Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[Bletchleyite]

I'm afraid its probably 8 years or more since I was last in Amsterdam (and longer still elsewhere in the Netherlands), so it might need a bit more explanation. Are these physically seperated from pedestrians. If not, is there any kind of speed limit or measures to avoid collision - are "shared spaces" properly signposted?

In MK the Redway Code is a (non legally enforceable) principle that applies to them (Google it) - basically the principle is that both classes of user should treat it as a traffic free country lane, i.e. ride on the left, walk on the right, don't ride/walk across the full width, ride such that you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, don't walk out without looking etc. It seems largely to work.

In the Netherlands they tend to be segregated - typically a road is on 3 levels, pavement highest, cycle track a bit lower, road lowest.

 

[edwin_m]

Sorry Edwin - I really don't get what you mean about citing any example. There are plenty of examples where legislative changes have had a knock on effect on any business. That happened with Working Time Directive and companies had to either pass on the cost, swallow it, or achieve efficiencies to absorb it. There are examples of back door nationalisation - Railtrack being one where the shareholders were left high and dry. You may feel that's the risk they take - they sued and got back most of their money.

As for "exactly your point" - your point is myopic. There is more that could be done than just running more buses, and that was exactly the point!

You keep telling us that introduction of franchising would be unfair to the operators and that they would have a case for legal challenge. I'm just looking for some sort of example, in any field, of where something similar has been done by government and an affected company has successfully resorted to the courts. As far as I can see requiring operators to bid for contracts rather than just running where they like does not reach that threshold, as I have tried to illustrate by my own examples. At the moment you appear to be agreeing with me that businesses have to put up with a certain amount of legislative risk (such as the Working Time Directive) without legal recourse.

Nor is Railtrack comparable. Its legislative environment did not change significantly from its creation until it went into administration. Therefore it was either doomed from the start (which investors should have thought about before putting in their money) or doomed by its own actions, not doomed by the actions of government. Government intervention kept it going for longer by pumping money into a private monopoly in fairly dubious circumstances, and the government only pulled the plug when some of that money went to shareholders.

I think you are arguing that more funding is needed to improve bus services, something I largely agree with. I have suggested (and I don't think anybody has disagreed) that is simply not possible to put in extra funding without also adopting franchising or some other form of regulation. But you also appear to support the existing deregulated setup - so how would you improve bus services (without adding more buses)? And as the legislative environment has been largely unchanged for three decades, why haven't those improvements happened already?

 

[nerd]

You are slightly missing my point; The Tories are not alone in having "little interest in buses". By the same token, "Transport" is near the top of the Agenda for Mayors/Candidates, but by "Transport" they invariably mean Motoring and Rail (and increasingly, Cycling). Just as the Media are only interested in those three forms of Transport.

Not in Manchester; on the contrary, bus services (and especially the potential both for bus rapid transit, and for enhanced access to stopping buses) is very much included in the top priority items of the Mayor's Transport agenda for GM.

Key reasons:

- TfGM reckon they have achieved a major success (facing down both motoring and rail lobbies) in the form of the Leigh Busway and East Lancs buslanes. Bus ridership along this corridor is vastly increased (peak period bus passengers entering the city centre along Chapel Street have gone up by nearly 1,000). In less than a year, large numbers of travellers have switched from commuting into town by car or train, to using the busway. Consequently all GM's strategic plans now include provision for equivalent new bus rapid transit routes - most particularly into the Airport from Altrincham, Poynton and Stockport. Indeed the major transport component of the draft Strategic Planning Framework document was in the form of new bus rapid transit routes serving newbuild residential developments - both orbital around the towns of the conurbation, and radial into the city centre.

- The recent gross underperformance of the deregulated stopping bus network in GM is now a major potential inhibitor of economic growth. At the core of the GM economic strategy is the need to exploit fully the growth potential of the city centre and the Airport; likely a further 50,000 city centre (and education precincts) jobs in ten years; and 20,000 extra Airport/Airport City jobs. But those employed in these jobs will need to get to work. Thus far the recent expansion of employment in the city centre (an increase of 30,000 jobs in five years) has been almost entirely provided for through increased capacity rail and tram services. Car occupant use is going down; bus use has been flat. But there simply isn't the physical capacity for train and tram to expand any faster - and car access to both airport and city centre is at its physical limit already. So unless there is a radical increase in stopping bus usage, the economic strategy cannot be delivered. In crude terms, peak bus ridership into the city centre is going to have to double over the next ten years.

see:

https://democratic.trafford.gov.uk/documents/s23942/HS2 Appendix A - Draft GMGS.pdf

 

[HSTEd]

I see they are really pushing a unified station for Manchester Picadilly with Metrolink etc.

I wonder, is there room on the Mayfield site for a proper integrated bus station?
You could extend buses from Picadilly Gardens down to the railway station and get rid of the rather cramped and messy bus station on the Gardens site, just have buses run through to Mayfield.
Covered over access could be provided via walkway from the through platforms entrances at Picadilly.

 

[nerd]

I see they are really pushing a unified station for Manchester Picadilly with Metrolink etc.

I wonder, is there room on the Mayfield site for a proper integrated bus station?
You could extend buses from Picadilly Gardens down to the railway station and get rid of the rather cramped and messy bus station on the Gardens site, just have buses run through to Mayfield.
Covered over access could be provided via walkway from the through platforms entrances at Picadilly.

Not as I read it HSTEd

There has been a longstanding proposal to relocate long distance bus services on a site at Piccadilly (and so with easier access to the Mancunian Way); and this is mentioned as an option in the draft document. In that case, it might be possible to move the Parker Street local bus operations to Chorlton Street.

