Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
but do you? Do you need a franchise like structure to enable improvements to bus priority? Or to reduce the extent of on street parking and use the resultant road space better and reduce the availability of parking? Or the introduction of red routes to stop people stopping and throwing the hazards on?
The one area that could be improved is the raft of different tickets. I don't think we'll be able to agree whether a multi-operator ticket comes with a premium, or whether a single operator comes with a discount; a problem compounded by ENCTS as we know. However, a simplification of the tickets would be possible especially if you say to the operators "we can do X if you do Y".
The proposals as they stand now do nothing to address congestion or to improve funding except at the periphery.
Suppose a bus company decides to increase the price of its day/week/month tickets, but introduce two new tickets, one for odd numbered routes and another for even numbered routes, at a price lower than previously. Most people would think this is silly, but to the passenger this actually isn't very different to the scenario where you have two companies with their own tickets.
Suppose a bus company decides to increase the price of its day/week/month tickets, but introduce two new tickets, one for odd numbered routes and another for even numbered routes, at a price lower than previously. Most people would think this is silly, but to the passenger this actually isn't very different to the scenario where you have two companies with their own tickets.
As I said before, some people will view the company only ticket as a base product and that a multi-operator ticket is a more complex product and therefore attracts a premium.
Some will, however, take an opposing view that the multi-operator ticket should be the base product. and the operator own is inferior and discounted.
It is totally subjective and we won't get agreement. However, I agree that it is an area ripe for some rationalisation but if that's considered the greatest obstacle to successful bus operation, then I disagree.
I've not seen any German system charging more for rail - you want to encourage that. What they do sometimes charge more for is Schnellbusse, which are express buses (literally "fast bus") that offer more comfortable seating and mostly, er, direct services to the city centre.
In a previous role, I used to attend board meetings of the GM ticketing company (GMTL). It may surprise some of the bus operator bashers on this thread, that it was the tram/train operators that weren’t willing to compromise on their revenue share from multi-operator tickets. It was also the tram/train operators that continued to object to a full range of peak time tickets covering all modes. However, it’s much more fashionable in GM to lay the blame for everything at the feet of the nasty bus operators.
And to answer another point/criticism, the cost of the multi-operator tickets would be exactly the same if there was no separate single bus operator tickets available.
Clearly things would be much better if you could go anywhere for the price of a current single operator ticket, and the break up of First is a prime example of why. There is a bit of bashing the bus companies here though - unless they're going to try to implement zonal fares on the buses the get me there bus/tram fare cannot be less than £7.10, because that's the price of a Metrolink anytime all zones ticket. And how do we know Metrolink (so TfGM as they take the revenue I think?) are willing to take their share of any price cut?
Not sure I understand this point. I would expect some kind of zonal fare system because it's a nonsense to charge someone the same for travelling from Rochdale to Altrincham the same as from New Islington to Piccadilly, and Metrolink doesn't do this. Currently on the buses someone making a similar short journey would pay the same as someone travelling right across the city - if but only if they could do the journey with one operator. Depending on the level of funding, the citywide ticket might end up being more expensive, but for most people a cheaper ticket covering the relevant zones would suffice. The zones would probably be areas like Tyne and Wear ones, not rings.
Clearly things would be much better if you could go anywhere for the price of a current single operator ticket, and the break up of First is a prime example of why. There is a bit of bashing the bus companies here though - unless they're going to try to implement zonal fares on the buses the get me there bus/tram fare cannot be less than £7.10, because that's the price of a Metrolink anytime all zones ticket. And how do we know Metrolink (so TfGM as they take the revenue I think?) are willing to take their share of any price cut?
That, or something like that, is probably the way to go, to be honest, and is how the dastardly Germans (and Swiss) do it.
I do get the point that you need to break the system down a bit fare-wise because otherwise you end up charging the same for someone to go from Wigan to Rochdale as you do from Salford to the centre of Manchester, which is clearly a bit silly and unfair on those (often lower-income) people making the short journeys.
One way to do that is indeed to have per-operator tickets, which does tend to give you a rough zonality. The trouble is that the more of an overlap there is, the more "random" it is as to who it penalises. I don't know the current layout of operators, but in the old First-Stagecoach near-duopoly you could indeed go all the way from Wigan to Rochdale on one (First) day ticket, but if you wanted to go from Cheetham Hill to Rusholme you'd need two. That is clearly very unfair.
