TfGM Bus franchising

[HSTEd]

The cost of establishing franchising will be negligible compared to the costs of operating the bus services for years to come.
It is however a necessity to establish any sort of rational bus system in Greater Manchester.

For example, deregulation has delivered an Oxford Road bus corridor that manages to be simultaneously overcrowded and yet dramatically overbussed.

Once we have proper coordination of bus routes, costs can be cut substantially (although I admit I am unlikely to get my preferred option of non-stop bendy bus shuttles between Fallowfield and the University campus)

 

[Deerfold]

This only mirrors the current setup for the all operator tickets where there is a different price for bus and bus/tram (the price changes depending on how useful it is). Again, this can be fixed with discussions and the finance to operate it. Decide what tickets you want to offer, decide on a price then agree with the operators how they're going to be reimbursed. The ability for local authorities to do this already exists and the latest buses bill suggests they'll have even more ability to do it.

So it's not an example of not having no penalty in a deregulated environment. Under the current system System One ticket prices are set by a company which is mostly owned by local bus companies who have no incentive to reduce their prices. Under this system the transport authority cannot set their prices or types without agreement from a majority of the operators.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2021 ==

The cost of establishing franchising will be negligible compared to the costs of operating the bus services for years to come.
It is however a necessity to establish any sort of rational bus system in Greater Manchester.

For example, deregulation has delivered an Oxford Road bus corridor that manages to be simultaneously overcrowded and yet dramatically overbussed.

Once we have proper coordination of bus routes, costs can be cut substantially (although I admit I am unlikely to get my preferred option of non-stop bendy bus shuttles between Fallowfield and the University campus)

Oxford Road is a lot less silly than it used to be. And clearly should be a candidate for something with higher capacity vehicles than buses.

 

[domcoop7]

It doesn't matter what it's called - either way it's a highly unfair and quite regressive[1] way of setting up the fares on urban public transport. Clearly one fare level won't work either, but things like zones or simple kilometric distance are a fairer way.

[1] Because it's more likely poorer people will work outside the centre so need 2 buses, and more likely they won't just drive instead as they can't afford a car.

Deregulated system:-

System 1 monthly whole GM season ticket. Cost = £129.00 [TfGM themselves have decided not to have a smaller zone than the entire city region, for reasons known only to them]
System 1 bus only. Cost = £70.00
Stagecoach 28 day megarider. Cost = £62.00

This is bad. Because, reasons.

Franchised system:-

System 1 monthly whole GM season ticket. Cost = £129.00. Plus £x on everybody's Council Tax and £x of other council services cut.
System 1 bus only. Cost = £70.00. Plus £x on everybody's Council Tax and £x of other council services cut.
Stagecoach 28 days Megarider. Verböten. So the cost is now £70 instead of £62. Plus £x on everybody's Council Tax and £x of other council services cut.

This is an excellent example of innovative joined-up integrated public transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Once we have proper coordination of bus routes, costs can be cut substantially (although I admit I am unlikely to get my preferred option of non-stop bendy bus shuttles between Fallowfield and the University campus)

The Uni could tender that if they wanted, but I'm not sure there's much point. There are many ways in which Oxford Road could and should be rationalised, though, but as this isn't a speculative thread I won't go into them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2021 ==

Franchised system:-

System 1 monthly whole GM season ticket. Cost = £129.00. Plus £x on everybody's Council Tax and £x of other council services cut.
System 1 bus only. Cost = £70.00. Plus £x on everybody's Council Tax and £x of other council services cut.
Stagecoach 28 days Megarider. Verböten. So the cost is now £70 instead of £62. Plus £x on everybody's Council Tax and £x of other council services cut.

This is an excellent example of innovative joined-up integrated public transport.

Do you have evidence that this is the intended fare structure, i.e. simply lop the operator specific fares and keep everything else as it is? I'd be surprised if it was. I suspect they're more likely to come up with something more like the other end of the M62, i.e. zonal.

