Greater Manchester bus franchising

[nerd]

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.

The availability of money is the point. For the busway to deliver a massive increase in bus patronage, there needed to be major investment both in new buses, and in route infrastructure (the busway itself, plus the East Lancs buslanes, plus the Oxford Road corridor works). All of which was possible through public money, the buses from the Green Bus scheme, the route works from both LTP Growth monies and the GM Transport Fund.

All of which amounts to special funds; the problem is replicating the same results in an evironment in which such funds are much more limited. Which is what Metrolink has been able to do (on top of special funding); in that a substantial element of funding is borrowing against the operating surplus from the extra patronage generated by the schemes in question. The transport authority takes the risk; but due to the franchising structure of the current tram operating contract (as distinct from the former DBOM contract), the profits from higher than expected patronage growth return to the authority, not the operator. So, in part, new trams can be bought out of their own increased fare revenue (through 'prudential borrowing'; and new lines built from the profits from user fares.

Its not ideal - there is still no mechanism by which incresed property values along a tram line can be captured for the benefit of the transport system, not the property owners - but the principle is a sound one; improving the transport system requires major investment, and the best way to fund that investment is from patronage growth. Which is where franchising comes into its own; under franchising , fare income accrues to the authority; so if it is possible to generate large operating surplus through investment in enhanced longer distance services, and then plough these profits into capital investment funds for future such schemes.

The money needed is avaiable; in the form of fare income generated by increased patronage. But for this money to be accessible through prudential borrowing to be used to support an improved bus network - better buses, faster routes, more buslanes - then the surplus has to accrue to the authority, not the operators. Those are the Treasury rules; for an authority to borrow against future income stream, that income has to accrue to the authority.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The availability of money is the point. For the busway to deliver a massive increase in bus patronage, there needed to be major investment both in new buses, and in route infrastructure (the busway itself

Do you not feel that Stagecoach Manchester and First Manchester have introduced enough new fleets of double-decker buses in recent years in general service usage?

 

[nerd]

Do you not feel that Stagecoach Manchester and First Manchester have introduced enough new fleets of double-decker buses in recent years in general service usage?

I am happy to be corrected; but I understand that all hybrid-bus purchases for service in Greater Manchester have been supported by the Green Bus fund. Otherwise, operators funding new double deckers have been buying Euro 6 compliant standard diesel units.

The implications of this can be illustrated specifically in respect of the busway; First received 25 hybrid units from the Green Bus fund; but given current rates of patronage growth they realistically need another 12. The access agreement by which First use the busway requires any extra purchases to be hybrid (or better), but, having had the initial order subsidsied, First are not prepared to pay in full for the higher costs involved in a further order from their own money.

Just one issue on a single route; but in the context of the commitment of TfL to phase out all diesel-only bus use in the medium term there is a clear aspiration to remove diesel buses altogether from city streets. This is tricky, the Green Bus fund was predicated on the aspiration that, by now, low-emissions hybrid buses would be economically viable without subsidy; but this no longer appears to be the case; and the public health goalposts have now shifted to target removing diesel buses altogether. In which case, all bus purchases for operation in metropolitan cities are likely in future to be publicly funded.

What I don't see happening is a 'Mark 2 Green Bus fund' by which the all operators are able to renew their fleets at public expense. More likely is that GM (and other metropolitan cities) will buy low emissions buses themselves - bio-gas, battery, fuel cell - and set up an arms length enterprise to lease these to operators. None of which actually demands a context of franchising; but there can be no doubt that such arrangements would be much simpler to effect were franchising to be in place.

