Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[Bletchleyite]

If we had a typical German type zone system, you would simply pay from "Altrincham zone" to "city centre zone" (or whatever zone you wanted to go to), meaning that if you connected from a bus within "Altrincham zone" to the tram, it would cost no extra compared with using the tram only.

Yes, this is the mentality that needs changing. We need a city transport network, not separate bus, tram etc.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes, this is the mentality that needs changing. We need a city transport network, not separate bus, tram etc.

We also need overlapping zones e.g. Berlin zone C includes Potsdam, which also has it's own zonal system. The same principle could work for Wigan having it's own zonal system but also being part of the outermost zone for Manchester.

 

[nerd]

@ Nerd

"This might not have mattered when the demand for public transport generally was falling; but now that falling trend has clearly reversed in Manchester."

While Metrolink has been developed, there are continuing cuts to bus services in Greater Manchester, even on major corridors, indicative of reduced demand. For example, Princess Road now has only 8 buses per hour on weekday times (reduced from 10/hour within the last 6 months); this is far fewer than in the past, when there were limited stop buses as well every 10 minutes. Local services radiating from Altrincham are now hourly, compared to every 30 minutes until last year, and every 20 minutes historically. Many former tram routes have virtually no bus services, for example Lloyd Street, Seymour Grove and Slade Lane.

You and I appear to be largely in agreement; there is no question that service frequencies have dropped on many major radial corridors into Manchester city centre; and that this has resulted in decreasing bus passenger numbers on those routes.

Where we differ is in that you ascribe this reduction in service levels to 'reduced demand', whereas I ascribe it to anti-competitive monopolistic operations.

In favour of my explanation, I would point out that monopolistic distortions of market function are blatant - if you buy a ticket into the city centre along Princess road it will cost you around £3; if you buy a ticket along Oxford Road (a few hundred yards to the east) the same journey will cost you £1.50. But service levels along Oxford Road are far higher than those along Princess Road. So passengers receiving worse service are subsidising the ones getting better service.

So I would argue that providing equivalent frequency services along Princess Road, at an equivalent fare level, and you would unlock a whole mass of current suppressed demand; total passenger numbers would explode and overall system revenues would increase.

The difference currently between Oxford Road and Princess Road, is that Oxford Road is one of the few corridors capable of supporting multiple competing operators. Hence there are no monopoly profits to be had, and your £1.50 fare represents a 'free-market' price (where marginal cost and marginal revenue are equal). So, from the operator's perspective, increasing frequency and reducing fares along Princess Road will reduce their profit margin - and a monopoly always seeks to maximise profit margin by restricting service levels (and hence operator costs) and driving up prices.

But there is no public interest in maintaining monopoly profit margins; instead the public gains most where service levels are maximised to a point where costs and revenue are equal (which we already know from Oxford Road would likely imply bus single fare levels across the city corresponding to a flat-rate £1.50).

Moreover (and this was the key failure of the whole system of bus deregulation) the monopolistic restrictions on passenger services drive up congestion; all the passengers who would travel on the buses along Princess Road, if they ran at a reasonable frequency and charged economically viable fare levels, are being forced reluctantly to travel by car. This clogs up the roads for everyone, making bus travel less reliable, and less attractive. But we now know this is reversible, as has been demonstrated conclusively along the East Lancs Road; which with a reserved bus lane carved out of the former carriageway now carries many more travellers at peak periods than it did in it former configuration as one lane in an arterial dual carriageway.

So there is no question that passenger demand for improved public transport along Princess Road is there; we can see them every day sitting fuming in their cars - losing hours per week in unnecessary traffic jams, paying far more to park those cars than they would pay in free-market bus fares, and having to walk through the snow and rain from peripheral car parks to get to their places of work. Meanwhile the riders on the busway have comfortable seats, access to the internet, reliable peak period services, and high frequency. The majority of busway users report that they have left a car at home that they would otherwise have used for their trip; but most families have much better uses for their cars than driving to work in them.

Just run bus services properly, and the demand will be there.

Though there I would admit to a further complication; in that the current bus monopolistic operator brands have become toxic. Even given the option of improved quality bus services, many potential riders won't use them so long as they carry the livery of Stagecoach or First. Again the busway shows the way; simply getting rid of the toxic brands in itself will release substantial elements of suppressed demand. But that rebranding will need to be associated with clear indications that monopolistic operations are no longer in effect. Hence a unified livery, a unified fare structure, and full through-ticketing across all public transport modes.

 

[nerd]

Yes, this is the mentality that needs changing. We need a city transport network, not separate bus, tram etc.

To a degree Bletchleyite.

My view is that short distance 'stopping bus' and longer distance 'rapid bus' do need to be differentiated in the market. So rapid bus, tram and train should have a common zonal fare structure.

But that may not work so well for short distance stopping buses (especially where these cross zonal boundaries). Some current bus users would find themselves paying much higher fares on an integrated zonal system. The alternative of restricting tram fares to correspond with stopping bus fare structures does not generate a sustainable revenue level. (Tramlink being the example).

So I envisage all stopping buses providing a flat-rate single fare (likely around £1.50); plus an all-operator bus day ticket of around £4.00. The latter (but not the former) would also give free travel on tram or train within the city centre zone. Equally, a standard tram or BRT ticket would also provide free bus use (on stopping bus services) within both origination and destination zones.

But to get unlimited travel across all zones and modes would require an all-services day ticket - which might be the same as the current Metrolink day ticket of £5.00/£7.00 off/peak.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To me that's too stuck-in-the-ways UK-style.

The German model is that you have a transport network. Buses, trams, trains etc provide the service, but you don't have a "bus ticket", a "train ticket" or a "tram ticket", you simply purchase a journey in the system from point A to point B. This is often zonally priced, but could be priced in other ways e.g. a crow-flies distance, a distances actually travelled by the modes concerned (this has fewest anomalies) or whatever.

My personal inclination is towards a honeycomb zonal system, possibly with Merseytravel style "areas", but with the minimum fare being not one but two zones. That way you avoid the "short journey near zone boundary" anomalies.

