Greater Manchester bus franchising

[nerd]

Formal notice of the proposed bus franchising scheme has been posted on the GMCA website:

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.go...e_-_4_july_17_proposed_bus_franchising_scheme

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will be most interesting to see how well this pans out.

If it's a complete failure as many here think it will be, then that will be the end of that.

If it is a success, however, as I suspect it will be (given that a UK style free for all is very unusual in other places around the world), will we see more of it?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It will be most interesting to see how well this pans out.

If it's a complete failure as many here think it will be, then that will be the end of that.

If it is a success, however, as I suspect it will be (given that a UK style free for all is very unusual in other places around the world), will we see more of it?

I'm waiting for the MP for Crawley and Greater Friesland to join the debate....

As usual, the devil's in the detail. In many respects, I actually welcome the idea of some form of joined up planning in terms of transport planning but it has to be fully joined up - decent bus priority, stopping the hollowing out of town centres in preference to car friendly out of town locations.

The fears that I have are....

It's a means of mass cross subsidy so that the most lucrative routes are cash cows to fund a morass of unsustainable hobby horses

The removal of links if only to act as feeders to support local rail and tram services as an over-riding principle (see forced interchange at Gateshead on the Metro 30 years ago)

Wasting of money on bureaucracy and administration

Common sense being outweighed by political grandstanding - at worst, we end up with some flax haired populist demanding a new bus for Manchester (NB4M aka Mancunian) to reflect the unique challenges of the area!

The frankly amateurish approach by Nexus and the gaps in understanding was a salutary lesson.

 

[northwichcat]

I hope it means an end to large operators cherry picking the profitable routes and leaving the less lucrative routes for smaller operators. At the same time I hope it also means smaller operators can still operate some services.

 

[carlberry]

It will be most interesting to see how well this pans out.

If it's a complete failure as many here think it will be, then that will be the end of that.

If it is a success, however, as I suspect it will be (given that a UK style free for all is very unusual in other places around the world), will we see more of it?

IF it happens the politicians behind it will call it a success whatever happens and it also depends on what criteria is used to define ‘success’. Also if you put more money into the current system, you’ll also have a ‘success’.
As in Tyne and Wear the emphasis will be on boosting little rail and not buses which have less of an attraction for politicians, and their major issues can’t be solved without taking road space from cars.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I hope it means an end to large operators cherry picking the profitable routes and leaving the less lucrative routes for smaller operators. At the same time I hope it also means smaller operators can still operate some services.

Indeed - the large operators who have a higher cost base often because of pension legacies/more advantageous pension schemes.

That's why the unions weren't in favour with the Nexus proposal

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm waiting for the MP for Crawley and Greater Friesland to join the debate....

As usual, the devil's in the detail. In many respects, I actually welcome the idea of some form of joined up planning in terms of transport planning but it has to be fully joined up - decent bus priority, stopping the hollowing out of town centres in preference to car friendly out of town locations.

True. There's a good example locally - Bletchley town centre is heading towards near abandonment (charity shops etc) as a large retail park development near the stadium is basically *becoming* Bletchley town centre, yet it is served only by the buses that would pass it anyway. Arguably moving Bletchley bus station there and rearranging routes to fit would have made sense - that's the kind of joined up thinking I would hope for. (You could never have located the development in the erstwhile town centre, it's just not big enough). Coupled to such development could have been a regeneration project to introduce some high quality residential development given the potential for this being near the station.

It's a means of mass cross subsidy so that the most lucrative routes are cash cows to fund a morass of unsustainable hobby horses

I don't have an issue with cross subsidy used sensibly; it is after all already done e.g. within and between rail franchises.

The removal of links if only to act as feeders to support local rail and tram services as an over-riding principle (see forced interchange at Gateshead on the Metro 30 years ago)

I think this sometimes makes sense and sometimes doesn't. I would hope for a pragmatic line on it.

Wasting of money on bureaucracy and administration

Possibly.

Common sense being outweighed by political grandstanding - at worst, we end up with some flax haired populist demanding a new bus for Manchester (NB4M aka Mancunian) to reflect the unique challenges of the area!