Another one is what the Dutch do, which is to charge a flat "journey start" fee (which I half recall goes to the OV-Chipkaart operating company to fund that?) then a kilometric rate on each operator. This actually allows for some element of competition because operators can have different per kilometre rates. The downside of this is that if your bus is a bit "wandery" you pay extra despite being disadvantaged. I suspect, though I'm not a competition law expert, you could get away with implementing this without regulation, because each operator can set their own per kilometre rate as two taxi companies might do.
A third one is to go "zonal" - you pay per zone you travel through. There are a number of models for even that - concentric like London, or "cell-like" like Merseyside and many of the European operations. The downside of zonal systems is that they are hard to implement against smartcard/contactless systems and you essentially have to guess which zones people travel through, as all you know is their touch in/out points. A downside of the London style zonal system is that you can do very long journeys cheaply if they go round the city rather than through the middle - though London's demand profile makes this actually advantageous.
I think overall, though, most people would recognise that the fairest way to graduate fares is based in some way on distance travelled - so the kilometric or zonal options win (you don't have to have a day ticket - the Dutch mostly don't though I think some cities do - there's no massive problem with simply paying single fares provided they are reasonable and multimodal) - and that arbitrarily doing it by operator is probably about the least fair, alongside "per vehicle journey" which is just downright silly as it penalises people twice - not only do you have to take two buses (inconvenient) but you have to pay twice.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
In a previous role, I used to attend board meetings of the GM ticketing company (GMTL). It may surprise some of the bus operator bashers on this thread, that it was the tram/train operators that weren’t willing to compromise on their revenue share from multi-operator tickets. It was also the tram/train operators that continued to object to a full range of peak time tickets covering all modes. However, it’s much more fashionable in GM to lay the blame for everything at the feet of the nasty bus operators.
I don't lay any blame at anyone's feet per-se, I just prefer a German style system where you have a public transport system and you buy journeys on it, not bus journeys or train journeys but public transport journeys.
The problem with GMTL is that it's a voluntary system where operators have to agree things. It needs to be imposed - the PTE, Verkehrsverbund or whatever you call it needs to be able to set the fares and subsidy and contract in the operations, be that bus, rail or tram.
And to answer another point/criticism, the cost of the multi-operator tickets would be exactly the same if there was no separate single bus operator tickets available.
That isn't a given. In the present system it is, but the proposal is to change the system. The fare system would be completely new, so you set it based on what income you need for the network you need minus the subsidy that is available.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I reckon with GM you could get away with concentric zones as per London. Relatively few people will travel from say Wigan to Stockport via Rochdale and Oldham (yes, I know there used to be a bus that did most of that, and you've got the 11A/C in Brum that go all the way round) just to save a quid or two, and if they do good luck to them (and if you really want to stop it you can zigzag the zone boundaries a bit so they at least cross two doing that). I don't think worrying about journeys that only bus enthusiasts are likely to do is really worth the effort; you need to look at what the masses are doing. It's very similar to getting fixated on people going round the Oldham Loop as-was the wrong way for the fun of it - just not worth worrying about.
Merseyside has European style areas/zones, but the downside of that is that it's less easy to understand.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The one area that could be improved is the raft of different tickets. I don't think we'll be able to agree whether a multi-operator ticket comes with a premium, or whether a single operator comes with a discount
I'm not sure that's even worth debating, really; the fairest way to break down journeys is so it's based at least vaguely on how far you're going, rather than what modes or operators you're using.
But do you really need Zones? You could break into say 4 zones but with zones you're just making people stick to that zone for the sake of it. You're not saving on the cost of running the buses as they still have to run the full route / group of routes.
So really, you're giving a discount to ones wanting the small area. But how I see it everyone should pay the say no matter how far you travel as the poor areas or less used areas will lose bus routes when the plan is to put all the money into 1 pot of funds.
We're descending into the weeds of fare structures - whether it depends on zones, or county boroughs, or rings, is really immaterial. As I say, arguing whether something is a discount or a premium is neither here nor there. There's little or no savings to be had unless there's cutting of facilities and removal of "perceived duplication".
