TfGM Bus franchising

[Goldfish62]

One thing that I can see is going to cause problems is political micro-management.

TfL has the legal status of a local authority and is only answerable to the Mayor through the TfL Board. It is not answerable to the GLA. It self-manages the bus network without politicians needing to approve everything it does.

Contrast that with TfGM, which is an agency of the GMCA, which itself consists of elected representatives from each of the ten boroughs. TfGM is managed by the GMCA's TfGM Committee which consists of 33 councillors. TfGM cannot make any service changes without each one being approved by the TfGM Committee.

A recipe for politically micromanaged network planning decisions.

 

[johncrossley]

There's a fundamental issue here that again no-one has yet been able to answer. Taking the continent (and London to a lesser degree), they have better public transport because funding is made available. In GM, there's a one off £135m just to get up and running, and then what? Better bus priority isn't on the agenda and even if it were, you could do that NOW. Service reductions from mythical overprovision or duplication that doesn't really exist?

Money will be made available to make it work, otherwise there will be egg on both the mayor and the government. Don't forget, bus franchising is also Tory government policy. If you read the national bus policy from a couple of weeks back, it is clear that the government is no fan of deregulation.

What if this forum existed in 1985? Most of us would be concerned about loss in patronage following the then forthcoming privatisation of London Buses and the cut in funding, but in the end it turned out to be a good result. And we wouldn't have known that there would be a benefactor in the form of Ken Livingstone in the future. If GM was franchised in 1986 with a similar new mayor installed in 2000, there would have been quite a good chance of similar funding going to GM. GM missed out in 2000 because of deregulation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Contrast that with TfGM, which is an agency of the GMCA, which itself consists of elected representatives from each of the ten boroughs. TfGM is managed by the GMCA's TfGM Committee which consists of 33 councillors. TfGM cannot make any service changes without each one being approved by the TfGM Committee.

Yes, that's a concern. A transport authority works best as a "QuANGO" i.e. an independent, autonomous organisation whose funding, strategy and aims are politically-driven but the day to day management is done by experts in the field of transport planning and management. This isn't an entirely unusual situation, for example the Fire Service is funded in this sort of way but generally allowed to get on with its own strategy and planning, as they, not the Council, are the ones who know best about how to organise themselves to put out fires. OK, the Fire Service is directly operated, but there are elements of the emergency services that aren't, for example Mountain Rescue is done by independent charitable organisations and their helicopters are provided by a commercial contract with Bristow.

So perhaps there is also some structural change needed for TfGM. It would be quite right for Bolton's input (say) to be that they want a certain level of service and are going to fund that in return (for instance they want a last bus from the station to within 1km of all homes in the main built up area of Bolton to be not earlier than 2300, say) but less so that they want route 25 to operate via Nowhereville and Back-of-Beyond Drive specifically. If you see what I mean.

It'd be interesting to know how the German equivalents are managed politically - I genuinely don't know.

FWIW there are different ways to achieve that end - it wouldn't need to be TfGM as a political body doing the control, I could see that it might work better in a smaller town (such as the example of Aylesbury, or Lancaster, or somewhere of that sort of size) to contract the entire town operation including strategic planning to one bus company, and the political input simply to be "this is the high level strategy we want followed, bid for what it's going to cost to deliver that". That seems to be what was done for Libertybus in Jersey, to use an example we've had upthread for a slightly different question. But GM is probably too big to do that in that way and so TfGM (like TfL) is needed as an oversight.

What if this forum existed in 1985? Most of us would be concerned about loss in patronage following the then forthcoming privatisation of London Buses and the cut in funding, but in the end it turned out to be a good result. And we wouldn't have known that there would be a benefactor in the form of Ken Livingstone in the future. If GM was franchised in 1986 with a similar new mayor installed in 2000, there would have been quite a good chance of similar funding going to GM. GM missed out in 2000 because of deregulation.

TBH because TfL has such a tight control over the nature of operations in London I couldn't really care less if it was contracted or operated directly, to be honest. My view would be that the decision on which to do should be purely financial, i.e. if it's cheaper to contract, do that, if it's cheaper to operate directly, do that, if TfL would like to set up a direct operator to compete with tenders (which they did have for a bit - East Thames Buses) then that too. And the only way in which passengers really see which it is is a small logo on the bus and the colour of the seat moquette (and not even that in some cases). So it's of limited relevance.

