Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[northwichcat]

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.

Be careful how you use average figures. Is 70 the average number of seats or average total capacity? The average loading being the total capacity would likely mean passengers being left behind due to buses being too full. When Metrolink failures happen they rely on local bus operators carrying their passengers - that simply wouldn't work if all the buses were running around full all the time. Also, if it's loading on entering the city centre that could exclude passengers dropped off on the wrong side of the river in Salford as a bus approaches Manchester.

 

[nerd]

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.

Interesting points TGW. The key burden here is risk. Gordon Brown's aspiration for public service provision (which you rightly disparage), was that Public/Private partnerships might be created, under which Private participants would carry the commercial risk.

As you noted; this did not deliver. Commercial partners either insisted on contract terms that effectively landed all risk on public authorities; or they built into their contract such high expectations of profit margins as to make the proposed schemes economically unviable. From the perspective of TfGM, that is the early history of their cancelled Phase 3 Metrolink expansion programme. When the expansion scheme was resurrected, it was on the basis that all the risk associated with passenger usage was recognised as being carried solely by TfGM.

In these terms, bus deregulation can be understood as an early exercise in shifting risk to commercial operators. And just as was to be the experience of Gordon Brown and his fellow New Labourites; it turned out that bus risk could only be taken on by private operators if they were able to guarantee profit levels through monopoly operation. Which in turn enforces highly inefficient methods of service provison leading to passenger numbers carried falling far below optimal levels.

My understanding is that TfGM see franchising of bus services as a counterpart to the franchising underpinning the success of the Metrolink Phase 3. But it won't be possible for commercial operators to be released from risk quite to the same extent; as it appears to be expected that franchisees will supply their own vehicles. But overall, a key element in the audit and assessment of any proposed franchising schemes will be just how much risk is being taken over by TfGM; if passenger numbers grow faster than expected, who gets to bank the surplus revenue? If passenger numbers grow slower than exppecte, who has to fund the deficit?

 

[nerd]

Be careful how you use average figures. Is 70 the average number of seats or average total capacity? The average loading being the total capacity would likely mean passengers being left behind due to buses being too full. When Metrolink failures happen they rely on local bus operators carrying their passengers - that simply wouldn't work if all the buses were running around full all the time. Also, if it's loading on entering the city centre that could exclude passengers dropped off on the wrong side of the river in Salford as a bus approaches Manchester.

70 is an estimate of total average capacity (including standing); and that counts the number of persons on the bus as they cross the inner Ring Road. So we certainly need to add a substantial number of persons on the Oxford Road route who get off at the Education precinct - which amount to approximately 8,000 in the morning peak. Adjusting for these extra travellers increases the average peak bus occupancy from 27 to 37 - with the buses along the Stockport Road being the most crowded (average 46).

But recasting the figures here misses the point. Manchester has only so much road space in and around its regional centre; and that road space is fully occupied at peak. Both resident population and employment within and around the city centre are exploding in numbers. Ten years ago there were around 120,000 peak period trips into the city centre every day (including the Manchester and Salford education precincts). Now that figure is nearer 150,000. In another ten years it will likely top 200,000.

But the number of potential peak inbound commuters arriving by car is limited to around 35,000 (unless the inner ring road were to be drastically remodelled, that is the physical limit on the number of cars that can be accommodated through the junctions at peak). The increase in recent years has largely been accommodated on the trams and trains. But without very major capital investment (basically digging tunnels), these will soonish hit their physical limits too.

So most of the expected additional further 50,000 inbound travellers per day will have to arrive by bus or bike. In simple terms, total peak inbound bus travellers must at least double in ten years, on even the most conservative projections of future demand. There is certainly scope for extended dedicated bike lanes along radial routes (but that then reduces road space for buses). There may well be scope for a small number of additional bus services; but at core you cannot deal with congestion by increasing the number of vehicles on the road.

