The Labour Government's Buses Bill, franchising, quality contracts/partnerships, deregulation.....

[joieman]

These things have nothing to do with franchising and can be with or without franchising.

Therefore meaning that franchising is not the panacea that Labour and those campaigning to regulate bus services claim it to be.

 

[johncrossley]

Therefore meaning that franchising is not the panacea that Labour and those campaigning to regulate bus services claim it to be.

I don't get your point here. 20 mph limits and LTNs have been implemented nationwide. TfL have done more for cycling than anyone else in the UK. If that doesn't mean fewer bus journeys, then the cycle lanes aren't working! The uncomfortable truth is that cycling competes with buses, as well as car trips, hence the hostility to cycling from many public transport advocates and enthusiasts. Bus usage in the Netherlands is negligible outside the big cities as a result of their cycling policies.

Labour isn't alone in their view on buses. "Bus Back Better" was scathing about deregulation and the last Tory government legislated to allow franchising and funded its implementation in Greater Manchester. By contrast, the previous Labour government from 1997-2010 chose to continue with deregulation.

 

[Goldfish62]

Labour isn't alone in their view on buses. "Bus Back Better" was scathing about deregulation and the last Tory government legislated to allow franchising and funded its implementation in Greater Manchester. By contrast, the previous Labour government from 1997-2010 chose to continue with deregulation.

Indeed.

It has to be said that deregulation started going really wrong in the austerity years from 2010 onwards when local authorities ran out of money to infill gaps in the network with socially-necessary services. Suddenly deregulation only partly worked unless you were lucky enough to have a pro-bus local authority.

 

[ChrisPJ]

I would agree that the Jersey/Guernsey model of a franchise type contract covering an area with the subsidy defined in advance (if any) and the minimum service provision part of that, but with the bus operator largely able to get on with it, is going to be the best model for small to medium towns/cities where the Council isn't going to have the skills to plan and operate effectively and with adequate quality, and where rail has little or no input into local transport needs. I think that model would work very well in, for example, Milton Keynes, or a group of towns centred on Aylesbury/High Wycombe.

I don't think it would work well for large cities like Manchester or London, where having a public body coordinating all public transport (i.e. a classic PTE reinvented) is in my view the best likely approach.

Guernsey has more in common with the London model than the Jersey one. All fares collected passes back to the government.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Therefore meaning that franchising is not the panacea that Labour and those campaigning to regulate bus services claim it to be.

Nobody is claiming franchising solves all the ills of bus operations. Though it can help with regard to traffic measures if the sme authority controls both those and the bus service!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't get your point here. 20 mph limits and LTNs have been implemented nationwide. TfL have done more for cycling than anyone else in the UK. If that doesn't mean fewer bus journeys, then the cycle lanes aren't working! The uncomfortable truth is that cycling competes with buses, as well as car trips, hence the hostility to cycling from many public transport advocates and enthusiasts. Bus usage in the Netherlands is negligible outside the big cities as a result of their cycling policies.

Labour isn't alone in their view on buses. "Bus Back Better" was scathing about deregulation and the last Tory government legislated to allow franchising and funded its implementation in Greater Manchester. By contrast, the previous Labour government from 1997-2010 chose to continue with deregulation.

The point is that it doesn't matter the regulatory framework. If you massively reduce the effectiveness of buses by implementing measures that slow road traffic AND don't implement measures to give the bus any sort of time advantage, you will end up in the position that London is now in.

As a keen cyclist myself, I am extremely keen to see measures to improve cycling. So will cycling directly abstract patronage. To a very small extent, it will attract some people to swap the bus for the lycra. What is much more likely is that it will deter bus passengers by making bus travel painfully slow. As for the statement that bus patronage outside major cities is negligible because of their pro-cycling approach - it does fly against common logic that cycling would be more popular in areas where distances are longer rather than in major conurbations?

Bus Back Better was scathing but was also a Johnson-style stitch up job. Do you not remember the graphs of how bus patronage had fallen since 1986? Had they extended the graphs back to 1976 or 1956, and you'd have seen a much greater decline BEFORE deregulation, both in absolute numbers and %

Are you also not a little suspicious of why messrs Cameron and Osborne might have been keen to move bus services to local control, and even provide a dowry for this?