 

[carlberry]

So it's not an example of not having no penalty in a deregulated environment. Under the current system System One ticket prices are set by a company which is mostly owned by local bus companies who have no incentive to reduce their prices. Under this system the transport authority cannot set their prices or types without agreement from a majority of the operators.

If the transport authority WANTED to make the current system work they have the legal means to change that and it appears even easier under the new bill.

 

[domcoop7]

Do you have evidence that this is the intended fare structure, i.e. simply lop the operator specific fares and keep everything else as it is? I'd be surprised if it was.

No, but I was more responding to the point about whether it matters if there is a penalty for travelling with two operators, or a discount for travelling with one. It clearly does matter, because if it's a discount for travelling with one operator then the "rational" system would remove the discount. (It self-evidently is a discount, as there are further discounts available even within the same operator for restricting to certain routes).

If GM wanted to reduce System 1 fares to a lower level, they could do so. If GM wanted to change from modal (bus only / bus + tram / bus + train / bus + tram + train) as their basis for their tickets to a more sensible one based on where you want to travel (within one Town or borough / from Town / borough to Manchester / whole area), they could do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If GM wanted to reduce System 1 fares to a lower level, they could do so.

That's not true, because the operators have to agree them, and they wouldn't agree it being reduced below their dedicated ticket prices.

If GM wanted to change from modal (bus only / bus + tram / bus + train / bus + tram + train) as their basis for their tickets to a more sensible one based on where you want to travel (within one Town or borough / from Town / borough to Manchester / whole area), they could do so.

They could do that, yes. But that's independent from whether they will as part of this new scheme or not. I would be pretty confident that they will. I would further put a reasonable sum of money on it being based on the present Metrolink zones (which are London-style (concentric) rather than Merseyside/German-style (honeycomb style)). I would be surprised if a bus-only option didn't remain, though, as even London has that.

 

[Ianno87]

When there have been bus "Zones" in Manchester in recent years (on operator-specific fares), they're generally either denoted by borough or town boundaries, or First Bus used to deliniate their 'inner' and 'outer' zone by the M60 Motorway / A627(M).

 

[domcoop7]

That's not true, because the operators have to agree them, and they wouldn't agree it being reduced below their dedicated ticket prices.



They could do that, yes. But that's independent from whether they will as part of this new scheme or not. I would be pretty confident that they will. I would further put a reasonable sum of money on it being based on the present Metrolink zones (which are London-style (concentric) rather than Merseyside/German-style (honeycomb style)). I would be surprised if a bus-only option didn't remain, though, as even London has that.

Actually under the Transport Act 2000, transport authorities could introduce a mandatory scheme. The risk under that legislation was that the scheme could be deemed to be non-compliant with competition law, and the Competition Commission produced a report saying that tickets priced based on the average price that a user would use (if they bought tickets separately) less a discount, would be permissible.

https://assets.publishing.service.g.../141874/multi-operator-ticketing-guidance.pdf

Bath & North East Somerset's scheme was seen as the trailblazer. Unlike, e.g. in Manchester, these tickets are actively promoted by First themselves. The report also mentions Oxford, and as far as I can see, Stagecoach give a discount for Megariders in Oxford, but Go-Ahead do not have their own single operator ticket. Again, both operators actively promote the scheme.

So whilst it isn't just a question of TfGM announcing a fare and the operators agreeing, it is also not the case that all operators would object, as Go-Ahead obviously haven't in Oxford.

In any event, I quoted the prices - the price difference is a few pounds a month. In GM, it's the fact that the multi-modal tickets are covering the whole city region, so someone living in a bus ride away from Horwich commuting to the Airport four days or more per week, it's good value. For someone living a bus ride away from Horwich commuting to Bolton, it's pointless. That's on TfGM alone.

But even that's not the end of it. Because the changes in 2018 mean that the other "benefit" of Franchising, daily price capping and touch-in-touch-out, has been available to be imposed by the authority by way of a ticketing scheme since without needing franchising. And that same act also allows for an "enhanced" partnership in which the authority can even set the maximum ticket price if they so wish.

