Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[TheGrandWazoo]

Because of the different commercial and funding backdrop obviously.

 

[radamfi]

Because of the different commercial and funding backdrop obviously.

As I said, some things can be done even in the current environment.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

As I said, some things can be done even in the current environment.

Such as?

 

[radamfi]

Such as?

For example, the Dutch Strippenkaart, used until about 2008, could be introduced in almost any town. No modern technology required. It just requires operators to divide their networks into zones instead of using stages. A finer zone system can be used to approximately replicate a stage-based system. Some operators already base their fares on zones.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

For example, the Dutch Strippenkaart, used until about 2008, could be introduced in almost any town. No modern technology required. It just requires operators to divide their networks into zones instead of using stages. A finer zone system can be used to approximately replicate a stage-based system. Some operators already base their fares on zones.

Though it requires a validator and the benefits?

 

[radamfi]

Though it requires a validator and the benefits?

Only needs the driver to have a time stamp. The original Dutch implementation used self-stamping but that was largely replaced by the driver doing it in around 1995. The passenger presented the ticket already folded at the section to be stamped so quicker boarding compared to paying in cash or even buying a paper ticket using contactless. It can also allow free transfers within the required zones by presenting the stamped ticket to the driver on the next bus.

 

[edwin_m]

I already have done so ad nauseum. If we're talking about the issue of legislative changes then there is a world of difference. The example on the changes to room in residential homes is not that different to the impact of DDA. You can make commercial changes etc and that influences long term strategy. Of course, changes like DDA were about improving accessibility with a consequence on fleet replacement strategy etc. The Buses Bill is not a consequence - it is a direct impact on the operating model and the worth of the business.

You didn't answer my example of London minicabs, either on this thread or when we last discussed it a few months ago. As I have provided several possible examples I suggest you should offer at least one of legislation creating a "direct impact on the operating model" and let us know whether the companies in question went to law and if so whether they are successful. Otherwise I will have to conclude, with regret, that you are simply parroting the views of the people who run the big bus groups, who clearly have a self-interest in the existing system continuing.

I don't often concur with Ken Livingstone but at least he had the courage to introduce the congestion zone and use that to fund public transport improvements.

Which he couldn't have done in Manchester because it's effectively impossible for the public sector to provide significant amounts of funding to improve bus services under a deregulated model without falling foul of competition law.

I think the widespread adoption of contactless would go a long way towards eliminating cash , especially if it was an Oyster-type system that logged travel per day and charged everyone the cheapest applicable rate.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Only needs the driver to have a time stamp. The original Dutch implementation used self-stamping but that was largely replaced by the driver doing it in around 1995. The passenger presented the ticket already folded at the section to be stamped so quicker boarding compared to paying in cash or even buying a paper ticket using contactless. It can also allow free transfers within the required zones by presenting the stamped ticket to the driver on the next bus.

Think that falls into the commercial backdrop category

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You didn't answer my example of London minicabs, either on this thread or when we last discussed it a few months ago. As I have provided several possible examples I suggest you should offer at least one of legislation creating a "direct impact on the operating model" and let us know whether the companies in question went to law and if so whether they are successful. Otherwise I will have to conclude, with regret, that you are simply parroting the views of the people who run the big bus groups, who clearly have a self-interest in the existing system continuing.


Which he couldn't have done in Manchester because it's effectively impossible for the public sector to provide significant amounts of funding to improve bus services under a deregulated model without falling foul of competition law.

I think the widespread adoption of contactless would go a long way towards eliminating cash , especially if it was an Oyster-type system that logged travel per day and charged everyone the cheapest applicable rate.

I genuinely cannot recall that from many months ago. The fact is, and I have stated this, that there are any number of areas of legislation that will have an impact on any business and the bus industry is not exempt from that. This extends from general legislation (e.g. introduction of WTD) through to ones that specifically affect the industry like PSVAR.

What is different with the buses bill is that this is a deliberate aim to remove business from those who currently operate it. It seems very popular to "stick it to Souter" or whatever, but it equally affects the smaller players. Why should Jim Stones lose their business - that seems much closer to "legalised theft" than the selling off of GMN/GMS!

As for the argument that the operators that may lose their right to operate will still have the assets.... As we are seeing in London, the problem of owning buses and then losing the tender means that you have to sell if you can't cascade and invariably, that is a fire sale so you won't realise the value of the vehicles. Of course, the future may mean that, like London, operators will have to lease. Guess what.... that is more expensive (which is why operators in the provinces don't do it) so it again erodes the benefits.