It has to be said that deregulation started going really wrong in the austerity years from 2010 onwards when local authorities ran out of money to infill gaps in the network with socially-necessary services. Suddenly deregulation only partly worked unless you were lucky enough to have a pro-bus local authority.

Very true. After the disruption of deregulation (coupled with privatisation), and the removal of all sorts of hidden subsidies, it was little wonder that patronage fell albeit that the decline slowed markedly as the sector matured and had by 2007, stabilised. After that, patronage figures were climbing outside London, mainly thanks to ENCTS.

Austerity then knackered things as a) ENCTS remuneration was cut so operators were forced to try and game the system (rewarding regular travellers but impacting ad-hoc travel with higher fares), the halving of Bus Service Operators Grant, and then removing those tendered services to which you refer.

Nobody is claiming franchising solves all the ills of bus operations. Though it can help with regard to traffic measures if the sme authority controls both those and the bus service!

It needs a pro-bus local authority. That is absolutely the case. So you have the case that in Leicester or Brighton or Reading, you have very pro public transport local authorities and that is crucial.

The question is... who is responsible for the roads of Greater Manchester?

 

[MotCO]

These things have nothing to do with franchising and can be with or without franchising.

Agree. But I was responding to the fall in passenger numbers in London.

 

[johncrossley]

Agree. But I was responding to the fall in passenger numbers in London.

Per capita usage is still much higher than it was before the Livingstone boom. I'd be very surprised if there are many people who prefer the service pre-Livingstone compared to today. 25 years ago, night buses only ran on certain radial corridors, generally every 30-60 minutes. Many routes that don't run overnight still run 0500 to 0100. Evening frequencies are so much better. 25 years ago, evening services were typically every 30 minutes in outer London. Cities outside London still envy the London bus service.

Looking at the latest Travel in London report, there is little evidence of people switching to cars. There was no growth in car trips 2013-2019. Public transport mode share as a whole increased 2013-2019.

Don't get me wrong, I'm far from a cheerleader for TfL. Public transport fares are probably the most expensive in the world. I see other major cities in the rest of the world building tram and metro routes, which isn't happening in London.

 

[Goldfish62]

Per capita usage is still much higher than it was before the Livingstone boom. I'd be very surprised if there are many people who prefer the service pre-Livingstone compared to today. 25 years ago, night buses only ran on certain radial corridors, generally every 30-60 minutes. Many routes that don't run overnight still run 0500 to 0100. Evening frequencies are so much better. 25 years ago, evening services were typically every 30 minutes in outer London. Cities outside London still envy the London bus service.

Indeed.

Comparison of annual London bus passenger journeys:

1998/99: 1.3 billion
2022/23: 1.8 billion (still recovering from Covid at this stage).

Hardly what I'd call a failing network, despite its many faults.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Indeed.

Comparison of annual London bus passenger journeys:

1998/99: 1.3 billion
2022/23: 1.8 billion (still recovering from Covid at this stage).

Hardly what I'd call a failing network, despite its many faults.

Depends where you wish to draw your reference period. Patronage grew massively under Ken Livingstone (and I'm no great fan of Red Ken) in the period from 2000 onwards. That was funded, in part, by the congestion charge etc.

The figures from the DfT showed that patronage was growing and reached nearly 2.4bn in 2014 but by 2020 (and there's no Covid impact here) the figures were less than 2.1bn. It's an interesting question as to how much bus patronage will bounce back further - given that the hopper fare was already in place, how much of the post Covid uplift seen across the UK (from the £2 scheme) will be replicated in London is a moot point.

Talking of the £2 bus fare scheme, it costs c£350m. Depending on which source you look at, the annual bus subsidy is c.£700m p.a. in London. Illustrates the gulf in funding between the capital and the provinces

 

[mangad]

London's model encourages existing operators to bid reasonably as they will want to keep their depot costs covered. In Manchester there is no need for existing firms to bid cheap to keep their business going. No loss if they don't win. As they won't have any shut down costs or ongoing costs.

In London operators keep the depot. Much better than Manchester where every time the depots transfer operators, they will have to be redecorated with the new operators logos and stuff. New operators policies in place etc.

In London drivers can keep with the operators they like. In Manchester as we have seen, significant numbers of staff have transferred depots just to stay with the operator of their choice. Drivers will have to keep transferring operators as/when contracts change. That is no good for drivers morale.

