TfGM Bus franchising

[Bletchleyite]

We can discuss integration ad nauseum but nothing will be integrated unless a sensible level of private car use is factored in

Why? Private car usage does not predicate whether integration will work or not. It just affects the level of custom for the system overall, and impacts on the fares and on the capacity required, both in an integrated and a non-integrated system.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2020 ==

To me public transport subsidy is an entirely reasonable use of taxes on car use, as providing a good alternative reduces the environmental impacts of the car and the need to build more roads. However this would require a major shift in national policy so isn't within the control of GM.

One of the dangers of it, though, is that it leaves you in a position that you can't be too hard on the car (or your public transport can't be too good) because otherwise you lose your income. So I don't favour that as a long-term plan; better for it to be from general taxation.

The approach is very common in the UK, though - certainly MK Council relied on its parking income to pay for bus subsidies, which has left it somewhat in a mess now the parking in CMK is nearly empty most of the time as people are working from home as requested.

 

[edwin_m]

I do wonder how many people there are who use their cars to travel to places of work that are on out-of-town sites far removed from an option of using public transport as a viable employment travel alternative.

There are many of those, although an integrated transport network may create enough demand to run a feeder bus to some of them that don't have one now. It illustrates how transport is (or should be) linked to land use planning.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are many of those, although an integrated transport network may create enough demand to run a feeder bus to some of them that don't have one now. It illustrates how transport is (or should be) linked to land use planning.

Yes, true. You may be unsurprised to know, of course, that Germany operates what are usually called "Eilbus" (literally "rushing bus") services, which are typically timed around shift changes at factories and the likes and provide a fast, non-stop connection to the nearest rapid transit rail station for onward travel, which is included in the cost of a standard single fare in the relevant zones.

Unsurprisingly, it works. But it's Not Invented Here (tm) so we don't do it as much (though MK does actually have a sort-of-example of the tendered 30x routes being extended to an out of town warehouse complex around shift change times).

It's exactly the sort of thing Manchester's new system can and should be doing.

 

[RT4038]

Precisely this. A fully integrated large-city transport model is highly successful in basically all countries where one is operated. Why would the UK be any different? Is it that English exceptionalism kicking in again?

If the measure of 'success' is the low subsidy levels as would be expected in the UK then I doubt that any of the fully integrated large-city transport models would be considered successful. Only a relatively small number of countries in the world have such systems anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the measure of 'success' is the low subsidy levels as would be expected in the UK then I doubt that any of the fully integrated large-city transport models would be considered successful. Only a relatively small number of countries in the world have such systems anyway.

A reasonable marker of success would be something like reduced car use per unit subsidy - i.e. "what are we getting for our money". I am strongly of the view that it would win in that regard. Though of course subsidy can also be adjusted by changing fare levels even within an identical system (though that will of course affect ridership).

I wonder do the German figures for subsidy include an equivalent sum for BSOG? That is more a tax relief than a subsidy, but if German figures are based on it being classed as one (i.e. they pay full price for diesel) then you need to compare on the same basis, and suddenly our commercial operations wouldn't look anywhere near as commercial. Anyone know?

 

[RT4038]

It's really not. You can achieve the same thing with less subsidy by charging higher fares (and by savings by not overbussing the likes of Oxford Road but still taking the same fares income or a little more due to the removal of the "race to the bottom" competition there). Other than the nonsensical lack of fares integration between bus and rail, London's higher rail fares are an example.

In theory possibly, but the practice in this country has never been able to achieve such. Control has virtually always resulted in higher administrative and operational costs, with political pressure on fare levels and to operate secondary services to the detriment of mainstream.

A reasonable marker of success would be something like reduced car use per unit subsidy - i.e. "what are we getting for our money". I am strongly of the view that it would win in that regard. Though of course subsidy can also be adjusted by changing fare levels even within an identical system (though that will of course affect ridership).

I wonder do the German figures for subsidy include an equivalent sum for BSOG? That is more a tax relief than a subsidy, but if German figures are based on it being classed as one (i.e. they pay full price for diesel) then you need to compare on the same basis, and suddenly our commercial operations wouldn't look anywhere near as commercial. Anyone know?