I don't believe that's true, because of one key thing - London fares are very low - £1.50 is well below even the short hop fare of most commercial bus services. For example, the MK "cross city" fare is now £3, double what it would cost to go about 3 times as far in London, and the lowest fare other than the very-short-journey town-centre hop (which in essence competes with walking) is £2.
Yes, seasons bring it down, but not that much, and many people don't use seasons.
Higher fares (as already apply on commercial services) is another way of increasing income.
I forgot to come back to this. I don't know exactly what the point is.
Manchester has its fare structure/revenue and it, minus costs, delivers £x to the bottom line. By taking control and squeezing the operators, that £x becomes a bit smaller and the margin savings (small as they are) could be used elsewhere.
That London is cheaper means what? That Manchester will look to reduce fare levels to approach London levels - London levels being artificially low because of the £1bn a year that is chucked into the pot? Or that Manchester could seek to increase fares so that the difference with London is higher, but in order to fund whatever changes?
I'm really not seeing where the funding is coming from.
Manchester has its fare structure/revenue and it, minus costs, delivers £x to the bottom line. By taking control and squeezing the operators, that £x becomes a bit smaller and the margin savings (small as they are) could be used elsewhere.
Hopefully there would be a significant increase in usage, so more revenue. If there's no increase in usage there wouldn't be any point in doing it. More precisely you want the usage per operated kilometre to be higher. If you stop flooding the main corridors with lots of empty buses whilst maintaining an adequate enough frequency to keep usage levels on those corridors near enough the same then that might help quite a bit.
I'd agree with that to a fair extent. What is important, though, is that we get rid of the arbitrary and often rather regressive split that is standard in a multi-operator large city - per-operator or per-mode. Both of those are completely arbitrary and regressive, both in that they are most likely to harm those making journeys that are somehow "awkward" (and which therefore a car driver would drive instead, so you're hitting those who can't afford a car hardest), and in that they prevent you making optimal use of your heavy rail and tram capacity in favour of overbussing because you are actively dissuading people from changing modes.
I can accept the argument that even if you make decent facilities for changing and equalise the fares, some may choose not to, maybe it's enough that through buses should remain. I can't accept active dissuasion, and that's how it is now.
As I say, arguing whether something is a discount or a premium is neither here nor there. There's little or no savings to be had unless there's cutting of facilities and removal of "perceived duplication".
That part of the argument wasn't about saving money (and that's not the only reason to be doing this). It was how to increase the utility of the system (sorry, I'm going to keep emphasizing that word, because I think it's a key difference between the two arguments).
That they are having to put more subsidy in to counter the low fares.
Let's say, for easy comparison, that Manchester took on the same system as London, whereby there is a flat bus fare for bus journeys within an hour and rail fares are totally separate. I don't support this, but the comparison is easier.
The single bus fare including changes is clearly not going to be £1.50 in Manchester in this case. I suspect it would be somewhere around £2.50 or maybe even £3.
That higher fare in and of itself means less subsidy, even if everything else is exactly the same. That's the argument - it is pointed out that London's bus network (in itself) requires a much higher subsidy than Manchester's, and that is true. But a core part of the reason for that is that the average fare paid is likely to be something like half that in Manchester, and that extra money is needed to offset that, hence the high subsidy.
Hopefully there would be a significant increase in usage, so more revenue. If there's no increase in usage there wouldn't be any point in doing it. More precisely you want the usage per operated kilometre to be higher. If you stop flooding the main corridors with lots of empty buses whilst maintaining an adequate enough frequency to keep usage levels on those corridors near enough the same then that might help quite a bit.
So you (TfGM) take control of the buses. You paint them another colour. However, you don't do anything to improve the infrastructure in which they run. Nor do you do anything to restrict private car usage.
Why would there be a significant increase in usage and so revenue?
Also, operators aren't flooding the main corridors with lots of empty buses. Perhaps 30 years ago, they were, but they're not now. That saving just isn't there - operators have taken those savings already!!
So you (TfGM) take control of the buses. You paint them another colour. However, you don't do anything to improve the infrastructure in which they run. Nor do you do anything to restrict private car usage.
Why would there be a significant increase in usage and so revenue?
Also, operators aren't flooding the main corridors with lots of empty buses. Perhaps 30 years ago, they were, but they're not now. That saving just isn't there - operators have taken those savings already!!