However, if we were here and it was 1985, I'd probably be pushing for a TfL model rather than full deregulation. Though as I said in my other post that's ideological to me - public transport is a vital public service that should be under public control and accountability, just like emptying the bins. The issue of whether contracting it out for operation is more financially expedient is basically a decision for the bean-counters.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Money will be made available to make it work, otherwise there will be egg on both the mayor and the government. Don't forget, bus franchising is also Tory government policy. If you read the national bus policy from a couple of weeks back, it is clear that the government is no fan of deregulation.

What if this forum existed in 1985? Most of us would be concerned about loss in patronage following the then forthcoming privatisation of London Buses and the cut in funding, but in the end it turned out to be a good result. And we wouldn't have known that there would be a benefactor in the form of Ken Livingstone in the future. If GM was franchised in 1986 with a similar new mayor installed in 2000, there would have been quite a good chance of similar funding going to GM. GM missed out in 2000 because of deregulation.

The National Bus Policy commits £3bn and mainly to be in capital projects such as zero emission buses and improved bus priority - things that these GM proposals don't address. In addition, the policy may be no fan of deregulation but it is certainly more aimed at enhanced partnerships; in fact, it specifically refers to the increased flexibility that these bring rather than franchising and that's why enhanced partnerships are to be brought in before franchising.

If this forum existed in 1985, we might have been more concerned about the new world in the UK and how this disruption would impact. It might also have had some consideration about the previous 30 years of patronage decline. It might also have recognised that Greater Manchester Transport was a massively unwieldy and inefficient organisation so that whilst losing a number of routes under tender to established operators like Ribble (with their Manchester and Bolton depots taking up some of the slack) and being able to close 3 depots immediately before deregulation and another 3 at d-day.

Deregulation was an earthquake compared to the 56 years of stability but for half of that, it had been an industry in decline, and don't forget that Metrolink is an important component in the decline of bus patronage during the last 25 years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If this forum existed in 1985, we might have been more concerned about the new world in the UK and how this disruption would impact. It might also have had some consideration about the previous 30 years of patronage decline. It might also have recognised that Greater Manchester Transport was a massively unwieldy and inefficient organisation so that whilst losing a number of routes under tender to established operators like Ribble (with their Manchester and Bolton depots taking up some of the slack) and being able to close 3 depots immediately before deregulation and another 3 at d-day.

To be fair I don't hark back to GMT as a halcyon era - as you say it had many faults, too. I'm more interested in moving forward to what I see as a better situation - the ideal being a single system where you use the modes you need to use to make your journey, with a single fare set and a single timetable.

 

[johncrossley]

The National Bus Policy commits £3bn and mainly to be in capital projects such as zero emission buses and improved bus priority - things that these GM proposals don't address. In addition, the policy may be no fan of deregulation but it is certainly more aimed at enhanced partnerships; in fact, it specifically refers to the increased flexibility that these bring rather than franchising and that's why enhanced partnerships are to be brought in before franchising.

If this forum existed in 1985, we might have been more concerned about the new world in the UK and how this disruption would impact. It might also have had some consideration about the previous 30 years of patronage decline. It might also have recognised that Greater Manchester Transport was a massively unwieldy and inefficient organisation so that whilst losing a number of routes under tender to established operators like Ribble (with their Manchester and Bolton depots taking up some of the slack) and being able to close 3 depots immediately before deregulation and another 3 at d-day.

Deregulation was an earthquake compared to the 56 years of stability but for half of that, it had been an industry in decline, and don't forget that Metrolink is an important component in the decline of bus patronage during the last 25 years.

It only recommends enhanced partnerships before franchising because franchising takes time to implement. In other words, if the authority wants franchising then it is welcome to have it, and while it waits for franchising to begin it can get some of the advantages through an enhanced partnership in the meantime. Also, for the first time, it enables authorities without mayors to have franchising.

