TfGM Bus franchising

[johncrossley]

The original post was about operator specific tickets so the operators decide that they're available on their routes. This doesn't effect the 'network' at all.

I presume you mean 'affect'. The fact that a particular route is run by a certain company is of little interest to most people other than enthusiasts, so to have tickets arranged like that makes less sense than, for example, by geography. TfL routes run by Metroline could have their own ticket by that logic.

 

[domcoop7]

Or not, as TfL buses operating outside London use TfL ticketing. No reason GM can't do the same.

I believe the TfGM plan is not to do that. GM franchised routes will be entirely within the boundary, and cross-boundary services operated under a permit scheme. The permits will require GM Ticketing within GM, but unless they come from a neighbouring authority that is also franchised, TfGM can not mandate tickets outside the boundary, as the legislation doesn't allow this - they are still de-regulated.

Of course an operator can choose to accept whatever tickets they wish for a cross-boundary service, but if they have to give all the revenue to TfGM, they probably won't want to.

(at least that's my understanding).

 

[Goldfish62]

I believe the TfGM plan is not to do that. GM franchised routes will be entirely within the boundary, and cross-boundary services operated under a permit scheme. The permits will require GM Ticketing within GM, but unless they come from a neighbouring authority that is also franchised, TfGM can not mandate tickets outside the boundary, as the legislation doesn't allow this - they are still de-regulated.

Of an operator can choose to accept whatever tickets they wish for a cross-boundary service, but if they have to give all the revenue to TfGM, they probably won't want to.

(at least that's my understanding).

That's basically correct.

 

[edwin_m]

The original post was about operator specific tickets so the operators decide that they're available on their routes. This doesn't effect the 'network' at all.

The point about even and odd numbered routes has probably run its course - I think it was intended to highlight the arbitrariness of combinations of routes being cheaper or more expensive depending on whether they happened to be run by the same operator.

Zonal ticketing is much more consistent for passengers. Currently you can get right across the network for a very low fare if you manage to stick with one operator's buses, but some quite short journeys that require a change cost more because the second bus happens to be run by someone else. There's also the issue of having to pay extra to use some buses on a particular journey, if more than one operator provides a service - not so much of a concern where they are really frequent, but more of one on less frequent routes particularly when service drops off in the evening.

With zonal ticketing, broadly speaking you pay more to go further, which I think most people would see as much fairer than paying more just because one bus is red and the other is blue.

 

[Stan Drews]

The way to do that is areas/zones, not arbitrary routes. To be fair, because of the way GM operators are split up you sort of get that effect, but it isn't quite 100%, particularly on e.g. Wilmslow Road.

Indeed. However, once again the fact that operator, or route(s), specific tickets were introduced at a lower price than the already existing all operator/network ticket, was missed by the previous contributor. That was certainly not insane!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. However, once again the fact that operator, or route(s), specific tickets were introduced at a lower price than the already existing all operator/network ticket, was missed by the previous contributor. That was certainly not insane!

In GM the all operator tickets post date the operator specific ones. System One only started about 2000 or so. There were the Gem tickets but those were only for Stagecoach and First.

 

[Stan Drews]

In GM the all operator tickets post date the operator specific ones. System One only started about 2000 or so. There were the Gem tickets but those were only for Stagecoach and First.

Sorry, I thought all the PTE areas had network season tickets prior to deregulation, and the subsequent introduction of lower priced operators own tickets in the deregulated era. That was certainly the case in the West Midlands, Tyne & Wear, and Strathclyde areas that I recall travelling in pre 1986.

 

[johncrossley]

In GM the all operator tickets post date the operator specific ones. System One only started about 2000 or so. There were the Gem tickets but those were only for Stagecoach and First.

I'm pretty sure there were always all company tickets in GM going back to deregulation, but the System One brand is more recent. GM Buses obviously started marketing their own ticket soon after deregulation. Even Clippercards still existed for several years after deregulation, although most versions were withdrawn after a few years leaving only the concessionary version.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm pretty sure there were always all company tickets in GM going back to deregulation, but the System One brand is more recent.

