TfGM Bus franchising

[johncrossley]

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.

The 83 and 84 are both every 10 minutes each, so the 76 is extra on top of that. It may well be in First's commercial interest to maintain such a high frequency but it is irrelevant in a franchised network. I'd be very surprised if overcrowding is so acute that a tram every 6 minutes and a bus every 10 minutes isn't enough. It might not be necessarily "better" for all passengers on this corridor, but the whole point of cutting the service is to save money that can be redeployed elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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)

I think you're making a big assumption as to the reason it wasn't popular.

You've got a number of possibilities:

• Was it well promoted enough?
• It cost more than Stagecoach
• A lot of people had a Stagecoach weekly pass anyway and so their bus was free
• Faff about changing (your point)

If all else was equal, then I'm not sure it would necessarily have been quite as poorly used.

'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.

In any case, Oldham bus station was opened, according to Wikilies, in 2001. That's something like 15 years before Metrolink got there. It isn't feasible to run the tram via the bus station, so the bus station is going to have to move. That'll take time to sort out, and quite possibly it might happen as a "planning gain" type matter if there is a major shopping redevelopment at any point soon.

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.

If that's a genuine full duplication, then yes, like Blackpool's 1 it should be withdrawn. There is no sense in having such duplication. With integrated fares (so there's no price incentive to use the bus) people would just use the tram. Yes, you might need to add tram capacity, but that's more efficient than using buses, as rail is good at moving large numbers of people.

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.

I've said what I'd do with regard to west Manchester. If you look at Manchester to Bolton (very different from the line out to Hazel Grove, say), it's very much "beads on a string" - small and medium towns that have grown up around the railway stations - same as the Atherton line. Therefore, what makes sense isn't linear bus services, but rather dealing with things more locally in each "bead" - so town circulars timed to meet the train and integrated with the fare so those nice big 6-car EMUs can be used to shift lots of people, like they're good at.

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.

One issue with the Tube is that it has somewhat of a capacity problem, so buses are needed to beef that up. The only viable way to solve that capacity problem is to build more rail - which is what Crossrail is about - but that takes time. In the meantime, some of central London's bus network provides that "beefing up" of capacity. When Crossrail (eventually) opens, I suspect serious consideration will be given to pedestrianising Oxford Street and Regent Street, because there will be the capacity on rail to take all those bus passengers (and more), for instance.

There are also parts of central London (which is the size of a medium town in its own right) that don't have a Tube station nearby, so there are those "super local" routes too.

Apart from that, quite a lot of London buses do terminate at Tube and railway stations for interchange. You'll note that there isn't a "London central bus station", but rather a large number of smaller ones spread around the place for interchange.

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.

Hyperbole that does not help the discussion. If Metrolink wasn't running more often than it was then lots of questions would be being asked.

Yes, one advantage of duplicating rail with bus is that it provides resilience, but if your rail service is that bad then you really need to fix it. Unplanned RRBs on Merseyrail happens about never. OK, Metrolink's street running makes it a little more vulnerable, but there needs to be (and is) a plan for that, e.g. turning round at Vic, Picc etc.

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.

The guided busway is a bit of an outlier, but I think for these purposes we can consider it to de-facto be a (rubber tyred) light railway, albeit one with a special property - those connecting buses don't need to connect at a station but can just run onto it.

I'd like and hope to see it converted to Metrolink at some point in the future, but it's probably low priority. However for now it does have that useful feature. That said, electrifying it (by way of battery buses) has to be an urgent consideration.

 

[markymark2000]

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,

Merseyrail has more buses following the train line than Manchester has buses following the trams and it's interesting to see how they both make money, side by side.

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.

I think I will opt with your advice on this one. I'll make this my last post for now on this thread.

One issue with the Tube is that it has somewhat of a capacity problem, so buses are needed to beef that up. The only viable way to solve that capacity problem is to build more rail - which is what Crossrail is about - but that takes time. In the meantime, some of central London's bus network provides that "beefing up" of capacity. When Crossrail (eventually) opens, I suspect serious consideration will be given to pedestrianising Oxford Street and Regent Street, because there will be the capacity on rail to take all those bus passengers (and more), for instance.