But I don't think that local bus services are now expected to be accessing Piccadilly Station from the south. Rather the Strategic Regeneration Framework envisages a new 'boulevard' running along the north side of Piccadilly Station (north of the triple-decker HS2/NPR/Metrolink box) with bus interchange below the HS2 platforms , and above the NPR platforms. Or possibly on the ground floor of the proposed multi-story car park. If the Metrolink platforms are to be relocated from the south to the north side of the station, then it is logical that the bus interchange (local and coach) would be adjacent and on the same level. Effectively, that becomes the main vehicular entrance to the station

The Mayfield site itself looks to be already fully committed for office and residential developments - planning for which is well underway. It is likely to late now to find space there for any sort of bus interchange.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder, is there room on the Mayfield site for a proper integrated bus station?

I am sure that some time ago that I heard the Mayfield site was part of an area regeneration plan. Can someone with any detailed knowledge give the current position on that matter.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You keep telling us that introduction of franchising would be unfair to the operators and that they would have a case for legal challenge. I'm just looking for some sort of example, in any field, of where something similar has been done by government and an affected company has successfully resorted to the courts. As far as I can see requiring operators to bid for contracts rather than just running where they like does not reach that threshold, as I have tried to illustrate by my own examples. At the moment you appear to be agreeing with me that businesses have to put up with a certain amount of legislative risk (such as the Working Time Directive) without legal recourse.

Nor is Railtrack comparable. Its legislative environment did not change significantly from its creation until it went into administration. Therefore it was either doomed from the start (which investors should have thought about before putting in their money) or doomed by its own actions, not doomed by the actions of government. Government intervention kept it going for longer by pumping money into a private monopoly in fairly dubious circumstances, and the government only pulled the plug when some of that money went to shareholders.

I think you are arguing that more funding is needed to improve bus services, something I largely agree with. I have suggested (and I don't think anybody has disagreed) that is simply not possible to put in extra funding without also adopting franchising or some other form of regulation. But you also appear to support the existing deregulated setup - so how would you improve bus services (without adding more buses)? And as the legislative environment has been largely unchanged for three decades, why haven't those improvements happened already?

In truth, we have had forty years of moving away from regulation and into a market led economy (and not confined to bus services). This is what makes the Buses Bill distinct (and why I'm suspicious) in that it is a move to a regulated environment. The only one I can recall is Railtrack in that respect. However, if you want an example of compensation to industries because of government policy.... well, what about the cash paid to businesses to cover off the carbon tax? I could also point out that the Northern Rock shareholders who were told the firm was worthless (by a government valuer) and so their investment was. Instead, the business has managed to be sold for a £4.5bn profit and they want some of their money back!

Now, I would like to move on. I have said that I am not against franchising per se. The concerns are whether the money is actually there - will savings be outweighed by a further layer of administration. Will it be a panacea? Will we see the silliness of some aspects of T&W avoided - direct links being sacrificed (and people inconvenienced for dogmatic reasons). Will money made on buses be siphoned elsewhere? Think they are fair enough concerns.

 

[radamfi]

In truth, we have had forty years of moving away from regulation and into a market led economy (and not confined to bus services). This is what makes the Buses Bill distinct (and why I'm suspicious) in that it is a move to a regulated environment.

Public services are often provided using a competitive tendering process. For example, cleaning, refuse collection and rail services. So the Buses Bill brings buses into line with that trend. Yet again, people on national news are demanding the end to such a tendering process and to return to nationalisation. Yet similar proposals for buses are criticised for being "socialist".

 

[Dentonian]

Not in Manchester; on the contrary, bus services (and especially the potential both for bus rapid transit, and for enhanced access to stopping buses) is very much included in the top priority items of the Mayor's Transport agenda for GM.

Key reasons:

- TfGM reckon they have achieved a major success (facing down both motoring and rail lobbies) in the form of the Leigh Busway and East Lancs buslanes. Bus ridership along this corridor is vastly increased (peak period bus passengers entering the city centre along Chapel Street have gone up by nearly 1,000). In less than a year, large numbers of travellers have switched from commuting into town by car or train, to using the busway. Consequently all GM's strategic plans now include provision for equivalent new bus rapid transit routes - most particularly into the Airport from Altrincham, Poynton and Stockport. Indeed the major transport component of the draft Strategic Planning Framework document was in the form of new bus rapid transit routes serving newbuild residential developments - both orbital around the towns of the conurbation, and radial into the city centre.

- The recent gross underperformance of the deregulated stopping bus network in GM is now a major potential inhibitor of economic growth. At the core of the GM economic strategy is the need to exploit fully the growth potential of the city centre and the Airport; likely a further 50,000 city centre (and education precincts) jobs in ten years; and 20,000 extra Airport/Airport City jobs. But those employed in these jobs will need to get to work. Thus far the recent expansion of employment in the city centre (an increase of 30,000 jobs in five years) has been almost entirely provided for through increased capacity rail and tram services. Car occupant use is going down; bus use has been flat. But there simply isn't the physical capacity for train and tram to expand any faster - and car access to both airport and city centre is at its physical limit already. So unless there is a radical increase in stopping bus usage, the economic strategy cannot be delivered. In crude terms, peak bus ridership into the city centre is going to have to double over the next ten years.

see:

https://democratic.trafford.gov.uk/documents/s23942/HS2 Appendix A - Draft GMGS.pdf