 

[Mikey C]

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

For 25/30 years after deregulation elsewhere in the UK, London showed passenger growth while there was a passenger decline elsewhere

The recent falls in London have been mainly down to traffic congestion, Ubers and home delivery vans, plus the new cycle lanes (and the congestion caused by their construction)

 

[nerd]

For 25/30 years after deregulation elsewhere in the UK, London showed passenger growth while there was a passenger decline elsewhere

The recent falls in London have been mainly down to traffic congestion, Ubers and home delivery vans, plus the new cycle lanes (and the congestion caused by their construction)

Indeed; Mikey. Annual bus use in London last year was 264 trips per head (down from 277 per head the year before). Greater Manchester had 74 trips per head. Outside London, the highest rates were in Brighton (157 per year), Nottingham (149 per year) and Reading (126 per year). Before deregulation in 1986; levels of bus use in London and other metropolitan cities were much the same - at around 175 annual trips per head.

Even if reregulation were only to bring usage in Manchester up to the current rate for Nottingham - not at all an unrealistic aspiration, as both cities have equivalent levels of tram provision and usage - then that would still imply a doubling of current levels of bus patronage across GM.

 

[radamfi]

Nottingham and Reading, whilst clearly offering a better bus service than most places, do have an inflated number of passengers per capita in the usage stats because the local authority boundaries here are tightly drawn and do not include a lot of the suburbs that most people would consider to be belonging to Nottingham and Reading.

 

[Rod_259]

It isn't really right to compare bus use in London with elsewhere because the Congestion Charge subsidised fares far more than elsewhere. Also, although a little better in recent years, the lack of cross city services, unlike Reading and Nottingham doesn't help. Even joint services (as with service 22 Bolton to Stockport), before it's demise in next couple of weeks could be considered as an option to improve links.

 

[Robertj21a]

It isn't really right to compare bus use in London with elsewhere because the Congestion Charge subsidised fares far more than elsewhere. Also, although a little better in recent years, the lack of cross city services, unlike Reading and Nottingham doesn't help. Even joint services (as with service 22 Bolton to Stockport), before it's demise in next couple of weeks could be considered as an option to improve links.

Which cross-city services are you thinking of in Nottingham ?

 

[nerd]

It isn't really right to compare bus use in London with elsewhere because the Congestion Charge subsidised fares far more than elsewhere. Also, although a little better in recent years, the lack of cross city services, unlike Reading and Nottingham doesn't help. Even joint services (as with service 22 Bolton to Stockport), before it's demise in next couple of weeks could be considered as an option to improve links.

Not really Rod;

The London Congestion Charge only came in in 2003; by which time bus patronage rates in London were already well over double those in other metropolitan cities. Certainly the gap has increased since, but London patronage was growing faster even in periods when subsidy levels were falling more in London than elsewhere.

Some good reports on differential experience of how buses have fared since deregulation here:

https://www.transportforqualityofli...world-class_bus_system_for_Britain_FINAL1.pdf

The key point they report is that although bus patronage fell rapidly in metropolitan cities outside London, at least in the early period, bus mileage did not fall at all. But what changed was the concentration of bus services into a few high volume corridors; so typically bus services that had run every 15 minutes, now ran every half-hour; while services that had run every 6 minutes, now ran every 3 minutes. The problem being that the first set of cases- reducing lower frequency services - hit patronage hard; while the countervailing increases in higher frequency services scarcely boosted patronage at all.

The service changes were a consequence of the operators adopting monopolistic business models; so, rather than maximising passenger numbers in an increasing market, they instead preferred to maximise market share in a reducing market. Since for a monopoly, the latter strategy maximises profit; as it strongly inhibits market entry from lower cost rivals.

It follows that franchising model should generally look to rebalance services towards lower frequency corridors (at the expense of higher frequency corridors); while also indeed increasing both cross-city running and cross service/mode connection and interchange.

 

[carlberry]

Not really Rod;

The London Congestion Charge only came in in 2003; by which time bus patronage rates in London were already well over double those in other metropolitan cities. Certainly the gap has increased since, but London patronage was growing faster even in periods when subsidy levels were falling more in London than elsewhere.

