Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[nerd]

Looking up London Oyster prices, its £1.50 for a single on bus or tram capping at £4.50 for each mode (essentially 3 singles) or £5 for combined bus/tram, though the average distances of the journeys will be much shorter both by tram(3.9 miles Tramlink, 6.5 miles Metrolink) and bus (3.5 miles London, 5.1 miles short distance (non coach) trips outside London).

I could see a similar if slightly more expensive system in Greater Manchester (Metrolink 4 individual zones capping at all 4 zones for a day ticket) then add a bus single.

There is a big difference between £1.50 for a single; and £2.00 for a single. In effect, a £1.50 single translates into £15.00 per week for a regular weekday traveller - which equates with current weekly single-operator tickets. £20.00 week is a lot. Lothian currently charge £1.70 for a flat rate bus ticket - and I would think that is close to the the market level.

The tricky issue - as I see it - is pricing any Bus Rapid Transit routes. The current Vantage services integrate BRT fares with First's standard fare products; but that is with high-cost single fares for end-to-end travel, which very few buy. But at £1.50 or £1.70 for a single, I cannot see the busway being viable. The alternative - as is normal with Transdev's rapid bus services - is for BRT service fares being at a premium - priced at levels similar to those on the trams for the same distance travelled. But then that might imply that as Vantage ticket single fare would be considerably more expensive than the fare for the equivalent non-busway 34 service between the same stops.

 

[Robertj21a]

There is a mechanism for retaining the uplift in business rates (increased tax revenue from higher property prices over what would normally be expected) that infrastructure investment generates rather than returning it to Westminster for redistribution, but that would be for supporting capital rather than revenue schemes. Metropolitan counties have transport levy's as part of Council tax alongside other services such as police and fire that supports revenue services and a small amount of capital schemes (mostly it just offsets the interest payments on loans taken out for schemes), A combined authority mayor also has the ability to make a Mayoral levy similar to Mayor of London for transport or other capital schemes.

In Burnhams first year all hes done is shuffle the cards a little, moved the responsibility for funding some long term transport studies from TfGM to the Mayors office (about £4m worth) while reducing the normal transport levy by the exact same amount so no net change to Council Tax.

Thanks for that, very helpful.

So, essentially, there is a mechanism whereby the Mayor could introduce a levy to help ensure that fares were kept 'artificially' low, albeit he hasn't yet really used it to any significant effect. To have an appreciable effect on fares I guess he'd have to raise quite a few £m's and try to balance the needs of the users of public transport vs the wider population who would see increased local taxation. It will be interesting to see what he does !

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Thanks for that, very helpful.

So, essentially, there is a mechanism whereby the Mayor could introduce a levy to help ensure that fares were kept 'artificially' low, albeit he hasn't yet really used it to any significant effect. To have an appreciable effect on fares I guess he'd have to raise quite a few £m's and try to balance the needs of the users of public transport vs the wider population who would see increased local taxation. It will be interesting to see what he does !

Elected politician suggests increasing taxation on all for something that only some will use (and yes, I know there’s a sound argument that all will benefit in some manner). Hmmm....

I just don’t think anyone is brave enough (and how I wish I’m wrong).

 

[Robertj21a]

Elected politician suggests increasing taxation on all for something that only some will use (and yes, I know there’s a sound argument that all will benefit in some manner). Hmmm....

I just don’t think anyone is brave enough (and how I wish I’m wrong).

Quite, hence my probing as to what was possible. I doubt that the local tax payers realise that they could get a demand for public transport support. However, without a sizeable injection of additional funds to keep fares at an 'attractive' level I doubt that any proposed scheme will be sufficiently successful.

 

[WatcherZero]

This is what the Mayoral Levy was to raise that £4m, you can do the maths on how much council tax would have to rise to raise tens of millions if not hundreds of millions per year to subsidise lower fares.

Band A: £6
Band B: £7
Band C: £8
Band D: £9
Band E: £11
Band F: £13
Band G: £15

 

[158756]

This is what the Mayoral Levy was to raise that £4m, you can do the maths on how much council tax would have to rise to raise tens of millions if not hundreds of millions per year to subsidise lower fares.