Patronage loss was inevitable from the 60s onwards because of the growth of car ownership. Similar trends can be seen in the rest of western Europe. But by the 80s the rate of loss had been much reduced in the PTE areas. Then patronage loss accelerated again immediately following deregulation.

Metrolink is only relevant from the later phase of openings only about a decade ago. By then the damage had long been done. Much of the damage was already done by 1992 when the first phase opened.

However, my post was referring specifically to London and the effect of franchising, and more importantly, the massive cut in funding. Who would have predicted that you could cut funding in London so dramatically without a severe cut in patronage? Such a result was surely very surprising.

 

[Greybeard33]

Contrast that with TfGM, which is an agency of the GMCA, which itself consists of elected representatives from each of the ten boroughs. TfGM is managed by the GMCA's TfGM Committee which consists of 33 councillors. TfGM cannot make any service changes without each one being approved by the TfGM Committee.

A recipe for politically micromanaged network planning decisions.

What is wrong with TfGM being democratically accountable to the GM electorate for decisions about local services that are partly financed by local taxation?

If you read the meeting minutes of the Greater Manchester Transport Committee and its subcommittees (see link below), you will struggle to find examples of "politically micromanaged network planning decisions".

Home

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) - working together to improve the lives of people in Greater Manchester - Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan

democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It only recommends enhanced partnerships before franchising because franchising takes time to implement. In other words, if the authority wants franchising then it is welcome to have it, and while it waits for franchising to begin it can get some of the advantages through an enhanced partnership in the meantime. Also, for the first time, it enables authorities without mayors to have franchising.

Patronage loss was inevitable from the 60s onwards because of the growth of car ownership. Similar trends can be seen in the rest of western Europe. But by the 80s the rate of loss had been much reduced in the PTE areas. Then patronage loss accelerated again immediately following deregulation.

Metrolink is only relevant from the later phase of openings only about a decade ago. By then the damage had long been done. Much of the damage was already done by 1992 when the first phase opened.

However, my post was referring specifically to London and the effect of franchising, and more importantly, the massive cut in funding. Who would have predicted that you could cut funding in London so dramatically without a severe cut in patronage? Such a result was surely very surprising.

You are right to an extent. It does says you have to have an enhanced partnership before you go straight into franchising, because they want to have improvements now and franchising takes years. Therefore, you must go through that gate before proceeding to franchising. It does not recommend anything, though it specifically states " The main difference versus franchising is that operators in an Enhanced Partnership have a much greater role, working with LTAs to both develop and deliver improvements for passengers and having a real say on how bus services should be improved. Enhanced Partnerships also offer significantly more flexibility than franchising."

Patronage loss across the UK began in the 1950s as a consequence of societal change, which again we have discussed at length before. You are quite right in this but why did bus patronage not decline in GM to the same extent as the provinces.... It was because of the large amount of money that spent on fares support through both stated and hidden types of financial support, locally and on a nationwide level. It's not a surprise that when fares, having been held at artificially low levels increased, patronage went down. That's in addition to all the other disruption that came with deregulation. The government are promising £3bn of funding which sounds a lot but isn't that great when you consider that a fair slug is to fund the transition from diesel to alternative fuels.

As for the chronology, it is fair to say that a lot of the damage came before 1992. As I said before, the impact of deregulation saw patronage fall from 350m/year to 270m/year. Since then though, the decline has been pretty marked and much has been Metrolink related. In phase one, 20m bus journeys were lost - some of that was continuing decline, some because of the ERM and wider economic malaise, but over half were from former bus users using Metrolink. That's a pattern that has been seen consistently - Metrolink is a great network and it's very popular but it has decimated bus travel; Eccles New Road would have buses every few minutes to the city centre - it's now every 30 mins!

And yes, I agree that had GM moved to a regulated environment and that the efficiency cuts that came to London had been enacted, then perhaps things would have different. However, it didn't and it wasn't

 

[Goldfish62]

What is wrong with TfGM being democratically accountable to the GM electorate for decisions about local services that are partly financed by local taxation?

If you read the meeting minutes of the Greater Manchester Transport Committee and its subcommittees (see link below), you will struggle to find examples of "politically micromanaged network planning decisions".