Some good reports on differential experience of how buses have fared since deregulation here:

https://www.transportforqualityofli...world-class_bus_system_for_Britain_FINAL1.pdf

The key point they report is that although bus patronage fell rapidly in metropolitan cities outside London, at least in the early period, bus mileage did not fall at all. But what changed was the concentration of bus services into a few high volume corridors; so typically bus services that had run every 15 minutes, now ran every half-hour; while services that had run every 6 minutes, now ran every 3 minutes. The problem being that the first set of cases- reducing lower frequency services - hit patronage hard; while the countervailing increases in higher frequency services scarcely boosted patronage at all.

The service changes were a consequence of the operators adopting monopolistic business models; so, rather than maximising passenger numbers in an increasing market, they instead preferred to maximise market share in a reducing market. Since for a monopoly, the latter strategy maximises profit; as it strongly inhibits market entry from lower cost rivals.

Whilst the report tries it's best to make deregulation look bad the decline was happening before deregulation and deregulation didn’t change it much (other than where there was large scale destabilising competition. The figures for London also show the effect the congestion charge had. The reason mileage remained high is that it was at exactly this time that the industry started using minibuses, more mileage for less passengers (per vehicle).

It doesn’t matter how many figures can be produced saying that one method or another is better what people want is a reliable service, as cheaply as possible and as frequently as possible. Franchising won’t reduce costs in any meaningful way so money has to come from somewhere else and franchising won’t do anything for traffic congestion (Without Manchester is going to be brave enough follow, and go beyond, the Nottingham route (workplace parking tax to be spent on bus services)).

 

[carlberry]

It follows that franchising model should generally look to rebalance services towards lower frequency corridors (at the expense of higher frequency corridors); while also indeed increasing both cross-city running and cross service/mode connection and interchange.

This really sums up a lot the potential problems with franchising. Why should people on high frequency routes lose out because there aren’t enough buses on lower frequency routes or (which is the usual solution to this balance) why should people be delayed whilst their, previously direct, bus diverts off the main road to serve areas that ‘deserve’ a better service but there isn’t the money to provide it. And why should people be turfed off a direct bus onto a tram or train when they’d much rather stay where they are. There’s no question that the current system isn’t perfect, however neither was the previous system and just restoring it isn’t going to cure anything without control over the two things the industry can’t get; long term spending commitments and commitments to large scale bus priorities.

 

[nerd]

Whilst the report tries it's best to make deregulation look bad the decline was happening before deregulation and deregulation didn’t change it much (other than where there was large scale destabilising competition. The figures for London also show the effect the congestion charge had. The reason mileage remained high is that it was at exactly this time that the industry started using minibuses, more mileage for less passengers (per vehicle).

It doesn’t matter how many figures can be produced saying that one method or another is better what people want is a reliable service, as cheaply as possible and as frequently as possible. Franchising won’t reduce costs in any meaningful way so money has to come from somewhere else and franchising won’t do anything for traffic congestion (Without Manchester is going to be brave enough follow, and go beyond, the Nottingham route (workplace parking tax to be spent on bus services)).

Clearly the authors have an agenda against deregulation, and in favour of franchising. And within franchising, in favour of a 'service by service' model, rather than putting all the bus services in a city out to tender as a single contract.

But their claims are backed by evidence; in early 1980s there was definitely a pattern of increasing patronage in big cities (reversing the previous decline); associated with introducing simplified fare structures, reducing real fare levels, and controlling overhead costs. That pattern of increasing patronage continued in London, but reversed sharply again in the other metropolitan cities, directly at the point when deregulation happened.

Franchising may be expected to reduce costs per passenger trip, simply because there will be more passengers; and there will be more passengers,as the operator strategies aimed at shrinking the market to increase profits are reversed. There is no wishful thinking here; bus operators fare and service strategies hold down patronage, because that is how monopolists maximise their profits. In this they are no different from any other monopolistic enterprise. But, just as in every other market where legislative protection is removed from monopoly enterprises, patronage-restricting strategies are stopped, and patronage increases.