Band A: £6
Band B: £7
Band C: £8
Band D: £9
Band E: £11
Band F: £13
Band G: £15

First and Stagecoach Greater Manchester combined turnover from their most recent accounts on companies house was around £200m. Metrolink probably about £70m. TfGM paid out £65m for ENTCS (though that includes rail) and £27m for supported bus services. So fare income maybe around £200m give or take a bit for Arriva, Rotala etc. So if those figures are correct a 10% fall would only need £45 on a band D council tax bill, or less than 3% in most of Greater Manchester.

 

[Dentonian]

The subject of "raising taxes" is obviously emotive and far reaching, but I note the recognition that the Mayor may overtly suggesting raising taxes to pay for lower (in most cases) bus fares. How many individual items of national or local expenditure, are people asked about now? How many of those items clearly benefit more than a minority of tax-payers? Which tax-payers "benefit" the most from those taxes?

Then there is the question of "artificially low" or "attractive" fares. Maybe there is another way of looking at it; Instead of GMCA fixing "artificially low" fares, they simply take a Stagecoach 38 fare table and apply it across the county...........

 

[Dentonian]

First and Stagecoach Greater Manchester combined turnover from their most recent accounts on companies house was around £200m. Metrolink probably about £70m. TfGM paid out £65m for ENTCS (though that includes rail) and £27m for supported bus services. So fare income maybe around £200m give or take a bit for Arriva, Rotala etc. So if those figures are correct a 10% fall would only need £45 on a band D council tax bill, or less than 3% in most of Greater Manchester.

I'm not sure if it detracts or supports your point, but just to clarify; The £65m for concessionary fares includes Rail & Metrolink and the £27 million subsidy is not only a gross figure (ie. doesn't take account of fares revenue for the Operators or facility charges at Bus Stations), but also includes School services (c. £11 million iirc)

 

[WatcherZero]

There will also already be some non monetary subsidy, such as the bus companies bearing some of the cost of concesionary discounts. I believe the agreement is the TfGM and the bus companies split the cost of the under 18 discount 50/50.

 

[Megafuss]

One of the Stagecoach MDs wrote this in an area where the mayor could use powers with buses.

http://www.cambridgeindependent.co....he-buses-you-need-money-in-the-tank-1-5543557

It does reference Manchester. I know a lot of folk will say "well he would say that" but I think some interesting points are made

 

[158756]

One of the Stagecoach MDs wrote this in an area where the mayor could use powers with buses.

http://www.cambridgeindependent.co....he-buses-you-need-money-in-the-tank-1-5543557

It does reference Manchester. I know a lot of folk will say "well he would say that" but I think some interesting points are made

I don't know how much it costs to administer such a scheme, but he's right that you need money for any improvements. Some say this will be paid for from the operators handsome profits, but they aren't that big really in the context of how much major changes would cost. I do think there is a real risk, as he suggests, that public and political demand for change and the belief there are these huge profits to play with will cause the franchising authority to try to do too much without the money to pay for it, with consequences for the quality of service.

 

[ivanhoe]

Stagecoach make some valid points BUT on profitability, no matter who runs it, you will have to set fares which will provide investment for the future. The% of Central revenue grant to Council tax collected has changed dramatically since austerity policies. You cannot however deny the rights of our metropolitan regions to coordinate bus transport in their regions, whilst London is in effect left to its own devices.
I don’t advocate recreation of Merseybus,GMPTE Buses etc, because we are where we are,30 years later. Expertise currently resides with First,Arriva,Stagecoach et al and the way forward would be to work with them.
I actually believe Times are changinging re increases in taxes for specific purposes. A mayoral levy of amounts mentioned above, could be sold to the locals on the basis of theoretically, it benefits everybody, should you choose to use that mode.
It’s areas like Leicestershire that will suffer however, without further changes in government policies. As I write, LCC have brought out a strategy document to look at Demand Response Service(Dial a Ride) to replace County Funded Bus Services. This is out of economic necessity rather than a better way to do things.
We all have to bite the bullet in that things can’t carry on as they are. Personally speaking, I’d put everything in the pot to discuss including ENCTS,of which I benefit personally. I can’t justify my continued benefit when my pensions are greater than most younger people’s salarys and I’ve paid off my mortgage.

 

[Dentonian]

One of the Stagecoach MDs wrote this in an area where the mayor could use powers with buses.

http://www.cambridgeindependent.co....he-buses-you-need-money-in-the-tank-1-5543557

It does reference Manchester. I know a lot of folk will say "well he would say that" but I think some interesting points are made

Its very telling that everyone who cautions against Franchising in GREATER Manchester;

a. Just say Manchester, not Greater Manchester.

b. Probably don't know the first thing about buses in Greater Manchester other than South Manchester.