Home

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) - working together to improve the lives of people in Greater Manchester - Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan

democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk

Everything is wrong with politicians not letting the professionals get on with a job.

TfL manages to be democratically accountable to the electorate without individual politicians micro-managing every decision. TfL makes itself accountable directly to the electorate through public consultation on service changes. That's far better than service changes being dictated by individual self-interest of local politicians.

You won't find any examples of politically micromanaged network planning decisions because it's more a case of what TfGM hasn't able to do because it's been blocked by the TfGMC. And no, I'm not going to list anything.

However, the governance structure of the GMCA is dictated by primary legislation so it's not going to change.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Mar 2021 ==

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.

Yes, I agree with all that.

Of course in Oxford there are just two operators involved in the partnership. In GM are a large number of disparate operators which would all have to come into an enhanced partnership to make it meaningful. I really cannot see the many varied operators being able to easily agree to everything. There's still something of the post-deregulation cowboy feel to certain bus operations in GM, as if they're still frozen in time in the late 1980s.

I also don't think the operators have exactly helped themselves. Onebus only came into being to try to head off franchising, but its proposals are not exactly revolutionary and many could have been done before now. In any case they appear to fall somewhat short of enhanced partnership. I also understand that one or two of the large operator have been negative towards enhanced partnership, preferring just be able to walk away when they feel like it.

So I can understand how GM has got to where it is now, even if I have misgivings about how it's all going to turn out.

Re various comments about Burnham earlier in the thread, note that TfGM started work on franchising/bus reform in 2015, well before GM had an elected Mayor and there was close collaboration between TfGM and the DfT under the Cameron government in drawing up the Bus Services Act as an enabler for franchising.

 

[johncrossley]

How are enhanced partnerships going to work? For example, suppose the authority wants to implement a particular fare system in a town with two operators. One operator says the money on offer isn't enough, but the other is willing to operate all services in town under these rules. Can the authority mandate the fare system? If that's the case then the operator who said they couldn't afford it would either have to suck it up, or cancel their services, giving their part of the network to the other operator.

 

[Goldfish62]

How are enhanced partnerships going to work? For example, suppose the authority wants to implement a particular fare system in a town with two operators. One operator says the money on offer isn't enough, but the other is willing to operate all services in town under these rules. Can the authority mandate the fare system? If that's the case then the operator who said they couldn't afford it would either have to suck it up, or cancel their services, giving their part of the network to the other operator.

The government is effectively forcing the issue. Given that operators are going to need funding equivalent to Coronavirus Bus Service Support Grant (CBSSG) for quite some time the national bus strategy states that only operators taking part in enhanced partnerships or a franchising scheme will be eligible for grant payments. if an operator would prefer to deregister all its services instead then it's probably a case of good riddance anyway.

 

[johncrossley]

The government is effectively forcing the issue. Given that operators are going to need funding equivalent to Coronavirus Bus Service Support Grant (CBSSG) for quite some time the national bus strategy states that only operators taking part in enhanced partnerships or a franchising scheme will be eligible for grant payments. if an operator would prefer to deregister all its services instead then it's probably a case of good riddance anyway.

For how long, though? If passengers recover to a level not much less than pre-Covid then some operators may not care about funding. Stagecoach would probably find the 192 profitable even on 50% of the pre-Covid usage level.

 

[Robertj21a]

For how long, though? If passengers recover to a level not much less than pre-Covid then some operators may not care about funding. Stagecoach would probably find the 192 profitable even on 50% of the pre-Covid usage level.

The 192 is a fairly exceptional route and there can't be too many others with the same potential. For the 99% of the others they may well need longer term help.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 192 is a fairly exceptional route and there can't be too many others with the same potential. For the 99% of the others they may well need longer term help.

Once the students are back the 42/43 would easily be profitable even without even regular BSOG.

The 192 is odd as it directly parallels a railway - can anyone imagine for example that level of service on the Liverpool-Ormskirk bus (half hourly I think)? What it does illustrate is how unacceptably bad the service on that railway is, and I suppose how awkward the location of Stockport station is with respect to the town.