What is not so clear-cut is how far that patronage growth may be at the expense of car usage; much depends on whether the new franchised network can build attractive services for commuters from outside inner urban areas (as was the case with the busway). As reluctant car commuters switch to using buses instead, so the volume of car commuting traffic drops. The key strategy then for TfGM is to redirect roadspace into bus use only (where there is a dual carriageway, one lane is a bus lane). Otherwise the general traffic roadspace vacated by commuters will be taken up by other general traffic users (delivery vans etc); or indeed roadside parking.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It isn't really right to compare bus use in London with elsewhere because the Congestion Charge subsidised fares far more than elsewhere. Also, although a little better in recent years, the lack of cross city services, unlike Reading and Nottingham doesn't help. Even joint services (as with service 22 Bolton to Stockport), before it's demise in next couple of weeks could be considered as an option to improve links.

In Greater Manchester in recent times, there has been a move to introduce more cross-territory services than before. Even the Leigh Guided Busway services now runs to Manchester Royal Infirmary.

 

[radamfi]

Why should people on high frequency routes lose out because there aren’t enough buses on lower frequency routes

If the result is a higher patronage overall. As said earlier, increasing the frequency from frequent to very frequent at the same time as reducing the frequency from less frequent to very infrequent resulted in a net reduction in patronage.

why should people be delayed whilst their, previously direct, bus diverts off the main road to serve areas that ‘deserve’ a better service

That is undesirable and unnecessary. Comprehensive network coverage in places like Switzerland is achieved by the use of interchange rather than having long wiggly routes that take ages to go anywhere. You are more likely to get such routes in Britain than in Switzerland.

And why should people be turfed off a direct bus onto a tram or train when they’d much rather stay where they are.

If it results in greater patronage overall. Buses saved by cutting excessive overbussing and duplication can be used elsewhere. It is impossible to run a direct bus from everywhere to everywhere. We try that in Britain and it doesn't lead to high patronage. If you look at this map of Zurich's transport system:

http://www.zvv.ch/zvv-assets/fahrplan/pdf/liniennetz_stadt_zuerich_dez16.pdf

there are about 30 or 40 routes in the city. But there are only about 10 routes in the city centre so to reach most places from the city centre you need to change at least once. However, because routes go in all different directions, you can get from anywhere to anywhere by a reasonably direct route, albeit with a change. If it was the case that only direct routes can attract passengers then the Zurich's transport system would not be successful, but Zurich has one of the highest PT shares in the developed world.

 

[carlberry]

That is undesirable and unnecessary. Comprehensive network coverage in places like Switzerland is achieved by the use of interchange rather than having long wiggly routes that take ages to go anywhere. You are more likely to get such routes in Britain than in Switzerland.

It might be how it's done in Switzerland however the discussion was about England. It's a standard technique for subsidised services now and was very common back in the 'good old days' of regulation, an dit wasnt the bus companies wanting to do it.

If it results in greater patronage overall. Buses saved by cutting excessive overbussing and duplication can be used elsewhere. It is impossible to run a direct bus from everywhere to everywhere. We try that in Britain and it doesn't lead to high patronage. If you look at this map of Zurich's transport system:.

It isn't about trying to run from everywhere to everywhere, it's about planning a public transport network that takes people where they want to go. Overbussing is rare nowadays as most competition dies out or the local council decide to step in. Duplication however isn’t duplication if people actually want the bus service to continue and don’t want to be taken to the nearest tram station and chucked off. This just means they drive to the tram or just drive the whole journey neither of which increases patronage for public transport however if the aim is to increase patronage on the tram then it appears to work and people can call it a 'success'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It might be how it's done in Switzerland however the discussion was about England. It's a standard technique for subsidised services now and was very common back in the 'good old days' of regulation, an dit wasnt the bus companies wanting to do it.

And why precisely won't it work here?