Yes, this would be a bad idea. Though TfGM may well decide to standardise on a couple of distinctive bus designs for new orders across all operations, and why not? Before Bozza had even had his hair-brained (!) scheme, the Wright Eclipse Gemini's rounded windscreen was the distinctive "face" of London bus operations.

example:

(poster of bus on London Bridge with "Secure beneath the watchful eyes" tagline - must admit that poster looks straight out of Scarfolk! )

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yes, this would be a bad idea. Though TfGM may well decide to standardise on a couple of distinctive bus designs for new orders across all operations, and why not? Before Bozza had even had his hair-brained (!) scheme, the Wright Eclipse Gemini's rounded windscreen was the distinctive "face" of London bus operations.

Specifying a couple of standard designs is ok, but where does it stop? Insistence on moquette design, door location etc?

I'm against cross subsidy for the very reason in that it royally cocked up the industry throughout the 1960s and 70s. You had good services that had ever increasing demands placed on them - the result was reduced investment and widening headways to prop up dead duck services that had once been justified but were dying on their a**e.

I think your hope is misplaced - hope over experience!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Specifying a couple of standard designs is ok, but where does it stop? Insistence on moquette design, door location etc?

I don't see a problem with a standardised moquette design, that and a common livery seems a very good idea. Operators could have their logo on the bus in addition in the same way they do in London. As for door location, that basically is standardised outside London, i.e. at the front only, entirely willingly by commercial companies!

Probably no point doing it for existing buses, a window sticker along the lines of "TfGM bus service; all valid TfGM tickets accepted" with the M logo would do the job, but a different moquette and colour scheme doesn't cost extra on a new bus assuming you're not just going for factory white.

I'm against cross subsidy for the very reason in that it royally cocked up the industry throughout the 1960s and 70s. You had good services that had ever increasing demands placed on them - the result was reduced investment and widening headways to prop up dead duck services that had once been justified but were dying on their a**e.

I think your hope is misplaced - hope over experience!

It depends if we can bring in just a bit of German, Swiss or other European culture to make it *really* work. That culture has to point at "a city public transport journey", not "a bus journey", to get the real benefit from this. Even in London where the fares aren't properly integrated people use the network as a whole.

 

[radamfi]

(given that a UK style free for all is very unusual in other places around the world)

That's the point. Where in the developed world do we have such a free for all? If deregulation is such a success, why didn't other countries copy us? It wasn't even copied to the remaining parts of the UK. Even in England, the majority of bus passengers travel on non-deregulated bus services.

So really it should be up to the proponents of deregulation to justify its continued existence.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That's the point. Where in the developed world do we have such a free for all? If deregulation is such a success, why didn't other countries copy us? It wasn't even copied to the remaining parts of the UK. Even in England, the majority of bus passengers travel on non-deregulated bus services.

So really it should be up to the proponents of deregulation to justify its continued existence.

You're late

UK bus patronage declined sharply from 1951 to 1980 when regulated - don't forget that

Perhaps the issue is actual funding - deregulation was a way to reducing the cost to the exchequer and in that respect, it worked. The idea is that you can spend no more money and that bus patronage will be in the land of milk and honey is ridiculous.

And this is always the point. It's about money - it always is.

Now, if the money is available to have a Dutch style approach, then fine but a better system will not come without more investment. If it seems to good to be true.............

 

[carlberry]

That's the point. Where in the developed world do we have such a free for all? If deregulation is such a success, why didn't other countries copy us? It wasn't even copied to the remaining parts of the UK. Even in England, the majority of bus passengers travel on non-deregulated bus services.

So really it should be up to the proponents of deregulation to justify its continued existence.

The latest passenger statistics show the greatest rate of passenger loss is in regulated London, so surely somebody should be defending why regulation works?

 

[radamfi]

The latest passenger statistics show the greatest rate of passenger loss is in regulated London, so surely somebody should be defending why regulation works?

If someone at school who consistently gets an A suddenly gets an A-, that is still better than someone who normally gets an E who improves to a C.

Patronage per capita is still considerably higher than elsewhere.