Thank you for providing a case for keeping buses as well as trams. The Metrolink can often be overcrowded, especially at peak times and as can the buses. It simply isn't an option to add more trams as there isn't capacity on the tracks so buses boost that capacity as well as providing better stops for passengers.

If you want so many more Metrolink trams, I now ask, how do you expect to plan the services for all these trams? The whole tram network timetable is planned around a few key pinch points. The lines in the city can already be congested at times and that will only get worse with the Trafford Centre line due to extend in the future. Perhaps we could have a 3rd, 4th, 5th city crossings so that trams can run down all these corridors where you deem people shouldn't have buses and should instead be forced onto trams (completely ignoring counter flows, people with mobility issues changing between modes and also how little people like changing between modes)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail has more buses following the train line than Manchester has buses following the trams and it's interesting to see how they both make money, side by side.

You what? Merseyrail loses money hand over fist. Last time I looked it was only behind Island Line in subsidy per passenger mile. Part of the reason is because it's underused - most trains aren't full, the peaks are narrow, most trains are 3-car (4-car FLIRT) and the service frequency is well below what the system was designed to deliver. And part of the reason for that is - you guessed it - because instead of connecting with it, buses compete with it.

(Yes, there is about a 90 degree "angle" of Liverpool that has no rail service at all and that needs buses, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion - and Manchester has some similar bits, like the Wilmslow Road corridor).

Thank you for providing a case for keeping buses as well as trams. The Metrolink can often be overcrowded, especially at peak times and as can the buses. It simply isn't an option to add more trams

Actually, it is - double everything up.

If you want so many more Metrolink trams, I now ask, how do you expect to plan the services for all these trams? The whole tram network timetable is planned around a few key pinch points. The lines in the city can already be congested at times and that will only get worse with the Trafford Centre line due to extend in the future. Perhaps we could have a 3rd, 4th, 5th city crossings so that trams can run down all these corridors where you deem people shouldn't have buses and should instead be forced onto trams (completely ignoring counter flows, people with mobility issues changing between modes and also how little people like changing between modes)

I'm sure there will be a pre-metro style tram tunnel at some point as patronage grows, and so there should. But for now there's lots of scope for increasing capacity on Metrolink. You'll need to start thinking about that sort of infrastructure now, to plan ahead, but in the meantime there's a lot of capacity to be gained by ordering more units to have all trams running as doubles, all day every day, and possibly even considering ordering some actual 4-car units to gain that bit of extra capacity by not having two unused cabs.

People whose mobility issues are so severe they can't make a well co-ordinated connection are not going to be going by bus in the first place, unless they are fortunate enough to have a bus stop right outside their door and right outside their destination (and don't forget most Manchester bus services go to one of two main bus stations, and don't serve the whole city in the way Metrolink does). Such needs are better provided for by way of subsidised taxi use, dial-a-ride and Motability cars.

If you go to London you will see people changing between Tube lines and between Tube and bus all over the place, this demonstrates clearly that it isn't some mythically unachievable thing in the UK, but rather something that works just fine when it is properly provided, either by timing connections or by very high frequency services so you don't need to. You walk out of Euston straight into a bus station, pretty much. You come up from the Tube at Vauxhall to...you guessed it...a bus station. You get the idea? People hate changing because it's badly done - they are charged extra, the timetables don't match up, they have to walk to/from the bus stop, the facilities aren't comfortable (e.g. you're waiting at a freezing cold bus stop). Solve those things and people will do it.

 

[158756]

If that's a genuine full duplication, then yes, like Blackpool's 1 it should be withdrawn. There is no sense in having such duplication. With integrated fares (so there's no price incentive to use the bus) people would just use the tram. Yes, you might need to add tram capacity, but that's more efficient than using buses, as rail is good at moving large numbers of people.