The points about smaller, infrastructure "quick fixes" is entirely valid, but for all the movement to the "right" in British domestic politics over the last 40 years, most people who have to live with it, still regard Buses as an essential public service and not a postcode lottery.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Its very telling that everyone who cautions against Franchising in GREATER Manchester;

a. Just say Manchester, not Greater Manchester.

b. Probably don't know the first thing about buses in Greater Manchester other than South Manchester.

The points about smaller, infrastructure "quick fixes" is entirely valid, but for all the movement to the "right" in British domestic politics over the last 40 years, most people who have to live with it, still regard Buses as an essential public service and not a postcode lottery.

Saying Manchester rather than Greater Manchester is probably as much as saying London rather Greater London rather than any form of ignorance of the issues.

Unfortunately, whilst I understand that there is some appetite for increased taxation, I think that surrounds ringfenced monies for the NHS or Social Care. I'd be very surprised if the populace of Greater Manchester, having voted 79% against a congestion charge, are suddenly up for taxation to fund public transport improvements, and I doubt there'd be any form of consensus within the political parties.

However, the point is that the argument of stopping the fat cat bosses and their huge margins, redistribution of the monies and enabling a centrally controlled and managed franchise based structure sounds seductive. The farce of Nexus' poorly constructed bid for QBP illustrates that without actual new funds, any benefits from lower margins are likely to be swallowed up by the cost of the management apparatus.

 

[Dentonian]

Saying Manchester rather than Greater Manchester is probably as much as saying London rather Greater London rather than any form of ignorance of the issues.

Unfortunately, whilst I understand that there is some appetite for increased taxation, I think that surrounds ringfenced monies for the NHS or Social Care. I'd be very surprised if the populace of Greater Manchester, having voted 79% against a congestion charge, are suddenly up for taxation to fund public transport improvements, and I doubt there'd be any form of consensus within the political parties.

However, the point is that the argument of stopping the fat cat bosses and their huge margins, redistribution of the monies and enabling a centrally controlled and managed franchise based structure sounds seductive. The farce of Nexus' poorly constructed bid for QBP illustrates that without actual new funds, any benefits from lower margins are likely to be swallowed up by the cost of the management apparatus.

Saying "Manchester" is not so much ignorance, it belies an attitude that "suburbanites" don't need affordable, frequent buses because we all drive. The "suburbs" of Greater Manchester and other conurbations are not the same as those of a small, self contained city. Suburbs have large numbers of low-paid, car less people "displaced" on to overspill estates in the 1960s. It is these "Captive Market" areas where Adults are paying high fares to stand on overcrowded buses, whilst others are paying cheap fares with double seats to themselves because they are in trendy areas with competing services.

"Congestion charge" is also a deliberate play on words. It was a Transport Innovation Fund. That said, if the (local) motoring lobby propoganda was to be believed, the vote went heavily against TIF in the poorer suburbs, because they specifically didn't want the road tolls to go to Stagecoach and First shareholders and "robber barons". The fact that that wasn't going to happen was irrelavent. Never let the facts get in the way of a good propoganda rant. There would be two distinct differences with Franchising:

1. ALL Council tax-payers would contribute, not just Motorists.
2. The money would stay in GM.

As regards political concensus. That would be interesting, given that every Mayoral candidate bar one (the Greens I think) overtly stated that Deregulation had failed, and that some form of Bus Reform was vital.

 

[nerd]

Unfortunately, whilst I understand that there is some appetite for increased taxation, I think that surrounds ringfenced monies for the NHS or Social Care. I'd be very surprised if the populace of Greater Manchester, having voted 79% against a congestion charge, are suddenly up for taxation to fund public transport improvements, and I doubt there'd be any form of consensus within the political parties.

Then prepare to be surprised, TGW, because that is what happened.

After the failure of the congestion charge, AGMA (as it then was) set up the Greater Manchester Transport Fund of £1.5 bn, which provided the money for the Phase 3 expansion of the tram system, for the Leigh-Salford-Manchester busway, and for a series of town-centre transport interchanges.

http://archive.tfgm.com/Corporate/connections/Documents/momentum_issue1.pdf

The fund consolidated a range of specific central grants and monies from central capital allocations; but also from the start has included a levy on council tax bills across Greater Manchester. If the franchise requires funding up-front, then the political will is certainly there; as is the financial mechanism to achieve it.