As for your contention about the ability to introduce the congestion charge.... Well, the issue of competition is not an issue when it was proposed in 2008. The congestion charge as proposed was not about having lots of additional bus services but funding of capital projects like Metrolink extensions and the Leigh busway. Hell, you could even use the funds generated to improve some road junctions to aid everyone (and placate the roads lobby to an extent).

Oh, and happy new year

 

[radamfi]

Think that falls into the commercial backdrop category

Oh come on! I deliberately picked the cheapest, lowest tech innovation I could think of (invented circa late 70s) and you still blow it out. If you can't even do that, you can't do anything.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Oh come on! I deliberately picked the cheapest, lowest tech innovation I could think of (invented circa late 70s) and you still blow it out. If you can't even do that, you can't do anything.

Come on yourself - my point related not to the innovation but the why would you do it? Also, one may wonder why if the UK is so behind in not adopting it..... how come it wasn't adopted in every other European country as well?

 

[radamfi]

Come on yourself - my point related not to the innovation but the why would you do it? Also, one may wonder why if the UK is so behind in not adopting it..... how come it wasn't adopted in every other European country as well?

As I said, the main point of it was to speed up boarding and also to reduce the amount of on board ticket sales. Many other countries went in for flat fares so didn't need the multi-zonal ability of the Strippenkaart, so carnet-type tickets were more appropriate. Others used and still use ticket machines on street or inside the bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Come on yourself - my point related not to the innovation but the why would you do it?

Because slow running costs a fortune in increased PVRs and passenger dissatisfaction.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

As I said, the main point of it was to speed up boarding and also to reduce the amount of on board ticket sales. Many other countries went in for flat fares so didn't need the multi-zonal ability of the Strippenkaart, so carnet-type tickets were more appropriate. Others used and still use ticket machines on street or inside the bus.

Yes, but not everywhere. There were other places in Europe where on board sales were retained and even in the UK, there were different approaches. Some went zonal, some didn't. Some had exact fare, and in West Yorkshire, there was Kerching!

Of course, many firms that were exact fare moved from that when deregulation came, as competitors used the ability to give change as a competitive tool.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Because slow running costs a fortune in increased PVRs and passenger dissatisfaction.

Unless you're able to sell from off street machines (who pays for those), then you're having to sell via local shops etc and they will demand a slice of the action. They looked at the pros and cons and did the sums.

Now traffic congestion has reached such a level (and technology has moved on too) that smartphones really do give us the opportunity to buy our tickets easily and at any time, it means that off bus sales really do need to be the way forward.

 

[radamfi]

There were other places in Europe where on board sales were retained

When you say "retained", do you mean as the standard means of paying for tickets? Most places that don't have open boarding still allow on board sales. For example, the Netherlands, even though they have a universal smartcard. I can't think of a major city, certainly in western/northern Europe, where most of the ticket sales come from drivers selling tickets. Clearly interurban and rural services are different, but we're talking about big city transport here.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't often concur with Ken Livingstone but at least he had the courage to introduce the congestion zone and use that to fund public transport improvements.

If you cast your mind back quite a few years ago, the matter of the inner-band and outer-band congestion charge strategy to fund a large improvement and expansion of the Manchester Metrolink system was done in Greater Manchester by form of referendum in all of the ten areas that comprise that entity rather than by decree. This was felt at the time to be the most democratic way of approaching the matter. The ten areas covered a range of political strengths, but when the referendum result was announced, all ten of the areas voted overwhelmingly to say "NO" rather that "YES" to the said double band congestion charge.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

When you say "retained", do you mean as the standard means of paying for tickets? Most places that don't have open boarding still allow on board sales. For example, the Netherlands, even though they have a universal smartcard. I can't think of a major city, certainly in western/northern Europe, where most of the ticket sales come from drivers selling tickets. Clearly interurban and rural services are different, but we're talking about big city transport here.

No but the capability was retained. As you concede on an earlier post, there were any number of ways in which off bus sales can and were promoted but it varies from city to city across Europe. Even in this country, I can remember the strength of off bus sales in places like West Midlands and Bristol.

As I said before, this view (espoused by people who have apparently never spoken to a bus manager) that they sit in some UK centric bubble and never see things in Europe or "on the street" is absolute bovine.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

If you cast your mind back quite a few years ago, the matter of the inner-band and outer-band congestion charge strategy to fund a large improvement and expansion of the Manchester Metrolink system was done in Greater Manchester by form of referendum in all of the ten areas that comprise that entity rather than by decree. This was felt at the time to be the most democratic way of approaching the matter. The ten areas covered a range of political strengths, but when the referendum result was announced, all ten of the areas voted overwhelmingly to say "NO" rather that "YES" to the said double band congestion charge.

