TfGM-website, timetable updates and general news concerning TfGM bus stations.

[BurtonM]

The tram was never competitive - even before First took over Finglands, put on £1 journeys, starting a mini price war with Stagecocach who then started £1 fares too, making it even more pointless.
The Met is just too expensive to be useful except maybe as a Park and Ride - my mum has done Ashton West - MediaCity for the Lowry before, but I can't think of any other reason to use it without an ENCTS pass.

 

[Starmill]

The Met is just too expensive to be useful except maybe as a Park and Ride - my mum has done Ashton West - MediaCity for the Lowry before, but I can't think of any other reason to use it without an ENCTS pass.

For many journeys it is significantly quicker than any of the alternatives, particularly Oldham, Altrincham and Bury to the city centre. Also if you wanted to get from Oldham to Altrincham there's probably not a cheaper way of doing that.

 

[BurtonM]

As someone who lived in Stalybridge with little reason to visit the north or west sides Manchester, I concur: my views on Metrolink may be somewhat skewed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Metrolink already competes with the 42 on Didsbury - City Centre journeys. The problem is they charge many times the fares, so cannot really compete with bus companies who always undercut them. TfGM have to keep the price of Metrolink very high because of it's funding arrangements - loans that need to be paid off. Maybe if funding had been secured from other sources there would be more scope to offer more affordable fares.

Possibly so, the fares are the sticking point for Oxford Road.

Yet it seems ideal - very high demand, excessive overprovision of bus services making for an unpleasant environment and heavy pollution.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am now totally confused about what you say about weight restrictions when discussing buses and trams. Surely the tram weighs a great deal more than a bus. (The T68 admittedly weighed more than the M5000).

"Except trams" would I'm sure be possible.

With regard to your aspiration for the Manchester Metrolink to run alongst Oxford Road, I ask that you let us know the number of existing bus stops that are currently available on that road and the number of tram stops that are in your aspirational proposal.

I haven't gone to that level of detail, to be honest. Though the high floor nature of Metrolink would seem to cause a bit of an issue here I suppose.

Your proposal looks like the removal of freedom to travel by any chosen mode of public transport and only being left with a tram service.

You might well have picked up in the past that I am pro-regulation in terms of city public transport, and to me a goal would be to eliminate duplication anyway, as it is rather wasteful. To me where you have an adequate rapid transit rail system, the role of buses is to feed it. How much nicer would Manchester city centre be without the ugly blot that is Piccadilly Bus Station, for instance?

Not achievable yet but it doesn't stop moving that way being sensible, IMO.

Yes, the fare issue would have to be solved, of course, but that just takes the will in Government to solve it.

What about the bus services that proceed along Oxford Road as part-only of a journey to onward destinations far removed from the said area. Do you propose that these are diverted along alternative routes?

Some of them (those only going as far as Parrs Wood) would be removed. Others could be diverted to give a better service to routes that are presently underserved in favour of the wasteful overprovision on Oxford Road.

To be honest, if TfGM moved to quality contracts, I would hope they would do this anyway, tram or no tram. What Oxford Road really needs is one route (or at most two - 42 and 43 perhaps), using very high capacity buses (if not trams), perhaps bendy-buses, on a 5 minute frequency (possibly adding peak extras), with 100% off-vehicle ticketing. That would be efficient and adequate provision.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

For many journeys it is significantly quicker than any of the alternatives, particularly Oldham, Altrincham and Bury to the city centre. Also if you wanted to get from Oldham to Altrincham there's probably not a cheaper way of doing that.

The journey time between Altrincham and Piccadilly is usually longer by Metrolink than by train. Although, of course Metrolink is a lot more frequent.

Metrolink is very cheap for long journeys but expensive for very short journeys.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I haven't gone to that level of detail, to be honest. Though the high floor nature of Metrolink would seem to cause a bit of an issue here I suppose.