By reallocating vehicles and routes more usefully as described many times by @Bletchleyite et al. There are a number of corridors where you have several routes running every 10 minutes for long stretches into the city centre. They do this because of the perceived but unnecessary need to run direct services (again mentioned several times on this thread), and also to deter other operators from competing. They could keep one bus route on each corridor and truncate the others so they feed into it. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Manchester has more buses than foreign cities, even accounting for trams instead of buses.
By reallocating vehicles and routes more usefully as described many times by @Bletchleyite et al. There are a number of corridors where you have several routes running every 10 minutes for long stretches into the city centre. They do this because of the perceived but unnecessary need to run direct services (again mentioned several times on this thread), and also to deter other operators from competing. They could keep one bus route on each corridor and truncate the others so they feed into it. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Manchester has more buses than foreign cities, even accounting for trams instead of buses.
To be fair even I suspect if you did that you'd lose all the passengers.
The key benefits to be gained are related to bringing bus and rail (Metrolink mostly) under the same control so they work together, not apart. People might be convinced to change if that's a short journey to connect to a much faster tram or train - not to another bus. There isn't really all that much wrong, if you have a corridor served only by bus because there's no train there, with having say 4 hourly routes feed in together to create a nice 15 minute frequency on the core - indeed that's how S-Bahnen tend to work - both in Germany and on e.g. Merseyrail.
You also sort out the ticketing mess into something fairer, i.e. more based on distance travelled in some form than arbitrary operator "patches".
Where things would be improved with two buses are a fairer fare system so people needing to use two buses even for a relatively short trip aren't double-charged.
To be fair even I suspect if you did that you'd lose all the passengers.
The key benefits to be gained are related to bringing bus and rail (Metrolink mostly) under the same control so they work together, not apart. People might be convinced to change if that's a short journey to connect to a much faster tram or train - not to another bus. There isn't really all that much wrong, if you have a corridor served only by bus because there's no train there, with having say 4 hourly routes feed in together to create a nice 15 minute frequency on the core - indeed that's how S-Bahnen tend to work - both in Germany and on e.g. Merseyrail.
Where things would be improved with two buses are a fairer fare system so people needing to use two buses even for a relatively short trip aren't double-charged.
Are there any examples in Germany or elsewhere in Europe where they coordinate buses so they meet at the same place at the same time, so that people can switch between the routes? That would seem like a good idea which avoids too high frequency on the "trunk" and too low frequencies elsewhere.
I'd agree with that to a fair extent. What is important, though, is that we get rid of the arbitrary and often rather regressive split that is standard in a multi-operator large city - per-operator or per-mode. Both of those are completely arbitrary and regressive, both in that they are most likely to harm those making journeys that are somehow "awkward" (and which therefore a car driver would drive instead, so you're hitting those who can't afford a car hardest), and in that they prevent you making optimal use of your heavy rail and tram capacity in favour of overbussing because you are actively dissuading people from changing modes.
I can accept the argument that even if you make decent facilities for changing and equalise the fares, some may choose not to, maybe it's enough that through buses should remain. I can't accept active dissuasion, and that's how it is now.
That part of the argument wasn't about saving money (and that's not the only reason to be doing this). It was how to increase the utility of the system (sorry, I'm going to keep emphasizing that word, because I think it's a key difference between the two arguments).
That they are having to put more subsidy in to counter the low fares.
Let's say, for easy comparison, that Manchester took on the same system as London, whereby there is a flat bus fare for bus journeys within an hour and rail fares are totally separate. I don't support this, but the comparison is easier.
The single bus fare including changes is clearly not going to be £1.50 in Manchester in this case. I suspect it would be somewhere around £2.50 or maybe even £3.
That higher fare in and of itself means less subsidy, even if everything else is exactly the same. That's the argument - it is pointed out that London's bus network (in itself) requires a much higher subsidy than Manchester's, and that is true. But a core part of the reason for that is that the average fare paid is likely to be something like half that in Manchester, and that extra money is needed to offset that, hence the high subsidy.
As @Stan Drews points out, the differential between multi-modal is something that comes from the tram operator more than the bus operator. I'm fully onboard with a simplification of multi-operator vs. single operator ticketing to remove the raft of differing day tickets and megariders etc. If you live in Leigh, it would be advantageous if someone could just catch any bus, irrespective of the operator.