It isn't about trying to run from everywhere to everywhere, it's about planning a public transport network that takes people where they want to go. Overbussing is rare nowadays as most competition dies out or the local council decide to step in. Duplication however isn’t duplication if people actually want the bus service to continue and don’t want to be taken to the nearest tram station and chucked off. This just means they drive to the tram or just drive the whole journey neither of which increases patronage for public transport however if the aim is to increase patronage on the tram then it appears to work and people can call it a 'success'.

It is impossible to say which people would prefer at present based on service patterns presently operated because interchange is dissuaded through the fares system.

 

[carlberry]

And why precisely won't it work here?

The question is why dosent it work here and the answer is there isnt the money available to make it work. The new system in Manchester makes a bit more money available but nothing like enough for this and buses are still going to sit beyond health, trains and the metro when the cash is being split up.

It is impossible to say which people would prefer at present based on service patterns presently operated because interchange is dissuaded through the fares system.

As long as the fares system is 'fixed' without hacking the network around then it's an easy question to answer (and possible within the current environment). If the network is changed then people are wont have the ability to state their preference.

 

[radamfi]

It isn't about trying to run from everywhere to everywhere, it's about planning a public transport network that takes people where they want to go. Overbussing is rare nowadays as most competition dies out or the local council decide to step in. Duplication however isn’t duplication if people actually want the bus service to continue and don’t want to be taken to the nearest tram station and chucked off. This just means they drive to the tram or just drive the whole journey neither of which increases patronage for public transport however if the aim is to increase patronage on the tram then it appears to work and people can call it a 'success'.

Certainly in Greater Manchester there are several corridors into the city centre that have buses running every few minutes, a lot of them carrying not very many passengers. They are run at such a high frequency to deter competition and competition has now been virtually wiped out, other than the few routes where Stagecoach and First now compete with silly fares so they can claim they aren't a monopoly. Compare that to London where the typical frequency is every 10 minutes and overcrowding can be an issue.

Why talk about buses and trams as if they are totally independent? You can have interchange between two buses or two trams as well. If interchange is well planned and doesn't cost the passenger extra then it will be used. From a particular bus stop, there are only a very limited number of destinations that can be reached from there by a direct bus. So if you are serious about getting a high proportion of trips in the city carried out by public transport then people will have to start making trips involving a change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The question is why dosent it work here and the answer is there isnt the money available to make it work.

Eh? It'd be cheaper to withdraw pointless duplication of service, e.g. bus routes that directly compete with Metrolink routes.

As long as the fares system is 'fixed' without hacking the network around then it's an easy question to answer (and possible within the current environment). If the network is changed then people are wont have the ability to state their preference.

That would be an interesting experiment. I would say it should be tried in the early TfGM regulation days. The first step, as commuters are the most fickle ones and would be most indicative of preference, would be to abolish the TrainCard, CountyCard and Metrolink dedicated season tickets and replace with a single set of season tickets covering all modes, perhaps zonal to avoid people being hit with massive price hikes.

It would also be interesting to look at what people do in London and Liverpool, two cities which have unified fares systems on season tickets. Though the latter also has mode and company-specific tickets which skew it by discouraging interchange.

 

[nerd]

In support of HS2 and HS3. Steer, Davies, Gleave provided a report on options for rebalancing transport provision in northern cities. They made some important points about the potential for growth in bus usage.

In my view this is a key context. Just changing over from deregulation to franchising won't in itself transform the GM bus network into a fully functioning component of an overall Public Transport system. But there is much that needs to be done to achieve that, which realistically can far more easily be delivered with franchising. Those who say that equivalent improvements could be delivered with partnership working, are chiefly looking at bus systems in isolation; where TfGM are pursing a common strategy encompassing stopping buses, bus rapid transit, metrolink and (possibly) metro-style commuter rail.