I can see no valid argument other than social inclusivity (which is better dealt with by offering suitable discounts for people in certain situations to use the whole system) to have a different fare for stopping bus services. Stopping bus services exist in such a system to connect with rapid transit rail etc. You simply don't use them for a through journey - but if you do for whatever reason choose to do so there is no justification for a discount in and of itself.

Actually, there's one modifier in some German cities e.g. Hamburg - for those who don't want to change, an overlaid network of long-distance Schnellbusse are available - at a higher, not lower, fare, to manage demand properly.

 

[nerd]

To me that's too stuck-in-the-ways UK-style.

The German model is that you have a transport network. Buses, trams, trains etc provide the service, but you don't have a "bus ticket", a "train ticket" or a "tram ticket", you simply purchase a journey in the system from point A to point B. This is often zonally priced, but could be priced in other ways e.g. a crow-flies distance, a distances actually travelled by the modes concerned (this has fewest anomalies) or whatever.

My personal inclination is towards a honeycomb zonal system, possibly with Merseytravel style "areas", but with the minimum fare being not one but two zones. That way you avoid the "short journey near zone boundary" anomalies.

I can see no valid argument other than social inclusivity (which is better dealt with by offering suitable discounts for people in certain situations to use the whole system) to have a different fare for stopping bus services. Stopping bus services exist in such a system to connect with rapid transit rail etc. You simply don't use them for a through journey - but if you do for whatever reason choose to do so there is no justification for a discount in and of itself.

Actually, there's one modifier in some German cities e.g. Hamburg - for those who don't want to change, an overlaid network of long-distance Schnellbusse are available - at a higher, not lower, fare, to manage demand properly.

The difference is average trip length.

Greater Manchester is a big place; drop it on top of any comparable German city, and you will see it covers at least twice the area. That translates into an average trip length of 10.5 km on Metrolink, and nearer 20 km along the busway. Comparable German (and Fench) tram systems have an average trip length below 5km - which is not much more than that for stopping buses in German cities. Average trip length for stoppping buses in Manchester is around 4 km.

Consequently, a flat-rate single fare for all stopping bus services (irrespective of length) would make economic sense in any large UK city. Which indeed is what we see in Edinburgh, London and Nottingham. In theory, short distance travellers are disadvantaged by a flat rate fare, compared to longer distance travellers; but in practice almost all users are short distance; so the extra premium in a flat-rate fare is minimal.

But that then implies that those who do choose to travel longer distances on a stopping bus, will do so cheaper than will those who do the same trip on a tram , train or rapid bus - where some sort of zonal pricing becomes necessary to reflect the differential costs associated with carrying passengers that much further.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that then implies that those who do choose to travel longer distances on a stopping bus, will do so cheaper than will those who do the same trip on a tram , train or rapid bus - where some sort of zonal pricing becomes necessary to reflect the differential costs associated with carrying passengers that much further.

I'm not convinced by the flat-fare argument once you get the cash off the bus. Better to base the fare on distance travelled by whatever mode.

Flat fares work best at speeding up cash transactions. Touch on, touch off (with the penalty for not touching off being simply being assumed to have travelled the full length of the route) is the best approach when payment is by some sort of card - which to me is very much the way forward.

 

[radamfi]

Consequently, a flat-rate single fare for all stopping bus services (irrespective of length) would make economic sense in any large UK city.

Just wondering what you mean by "single". Would you allow free interchange within an hour or do you mean a single fare per vehicle boarded?

Flat fares across a whole city for all modes are only suitable where you have a heavily subsidised system, otherwise your single fare would be too high. They get away with that in Belgium and France where fares can be absurdly cheap.

Zonal fares don't necessarily mean cheap as even one zone fares can be expensive in Germany. Although German cities usually have a "Kurzstrecke" system where you can travel for a few stops at a lower rate than the full zone rate.

The main thing that is important is that interchange should not be penalised.

 

[HSTEd]

Sorry but you're just not getting it. First of all, you are ignoring simple economic theory (you're in good company with Gordon Brown there) and aside from your facts being wrong, you have ignored the experience of what actually happened with ENCTS not withstanding the contradiction in your argument viz...

How am I ignoring simple economic theory?
THis is not an economic problem particularily - it doesn't matter how many people try to get on the bus, the buses will cost, to a first approximation, exactly the same amount to operate.

However, leave that aside and think about it practically for a second.... How will that actually pan out. Let's pick a service, say Cadbury Heath to Bristol - a typical city service. In peak, that is quite busy. Say load factor is conservatively c.80%.

Your idea would suddenly make buses free so suddenly the stops at the very eastern end of the route get twice as many passengers. That means that by the time it reaches Kingswood, it's probably full. The reality is that you have effectively removed the capacity from a sizeable part of the route as you head into the city - you have actually removed the service from that part of the population. :roll:

And why do people in Kingswood have an absolute right to a bus service but people in Cadbury Heath do not?
In fact it is better for society if buses are used for longer distances, because people who travel by bus will not travel by other mechanisms.

Additionally major economies of scale are possible - for example a double decker bus will transport something like 84 people, an 18m articulated bus can carry 170.
Unless the capital and fuel costs of the articulated bus are more than double that of a double decker bus (as you carry more than double the passengers per man hour) - there will be a capacity uplift.

 

[winston270twm]

Additionally major economies of scale are possible - for example a double decker bus will transport something like 84 people, an 18m articulated bus can carry 170.
Unless the capital and fuel costs of the articulated bus are more than double that of a double decker bus (as you carry more than double the passengers per man hour) - there will be a capacity uplift.

Most of the additional carrying capacity of are artic involves standee's, something which is not widely accepted in most UK cities, most passengers expect a seat. Artic's also take up 70-75% more depot space over a double decker which is typically at a premium in most areas as it is, plus they are costly to maintain over a double decker with specialist parts such as turntables.

 

[neilmc]

@ Nerd

"This might not have mattered when the demand for public transport generally was falling; but now that falling trend has clearly reversed in Manchester."