Are you advocating deregulation for London?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't see a problem with a standardised moquette design, that and a common livery seems a very good idea. Operators could have their logo on the bus in addition in the same way they do in London. As for door location, that basically is standardised outside London, i.e. at the front only, entirely willingly by commercial companies!

Probably no point doing it for existing buses, a window sticker along the lines of "TfGM bus service; all valid TfGM tickets accepted" with the M logo would do the job, but a different moquette and colour scheme doesn't cost extra on a new bus assuming you're not just going for factory white.



It depends if we can bring in just a bit of German, Swiss or other European culture to make it *really* work. That culture has to point at "a city public transport journey", not "a bus journey", to get the real benefit from this. Even in London where the fares aren't properly integrated people use the network as a whole.

The livery is, to be honest, neither here nor there.

Look at the actual design and the impact. We see this in London with most operators leasing vehicles because they cannot be guaranteed to retain the work AND the specific requirements restrict the ability to cascade. That is reflected in leasing costs and so passed on to TfL - now imagine that is replicated but with a lesser number of vehicles to some arbitrary spec?

I'd welcome more Swiss thinking especially if attached with Swiss funding. However, pure cross subsidy where Peter pays Paul is the fallacy of the average!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If someone at school who consistently gets an A suddenly gets an A-, that is still better than someone who normally gets an E who improves to a C.

Patronage per capita is still considerably higher than elsewhere.

Are you advocating deregulation for London?

Perhaps the point is that it is dependant on funding and that if you improved funding outside London, it would be better?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The livery is, to be honest, neither here nor there.

Livery is relevant. The "look and feel" of the service is a big part of how attractive it is, particularly to non-users. Ray Stenning wouldn't be making so much money were this not the case - all paid by commercial bus companies who believe, correctly, that image is important!

Look at the actual design and the impact. We see this in London with most operators leasing vehicles because they cannot be guaranteed to retain the work AND the specific requirements restrict the ability to cascade. That is reflected in leasing costs and so passed on to TfL - now imagine that is replicated but with a lesser number of vehicles to some arbitrary spec?

It depends what that spec is. I suspect it would be an easily cascaded one, the money is not there for a NBfM.

I'd welcome more Swiss thinking especially if attached with Swiss funding. However, pure cross subsidy where Peter pays Paul is the fallacy of the average!

I don't agree, any sensibly planned public transport service contains an element of it, even a fully commercial bus route.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Livery is relevant. The "look and feel" of the service is a big part of how attractive it is, particularly to non-users. Ray Stenning wouldn't be making so much money were this not the case - all paid by commercial bus companies who believe, correctly, that image is important!



It depends what that spec is. I suspect it would be an easily cascaded one, the money is not there for a NBfM.



I don't agree, any sensibly planned public transport service contains an element of it, even a fully commercial bus route.

You misunderstand me and perhaps I could've been clearer - not relevant to the cost impact.

Pure cross subsidy was the key phrase. The most illustrative example was Midland Red where the core ops in Birmingham, Black Country and Leicester were being dragged down by a extensive hinterland of marginal services.

The odd evening journey that is almost viable and is kept on for the overall contribution is one thing. Seen far too many instances of buses being operated for nothing more than political expediency for my fears to be allayed just yet!

 

[nerd]

I'm waiting for the MP for Crawley and Greater Friesland to join the debate....

As usual, the devil's in the detail. In many respects, I actually welcome the idea of some form of joined up planning in terms of transport planning but it has to be fully joined up - decent bus priority, stopping the hollowing out of town centres in preference to car friendly out of town locations.

The fears that I have are....

It's a means of mass cross subsidy so that the most lucrative routes are cash cows to fund a morass of unsustainable hobby horses

The removal of links if only to act as feeders to support local rail and tram services as an over-riding principle (see forced interchange at Gateshead on the Metro 30 years ago)

Wasting of money on bureaucracy and administration

Common sense being outweighed by political grandstanding - at worst, we end up with some flax haired populist demanding a new bus for Manchester (NB4M aka Mancunian) to reflect the unique challenges of the area!

The frankly amateurish approach by Nexus and the gaps in understanding was a salutary lesson.