BSOG is not a large sum of money. Of course it is possible to claim success (or otherwise!) using a favoured criteria. However, lowest subsidy for the minimum provision is going to up there as a favoured criteria in the UK !

As an aside, I'm not sure that reduced car use per unit of subsidy would actually be that good a measurement - I suspect that improved public transport would initially be strongest at encouraging existing users to travel more often; enticing people from cars would be a much slower process. The cynic in me says that this would take so long in fact that the improved system would be abandoned long before success could be claimed.

 

[David Verity]

In theory possibly, but the practice in this country has never been able to achieve such. Control has virtually always resulted in higher administrative and operational costs, with political pressure on fare levels and to operate secondary services to the detriment of mainstream.


BSOG is not a large sum of money. Of course it is possible to claim success (or otherwise!) using a favoured criteria. However, lowest subsidy for the minimum provision is going to up there as a favoured criteria in the UK !

As an aside, I'm not sure that reduced car use per unit of subsidy would actually be that good a measurement - I suspect that improved public transport would initially be strongest at encouraging existing users to travel more often; enticing people from cars would be a much slower process. The cynic in me says that this would take so long in fact that the improved system would be abandoned long before success could be claimed.

Going back a long way now but after South Yorkshire were forced to abandon their cheap fares policy a study revealed that it had done little to convert car users to bus users but had demonstrated that people who used the buses anyway had been encouraged to make more use of them.

 

[Llandudno]

Going back a long way now but after South Yorkshire were forced to abandon their cheap fares policy a study revealed that it had done little to convert car users to bus users but had demonstrated that people who used the buses anyway had been encouraged to make more use of them.

The buses in South Yorkshire were virtually free in the early 1980s, but would you leave your car on the drive to catch a dirty, cigarette smoke filled (as they were in 1980s) bus?

Huge amounts of rate payers money was spent on these cheap fares but virtually nothing spent on long term public transport infrastructure schemes, like Merseyrail or Tyne & Wear Metro whose legacy can still be used today.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I see the old chestnut of "car use and its demise" can always be counted to appear upon such threads as this. Many postings over the years upon which such threads have appeared stressing vehicle emission reduction, but those said emission criticisms only ever made mention of petrol and diesel engines which were all that could be had in those days.

The global car producers, faced with the eventual demise of such fuel usage, have moved onwards to more and better modes of car propulsion and these are heavily featured in their media advertising. Do such moves forward still attract disparaging comments from those members who were critical of the former fuel based traction?

 

[telstarbox]

Well yes in that an electric car still takes up road space and contributes to congestion, even if it has no emissions. This illustration has been doing the rounds for a while:


[Photo shows relative road space occupied by the same number of people using a single bus, individual bicycles and individual cars. Source - https://9gag.com/gag/aE16W0e]

 

[edwin_m]

I see the old chestnut of "car use and its demise" can always be counted to appear upon such threads as this. Many postings over the years upon which such threads have appeared stressing vehicle emission reduction, but those said emission criticisms only ever made mention of petrol and diesel engines which were all that could be had in those days.

The global car producers, faced with the eventual demise of such fuel usage, have moved onwards to more and better modes of car propulsion and these are heavily featured in their media advertising. Do such moves forward still attract disparaging comments from those members who were critical of the former fuel based traction?

Congestion. Continued pollution from tyre particulates. Noise. Accidents.

If everyone travelled into somewhere like Manchester by car, it would look more like most American cities, with much of the space being given over to urban freeways and parking. This in turn makes everything else too far apart to be well served by bus, and the buses stop running because most of their passengers are driving instead. So those who would prefer not to drive probably have to do so so. Those who can't drive or don't have access to a car basically can't visit Manchester.

EVs solve part of the problems caused by road traffic but by no means all of it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Congestion. Continued pollution from tyre particulates. Noise. Accidents.

Does the part of the posting extract that I have emboldened above not appear to also be caused by buses or are their tyres of a type that precludes such pollution?

 

[Cesarcollie]

Does the part of the posting extract that I have emboldened above not appear to also be caused by buses or are their tyres of a type that precludes such pollution?