While Metrolink has been developed, there are continuing cuts to bus services in Greater Manchester, even on major corridors, indicative of reduced demand. For example, Princess Road now has only 8 buses per hour on weekday times (reduced from 10/hour within the last 6 months); this is far fewer than in the past, when there were limited stop buses as well every 10 minutes. Local services radiating from Altrincham are now hourly, compared to every 30 minutes until last year, and every 20 minutes historically. Many former tram routes have virtually no bus services, for example Lloyd Street, Seymour Grove and Slade Lane.

Princess Road services, unlike Wilmslow Road, depend heavily on the loadings at the outward end of the routes (Airport/Wythenshawe/Northenden/Sale Moor/Sale/Altrincham) all of which have benefited from the Metrolink extensions or more frequent services along Wilmslow Road, with a station now actually on Princess Road. Princess Road is largely parks, cemeteries and fields to the left going in to town and has nowhere near the patronage of Wilmslow Road because far fewer people live close to the route. 8 buses per hour is still quite a lot of buses and if they were overloaded I'm sure Stagecoach would tweak the timetables again.

When I moved to Manchester I thought GMPTE had a very poor mentality and weren't receptive to change and only responded when companies like Bee Line would put on innovative new services to see whether people would use them. So now from Wythenshawe we actually have better daytime services to Stockport, Altrincham and Northenden village instead of funnelling almost everything down Princess Parkway for historical reasons.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

How am I ignoring simple economic theory?
THis is not an economic problem particularily - it doesn't matter how many people try to get on the bus, the buses will cost, to a first approximation, exactly the same amount to operate.


And why do people in Kingswood have an absolute right to a bus service but people in Cadbury Heath do not?
In fact it is better for society if buses are used for longer distances, because people who travel by bus will not travel by other mechanisms.

Additionally major economies of scale are possible - for example a double decker bus will transport something like 84 people, an 18m articulated bus can carry 170.
Unless the capital and fuel costs of the articulated bus are more than double that of a double decker bus (as you carry more than double the passengers per man hour) - there will be a capacity uplift.

Jesus would weep.....

Firstly, economic theory re: price elasticity of demand. Remove or reduce the price barrier and demand will increase. This was the shocking conclusion of Gordon Brown giving free travel to pensioners :roll: That would be the case in your scenario, as well as the side benefit of providing a warm, free mobile environment to assorted rough sleepers etc

As for the example I quoted, you seem to have got it wrong as well. Cadbury Heath is the eastern end of the service - it already HAS a service and will do in your scenario; the problem is that between Cadbury Heath and Kingswood, the bus would be full by the time it left Kingswood - therefore those people who join would currently join the bus between Kingswood and the city centre wouldn't be able to get on - you effectively remove their service. It's a distance of 4-5 miles - too far to walk.

Yes, you could have bendibuses but the idea that the costs are the same of operation? As has been pointed out:

• Fuel economy is much lower - typically 4mpg vs a conventional decker at 7-8 mpg
• Capital cost is higher
• Maintenance cost is higher
• They take up more space in a depot so incur a greater overhead/need larger depots
• Tend to have a shorter working life

Also, a capacity of 170? Er no..... the best you'll get is c.130 but assume that's another rounding??

 

[nerd]

Just wondering what you mean by "single". Would you allow free interchange within an hour or do you mean a single fare per vehicle boarded?

Flat fares across a whole city for all modes are only suitable where you have a heavily subsidised system, otherwise your single fare would be too high. They get away with that in Belgium and France where fares can be absurdly cheap.

Zonal fares don't necessarily mean cheap as even one zone fares can be expensive in Germany. Although German cities usually have a "Kurzstrecke" system where you can travel for a few stops at a lower rate than the full zone rate.

The main thing that is important is that interchange should not be penalised.

A 'single' is a single trip by a single boarding.

This does not imply subsidy at all. Lothian buses set a flat-rate fare of £1.60 for any distance; and make a substantial annual profit on this. Ditto Nottingham with a flat-rate all-day adult fare of £1.70. Sometimes flat rate fares are reduced after 9.30. a.m.

The value of providing a flat-rate product, is that it minimises the degree to which low-income bus users (who tend to be less badly served by current monopolistic operators) might face increased fares in a franchised network. Current pricing favours users who travel regularly, who are unconcerned by time constraints, and who do not need to interchange. Flat-rate single fares suit such users. But obviously the big potential for future passenger growth is from current car users and those who may wish to travel further and switch routes and modes; and who will likely buy day/week/month/year products.

European systems often offer short-period time limited multi-mode tickets across smaller conurbations; but this is unlikely to work so well in Manchester, where many multi-mode journeys will take more than an hour. In practice, most travellers needing cross-mode functionality would be best served by a day-rider ticket.

There is a strong case for minimising the number of different ticket products offered.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Just wondering what you mean by "single". Would you allow free interchange within an hour or do you mean a single fare per vehicle boarded?

Flat fares across a whole city for all modes are only suitable where you have a heavily subsidised system, otherwise your single fare would be too high. They get away with that in Belgium and France where fares can be absurdly cheap.

Zonal fares don't necessarily mean cheap as even one zone fares can be expensive in Germany. Although German cities usually have a "Kurzstrecke" system where you can travel for a few stops at a lower rate than the full zone rate.

The main thing that is important is that interchange should not be penalised.

I am at risk of agreeing with you on this point - interchange shouldn't be penalised and a zonal fare system would certainly make sense in a conurbation the size of GM.

Where we have traditionally not seen eye to eye is in integration being an absolute. It should absolutely be done where it is appropriate but not in a dogmatic fashion. For instance, take the Bury to Manchester routes - they run parallel to the Metrolink for some distance so should they be removed as through routes, replaced by feeders into the Metrolink at Whitefield or Prestwich - no, they perform a crucial link in linking Bury and other areas with those parts of Bury Old and New Roads as the Metrolink passes on a much more Eastern alignment.

The argument for "removing duplication" between tram/train and bus is often a misnomer. If it was truly duplicating it, the bus would usually suffer - this is the reason for the reduction in services on the Washway Road to Altrincham - the tram runs parallel so the former trunk routes have experienced a substantial abstraction of trade.