Clearly there are potential elephant traps:

- the whole process may become politicised into an agenda of maintaining non-economic services, or establishing vanity schemes and vehicles;

- implementation may founder due to a lack of expertise within TfGM; or failure to appreciate the operational complexity of current bus operations;

- opposition from the big operators may derail franchising, due to legal challenges, passive non-compliance , or even active sabotage;

- the underlying impact on bus operations of traffic congestion remain to be tackled; potentially this may divert public effort and investment away from that goal.

Nevertheless I am rather more hopeful; particularly I suspect because I see the potential (within Manchester) for massive increases in bus patronage associated with franchising; and a lot of matters become easier if the business is attracting more customers, and increasing income. You may dismiss this as wishful thinking; but TfGM do have detailed experience of franchising in respect of Metrolink; where continued rapid growth in passenger demand is a hard reality. There were a lot of people who argued that European light rail returns on investment could not be replicated in the UK (notably in the notoriously wrong-headed National Audit Office report of 2004) https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/0304518.pdf . I think the same will be found for buses; especially since TfGM may now offer the carrot of connection into tram and train services for bus ticket holders.

Key aspects of my optimistic assessement;

- there are large numbers of reluctant drivers in Greater Manchester; who will jump at the opportunity offered by a half-decent public transport alternative. This has been clearly apparent in respect of tram and train services for a decade or so; but the experience of the Leigh-Salford-Manchester busway has been in no way different. Services are packed; and most of the new riders say they could otherwise have travelled by car. The Busway is not operated as a franchise; but would clearly have been a great deal easier to do if it had. To get big increases in bus patronage; there has to be linked infrastructure and vehicle investment; and that is much easier to do with franchising. The big opportunities here are in longer trips (5km+) in respect of which current bus usage is tiny, and so current big operators do not tend to seek to offer attractive services.

- the big operators deny it; but the configuration of their services and their ticketing and fare structures, are explicitly acting to suppress demand growth for stopping bus services. Almost all commercial routes are natural monopolies for one or another big operator; who therefore benefit from monopoly profits, and who apply predatory ticketing, pricing and timetabling against any attempt by smaller operators to compete. Monopoly business models always seek to under-serve the market (that is how monopoly profits come about), and buses are no exception to this economic rule. Take away the predatory strategies, and patronage will increase.

- Underlying a franchised system is recognition of the fundamental distinction between the fare paid by the passenger to travel, and the compensation paid to the operator for providing a service. The deregulated market arbitrarily concatenates these two payment events - so the bus operator simply banks the fares paid on their buses; the designers of the deregulated system believing (wrongly) that this would enable competition within routes. But franchising offers an alternative route to competition (and hence the breaking-up of anti-social monopoly operations). In franchising the fares go to TfGM, operators put in bids for each route, specifying compensation payments expected - which may be greater of lesser per passenger than the levels of fare payment. Which potentially allows a much simpler fare structure for the passenger, full transferability of tickets around the system, and protection of smaller operators against predatory strategies.

It is no surprise that while the big operators (and their shills in the press) have been united in rubbishing franchising; the smaller operators are strongly in favour.

 

[northwichcat]

- there are large numbers of reluctant drivers in Greater Manchester; who will jump at the opportunity offered by a half-decent public transport alternative.

However, it's important to remember some Greater Manchester residents work outside GM and some non-GM residents work in GM. Splitting up the 130 bus route (Manchester to Macclesfield) could result in a Wilmslow resident working in Cheadle (or vice versa) finding public transport a less viable option.

 

[radamfi]

However, it's important to remember some Greater Manchester residents work outside GM and some non-GM residents work in GM. Splitting up the 130 bus route (Manchester to Macclesfield) could result in a Wilmslow resident working in Cheadle (or vice versa) finding public transport a less viable option.

Crossing the boundary need not necessarily be a problem. TfL run some routes quite a long way outside the GLA boundary in cooperation with neighbouring authorities.

 

[nerd]

However, it's important to remember some Greater Manchester residents work outside GM and some non-GM residents work in GM. Splitting up the 130 bus route (Manchester to Macclesfield) could result in a Wilmslow resident working in Cheadle (or vice versa) finding public transport a less viable option.