 

[Ken H]

Are you referring specifically to the City of Manchester, or to Greater Manchester?

The general area. Most people could not draw the boundary of greater Manchester on a map.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When there have been bus "Zones" in Manchester in recent years (on operator-specific fares), they're generally either denoted by borough or town boundaries, or First Bus used to deliniate their 'inner' and 'outer' zone by the M60 Motorway / A627(M).

It does help, with buses, for the boundaries to be understandable, so I guess obvious geographic features like the M60 help. However, that can be a bit arbitrary, and obviously for an integrated system to work the trams and trains will have to work on the same zones (or if like TfL you go less granular for buses, where there is a boundary it needs to coincide).

 

[baza585]

The one thing I can confidently predict is that if the scheme is a success, which I very much doubt, A Burnham Esq will claim all the credit and this will further his career.

If only the other hand, it is a disaster, which is much more likely, it will be anyone else's fault but his. The guy is a complete Charlatan and about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake.

 

[carlberry]

The one thing I can confidently predict is that if the scheme is a success, which I very much doubt, A Burnham Esq will claim all the credit and this will further his career.

If only the other hand, it is a disaster, which is much more likely, it will be anyone else's fault but his. The guy is a complete Charlatan and about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake.

The scheme will be shown to be a success (as it's very unlikely that there will actually be a definition of how a failure would be defined) and any issues will be because of Brexit/Covid/Robber barron bus company bosses/Liverpool. Plus the delivery timetable assumes no change of control of Manchester over a considerable period.

I wouldn't talk the guy up too much, are you trying to promote him as a prime minister!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The scheme will be shown to be a success (as it's very unlikely that there will actually be a definition of how a failure would be defined) and any issues will be because of Brexit/Covid/Robber barron bus company bosses/Liverpool. Plus the delivery timetable assumes no change of control of Manchester over a considerable period.

I wouldn't talk the guy up too much, are you trying to promote him as a prime minister!

As I said before, this is (somewhat ironically) a bit of a Brexit-type argument. Lots of "taking back control" and getting rid of a system that doesn't deliver for the people. Also, a view that anything MUST be better than the status quo.

We also have a load of focus on the sunlit uplands, whilst ignoring the very real downsides. Yes, some of the warnings of the most dire consequences are doubtless extreme and should be viewed as such. However, it seems any views that reflect some very legitimate concerns are almost classed as defeatist.

The scheme will undoubtedly be portrayed as a success; after all, the figures highlighting the decline in bus patronage haven't generally been accompanied by Andy Burnham admitting that the vast majority of that has come as a result of Metrolink. Instead, we'll have all the focus on how integration has been achieved and how control has been wrested from the bus barons.

 

[Ianno87]

It does help, with buses, for the boundaries to be understandable, so I guess obvious geographic features like the M60 help. However, that can be a bit arbitrary, and obviously for an integrated system to work the trams and trains will have to work on the same zones (or if like TfL you go less granular for buses, where there is a boundary it needs to coincide).

The M60 is quite good as a "natural" boundary, as is the Manchester Ship Canal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The scheme will be shown to be a success (as it's very unlikely that there will actually be a definition of how a failure would be defined) and any issues will be because of Brexit/Covid/Robber barron bus company bosses/Liverpool. Plus the delivery timetable assumes no change of control of Manchester over a considerable period.

You know he's a Scouser, right? Grew up in Aintree like me.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

You know he's a Scouser, right? Grew up in Aintree like me.

And he did a very good job in getting justice for the 96. I actually like Andy Burnham but on this one, there's a lot of civic jingoism and not much in terms of tangible improvements.

 

[domcoop7]

I thought he lived in Liverpool for a few years after birth and then grew up in Newton-le-Willows. He's better than Steve Rotheram mind, well certainly at getting himself on TV, although he was if you recall a contender for Leader of the Opposition not so long ago and has been a Health Minister in the past, so he is higher profile anyway. I can't say I like him though, he's a typical soundbite politician with no real policy platform. "Tackle Homelessness", "Make Greater Manchester a Green First City", "Enhance Our Place so that Greater Manchester is a Preferred City to Live", "Doing Things Differently", "We are Greater than Everybody Else", etc. Totally meaningless statements. But going back to topic.