The conclusion is inescapable, peak period buses will have to travel fuller. That may imply higher capacity vehicles along the selected heavy-demand routes (maybe Fallowfield to Salford Uni); but essentially an operating model needs to be developed that accommodates a lot more people getting on and off each standard bus.

That this is not impossible is shown by the busway; where average peak occupancy is way above that even for Stockport Road. Indeed currently passengers can get left behind on the busway, but frequency is so high that this does not create that much loss of time. That is likely the way to go.

 

[nerd]

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

On the contrary; a low cost flat rate fare opens up a very substantial component of current suppressed demand. Operators currently tend to reckon to privilege weekly ticket travellers - who pay around £14.50. Assuming a regular traveller uses their weekly ticket an average of 10 times, that translates (surprise! surprise!) to something near our supposed £1.50 flat rate per trip.

But such weekly tickets are predatory; they maintain demand from a particular high usage group, but at the expense of suppressing demand for anyone not in that group;

- anyone who doesn't travel by bus every weekday;
- anyone who might want to connect with another mode or operator
- anyone whose daily route is not regularly the same.

Alltogether, those likely amount to around (maybe) 40% of total potential bus users; and it is fundamental to TfGM's vision that those 40% can now return to using buses without facing a financial penalty for doing so.

Moreover, predatory fares introduce diseconomies into the general functioning of the system. On those routes where there is more than one current operator, they lead to passengers not getting onto the first bus that arrives in the direction of their destination. That means:

- that waiting passengers clog up capacity,
- that overall timings through the public transport system are extended
- that effective frequency (and hence potential travel related to frequency) is halved.

All of these are very bad for TfGM's network benefits. So providing a simple set of standard fare products - with capability for connection and integration across modes and operators on standard day/week/month/year cards - is highly desirable. A low flat rate fare is simply the bottom stage of that set of products, limited in functionality so as to reduce cost to a minimum for those in the 60% group of current users.

Some users do actually like current bus services; they are able to benefit from predatory fares, and they don't need the extra functionality that a full day card might offer. The big growth will come from returning users, but existing users should not feel they are losing out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the contrary; a low cost flat rate fare opens up a very substantial component of current suppressed demand.

It does, but it skews demand by making connections unduly costly, which means you end up having to overprovide a complicated network of through services instead of the Continental model of a smaller number of simpler, easier to understand high-frequency connectional routes. Now London has realised that it is about time everyone else did.

To use one example, the proper way to serve Oxford and Wilmslow Roads, barring funding for actual trams, would be a self-contained Piccadilly to East Didsbury/West Didsbury (two routes only) service, operated using multi-door articulated buses with open boarding, Penalty Fares and full off-bus ticketing. To work properly that requires connections at both ends to work well. The present service is grindingly inefficient even with the large amount of dedicated infrastructure.

I can see little case for TfGM not to start from day one with a single ticket valid for at least one change of bus. Perhaps, to discourage misuse (resale and passing on) until they can migrate to contactless etc, it could be a nominal sum more expensive than a single vehicle single journey, maybe 10p. People won't pay that unless they're going to use it, so they won't get handed around. The huge success of the "bag tax" is evidence enough that any charge, even a tiny one, is sufficient to ensure people only take something if they actually need it.

The same deal as London, a second boarding allowed within an hour of the first, would be a good start.

 

[tbtc]

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

Good points (as usual).

Personally, I tend to get fed up with bus threads on this Forum once they turn into a discussion about how perfect things would be if we adopted Dutch/ German/ Swiss models (but only those countries), given that that's not a realistic option in the UK given the finances involved (yes, it'd be splendid if we were prepared to pay the same funding as our enlightened continental cousins, but in the absence of a magic wand, we'd be better focussing on what can be achieved with current subsidies etc).

Some of the other stuff on here is well meaning too, but be careful what you wish for. "simple fares" and "flat fares" sound nice, but then bus routes (like passenger demand) don't always fit neatly into local authority areas.