The Wayfarer may have existed but that is a bit specialist and not mainstream like other PTEs' day tickets, and also isn't quite a PTE ticket. I can categorically confirm, though, that before System One there was no all operator bus only day or season ticket in GM. There was a bus and train season (the CountyCard) but that, the Wayfarer and the First/Stagecoach only SuperGem tickets were it as far as buses went. For trains only there were the Traincard and the GM Day and Evening Ranger, of course.

ClipperCards certainly stuck around for a while (though at the end only concessionary) but those of course were only ever for a single vehicle journey.

I definitely remember as I lived there!

 

[johncrossley]

The Wayfarer may have existed but that is a bit specialist and not mainstream like other PTEs' day tickets, and also isn't quite a PTE ticket. I can categorically confirm, though, that before System One there was no all operator bus only day or season ticket in GM. There was a bus and train season (the CountyCard) but that, the Wayfarer and the First/Stagecoach only SuperGem tickets were it as far as buses went. For trains only there were the Traincard and the GM Day and Evening Ranger, of course.

ClipperCards certainly stuck around for a while (though at the end only concessionary) but those of course were only ever for a single vehicle journey.

I definitely remember as I lived there!

Before deregulation there were no day tickets other than the Sunday Rover (unlimited travel on buses for £1) and the Wayfarer (then, as now, too expensive for most people), however there were still weekly tickets which continued after deregulation. They were called SaverSeven before deregulation but renamed soon afterwards to Every Bus Saver. The deregulation advertising campaign reassured users that tickets would continue to be valid after deregulation. It was a novelty when GM Buses started offering the Day Saver some years later.

Season Tickets and Recreational Travel in Greater Manchester - Stuart Vallantine

Stuart Vallantine is a Dukinfield, UK based creative performance poet and visual artist, with both his drawings and poetry showing striking detail, and unique perspectives.

www.stuartvallantine.co.uk

From the 26th October 1986 a wave of locally owned independents competed with the newly renamed GM Buses. In the beginning this led to chaos over the validity of GMPTE's Saver Travel Club tickets. For example, the SaverSeven may be valid for use on the Bee Line Buzz Company services as well GM Buses' but probably not on Stuarts' journeys. Soon after came the Every Bus Saver, a pass which did everything said on the ticket; (almost) every bus in Greater Manchester.

Soon after, companies started offering single operator tickets to ensure passengers stayed loyal to their services. In response to this, GM Buses launched the Busabout ticket, designed for travel on its own services. This was rebranded in 1993 as the SuperGeM range of tickets.

Gaining in greater popularity within that decade were single operator tickets. In some areas, the Every Bus Saver would have been a luxury where a Busabout would have sufficed. The one thing which was holding back progress of such tickets was the technology.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed. However, once again the fact that operator, or route(s), specific tickets were introduced at a lower price than the already existing all operator/network ticket, was missed by the previous contributor. That was certainly not insane!

The zonal tickets for shorter ought to be cheaper than the single-operator ticket. People making long journeys might end up paying more than they do today if they currently manage to do the whole journey with the same operator, depending how the funding works. However with mode integration they'd have a choice of using another bus operator, train or Metrolink for part of the journey, so many would be able to complete it more quickly.

 

[johncrossley]

GMPTE even took out all over bus adverts for the Every Bus Saver

Ribble 1428 (SFV 428P)

GMPTE's Every Bus Saver overall-ad appeared on a wide range of different vehicles from different operators and in a wide array of colours. Probably oddest was the pink shade used on this Ribble example among others. Manchester, junction of Cannon Street and Corporation Street, 20/02/1990.

www.flickr.com

London Transport (before TfL) used to have both concentric bus passes for zones 1 to 4 (zone 4 was equivalent to the rail zones 4, 5 and 6) as well as area bus passes in outer London, covering one or two boroughs each. So it wasn't necessary to pay for the whole of London if you didn't need it.

The point here is that you don't need to break the network up between several companies to give people who don't need unlimited travel throughout the region a cheaper ticket.

 

[GusB]

While it has some relevance to the subject of franchising, ticketing is not the sole topic of this thread. Please let's not get too sidetracked.

 

[Rod Harrison]

What’s happening in London with the extremely serious funding situation and bus and tube services probably being cut, despite the expensive subsidies from the congestion charge, doesn’t bode well for the proposed franchising in Manchester. The permanent change in working habits with a significant proportion of the workforce working from will result in a reduction in use of public transport also. Could be very costly for Manchester’s Council Tax payers.