As for the cost element, I understand the system argument in that you can funnel people onto existing tram capacity rather than running a parallel bus, and by doing so, there are alleged savings to be had. However, are we really to believe that there are huge numbers of people using direct buses rather than being put off a faster alternative (e.g. from Carrington to Manchester and not changing onto a tram at Stretford) because of cost? I just don't see it and indeed, that's why many routes have been reduced when Metrolink has been introduced. Bet your bottom dollar that had Covid not appeared, the direct bus services to the Trafford Centre would similarly have reduced when Metrolink opened.
That London has a large subsidy to achieve the level of service and fare levels it has. We agree that and, without that subsidy, fares would be closer to Manchester. The cost of operation is just that and so without that subsidy, Manchester has the fare levels it has. You either have
More funding (from where?) to reduce fares
Fewer buses to reduce operating costs/obtain savings (by removing direct links)
Increase fares to achieve more funding
In the absence of 1, then 2 & 3 seem not great options.
All this and without any real plan to face into the advantages that the private car has. The success of Metrolink has been in improving speed of travel, and that has attracted some car drivers and many existing bus passengers.
Using my Partington/Carrington example, are we to believe that the 255 (24 mins from Stretford to Manchester) is going to be better than changing onto a tram that takes 17 mins when you factor in the b*ggeration and hassle factor of interchange? Let alone removal of said bus along the A56 and loss of those links that the bus currently provides. I'm not convinced.
Yes to having bus lanes and traffic priority (and not just the A56 but through Stretford etc), and yes to simplified ticketing. Yes to improved inter-availability of tickets and not just day tickets but single fare transfares between operators, and daily capping. However, funnelling people onto the tram and more hassle, even at the same cost as present, just doesn't make sense to me.
Are there any examples in Germany or elsewhere in Europe where they coordinate buses so they meet at the same place at the same time, so that people can switch between the routes? That would seem like a good idea which avoids too high frequency on the "trunk" and too low frequencies elsewhere.
More commonly you get bus and rail coordinated like that, or two rail services. The sort of places where you would do it tend to (deliberately) have better developed rail networks and as such wouldn't really have trunk bus services in cities at all, or certainly not enough that they would need to connect like that.
The operational difficulty with it is that buses tend to be delayed by external factors far more than rail.
By reallocating vehicles and routes more usefully as described many times by @Bletchleyite et al. There are a number of corridors where you have several routes running every 10 minutes for long stretches into the city centre. They do this because of the perceived but unnecessary need to run direct services (again mentioned several times on this thread), and also to deter other operators from competing. They could keep one bus route on each corridor and truncate the others so they feed into it. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Manchester has more buses than foreign cities, even accounting for trams instead of buses.
This is all very 1986. I cant imagine that any of the big groups would deploy the kind of resources needed to run this kind of service if it didn't at least break even. If it does beak even then why shouldn't the people who use these buses benefit from a direct route instead of having to change. Is there some perception that if people need to use buses then they must change at the next major junction, even if that just means changing into another bus? Would the same principle apply to the trams?
This is all very 1986. I cant imagine that any of the big groups would deploy the kind of resources needed to run this kind of service if it didn't at least break even.
The trams use connections a fair bit, for example at Cornbrook, Piccadilly Gardens, Victoria and Deansgate. Back in the day, when there were only two lines, you could set your watch by the connections at Piccadilly Gardens as the Bury and Altrincham trams used to arrive simultaneously. Cornbrook was originally built as interchange only.
The whole point is to use fewer vehicles than now, so I'm not sure what you mean by "kind of resources needed".
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The trams use connections a fair bit, for example at Piccadilly Gardens, Victoria and Deansgate. Back in the day, when there were only two lines, you could set your watch by the connections at Piccadilly Gardens as the Bury and Altrincham trams used to arrive simultaneously.
I suspect @carlberry is suggesting that commercial bus operators no longer flood corridors with additional buses. On-road competition between has reduced to a fraction of what it was 20 years ago or longer, as have margins. So they don't run buses unless they're actually needed by passengers and making money.