Lothian Buses can charge the same for a journey from the city centre to Prestonpans as they do to Portobello, since the market to sit on a bus all the way to Prestonpans is fairly marginal (given the rail alternative), but I don't think that routes in big urban areas like Manchester would work so well with such fares. Also, "simple" fares also mean a huge jump for going one stop over the boundary, which will put a lot of people off (e.g. I often walk the final three stops of my journey in Sheffield to save fifty pence on a single fare).

 

[radamfi]

Personally, I tend to get fed up with bus threads on this Forum once they turn into a discussion about how perfect things would be if we adopted Dutch/ German/ Swiss models (but only those countries), given that that's not a realistic option in the UK given the finances involved

The odd thing is, following the Swiss model (in particular) would lead to fewer routes and maybe even fewer vehicles required than the current system. I have on a number of occasions posted the route map of Zurich, a moderate sized city by British standards. I just looked on German Wikipedia and within the main part of the city they require only 15 tram lines and 6 trolleybus routes. They get away with this sparse network because they don't feel the need to connect every part of the city to the city centre as they rely on people making connections.

 

[radamfi]

Also, "simple" fares also mean a huge jump for going one stop over the boundary, which will put a lot of people off (e.g. I often walk the final three stops of my journey in Sheffield to save fifty pence on a single fare).

The Dutch (or Trent Barton) system of touch in touch out is the only sensible way of avoiding such "cliff edge" scenarios. The Dutch system measures the distance travelled between each bus stop and the fare charged is:

0.89 + (price per km) x (distance in km)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The advantage of that kind of system is that it by definition has no anomalies.

 

[nerd]

It does, but it skews demand by making connections unduly costly, which means you end up having to overprovide a complicated network of through services instead of the Continental model of a smaller number of simpler, easier to understand high-frequency connectional routes. Now London has realised that it is about time everyone else did.

To use one example, the proper way to serve Oxford and Wilmslow Roads, barring funding for actual trams, would be a self-contained Piccadilly to East Didsbury/West Didsbury (two routes only) service, operated using multi-door articulated buses with open boarding, Penalty Fares and full off-bus ticketing. To work properly that requires connections at both ends to work well. The present service is grindingly inefficient even with the large amount of dedicated infrastructure.

I can see little case for TfGM not to start from day one with a single ticket valid for at least one change of bus. Perhaps, to discourage misuse (resale and passing on) until they can migrate to contactless etc, it could be a nominal sum more expensive than a single vehicle single journey, maybe 10p. People won't pay that unless they're going to use it, so they won't get handed around. The huge success of the "bag tax" is evidence enough that any charge, even a tiny one, is sufficient to ensure people only take something if they actually need it.

The same deal as London, a second boarding allowed within an hour of the first, would be a good start.

Your suggestion was, at one point (around 10 years ago), close to what was being suggested as part of the 'Cross City Bus' package. At that time Manchester was still in the throes of the 'think tram; do bus' slogan. TfGM have now moved on though.

Generally speaking, bus users don't like switching modes - or switching services; what they want is a seat on a bus that takes them as far as possible in one ride. Then if they need to connect to another route, one more seat all the way to their destination. TfGM are marketing Metrolink with the slogan that you can get from anywhere to anywhere else on the system with 'just one switch'. I expect them to seek to establish the same principle across the bus network- so far as possible.

There is likely a case for the sort of service that you describe from Fallowfield to Salford Uni; but it would not work all the way out from Didsbury. High volume multi-door articulated buses carry most passengers standing up. But bus passengers are only happy to travel standing if they are travelling slow; and travelling slow means not travelling too far. The busway vehicles are much closer to the ideal configuration for longer BRT routes running though the city centre and out the other side; roomy seats, double deck, single door entry, and much faster.

 

[Blackpudding]

70 is an estimate of total average capacity (including standing); and that counts the number of persons on the bus as they cross the inner Ring Road. So we certainly need to add a substantial number of persons on the Oxford Road route who get off at the Education precinct - which amount to approximately 8,000 in the morning peak. Adjusting for these extra travellers increases the average peak bus occupancy from 27 to 37 - with the buses along the Stockport Road being the most crowded (average 46)

Where did you get average (am) peak hour loading figures from please and are they in the public domain. Are they sub-divided by corridor, or even route - to enable you to quote 27-37 average peak bus occupancy GM wide.