Manchesters model is worse for drivers, worse for operators and worse for the contract bids.

London's model was born out of completely different circumstances. London Buses was split into smaller units, that were then privatised, and then there was consolidation. That's because deregulation didn't happen. Everywhere else, there was privatisation first, then consolidation. And domination. Pre Bee Network Stagecoach Manchester was a dominant player in much of the Greater Manchester market. Go stand in Stockport Interchange where the Bee Network has not reached, and go count how many non-Stagecoach buses you see in an hour. You will not see many. In other areas, other operators had dominance.

The reality is that if depots had remained with the owners, they would have had a completely unfair advantage in bidding because they would have had no setup costs. They'd have the fleet. They'd have the staff. They'd have the land. Any newcomer wouldn't have any of that. It would have been a completely unfair system.

This is the reason most other major cities looking at franchising are looking to follow the Greater Manchester model, and not the London model. The London model was created specific to a set of circumstances that - realistically - don't exist anywhere else in the UK.

I think if Manchester insists on having some bigger group lot bids, routes which could be operated by one or multiple depots should be tendered separately. Route X50 for example could be Diamond Eccles, Metroline Hyde Road or Stagecoach Queens Road. Due to TFGMs stupid franchising contacts, the X50 is going to be ran by Wythenshawe! Despite 3 depots being better for it. 17/18 too from Oldham, nowhere near the routes. A colossal mess all because of the poor contract system.

Because of course, in absolutely no circumstances could it ever be decided to move a route from one depot to another...

 

[Leyland Bus]

Because of course, in absolutely no circumstances could it ever be decided to move a route from one depot to another.

Don't forget all the redecorating and the signs that want changing every time

In London operators keep the depot. Much better than Manchester where every time the depots transfer operators, they will have to be redecorated with the new operators logos and stuff. New operators policies in place etc.

TfGM own the large depots and they are being refurbished to their spec, a few token operator signs being changed won't break the bank...

It's clear there is still plenty acrimony over franchising in Manchester and the whole thing hasn't even been completed yet. I think I'd rather wait 5 years and see what *actually* happens rather than jumping up and down that nothings working before it's even fully begun...

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would agree that the Jersey/Guernsey model of a franchise type contract covering an area with the subsidy defined in advance (if any) and the minimum service provision part of that, but with the bus operator largely able to get on with it, is going to be the best model for small to medium towns/cities where the Council isn't going to have the skills to plan and operate effectively and with adequate quality

The operators in Jersey and Guernsey certainly aren't "left to get on with it", the contracts are very tightly controlled. And even then they run into problems: CT Plus had to go grovelling to the States of Jersey in 2022 to be allowed to cut timetables and get extra funding because they were short on drivers and the pay structure meant they couldn't retain the drivers they did have.

As for the cost, here in the Isle of Man the buses are run by the government, and the overall cost is about £5m-£6m a year. Both Jersey and Guernsey are each about a quarter of the size of the Isle of Man yet its estimated (noting that neither Jersey nor Guernsey will confirm the exact cost due to "commercial confidentiality") that the contracts there are costing about £5m a year each. Jersey and Guernsey are both very densely populated compared to here, which always makes bus operation cheaper and easier. On top of that Guernsey's bus network is also quite a bit less extensive than the network here.

We're seeing over the last 10 years in London that bus patronage has been falling and that's against a background of population growth.

The figures from the DfT showed that patronage was growing and reached nearly 2.4bn in 2014 but by 2020 (and there's no Covid impact here) the figures were less than 2.1bn.

That's also set against a background of significant improvements in the London rail network.

A case in point is the significant expansion of the London Overground network- the resultant improvement in suburban rail services since 2011 has attracted a lot of people from bus to rail. In a city such as London it should be the aim for the bus to be the 'last mile' service or the service that fills holes in the metro network, but with metro services doing the bulk of the people moving.

That said, Crossrail is an odd one- estimated to abstract 4% of bus passengers, the actual abstraction from bus has been minimal. I suspect that's to do with the high cost of rail/tube fares into zone 1 compared to the bus fare. Outside zone 1 the difference between rail/tube fares and bus fares is minimal, and Overground barely scratches zone 1.