But enhanced bus has to be a major part of such a system; and it remains clear that co-ordinating investment in bus services with investment in route infrastructure is far easier to deliver if the fare income for all public transport comes into a common pot; and is then delivered to providers as compensation for services through franchised contracts.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...and_opportunities_in_the_North_of_England.pdf

Overall, there appears to be a gap between the need and ambitions to grow bus use to
support sustainable economic growth and local authorities’ ability to implement change and
secure the service enhancements that are integral to growing the bus market. For bus to play
its full potential role in supporting economic growth, this public policy gap needs to be
addressed.

• To support growth in the bus market journey times need to be reduced, punctuality and
reliability improved and quality on- and off-bus enhanced,

• In the deregulated bus market that exists out of London, local authorities cannot achieve
this working alone and they need to work together with their operators,

• Partnership approaches have delivered improvements and these have supported growth,

• However, there appears to be a public policy gap between the ambitions and need to
grow the bus market and actions that local authorities can take

 

[Rod_259]

I agree with comment that livery is irrelevant and keeping current company liveries would keep costs down. The big boys, Arriva, First and Stagecoach move buses around their national fleets without having to repaint them each time. The cost of having one livery would have to be bourne by fare payers or Council Tax payers. London just retained the red at nil cost to the public, just a new logo on the vehicles. Money would be better spent on passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Livery changes could be avoided by having prominent logo window stickers, e.g. "M TfGM Bus Service" instead, I suppose.

 

[radamfi]

I agree with comment that livery is irrelevant and keeping current company liveries would keep costs down. The big boys, Arriva, First and Stagecoach move buses around their national fleets without having to repaint them each time. The cost of having one livery would have to be bourne by fare payers or Council Tax payers. London just retained the red at nil cost to the public, just a new logo on the vehicles. Money would be better spent on passengers.

When franchising started in London, private operators were allowed to use their own livery. That policy was considered to be cost-saving because it meant operators could use the same buses inside or outside of London. But after a few years it was considered important that red buses remained for tourist/cultural reasons so it was mandated that buses entering central London had to be red. As it was inconvenient to have two separate liveries for central London and elsewhere it was later decided that all buses had to be red.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In any case operators often cascade London buses outside London, and even plating over the second door isn't prohibitive.

 

[nerd]

I agree with comment that livery is irrelevant and keeping current company liveries would keep costs down. The big boys, Arriva, First and Stagecoach move buses around their national fleets without having to repaint them each time. The cost of having one livery would have to be bourne by fare payers or Council Tax payers. London just retained the red at nil cost to the public, just a new logo on the vehicles. Money would be better spent on passengers.

Keeping fixed costs down is less important than not inhibiting growth in patronage. As passenger numbers grow, so unit costs per trip necessarily fall.

This is the fundamental change of context; the most effective business model for the deregulated operators used to be one of contriving the largest possible share of a shrinking market - essentially the people who travelled by bus because they had no other choice. This implied a concentration on regular riders at the expense of occasional riders; on short trips at the expense of longer trips, on high volume corridors (especially along into and through higher education precincts) at the expense of commuter flows; on radial routes at the expense of through-routes; on single-mode trips at the expense of system connections; on stopping buses at the expense of limited-stop services. One damning statistic is that the majority of those who currently travel by bus outside London consistently responded that they would prefer to be travelling by car; and so the operators built an assumption of inferiority into their models of provision.

But the current (i.e. since around 2005) urban public transport environment is very different; every year patronage has grown faster than expected, as private car use for business and commuting purposes has been dropping. These new bus passengers could travel by car but don't; in general as their families have much better uses for their private vehicles than taking them into work every day. This creates a very different (and very large) body of potential bus travellers; who often value aspects of bus travel that are valued much less by the bulk of the 'familiar' bus market of the big deregulated operators. But growing patronage from these new markets really implies a clearly distinct common stopping-bus branding; to go with higher standards of seated passenger comfort - increased standing space - universal flat-rate single fares - interoperabillity of tickets across all operators and modes - common real-time passenger information messaging (at stops and on bus) - and common smart-card and smart-phone period tickets.