This route probably still exists for two reasons - the shorter distance between stops on the bus (the tram stops are generally about half a mile apart, Clayton Hall and Edge Lane further - there would probably be demands for a less frequent tendered service if the 216 stopped) and fares. The fares are not an easy fix. A single on the tram from Droylsden is £3.80, and by the looks of it a weekly ticket is priced more than 50% higher than a Stagecoach weekly ticket - are those acceptable to bus users? Certainly no one is expecting Andy Burnham to put the cost of getting to work up 50%. Presumably the distance between stops is part of why the 1 in Blackpool exists, especially with the age of the population there.

I've said what I'd do with regard to west Manchester. If you look at Manchester to Bolton (very different from the line out to Hazel Grove, say), it's very much "beads on a string" - small and medium towns that have grown up around the railway stations - same as the Atherton line. Therefore, what makes sense isn't linear bus services, but rather dealing with things more locally in each "bead" - so town circulars timed to meet the train and integrated with the fare so those nice big 6-car EMUs can be used to shift lots of people, like they're good at.

Aside from the obvious issue that there is no realistic prospect of Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley having a frequent rail service and Clifton should be closed, what you end up with here is forcing people to stand at the freezing cold bus stop/station with no facilities. And none of the intermediate journeys make much sense by train, so if you need a bus from Manchester to Pendlebury, Salford to Farnworth, Kearsley to Bolton why not join them up?

The guided busway is a bit of an outlier, but I think for these purposes we can consider it to de-facto be a (rubber tyred) light railway, albeit one with a special property - those connecting buses don't need to connect at a station but can just run onto it.

I'd like and hope to see it converted to Metrolink at some point in the future, but it's probably low priority. However for now it does have that useful feature. That said, electrifying it (by way of battery buses) has to be an urgent consideration.

Once it gets on the East Lancs Road it's just a normal bus - and one that should be pretty full before it reaches Pendlebury if it's justifying the cost of its expensive infrastructure, so pretty useless for anyone to change onto. It also doesn't really go anywhere convenient for interchange, and diverting it would worsen the already not great journey times to the busway section.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fares are not an easy fix. A single on the tram from Droylsden is £3.80, and by the looks of it a weekly ticket is priced more than 50% higher than a Stagecoach weekly ticket - are those acceptable to bus users?

They're not an easy fix, no, but fixed they must be - the only way an integrated network is ever going to work properly is if the fares are standardised, because otherwise you get too much shouting of "I want a direct bus else I pay too much", which is no way to plan a network.

I suspect that for "social inclusion" reasons there would need to be more "means tested" discounts on the unified fares (which would indeed be likely to be more like the tram fares, I suspect), so those on low wages can still afford to get to work.

Certainly no one is expecting Andy Burnham to put the cost of getting to work up 50%. Presumably the distance between stops is part of why the 1 in Blackpool exists, especially with the age of the population there.

In the context of Manchester this doesn't make sense because buses are limited to one destination in the city centre (Shudehill or Piccadilly Gardens), whereas the tram can get you nearer where you're going. So you might have to walk more at the start but you'll have to walk less at the destination. Those who can't walk any distance at all are better served by community transport type operations.

Aside from the obvious issue that there is no realistic prospect of Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley having a frequent rail service and Clifton should be closed, what you end up with here is forcing people to stand at the freezing cold bus stop/station with no facilities. And none of the intermediate journeys make much sense by train, so if you need a bus from Manchester to Pendlebury, Salford to Farnworth, Kearsley to Bolton why not join them up?

If Burnham is serious about a Merseyrail style service for GM, then Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley definitely will need their service improving. How do intermediate journeys not make sense by train? This is I think cultural - people do intermediate journeys on Merseyrail all the time (encouraged in some ways by them being "free" unless you are unfortunate enough for RPIs to get on...I only partly jest...)

The blistering acceleration of Class 331s should allow these three to get a second train per hour without more than a few minutes' effect on Blackpool-Manchester stoppers, the sort of time that has been quietly added to Ormskirk-Liverpool running times over the years without anyone really noticing.