A concentric zonal system would not fit Greater Manchester in my view. Especially post-Covid. It assumes everyone wants to travel to the centre and back.

Even if Covid doesn't have the dramatic effects on working from home and closure of office space that some people predict, there's a good chance that firms will not need as much office space in the future and not need to have it centrally located as a hub. Smaller, cheaper, office accommodation in satellite towns may be an attractive half-way house. This will have a big impact on traffic flow. Likewise retail - will the likes of Selfridges and other large stores be able to keep two large stores within a few miles of each other (Trafford Centre and City Centre)? If they close their City Centre branches, what knock-on effects will happen? Is retail going to remain the pull it once was? With Debenhams gone, and others, is it worth going to the City Centre to visit the exact same shops as exist in your local town? With commuting and retail hit, what's left as a City Centre only pull? Night-time economy?

Is there a benefit to a transport authority encouraging carbon emissions by travel to a City Centre and back?

Given all that, I'd say the zones should be around Town and District Centres, with a flat fare for within zone, extra to go to neighbouring zones, extra for the airport and City Centre and finally a whole area zone.

 

[Ken H]

I thought he lived in Liverpool for a few years after birth and then grew up in Newton-le-Willows. He's better than Steve Rotheram mind, well certainly at getting himself on TV, although he was if you recall a contender for Leader of the Opposition not so long ago and has been a Health Minister in the past, so he is higher profile anyway. I can't say I like him though, he's a typical soundbite politician with no real policy platform. "Tackle Homelessness", "Make Greater Manchester a Green First City", "Enhance Our Place so that Greater Manchester is a Preferred City to Live", "Doing Things Differently", "We are Greater than Everybody Else", etc. Totally meaningless statements. But going back to topic.

A concentric zonal system would not fit Greater Manchester in my view. Especially post-Covid. It assumes everyone wants to travel to the centre and back.

Even if Covid doesn't have the dramatic effects on working from home and closure of office space that some people predict, there's a good chance that firms will not need as much office space in the future and not need to have it centrally located as a hub. Smaller, cheaper, office accommodation in satellite towns may be an attractive half-way house. This will have a big impact on traffic flow. Likewise retail - will the likes of Selfridges and other large stores be able to keep two large stores within a few miles of each other (Trafford Centre and City Centre)? If they close their City Centre branches, what knock-on effects will happen? Is retail going to remain the pull it once was? With Debenhams gone, and others, is it worth going to the City Centre to visit the exact same shops as exist in your local town? With commuting and retail hit, what's left as a City Centre only pull? Night-time economy?

Is there a benefit to a transport authority encouraging carbon emissions by travel to a City Centre and back?

Given all that, I'd say the zones should be around Town and District Centres, with a flat fare for within zone, extra to go to neighbouring zones, extra for the airport and City Centre and finally a whole area zone.

While Manchester is the main hub, there are quite a few others, like Oldham, Salford, Rochdale, Bury, Bolton and Stockport. maybe Altrincham and Hyde. So there is quite a lot of orbital traffic. Just look how busy the M60 is. So concentric rings like London would not work. Same for West Yorks, which has Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield and Wakefield, and smaller but important towns too. Not everyone goes to Leeds.

 

[Goldfish62]

The general area. Most people could not draw the boundary of greater Manchester on a map.

Manchester can in no way be compared to Greater Manchester as a general area! It's tiny in comparison! Saying that Greater Manchester is generally Manchester is like saying that West Yorkshire is generally Leeds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2021 ==

This thread seems to be overwhelmingly negative, with some justifiable comments, some not so. However, what's lacking is any comment on what people would prefer to see given that the pre-covid status quo has gone for good (ref: national bus strategy).