This would mark a distinct - and welcome - change in attitudes if true. Its only a few years ago that the Airport Metrolink extension was lauded because (according to local politicians) there was NO (pre-existing) public transport between Wythenshawe and the Airport. In fact, at the time there were 16 buses per peak hour via 5 different routes, run by two companies - virtually all commercially run. Obviously, that figure has been drastically reduced since.
Maybe, it is the success of LGB and a new attitude from the Elected Mayor that is to be thanked. Indeed, I understand that LGB is now achieving DOUBLE the 25-30,000 a week ridership forecast in the business case.
I must admit, I wasn't aware of BRT routes to/through the Airport from Altrincham, Poynton and Stockport. I'm a bit surprised at the first two in particular, which are both high car ownership areas, thus rail would be accessible to them. Indeed, Altrincham to the Airport was one of the routes indirectly lost with the Metrolink extension, going from 2 full size commercial buses per hour, to a single, tendered midibus, which the one time I've used it, I had pretty much to myself. And anyway, I though Metrolink was being extended to the proposed Warburton Green HS2 station to link it to the Airport. Surely, its nearly half way to Alty by then. Poynton is weird; it almost sounds like a case of; build a relief road and provide a BRT to a village (just outside GM) where 95% of the population haven't been on a bus since they left school. Stockport would make far more sense as the joint second largest town in GM (and closest to the Airport). I assume the strategy would be to effectively replace both the 199 and 330 extensions. The danger being now that those compete with each other (the Sunday t/t is a joke) that one or both would be withdrawn commercially well before Bus Reform.
I think your being optimistic as regards job creation in terms of the Airport and education precincts. Brexit is the great uncertainty with both (along with HS2 making Heathrow more attractive). Not least with the future of EHIC unresolved. As I've mentioned on another thread, my brother works at MMU and they are expecting a big drop in student numbers as Europeans are put off training as Medics/nurses - certainly they don't want to stay here and work in the NHS.
Its also interesting that you say bus use is "flat". It could have been described as flat in the latter noughties and early "tens", but I understand it is now nosediving; c.206 m in 15/16; 201.6 in 16/17 and forecast to drop well below 200 million this FY.
Of course, strategically, there is a partial alternative, rather than seeking to copy the centralist model of London the Mayor is eager to criticise. Let's not concentrate everything in the already favoured South and West of the county. Looking at these plans (combined with rail developments that are limited in accessibility), we seem to be creating a county where (without a car) some will be able to get to Manchester (or Airport City) in 20-30 minutes, whilst others in disadvantaged, but virtually equidistant areas will take 3 times as long.

 

[Dentonian]

Not as I read it HSTEd

There has been a longstanding proposal to relocate long distance bus services on a site at Piccadilly (and so with easier access to the Mancunian Way); and this is mentioned as an option in the draft document. In that case, it might be possible to move the Parker Street local bus operations to Chorlton Street.

But I don't think that local bus services are now expected to be accessing Piccadilly Station from the south. Rather the Strategic Regeneration Framework envisages a new 'boulevard' running along the north side of Piccadilly Station (north of the triple-decker HS2/NPR/Metrolink box) with bus interchange below the HS2 platforms , and above the NPR platforms. Or possibly on the ground floor of the proposed multi-story car park. If the Metrolink platforms are to be relocated from the south to the north side of the station, then it is logical that the bus interchange (local and coach) would be adjacent and on the same level. Effectively, that becomes the main vehicular entrance to the station

The Mayfield site itself looks to be already fully committed for office and residential developments - planning for which is well underway. It is likely to late now to find space there for any sort of bus interchange.

There is no comparison numbers wise, between long distance services currently running from Chorlton Street/Major Street and local services from Picc Gardens. There are/were 72 peak bph along Oxford Road alone from Piccadilly. If you leave the X43 (Witch Way) out of the equation, I doubt the Central Coach Station area sees 72 departures a day!

As regards Piccadilly Rail Station development, especially with HS2 in mind, very little detail has been publicised. I've only seen tiny scale maps on the MEN website, so can't even judge exactly how much impact construction (including tunneling) will have on existing major road and rail routes into the city, let alone how bus access (especially from London Road/Fairfield Street) will be affected in terms of disruption, re-routing and indeed, termini.

 

[radamfi]

As regards Piccadilly Rail Station development, especially with HS2 in mind, very little detail has been publicised. I've only seen tiny scale maps on the MEN website, so can't even judge exactly how much impact construction (including tunneling) will have on existing major road and rail routes into the city, let alone how bus access (especially from London Road/Fairfield Street) will be affected in terms of disruption, re-routing and indeed, termini.

Have a look at

http://interactive-map.hs2.org.uk/

The final route will have very little impact on Manchester's roads as the railway line will be in a tunnel all the way to a point SE of the junction of Ashton Old Road and Chancellor Lane, then the railway line will be on a viaduct across Fairfield Street with the HS2 platforms immediately to the north of the current Piccadilly station boundary. However, there will undoubtedly be disruption during construction, including along the tunnelled route through south Manchester.

 

[Dentonian]

Have a look at

http://interactive-map.hs2.org.uk/

The final route will have very little impact on Manchester's roads as the railway line will be in a tunnel all the way to a point SE of the junction of Ashton Old Road and Chancellor Lane, then the railway line will be on a viaduct across Fairfield Street with the HS2 platforms immediately to the north of the current Piccadilly station boundary. However, there will undoubtedly be disruption during construction, including along the tunnelled route through south Manchester.

OK. ta. It was from Gorton Lane, under Alan Turing Way/Hyde Road and west of Belle Vue I was interested in.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Public services are often provided using a competitive tendering process. For example, cleaning, refuse collection and rail services. So the Buses Bill brings buses into line with that trend. Yet again, people on national news are demanding the end to such a tendering process and to return to nationalisation. Yet similar proposals for buses are criticised for being "socialist".

The end point may be similar but the starting points are polar opposites.