But I am sure that the chief source of funding for operation of the franchise will be programmed as coming from farebox revenue. Remember that with Metrolink, TfGM has doubled doubled fare revenue in five years. It was a matter of directing investment so as to achieve a rapid expansion of patronage. What works for the trams could well work for the buses too. At any rate, you would be unwise to bet against it.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Then prepare to be surprised, TGW, because that is what happened.

After the failure of the congestion charge, AGMA (as it then was) set up the Greater Manchester Transport Fund of £1.5 bn, which provided the money for the Phase 3 expansion of the tram system, for the Leigh-Salford-Manchester busway, and for a series of town-centre transport interchanges.

http://archive.tfgm.com/Corporate/connections/Documents/momentum_issue1.pdf

The fund consolidated a range of specific central grants and monies from central capital allocations; but also from the start has included a levy on council tax bills across Greater Manchester. If the franchise requires funding up-front, then the political will is certainly there; as is the financial mechanism to achieve it.

But I am sure that the chief source of funding for operation of the franchise will be programmed as coming from farebox revenue. Remember that with Metrolink, TfGM has doubled doubled fare revenue in five years. It was a matter of directing investment so as to achieve a rapid expansion of patronage. What works for the trams could well work for the buses too. At any rate, you would be unwise to bet against it.

Not quite the consensus as two LAs didn't support the congestion charge.

That the levy provides £100m a year towards the financing costs (to oversimplify things) is good but to say that it can be expanded or extended with the same political will or that the same trick will work with buses as with trams is perhaps rather hopeful. I'll not bother with the bet, thanks having never seen a bookie on a bike and I do hope I am wrong too.

 

[nerd]

That the levy provides £100m a year towards the financing costs (to oversimplify things) is good but to say that it can be expanded or extended with the same political will or that the same trick will work with buses as with trams is perhaps rather hopeful. I'll not bother with the bet, thanks having never seen a bookie on a bike and I do hope I am wrong too.

Certainly hopeful; but not, I think unrealistic. When First in Bristol (who have the advantage of being substantially sole operator) introduced their simpilified bus fare structure, average trips per person across the conurbation increased by 20 per year. An equivalent increase in Greater Manchester would likely see a franchised network home and dry.

It is not that long since the National Audit Office proposed that potential growth in tram ridership in the UK was being vastly overhyped; where it is now accepted that latent demand for trams from reluctant car users always remained very strong. It just needed the right package of accessible services and fares. In my view the same will turn out to be true for buses; find a model of service that reluctant car users find attractive, and passsenger growth will follow.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/0304518.pdf

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Certainly hopefult; but not, I think unrealistic. When First in Bristol (who have the advantage of being substantially sole operator) introduced their simpilified bus fare structure, average trips per person across the conurbation increased by 20 per year. An equivalent increase in Greater Manchester would likely see a franchised network home and dry.

It is not that long since the National Audit Office proposed that potential growth in tram use was being vastly overhyped; where it is now accepted that latent demand for trams from reluctant car users remained very strong. It just needed the right package of accessible services and fares. In my view the same will turn out to be true for buses; find a model of service that reluctant car users find attractive, and passsenger growth will follow.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/0304518.pdf

I don't think it's quite as simple a correlation as that.

In Bristol, First have managed to increase passenger figures but there are some important caveats. The figure quoted by James Freeman was 17.6% - only 9% was as a consequence of the Fairer Fares restructure. Also, whilst that may be applied on a like for like basis, some of those routes will have abstracted patronage from competing or parallel Wessex services.

Manchester is indeed booming and on a like for like with Bristol, the comparison is valid. However, looking at Greater Manchester as a whole, I doubt that the level of economic activity is anywhere near Bristol (or the wider "Avon" area). In truth, Bristol and Manchester are vibrant and growing centres of industry in finance and professional services and are pretty comparable, but places like Yate, Bath, Portishead or Weston have a much higher level of economic activity than places like Bolton, Oldham or Ashton.