I'm also concerned that whoever is formulating statistics, is solely concentrating on "The regional centre"

 

[nerd]

Where did you get average (am) peak hour loading figures from please and are they in the public domain. Are they sub-divided by corridor, or even route - to enable you to quote 27-37 average peak bus occupancy GM wide.

I'm also concerned that whoever is formulating statistics, is solely concentrating on "The regional centre"

The statistics are in the public domain; and are publilshed by the Greater Manchester Transportation Unit. Latest reports here

http://www.gmtu.gov.uk/reports/transport2015.htm

There is a separate report for the key centre of each of the ten boroughs; giving both the AM peak and off-peak. To calculate average loadings for along each corridor into each key centre, you must divide the total count of bus trips by the total count of bus movements.

you can extract annual trends in bus occupance for each key centre in total from the key centres file here.

http://www.gmtu.gov.uk/reports/transport2016.htm

There is another (and earlier) GMTU report on travel into and out of the Higher Education Precinct. I extracted an estimate of peak period bus occupancy into the Education Precinct from that.

 

[Dentonian]

I'm resurrecting this thread for a number of reasons, the most "impersonal" being that it *might* prove slightly erroneous to assume Franchising will be the Mayoral Office's chosen route (if you pardon the pun), as he has not ruled out other options. In saying that, its difficult to see how Quality Partnerships (enhanced or otherwise) would work across the conurbation, given that most places have no internal competition. I believe something will be said to the Media next week, but I suspect that is more a case of outlining the problems, rather than committing to a solution. I did try reading the above attachments, but couldn't find anything specific enough in terms of individual corridors or satellite towns. I have heard though that the 27-37 figure is an understimate, with my own corridor alone, exceeding 46. Also, based on the figures for "Stockport Road" (which I assume means the A6, essentially the 192 route), I think we also need to be very careful of peak v off-peak ratios, and assuming that radial routes are automatically busiest at the Manchester end. I don't use 192s very often, but whilst acknowledging it gets very full at Student rush hours, my off-peak journeys between Stockport and Manchester usually attract barely a dozen fellow passengers.
One thing that has been confirmed though is that IF Franchising is adopted, it will NOT be a "big bang" like De-regulation was. Hopefully, the first area(s) to be franchised would be low car ownership, high fare, captive market areas - which will be exactly what Stagecoach, in particular, don't want as those areas are where they make their biggest profits and always have.

 

[nerd]

From Burnham's speech on transport

"
Unless we bring our bus services into the 21st century, our plans in Greater Manchester for a better public transport system cannot be fulfilled.

Today I can confirm that in Greater Manchester we will be using the powers granted to us by Parliament at the earliest opportunity to drive through some major improvements to our bus services – and we are starting straight away.

Regulations to allow requests for further data from operators come into effect next Tuesday, the 19th of December.

Today we give notice that, on the 20th of December, TfGM will be writing to operators to request that data.

Subject to TfGM receiving the information it needs, I expect public consultation on our plans for bus reform to be announced in the summer, with the aim of making a decision by the end of the 2018.

This could see improvements being delivered to bus services in GM sooner than in any other city-region with equivalent powers.

This will be a major focus for the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and TfGM in 2018. The work will proceed at pace and all options for change evaluated openly and fairly.

It means work will start on shaping a bus system that people find convenient to use, that is accessible to all, that can help reduce congestion and improve air quality, that better links with other modes, and that gives our people the joined up connectivity that our economy and society need.