Oxford Road is an heavily used arterial route from the city centre and I will now ask you to give your views on the traffic disruption that will be caused for a long period of time along the route of the said road by the associated works connected with very long required road running tram track sections. Do not forget that there is the Manchester Royal Infirmary and there are many University buildings that are passed through on this route. This is one reason why I mentioned the number of existing bus stops that so exist, which are useful to public transport passengers in all those intermediary situated locations.

I ask you to look at the distances that are in between the tram stops on the newly opened Airport line as a good example of a Metrolink line that has road sharing sections where it is quite a good walking distance between the Metrolink stops, but there are bus stops that provide much better local service provision for bus passengers on the route. Just imagine if your aspiration for bus removal (as stated in your posting) were also to be repeated in the Wythenshawe area in the line of the route of the Airport Metrolink line and was put to the electorate in the areas involved for comment. How do you think that this would be received by the local population.

I am pleased to see your acceptance that the high floor nature of the Metrolink tram fleet will require raised platforms to be constructed all along your proposed Oxford Road route. So all in all, what construction time period do you envisage for this project and taking all items such as a fleet of trams to service this line, plus all the infrastructural works, what will be the total financial cost involved?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oxford Road is an heavily used arterial route from the city centre and I will now ask you to give your views on the traffic disruption that will be caused for a long period of time along the route of the said road by the associated works connected with very long required road running tram track sections.

You're aware, presumably, that a large section of the road is planned to be closed to car traffic very soon, and will be buses/cycles only?

I ask you to look at the distances that are in between the tram stops on the newly opened Airport line as a good example of a Metrolink line that has road sharing sections where it is quite a good walking distance between the Metrolink stops, but there are bus stops that provide much better local service provision for bus passengers on the route. Just imagine if your aspiration for bus removal (as stated in your posting) were also to be repeated in the Wythenshawe area in the line of the route of the Airport Metrolink line and was put to the electorate in the areas involved for comment. How do you think that this would be received by the local population.

Metrolink has proven popular where it has gone. So who is to say that they would not accept that in favour of the better service it would provide?

I am pleased to see your acceptance that the high floor nature of the Metrolink tram fleet will require raised platforms to be constructed all along your proposed Oxford Road route. So all in all, what construction time period do you envisage for this project and taking all items such as a fleet of trams to service this line, plus all the infrastructural works, what will be the total financial cost involved?

I have not gone into those matters, as I don't have detailed access to the finances of Manchester's councils I cannot comment on what spending would be financially viable, therefore it would be of no benefit for me to spend time doing that.

Neil

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Metrolink has proven popular where it has gone. So who is to say that they would not accept that in favour of the better service it would provide?

I have not gone into those matters, as I don't have detailed access to the finances of Manchester's councils I cannot comment on what spending would be financially viable, therefore it would be of no benefit for me to spend time doing that.

Neil

My response to your first paragraph can make the opposite point of view that why should users of public transport be forced to forgo the reasonably short distance between bus stops in order to be forced to use a tram system with far greater longer distances between stops. I will use the elderly, infirm and disabled as three classes of passengers who will be greatly inconvenienced and will add a rider that inclement weather is not totally unknown in the areas of the Manchester Metrolink system.

My response to your second paragraph is that such matters of finance are ones that should have been investigated prior to the publication of such an aspirational scheme. Will the type of funding that is connected with the new line to the Trafford Centre be the one that you had in mind for this Oxford Road project? With regard to the cost of enough new trams to provide service provision, the figures for the cost of the newly approved new trams for the Manchester Metrolink line to the Trafford Centre is already in the public domain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're aware, presumably, that a large section of the road is planned to be closed to car traffic very soon, and will be buses/cycles only?

These, I take that are the very same buses that you wish to see totally removed, but in the same breath are proposing to be replaced by trams?

What is the exact distance of the new car-free zone and between which two points does it run?