I also wonder if franchising is your personal preference, then John McDonnell's aim (repeated today by Andy McDonald) of "Let’s take our railway back into public ownership!" so you wonder if Labour's preference is actually a bit more socialist. Come the revolution, brother

 

[nerd]

This would mark a distinct - and welcome - change in attitudes if true. Its only a few years ago that the Airport Metrolink extension was lauded because (according to local politicians) there was NO (pre-existing) public transport between Wythenshawe and the Airport. In fact, at the time there were 16 buses per peak hour via 5 different routes, run by two companies - virtually all commercially run. Obviously, that figure has been drastically reduced since.
Maybe, it is the success of LGB and a new attitude from the Elected Mayor that is to be thanked. Indeed, I understand that LGB is now achieving DOUBLE the 25-30,000 a week ridership forecast in the business case.

Indeed, current ridership averages well over 50,000 per week; with peak weeks at over 65,000. What remains disappointing (to me) is that very little connecting business seems to be picked up from Metrolink; if I wanted to get from (say) Ashton to Manchester Uni, I would take the tram to St Peters Square, and then a Vantage bus. But there is no signage or branding to encourage such trips; and likely specific Vantage/Metrolink cross-promotional fares would be illegal. So although the busway is highly successful as a stand-alone service in the current bus environment; as an integrated element within an overall transport system it likely can only fulfil its potential once deregulation has been reversed.

I must admit, I wasn't aware of BRT routes to/through the Airport from Altrincham, Poynton and Stockport. I'm a bit surprised at the first two in particular, which are both high car ownership areas, thus rail would be accessible to them. Indeed, Altrincham to the Airport was one of the routes indirectly lost with the Metrolink extension, going from 2 full size commercial buses per hour, to a single, tendered midibus, which the one time I've used it, I had pretty much to myself. And anyway, I though Metrolink was being extended to the proposed Warburton Green HS2 station to link it to the Airport. Surely, its nearly half way to Alty by then. Poynton is weird; it almost sounds like a case of; build a relief road and provide a BRT to a village (just outside GM) where 95% of the population haven't been on a bus since they left school. Stockport would make far more sense as the joint second largest town in GM (and closest to the Airport). I assume the strategy would be to effectively replace both the 199 and 330 extensions. The danger being now that those compete with each other (the Sunday t/t is a joke) that one or both would be withdrawn commercially well before Bus Reform.

Well that's what the TfGM growth strategy says. All this is in the context of the £243m extra Treasury funding (to be spent by 2022) for Greater Manchester local transport networks in support of NPR and HS2. It appears that the Altrincham-Airport busway is currently a front runner for this budget (though I am sure TfGM will try to get the Airport and Royal London to stump up a fair proportion of the cost). Of course, there will also be a cycleway alongside; maybe that will endear it more to Altrincham types? In any case, both the LSM busway and the Cambridgeshire busway find that reluctant car users (of whom there are vast numbers) are their biggest source of business, so if Altrincham and Poynton are full of potential travellers who have not been on a bus since school, that could well prove an ideal market. It is the former regular stopping bus users who are most likely to be dissatisfied with busway services - the whole principle of 'walking further to travel faster' only works for those who are arsed to travel faster in the first place.

Stockport is unlikely to get an all-dancing BRT link - more likely just improved bus priority along Bramhall Lane towards the Airport. But long-term TfGM envisage Audenshaw/Denton to the Airport via Stockport interchange as an orbital tram-train route - coming off the heavy rail line onto the tram tracks at Bagueley, and then running via Wythenshawe hospital and the HS2 station into the Airport station from the west. Bits of this circuit have already been built within the airport infrastructure and Stockport interchange, though actual construction must be still a fair way off (what with the travails of the Sheffield tram-train pilot). But the Altrincham busway proposal reflect TfGM's assessment that a tram-train service along that orbital corridor west of the Airport would not be practicable.

I think your being optimistic as regards job creation in terms of the Airport and education precincts. Brexit is the great uncertainty with both (along with HS2 making Heathrow more attractive). Not least with the future of EHIC unresolved. As I've mentioned on another thread, my brother works at MMU and they are expecting a big drop in student numbers as Europeans are put off training as Medics/nurses - certainly they don't want to stay here and work in the NHS.

.

20,000 extra jobs in the Airport in the next 10 years is pretty much nailed on. Doubling the passenger throughput inherently generates equivalent extra jobs; accommodated within the rebuild of the terminals now underway. What won't increase will be on-site parking provision for staff; which means that anyone driving to work in the Airport faces a bus ride anyway to get from a peripheral staff car park to their place of employment. So they may as well take the bus the whole way.

An extra 50,000 city centre jobs over ten years simply apportions the TfGM projection of city centre employment as increasing from 140,000 to 250,000 by 2040. Maybe Brexit will indeed queer that pitch; but so far there is little sign of it.

Its also interesting that you say bus use is "flat". It could have been described as flat in the latter noughties and early "tens", but I understand it is now nosediving; c.206 m in 15/16; 201.6 in 16/17 and forecast to drop well below 200 million this FY.
Of course, strategically, there is a partial alternative, rather than seeking to copy the centralist model of London the Mayor is eager to criticise. Let's not concentrate everything in the already favoured South and West of the county. Looking at these plans (combined with rail developments that are limited in accessibility), we seem to be creating a county where (without a car) some will be able to get to Manchester (or Airport City) in 20-30 minutes, whilst others in disadvantaged, but virtually equidistant areas will take 3 times as long.