Clifton Jn is a bit "neither here nor there" as the area is served by Swinton station which is about 350m from the main road where the bus would run and isn't up a massive hill.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The 83 and 84 are both every 10 minutes each, so the 76 is extra on top of that. It may well be in First's commercial interest to maintain such a high frequency but it is irrelevant in a franchised network. I'd be very surprised if overcrowding is so acute that a tram every 6 minutes and a bus every 10 minutes isn't enough. It might not be necessarily "better" for all passengers on this corridor, but the whole point of cutting the service is to save money that can be redeployed elsewhere.

Surely it is in First's commercial interest to have the lowest number of resources as they are running it commercially (and are allegedly still losing money) so is that really the case?

The guided busway is a bit of an outlier, but I think for these purposes we can consider it to de-facto be a (rubber tyred) light railway, albeit one with a special property - those connecting buses don't need to connect at a station but can just run onto it.

And there's another example. You only have to see what has happened to the established Leigh - Tyldesley - Manchester services to understand what happens; the bus can't compete with the defacto light railway, hence the massive decline of those routes. The 33 (already mentioned by me) is one of those so affected.

Interchanging can be done effectively in the UK. You see it at Heworth Metro, you see it Liverpool South. Part of the problem is often that train stations are in poor locations, a consequence of commercial considerations in the 19th century, lack of cohesive planning in land use and expansion etc. However, there are plenty of examples in Manchester where it is done well; in fact, if you visit Bury and Altrincham, Eccles and Rochdale, you'll see some very well planned, integrated facilities. Part of which explains why services from Altrincham along Washway Road and from Eccles along Eccles New Road have declined as they have.

 

[johncrossley]

Surely it is in First's commercial interest to have the lowest number of resources as they are running it commercially (and are allegedly still losing money) so is that really the case?

Just because a route is run commercially doesn't mean it is crowded. If you can't safely cut such a frequent bus route which runs parallel to such a frequent tram line then that would be incredible. If there is no longer a fare difference then there is no longer a reason for the price sensitive passenger to use the bus to save money.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Aside from the obvious issue that there is no realistic prospect of Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley having a frequent rail service and Clifton should be closed, what you end up with here is forcing people to stand at the freezing cold bus stop/station with no facilities. And none of the intermediate journeys make much sense by train, so if you need a bus from Manchester to Pendlebury, Salford to Farnworth, Kearsley to Bolton why not join them up?

Exactly - the Bolton to Manchester routes (along with other services) aren't simply end-to-end journeys but a complex range of overlapping flows. I'm fairly certain that bus passengers wanting to enjoy the delights of Farnworth town centre won't wish to be wandering from the rail station, or getting a bus for a journey of less than 1/2 mile

Just because a route is run commercially doesn't mean it is crowded. If you can't safely cut such a frequent bus route which runs parallel to such a frequent tram line then that would be incredible. If there is no longer a fare difference then there is no longer a reason for the price sensitive passenger to use the bus to save money.

However, why would First run more buses than they need, especially when they're allegedly duplicating the tram? Why?

 

[johncrossley]

However, why would First run more buses than they need, especially when they're allegedly duplicating the tram? Why?

Doesn't matter if the frequency can be cut without overcrowding. First probably think they need to offer a frequent direct service to the city centre on both routes as the routes differ into Oldham.

Manchester buses in general don't seem to worry about having several routes converging on the same corridor just to maintain direct links with the city centre, clearly leading to huge capacity on the common section of route. If such frequency is needed to avoid overcrowding then buses in GM would be a success story and there would be little interest in franchising.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Doesn't matter if the frequency can be cut without overcrowding. First probably think they need to offer a frequent direct service to the city centre on both routes as the routes differ into Oldham.

Manchester buses in general don't seem to worry about having several routes converging on the same corridor just to maintain direct links with the city centre, clearly leading to huge capacity on the common section of route. If such frequency is needed to avoid overcrowding then buses in GM would be a success story and there would be little interest in franchising.