 

[radamfi]

It is very unusual (except in the UK and Ireland) to see a city centre the importance of Manchester dominated by so much bus traffic. In most comparable places, the vast majority of travelling would be carried out on trams, metros and S-Bahn style intensive local rail services, with buses generally acting as feeders.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is very unusual (except in the UK and Ireland) to see a city centre the importance of Manchester dominated by so much bus traffic. In most comparable places, the vast majority of travelling would be carried out on trams, metros and S-Bahn style intensive local rail services, with buses generally acting as feeders.

Exactly.

It is also notable that bus stops in Germany are further apart than the UK - typically 500m or more.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is the exact distance of the new car-free zone and between which two points does it run?

It is the section between Booth St and Hathersage Road, if I recall. Proposals are on the TfGM site somewhere including detailed drawings of the layout.

Neil

 

[radamfi]

Exactly.

It is also notable that bus stops in Germany are further apart than the UK - typically 500m or more.

Neil

Outside the UK and Ireland, often there is little or no difference between spacing of bus stops and tram stops, and they often stop at the same stops with buses travelling down the tram lines. Metrolink generally does have bigger gaps between stops than a typical European tram line, even on lines not converted from heavy rail.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Metrolink generally does have bigger gaps between stops than a typical European tram line, even on lines not converted from heavy rail.

This was the very point that I was endeavouring to make in my earlier postings when drawing comparisons to the nearness of bus stops to each other in comparison, where it appeared that someone seemed to say the bus passengers would not mind making the much longer walks to their stop areas that fall between any two Metrolink stops.

Someone obviously has more faith in human nature than I do.

 

[northwichcat]

Metrolink generally does have bigger gaps between stops than a typical European tram line, even on lines not converted from heavy rail.

In Europe (or even Sheffield or Blackpool) a tram usually operates like a bus on rails. Metrolink phase 1 was really a rail replacement tram service with a new city centre section.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In Europe (or even Sheffield or Blackpool) a tram usually operates like a bus on rails. Metrolink phase 1 was really a rail replacement tram service with a new city centre section.

Indeed so, on the Bury line, the first Metrolink stop outwards from Manchester Victoria was the former heavy rail station of Woodlands Road, now the replacement stop at Queens Road.

I have, in my very, very, much younger days have set off walking from Manchester Victoria railway station along Collyhurst Road in the Irk valley up to Queens Road, crossed that road and carried along Smedley Lane and Woodlands Road until I reached the railway station there. Anyone who tries to tell me that the distance involved to make a journey by foot to an intermediatry point on that route when all buses will be withdrawn does not live in the real world that I so inhabit. I do see the necessity of the role that the Manchester Metrolink system has to play as part of the total transport system in the Greater Manchester area, but it is only a part, not the "be all and end all" that will totally subjugate all other forms of public transport.

 

[radamfi]

For some reason, light rail in the UK has been marketed as a premium form of transport and so generally has been set up as a limited stop service. I can see why this was done in Greater Manchester as a stopping tram could be seen as just duplicating local buses which would run anyway under a deregulated environment. But now we have this kind of tram system, it does raise the question how buses would be rationalised under re-regulation. The big gaps between stops means you can't just withdraw seemingly parallel bus routes like the 216. By contrast, London (where of course there is no bus deregulation) did curtail some bus routes when trams were introduced.

You would hope that a proper integrated fare system would be introduced so that people would change onto the tram for the majority of the route instead of sitting on a stopping bus for the whole trip just because it is cheaper. That might mean that parallel bus routes could be thinned out a little and/or split into smaller chunks to enable better connections at stations/tram stops.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course TfGM still haven't managed an all-modes season ticket, yet alone single tickets. Though there is a (pricey) day ticket.

As to integration, it may be worth looking to Edinburgh to see that, particularly if its network grows, as it is run by Lothian Buses and does come under the same ticketing system.

I think you would still get some parallel bus services, though thinned out somewhat. But there might be other feeders from smaller estates only running as far as the local tram stop.