For instance, using the ONS's figures for JSA claimants, the comparisons are pretty stark:

Altrincham 2.3%
Ashton 5.2%
Bury 4%
Bolton 6%
Bolton West 3.4%
Cheadle 1.9%
Denton 4.6%
Leigh 4.6%
Manchester 5.6%
Manchester North 3.5%
Oldham 5.9%
Rochdale 6.1%

Compare that with CUBA areas:

Bath 2.0%
Bristol South 4.1%
Bristol 3.8%
Bristol North 3.3%
North Somerset 1.7%
NE Somerset 1.4%
South Glos 1.7%

The truth is that the JSA claimant rates are a pretty good indicator of the relative health of an area and the greater Bristol area is a lot more buoyant economically than GM. Note: have aggregated some areas for clarity but not so that they are statistically skewed! That economic activity is crucial in delivering increased revenues and is clearly more restricted in GM. And lest we not forget, First GM did reduce their fares in 2013 - the result was increased ridership as in Bristol but the increased revenue and profitability hasn't come and that is down to wider issues than just price elasticity.

Also, the fact is that the bus is the default public transport option in Bristol. Suburban rail is a relatively minor player. Not the case in Greater Manchester and indeed, the success of the tram is attributable not only in attracting previously car using individuals but also abstracting trade from the parallel bus services. Therefore, any uplift in bus patronage can't be through the cannibalisation of those other modes and I'd be surprised if that were achievable anyway given the time benefits and better image of those modes.

Moreover, the idea that you can repeat the trick with buses as with trams is not as simple as that. Now, I know that we on this board are atypical - we are all generally advocates of public transport in all its forms generally. The general public are less so and, sad to say, I know of plenty of people who will consider using the train or tram who would not countenance using a bus. It has an image problem though one that I think is unjust. Having travelled on the latest Stagecoach Gold vehicles in South Wales, I'd say that bus travel can be a positive and even luxurious experience. However, Phil Tonks excellent blog illustrates many of the existential issues that the bus industry has - some are self inflicted, some through poor management and dubious decisions, but some clearly impacted as the retail landscape changes and travelling patterns change.

However, I'll park the cynical, eeyoreness to one side. There are definitely areas in which bus travel can be improved and made a success - whilst I've not experienced Vantage (it's on my to do list), it does show the art of the possible. There are many opportunities in which to redress the balance and help the bus and I do hope that they focus on delivering those infrastructure improvements to enable the bus to work efficiently and perhaps adequately enforced traffic regulations might also help.

 

[Dentonian]

Are you sure those figures are correct? Bolton and "Manchester" seem high whilst Manchester North seems low. I suspect the 5.6pc should be for Manchester *East*.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Are you sure those figures are correct? Bolton and "Manchester" seem high whilst Manchester North seems low. I suspect the 5.6pc should be for Manchester *East*.

Apologies - don't know why I put in North - it should be South in the leafy burbs! Probably got distracted by a call

"Manchester" covers the Central and Gorton constituencies. Bolton covers the two main constituencies whilst the West covers that constituency and so covers places like Westhoughton.

However, if you want something really comprehensive (and this is slightly different and not the source I initially used and now can't find!!!), this is quite useful and is pretty consistent in terms of the figures quoted above - http://researchbriefings.files.parl...20/Data-for-all-constituencies---May-2016.pdf In short, the three Bristol constituencies have claimant levels just over 2% whereas the Bolton ones (excl. West) are over 5% and even the Manchester ones (excl. South) are not far off. It's interesting reading.

Therefore, whilst there is scope to improve GM's buses, the reduced economic activity etc means it may struggle to "do a Bristol" and that's not factoring in issues like Metrolink and local rail that GM has more of.

 

[nerd]

I don't think it's quite as simple a correlation as that.

In Bristol, First have managed to increase passenger figures but there are some important caveats. The figure quoted by James Freeman was 17.6% - only 9% was as a consequence of the Fairer Fares restructure. Also, whilst that may be applied on a like for like basis, some of those routes will have abstracted patronage from competing or parallel Wessex services.

Manchester is indeed booming and on a like for like with Bristol, the comparison is valid. However, looking at Greater Manchester as a whole, I doubt that the level of economic activity is anywhere near Bristol (or the wider "Avon" area). In truth, Bristol and Manchester are vibrant and growing centres of industry in finance and professional services and are pretty comparable, but places like Yate, Bath, Portishead or Weston have a much higher level of economic activity than places like Bolton, Oldham or Ashton.