I was talking specifically about bus ridership into Manchester city centre; which has indeed been 'flat' since 2011 . Which is surprising, as over the same period more and more former car drivers have been desperate to switch to any sort of reasonable alternative mode of transport for getting to work. Given that jobs in the city centre have been increasing so fast, it takes a special degree of gross incompetence that bus services into Manchester city centre are not achieving rapidly expanding ridership figures in line with those for rail and tram services. Incompetence more on behalf of the policymakers than the operators perhaps.

I think you are misreading the strategy if you think that the only areas of GM where investment might be expected are in the South and West. The schematic on page 8 of the document gives a fuller picture of the envisaged configuration of orbital and radial routes.

 

[HSTEd]

Do we have a projected route for an Altrincham busway?

As for a Stockport-Airport one, is there room alongside the Mid-Cheshire line alignment?

 

[nerd]

Do we have a projected route for an Altrincham busway?

As for a Stockport-Airport one, is there room alongside the Mid-Cheshire line alignment?

No further information about the Altrincham busway than in the draft growth strategy

A busway (and parallel cycleway) is proposed to provide a rapid bus service via the HS2 station from the airport to Altrincham

There are no suitable roads to run along, though; so the implication is a newbuild guided track plus cycleway through the greenbelt land west of the M56. Maybe linking into Wood Lane and so to the Stockport Road?

As for rapid bus services to Stockport; the proposal is for bus priority infrastructure along roads east of Bramhall relieved by the A6MARR. Possibly the A5102 and A5149

Bus Services will benefit from proposed bus priority on roads that will be relieved by the east-facing A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Route (A6MARR), which is under construction.

. So definitely no guided busway along the rail line.

 

[carlberry]

Indeed, current ridership averages well over 50,000 per week; with peak weeks at over 65,000. What remains disappointing (to me) is that very little connecting business seems to be picked up from Metrolink; if I wanted to get from (say) Ashton to Manchester Uni, I would take the tram to St Peters Square, and then a Vantage bus. But there is no signage or branding to encourage such trips; and likely specific Vantage/Metrolink cross-promotional fares would be illegal. So although the busway is highly successful as a stand-alone service in the current bus environment; as an integrated element within an overall transport system it likely can only fulfil its potential once deregulation has been reversed.

There is nothing illegal about cross-promotional fares, nothing to stop signage and nothing to stop joint marketing. The current legislation (available across the country even without a local mayor) even allows the local authority to co-ordinate bus services and introduce common fares if they want to. However if the local authority has an agenda that says they'll only do something if they control all the toys then they'll quite happily leave things as they are.

 

[nerd]

There is nothing illegal about cross-promotional fares, nothing to stop signage and nothing to stop joint marketing. The current legislation (available across the country even without a local mayor) even allows the local authority to co-ordinate bus services and introduce common fares if they want to. However if the local authority has an agenda that says they'll only do something if they control all the toys then they'll quite happily leave things as they are.

If I am wrong I stand corrected; but I had understood that Nottingham NCT (when they ran the trams) were compelled to terminate their old-style Kangaroo cross-promotional travel passes; under which anyone buying an NCT weekly bus pass got free tram travel at no extra cost (which was a major factor in the initial runaway success of the NET tram system, and vastly increased NCT bus pass sales). But the Competition Commission (now the CMA) called foul;as this gave NCT a competitive advantage over other bus operators. NET were compelled to open the cross-promotion to all local bus operators; who then only agreed to its continuation if it was priced above their own exclusive weekly passes. As I remember it. The Manchester issue, as I understood it, is that First do not sell tickets specific to Vantage; so any cross-promotional tram access (e.g. free onward city zone tram travel for bus users; and free onward bus travel for tram users) would apply to all First passengers; and Stagecoach could argue to the CMA that their ticket-holders were being discriminated against.

 

[carlberry]

If I am wrong I stand corrected; but I had understood that Nottingham NCT (when they ran the trams) were compelled to terminate their cross-promotional travel passes; originally anyone buying an NCT weekly bus pass got free tram travel at no extra cost (and this was a major factor in the runaway success of the NET tram system, and vastly increased NCT bus pass sales). But the Competition Commission (now the CMA) called foul;as this gave NCT a competitive advantage over other bus operators. The Manchester issue, as I understood it, is that First do not sell tickets specific to Vantage; so any cross-promotional tram access (e.g. free onward city zone tram travel for bus users; and free onward bus travel for tram users) would apply to all First passengers; and Stagecoach could argue to the CMA that their ticket-holders were being discriminated against.

As I understand your original idea of a specific Vantage/Metrolink cross promotional ticket wouldn't be an issue, the more general case that you describe is likely to be if it only applied to a specific operator. It's also quite possible to introduce local add on tickets for tram/vantage travel in the same way as the Plus bus scheme for train travel, however it needs somebody to want to do it.

 

[nerd]

As I understand your original idea of a specific Vantage/Metrolink cross promotional ticket wouldn't be an issue, the more general case that you describe is likely to be if it only applied to a specific operator. It's also quite possible to introduce local add on tickets for tram/vantage travel in the same way as the Plus bus scheme for train travel, however it needs somebody to want to do it.

Thanks; this is the quote in respect of Nottingham

A ruling by the Competition Commission prevents the sale of tickets by one transport operator for the use of through-travel on another operator’s system and, with Nottingham City Transport (NCT) no longer involved in the operation of NET, Cityrider and Grouprider tickets, together with Easyrider cards, can no longer be accepted on the trams. Instead, passengers who wish to make through-journeys on a single ticket are required to buy a Kangaroo day or season ticket. These are issued by the City Council and can be used on most bus and train services, as well as the tram, within a defined geographical area (closely related to the built-up area of Greater Nottingham and including the whole of NET Line One).