That is exactly what I was referring to when parroting the facts in response to edwin_m

 

[Dentonian]

What is different with the buses bill is that this is a deliberate aim to remove business from those who currently operate it.

As for your contention about the ability to introduce the congestion charge.... Well, the issue of competition is not an issue when it was proposed in 2008. The congestion charge as proposed was not about having lots of additional bus services but funding of capital projects like Metrolink extensions and the Leigh busway. Hell, you could even use the funds generated to improve some road junctions to aid everyone (and placate the roads lobby to an extent).

Oh, and happy new year

Are we really to believe that a Tory Government would introduce a bill primarily aimed at a "land grab" or to deliberately remove business from the current Operators? Further, would all 8 Mayoral Candidates (including the Tory, Sean Anstee) state hat hey will exercise the options given to them by the Bill (now Bus Services Act)? At the risk of repeating myself, it is NOT yet a foregone conclusion that Franchising will be adopted in GM, but its difficult to know what alternatives there are?

As for the 2008 TIF (lazily labelled a Congestion Charge), you are right to state none of he C-Charge/Toll would go directly to Bus Services, as the "I" in TIF was for Investment. The idea was that capital would go to further Metrolink expansion and also heavy Rail improvements, as well as Interchanges. Of course, some of these have happened, and GMPTA and others did explain that losing the Referendum would merely greatly postpone such plans, not cancel them all together. Whether intentional or not, you have also illustrated why Referendums are not as democratic as superficially thought (as if we need reminding after Brexit!), as the motoring lobby's lies held sway with the Media. They of course stated that one of the main reasons for rejecting TIF was because the Toll money would go straight into the coffers of the "Robber barons"; Brian Souter, Ann Gloag and Moir Lockhead. For those not around GM 10 years ago, the fact was that bus services would benefit from reduced traffic on roads and, in turn increased loadings. Thus, they drew up a COMMERCIAL response to supposedly grow the business.
Those plans were made available to the public in general terms (buses per hour on each corridor), and again, some have come to pass in the meantime. I have heard figures for two corridors so far in terms of the evidence for Reform (which I assume are confidential for now), and incredibly, one of the few corridor/catchment areas that was to see a CUT in bus services, has average AM peak loadings 50% HIGHER than the (small) town that was to benefit the most! So clearly the TIF plan was not genuine in terms of cutting congestion long-term. FTR, I voted against, and from conversations with family and friends afterwards, with just one exception, all the Motorists voted FOR, and all the Non-Motorists voted AGAINST.

 

[Dentonian]

If you cast your mind back quite a few years ago, the matter of the inner-band and outer-band congestion charge strategy to fund a large improvement and expansion of the Manchester Metrolink system was done in Greater Manchester by form of referendum in all of the ten areas that comprise that entity rather than by decree. This was felt at the time to be the most democratic way of approaching the matter. The ten areas covered a range of political strengths, but when the referendum result was announced, all ten of the areas voted overwhelmingly to say "NO" rather that "YES" to the said double band congestion charge.

I should have kept the figures, but IIRC, (City of) Manchester voters voted narrowly in favour. Yes, the other 9 all voted against to varying degrees, with Wigan, Salford and Tameside being the most hostile.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I should have kept the figures, but IIRC, (City of) Manchester voters voted narrowly in favour. Yes, the other 9 all voted against to varying degrees, with Wigan, Salford and Tameside being the most hostile.

Sorry to correct you, but the Manchester votes were as follows:-
YES.....43,593.....28%
NO.....113,064.....72%

 

[PermitToTravel]

I should have kept the figures, but IIRC, (City of) Manchester voters voted narrowly in favour. Yes, the other 9 all voted against to varying degrees, with Wigan, Salford and Tameside being the most hostile.

You needn't do your own archiving, there are still plenty of sources with the numbers e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7778110.stm

Manchester had the highest proportion of yes voters, but even there the result was no - no boroughs were overall in favour of the charge

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I should have kept the figures, but IIRC, (City of) Manchester voters voted narrowly in favour. Yes, the other 9 all voted against to varying degrees, with Wigan, Salford and Tameside being the most hostile.

It was 10 from 10 - even in Manchester, the result was a fairly resounding NO and this was the closest of all - Yes 43,593 (28%) No 113,064 (72%) Turnout: 46.1 %

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Are we really to believe that a Tory Government would introduce a bill primarily aimed at a "land grab" or to deliberately remove business from the current Operators? Further, would all 8 Mayoral Candidates (including the Tory, Sean Anstee) state hat hey will exercise the options given to them by the Bill (now Bus Services Act)? At the risk of repeating myself, it is NOT yet a foregone conclusion that Franchising will be adopted in GM, but its difficult to know what alternatives there are?