For instance, using the ONS's figures for JSA claimants, the comparisons are pretty stark:

Altrincham 2.3%
Ashton 5.2%
Bury 4%
Bolton 6%
Bolton West 3.4%
Cheadle 1.9%
Denton 4.6%
Leigh 4.6%
Manchester 5.6%
Manchester North 3.5%
Oldham 5.9%
Rochdale 6.1%

Compare that with CUBA areas:

Bath 2.0%
Bristol South 4.1%
Bristol 3.8%
Bristol North 3.3%
North Somerset 1.7%
NE Somerset 1.4%
South Glos 1.7%

The truth is that the JSA claimant rates are a pretty good indicator of the relative health of an area and the greater Bristol area is a lot more buoyant economically than GM. Note: have aggregated some areas for clarity but not so that they are statistically skewed! That economic activity is crucial in delivering increased revenues and is clearly more restricted in GM. And lest we not forget, First GM did reduce their fares in 2013 - the result was increased ridership as in Bristol but the increased revenue and profitability hasn't come and that is down to wider issues than just price elasticity.

Also, the fact is that the bus is the default public transport option in Bristol. Suburban rail is a relatively minor player. Not the case in Greater Manchester and indeed, the success of the tram is attributable not only in attracting previously car using individuals but also abstracting trade from the parallel bus services. Therefore, any uplift in bus patronage can't be through the cannibalisation of those other modes and I'd be surprised if that were achievable anyway given the time benefits and better image of those modes.

Moreover, the idea that you can repeat the trick with buses as with trams is not as simple as that. Now, I know that we on this board are atypical - we are all generally advocates of public transport in all its forms generally. The general public are less so and, sad to say, I know of plenty of people who will consider using the train or tram who would not countenance using a bus. It has an image problem though one that I think is unjust. Having travelled on the latest Stagecoach Gold vehicles in South Wales, I'd say that bus travel can be a positive and even luxurious experience. However, Phil Tonks excellent blog illustrates many of the existential issues that the bus industry has - some are self inflicted, some through poor management and dubious decisions, but some clearly impacted as the retail landscape changes and travelling patterns change.

However, I'll park the cynical, eeyoreness to one side. There are definitely areas in which bus travel can be improved and made a success - whilst I've not experienced Vantage (it's on my to do list), it does show the art of the possible. There are many opportunities in which to redress the balance and help the bus and I do hope that they focus on delivering those infrastructure improvements to enable the bus to work efficiently and perhaps adequately enforced traffic regulations might also help.

First's fares changed in November 2013; when annual passenger boardings in Bristol were 68 per head; and annual boardings in GM were 75 per head. In the most recent reported year (2016/17) Bristol boardings ere 88 per head, and GM boardings still at 75 per head.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus01-local-bus-passenger-journeys

These figures are for all operators; so abstractions from Wessex are cancelled out.

One interesting feature (for me) is that the full growth was only apparent for Bristol residents; Bath/NE Somerset (up 12) and South Glos (up 10) saw lower growth. Yate and Portishead saw no increase at all. The Fairer Fares simplification seems mainly to have increased ridership from existing 'bus user' populations; much less from attracting new user populations - that would seem to require a wholly repackaged form of service. But the main effect of Fairer Fares was to remove the fare structures that inhibited additional casual bus travel amongst those who were already bus users - high single fares and high fares for travelling any distance, so as to push users into buying discounted weekly tickets.

So considerations of local economic health are not really relevant here (not that the difference between JSA at 3.8% and 5.6% can be described as 'stark'). Overall Manchester and Bristol are not that dissimilar (Bristol close neighbour of Manchester on the CIPFA classification). And their current bus use level is pretty close; no one is suggesting that Manchester usage will soon equate to that of Reading (131 per year) or Nottingham (149 per year) let alone Brighton (172 per year).

The suggestion that expanded commuter rail usage in Manchester has been at the expense of bus services is a strange one; I know of no corridor where the two modes are in serious competition. The population that travels by rail in Manchester is travelling much longer distances. There may be more case for tram and bus being competitors - on the Ashton and Eccles corridors perhaps; but almost all the recent growth in tram user numbers has predominantly been abstracted from former drivers and car passengers.

 

[HSTEd]

Out of interest, why would a busway service need to charge more than a normal service to be "viable"?

I can't see any significant increase in operational costs associated with busway operation, and indeed the higher average speeds will reduce PVR and staffing costs.