So you think there's a load of half empty buses heading into Manchester during the peak? They've reduced the number of services and yet still persist with that inefficiency? The savings that you have pinned your heart on just aren't there.

 

[Cesarcollie]

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.



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



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



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).



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'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.



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



You've never been to London, then?



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).



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.



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.

But you cited London earlier..... Tube fares are different to bus are different to national Rail .....

 

[johncrossley]

So you think there's a load of half empty buses heading into Manchester during the peak? They've reduced the number of services and yet still persist with that inefficiency? The savings that you have pinned your heart on just aren't there.

Manchester buses run at very high frequency, peak and off-peak.

 

[daodao]

Manchester buses in general don't seem to worry about having several routes converging on the same corridor just to maintain direct links with the city centre, clearly leading to huge capacity on the common section of route. If such frequency is needed to avoid overcrowding then buses in GM would be a success story and there would be little interest in franchising.

Bus services in Manchester have declined markedly over the last 50 years, particularly in areas served by Metrolink. There are now few radial roads into central Manchester that have more than 1 main bus route along them, and for most of these it is only on the first 2-3 miles from the city centre. The Wilmslow Road corridor is an exception, and there are a few others, such as Rochdale Road.

I fear that franchising will be a disaster and markedly increase costs to local government, which will then be passed on in increased council tax bills. Commercial companies now run most routes, and were able to do so economically (at least pre-Covid) without being a burden on the taxpayer. Local government should let them be and stop meddling; Manchester is not North Korea.

Manchester buses run at very high frequency, peak and off-peak.

The bus services on most of the radial routes that only have 1 service are generally every 10 minutes Mon-Sat daytime, e.g. services 216 and 219 to Ashton, which take different routes; that is hardly a very high frequency.

 

[johncrossley]

Manchester is not North Korea.

Therefore I presume you think that most cities in the developed world are in North Korea!

Several high frequency corridors have been mentioned in this thread. Others include Princess Road and Hyde Road.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you cited London earlier..... Tube fares are different to bus are different to national Rail .....

I did explain the specific reason why that is the case for London elsewhere in the thread. That reason doesn't apply to Manchester.

 

[daodao]

Several high frequency corridors have been mentioned in this thread. Others include Princess Road and Hyde Road.

The bus services on Princess Road are a mere shadow of those provided 50-60 years ago, when there were regular all day limited stop services as well as those serving all stops. There are now just 8 buses per hour (on routes 101 and 102/103) from Southern Cemetery to the city centre via Princess Road, compared to 15 stopping buses per hour (routes 32/44/45/99/100/102/108) and 6 limited stop buses per hour (routes 101 and 103) in 1965. Route 32 was an outdistrict service to Higher Poynton operated by NWRCC; the other services were operated by MCT. There were also many peak time extras then, including routes 61/72 (cross-city stopping services to Mersey Bank) and 106/107/110/111/115 (limited stop services to other areas of Wythenshawe).

 

[johncrossley]

The bus services on Princess Road are a mere shadow of those provided 50-60 years ago, when there were regular all day limited stop services as well as those serving all stops. There are now just 8 buses per hour (on routes 101 and 102/103) from Southern Cemetery to the city centre via Princess Road, compared to 15 stopping buses per hour (routes 32/44/45/99/100/102/108) and 6 limited stop buses per hour (routes 101 and 103) in 1965.

So there are still a lot of buses even today!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So there are still a lot of buses even today!

That are used and don’t parallel Metrolink

 

[daodao]

So there are still a lot of buses even today!

8 buses per hour is hardly very high frequency.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

8 buses per hour is hardly very high frequency.

Especially if you are then banking on reducing them!!!

 

[johncrossley]

Are there any big cities in the developed world outside the UK that aren't in North Korea?

 

[daodao]

Especially if you are then banking on reducing them!!!

I am not proposing further bus service reductions. However, the services along Princess Road have already been reduced in the last 5 years, with the withdrawal of service 109 (formerly route 44) from Wythenshawe Hospital (formerly Baguley Sanatorium) to Piccadilly, subsequent to the opening of the Metrolink line serving Northern Moor and Baguley.