There will be some basic standards we expect from a reformed bus system in line with the objectives set out in the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040:

• More affordable and simplified fares, integrated with Metrolink, with contactless payment and a daily cap
• Comprehensive coverage across Greater Manchester – with all communities able to expect a decent service
• More accessible and modern vehicles – with ramps, space for wheelchairs & prams; AV announcements as standard and real time information available either at bus stops or through apps
• Fair to bus drivers and other staff, the vast majority of whom do a great job, in terms of their employment, training and job security
• Cleaner and greener vehicles, with greater use of low-carbon technology
• And a single brand and livery – to strengthen legibility as ‘one network’ and provide clarity and coherence

Crucially we will need to use this opportunity to build a new market for buses.

In the last 30 years, too many young people in Greater Manchester have grown up not using buses.

We have to turn this declining market around.

It remains my aim that any operator providing bus services in Greater Manchester offers free bus travel for 16-18 year olds, building on the half-price tickets we introduced earlier this year.

To be clear, I am keeping an open mind on the different options of improving bus services.

But they are going to improve and it is going to happen as quickly as practically possible.

And my message to all bus operators is this: start engaging with us positively on how we deliver our new vision rather than clinging on to an era which is going.

I want a solution that’s good for passengers, good for the workforce, good for operators and good for Greater Manchester.

If we work together, that’s exactly what we can achieve."

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/news/article/241/mayor_sets_out_major_transport_overhaul[/QUOTE]

 

[Robertj21a]

From Burnham's speech on transport

"
Unless we bring our bus services into the 21st century, our plans in Greater Manchester for a better public transport system cannot be fulfilled.

Today I can confirm that in Greater Manchester we will be using the powers granted to us by Parliament at the earliest opportunity to drive through some major improvements to our bus services – and we are starting straight away.

Regulations to allow requests for further data from operators come into effect next Tuesday, the 19th of December.

Today we give notice that, on the 20th of December, TfGM will be writing to operators to request that data.

Subject to TfGM receiving the information it needs, I expect public consultation on our plans for bus reform to be announced in the summer, with the aim of making a decision by the end of the 2018.


This could see improvements being delivered to bus services in GM sooner than in any other city-region with equivalent powers.

This will be a major focus for the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and TfGM in 2018. The work will proceed at pace and all options for change evaluated openly and fairly.

It means work will start on shaping a bus system that people find convenient to use, that is accessible to all, that can help reduce congestion and improve air quality, that better links with other modes, and that gives our people the joined up connectivity that our economy and society need.

There will be some basic standards we expect from a reformed bus system in line with the objectives set out in the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040:

• More affordable and simplified fares, integrated with Metrolink, with contactless payment and a daily cap
• Comprehensive coverage across Greater Manchester – with all communities able to expect a decent service
• More accessible and modern vehicles – with ramps, space for wheelchairs & prams; AV announcements as standard and real time information available either at bus stops or through apps
• Fair to bus drivers and other staff, the vast majority of whom do a great job, in terms of their employment, training and job security
• Cleaner and greener vehicles, with greater use of low-carbon technology
• And a single brand and livery – to strengthen legibility as ‘one network’ and provide clarity and coherence

Crucially we will need to use this opportunity to build a new market for buses.

In the last 30 years, too many young people in Greater Manchester have grown up not using buses.

We have to turn this declining market around.

It remains my aim that any operator providing bus services in Greater Manchester offers free bus travel for 16-18 year olds, building on the half-price tickets we introduced earlier this year.

To be clear, I am keeping an open mind on the different options of improving bus services.

But they are going to improve and it is going to happen as quickly as practically possible.

And my message to all bus operators is this: start engaging with us positively on how we deliver our new vision rather than clinging on to an era which is going.

I want a solution that’s good for passengers, good for the workforce, good for operators and good for Greater Manchester.

If we work together, that’s exactly what we can achieve."

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/news/article/241/mayor_sets_out_major_transport_overhaul

[/QUOTE]

There's some good common sense comments throughout the full report. Unfortunately, I've seen nothing to say how all the various improvements will be funded.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There's some good common sense comments throughout the full report. Unfortunately, I've seen nothing to say how all the various improvements will be funded.[/QUOTE]

To be honest, there's a lot in there to agree with. Given how tough the environment is, we all would like things to be better.