 

[Dentonian]

First's fares changed in November 2013; when annual passenger boardings in Bristol were 68 per head; and annual boardings in GM were 75 per head. In the most recent reported year (2016/17) Bristol boardings ere 88 per head, and GM boardings still at 75 per head.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus01-local-bus-passenger-journeys

These figures are for all operators; so abstractions from Wessex are cancelled out.

One interesting feature (for me) is that the full growth was only apparent for Bristol residents; Bath/NE Somerset (up 12) and South Glos (up 10) saw lower growth. Yate and Portishead saw no increase at all. The Fairer Fares simplification seems mainly to have increased ridership from existing 'bus user' populations; much less from attracting new user populations - that would seem to require a wholly repackaged form of service. But the main effect of Fairer Fares was to remove the fare structures that inhibited additional casual bus travel amongst those who were already bus users - high single fares and high fares for travelling any distance, so as to push users into buying discounted weekly tickets.

So considerations of local economic health are not really relevant here (not that the difference between JSA at 3.8% and 5.6% can be described as 'stark'). Overall Manchester and Bristol are not that dissimilar (Bristol close neighbour of Manchester on the CIPFA classification). And their current bus use level is pretty close; no one is suggesting that Manchester usage will soon equate to that of Reading (131 per year) or Nottingham (149 per year) let alone Brighton (172 per year).

The suggestion that expanded commuter rail usage in Manchester has been at the expense of bus services is a strange one; I know of no corridor where the two modes are in serious competition. The population that travels by rail in Manchester is travelling much longer distances. There may be more case for tram and bus being competitors - on the Ashton and Eccles corridors perhaps; but almost all the recent growth in tram user numbers has predominantly been abstracted from former drivers and car passengers.

I m not sure an unchanged ridership of 75 pH in GM is right. The population is increasing slowly but bus use is dropping rapidly. As regards modal competition; with heavy rail it's largely just from Moston & Reddish North but Metrolimk is abstracting across the county

 

[nerd]

Out of interest, why would a busway service need to charge more than a normal service to be "viable"?

I can't see any significant increase in operational costs associated with busway operation, and indeed the higher average speeds will reduce PVR and staffing costs.

The problem is that busway users typically travel end-to-end - so are much longer on the bus. A flat rate fare inherently subsidises longer distance travellers at the expense of those only going a stop or two. But current stopping bus demand is commonly for relative short distances anyway; so there is little actual subsidy going on. But on a busway where most are travelling longer distances, a universal flat rate fare that would be viable for (say) Fallowfield into the MRI, might not be viable for the trip Leigh to MRI. Bristol Metrobus has two fare levels; £1.50 for the central zone only; and £2.50 for full network access. I supect that the £2.50 single could well be close to the economic fare for the busway.

But crudely, operators costs are proportional to time on the road. So a rider who is on the bus for 50 minutes is consuming twice the resource of one who is on the bus for 25 minutes.

 

[radamfi]

If flat-fare is seen as unaffordable then there are off-the-shelf fare systems widely used in other countries that could easily be implemented and adjusted according to what ever subsidy is or isn't available.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is that busway users typically travel end-to-end - so are much longer on the bus. A flat rate fare inherently subsidises longer distance travellers at the expense of those only going a stop or two. But current stopping bus demand is commonly for relative short distances anyway; so there is little actual subsidy going on.

Is that true of GM? The poorly developed rail network means people *do* get the bus from say Oldham to Manchester which is quite a distance (though probably fewer now it's Metrolinked).

 

[nerd]

I m not sure an unchanged ridership of 75 pH in GM is right. The population is increasing slowly but bus use is dropping rapidly. As regards modal competition; with heavy rail it's largely just from Moston & Reddish North but Metrolimk is abstracting across the county

Apologies; checking back I see I misread the numbers for Merseyside. GM bus use declined by 8 per head from 80 to 72.

In general though; the strongest modal competition for stopping bus within Manchester is private car use, especially the large number of very short distance car trips at peak periods. This is the other side of the coin; the dominant dynamic factor in overall transport demand is the rapidly reducing attraction of car use for more affluent and better educated populations. But amongst lower income households (the classic bus user market) the countervailing attraction of car use remains much stronger. Less affluent households who acquire access to a car or van tend then to use it for most of their travel trips.