Neil

 

[Starmill]

The fact there is no tram + train + bus season is ridiculous. You have to get a Countycard and an all-Metrolink season if you must have all three. Ridiculous - and pricey!

 

[neilmc]

Oxford Road is an heavily used arterial route from the city centre and I will now ask you to give your views on the traffic disruption that will be caused for a long period of time along the route of the said road by the associated works connected with very long required road running tram track sections. Do not forget that there is the Manchester Royal Infirmary and there are many University buildings that are passed through on this route. This is one reason why I mentioned the number of existing bus stops that so exist, which are useful to public transport passengers in all those intermediary situated locations.

I ask you to look at the distances that are in between the tram stops on the newly opened Airport line as a good example of a Metrolink line that has road sharing sections where it is quite a good walking distance between the Metrolink stops, but there are bus stops that provide much better local service provision for bus passengers on the route. Just imagine if your aspiration for bus removal (as stated in your posting) were also to be repeated in the Wythenshawe area in the line of the route of the Airport Metrolink line and was put to the electorate in the areas involved for comment. How do you think that this would be received by the local population.

I am pleased to see your acceptance that the high floor nature of the Metrolink tram fleet will require raised platforms to be constructed all along your proposed Oxford Road route. So all in all, what construction time period do you envisage for this project and taking all items such as a fleet of trams to service this line, plus all the infrastructural works, what will be the total financial cost involved?

Most of the Metrolink network appears to be hugely successful, however it was initially (Bury-Altrincham) a rail replacement project providing a cross-city link between mostly affluent commuter areas, the main railway stations and the shopping area.

Media City/Eccles is the luxury of a new build to largely serve Salford Quays, an area with lots of professional jobs and a poor bus infrastructure. Rochdale is another rail replacement, East Didsbury a new build on old rail trackbed serving largely affluent areas with bad congestion on the roads into Manchester at peak (see later), Ashton again serves new development in New Islington/Etihad and Airport is, for me, the interesting one as it meanders indirectly through South Manchester providing links between communities which were hitherto poorly linked (e.g. Chorlton - Northern Moor- Wythenshawe) so it will be interesting to see how much traffic/profit it generates.

None of these lines have been built to replace an existing high frequency bus network on a trunk route without providing new facilities along the way. Any idea of replacing buses with trams on the Oxford Road corridor would mean:

a) huge infrastructure cost on providing platforms, thus in all probability far fewer stopping places than at present
b) loss of through service along Oxford Road for anywhere the tram doesn't reach
c) a question as to whether the trams could actually cope with the demand which necessitates convoys of large double decker buses at present
d) massive problems in traffic congestion on parallel routes during building, which would probably remain after construction. A recent sewer collapse on Oxford Road caused huge delays!
e) loss of through links from Oxford Road to North Manchester, which have only recently been initiated

I can't see how an Oxford Road tram route would generate MORE business on the scale of the other lines and the disruption in creating such would be enormous. And, given the premium fares charged on lines so far, the students would simply refuse to use it and walk to the nearest cheap bus alternative!

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to enjoy a five-minute tram service from Northenden/Cheadle/East Didsbury, etc along Oxford Road as part of an integrated city network with co-ordinated suburban interchanges, but unfortunately that would have only been possible with continental thinking applied to Manchester fifty years ago!

 

[radamfi]

a) huge infrastructure cost on providing platforms, thus in all probability far fewer stopping places than at present

Just because the existing Metrolink lines have large gaps between stops, there's no reason why that has to apply to new lines.

b) loss of through service along Oxford Road for anywhere the tram doesn't reach

You could either allow buses to drive down the tram lines, or have dedicated shuttles from stops along Oxford Road.

c) a question as to whether the trams could actually cope with the demand which necessitates convoys of large double decker buses at present

That's kind of a weird question as you normally replace buses with trams to increase capacity! You could look at the route from Utrecht to the university area at the edge of the city as a direct comparison. Currently they run three part artic buses

http://wiki.ovinnederland.nl/wiki/Van_Hool_newAGG300

up to 25 times per hour along a dedicated busway and free boarding to maximise capacity. But that isn't enough so they are building a tram line to replace it.

e) loss of through links from Oxford Road to North Manchester, which have only recently been initiated

Actually, I kind of see the north-south cross-city operation as a precursor to replacement by a tram line from Middleton to East/West Didsbury.