Of course buses use tyres. And fuel (whether diesel, hydrogen or electricity). But the level of unpleasantness emitted, and road space occupied, is way less per occupant than a private car - even if the bus isn’t full for much of the times. That is why the problem with private motoring particularly in urban areas is not just about emissions but roadspace (and indeed parking space).

 

[edwin_m]

Of course buses use tyres. And fuel (whether diesel, hydrogen or electricity). But the level of unpleasantness emitted, and road space occupied, is way less per occupant than a private car - even if the bus isn’t full for much of the times. That is why the problem with private motoring particularly in urban areas is not just about emissions but roadspace (and indeed parking space).

Indeed. A bus carries about 80 people in about 15 tonnes on four wheels. The same number of people in cars would weight about 80 tonnes (probably more if electric) on about 240 wheels, so likely to create much less tyre particulate matter. And the bus is probably being driven more sedately than the average car.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Thanks to those who responded to my query about tyre particulates, which had been mentioned in a previous posting.

That same previous posting also made mention of accidents, which in particular brought to mind the instances of double deck buses taking a wrong route and attempting to pass under a bridge that was far too low for the bus to pass under with the resultant chaos that then followed. As it is driver error that causes such incidents, the mode of traction is somewhat irrevelent.

 

[edwin_m]

Thanks to those who responded to my query about tyre particulates, which had been mentioned in a previous posting.

That same previous posting also made mention of accidents, which in particular brought to mind the instances of double deck buses taking a wrong route and attempting to pass under a bridge that was far too low for the bus to pass under with the resultant chaos that then followed. As it is driver error that causes such incidents, the mode of traction is somewhat irrevelent.

Every bus hitting a bridge probably makes the national news because it's unusual and they can show some scary pictures. For each one there will be several hundred accidents involving cars and HGVs, which rarely attract anything more than a short story in a local publication. Statistics show that travelling the same distance by bus is much safer than by car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Every bus hitting a bridge probably makes the national news because it's unusual and they can show some scary pictures. For each one there will be several hundred accidents involving cars and HGVs, which rarely attract anything more than a short story in a local publication. Statistics show that travelling the same distance by bus is much safer than by car.

With regard to buses there's a natural protection - buses run on fixed routes, so you diagram the buses that fit under the bridge to the route that goes under it. It only happens occasionally when things are out of course.

 

[radamfi]

If the measure of 'success' is the low subsidy levels as would be expected in the UK then I doubt that any of the fully integrated large-city transport models would be considered successful. Only a relatively small number of countries in the world have such systems anyway.

This is a list of 2 milion+ conurbations in Europe:

Manchester
Birmingham/West Midlands
London
Paris
Moscow
Istanbul
Madrid
Rotterdam/The Hague
Barcelona
Ruhr
Lisbon
Budapest
Cologne/Bonn
Rome
Athens
Naples
Milan

Which of these don't have integrated public transport systems?

Even if you go outside Europe, which big cities in industrialised countries outside the US don't have integrated public transport systems?

Which industrialised countries have bus deregulation for local buses?

 

[RT4038]

This is a list of 2 milion+ conurbations in Europe:

Manchester
Birmingham/West Midlands
London
Paris
Moscow
Istanbul
Madrid
Rotterdam/The Hague
Barcelona
Ruhr
Lisbon
Budapest
Cologne/Bonn
Rome
Athens
Naples
Milan

Which of these don't have integrated public transport systems?

Even if you go outside Europe, which big cities in industrialised countries outside the US don't have integrated public transport systems?

Manchester and Birmingham will no doubt have the lowest level of subsidies (and therefore the highest level of success in the UK context).
Some cursory research of the cities shown above, representing a small proportion of the worlds' countries, quickly revealed differing levels of 'integration' pf public transport systems.

 

[radamfi]

Some cursory research of the cities shown above, representing a small proportion of the worlds' countries, quickly revealed differing levels of 'integration' pf public transport systems.

Why do you think non-industrialised countries with limited car ownership are relevant to this discussion?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Dec 2020 ==

(and therefore the highest level of success in the UK context)

Why don't you want people to use buses?

Subsidy is a red-herring. People complaining about the amount of subsidy simply don't want a good system, regardless of affordability.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Why do you think non-industrialised countries with limited car ownership are relevant to this discussion?