 

[johncrossley]

What’s happening in London with the extremely serious funding situation and bus and tube services probably being cut, despite the expensive subsidies from the congestion charge, doesn’t bode well for the proposed franchising in Manchester. The permanent change in working habits with a significant proportion of the workforce working from will result in a reduction in use of public transport also. Could be very costly for Manchester’s Council Tax payers.

Franchising can be as cheap or as expensive as you like. London Transport showed in the 90s that you could a better bus service compared to the pre-franchising days with no subsidy. So franchised London was cheaper than deregulated Manchester, because Manchester required tendered services for evenings and Sundays. TfL subsequently decided to throw money at buses, but that was a political choice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What’s happening in London with the extremely serious funding situation and bus and tube services probably being cut, despite the expensive subsidies from the congestion charge, doesn’t bode well for the proposed franchising in Manchester.

I disagree. The situation in London is not due to the operating concept, but rather due to the fare levels and levels of service provided.

£1.55 is too cheap, and I think it's that part of Burnham's idea that will prove a problem. Rather than cutting fares, he should concentrate on integrating them, so there is one set of fares for journeys across Greater Manchester regardless of what combinations of modes are used, as per German and Swiss cities.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Franchising can be as cheap or as expensive as you like. London Transport showed in the 90s that you could a better bus service compared to the pre-franchising days with no subsidy. So franchised London was cheaper than deregulated Manchester, because Manchester required tendered services for evenings and Sundays. TfL subsequently decided to throw money at buses, but that was a political choice.

Well, that is true to an extent.

The fact is that London is busy pursuing a package of cuts where swathes of PVR are being cut. Andy Burnham wants a London style network that London cannot now afford, and it is a very fair question to ask - if the sums are changing in Greater Manchester, what will the impact be on the whole transport network?

I still expect franchising to occur - think that's a given - but the promises of sunlit uplands etc remind me of another vote a few years back

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact is that London is busy pursuing a package of cuts where swathes of PVR are being cut. Andy Burnham wants a London style network that London cannot now afford, and it is a very fair question to ask - if the sums are changing in Greater Manchester, what will the impact be on the whole transport network?

It depends what you mean by "London style network".

I still expect franchising to occur - think that's a given - but the promises of sunlit uplands etc remind me of another vote a few years back

Done right it will still be good, because it will promote a single, co-planned public transport network for the city rather than a load of separate ones.

That it costs say £2.50 a pop instead of £1.55 is a minor matter.

 

[javelin]

What’s happening in London with the extremely serious funding situation and bus and tube services probably being cut, despite the expensive subsidies from the congestion charge, doesn’t bode well for the proposed franchising in Manchester. The permanent change in working habits with a significant proportion of the workforce working from will result in a reduction in use of public transport also. Could be very costly for Manchester’s Council Tax payers.

This argument seems to run on the assumption that London's current issues are due to franchising. The issues you cite, like changing work habits, aren't anything to do with franchising however, they'd be an issue for the viability of services with regulation or without.

Changing work habits is something particularly a problem for London as well, because of the type of jobs that predominate there and the type of person who uses the bus. These are London-specific, not franchising-specific.

In cities outside London many people don't have the luxury of working from home for example, where manual labour or direct services are a larger fraction of the workforce than the knowledge economy. It's unlikely to be as significant a problem elsewhere, AFAIK bus use in GM had recently returned close to pre-pandemic levels for example. And unlike London, bus use is much more dominated by non-workers; pensioners, school children etc.

So can you point to something specific about the London situation that is a result of franchising?

If you think franchising has provided too high a level of service for example, do you think the proposed cutbacks to services are any worse than what would be provided under a deregulated system suffering from the same economic pressures?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This argument seems to run on the assumption that London's current issues are due to franchising. The issues you cite, like changing work habits, aren't anything to do with franchising however, they'd be an issue for the viability of services with regulation or without.

Changing work habits is something particularly a problem for London as well, because of the type of jobs that predominate there and the type of person who uses the bus. These are London-specific, not franchising-specific.