However, we are now drifting off into the realms of a) the same old arguments and b) discussing the travel patterns of our latest holidays in <insert foreign country of choice>

As I said, the idea sounds seductive. However, I am suspicious of the motives of the government and remain to be convinced that there will be any new money, and that the system changes in the hope that money may be provided - after all, you don't go into a restaurant, order food and then hope that the 3:15 at Kempton comes in at 12-1.

Instead, you'll have a regulated environment where any savings on profit margins will be relatively small and soaked up by the cost of managing it. Meanwhile, the government can enable this with a dowry and once done, then reduce funding.

 

[nerd]

I'm not convinced by the flat-fare argument once you get the cash off the bus. Better to base the fare on distance travelled by whatever mode.

Flat fares work best at speeding up cash transactions. Touch on, touch off (with the penalty for not touching off being simply being assumed to have travelled the full length of the route) is the best approach when payment is by some sort of card - which to me is very much the way forward.

Touch-on works fine and dandy on buses; touch-off does not. Metrolink provides GTM touch-pads at each tram-stop; but providing them at every bus stop would be prohibitive (and indeed an invitation to vandalism).

But touch-pads on buses have to be under the supervision of the driver; which rather precludes their being practicalble for passengers getting off. Hence all UK networks to my knowledge are touch-on only - which in turn implies a flat-rate fare.

TfL has a considerable operation dealing with complaints at failed Oyster Tube touch-off; having to handle the vastly greater potential for errors in bus touch-off would be wholly impractical. Same in Manchester.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

A 'single' is a single trip by a single boarding.

This does not imply subsidy at all. Lothian buses set a flat-rate fare of £1.60 for any distance; and make a substantial annual profit on this. Ditto Nottingham with a flat-rate all-day adult fare of £1.70. Sometimes flat rate fares are reduced after 9.30. a.m.

The value of providing a flat-rate product, is that it minimises the degree to which low-income bus users (who tend to be less badly served by current monopolistic operators) might face increased fares in a franchised network. Current pricing favours users who travel regularly, who are unconcerned by time constraints, and who do not need to interchange. Flat-rate single fares suit such users. But obviously the big potential for future passenger growth is from current car users and those who may wish to travel further and switch routes and modes; and who will likely buy day/week/month/year products.

European systems often offer short-period time limited multi-mode ticket in smaller conurbations; but this is unlikely to work so well in Manchester, where many multi-mode journeys will take more than an hour. In practice, most travellers needing cross-mode functionality would be best served by a day-rider ticket.

There is a strong case for minimising the number of different ticket products offered.

Some good points there. The idea of a short distance ticket is something that has returned to Bristol in the 3 Stop Hop.

One other area that you mention is the multi operator ticket and rationalisation of ticket types and it is something that the bus industry has been guilty of being obstructive in. For instance, I bought an AvonRider for travel in CUBA (Counties that Used to Be Avon) on Saturday. Plenty of publicity at stops (managed by the councils) but on the various First buses, not a mention. The First website does have details but these of lesser prominence than the the various First tickets available - they obviously wish to sell their own tickets and keep 100% of the revenue than promote an alternative where they get less.

This is not uncommon and multi-operator availability is one area where I would like to see some immediate improvements. As I keep saying, I am not actually against franchising but there are some very large, very practical challenges that need to be overcome, it doesn't deal with some of the fundamental issues at all, and therefore, I don't think it is anywhere close to any form of solution.

 

[nerd]

I am at risk of agreeing with you on this point - interchange shouldn't be penalised and a zonal fare system would certainly make sense in a conurbation the size of GM.

Where we have traditionally not seen eye to eye is in integration being an absolute. It should absolutely be done where it is appropriate but not in a dogmatic fashion. For instance, take the Bury to Manchester routes - they run parallel to the Metrolink for some distance so should they be removed as through routes, replaced by feeders into the Metrolink at Whitefield or Prestwich - no, they perform a crucial link in linking Bury and other areas with those parts of Bury Old and New Roads as the Metrolink passes on a much more Eastern alignment.

fully agree with you TGW; full 'integration' as per the Tyne & Wear Metro in the early 1980s is not at all desirable; many travellers see no need to switch from bus to tram for part of their trip (even where this may be faster). And that is especially the case when the tram is likely heavily congested. But my reading of the TfGM Strategy is that they are well aware of this; and fully intend to distinguish stopping bus services from rapid transit services (bus/tram/train) in ticketing and operation.

As I said, the idea sounds seductive. However, I am suspicious of the motives of the government and remain to be convinced that there will be any new money, and that the system changes in the hope that money may be provided - after all, you don't go into a restaurant, order food and then hope that the 3:15 at Kempton comes in at 12-1.

Instead, you'll have a regulated environment where any savings on profit margins will be relatively small and soaked up by the cost of managing it. Meanwhile, the government can enable this with a dowry and once done, then reduce funding.

I share entirely your suspicions of the government's motives. But underlying the legislation is simple realism; deregulation was legislated in a context of declining demand for public transport; and an apparent continuing public preference for urban travel by private car. But the post-war fashion for urban car travel has now clearly run out of road (literally); if it has any future, it will be in the form of battery-powered driverless taxis. And as urban car use has declined, so all other forms of urban transport have grown; trams, bikes, trains. Buses being the odd-case out; in that the history of deregulation (and the consequent gross inefficiencies forced on urban bus networks) have proved a strong inhibition against users reacquiring trust in them.

But looking ahead; there is no reason why growth in bus demand should not follow that for other non-car transport.

You are right to question whether there will be government money behind this. But it is important to distinguish operating funds from capital investment here. Urban bus operations overall are highly profitable; just as the trams are. As demand booms, so that profitability will increase. And demand will boom, both because of the switch out of car use, and simply as the population expands, and as businesses relocate into the city centre and major employment areas (like the airport).

However, maintaining service quality in a context of increased demand will need very substantial capital investment in bus infrastructure. A major reason for the Bus Services Act was exactly the realisation that deregulation was inhibiting essential capital investment in system capacity. So there will need to be large scale investment funding.