 

[Bletchleyite]

This thread seems to be overwhelmingly negative, with some justifiable comments, some not so. However, what's lacking is any comment on what people would prefer to see given that the pre-covid status quo has gone for good (ref: national bus strategy).

I think there's a slight echo of the rest of the Forum there - not in terms of negativity per-se, but I do tend to find that the Forum is overridingly very conservative (small C), and has often talked down things as impossible that have later gone on to be implemented and highly successful. The most notable one I recall is that I proposed an e-ticketing system for walk-up fares that was remarkably similar to (though not 100% the same as) the one that was actually implemented a few years later - but the Forum largely naysayed it.

That sort of analysis is very helpful in finding pitfalls in things, and this will of course have plenty of its own - but I am unlike many others very optimistic, and in the end if it is an abject failure it won't spread. However, if it's successful, as I think it will be (based mainly on the fact that it works that way in more countries than it works like here), then we might finally get a proper quality of transport authorities and integrated city transport systems of the kind you get in Germany - and not before time.

With regard to "what instead" I think some have pointed to partnerships - and it would be equally interesting to see a large city implement those (how about Liverpool, perhaps?) so that we could compare them directly.

 

[Stan Drews]

Manchester can in no way be compared to Greater Manchester as a general area! It's tiny in comparison! Saying that Greater Manchester is generally Manchester is like saying that West Yorkshire is generally Leeds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2021 ==

This thread seems to be overwhelmingly negative, with some justifiable comments, some not so. However, what's lacking is any comment on what people would prefer to see given that the pre-covid status quo has gone for good (ref: national bus strategy).

I think the majority of people that work in the industry and understand the issues it faces, have a more realistic view of the financial implications of most of the headline aspirations that franchising is supposed to deliver. Furthermore, they also know that if similar funding was made available now, the current system could deliver many of the same benefits.
I think the majority of the general public, whether they use public transport or not, think that only franchising can deliver improvements, and they don’t comprehend the level of finance that will be required to bring about such radical change ...let alone that they may have to contribute towards it. Some transport users may grudgingly accept that, but you can guarantee those who never use public transport (other than maybe after the annual office party), will be less willing to contribute.
Add in the possibility that the post Covid world might result in radically different patterns of travel - especially by public transport - any you just multiply the risks.
Comparisons with continental Europe are well intentioned, but largely pointless, as they take a totally different view of how public transport is funded, and despite the occasional sound bite from the politicians of the day about throwing some loose change at it here, comparable levels of funding aren’t coming to the UK anytime soon.

I’ll happily watch from afar!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

This thread seems to be overwhelmingly negative, with some justifiable comments, some not so. However, what's lacking is any comment on what people would prefer to see given that the pre-covid status quo has gone for good (ref: national bus strategy).

To be fair, I did say that I'd prefer to see an enhanced partnership rather than franchising as this is currently envisaged.

That would be for TfGM and the local authorities to commit to a programme of bus priority. As an example, bus lanes on the A57 (Hyde Road) are sporadic and on the A56 from Old Trafford, they are almost non-existent. It's all quite piecemeal. Even with the new social distancing, it's made some routes from the north unreliable because of the changes around Deansgate. Those are just some examples but you can repeat this in many other towns.

Instead, work with the operators to identify the main troublespots; their drivers will know, the GPS feed will provide black and white evidence, and then create a fully costed programme to tackle the main blackspots as well as better overall corridors and back it up with red routes, clearways or whatever. Just say that it's a five or ten year programme costing £x m.

Then say to the operators that they are prepared to invest. Now it's their turn - they have to commit to certain things as well so that can be interavailability of tickets, removal of single operator tickets, minimum service patterns on the corridors where the investment goes in (so you get the pay back). Perhaps a CAZ or other ties in with emissions or vehicle ages.

So yeah, the Oxford model if you want to call it that. Say to the operators - yeah, we can invest and you'll get the benefit but there are strings attached.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With the existing Supertram network in mind and the Sheffield tram-train, plus the large bus network and National Rail train services in mind, I wonder why the "Greater Sheffield" area was not chosen to launch this new transport innovation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the majority of people that work in the industry and understand the issues it faces, have a more realistic view of the financial implications of most of the headline aspirations that franchising is supposed to deliver. Furthermore, they also know that if similar funding was made available now, the current system could deliver many of the same benefits.