Looking at the latest Travel in London report, there is little evidence of people switching to cars. There was no growth in car trips 2013-2019. Public transport mode share as a whole increased 2013-2019.

Crossrail is the case in point. Expectations were that 4% of Crossrail users would come from the bus network and 2% from modal shift and traffic generation. As it happens c.0% have come from buses but 30% of Crossrail users have shifted from private cars or are newly-generated traffic.

Elizabeth line defies elasticity models: modal transfers and generated demand provide new paradigm for high profile changes to network

tapas.network

The stand-out finding from the latest statistics is that Elizabeth line passenger numbers from new and mode-shifted journeys are estimated to be more than ten times higher than forecast. This suggests that existing models of elasticity are ill-suited to forecasting demand for projects which deliver transformative changes in journey times and quality.

Abstraction from bus was forecast to account for 4% of Elizabeth line demand but a chart presented to the committee shows no abstraction from bus.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That's also set against a background of significant improvements in the London rail network.

A case in point is the significant expansion of the London Overground network- the resultant improvement in suburban rail services since 2011 has attracted a lot of people from bus to rail. In a city such as London it should be the aim for the bus to be the 'last mile' service or the service that fills holes in the metro network, but with metro services doing the bulk of the people moving.

That said, Crossrail is an odd one- estimated to abstract 4% of bus passengers, the actual abstraction from bus has been minimal. I suspect that's to do with the high cost of rail/tube fares into zone 1 compared to the bus fare. Outside zone 1 the difference between rail/tube fares and bus fares is minimal, and Overground barely scratches zone 1.

A lot of the major Overground changes were experienced before 2014. What has happened since has been a perfect storm. Buses are now running at an average of 9mph in London (and lower in Central London - falling from 11mph in 2002 to less than 8mph now). That's through a blend of 20 mph limits and the loss of road space to cycle highways. That reduces productivity so you'd have expected fleet numbers to increase but they have decreased - the London bus fleet is now 10% less and that's been through the loss of routes or widening of headways.

 

[Goldfish62]

Talking of the £2 bus fare scheme, it costs c£350m. Depending on which source you look at, the annual bus subsidy is c.£700m p.a. in London. Illustrates the gulf in funding between the capital and the provinces

You can't really compare the two things. The £700m pa "subsidy" to the London bus network comes from surpluses made elsewhere within the TfL business. The temporary DfT revenue funding ended in 2023/24. If you're to compare the two then to the £350m you really need to add the total cost of supported services funded by local authorities as well as BSIP (including the mostly ludicrous DRT schemes) and ZEBRA funding.

Another interesting stat from the 2022/23 passenger journey data:

London pgr jnys: 1.8bn
Rest of England pgr jnys: 1.6bn

But London isn't perfect - far, far from it. It's a bad way and bus speeds are the real killer as I think we're all in agreement on.

Cycle lanes, 20mph limits and LTNs are often cited as the main issues, but in my experience it's the proliferation of roadworks since Covid that really needs tackling. "Emergency" roadworks by the failing utility companies to repair their crumbling infrastructure are springing up everywhere, coupled with increasingly over-cautious traffic management. You can have your schedules optimised for as many cycle lanes as you like, but these indiscriminate roadworks have the ability to destroy your service quality in an unpredictable manner on a daily basis. One set of works I came across recently was actually on the pavement. However, because the workforce van was parked on the bus stop this stop needed to be closed and coned off and because it was close to a (normally un-signalised) junction 4-way temporary lights were put in. The impact was delays of to 45 min for bus services.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A lot of the major Overground changes were experienced before 2014

Only just, the East London Line opened in 2011 and became fully operational in 2012. It can take a bit of time for changes to pull through.

Buses are now running at an average of 9mph in London (and lower in Central London - falling from 11mph in 2002 to less than 8mph now). That's through a blend of 20 mph limits and the loss of road space to cycle highways.

Do those average speeds include time stationary at stops? If they do then the reduced headways will increase the dwell time at stops, and the increased dwell time will slow everything down.

Although London buses are very well funded compared to regional buses, TfL don’t have the money they used to have. That’s definitely reflected in some of the more recent tender specifications.

