at a convenient location for connections onto it. If you were going to be clever and were willing to put in a little bit of investment, you could even build a little bus station near the big roundabout at Swinton which would be really useful in providing good connections in all directions. They certainly don't all need to go past Salford Crescent station. There is a ridiculous number of buses passing Salford University.

Using your logic, why does London have any buses within the congestion charge zone? London is well equipped with the tube and trains to get people around. Reality is, people prefer choice.

TfL have been cutting buses in central London and could do a lot more. Choice is all very well but it comes at a cost.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Even though Oldham to Manchester buses have declined there are still two routes every 10 minutes, plus some more routes coming onto the route at Broadway. The Oldham to Manchester routes vary on the approach to Oldham, so just replace one of these with a local bus. Terminate the Broadway services at Newton Heath and Moston tram stop.

So given that the level of Oldham to Manchester have declined but are still able to sustain a 10 minute frequency, what makes you think that this is duplication?

If you were to travel from Failsworth to Manchester, it would be a 4 min on the bus to NH&M tram stop, then whatever interchange time you fancy, then 15 mins on Metrolink vs the direct 22 mins. How is that better? Of course, it would be more sensible to remove direct buses from the Oldham suburbs to Manchester and infeed onto Metrolink....and that is what has essentially happened over time.

Oh, and if one of those two 10 min routes is the 76, it can hardly be described as duplicating the Metrolink.