But TfGM have their own sources of transport finance. I suspect too that they anticipate extracting capital contributions from development partners - specifically in respect of releasing green-belt land for housing. Much of this is still speculative; but it is a lot easier to fund investment in a growing market, than in a contracting market; and that is how proposals for franchised bus networks in Manchester have to be understood. At present, average occupancy on the 830 bus services entering the Manchester city centre over the weekday peak period (7:30 - 9:30) is 27. Average capacity is 70. The city simply cannot sustain a bus system which consumes so much road space, but fills less than half its user places.

.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

fully agree with you TGW; full 'integration' as per the Tyne & Wear Metro in the early 1980s is not at all desirable; many travellers see no need to switch from bus to tram for part of their trip (even where this may be faster). And that is especially the case when the tram is likely heavily congested. But my reading of the TfGM Strategy is that they are well aware of this; and fully intend to distinguish stopping bus services from rapid transit services (bus/tram/train) in ticketing and operation.



I share entirely your suspicions of the government's motives. But underlying the legislation is simple realism; deregulation was legislated in a context of declining demand for public transport; and an apparent continuing public preference for urban travel by private car. But the post-war fashion for urban car travel has now clearly run out of road (literally); if it has any future, it will be in the form of battery-powered driverless taxis. And as urban car use has declined, so all other forms of urban transport have grown; trams, bikes, trains. Buses being the odd-case out; in that the history of deregulation (and the consequent gross inefficiencies forced on urban bus networks) have proved a strong inhibition against users reacquiring trust in them.

But looking ahead; there is no reason why growth in bus demand should not follow that for other non-car transport.

You are right to question whether there will be government money behind this. But it is important to distinguish operating funds from capital investment here. Urban bus operations overall are highly profitable; just as the trams are. As demand booms, so that profitability will increase. And demand will boom, both because of the switch out of car use, and simply as the population expands, and as businesses relocate into the city centre and major employment areas (like the airport).

However, maintaining service quality in a context of increased demand will need very substantial capital investment in bus infrastructure. A major reason for the Bus Services Act was exactly the realisation that deregulation was inhibiting essential capital investment in system capacity. So there will need to be large scale investment funding.

But TfGM have their own sources of transport finance. I suspect too that they anticipate extracting capital contributions from development partners - specifically in respect of releasing green-belt land for housing. Much of this is still speculative; but it is a lot easier to fund investment in a growing market, than in a contracting market; and that is how proposals for franchised bus networks in Manchester have to be understood.

Unfortunately, as we are seeing, urban bus network AREN'T highly profitable - Stagecoach Manchester is returning about 12-13% whilst First's operations (arguably in more challenging territory - Oldham and Rochdale are some of the most economically challenged areas in the UK) are struggling to achieve much in the way of profit. I know that people will cite wasteful competition (in the breath as local monopolies) but there is relatively little of it and aside from the local economic backdrop, the main challenge has been the abstraction of trade from bus as the Metrolink has expanded.

De-regulation may have been badged as a means of introducing choice, freeing shackles etc - Hell, Nick Ridley may even have believed it. However, it was all about reducing the cost to the treasury, flogging the NBC/SBG off etc.

Also, you do mention the difference between capital and operational costs. This is fairly pivotal too. Trams (and trains for that matter) are heavily a fixed cost item - the incremental cost of additional capacity is relatively small and the operating costs negligible. Bus operation is much more of a variable cost base as a proportion of total cost.

Now you state that there is no reason why bus patronage should not follow the same path as other non-car transport. I agree but with one major caveat - one of the main issues is the ability to ensure reliability of service against a picture of burgeoning congestion, not so much from private cars but Ubers and various delivery vans.

In that respect, bus priority is what is needed. That will provide a competitive advantage to the private car; that is why Metrolink and heavy rail have done so well. A franchised bus, stuck in traffic, will be no more attractive than a deregulated bus.

As a PS, I'm not sure that people will believe concreting over our green belt is a price worth paying to finance a franchise framework

 

[Bletchleyite]

In that respect, bus priority is what is needed. That will provide a competitive advantage to the private car; that is why Metrolink and heavy rail have done so well. A franchised bus, stuck in traffic, will be no more attractive than a deregulated bus.

PROPER bus priority at that, which involves designing it from the founding principle that the bus will not ever be delayed by other traffic. The Dutch and Germans are very good at this, the UK, as with many bus operational aspects, are very bad at it indeed.

It's usually achieved not with long lengths of capacity-wasting bus lane ending just before junctions - quite the opposite - the principle is that you have a bus lane up to the junction of precisely the length of the expected traffic queue plus a bit, then (and this is the key bit that the UK often misses) induction-loop controlled traffic lights that stop all other traffic on the bus's approach so it can negotiate the junction unimpeded.

You get this very occasionally in the UK, but really much more of it is needed. There is also needed to be a change in UK law to allow tram signals to be used for buses, which would allow this to be done much more cheaply and conveniently (and therefore in more places) by removing the need for the bus lane in such junctions to have an island between it and the other traffic.

Another good improvement in some places is to run the bus lanes up the middle of the road with crossings to reach "stations". This means cycles hold up the cars, not the buses, and turning traffic doesn't disrupt the bus. It also allows for a smoother ride for bus passengers as the cars, not buses, are bumping on the grids.

Even London, the pinnacle of UK bus operation, rarely gets this one right.

 

[nerd]

Some good points there. The idea of a short distance ticket is something that has returned to Bristol in the 3 Stop Hop.

One other area that you mention is the multi operator ticket and rationalisation of ticket types and it is something that the bus industry has been guilty of being obstructive in. For instance, I bought an AvonRider for travel in CUBA (Counties that Used to Be Avon) on Saturday. Plenty of publicity at stops (managed by the councils) but on the various First buses, not a mention. The First website does have details but these of lesser prominence than the the various First tickets available - they obviously wish to sell their own tickets and keep 100% of the revenue than promote an alternative where they get less.

This is not uncommon and multi-operator availability is one area where I would like to see some immediate improvements. As I keep saying, I am not actually against franchising but there are some very large, very practical challenges that need to be overcome, it doesn't deal with some of the fundamental issues at all, and therefore, I don't think it is anywhere close to any form of solution.

I agree that franchising in itself is not a solution; and indeed it may well be that some other form of partnership functioning ends up becoming the standard model. What I am sure is that deregulation is a dead-duck.