But then it also comes down to what buses should be. There’s almost certainly are too many buses in central London. Buses in London really should be more focused on more orbital links between metro services (which Superloop is aiming to address) and ‘last mile’ services to get you from your metro station to your house. In many other urban areas (Leeds springs to mind) it’s very different given the poor scope of suburban rail services.

 

[Goldfish62]

But then it also comes down to what buses should be. There’s almost certainly are too many buses in central London. Buses in London really should be more focused on more orbital links between metro services (which Superloop is aiming to address) and ‘last mile’ services to get you from your metro station to your house. In many other urban areas (Leeds springs to mind) it’s very different given the poor scope of suburban rail services.

Central London routes have been slashed enough: withdrawals, curtailments and frequency cuts. It's causing capacity issues at certain times, eg over Waterloo Bridge in the AM peak.

Buses go to so many places where the Underground and National Rail don't go. Not everyone's journey includes an origin or destination that's convenient for a railway station. Concentrating bus services on last-mile corridors will, thankfully, never be the answer.

 

[johncrossley]

A major problem in London is the separation of the bus and tube fare systems, encouraging people to use buses to save money, particularly where the alternative is a connection between bus and tube. This generates a lot of unnecessary bus journeys in central and inner London.

 

[Goldfish62]

A major problem in London is the separation of the bus and tube fare systems, encouraging people to use buses to save money, particularly where the alternative is a connection between bus and tube. This generates a lot of unnecessary bus journeys in central and inner London.

That's been a long-term policy. Buses are all over London. Trains are not. Keep the bus fares low to allow an alternative cheaper, but slower means of transport. Without significant external funding to push down tube and rail fares merging of fares scales will never happen.

Which corridors were you thinking of in particular where the unnecessary journeys take place?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You can't really compare the two things. The £700m pa "subsidy" to the London bus network comes from surpluses made elsewhere within the TfL business. The temporary DfT revenue funding ended in 2023/24. If you're to compare the two then to the £350m you really need to add the total cost of supported services funded by local authorities as well as BSIP (including the mostly ludicrous DRT schemes) and ZEBRA funding.

I think you may have misunderstood me; I wasn't seeking to make that as a direct comparison in terms of total funding. My point was that it is illustrative that London subsidises it's bus operations by that amount, yet we see the Treasury looking to row back on something that is much smaller. Also, if you're spending >£700m on buses, you really should have superb services

I do appreciate that you have to look at areas likes ZEBRA funding, Rural Mobility Fund and BSIP/BSIP+, and the headline figures look impressive. Then you look at how the spending is structured; I believe that the Local Govt Assoc reckon that ENCTS now has a shortfall of over £450m IIRC.

 

[johncrossley]

Which corridors were you thinking of in particular where the unnecessary journeys take place?

It's across the board really. I'm one of those people who tries to save money by using the bus instead of the tube.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Central London routes have been slashed enough: withdrawals, curtailments and frequency cuts.

Generally speaking this is only for the better. But even now look at the buses along Oxford Street, for example; most of them will be almost empty.

Buses go to so many places where the Underground and National Rail don't go. Not everyone's journey includes an origin or destination that's convenient for a railway station. Concentrating bus services on last-mile corridors will, thankfully, never be the answer.

Indeed, but those places are not in Central London.

Out in the 'burbs then yes, buses do become a more important part of the transport network. But those types of routes are exactly what I said are important: the 'last mile' service from the station to the suburb, or the orbital route connecting two radial rail/tube lines or two important traffic centres together.

 

[Goldfish62]

Generally speaking this is only for the better. But even now look at the buses along Oxford Street, for example; most of them will be almost empty.

That's because most of the routes now start and terminate at Oxford Circus. Even so, as Roger French highlighted in a recent Bus & Train User blog about the Oxford Street pedestrianisation he highlighted how busy the stops were.

Out in the 'burbs then yes, buses do become a more important part of the transport network. But those types of routes are exactly what I said are important: the 'last mile' service from the station to the suburb, or the orbital route connecting two radial rail/tube lines or two important traffic centres together.

Reminds me of when a director from the rail side joined the Buses directorate at TfL. This coincided with drawing up the plans for the revised Night Bus network in conjunction with the introduction of Night Tube. He noted that some night bus routes largely paralleled tube lines that would be running overnight at weekends and suggested that the bus routes were withdrawn. When he was shown the origin and destination data for all the bus stops nowhere near tube stations that would no longer have an overnight bus service he conceded defeat.