 

[Greybeard33]

It is also notable that bus stops in Germany are further apart than the UK - typically 500m or more.

Neil

For some reason, light rail in the UK has been marketed as a premium form of transport and so generally has been set up as a limited stop service. I can see why this was done in Greater Manchester as a stopping tram could be seen as just duplicating local buses which would run anyway under a deregulated environment. But now we have this kind of tram system, it does raise the question how buses would be rationalised under re-regulation. The big gaps between stops means you can't just withdraw seemingly parallel bus routes like the 216. By contrast, London (where of course there is no bus deregulation) did curtail some bus routes when trams were introduced.

You would hope that a proper integrated fare system would be introduced so that people would change onto the tram for the majority of the route instead of sitting on a stopping bus for the whole trip just because it is cheaper. That might mean that parallel bus routes could be thinned out a little and/or split into smaller chunks to enable better connections at stations/tram stops.

In my view, the long term decline in bus usage in Britain is partly due to the very close spacing of stops. This means that most stops have only very basic facilities, with little or no passenger information or protection against the weather and traffic fumes/noise. Tickets have to be purchased from/checked by the driver on boarding, increasing dwell times at the frequent stops and resulting in a very slow service that is unattractive as an alternative to the private car. Most stops are request stops, which require continuous vigilance while waiting and local knowledge of the destination stop in order to signal the driver at the right time. This makes the system challenging for visitors to use.

In comparison, limited stop light rail systems can offer a quicker, more user-friendly service and so tempt less price-conscious users out of their cars despite premium fares.

Admittedly closely spaced stops can be advantageous to the mobility impaired user, but on the other hand their lack of passenger information systems discriminates against the visually impaired user, who cannot read the destination board on the approaching bus until it is too late.

In my opinion there is a need for more rapid, limited stop, bus services, using well-equipped stops with off-vehicle ticketing, similar to light rail. And, of course, integration of bus and rail networks. The competition should be between public transport and the private car, not between parallel public transport services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my opinion there is a need for more rapid, limited stop, bus services, using well-equipped stops with off-vehicle ticketing, similar to light rail. And, of course, integration of bus and rail networks. The competition should be between public transport and the private car, not between parallel public transport services.

I agree. One of the difficulties, though, is the paradox that you won't attract people out of cars unless buses are fast, limited stop and direct, yet you won't provide well for the elderly and disabled unless they serve everywhere, generally on longer routes, and stop frequently.

There is the option of providing both, with the wandery, slow routes running at lower frequencies.

However thinking of Oxford Road, the users of this service are overridingly students. So the demographics may well point to limited stop being more acceptable. Indeed, around Rusholme some stops have been removed and replaced with a smaller number with better facilities to help improve things.

Neil

 

[radamfi]

There may be some kind of pattern here. Bus stops in American cities are ridiculously close together, typically every 100 metres, and, with a few exceptions, patronage is low. In mainland Europe, the gap between stops is roughly 400 metres, and patronage is much higher. As in so many things, the UK is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There may be some kind of pattern here. Bus stops in American cities are ridiculously close together, typically every 100 metres, and, with a few exceptions, patronage is low. In mainland Europe, the gap between stops is roughly 400 metres, and patronage is much higher. As in so many things, the UK is somewhere in the middle.

The US has such a different culture, though. I was on business in Plano, Texas (might be easy to guess who I was working for at the time from that!), staying in Dallas. On the last day I decided to get the bus into town from the large bus station near the hotel I was staying at. I got a *lot* of funny looks for the mere idea of someone in business dress pulling a trolley case (a) walking to a bus station, and (b) taking a bus.