A major point is to distinguish the 'product' that the user seeks to buy; from the 'service' that the operator is contracted to provide. The user 'product' is access to a public transport network, with the capability of transporting the user at reasonable cost, reliably (and timely), from any part of the conurbation to any other part. The operator 'service' is a defined route with specified stops along it.

In respect of the product, a financial payment is made in the form of a fare. In respect of the service, a financial payment is received in the form of compensation. The proponents of bus deregulation recognised that fares and compensation were not ideally the same; but proposed nevertheless that a workable system required them to be identified. In effect, that meant redefining the 'product' as carriage for a particular distance by bus along a bus route. That way the operator could collect fares and keep them as compensation.

But this is not optimal; different bus services have different cost profiles - depending on generators of demand, road network quality, and traffic congestion from other users. So an optimal bus system would offer operators different levels of compensation of different routes. But the product does not vary in the same way; so ideally similar trips should face similar fare levels across the whole conurbation.

Which is where the principal of franchising is so attractive; levels of fares and levels of compensation don't need to be identical. The user is presented with a unified and consistent fare structure which is the same across the whole conurbation; but operators contract to provide services by agreeing to differing levels of compensation over different routes. Sometimes the compensation level will be higher than the fare level, sometimes lower. But so long as the system covers its costs overall, it will not require subsidy. The franchising authority collects in all fares, and pays out all compensation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Franchising offers wide options, in any case. Per-route franchising might work well in big cities like London where something like a PTE has the skills to create an appealing product integrated with the other modes in their city. But in a smaller town, it might make more sense just to contract out the entire town service to one operator, who can then bid, in the manner of the railway, with what they can deliver and for how much, perhaps with priced options.

The latter model is quite common in other countries and seems to work well.

 

[nerd]

Unfortunately, as we are seeing, urban bus network AREN'T highly profitable - Stagecoach Manchester is returning about 12-13% whilst First's operations (arguably in more challenging territory - Oldham and Rochdale are some of the most economically challenged areas in the UK) are struggling to achieve much in the way of profit. I know that people will cite wasteful competition (in the breath as local monopolies) but there is relatively little of it and aside from the local economic backdrop, the main challenge has been the abstraction of trade from bus as the Metrolink has expanded.

De-regulation may have been badged as a means of introducing choice, freeing shackles etc - Hell, Nick Ridley may even have believed it. However, it was all about reducing the cost to the treasury, flogging the NBC/SBG off etc.

Also, you do mention the difference between capital and operational costs. This is fairly pivotal too. Trams (and trains for that matter) are heavily a fixed cost item - the incremental cost of additional capacity is relatively small and the operating costs negligible. Bus operation is much more of a variable cost base as a proportion of total cost.

Now you state that there is no reason why bus patronage should not follow the same path as other non-car transport. I agree but with one major caveat - one of the main issues is the ability to ensure reliability of service against a picture of burgeoning congestion, not so much from private cars but Ubers and various delivery vans.

In that respect, bus priority is what is needed. That will provide a competitive advantage to the private car; that is why Metrolink and heavy rail have done so well. A franchised bus, stuck in traffic, will be no more attractive than a deregulated bus.

As a PS, I'm not sure that people will believe concreting over our green belt is a price worth paying to finance a franchise framework

I don't dispute that operators currently struggle to be profitable; but you are wrong to ascribe this to Metrolink. The trams have abstracted travellers mainly from former train services - and car use. Since 2010, peak period tram travel into the city centre has increased by 7,000; while peak inbound bus travel has remained broadly unchanged. Bus and trams currently serve different markets.

What is undoubtedly the case is that increasing congestion has hit operator profitability; as they need to run more peak services to provide the specified timetable frequency. And I fully agree that this can only be resolved through increased provision of bus priority. This was has been a key reason underlying the legislation; transport authorities have found it increasingly difficult to make a business case for investment in bus priority infrastructure , when they lack the power to determine the level of bus services that will run along it.

The green belt issue is highly contested; politically there is a strong movement not to build on the green belt at all. But experience is that an absolute ban has proved incapable of being enforced; hence the proposal in the Spatial Framework that any green belt development has to be associated with investment in rapid transit infrastructure sufficient to avoid increasing congestion on radial routes. Which in practice will mean additional rapid bus schemes.

 

[radamfi]

Where we have traditionally not seen eye to eye is in integration being an absolute. It should absolutely be done where it is appropriate but not in a dogmatic fashion. For instance, take the Bury to Manchester routes - they run parallel to the Metrolink for some distance so should they be removed as through routes, replaced by feeders into the Metrolink at Whitefield or Prestwich - no, they perform a crucial link in linking Bury and other areas with those parts of Bury Old and New Roads as the Metrolink passes on a much more Eastern alignment.

The argument for "removing duplication" between tram/train and bus is often a misnomer. If it was truly duplicating it, the bus would usually suffer - this is the reason for the reduction in services on the Washway Road to Altrincham - the tram runs parallel so the former trunk routes have experienced a substantial abstraction of trade.

Given a fully integrated fare system, I would expect some thinning out of the high frequency bus services which mirror tram lines. Full withdrawal is probably not acceptable because of the wider gaps between bus and tram stops in Britain. Although radical restructuring of the bus network was carried out when the Croydon to New Addington/Elmers End/Beckenham Junction tram lines were built, which was of course possible due to no deregulation in that area. The opening of Crossrail will mean changes to bus routes in the areas concerned, mostly cuts but some rearranging of the network to improve connectivity. Service reductions like this are not done for dogmatic reasons. The resources released can be ploughed into improved services elsewhere or at least to minimise service reductions in the event of financial cutbacks.

 

[HSTEd]

Jesus would weep.....

Firstly, economic theory re: price elasticity of demand. Remove or reduce the price barrier and demand will increase. This was the shocking conclusion of Gordon Brown giving free travel to pensioners :roll: That would be the case in your scenario, as well as the side benefit of providing a warm, free mobile environment to assorted rough sleepers etc

Yes, but (at least in my experience) pensioners don't tend to ride around all day on crush loaded services.
They ride around on the marginal services you describe.