In cities outside London many people don't have the luxury of working from home for example, where manual labour or direct services are a larger fraction of the workforce than the knowledge economy. It's unlikely to be as significant a problem elsewhere, AFAIK bus use in GM had recently returned close to pre-pandemic levels for example. And unlike London, bus use is much more dominated by non-workers; pensioners, school children etc.

So can you point to something specific about the London situation that is a result of franchising?

If you think franchising has provided too high a level of service for example, do you think the proposed cutbacks to services are any worse than what would be provided under a deregulated system suffering from the same economic pressures?

Don't think that's what the poster did say. It's a perfectly valid question to ask if the benefits that London gained from expenditure, and are now in reverse, will be achieved in Manchester when the funding and demand may alter.

It depends what you mean by "London style network".



Done right it will still be good, because it will promote a single, co-planned public transport network for the city rather than a load of separate ones.

That it costs say £2.50 a pop instead of £1.55 is a minor matter.

What it means is what Mr Burnham suggested. Personally, integrated ticketing is not the most pressing issue on Manchester's buses, even before Covid.

 

[Rod Harrison]

This argument seems to run on the assumption that London's current issues are due to franchising. The issues you cite, like changing work habits, aren't anything to do with franchising however, they'd be an issue for the viability of services with regulation or without.

Changing work habits is something particularly a problem for London as well, because of the type of jobs that predominate there and the type of person who uses the bus. These are London-specific, not franchising-specific.

In cities outside London many people don't have the luxury of working from home for example, where manual labour or direct services are a larger fraction of the workforce than the knowledge economy. It's unlikely to be as significant a problem elsewhere, AFAIK bus use in GM had recently returned close to pre-pandemic levels for example. And unlike London, bus use is much more dominated by non-workers; pensioners, school children etc.

So can you point to something specific about the London situation that is a result of franchising?

If you think franchising has provided too high a level of service for example, do you think the proposed cutbacks to services are any worse than what would be provided under a deregulated system suffering from the same economic pressures?

I didn’t say that the problems London face are due to franchising but that there has been a seed change in the use of public transport. Franchising has been put forward as a cheap, efficient alternative to the current set up whist maintains the same, or even exceeding, the same quality of stock. It can only achieve these aims with huge subsidies which will be paid for by all Greater Manchester taxpayers. All I was saying is that it won’t make much, if any difference to quality of services cars and, as there will be huge, and increasing, demands on public funds I think that a change in the law allowing bus companies to cross subsidise services together with the present controls the Greater Manchester councils have over most services would be a much cheaper and flexible option. Also who will pay for repainting 1500 + buses? It will be the poor bloody taxpayer as there won’t be the demand to payfpr it or replacement vehicles.

 

[johncrossley]

there won’t be the demand to payfpr it or replacement vehicles.

The fleet will need to be replaced urgently regardless because there are very few electric buses there. A lot of them are not even hybrid.

TfGM has already been awarded £1 billion in government funding. Money shouldn't be a problem.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

TfGM has already been awarded £1 billion in government funding. Money shouldn't be a problem.

I thought that was for capital spending, not revenue?

 

[Rod Harrison]

The fleet will need to be replaced urgently regardless because there are very few electric buses there. A lot of them are not even hybrid.

TfGM has already been awarded £1 billion in government funding. Money shouldn't be a problem.

Still taxpayers money, OR borrowing which will be paid back, with interest, by my children and grandchildren. As it is taxpayers money why not find the cheapest way of improving services? How much will be paid to buy the buses and infrastructure owned by bus companies? Never known any government, local or national, run anything well. Those of us who are old enough will remember the old wrecks that used to run around local authorities pre-privatisation. London is totally dependant on taxpayers money yet a large percentage of the population will never or rarely use public transport. How is that fair? Pure politics.

 

[johncrossley]

Never known any government, local or national, run anything well. Those of us who are old enough will remember the old wrecks that used to run around local authorities pre-privatisation.

That's why the free market approach, i.e. franchising, is being used, rather than old fashioned state ownership and operation. Many countries have copied that approach and tendered out their public transport to save taxpayers' money.

 

[domcoop7]

Those of us who are old enough will remember the old wrecks that used to run around local authorities pre-privatisation. London is totally dependant on taxpayers money yet a large percentage of the population will never or rarely use public transport. How is that fair? Pure politics.