On the subject of stops in the UK, though, the issue would be substantially addressed by moving all ticketing off the bus and reintroducing rear doors. The problem isn't so much stops every 200m, it's that the bus sits at each one for several minutes while the driver discusses the fare with each passenger. And at stops where lots of people get on *and* off, i.e. city centre stops on cross-city routes, not having a second set of doors can increase dwell times by 20 seconds or so, which multiplied by the number of stops can be significant.

Neil

 

[radamfi]

There are so many aspects of British bus operation which are frankly stupid, but we continue to ignore what works on the continent. That is why I am emigrating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are so many aspects of British bus operation which are frankly stupid, but we continue to ignore what works on the continent. That is why I am emigrating.

There are many things we do in the UK that are frankly stupid in public transport terms, and in many other terms, compared with Germany and the Netherlands...must admit I have been tempted to emigrate to one of those countries myself. But something keeps me here...can't quite think what.

That said, I think I'd currently rather our rail system than DB, which isn't half of what it was in the 1990s, whereas our system has got consistently better (albeit pricier).

Neil

 

[neilmc]

One potential problem on a really high frequency tramway is that, when bunching occurs, all trams are stuck behind the first one until it is rammed full and begins to omit stops - but passengers may still wish to exit. I say "potential" because the continental systems I can think of (e.g. Budapest service 4/6) run along roads built to a generous wide scale with large degrees of traffic segregation and lower car ownership/usage than the UK.

On Wilmslow Road and Princess Parkway in Manchester generally the lead bus will pick up a load at a stop and subsequent buses overtake during boarding, becoming the first bus at the next stop and so on. The real problem for me is the volume of cars wishing to enter or leave the city centre at peak times, causing hold ups for any public transport which is not totally segregated all the way into town.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Rochdale is another rail replacement

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by that particular statement, as both heavy rail services and Manchester Metrolink services seem to co-exist quite well at the current time in Rochdale.

 

[radamfi]

One potential problem on a really high frequency tramway is that, when bunching occurs, all trams are stuck behind the first one until it is rammed full and begins to omit stops - but passengers may still wish to exit. I say "potential" because the continental systems I can think of (e.g. Budapest service 4/6) run along roads built to a generous wide scale with large degrees of traffic segregation and lower car ownership/usage than the UK.

On Wilmslow Road and Princess Parkway in Manchester generally the lead bus will pick up a load at a stop and subsequent buses overtake during boarding, becoming the first bus at the next stop and so on. The real problem for me is the volume of cars wishing to enter or leave the city centre at peak times, causing hold ups for any public transport which is not totally segregated all the way into town.

Tramways exist in countries with comparable or higher car ownership to the UK, enjoy proper segregation and manage to shift large volumes of people.

Segregation is essential for high capacity so it is a bit of a waste of time to build a tram and then allow it to get stuck in traffic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by that particular statement, as both heavy rail services and Manchester Metrolink services seem to co-exist quite well at the current time in Rochdale.

He means that the new tram line replaced an old heavy rail route, and so inherits certain characteristics of that type of operation, for example full segregation at high speed, relatively long gaps between stops, lack of tight bends etc. although extra stops have been added and some parts of the route are now more 'tram like'.

 

[Greybeard33]

The US has such a different culture, though. I was on business in Plano, Texas (might be easy to guess who I was working for at the time from that!), staying in Dallas. On the last day I decided to get the bus into town from the large bus station near the hotel I was staying at. I got a *lot* of funny looks for the mere idea of someone in business dress pulling a trolley case (a) walking to a bus station, and (b) taking a bus.

On the subject of stops in the UK, though, the issue would be substantially addressed by moving all ticketing off the bus and reintroducing rear doors. The problem isn't so much stops every 200m, it's that the bus sits at each one for several minutes while the driver discusses the fare with each passenger. And at stops where lots of people get on *and* off, i.e. city centre stops on cross-city routes, not having a second set of doors can increase dwell times by 20 seconds or so, which multiplied by the number of stops can be significant.