I also suspect a bit of tongue in cheek humour from Carl but there's a genuine point. If we're being so zealous about removing this evident "duplication", then perhaps cut the Rose Hill to Manchester direct trains and just run to Guide Bridge...there's an existing service from Glossop that it duplicates? I am being mischievous but you get the point... this perceived duplication is often far from it.
I suspect @carlberry is suggesting that commercial bus operators no longer flood corridors with additional buses. On-road competition between has reduced to a fraction of what it was 20 years ago or longer, as have margins. So they don't run buses unless they're actually needed by passengers and making money.
Do they seriously need 3 buses every 10 minutes between Middleton and Manchester? You don't even get that kind of frequency in London a lot of the time.
As @Stan Drews points out, the differential between multi-modal is something that comes from the tram operator more than the bus operator. I'm fully onboard with a simplification of multi-operator vs. single operator ticketing to remove the raft of differing day tickets and megariders etc. If you live in Leigh, it would be advantageous if someone could just catch any bus, irrespective of the operator.
Certainly. One thing I would really like to see is public transport removed from the scope of competition regulation. It has been demonstrated time and time again that:
The UK's main bus operators by and large don't abuse their monopoly position to the disadvantage of passengers. Most smaller places have one bus operator, and the vast majority of routes do. They may slightly abuse their position in terms of whether a competitor can get in, but that isn't really the passenger's concern; indeed, the "interloping" of a predatory small business in bus terms usually makes things worse, not better.
Great benefits come to passengers when bus companies work together in what might normally be called a cartel.
These being the case, bus operators being told they can't co-ordinate fares (which is how it is) is to the public's disadvantage, ergo they should be permitted to do so. Indeed, and I've mentioned this before, the German Verkehrsverbuende started off as cartels, not statutory bodies.
However, are we really to believe that there are huge numbers of people using direct buses rather than being put off a faster alternative (e.g. from Carrington to Manchester and not changing onto a tram at Stretford) because of cost?
I'd say so, yes, but also because of a lack of coordination between the two. Yes, you might say it's only a short walk from the junction to the tram stop, but the effect would be totally different if you ran it up right next to the platforms, as the Germans would. I can give a personal example of this - for a short period MK routes 4 and 7 (my two nearest routes) have run from directly outside Bletchley railway station rather than the bus station (only a shortish walk) - and as a result I've used them far more. OK, this wasn't for integration but rather because of a (railway related) road closure, but still it was a good example.
(In Bletchley's case the fix for this is an entrance on the bus station/town side - the mind boggles as to why this has never been provided).
I just don't see it and indeed, that's why many routes have been reduced when Metrolink has been introduced. Bet your bottom dollar that had Covid not appeared, the direct bus services to the Trafford Centre would similarly have reduced when Metrolink opened.
To be fair, to argue your side for a bit, in the 90s/early 2000s there was for a bit a Metrolink contracted shuttle bus from Stretford to the Trafford Centre with through fares which didn't do that well and didn't really last. I can't remember the fares, though, it may well be that Stagecoach killed it by price dumping. It might also be because Stretford isn't a particularly good place to run such a thing from, because it's still a long way from the Trafford Centre.
Using my Partington/Carrington example, are we to believe that the 255 (24 mins from Stretford to Manchester) is going to be better than changing onto a tram that takes 17 mins when you factor in the b*ggeration and hassle factor of interchange? Let alone removal of said bus along the A56 and loss of those links that the bus currently provides. I'm not convinced.
I'm not either, that's not far off being similar to Gateshead. Really Partington/Carrington should connect to an improved electrified local S-Bahn at Urmston. I say Urmston rather than Flixton, because there are shops and facilities at Urmston itself that people may want to use, so a Partington-Carrington-Urmston service would have two purposes - into Manchester and more local.
Where it works is short bus shuttle to longer trunk rail service. It doesn't work well the other way round.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Do they seriously need 3 buses every 10 minutes between Middleton and Manchester? You don't even get that kind of frequency in London a lot of the time.
I think we would need to know what the routes are before deciding that. Do they really need about 10 trains per hour (or whatever it is) between Glasgow and Edinburgh? Clearly not, but only one of those routes (the one via Falkirk High) is actually intended to carry people between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
There are 5 main bus routes that run from Bletchley to Central Milton Keynes, amounting to something like 12 buses per hour (without bothering to look at the timetable, but it's something like that, possibly more). However, only really the 5/6 (two numbers because of the split at the other end) is intended for the end to end journey (or the train) - the others are slow (some very slow e.g. the 7) and are intended to serve intermediate places.