So they do not significantly increase the peak service loading.
As once the busses crowd out the pensioners go home because its not that comfortable any more.

Beyond that, demand beond the route's carrying capacity is entirely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if a quadrillion people are at the bus stop ,if the bus can only embark 30 more people then we only have to pay to carry 30 more people.

As for the example I quoted, you seem to have got it wrong as well. Cadbury Heath is the eastern end of the service - it already HAS a service and will do in your scenario; the problem is that between Cadbury Heath and Kingswood, the bus would be full by the time it left Kingswood - therefore those people who join would currently join the bus between Kingswood and the city centre wouldn't be able to get on - you effectively remove their service. It's a distance of 4-5 miles - too far to walk.

And thus when the calculations are done they can make the case for additional bus capacity.
But this is additional spending beyond the ~£3.3-£3.5bn that I outlined. I would argue that spending more would be better, considering the potential for environmental benefits - but that doesn't change the fact that you could abolish bus fares for the amount I said.

Yes, you could have bendibuses but the idea that the costs are the same of operation? As has been pointed out:

• Fuel economy is much lower - typically 4mpg vs a conventional decker at 7-8 mpg
• Capital cost is higher
• Maintenance cost is higher
• They take up more space in a depot so incur a greater overhead/need larger depots
• Tend to have a shorter working life

Also, a capacity of 170? Er no..... the best you'll get is c.130 but assume that's another rounding??

Well if you take out all the seats you can crush in 170 or so people.
JUst like I have seen rather more than 80 people fit onto a double decker.

EDIT:

Since TfL was crowing about (regular) hybrid buses managing 6.1mpg in an urban environment

TfL is comparing the new hybrid bus with old hybrids on a different route.

"For comparison purposes, double deck hybrid buses operating on route 73 are achieving 6.1 mpg and diesel buses are achieving 5.3 mpg," a spokesperson said.

7-8mpg sounds rather optimistic.

EDIT #2:

As to the price of vehicles, as of 2008, from the American document 'Use of Higher Capacity Vehicles in Transit Service' [which you can download as a guest just be giving an email].
It can be seen that an Alexander Dennis E500 (a three axle double decker) was actually around the same price as a variety of articulated vehicles (see page 47/80) so it is does not appear significantly different.

I will look up for figures associated with a two axle decker but these figures are obviously hard to find.

EDIT:

A handy table on page 49/80 of the same document shows a figure of 3mpg(US) combined transit service fuel economy for an articulated bus, versus 2.8mpg(US) in combined transit service for thre three axle double deckers.

3mpg US is ~3.8mpg Imp, which compared with the TfL figure above indicates that comparison of pure diesel artics versus pure diesel deckers gives us a comparison of 3.8 versus 5.3.

Even at 130 people versus ~85 the articulated vehicle still wins on fuel consumption per passenger (marginally).

EDIT:

Volvo claims that the 7900 Hybrid Articulated bus has a capacity of 154 with seats still in.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't dispute that operators currently struggle to be profitable; but you are wrong to ascribe this to Metrolink. The trams have abstracted travellers mainly from former train services - and car use. Since 2010, peak period tram travel into the city centre has increased by 7,000; while peak inbound bus travel has remained broadly unchanged. Bus and trams currently serve different markets.

What is undoubtedly the case is that increasing congestion has hit operator profitability; as they need to run more peak services to provide the specified timetable frequency. And I fully agree that this can only be resolved through increased provision of bus priority. This was has been a key reason underlying the legislation; transport authorities have found it increasingly difficult to make a business case for investment in bus priority infrastructure , when they lack the power to determine the level of bus services that will run along it.

In the first instance, that simply isn't the case. Metrolink may well be securing trade from car users and that's great. However, it has abstracted trade from local bus routes and this illustrates the paradox...

The 182 used to run from Rochdale to Manchester via Shaw. The introduction of Metrolink mirrored the service between Shaw and Rochdale. It took bus patronage so the 182 was uneconomic and the vast majority of services were cut back to Shaw to Manchester. There's the paradox - the tram has undermined the local bus service so it's no longer worth running to Manchester but crucially has led to the loss of the through route to the main Royal Oldham Hospital - the law of unintended consequences.

It is more nuanced and the view that buses and trams/local trains serve different markets or that they are simple duplicates is not as straightforward as propounded. Now the most fervent derexiteers will point out that this supports franchising etc. I get that and as I say, I am not against franchising per se.

I just fear that this is a cunning ruse to continue hollowing out state support in the same way that the Big Society was a codeword for putting the burden onto the volunteer sector. People getting very excited about some new vision, a golden dawn of European style provision when the funds aren't there to back it up.

As for local authorities inability to create a business case for bus priority - that's a bit of a cop out. Plenty of local authorities seem to be able to do it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given a fully integrated fare system, I would expect some thinning out of the high frequency bus services which mirror tram lines. Full withdrawal is probably not acceptable because of the wider gaps between bus and tram stops in Britain.

Yes, I think this probably makes sense. A service like the Bury 135 would have some people choosing to stay on because they can't be bothered changing, but if there was no financial penalty (i.e. a single/return to Manchester cost the same whether you sat on the bus all the way or switched to the tram) quite a few would change too. It's a bit like the xx13 from MKC to Scotland via Brum - you can board it at xx13 at MKC or board the xx40 to Crewe and change, saving 27 minutes. A fairly even split of people seem to do each option.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Yes, but (at least in my experience) pensioners don't tend to ride around all day on crush loaded services.
They ride around on the marginal services you describe.

So they do not significantly increase the peak service loading.
As once the busses crowd out the pensioners go home because its not that comfortable any more.

Beyond that, demand beond the route's carrying capacity is entirely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if a quadrillion people are at the bus stop ,if the bus can only embark 30 more people then we only have to pay to carry 30 more people.



And thus when the calculations are done they can make the case for additional bus capacity.
But this is additional spending beyond the ~£3.3-£3.5bn that I outlined. I would argue that spending more would be better, considering the potential for environmental benefits - but that doesn't change the fact that you could abolish bus fares for the amount I said.

Well if you take out all the seats you can crush in 170 or so people.
JUst like I have seen rather more than 80 people fit onto a double decker.