I did not make myself clear, I am not proposing an add-on ticket - exactly the opposite. My vision would be for Bus Rapid Transit to have unrestricted through ticketing with trams; so any journey from any zone in GM to any other by any combination of BRT and Tram (and hopefully train too) would cost exactly the same as a counterpart zone-to-zone journey carried by a single operator without connection or change. Once you reach a zone, any onward travel within that zone would be already covered in the fare paid. Tram TVMs will sell tickets you can use on the bus, bus TVMs will sell you tickets you can use on a tram. As I understand it this is exactly what the Competition Commission outlawed; you cannot be allowed to use 'standard' bus tickets on trams, or tram tickets on buses; you have to buy a special extra-cost ticket for multi-mode multi-operator travel. Hence Easyrider bus ticket holders could not be allowed to travel on NET trams without buying an add-on Kangaroo ticket.

For integrated rapid transit ticketing to happen, as I understand it, BRT tickets cannot be interchangeable with stopping bus tickets; as if BRT fares are to be in lock-step with tram fares, they must be decoupled from stopping bus fares (so long as the latter continue to be set in a competitive market) .

 

[edwin_m]

I did not make myself clear, I am not proposing an add-on ticket - exactly the opposite. My vision would be for Bus Rapid Transit to have unrestricted through ticketing with trams; so any journey from any zone in GM to any other by any combination of BRT and Tram (and hopefully train too) would cost exactly the same as a counterpart zone-to-zone journey carried by a single operator without connection or change. Once you reach a zone, any onward travel within that zone would be already covered in the fare paid. Tram TVMs will sell tickets you can use on the bus, bus TVMs will sell you tickets you can use on a tram. As I understand it this is exactly what the Competition Commission outlawed; you cannot be allowed to use 'standard' bus tickets on trams, or tram tickets on buses; you have to buy a special extra-cost ticket for multi-mode multi-operator travel. Hence Easyrider bus ticket holders could not be allowed to travel on NET trams without buying an add-on Kangaroo ticket.

For integrated rapid transit ticketing to happen, as I understand it, BRT tickets cannot be interchangeable with stopping bus tickets; as if BRT fares are to be in lock-step with tram fares, they must be decoupled from stopping bus fares (so long as the latter continue to be set in a competitive market) .

The Kangaroo was never an add-on, it was an alternative day or period ticket at a higher price than operator-specific tickets. So if you started your day on an NCT day ticket then found yourself returning with a different operator you'd end up paying more for an extra single ticket, and if you bought a single in the morning and found yourself returning on the same operator you'd end up paying more for two singles. The Kangaroo is now the Robin Hood and does have a certain amount of smartness and capping but the same situation can still occur.

That's the sort of annoyance that franchising is supposed to get rid of. All fares should be interavailable across operators and allow unlimited transfers wtihin a time/distance limit. The only exception I'd allow would be a choice between a higher tariff valid on trains, trams and BRT as well as local buses, and a lower fare valid on local buses only.

 

[HSTEd]

NOt sure about the idea of having split fares with bus-only and bus-and-tram.

Surely we want people to use the trams that we've already paid for?
Running trams on a densely trafficked route that is already a tramway is probably chepaer than adding more capacity on parallel bus routes.

 

[edwin_m]

NOt sure about the idea of having split fares with bus-only and bus-and-tram.

Surely we want people to use the trams that we've already paid for?
Running trams on a densely trafficked route that is already a tramway is probably chepaer than adding more capacity on parallel bus routes.

I think some local buses will still have to run on most corridors because the tram or train have limited stops and some areas are too far from one for convenient access. BRT buses would not compete with the tram but would be provided on corridors of mid-range demand, where there wasn't enough patronage to build a tramway or one was planned but not yet constructed. If there were two fare scales then BRT would be on the higher one with the trams. It might be as simple as making the local buses flat fare with on-board purchase and tram/BRT fares distance-based with off-vehicle purchase, but also valid on local buses serving either end of the main journey. Anyone using a local bus to access a BRT or tram would pay the flat fare but be entitled to buy a BRT/tram ticket with an equivalent discount as long as they could show both tickets to an inspector.

Anyway these are just suggestions of how it might work rather than firm proposals.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I did not make myself clear, I am not proposing an add-on ticket - exactly the opposite. My vision would be for Bus Rapid Transit to have unrestricted through ticketing with trams; so any journey from any zone in GM to any other by any combination of BRT and Tram (and hopefully train too) would cost exactly the same as a counterpart zone-to-zone journey carried by a single operator without connection or change. Once you reach a zone, any onward travel within that zone would be already covered in the fare paid. Tram TVMs will sell tickets you can use on the bus, bus TVMs will sell you tickets you can use on a tram. As I understand it this is exactly what the Competition Commission outlawed; you cannot be allowed to use 'standard' bus tickets on trams, or tram tickets on buses; you have to buy a special extra-cost ticket for multi-mode multi-operator travel. Hence Easyrider bus ticket holders could not be allowed to travel on NET trams without buying an add-on Kangaroo ticket.

For integrated rapid transit ticketing to happen, as I understand it, BRT tickets cannot be interchangeable with stopping bus tickets; as if BRT fares are to be in lock-step with tram fares, they must be decoupled from stopping bus fares (so long as the latter continue to be set in a competitive market) .

One of the advantages of tendering would be that stopping bus fares can also be integrated. The ultimate aim is a *public transport* ticket. Doesn't matter what you have to use to get there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

NOt sure about the idea of having split fares with bus-only and bus-and-tram.

I agree, this is a bad idea. There should be zonal public transport fares, not "bus fares" and "tram fares".