I'm old enough to remember the old wrecks Lancaster City Transport used to run post privatisation until Stagecoach took it over! A quick check on Flikr shows 1969 reg buses going round in 1989 that I'm pretty sure I travelled on in the 1990-1992 period!

It is worth bearing in mind that whilst Burnham talks about Bus Franchising leading to a "London Style" transport system, if you look at the documents (or listen to some of the things he says) they acknowledge that there are two distinct aspects to what they want.

The first is the bus franchising. The second ask is for a significant sum of additional central government subsidy in order to bring fares down to the levels seen in London. They are of course two wholly different things.

You can have franchising without cheap fares; you can use government subsidy and an Enhanced Quality Partnership to get cheaper fares without franchising (see West Midlands).

 

[GusB]

At the risk of going off-topic (I'll beat myself up later), I don't think it's helpful to say "public bad, private good" or vice-versa, for that matter; there are awful operators out there, regardless of the ownership model.

I'd like to address this particular post:

Still taxpayers money, OR borrowing which will be paid back, with interest, by my children and grandchildren. As it is taxpayers money why not find the cheapest way of improving services?

The cheapest way may not always be the best way.

Never known any government, local or national, run anything well.

See my comment above. The private sector does not have the monopoly on running things well - it depends on the people you have in place to run things.

Those of us who are old enough will remember the old wrecks that used to run around local authorities pre-privatisation.

Those of us who are old enough would probably agree that some local authorities had vehicles beyond a certain age, but fleet standardisation over the years meant that the older vehicles were no better or worse when it came to daily performance than the newest ones. Let's not bother discussing the fact that some companies had newer vehicles wheeched away after they were privatised, only to be replaced by almost life-expired stock from elsewhere in the new parent's group.

London is totally dependant on taxpayers money yet a large percentage of the population will never or rarely use public transport. How is that fair? Pure politics.

All parts of the UK are dependent on taxpayers' money, yet a section of the population cannot or do not drive and year-on-year they subsidise those who do by government failure to raise duty on fuel. How is that fair? Pure politics!

 

[daodao]

Still taxpayers money, OR borrowing which will be paid back, with interest, by my children and grandchildren. As it is taxpayers money why not find the cheapest way of improving services? How much will be paid to buy the buses and infrastructure owned by bus companies? Never known any government, local or national, run anything well. Those of us who are old enough will remember the old wrecks that used to run around local authorities pre-privatisation. London is totally dependant on taxpayers money yet a large percentage of the population will never or rarely use public transport. How is that fair? Pure politics.

Well said. Bus franchising in Greater Manchester is likely to be a bottomless pit. It is much cheaper to subsidise a handful of essential bus services that are not commercially viable, to prevent localities being cut off entirely from public transport, but such subsidies should be confined to Monday-Friday 0700-1900 and Saturday 0800-1800. It is disgusting the way Burnham is steam-rolling through a plan to waste lots of other people's money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well said. Bus franchising in Greater Manchester is likely to be a bottomless pit. It is much cheaper to subsidise a handful of essential bus services that are not commercially viable, to prevent localities being cut off entirely from public transport, but such subsidies should be confined to Monday-Friday 0700-1900 and Saturday 0800-1800. It is disgusting the way Burnham is steam-rolling through a plan to waste lots of other people's money.

Regulation allows for cross subsidy (e.g. from the hugely profitable 192 and Oxford Road routes), so it should be cheaper, not more expensive.

Adding subsidy to cut fares is a totally separate issue. Almost all anti arguments are about that, and it is a fallacy as you can just adjust the fares to adjust the required subsidy, including to 0 if necessary.

Also, what is it about English exceptionalism? Even the super capitalist USA knows that urban public transport systems work best under public control.

What city do you believe has the best public transport network in the country? Would that view change if the fares were a bit higher in that city to reduce subsidy? (There is only one right answer to that question, and the city is not Manchester, not even close).

 

[johncrossley]

Regulation allows for cross subsidy (e.g. from the hugely profitable 192 and Oxford Road routes), so it should be cheaper, not more expensive.

See London in the 90s for evidence. As I mentioned earlier, London ran at break even, yet GMPTE had to pay for tendered services, whilst First, Stagecoach et al were using profits made in Manchester buying up companies in other parts of the country and the world.