Are we to believe that a Tory government that has reduced BSOG by half, and reduced central government funding to the provinces that has led to a lot of bus services being withdrawn, has had some sort of Damascus like conversion and that public transport should suddenly be better funded....? As for the mayoral candidates being in favour.... well, if you can get more power and think you can get more money, might that influence things?

I am a cynical fecker at the best of times, and when CamBorne came up with the Big Society and Localism, I swore it was a stitch up. I have the same suspicions now

 

[Dentonian]

Are we to believe that a Tory government that has reduced BSOG by half, and reduced central government funding to the provinces that has led to a lot of bus services being withdrawn, has had some sort of Damascus like conversion and that public transport should suddenly be better funded....? As for the mayoral candidates being in favour.... well, if you can get more power and think you can get more money, might that influence things?

I am a cynical fecker at the best of times, and when CamBorne came up with the Big Society and Localism, I swore it was a stitch up. I have the same suspicions now

Yes, but the Tories don't like public transport.....and hate the Provinces even more. It is no coincidence that the entire cabinet either represents a LHC* constituency, grew up in LHC, educated in Oxbridge or London, or made their millions in the "City".

As for Mayoral candidates; yes, they probably all seek power to some extent, but in 21st century GM, do you really think improving Buses is the top of a "populist agenda". Its only on the Agenda because the current system is SO bad. If Mayoral Powers including Bus Reform had come 2 years into Cameron's first Government, then it would only be a major vote winner in the north of GM, but now there is virtually nobody who uses Buses in GM in favour of continued De-regulation. OK, maybe some people on the 36/37/38 corridor, but that's it!

 

[Dentonian]

You needn't do your own archiving, there are still plenty of sources with the numbers e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7778110.stm

Manchester had the highest proportion of yes voters, but even there the result was no - no boroughs were overall in favour of the charge

I'll give you that! My memory isn't so good nowadays, but I was right that Tameside and Salford were the highest voters against. Ironic, given the contrasting fortunes of core bus services in those two boroughs since.

 

[radamfi]

As for Mayoral candidates; yes, they probably all seek power to some extent, but in 21st century GM, do you really think improving Buses is the top of a "populist agenda". Its only on the Agenda because the current system is SO bad. If Mayoral Powers including Bus Reform had come 2 years into Cameron's first Government, then it would only be a major vote winner in the north of GM, but now there is virtually nobody who uses Buses in GM in favour of continued De-regulation. OK, maybe some people on the 36/37/38 corridor, but that's it!

Transport is at the top or near the top of the agenda of mayors of any significant city. It has constantly been at the top of the agenda for the Mayor of London, despite the existence of other huge issues such the Olympics, housing, policing and terrorism. So a mayor without power to change transport is not much of a mayor at all. This probably dawned on the Tory party at a late stage, but by that point it was too late to stop and in any case, they have so little interest in buses that the end of deregulation was a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.

 

[6Gman]

Unless you're able to sell from off street machines (who pays for those), then you're having to sell via local shops etc and they will demand a slice of the action. They looked at the pros and cons and did the sums.

Now traffic congestion has reached such a level (and technology has moved on too) that smartphones really do give us the opportunity to buy our tickets easily and at any time, it means that off bus sales really do need to be the way forward.

Problem with off-bus sales in shops (apart from paying their commission) is how is the passenger supposed to find them? Are we going to have a map and directions to the nearest outlet at each bus stop?

To give you an example, I want to catch a bus to Crewe from the bus stop near the Swinemarket in Nantwich. The nearest Pay Point convenience store-type outlet (actually a newsagent) is a couple of hundred yards away off the Square [and recently closed without notice!]. Were it still open I could walk up there, queue behind the chap handing in the lottery ticket for his workplace syndicate ("16 lines please") and the woman buying some sweets and catching up on gossip ... I then buy my ticket and trail back to the bus stop ( oh good, it's started raining) only to find I've missed the bus.

Or I could just get on the bus and pay the driver ...

 

[6Gman]

Yes, but the Tories don't like public transport.....and hate the Provinces even more. It is no coincidence that the entire cabinet either represents a LHC* constituency, grew up in LHC, educated in Oxbridge or London, or made their millions in the "City".

Well, don't look for much hope from the Official Opposition then since the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Home Secretary and the Shadow Foreign Secretary all represent neighbouring constituencies in North London! To be fair, the Shadow Chancellor represents a constituency in ... er ... West London.

Just saying ...