 

[Dentonian]

Well that's what the TfGM growth strategy says. All this is in the context of the £243m extra Treasury funding (to be spent by 2022) for Greater Manchester local transport networks in support of NPR and HS2. It appears that the Altrincham-Airport busway is currently a front runner for this budget (though I am sure TfGM will try to get the Airport and Royal London to stump up a fair proportion of the cost).

Just generalising the thread, but are you saying the £243 million extra (mentioned in the Autumn Statement) is specifically and solely to support HS2 and NPR related schemes?


Of course, there will also be a cycleway alongside; maybe that will endear it more to Altrincham types? In any case, both the LSM busway and the Cambridgeshire busway find that reluctant car users (of whom there are vast numbers) are their biggest source of business, so if Altrincham and Poynton are full of potential travellers who have not been on a bus since school, that could well prove an ideal market. It is the former regular stopping bus users who are most likely to be dissatisfied with busway services - the whole principle of 'walking further to travel faster' only works for those who are arsed to travel faster in the first place.

Maybe I'm overestimating the "snob factor" here, although in the "populist" 20th century its probably more reverse snobbery. I recall an occasion a few years ago when two drunken yobs got on a Hope Valley line instead of an Ashton train by mistake, and when told they needed to get off at Reddish North, they asked how to get to Ashton. They were advised to catch a 7 bus (this was before it was re-routed away from North Reddish), but retorted "We don't do buses, when's the next f**king train back to Manchester?"


Stockport is unlikely to get an all-dancing BRT link - more likely just improved bus priority along Bramhall Lane towards the Airport. But long-term TfGM envisage Audenshaw/Denton to the Airport via Stockport interchange as an orbital tram-train route - coming off the heavy rail line onto the tram tracks at Baguley, and then running via Wythenshawe hospital and the HS2 station into the Airport station from the west.

Again, maybe as a child and young adult of the (regulated) 70s/80s, my economic attitudes and lessons no longer hold sway in the 21st Century, but I can never get my head around this idea of BRT being favoured for higher car owning catchment areas, often with longer distances to cover, and Rail being favoured for lower car ownership areas, often only a short distance from the regional centre (or in this example) another major town. I was trying to visualise (based on probably two trips either way to Leigh and not yet using a V2), how far apart the stops were on LGB. Whilst obviously further than the 250-300 metres average, they seemed to be within reasonable distance of each other for the vast majority of ambulent people to use. I don't think this is the case for Metrolink (maybe a mile apart, once outside the city?) nor obviously heavy rail. Thus most would want/need private transport to reach Rail, which obviously must mean increased car ownership - and with the state of our Transport Economics, that's got to translate as an exponential increase in car use.



I was talking specifically about bus ridership into Manchester city centre; which has indeed been 'flat' since 2011 . Which is surprising, as over the same period more and more former car drivers have been desperate to switch to any sort of reasonable alternative mode of transport for getting to work. Given that jobs in the city centre have been increasing so fast, it takes a special degree of gross incompetence that bus services into Manchester city centre are not achieving rapidly expanding ridership figures in line with those for rail and tram services. Incompetence more on behalf of the policymakers than the operators perhaps.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. Much as I criticise Stagecoach for their decline in performance/VFM in the last 4 years, after 18 pretty good years, it is worth remembering that TIF foresaw cuts in some bus services into the city, and also that capacity is restricted by the City Council with its TROs originating from the 1995 City Centre Bus Strategy. In terms of bus movements, I believe these have indeed been stable over the last 2-3 years, but I know that if TFGM take Shudehill out of the equation, they have seen a decline of over 10% in departures across all their other Bus Stations. Of course, the problem again with giving motorists the choice - and I think its a bit of an exaggeration to say that more than a tiny minority of environmentally concious individuals are "desperate" to switch - is that current policy/strategy is to force non-motorists to acquire private transport to access public transport. Without a major economic change (remember parking is free or cheap* in the vast majority of places in GM). And petrol has only risen in line with inflation over he last 30 years, so the concept of "mixing and matching" modes is economically non-sensical.

*Tameside MBC have a policy of capping parking costs at £2 a day, to make sure that every Council Tax payer in the borough with a (small/medium) car can reach their local town centre or Ashton by car, with the combined cost of fuel and parking kept below the cheapest bus fare. The exception to this is indeed Denton, where all but 38 parking spaces are provided FREE by Crown Point North or one of three Supermarkets - totalling well over a thousand spaces between them.

 

[nerd]

Just generalising the thread, but are you saying the £243 million extra (mentioned in the Autumn Statement) is specifically and solely to support HS2 and NPR related schemes?

No; the money is for transport initiatives to promote local transformation and economic growth , but for devolved city regions can be spent according to local priorities. There must be be some sort of Treasury sign-off that the money is being spent as intended, but quite how this will happen is yet to be determined.

Maybe I'm overestimating the "snob factor" here, although in the "populist" 20th century its probably more reverse snobbery. I recall an occasion a few years ago when two drunken yobs got on a Hope Valley line instead of an Ashton train by mistake, and when told they needed to get off at Reddish North, they asked how to get to Ashton. They were advised to catch a 7 bus (this was before it was re-routed away from North Reddish), but retorted "We don't do buses, when's the next f**king train back to Manchester?"

Times change. Certainly the standard 'stopping bus' is still regarded by many travellers (including many regular bus users) as less eligible than other forms of public transport. But not everywhere; Edinburgh for example shows the opposite pattern; higher status travellers tending to prefer bus travel over train travel. But it is noticeable that the LSM and Cambridgeshire busways have been highly successful establishing an 'asprational' branding image. What is clear is the radical decline in the attractiveness of private car travel for work purposes; no image-consious younger executive would now readily admit to driving themselves to work; in a business world where 'being in control' and 'being connected' are seen as synonymous; to drive yourself (cutting off all connectivity for well over an hour a day) is an effective admission of being past it.