There are already two highly successful branded commercial longer distance routes into Manchester operated by Transdev; RedExpress and WitchWay. In many ways the Leigh Busway operation has ripped-off these services in terms of vehicle specification and route branding - and packaged these enHanced buses as 'Bus Rapid Transit'.

As I read the TfGM strategy for buses, they are wanting to extend the principle much further; but are waiting on getting franchising in place first. Higher frequency Macclesfield to Manchester (and Macclesfield to Manchester Airport) BRT services (maybe using the new SEMMMS road) would look like an obvious extension of the same marketing approach.

 

[northwichcat]

(and Macclesfield to Manchester Airport)

That's interesting. I've been saying for the long time the 200 as a standalone service doesn't work and it should run as a through service to either Macclesfield or Knutsford.

 

[carlberry]

Clearly there are potential elephant traps:

- the underlying impact on bus operations of traffic congestion remain to be tackled; potentially this may divert public effort and investment away from that goal.

- there are large numbers of reluctant drivers in Greater Manchester; who will jump at the opportunity offered by a half-decent public transport alternative. This has been clearly apparent in respect of tram and train services for a decade or so; but the experience of the Leigh-Salford-Manchester busway has been in no way different. Services are packed; and most of the new riders say they could otherwise have travelled by car. The Busway is not operated as a franchise; but would clearly have been a great deal easier to do if it had. To get big increases in bus patronage; there has to be linked infrastructure and vehicle investment; and that is much easier to do with franchising. The big opportunities here are in longer trips (5km+) in respect of which current bus usage is tiny, and so current big operators do not tend to seek to offer attractive services.

- the big operators deny it; but the configuration of their services and their ticketing and fare structures, are explicitly acting to suppress demand growth for stopping bus services. Almost all commercial routes are natural monopolies for one or another big operator; who therefore benefit from monopoly profits, and who apply predatory ticketing, pricing and timetabling against any attempt by smaller operators to compete. Monopoly business models always seek to under-serve the market (that is how monopoly profits come about), and buses are no exception to this economic rule. Take away the predatory strategies, and patronage will increase.

It is no surprise that while the big operators (and their shills in the press) have been united in rubbishing franchising; the smaller operators are strongly in favour.

I'm not aware of smaller operators who are strongly in favour. Any franchise system like this will benefit the larger operators who can put the bids on. (Theres only one operator for the tram system for example).

Any bus service competes with cars and taxis. There will be operators who make what some people see as mega bucks on some routes but it'll rarely be enough that, if it was publicly run, there would be any large pool of money to spend improving the service.

I don’t know how the busway would work better as a franchise, it already operates as a QA contract which is much the same. The message from the busway, the tram and the train is all the same. People (who have a choice) will use public transport if it's reliable and can get them there faster than the car. The price isn’t as much of an issue and franchising itself won’t deliver any extra bus priorities.

 

[nerd]

I'm not aware of smaller operators who are strongly in favour. Any franchise system like this will benefit the larger operators who can put the bids on. (Theres only one operator for the tram system for example).

Any bus service competes with cars and taxis. There will be operators who make what some people see as mega bucks on some routes but it'll rarely be enough that, if it was publicly run, there would be any large pool of money to spend improving the service.

I don’t know how the busway would work better as a franchise, it already operates as a QA contract which is much the same. The message from the busway, the tram and the train is all the same. People (who have a choice) will use public transport if it's reliable and can get them there faster than the car. The price isn’t as much of an issue and franchising itself won’t deliver any extra bus priorities.

On smaller operators and franchising

http://hctgroup.org/about_us/dai_po...ing, or why bus operators need the Buses Bill

The whole idea of bus franchising is that operators compete for routes; so there can be a multiplcity of operators within one city. What there won't be, is a multiplicity of fares and tickets. Just as with tendering for subsidised routes currently, where it is noticeable that smaller operators have a much better chance of getting the business than they would of competing for commercial routes. Which is the point the article is making; cutting back terndered services is hitting the smaller operators; franchising is potentially their lifeline.