Take Mike Harris's excellent London bus map and look at where the railway lines are. There are massive gaps even in Inner London which are filled by the bus network. Buses provide thousands of links that the Tube and rail networks cannot and forcing people to change modes en masse midway through their journeys would lead to disaster, not least because history has shown that huge recastings of bus networks rarely ever work and just hasten decline.

Plus what is one of the most significant single issues. The bus network is fully accessible. The tube network never will be.

 

[geoffk]

Only just, the East London Line opened in 2011 and became fully operational in 2012. It can take a bit of time for changes to pull through.

Do those average speeds include time stationary at stops?

As a regular user of buses in Exeter, I find dwell time at bus stops is one of the biggest causes of delay. This is partly due to the need for every passenger to have a transaction with the driver and partly to the design of buses, with a single narrow door for both boarding and alighting, the norm throughout Britain of course except for London and a few other cities. On the continent city buses almost always have two doors - three or four if articulated - and it's rare in my experience for anyone to buy a ticket from the driver. How much of the continental experience is transferable to Britain, even with franchising?

 

[joieman]

Plus what is one of the most significant single issues. The bus network is fully accessible. The tube network never will be.

That's a bit pessimistic!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's a bit pessimistic!

Realistic. Making the old deep Tube lines accessible would be crushingly expensive and potentially completely impossible in some cases. Thus a central London bus (or tram) network has to remain to some extent.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Take Mike Harris's excellent London bus map and look at where the railway lines are. There are massive gaps even in Inner London which are filled by the bus network.

I wouldn't say there were any 'massive gaps' in Central London. The biggest 'gap' used to be Clerkenwell down through the bottom of Bloomsbury to Oxford Street or Piccadilly Circus, hence the frequency on the 38. Crossrail has pretty comprehensively plugged that gap.

When he was shown the origin and destination data for all the bus stops nowhere near tube stations that would no longer have an overnight bus service he conceded defeat.

I'm not sure what your point is? The tube won't take you to your front door, of course it won't. Buses will be needed to take you from your house to the nearest tube station or rail station. I lived in Muswell Hill, I understand this very well. I also understand from Muswell Hill the advantage of the bus in saving money, as I used Archway (zone 2) as my railhead, not Highgate (zone 3).

The biggest gaps between stations on the Night Tube are on the Piccadilly Line, it's quite the hike up Green Lanes from Manor House to Turnpike Lane. Same with the hike between Holloway Road and Archway (although that's more an example of buses linking two radial tube lines). So it makes sense to have buses running there, even though they duplicate the tube line.

 

[johncrossley]

As a regular user of buses in Exeter, I find dwell time at bus stops is one of the biggest causes of delay. This is partly due to the need for every passenger to have a transaction with the driver and partly to the design of buses, with a single narrow door for both boarding and alighting, the norm throughout Britain of course except for London and a few other cities. On the continent city buses almost always have two doors - three or four if articulated - and it's rare in my experience for anyone to buy a ticket from the driver. How much of the continental experience is transferable to Britain, even with franchising?

This is a quirky British thing. There have been numerous threads about slow boarding times in the UK, for example

On board ticket sales and operating speed

I live on top of a steep hill. It is rarely ever faster to cycle in the homeward-bound direction, unless I skew the start by, e.g., starting a few minutes after one bus has left on the Sunday 20 minute frequency. I don't think you can evidence that is is "almost always" quicker to cycle outside...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Mwanesh]

The local authority owning the local depot would make franchising easier, but how does TUPE work for buses? If a new company takes over routes, but from a different depot does that mean they can avoid having to TUPE over the previous franchisee’s staff?

West Midlands Combined Authority bought Walsall depot some months back but it was hidden in a small article due to the fallout from the City Council bankruptcy.

 

[Ghostbus]

Franchising is pointless when demand is falling and costs are de facto fixed. This is why they are being done away with on the railways. It's just a pointless extra cost.

National politicians have known for decades that "Great British Buses" would cost a fraction of GBR and help far more people. They prefer to let local authorities bear the burden and thus take the flak. Not that anyone not living in Manchester would have the first clue which politician is to blame if their bus is late, expensive, or doesn't even exist.