Neil

I agree with this, except that the cost of providing and servicing off-bus TVMs and card readers increases with the number of stops. Similarly the cost of passenger information displays, shelters, lay-bys, platforms for step-free access, CCTV, emergency call points.... So a reduction in the number of stops may be a prerequisite for affordable provision of such facilities.

I believe that a fundamental flaw in the British bus business model is that most services are targeted primarily at users who do not have access to a private car. This is a decreasing proportion of the population, and largely a captive market anyway. The rail industry has managed to reverse its decline by adapting its product to attract the car-owning majority, but in most places the bus operators remain wedded to 1930s-style slow, meandering services with minimal stop infrastructure, and patronage continues to decline.

There are so many aspects of British bus operation which are frankly stupid, but we continue to ignore what works on the continent. That is why I am emigrating.

When bus services are withdrawn completely because they are no longer viable, the residual users are disadvantaged far more than if they had to walk a few hundred metres further to a stop. I agree that lessons could learned from looking across the North Sea.

 

[radamfi]

I agree with this, except that the cost of providing and servicing off-bus TVMs and card readers increases with the number of stops. Similarly the cost of passenger information displays, shelters, lay-bys, platforms for step-free access, CCTV, emergency call points.... So a reduction in the number of stops may be a prerequisite for affordable provision of such facilities.

I believe that a fundamental flaw in the British bus business model is that most services are targeted primarily at users who do not have access to a private car. This is a decreasing proportion of the population, and largely a captive market anyway. The rail industry has managed to reverse its decline by adapting its product to attract the car-owning majority, but in most places the bus operators remain wedded to 1930s-style slow, meandering services with minimal stop infrastructure, and patronage continues to decline.
When bus services are withdrawn completely because they are no longer viable, the residual users are disadvantaged far more than if they had to walk a few hundred metres further to a stop. I agree that lessons could learned from looking across the North Sea.

German and Swiss city networks often have ticket machines at all stops but not all world class networks have that. The Dutch have ticket machines at all railway and metro stations but not tram stops because almost everyone has the OV-Chipkaart smartcard. The few people who don't can buy the ticket from the driver, or in Amsterdam from the conductor. Or you could have ticket machines on the trams like in Bremen.

Also, the Dutch have their card readers on the tram rather than at stops.

A good critique of British vs other European city transport can be found in the book "Transport for Suburbia"

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D3K0FMVhcjsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false)

It explains that we must understand that only a very limited number of destinations can be accessed if we only rely on direct buses. The British tradition is to try and provide as many direct routes as possible. Because of that you end up with a lot of overlapping routes (i.e. expensive duplication) and very complicated, indirect routes. But still only a few places can be reached by a direct bus. The preferred solution in places like Switzerland and the Netherlands is to have a more sparse network where you provide easy, timed connections at convenient locations so that everywhere can be accessed easily. This leads to higher patronage at lower operating cost, and therefore less subsidy.

But you can talk about this sort of thing as much as you like but British people will still insist that the British way is best and find excuses why mainland Europe and the UK can't be compared. Some of you will have probably read my numerous arguments on other threads on this forum. That is why the British situation is like it is and why I am no longer optimistic that things will get better, and why I'm emigrating.

The British bus industry over-reliance on the captive market is an obvious reason for declining patronage, but there is evidence that the captive market is growing again in some places and Manchester is probably the one of the main places this is happening. There has been a huge growth in population over the last 10 years and a large proportion of that lives in new apartments close to the city centre. These people are typically young and less likely to own cars. There are also of course immigrants from eastern Europe who were used to using buses in their old country so continue to do so here.

This all sounds like good news, but I fear that the bus industry will point to the extra patronage coming from this new captive market and say that they have turned the corner and everything is now OK.