However, it's all well and good to say London has nearly doubled it's patronage with the large amount of money that's been spent (and the population growing by 2m in thirty years).

If the idea is to somehow achieve all this by getting operators to run at 7% margin, there's not going to be a lot of money to go around for all these very laudable improvements.

 

[Dentonian]

There's some good common sense comments throughout the full report. Unfortunately, I've seen nothing to say how all the various improvements will be funded.

To be honest, there's a lot in there to agree with. Given how tough the environment is, we all would like things to be better.

However, it's all well and good to say London has nearly doubled it's patronage with the large amount of money that's been spent (and the population growing by 2m in thirty years).

If the idea is to somehow achieve all this by getting operators to run at 7% margin, there's not going to be a lot of money to go around for all these very laudable improvements.[/QUOTE]


The only thing that's been said related to funding is that some corridors are overbussed and so resources will be switched (back) to those that are underbussed. As regards profit margins, you only have to look at this variation in loadings combined with differential fares and especially in the case of Stagecoach, they must be achieving FAR bigger margins on some routes than on others. Also, population is expected to grow in GM and with the current framework that would mean a far faster rate of increased congestion than a similar percentage growth in Gtr. London would cause.

PS. First and Stagecoach have announced fare increases (eff. 2 January) within hours of this meeting. A typical 1.51 - 2 miles journey in captive market areas will increase from £2.30 to £2.50 - this fare was 23p in 1986. Day tickets increase from £4.30-£4.50 (Stagecoach) and £4.50-£4.80 (First); with the respective weekly tickets increasing from £14.50 to £15.00 and £15-£16. Of course, with "rover" tickets, you can't just calculate the increase in price, you have to take account the decrease in value over the years as routes/headways have been cut and running times increased.

 

[Robertj21a]

To be honest, there's a lot in there to agree with. Given how tough the environment is, we all would like things to be better.

However, it's all well and good to say London has nearly doubled it's patronage with the large amount of money that's been spent (and the population growing by 2m in thirty years).

If the idea is to somehow achieve all this by getting operators to run at 7% margin, there's not going to be a lot of money to go around for all these very laudable improvements.

The only thing that's been said related to funding is that some corridors are overbussed and so resources will be switched (back) to those that are underbussed. As regards profit margins, you only have to look at this variation in loadings combined with differential fares and especially in the case of Stagecoach, they must be achieving FAR bigger margins on some routes than on others. Also, population is expected to grow in GM and with the current framework that would mean a far faster rate of increased congestion than a similar percentage growth in Gtr. London would cause.

PS. First and Stagecoach have announced fare increases (eff. 2 January) within hours of this meeting. A typical 1.51 - 2 miles journey in captive market areas will increase from £2.30 to £2.50 - this fare was 23p in 1986. Day tickets increase from £4.30-£4.50 (Stagecoach) and £4.50-£4.80 (First); with the respective weekly tickets increasing from £14.50 to £15.00 and £15-£16. Of course, with "rover" tickets, you can't just calculate the increase in price, you have to take account the decrease in value over the years as routes/headways have been cut and running times increased.[/QUOTE]

Those new fares still seem fairly reasonable to me.

 

[Dentonian]

The only thing that's been said related to funding is that some corridors are overbussed and so resources will be switched (back) to those that are underbussed. As regards profit margins, you only have to look at this variation in loadings combined with differential fares and especially in the case of Stagecoach, they must be achieving FAR bigger margins on some routes than on others. Also, population is expected to grow in GM and with the current framework that would mean a far faster rate of increased congestion than a similar percentage growth in Gtr. London would cause.