Again, maybe as a child and young adult of the (regulated) 70s/80s, my economic attitudes and lessons no longer hold sway in the 21st Century, but I can never get my head around this idea of BRT being favoured for higher car owning catchment areas, often with longer distances to cover, and Rail being favoured for lower car ownership areas, often only a short distance from the regional centre (or in this example) another major town. I was trying to visualise (based on probably two trips either way to Leigh and not yet using a V2), how far apart the stops were on LGB. Whilst obviously further than the 250-300 metres average, they seemed to be within reasonable distance of each other for the vast majority of ambulent people to use. I don't think this is the case for Metrolink (maybe a mile apart, once outside the city?) nor obviously heavy rail. Thus most would want/need private transport to reach Rail, which obviously must mean increased car ownership - and with the state of our Transport Economics, that's got to translate as an exponential increase in car use.

Cars now are essential for leisure and family purposes; but by the same token have ceased to be the mode of preference for business travel. Not that this is totally new; much the same pattern of usage held sway before WWII; solicitors, country doctors and bank managers then drove themselves; barristers, hospital consultants and bankers always travelled by first class rail, and then by taxi in town (but perhaps being chauffeur-driven from the station home). It follows that only a minority (around 20% currently) of commuters into Manchester centre now drive themselves. Moreover, as leisure car use expands and business car use contracts, so business users are a minority of road users - even at peak periods. Which is a major reason why peak period speeds have dropped; many current users are quite happy to travel slowly; stopping in the roadway to pick friends up for instance.

Stop spacings on the Busway are very varaible; there are none at all from Swinton to Pendleton - but close to standard stopping bus intervals along Oxford Road. Outside the city centre, Busway and Metrolink stops are similarly spaced.

Car use of road space is indeed increasing exponentially; but far the dominant use of public road space (and far the biggest factor increase) is in parking. Most families no longer reckon to keep their cars in their garages - cars have got too big, garages too small, and they have better uses for the space. So well over 90% of urban road use by private cars is as on-street parking. When Liverpool suspended all their bus lanes, they immediately filled up with parked cars, with no consequential increase in traffic space at all. This again is a major factor in increased congestion and reduced road speeds.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. Much as I criticise Stagecoach for their decline in performance/VFM in the last 4 years, after 18 pretty good years, it is worth remembering that TIF foresaw cuts in some bus services into the city, and also that capacity is restricted by the City Council with its TROs originating from the 1995 City Centre Bus Strategy. In terms of bus movements, I believe these have indeed been stable over the last 2-3 years, but I know that if TFGM take Shudehill out of the equation, they have seen a decline of over 10% in departures across all their other Bus Stations. Of course, the problem again with giving motorists the choice - and I think its a bit of an exaggeration to say that more than a tiny minority of environmentally concious individuals are "desperate" to switch - is that current policy/strategy is to force non-motorists to acquire private transport to access public transport. Without a major economic change (remember parking is free or cheap* in the vast majority of places in GM). And petrol has only risen in line with inflation over he last 30 years, so the concept of "mixing and matching" modes is economically non-sensical.

*Tameside MBC have a policy of capping parking costs at £2 a day, to make sure that every Council Tax payer in the borough with a (small/medium) car can reach their local town centre or Ashton by car, with the combined cost of fuel and parking kept below the cheapest bus fare. The exception to this is indeed Denton, where all but 38 parking spaces are provided FREE by Crown Point North or one of three Supermarkets - totalling well over a thousand spaces between them.

There is a generational issue here; just as politicians are now realising that they might have backed the wrong horse in priviledging home owners over renters; so too protecting car drivers against other road users - bus, bike - is looking like serving a declining constituency - at least in urban areas. It is very noticeable in the latest census that the younger and more affluent a household is, the less likely they are to travel to work by car; and that management executives were the second least likely working group to drive themselves to work (the least likely being farmers). This implies a major reallocation of road space away from private car users; and as this becomes increasingly realised, so political voices opposing supposed 'anti-car' politics are becoming more strident.

But essentially private car business use is increasingly peripheral to the local growth agenda, certainly much less important as a use of road space than is door-to-door goods delivery. As private car business use shrinks, so investment in road space related specifically to private car business use will tend to have a lower priority.

 

[nerd]

I agree, this is a bad idea. There should be zonal public transport fares, not "bus fares" and "tram fares".

In general; yes. But I agree with edwin_m that there may be a case for a flat-rate single bus fare as an addition; stopping buses only with no restrictions on distance. Without any entitlement to cross-modal travel, but maybe a 'hopper' functionality limited by time. In effect the current deregulated market serves regular, non-connecting, stopping bus users to the exclusion of anyone else; and there is a likelihood that these users may feel themselves with little benefit in a post-deregulated system (franchised or not). We know that the current operators can run services economically within GM applying a flate-rate £1.50 fare (as they readily do so on those rare routes where they compete). I see a good case for allowing this to continue as a general policy - so a single stopping bus trip into town from Didsbury would continue to cost less than the equivalent (and much faster) tram, train or BRT trip.

 

[HSTEd]

That clogs up local buses though, and gets in the way of people making local journeys.

The marginal cost of a passenger on a tram is much lower than the marginal cost on a bus - so we should encourage people to use our bulk people transport system as it reduces our overall costs

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That clogs up local buses though, and gets in the way of people making local journeys.

The marginal cost of a passenger on a tram is much lower than the marginal cost on a bus - so we should encourage people to use our bulk people transport system as it reduces our overall costs

That's fine as long as it avoids the stupidity of having to enforce change at some ridiculous point or making people have to walk inordinate distances.