So Metrolink has been very successful in abstracting from car use in more affluent areas of Greater Manchester ; but car use remains resistant to bus competition in less affluent areas. The question is whether a franchised network (or otherwise re-regulated system) could boost bus use. I take the recent numbers fro Bristol as indicating that this is at least a possibility.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Apologies; checking back I see I misread the numbers for Merseyside. GM bus use declined by 8 per head from 80 to 72.

In general though; the strongest modal competition for stopping bus within Manchester is private car use, especially the large number of very short distance car trips at peak periods. This is the other side of the coin; the dominant dynamic factor in overall transport demand is the rapidly reducing attraction of car use for more affluent and better educated populations. But amongst lower income households (the classic bus user market) the countervailing attraction of car use remains much stronger. Less affluent households who acquire access to a car or van tend then to use it for most of their travel trips.

So Metrolink has been very successful in abstracting from car use in more affluent areas of Greater Manchester ; but car use remains resistant to bus competition in less affluent areas. The question is whether a franchised network (or otherwise re-regulated system) could boost bus use. I take the recent numbers fro Bristol as indicating that this is at least a possibility.

Having lived in Greater Manchester (twice) and in Bristol, I can assure you that the two cities are quite different in their make up and overall prosperity. The central core of Manchester itself is, of course, buoyant but that isn't reflected in the wider geographic area and nowhere near the prosperity of Bristol. First lowered fares in 2013 in an area where you may think that price elasticity of demand would grow ridership and indeed, there was some growth as First trumpeted of 8%. However, that is nowhere near the figures recorded in Bristol by First (I was going from their figures and it is interesting that they record a lower figure than the ONS's aggregated figures) and so the scope of passenger and revenue growth is restricted. That is partly through wider macro-economic issues (e.g. reduced high street footfall and the cuts to welfare spending).

However, whilst Metrolink has attracted significant car users to move modes, it is a major contributor to abstracting trade from bus services. Using the figures from table 109, bus use grew from 2004/5 to 2008/9 then slumped (height of recession?) but having stabilised during in 2010/1, there was a shock in after 2010/1 (opening into Salford Quays) and after a modest increase into 2012/3, two more years of substantial drops throughout 2013 to 2015 as the various Metrolink extensions into Oldham, Rochdale and Ashton went live.

The private car is the prime competitor (show me a country let alone a city where it isn't) but Bristol doesn't lose bus passengers to other forms of public transport. Therefore, if it's car or public transport, Bristol's buses are often the only show in town.

As regards heavy rail, I don't know how much you'd say it is a competitor in Manchester but certainly, from when I lived in Flixton and Urmston, there were significant numbers of suburban travellers using the rail service and not just in peak. This is helped by the various stations (Oxford Road as well as Picc and Vic) enjoying relatively central locations whereas in Bristol, Temple Meads is peripheral (at best). This is one of the reasons why the bus service between Bristol and Bath runs every 12 mins - yes, you can get the train but do you fancy the 20 min walk into the centre? This is a service that has gone from a 15 min single deck service to a 12 min double deck service in 6 years because it has that USP - one that would be less likely in bus services accessing Manchester city centre.

Could things be done better in Greater Manchester? Undoubtedly yes, and in the case of First, there has been a long history of feast and famine in terms of investment. However, that such increases have been experienced in Bristol (in a non franchised environment) is no guarantee that they can be repeated in a franchised environment in GM, or indeed in Tyne and Wear where the Nexus sums were rather cruelly exposed and that was after they'd had a second chance to get them right!

 

[HSTEd]

The problem is that busway users typically travel end-to-end - so are much longer on the bus. A flat rate fare inherently subsidises longer distance travellers at the expense of those only going a stop or two. But current stopping bus demand is commonly for relative short distances anyway; so there is little actual subsidy going on. But on a busway where most are travelling longer distances, a universal flat rate fare that would be viable for (say) Fallowfield into the MRI, might not be viable for the trip Leigh to MRI. Bristol Metrobus has two fare levels; £1.50 for the central zone only; and £2.50 for full network access. I supect that the £2.50 single could well be close to the economic fare for the busway.

But crudely, operators costs are proportional to time on the road. So a rider who is on the bus for 50 minutes is consuming twice the resource of one who is on the bus for 25 minutes.

Do the longer journey distances on the busway really overwhelm the drastically higher operating speed though?
I would have thought average journey lengths (in time terms) would have actually fallen