The thing about that is during the 2000s, before austerity kicked in, buses did get far, far more funding than they do now - yet that was just used conservatively to tender more unremunerative services, not to pursue integration. To me that evidences that the existing system won't deliver the same benefits, even if it technically could, largely due to conservatism within the industry. Why innovate when the money is coming in nicely doing what you've done for years?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2021 ==

With the existing Supertram network in mind and the Sheffield tram-train, plus the large bus network and National Rail train services in mind, I wonder why the "Greater Sheffield" area was not chosen to launch this new transport innovation.

I don't think it was a national thing which was "given" to GM - it's GM that has pushed for it itself.

 

[lincman]

And he did a very good job in getting justice for the 96. I actually like Andy Burnham but on this one, there's a lot of civic jingoism and not much in terms of tangible improvements.

There are some in Stafford who advise caution as to his suitability

 

[Stan Drews]

The thing about that is during the 2000s, before austerity kicked in, buses did get far, far more funding than they do now - yet that was just used conservatively to tender more unremunerative services, not to pursue integration. To me that evidences that the existing system won't deliver the same benefits, even if it technically could, largely due to conservatism within the industry. Why innovate when the money is coming in nicely doing what you've done for years?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2021 ==



I don't think it was a national thing which was "given" to GM - it's GM that has pushed for it itself.

Sorry, I should have made it clear, that I don’t consider those working for the local authorities and the politicians as “in the industry”, and the example you describe perfectly illustrates the point I was trying to make.

 

[johncrossley]

Sorry, I should have made it clear, that I don’t consider those working for the local authorities and the politicians as “in the industry”, and the example you describe perfectly illustrates the point I was trying to make.

Does that mean people who work for TfL aren't "in the industry"? In other countries, who is in the industry?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does that mean people who work for TfL aren't "in the industry"? In other countries, who is in the industry?

I think that the use of the phrase "the industry" has been meant to convey those actual companies involved with the actual rail industry itself. rather than non-rail bodies who wish to work with companies so defined.

 

[johncrossley]

To be fair, I did say that I'd prefer to see an enhanced partnership rather than franchising as this is currently envisaged.

That would be for TfGM and the local authorities to commit to a programme of bus priority. As an example, bus lanes on the A57 (Hyde Road) are sporadic and on the A56 from Old Trafford, they are almost non-existent. It's all quite piecemeal. Even with the new social distancing, it's made some routes from the north unreliable because of the changes around Deansgate. Those are just some examples but you can repeat this in many other towns.

Instead, work with the operators to identify the main troublespots; their drivers will know, the GPS feed will provide black and white evidence, and then create a fully costed programme to tackle the main blackspots as well as better overall corridors and back it up with red routes, clearways or whatever. Just say that it's a five or ten year programme costing £x m.

Then say to the operators that they are prepared to invest. Now it's their turn - they have to commit to certain things as well so that can be interavailability of tickets, removal of single operator tickets, minimum service patterns on the corridors where the investment goes in (so you get the pay back). Perhaps a CAZ or other ties in with emissions or vehicle ages.

So yeah, the Oxford model if you want to call it that. Say to the operators - yeah, we can invest and you'll get the benefit but there are strings attached.

But aren't you restricted to using the incumbent operators that way? What if one of the operators involved is incapable of running a good service? How does the local authority know it is getting value for money? The whole point of tendering is that your ultimate sanction is that you can get rid of badly performing contractors.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Mar 2021 ==

Deregulation in GM was *more* expensive than London franchising for many years. Before 1986 London had heavily subsidised buses. Tendering/privatisation cut costs massively so that London buses were running at near break even for years. Despite cutting costs massively, bus patronage in London didn't fall. At the time London was break even, GM was more expensive they had to pay for tendered buses in the evening and Sunday.