I think we would need to know what the routes are before deciding that. Do they really need about 10 trains per hour (or whatever it is) between Glasgow and Edinburgh? Clearly not, but only one of those routes (the one via Falkirk High) is actually intended to carry people between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
There are 5 main bus routes that run from Bletchley to Central Milton Keynes, amounting to something like 12 buses per hour (without bothering to look at the timetable, but it's something like that, possibly more). However, only really the 5/6 (two numbers because of the split at the other end) is intended for the end to end journey (or the train) - the others are slow (some very slow e.g. the 7) and are intended to serve intermediate places.
I was only including the direct route where all buses stop at the same stops between Middleton and Shudehill. There are various other routes between Manchester and Middleton.
Do they seriously need 3 buses every 10 minutes between Middleton and Manchester? You don't even get that kind of frequency in London a lot of the time.
As they're clearly paying for themselves then why shouldn't they? I dont know what the comparison with London is intended to prove without specifiing an identical traffic flow. Do they really need cars traveling every few seconds along the roads between the two places might be a better question.
As they're clearly paying for themselves then why shouldn't they? I dont know what the comparison with London is intended to prove without specifiing an identical traffic flow. Do they really need cars traveling every few seconds along the roads between the two places might be a better question.
The point is that it is likely that the frequency could be reduced without leaving people behind. It is better for the environment if you have as high as occupancy as you can get. London shows that you can get away with relatively low frequency but still get heavy usage. Indeed you see complaints that TfL won't increase frequency to reduce overcrowding.
Because if you can provide a decent enough service (say 6 or even 12 buses per hour) with bigger buses you'd still get the same fare income and it'd be cheaper to run?
Middleton is a corridor that clearly does require buses "all the way in" because none of the A664's run between there and Manchester comes anywhere near a railway station other than Cheetham Hill, and dumping people onto trams there would be another Gateshead-esque example, i.e. not make sense.
Because if you can provide a decent enough service (say 6 or even 12 buses per hour) with bigger buses you'd still get the same fare income and it'd be cheaper to run?
Middleton is a corridor that clearly does require buses "all the way in" because none of the A664's run between there and Manchester comes anywhere near a railway station other than Cheetham Hill, and dumping people onto trams there would be another Gateshead-esque example, i.e. not make sense.
The better operators have used the current regime to make bus travel (i.e. public transport) attractive by things like increased frequencies. I'm not aware that any of them are doing it just to burn extra diesel or waste money and most of them would, if they thought it would be possible, have already reduced the frequency and introduced bigger buses. Doing so always has one effect which is to make travel public transport a little less attractive and car travel a little more attractive. 'Dumping people onto trams'; again, continues the idea that all passengers are equal, it's just that some are more equal than others.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The point is that it is likely that the frequency could be reduced without leaving people behind. It is better for the environment if you have as high as occupancy as you can get. London shows that you can get away with relatively low frequency but still get heavy usage. Indeed you see complaints that TfL won't increase frequency to reduce overcrowding.
It's better for the environment if public transport is attractive to use. I've never seen high occupancy and overcrowding as sales points in a car brochure.
It's better for the environment if public transport is attractive to use. I've never seen high occupancy and overcrowding as sales points in a car brochure.
These days, the idea of purchasing a small car for economy, low pollution and ease of city use is certainly pushed, and that's as close as you're going to get.
Overcrowding is of course undesirable, but I don't think any of us are suggesting that that should be pursued as a deliberate policy.
TfGM have recently issued a press release on this matter, stating that:
Greater Manchester Leaders will meet later this month [March 2021] to consider a major milestone in its plans for an integrated transport system; the introduction of bus franchising across the city-region.
More than 12,500 consultation responses were received on proposals to change how buses are run
www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk
TfGM (and Andy Burnham) seem to have great hopes that franchising will solve the issue of continually declining bus usage. I feel that the causes are more deep-rooted, including poor land use planning, increased car ownership, low density suburban sprawl and decline of travel to urban centres. I fear that franchising will be an ineffective, but expensive, panacea.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