 

[johncrossley]

The 192 is a fairly exceptional route and there can't be too many others with the same potential. For the 99% of the others they may well need longer term help.

Are things really projected to be that bad? If so, you would expect operators across the country to be shouting "Help!" If things are projected to be that bad then deregulation as we know it is over anyway, so why are operators still playing hardball?

 

[RT4038]

It is very analogous indeed to Tesco being forced to divest a store to Sainsbury's (hardly any effect on the overall company, and the staff just change uniforms) compared to a "mom and pop" corner shop losing its business (possible financial ruin for the family).

Sorry, but I don't think your analogy goes anywhere like far enough in describing the situation. Try this:

In Manchester the local government decides that it is going to control the supermarket industry, the locations they are at, the products offered and the pricing. Tesco, Sainsbury's, ASDA, Lidl and all the others no longer have any right to commercially operate shops. They can however competitively tender to be the labour and infrastructure providing contractor for these government controlled shops, on an area basis.

Surely, more than public transport, the provision of food and other basic items should be a public service controlled by the state? Rationalisation of outlets and products should mean cheaper prices, with less profits being sent to robber shop owning barons? Yeah right!

A business with a right to commercially provide to individual customers is completely different to a labour and infrastructure contractor (which is what Manchester bus operators are being relegated to), and it is not surprising that the former are complaining about being converted into the latter.

Do not be so sure that TUPE will apply in the first instance of change from the current system to franchising. There are not contracts changing hands, and the work may not be so easily identifiable. I don't think saying that bus driving work on X is the same as bus driving work on Y cuts it. The companies losing work will wish to TUPE as many as possible over, especially the longer serving expensive ones, (to avoid severance payments), but the recipient companies will not be so keen. Unless this is all tightly written into the tender documents. Which won't have any effect on the tender prices. Yeah right!

I fully understand why you believe that complete public control is the way forward for Manchester (and everywhere else), but there has to be a better way of achieving the aims other than confiscating the main businesses of the existing operators and relegating them to contractors.

 

[HSTEd]

I fully understand why you believe that complete public control is the way forward for Manchester (and everywhere else), but there has to be a better way of achieving the aims other than confiscating the main businesses of the existing operators and relegating them to contractors.

Does there?

I can't see one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does there?

I can't see one.

I can't either. It strikes me that a partnership cannot possibly provide the level of German-style integration I see as desirable, because no bus operator would ever agree to their passengers being encouraged to switch to Metrolink or the train for the lucrative "trunk" part of the journey. Do you think, for example, that a passenger from Stepping Hill (awkwardly between two stations on that route) would necessarily continue with the long, slow journey through the ratholes that are Levvy and Longsight on the 192 if it pulled up right outside Stockport station* for a quick journey to Piccadilly on Avanti, all on the same ticket? The 192 is only viable in its present form because of poor integration and a poor-ish train service.

We might get somewhere vaguely acceptable with partnerships, but the "holy grail" is full, totally mode-agnostic integration. A public transport system. And I simply don't see how partnerships will ever get there, because what's left once you've properly integrated things simply wouldn't be profitable.

* Not on the A6. I know it's not far to walk, but that walk, however short, is a massive dissuader - it's a bit like the way 10p dissuades you from taking a carrier bag even though it's a piffling sum of money. I actually mean at the station entrance. Where the taxis are now, not half way down the road like the present stop there (that doesn't get the 192).

 

[Goldfish62]

For how long, though? If passengers recover to a level not much less than pre-Covid then some operators may not care about funding. Stagecoach would probably find the 192 profitable even on 50% of the pre-Covid usage level.

Do you really think that a 50% revenue cut on the 192 would be commercially sustainable?

And even a return to say 90% would still be a 10% revenue cut which would require a 10% operating cost cut to maintain margins.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you really think that a 50% revenue cut on the 192 would be commercially sustainable?

Given the loadings, easily. You'd just halve the service. It's one of the busiest bus routes in the country, even lopped in half it'd carry far more passengers than any of the MK commercial routes, for example.

 

[Goldfish62]

Given the loadings, easily. You'd just halve the service. It's one of the busiest bus routes in the country, even lopped in half it'd carry far more passengers than any of the MK commercial routes, for example.