EDIT:

Since TfL was crowing about (regular) hybrid buses managing 6.1mpg in an urban environment

7-8mpg sounds rather optimistic.

EDIT #2:

As to the price of vehicles, as of 2008, from the American document 'Use of Higher Capacity Vehicles in Transit Service' [which you can download as a guest just be giving an email].
It can be seen that an Alexander Dennis E500 (a three axle double decker) was actually around the same price as a variety of articulated vehicles (see page 47/80) so it is does not appear significantly different.

I will look up for figures associated with a two axle decker but these figures are obviously hard to find.

EDIT:

A handy table on page 49/80 of the same document shows a figure of 3mpg(US) combined transit service fuel economy for an articulated bus, versus 2.8mpg(US) in combined transit service for thre three axle double deckers.

3mpg US is ~3.8mpg Imp, which compared with the TfL figure above indicates that comparison of pure diesel artics versus pure diesel deckers gives us a comparison of 3.8 versus 5.3.

Even at 130 people versus ~85 the articulated vehicle still wins on fuel consumption per passenger (marginally).

EDIT:

Volvo claims that the 7900 Hybrid Articulated bus has a capacity of 154 with seats still in.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or is this out and out trolling?

Price elasticity of demand relates to the volatility of demand based on price. Make something free and demand massively increases as shown by the introduction of ENCTS - the imposition of a time limit to avoid the morning peak was one way of seeking to control it but you aren't citing any controls except the ability to generate massive growth with no additional resources to service it. The example of ENCTS shows what happens when that price constraint is removed and as for your experience that pensioners merely travel on the quiet routes and avoid the busy ones, well that isn't experience of the industry.

As for statement that "Beyond that, demand beond the route's carrying capacity is entirely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if a quadrillion people are at the bus stop ,if the bus can only embark 30 more people then we only have to pay to carry 30 more people." - this is the point! You are going to massively skew the problem so allowing those at the end of the route free travel (lots of new users) but denying the service to existing users who live further down the route ? Why does that make sense?

Free travel will allow a warm winter location for all day travel for the various unfortunates who don't have a home and rough sleep; an increasing issue as we see more and more people out on the streets after welfare changes.

Then the line "And thus when the calculations are done they can make the case for additional bus capacity.

But this is additional spending beyond the ~£3.3-£3.5bn that I outlined. I would argue that spending more would be better, considering the potential for environmental benefits - but that doesn't change the fact that you could abolish bus fares for the amount I said."

That's a total contradiction of your contention. There is no case for extra capacity and so extra cost - you said so. Increase capacity and you add cost - it's that straight forward. And now we have artics that have no seats to get to your mythical 170 - really. Why bother with buses - why not cattle trucks?

So in short, I could be a regular bus user that gets the bus from St George in Bristol into the city centre. Your idea would mean that on day one (and for however long it lasted), I would walk out to the stop yet with every expectation that I would not be able to board as all capacity had long since been exhausted. No additional capacity with seats can be created as you've already said that the £3.5bn (not 3) is sufficient to make it free - no additional cost. However, I might be able to get on if we have a load of seatless bendibuses where 169 other standees are located, some of whom have been standing for the last 45 minutes.

And this is a good idea?

NOTE: As for the MPG, I was talking with the Engineering Director at First's Bristol open day and they are looking at 7-8 mpg with their e400mmcs. Artics are much thirstier so they lose out on fuel comparisons and that's before the myriad of other additional costs are factored in.

 

[radamfi]

Lothian buses set a flat-rate fare of £1.60 for any distance; and make a substantial annual profit on this. Ditto Nottingham with a flat-rate all-day adult fare of £1.70. Sometimes flat rate fares are reduced after 9.30. a.m.

Those are not flat-rate systems. For example, a single trip involving two vehicles in Edinburgh costs £3.20. Such a fare system makes short single trips involving an interchange prohibitively expensive, which is why London have introduced their Hopper fare, although this excludes most rail services. Even some British deregulated operators have worked this out, with some operators giving unlimited trips within an hour for the same price as a "single" if you use their app.

European systems often offer short-period time limited multi-mode tickets across smaller conurbations; but this is unlikely to work so well in Manchester, where many multi-mode journeys will take more than an hour.

That is why the time limit is usually dependent on the number of zones crossed.

 

[nerd]

Those are not flat-rate systems. For example, a single trip involving two vehicles in Edinburgh costs £3.20. Such a fare system makes short single trips involving an interchange prohibitively expensive, which is why London have introduced their Hopper fare, although this excludes most rail services. Even some British deregulated operators have worked this out, with some operators giving unlimited trips within an hour for the same price as a "single" if you use their app.



That is why the time limit is usually dependent on the number of zones crossed.

Good points radamfi. My impression is that TfGM are specifically concerned currently to demonstrate a minimal likelihood of particular current users facing higher fares - and so the basic flat-rate (as in Edinburgh and Nottingham) will be specifically aimed at those making a single trip on a single vehicle, keeping this as cheap as possible. Equally it is already clear that there will be an equivalent of current Uni-rider tickets for students and young people.

There may well then be scope for a 'hopper' equivalent in GM as well; and indeed for a short-period time-limited fare. But a complication of any such would be fitting this into whatever the structure might be chosen for franchisee compensation payments. I am assuming that (as distinct from the Metrolink franchise facility payments) some aspect of bus operator compensation is likely to be linked to passenger numbers carried. And I am also assuming that there will be multiple franchisees - so where a passenger is interchanging across operators or modes, some means will need to be in place for collecting and distributing entitlements to passenger-related compensation payments.

My expectation is that the initial proposed arrangement submitted for audit and assessment will seek to avoid unnecessary complexities . So it is more likely (in my view) that floating potential extensions to fare products, over and above a limited core set, may only come in at the stage of the subsequent public consultation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good points radamfi. My impression is that TfGM are specifically concerned currently to demonstrate a minimal likelihood of particular current users facing higher fares - and so the basic flat-rate (as in Edinburgh and Nottingham) will be specifically aimed at those making a single trip on a single vehicle, keeping this as cheap as possible.

But then if they do that, they will get no network benefits at all.