I'm not certain that's what the poster said. None of the cities from the list you posted, and that @RT4038 were referring to, are non-industrialised with limited car ownership.

I would certainly want to see fewer people in their cars when there is a perfectly good public transport alternative. However, don't be fooled into thinking that it's as binary as UK rubbish, elsewhere brilliant, which is what I think @RT4038 was getting at. Certainly, not in some of those places listed.

Subsidy ISN'T a red herring. Money is key to having a good public transport system. Now, you could be brave as Ken Livingston was (and I'm no fan of Red Ken) or Nottingham have, and done some things to actually penalise the motorist (directly or indirectly) and to improve the public transport option accordingly.

Alternatively, you can be Greater Manchester who did a referendum on congestion charging (quelle surprise - people voted against paying more money) and are now looking to take control of bus services through a system that may be perceived in ways whilst simultaneously failing to address the fundamentals of road space usage, bus priority etc that they could've got on with sorting. However, it seems easier to be seen to "sticking it to the man" than to disadvantage the car driver.

 

[radamfi]

I'm not certain that's what the poster said. None of the cities from the list you posted, and that @RT4038 were referring to, are non-industrialised with limited car ownership.

He said that integrated transport only exists in a few countries. Most of those countries where it doesn't exist are in the developing world.

Subsidy ISN'T a red herring. Money is key to having a good public transport system. Now, you could be brave as Ken Livingston was (and I'm no fan of Red Ken) or Nottingham have, and done some things to actually penalise the motorist (directly or indirectly) and to improve the public transport option accordingly.

Money can easily be made available given sufficient political will, and given the spread of countries where integrated transport exists, both poor and rich countries can afford it. As pointed out by @Bletchleyite you can just adjust fares according to the relevant funding.

People who don't want something always provide an excuse. Brexit and bus deregulation prove that lies work. Another excuse given earlier was density. People on the right use "crowded cities in the UK" as an excuse for restricting immigration, and "low density British cities" as an excuse not to provide good public transport.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

He said that integrated transport only exists in a few countries. Most of those countries where it doesn't exist are in the developing world.

The quote was...

Some cursory research of the cities shown above, representing a small proportion of the worlds' countries, quickly revealed differing levels of 'integration' pf public transport systems.

That means that it encompasses on a few countries and even then, there is a disparity in how integrated transport is or how good it actually is. Exemplars like Netherlands or Germany aren't matched by, say Hungary.

Money can easily be made available given sufficient political will, and given the spread of countries where integrated transport exists, both poor and rich countries can afford it. As pointed out by @Bletchleyite you can just adjust fares according to the relevant funding.

I may be reading this wrong. At one point, money can be given if the will is there, but then you say you can adjust the fares according to the relevant funding - are you suggesting that it's farebox revenue that pays for the extra funding required?

People who don't want something always provide an excuse. Brexit and bus deregulation prove that lies work. Another excuse given earlier was density. People on the right use "crowded cities in the UK" as an excuse for restricting immigration, and "low density British cities" as an excuse not to provide good public transport.

Again, we're conflating Brexit, immigration and population density and that makes no sense.

Public transport in the UK is most definitely advantageous because of the population density. However, we don't have joined up thinking in terms of the construction of new developments to make them accessible to public transport. Nor do we have the politicians brave enough to stand up and level the playing field in terms of the cost of car usage vs. the costs of operating public transport.

The idea of deregulation was two fold. One was that competition would bring more customer focus, more innovation etc. That did happen in some instances but overall, it arguably failed as public monopolies were replaced eventually by private ones. The other plank of deregulation was to remove the financial burden from the public purse; let's not forget that before deregulation, passenger numbers were declining massively and the publicly owned organisations (NBC, SBG, PTEs, municipals) were losing a load of money and that was before you consider that they were getting new bus grants, fuel duty rebate etc. Let's not forget the context in which deregulation happened.

 

[radamfi]

That means that it encompasses on a few countries and even then, there is a disparity in how integrated transport is or how good it actually is. Exemplars like Netherlands or Germany aren't matched by, say Hungary.