Buses don't compete with cars at present, trams and train do; bus operators concentrate almost entirely on carless users, hence high price single fares, predatory weekly tickets, no through ticketing across operators, pay on board, frequent stops, infrequent (and unreliable) services. To compete with cars you need simple flat-rate single fares, no penalty for cross-operator travel, high frequency service, high reliability, pay in advance, limited stop, comfortable seating. One of the key messages from the Cambridgeshire and Leigh busways is that to grow demand from former car userss, buses need to be less directed towards the expectations of carless users. Crucially, current deregulated buses build in extra time penalties to users; as on competitive routes, passengers have to wait for the service for which their tickets are valid. In a franchise system you can always get on the firs bus that comes, without paying extra to do so; which reduces overall average transit time; which in turn is the big opportunity for buses to outperform car travel.

In respect of the busway, the current services are brilliant as a stand-alone offer; but their integration into the general transport network is sorely deficient. So, First run the busway from Leigh to Manchester, but Diamond operate the circular route around Atherton and Leigh. The Diamond buses don't stop at the First busway interchanges; and the First tickets cannot be used on Diamond buses. Equally, busway passengers connecting to trams in the city centre have to pay extra; and vice versa, tram passengers have to pay extra to use the busway from the city centre into the University. This is the basic economics of deregulated buses; each operator only benefits from the passengers that travel on their own buses, so no operator has an incentive to generate additonal demand for public transport as a whole. Franchising works the other way; growth in patronage on one public transport service increases the potential user base for all other services; so long as operators are able to capture usage (through GetMeThere cards ideally) they will be compensated for all passenger movements across the system. But they won't face predatory pricing; as all prices will be the same for the same trip irrespective of the modes and operators used.

 

[daodao]

On smaller operators and franchising

http://hctgroup.org/about_us/dai_po...ing, or why bus operators need the Buses Bill

The whole idea of bus franchising is that operators compete for routes; so there can be a multiplcity of operators within one city. What there won't be, is a multiplicity of fares and tickets. Just as with tendering for subsidised routes currently, where it is noticeable that smaller operators have a much better chance of getting the business than they would of competing for commercial routes. Which is the point the article is making; cutting back terndered services is hitting the smaller operators; franchising is potentially their lifeline.

Buses don't compete with cars at present, trams and train do; bus operators concentrate almost entirely on carless users, hence high price single fares, predatory weekly tickets, no through ticketing across operators, pay on board, frequent stops, infrequent (and unreliable) services. To compete with cars you need simple flat-rate single fares, no penalty for cross-operator travel, high frequency service, high reliability, pay in advance, limited stop, comfortable seating. One of the key messages from the Cambridgeshire and Leigh busways is that to grow demand from former car userss, buses need to be less directed towards the expectations of carless users. Crucially, current deregulated buses build in extra time penalties to users; as on competitive routes, passengers have to wait for the service for which their tickets are valid. In a franchise system you can always get on the firs bus that comes, without paying extra to do so; which reduces overall average transit time; which in turn is the big opportunity for buses to outperform car travel.

In respect of the busway, the current services are brilliant as a stand-alone offer; but their integration into the general transport network is sorely deficient. So, First run the busway from Leigh to Manchester, but Diamond operate the circular route around Atherton and Leigh. The Diamond buses don't stop at the First busway interchanges; and the First tickets cannot be used on Diamond buses. Equally, busway passengers connecting to trams in the city centre have to pay extra; and vice versa, tram passengers have to pay extra to use the busway from the city centre into the University. This is the basic economics of deregulated buses; each operator only benefits from the passengers that travel on their own buses, so no operator has an incentive to generate additonal demand for public transport as a whole. Franchising works the other way; growth in patronage on one public transport service increases the potential user base for all other services; so long as operators are able to capture usage (through GetMeThere cards ideally) they will be compensated for all passenger movements across the system. But they won't face predatory pricing; as all prices will be the same for the same trip irrespective of the modes and operators used.

There is no need for bus franchising. Buses are commercial services.