What it may not imply is that the same branding should also extend to limited-stop, longer distance, enhanced quality, bus rapid transit. I can envisage that there might be a distinct separate brand for these bus services - possibly also reflecting differential fares (the flat-rate single fare for the stopping buses might not apply to the BRT buses). But equally, it is possible that each such BRT service could have its own separate branding (on the highly successful pattern being developed by Transdev in Lancashire and Yorkshire).

But one thing is clear from the Transdev experience - in the emerging markets branding matters a lot. The idea that passengers will still take the bus however it is painted and however uncomfortable the seating, arises from the old market where passengers took the bus only because they had no better choice.

from the Steer Davies Gleave report

Bus serves a vital social function catering for those with lower incomes, students and in
particular those who do not have access to a car. However, amongst non-users bus is seen as a
mode of last resort. According to DfT research, 66% of non-users (and 50% of bus users)
agreed that they would only travel by bus if there was ‘no other way of getting there’. Bus
services are seen by non-users as slow, unpunctual, unreliable and of low quality.

If the transport authority is able to overturn the perception of buses as "slow, unpunctual, unreliable and of low quality", patronage grows exponentially. That means a great deal of investment in route and vehicle improvement (potentially fundable in part from patronage growth) . But it also means a re-brand.

 

[northwichcat]

In any case operators often cascade London buses outside London, and even plating over the second door isn't prohibitive.

Although if all large cities had franchising which specified vehicle age to be under 5 years (or similar) where would the 'old' double deckers be cascaded to? London currently gets away with a young vehicle requirement because operators like First and Arriva can cascade their ex-London deckers to places like Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds.

 

[northwichcat]

I agree with comment that livery is irrelevant and keeping current company liveries would keep costs down. The big boys, Arriva, First and Stagecoach move buses around their national fleets without having to repaint them each time. The cost of having one livery would have to be bourne by fare payers or Council Tax payers. London just retained the red at nil cost to the public, just a new logo on the vehicles. Money would be better spent on passengers.

It wouldn't have to be an overnight change, then if the requirement was plain orange with the operator logo it would be cheaper to apply to vehicles than some of the more complex liveries. Then for an operator like High Peak would changing a plain orange bus to be corporate Centrebus livery be more expensive than changing a vehicle in Transpeak or Airlink livery to corporate Centrebus livery? I suspect not, if anything it would be cheaper.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Eh? It'd be cheaper to withdraw pointless duplication of service, e.g. bus routes that directly compete with Metrolink routes.

You seem to forget that distances between Metrolink stops are far greater than the distances between bus stops along the same route and people do actually live in those intermediate areas.

We have had this discussion a number of times on the SkyScraperCity website and certain examples of those who would be seen to suffer are the elderly and infirm, women with young children, families with no car who carry numerous bags of shopping, etc.

 

[northwichcat]

You seem to forget that distances between Metrolink stops are far greater than the distances between bus stops along the same route and people do actually live in those intermediate areas.

We have had this discussion a number of times on the SkyScraperCity website and certain examples of those who would be seen to suffer are the elderly and infirm, women with young children, families with no car who carry numerous bags of shopping, etc.

Some people actually complain when Metrolink services are suspended and they get told to use the 263 bus or similar because sometimes the closest bus stop is around 1/2 mile from the Metrolink stop.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I agree with comment that livery is irrelevant and keeping current company liveries would keep costs down. The big boys, Arriva, First and Stagecoach move buses around their national fleets without having to repaint them each time. The cost of having one livery would have to be bourne by fare payers or Council Tax payers. London just retained the red at nil cost to the public, just a new logo on the vehicles. Money would be better spent on passengers.

Different liveries are easy identifiers for intending passengers and make for a more colourful addition to town and city areas.