PS. First and Stagecoach have announced fare increases (eff. 2 January) within hours of this meeting. A typical 1.51 - 2 miles journey in captive market areas will increase from £2.30 to £2.50 - this fare was 23p in 1986. Day tickets increase from £4.30-£4.50 (Stagecoach) and £4.50-£4.80 (First); with the respective weekly tickets increasing from £14.50 to £15.00 and £15-£16. Of course, with "rover" tickets, you can't just calculate the increase in price, you have to take account the decrease in value over the years as routes/headways have been cut and running times increased.

Those new fares still seem fairly reasonable to me.[/QUOTE]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion I suppose, but how are we going to tackle congestion and social exclusion when an increasingly unpunctual bus costs over £1.25 a mile to get to the nearest Supermarket or secondary health centre, whilst petrol/diesel is less than 20p a mile and parking is free in the vast majority of cases. The other point is that resources have been poached from these captive market (ie. low car ownership) routes, to compete in the slightly better off west of the county, where they will still be paying £1.50 for 5-6 mile journeys. It is this massive disparity that needs tackling, unless you want a "car or curfew" society.

 

[Robertj21a]

Those new fares still seem fairly reasonable to me.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion I suppose, but how are we going to tackle congestion and social exclusion when an increasingly unpunctual bus costs over £1.25 a mile to get to the nearest Supermarket or secondary health centre, whilst petrol/diesel is less than 20p a mile and parking is free in the vast majority of cases. The other point is that resources have been poached from these captive market (ie. low car ownership) routes, to compete in the slightly better off west of the county, where they will still be paying £1.50 for 5-6 mile journeys. It is this massive disparity that needs tackling, unless you want a "car or curfew" society.[/QUOTE]

For a week, £15 is quite good value. I doubt that very many buy a single ticket.

 

[Stan Drews]

I think it's great that Mr.Burnham is going to make these wonderful improvements to bus services all across GM. It will be really interesting to see the costings, and just how much the magic money tree can be shaken.

 

[radamfi]

For a week, £15 is quite good value. I doubt that very many buy a single ticket.

The people who would otherwise have bought singles have been priced off the bus. It is typically British for singles to be a high proportion of the day ticket. GM is an extreme case where a single is often the same or not much less than a day ticket. Also, don't forget, for some reason in Britain we call a "single" a trip on a direct bus whereas in most places it means a single journey whether or not it involves a change. And even in Britain this definition of single only applies to buses, not trams or trains. Totally illogical. Therefore, in reality, a 3 mile single trip in GM can cost more than £4. Some places, typically places with bus patronage well above the national average, have more sane single fares and Brighton even has a 60 minute m-ticket costing £2.40.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The people who would otherwise have bought singles have been priced off the bus. It is typically British for singles to be a high proportion of the day ticket. GM is an extreme case where a single is often the same or not much less than a day ticket. Also, don't forget, for some reason in Britain we call a "single" a trip on a direct bus whereas in most places it means a single journey whether or not it involves a change. And even in Britain this definition of single only applies to buses, not trams or trains. Totally illogical. Therefore, in reality, a 3 mile single trip in GM can cost more than £4. Some places, typically places with bus patronage well above the national average, have more sane single fares and Brighton even has a 60 minute m-ticket costing £2.40.

To be fair, singles are also disproportionately expensive (though they have more validity) in Germany. Most people there use some form of season ticket or day ticket.

 

[radamfi]

To be fair, singles are also disproportionately expensive (though they have more validity) in Germany. Most people there use some form of season ticket or day ticket.

Although there is usually a 4er or even 10er ticket which reduces the per journey trip substantially. There is usually also a Kurzstrecke for short journeys. Fares in Germany are expensive compared to some other European countries but at least you usually get a half decent service.

In Germany, single tickets allow unlimited changes by all modes. A 5 mile single journey in Manchester involving two different bus companies and a tram could easily cost over £7.

 

[edwin_m]

Although there is usually a 4er or even 10er ticket which reduces the per journey trip substantially. There is usually also a Kurzstrecke for short journeys. Fares in Germany are expensive compared to some other European countries but at least you usually get a half decent service.