However, TfGM needs to do what many other areas of the country are doing, namely scrap bus subsidies, except to serve areas of significant population that would otherwise be cut off from any public transport services. Such areas (of which there will be few in a large conurbation) could be provided with an hourly Mon-Sat daytime service.

Nearly all subsidised evening and many subsidised Sunday bus services are merely carrying air and most should be withdrawn, except where a link is considered strategic. Even such routes are now being withdrawn by TfGM, e.g. there are now no evening bus services south of Parrs Wood to Cheadle and beyond.

 

[carlberry]

On smaller operators and franchising

http://hctgroup.org/about_us/dai_po...ing, or why bus operators need the Buses Bill

The whole idea of bus franchising is that operators compete for routes; so there can be a multiplcity of operators within one city. What there won't be, is a multiplicity of fares and tickets. Just as with tendering for subsidised routes currently, where it is noticeable that smaller operators have a much better chance of getting the business than they would of competing for commercial routes. Which is the point the article is making; cutting back terndered services is hitting the smaller operators; franchising is potentially their lifeline.

The article is the view of one operator that are, I believe, publicly owned so not what most people would regard as a small operator. The example they quote was also a network franchise which is exactly the kind of thing that kills off small operators. I suspect that however any Manchester franchise is run it's more likely that it'll be let in one, or a few, big chunks because that means there's less admin to set up and much less to run it. Even the London system doesn't encourage small operators despite the amount of admin needed for it.

 

[carlberry]

Buses don't compete with cars at present, trams and train do; bus operators concentrate almost entirely on carless users, hence high price single fares, predatory weekly tickets, no through ticketing across operators, pay on board, frequent stops, infrequent (and unreliable) services. To compete with cars you need simple flat-rate single fares, no penalty for cross-operator travel, high frequency service, high reliability, pay in advance, limited stop, comfortable seating. One of the key messages from the Cambridgeshire and Leigh busways is that to grow demand from former car userss, buses need to be less directed towards the expectations of carless users. Crucially, current deregulated buses build in extra time penalties to users; as on competitive routes, passengers have to wait for the service for which their tickets are valid. In a franchise system you can always get on the firs bus that comes, without paying extra to do so; which reduces overall average transit time; which in turn is the big opportunity for buses to outperform car travel.

The issues of multi operator ticketing can be dealt with, however it's easier if the local authority takes the lead (instead of following it's own agenda). Oxford is an example where the local authority has dealt with this issue for example. All of the busway examples show that people will use buses if they're quicker than cars. Franchising wont speed up any buses by itself.

 

[carlberry]

In respect of the busway, the current services are brilliant as a stand-alone offer; but their integration into the general transport network is sorely deficient. So, First run the busway from Leigh to Manchester, but Diamond operate the circular route around Atherton and Leigh. The Diamond buses don't stop at the First busway interchanges; and the First tickets cannot be used on Diamond buses. Equally, busway passengers connecting to trams in the city centre have to pay extra; and vice versa, tram passengers have to pay extra to use the busway from the city centre into the University. This is the basic economics of deregulated buses; each operator only benefits from the passengers that travel on their own buses, so no operator has an incentive to generate additonal demand for public transport as a whole.

I'm fairly sure that, as the busway was a QA contract (i.e. regulated), most of the above could have been dealt with if the money was available. I suspect however that the money wasn't available and the authority still see the busway as a cheap tram and any future franchising plans will tend towards the tram good, bus bad mentality.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not aware of smaller operators who are strongly in favour. Any franchise system like this will benefit the larger operators who can put the bids on. (Theres only one operator for the tram system for example).

I think the 'smaller operators' in favour are actually subsidiaries of big companies who don't have the same presence in Manchester as the likes of Stagecoach or even Arriva e.g. Selwyns who are owned by RATP or Diamond Bus who are owned by Rotala, rather than genuine small operators like Go Goodwins/Little Gem or Manchester Community Transport.

Stagecoach quickly gave up running the Metrolink system, which probably has a similar model to how bus franchising would work.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Specifying a couple of standard designs is ok, but where does it stop? Insistence on moquette design, door location etc?

Would I be right in thinking that the bus seat covering in some of the newest fleets in Greater Manchester is not moquette?