 

[lincman]

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.

I am sorry but people seem to think everyone wants to go to central Manchester, and on that assumption Metrolink is fine. For anything else it is not much use. Just look at the location of the stations; had these stations been where people wanted them why get rid of a perfectly good heavy rail system? I used to live near Buckstones Road in Shaw, if I wanted to go to Piccadilly i had a perfectly good bus service every 20 Minutes taking 45 minutes, should I wish to do the same journey today I would have a 20 minute walk to Shaw tram stop a 34 minute tram journey to Exchange Square then a walk to Piccadilly overall journey 1 hour 9 minutes. I cannot wait for franchising if this is to become the norm.

 

[Purple Orange]

I am not proposing further bus service reductions. However, the services along Princess Road have already been reduced in the last 5 years, with the withdrawal of service 109 (formerly route 44) from Wythenshawe Hospital (formerly Baguley Sanatorium) to Piccadilly, subsequent to the opening of the Metrolink line serving Northern Moor and Baguley.

That is a symptom of deregulation. Why would a for-profit bus company run the 44 down Princess Road, when that bus company can throw it’s bus along Oxford Road or Stockport Road and benefit from higher revenues?

Of course the 44 still runs, but parallel to Princess Road up Burton Road & Claremont Rd, before tucking in to run down Oxford Road which is essentially dedicated to buses, whereas Princess Road is dedicated to cars. I’d look at the automobile if you want to question why Princess Road is not what it once was.

 

[Redmike]

There are less buses on Princess Road than 50 years ago but that partly reflects the changing nature of the area. The bulk of Princess Road routes were and still are the Wythenshawe services. Back in the 1960s Wythenshawe was a new overspill area and many people still went back into Manchester for work and shopping.
Employment patterns have changed and people in Wythenshawe commute to Altrincham and Stockport on routes like 11 (every 20 mins) and 368 (every 15 mins) which didn't run back then. Also the Airport has grown into a massive employer. Yes buses to the airport have been reduced but there are still 9 buses an hour from Wythenshawe bus station to the Airport plus a 10 minute Metrolink service. The 43 route offers a bus every 10 minutes into Manchester via Wilmslow Road and the university - another through journey that was not possible then without changing buses.
There may be less buses from Wythenshawe to Manchester than 50 years ago but there may well be as many buses overall in Wythenshawe given the changes in the area.

 

[daodao]

That is a symptom of deregulation. Why would a for-profit bus company run the 44 down Princess Road, when that bus company can throw it’s bus along Oxford Road or Stockport Road and benefit from higher revenues?

Of course the 44 still runs, but parallel to Princess Road up Burton Road & Claremont Rd, before tucking in to run down Oxford Road which is essentially dedicated to buses, whereas Princess Road is dedicated to cars. I’d look at the automobile if you want to question why Princess Road is not what it once was.

The current route 44 is not the same as the previous bus route 44 from the 1960s; the choice of the same number is probably mere coincidence, unless someone in TfGM has a very long memory. Number 44 was originally the number of the tram route from Piccadilly to Southern Cemetery via Princess Road (not Lloyd Street).

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I am not proposing further bus service reductions. However, the services along Princess Road have already been reduced in the last 5 years, with the withdrawal of service 109 (formerly route 44) from Wythenshawe Hospital (formerly Baguley Sanatorium) to Piccadilly, subsequent to the opening of the Metrolink line serving Northern Moor and Baguley.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that YOU were proposing service reductions, but that it might be something that other posters (and TfGM) might be banking on!

I am sorry but people seem to think everyone wants to go to central Manchester, and on that assumption Metrolink is fine. For anything else it is not much use. Just look at the location of the stations; had these stations been where people wanted them why get rid of a perfectly good heavy rail system? I used to live near Buckstones Road in Shaw, if I wanted to go to Piccadilly i had a perfectly good bus service every 20 Minutes taking 45 minutes, should I wish to do the same journey today I would have a 20 minute walk to Shaw tram stop a 34 minute tram journey to Exchange Square then a walk to Piccadilly overall journey 1 hour 9 minutes. I cannot wait for franchising if this is to become the norm.