In Germany, single tickets allow unlimited changes by all modes. A 5 mile single journey in Manchester involving two different bus companies and a tram could easily cost over £7.

You also have the common situation in the UK when there are two or more possible operators for a particular journey but with no ticket interavailability - particularly irksome where both operators combined give a reasonable service but a single operator's service on its own ls less adequate. A passenger setting out on operator A might choose to buy a single, then find themselves coming home with the same operator having bought a second single and spent more than on a return or day ticket. Or they might buy the return or day ticket and on the way home either wait while operator B's buses pass buy until operator A turns up, or buy a single on operator B and spend more than they could have.

 

[PeterC]

...... and on the way home either wait while operator B's buses pass buy until operator A turns up, or buy a single on operator B and spend more than they could have.

More likely board the second operator's bus and hold the other passengers up for 5 minutes while they argue with the driver about the validity of their ticket.

 

[ivanhoe]

I think it's great that Mr.Burnham is going to make these wonderful improvements to bus services all across GM. It will be really interesting to see the costings, and just how much the magic money tree can be shaken.

First and Stagecoach are not fools. Greater Manchester is obviously profitable for them otherwise they’d be gone. Here is an opportunity to funnel available funds within the County to the incumbent operators without fear of further competition. They own the assets, although their acquisition in some cases was nothing short of legalised theft. They will also recognise a rate of return that will be required for use of their assets. First and Stagecoach will initially give the impression that they are not interested but quietly in the background,they will be negotiating with GM. GM is no tin pot County Council. It is arguably the most dynamic area outside of London. It’s politicians are well connected with Government, even though they are on opposing sides. Really, childish comments like the magic money tree only serve to underline your political allegiance. Deregulation has failed the British People and credit to Andy Burnham for publishing a strategy as detailed as can be ,at this stage.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

First and Stagecoach are not fools. Greater Manchester is obviously profitable for them otherwise they’d be gone. Here is an opportunity to funnel available funds within the County to the incumbent operators without fear of further competition. They own the assets, although their acquisition in some cases was nothing short of legalised theft. They will also recognise a rate of return that will be required for use of their assets. First and Stagecoach will initially give the impression that they are not interested but quietly in the background,they will be negotiating with GM. GM is no tin pot County Council. It is arguably the most dynamic area outside of London. It’s politicians are well connected with Government, even though they are on opposing sides. Really, childish comments like the magic money tree only serve to underline your political allegiance. Deregulation has failed the British People and credit to Andy Burnham for publishing a strategy as detailed as can be ,at this stage.

What a load of cobblers! Legalised theft???

GMS and GMN were sold to their respective management teams and were purchased from them by First and Stagecoach two years later. To effectively renationalise them without compensation is a much more questionable exercise and much closer to theft!

That they purchased the businesses at a commercial price has escaped you. Also, because of that, any removal of that asset will be damaging - hence why First Manchester, as is well documented, is retained despite struggling to make a profit. Stagecoach Manchester made £12m last year, a margin of 11-12% though.

Of course, you’ll be looking to reclaim the £10k that each participating driver got for their GMBS shares - money that was practically theft?

 

[carlberry]

You also have the common situation in the UK when there are two or more possible operators for a particular journey but with no ticket interavailability - particularly irksome where both operators combined give a reasonable service but a single operator's service on its own ls less adequate. A passenger setting out on operator A might choose to buy a single, then find themselves coming home with the same operator having bought a second single and spent more than on a return or day ticket. Or they might buy the return or day ticket and on the way home either wait while operator B's buses pass buy until operator A turns up, or buy a single on operator B and spend more than they could have.

Easily cured by the local authorities using current legislation (if they wanted to actually cure the issue instead of wanting to control things) and a tweak to the legislation could make it even easier (i.e. to allow companies to suggest it, but have the local authority agree to it or stop it if it ends up being a cartel)
.

 

[edwin_m]

Last time I looked both First and Stagecoach were happy to bid for and run contracts in the regulated London market, so there is no reason why they shouldn't also do so in Manchester.