But which industrialised countries have local bus deregulation in cities the size of Greater Manchester? It is obvious that the bigger the city, the greater the need for integration, especially where non-bus modes exist. Is there bus deregulation in Budapest?

I may be reading this wrong. At one point, money can be given if the will is there, but then you say you can adjust the fares according to the relevant funding - are you suggesting that it's farebox revenue that pays for the extra funding required?

You decide what network you need and work out how much it costs. Then you calibrate the fares depending on what funding is available. If there is ample funding you might run extra services or cut fares. If there is a lack of funding you may have to have higher fares and reduced service levels. But in all cases you don't need to have bus deregulation. That's clearly evident given that bus deregulation is the exception rather than the rule.

Again, we're conflating Brexit, immigration and population density and that makes no sense.

The point is that people use lies and excuses to "prove" their point, and people believe it. Why else would someone even think saying that there is low density if they hadn't heard it from liars in the past? Given that high density is quoted as a prerequisite for good public transport (and even that is debateable) it is very convenient to quote that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But which industrialised countries have local bus deregulation in cities the size of Greater Manchester? It is obvious that the bigger the city, the greater the need for integration, especially where non-bus modes exist. Is there bus deregulation in Budapest?

I think you'd want to separate "regulation" and "integration". I'm sure there are plenty of places where, like the UK pre 1985, buses were regulated, but not integrated. For example you couldn't use a Merseyside PTE bus ticket on a Ribble bus, and if you lived in say the Old Roan (where I grew up) you did get both buses in roughly equal measure. Regulation doesn't solve that, integration does.

London is an example of somewhere that is partly integrated and regulated - but it is still the case that there is no through bus-Tube-bus through ticketing other than Travelcards/Oyster caps, same with Paris (you use the same type of "ticket t+" but you can't use the same actual ticket for a journey involving both modes). I understand why buses are cheaper than rail in London, but an integrated system would just have two price levels, bus only and bus+rail.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It is obvious that the bigger the city, the greater the need for integration, especially where non-bus modes exist. Is there bus deregulation in Budapest?

No but the point is that quality isn't that great in Budapest either.

The point is that people use lies and excuses to "prove" their point, and people believe it. Why else would someone even think saying that there is low density if they hadn't heard it from liars in the past? Given that high density is quoted as a prerequisite for good public transport (and even that is debateable) it is very convenient to quote that

Well where have you heard that? I think you're conflating things again. We had a discussion about population density in the US making bus services unattractive and necessitating subsidies but don't know what else you're on about.

You decide what network you need and work out how much it costs. Then you calibrate the fares depending on what funding is available. If there is ample funding you might run extra services or cut fares. If there is a lack of funding you may have to have higher fares and reduced service levels. But in all cases you don't need to have bus deregulation. That's clearly evident given that bus deregulation is the exception rather than the rule.

If you work out the network you need and then if calibrate the fares....but then you say if you have to increase fares (which may compromise ridership) or you reduce service levels....thereby not getting the network that is apparently needed. Sounds from that paragraph that you now accept that subsidy isn't a red herring.

FWIW, I do want to see better integration and better standards. I just don't see the Burnham proposals delivering it, especially when you consider that they aren't facing into the main issues affecting bus travel.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The other plank of deregulation was to remove the financial burden from the public purse.

What is wrong with that particular aspiration?

 

[radamfi]

What is wrong with that particular aspiration?

It is wrong if you don't want people to use public transport.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is wrong if you don't want people to use public transport.

Conversely, at the time of deregulation, was it not the case that the falling numbers of people who wanted to use public transport expressed the fact that there is a difference between what the people at that time wanted and what the public transport supremos wanted.

There is often use of words suffixed with "bahn" in postings on certain transport threads and Captain Mainwaring would have fits of apoplexy if he were to see these..

 

[radamfi]

Conversely, at the time of deregulation, was it not the case that the falling numbers of people who wanted to use public transport expressed the fact that there is a difference between what the people at that time wanted and what the public transport supremos wanted.

There is often use of words suffixed with "bahn" in postings on certain transport threads and Captain Mainwaring would have fits of apoplexy if he were to see these..

Why are you even on the Buses subforum if you don't care if people use buses?