A point that I have made earlier! As I slightly mischievously stated, you could remove Bolton to Manchester directs and simply have a Bolton to Eccles service....but, of course, routes are usually made of a series of overlapping flows so it would be foolish to do so. In relation to Oldham to Manchester, the majority of end to end journeys will be made using the tram already but that's no good for a number for intra-route flows which is why a commercial bus service is still required.

There are less buses on Princess Road than 50 years ago but that partly reflects the changing nature of the area. The bulk of Princess Road routes were and still are the Wythenshawe services. Back in the 1960s Wythenshawe was a new overspill area and many people still went back into Manchester for work and shopping.
Employment patterns have changed and people in Wythenshawe commute to Altrincham and Stockport on routes like 11 (every 20 mins) and 368 (every 15 mins) which didn't run back then. Also the Airport has grown into a massive employer. Yes buses to the airport have been reduced but there are still 9 buses an hour from Wythenshawe bus station to the Airport plus a 10 minute Metrolink service. The 43 route offers a bus every 10 minutes into Manchester via Wilmslow Road and the university - another through journey that was not possible then without changing buses.
There may be less buses from Wythenshawe to Manchester than 50 years ago but there may well be as many buses overall in Wythenshawe given the changes in the area.

The change is demographics is something that also affected the 53, a service that used to run every few minutes. However, the reduction in the workforce employed on Trafford Park, and changes to places like Hulme, have changed things irrevocably.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am sorry but people seem to think everyone wants to go to central Manchester, and on that assumption Metrolink is fine. For anything else it is not much use. Just look at the location of the stations; had these stations been where people wanted them why get rid of a perfectly good heavy rail system? I used to live near Buckstones Road in Shaw, if I wanted to go to Piccadilly i had a perfectly good bus service every 20 Minutes taking 45 minutes, should I wish to do the same journey today I would have a 20 minute walk to Shaw tram stop a 34 minute tram journey to Exchange Square then a walk to Piccadilly overall journey 1 hour 9 minutes. I cannot wait for franchising if this is to become the norm.

But that's an example of "one or t'other" that doesn't work unless you consider a whole system - a commercial bus isn't viable because of the tram, but it might increase tram revenue if there's a bus running a figure-8 loop of Shaw timed to connect with the trams because people in your position might otherwise drive. Another thing maybe worth looking at is a "Shaw North" tram stop (much easier to get in place than a heavy rail station), or possibly relocating the existing one to be more central.

On the other hand a Rochdale-Royton-Oldham* bus (for onward connections) makes sense as while it's a similar corridor the main road is miles from the tram.

As for your destination of choice at Manchester, change at Victoria, you don't have to walk to Picc.

* There appears to be a small bus station by the tram stop, sensibly.

 

[lincman]

But that's an example of "one or t'other" that doesn't work unless you consider a whole system - a commercial bus isn't viable because of the tram, but it might increase tram revenue if there's a bus running a figure-8 loop of Shaw timed to connect with the trams because people in your position might otherwise drive. Another thing maybe worth looking at is a "Shaw North" tram stop (much easier to get in place than a heavy rail station), or possibly relocating the existing one to be more central.

On the other hand a Rochdale-Royton-Oldham* bus (for onward connections) makes sense as while it's a similar corridor the main road is miles from the tram.

As for your destination of choice at Manchester, change at Victoria, you don't have to walk to Picc.

* There appears to be a small bus station by the tram stop, sensibly.

I think I may have put my point over badly, I am aware of all the points you raise but I feel you are missing mine. Metrolink is not a tram system it is a light rail network it does not do what tram networks do, in other cities as they were designed to be tram networks, Metrolink is a low cost heavy rail replacement, and I would think that the cost of a Metrolink stop is not much less than the basic requirements for a rail halt. I would suggest that it remains that most journeys in Greater Manchester are short riders within there local areas and the tram no use for that.