I have used "The Zoo" a good few times pre-Covid so I'm certainly aware how busy it is (was).

I got the impression the poster was suggesting that the frequency would remain unchanged.

 

[johncrossley]

I fully understand why you believe that complete public control is the way forward for Manchester (and everywhere else), but there has to be a better way of achieving the aims other than confiscating the main businesses of the existing operators and relegating them to contractors.

Conversely, should the operators be bailed out indefinitely? According to recent posts, commercial operation will no longer be viable for the foreseeable future.

 

[domcoop7]

Money will be made available to make it work, otherwise there will be egg on both the mayor and the government. Don't forget, bus franchising is also Tory government policy. If you read the national bus policy from a couple of weeks back, it is clear that the government is no fan of deregulation.

This is true. But, given that the current (nominally "Conservative") government appear to have stumbled by accident upon Jeremy Corbyn's Magic Money Tree, there's the possibility that they will provide additional revenue support (as opposed to capital) funding for GM buses. But then again, politically, that would be helping out Mr Burnham. And if they do that, and Rishi finds himself up against Andy at the next general election, it may be something that the government regret!

What is wrong with TfGM being democratically accountable to the GM electorate for decisions about local services that are partly financed by local taxation?

If you read the meeting minutes of the Greater Manchester Transport Committee and its subcommittees (see link below), you will struggle to find examples of "politically micromanaged network planning decisions".

Home

Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) - working together to improve the lives of people in Greater Manchester - Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Wigan

democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk

Apples and oranges. At the moment, if somebody moans to Councillor Heckmondwyke that the bus doesn't go to the bingo, they can say "not our problem". Or even more likely "vicious Tory funding cuts are at fault and the only way to reverse it is Franchising".

Post Franchising, it's on them. They'll probably palm it off on the Mayor, and having a single sole individual responsible for 3.5 million people is a convenient way to avoid issues being dealt with (since the Mayor losing 1000 votes over a bus route issue is not going to make a ha'pporth of difference to the votes in GM.) But the temptation for councillors or the mayor to interfere will be irresistible. In fact, it's kind of the whole point. They're ideologically wedded to being able to control the system. It's unlikely they're going to get that control, but then choose not to use it.

And I know it's been said before, but the destination seems pretty clear - Gateshead style enforced changes. Except in GM it will be to Metrolink, the guided busway, the East Lancs park and ride, and so on.

Sorry, but I don't think your analogy goes anywhere like far enough in describing the situation. Try this:

In Manchester the local government decides that it is going to control the supermarket industry, the locations they are at, the products offered and the pricing. Tesco, Sainsbury's, ASDA, Lidl and all the others no longer have any right to commercially operate shops. They can however competitively tender to be the labour and infrastructure providing contractor for these government controlled shops, on an area basis.

Surely, more than public transport, the provision of food and other basic items should be a public service controlled by the state? Rationalisation of outlets and products should mean cheaper prices, with less profits being sent to robber shop owning barons? Yeah right!

This, 100%. And don't forget that having two shops within 500 metres of each other is "wasteful competition" and that the excess profits generated by this can (somehow) be "reinvested" into providing new shops in underserved areas! So we'll be allowed one supermarket per large town, and one co-op per suburb. And in order to stop "unnecessary duplication" or "revenue abstraction", the Co-op won't be allowed to sell anything that's available in the Supermarket. But they'll all be painted the same colour (yay!) and if there's a buy one get one free promotion, you'll be able to "touch in" to both the Co-op and the Supermarket and mix and match items without a penalty.

Do not be so sure that TUPE will apply in the first instance of change from the current system to franchising. There are not contracts changing hands, and the work may not be so easily identifiable. I don't think saying that bus driving work on X is the same as bus driving work on Y cuts it. The companies losing work will wish to TUPE as many as possible over, especially the longer serving expensive ones, (to avoid severance payments), but the recipient companies will not be so keen. Unless this is all tightly written into the tender documents. Which won't have any effect on the tender prices. Yeah right!

I fully understand why you believe that complete public control is the way forward for Manchester (and everywhere else), but there has to be a better way of achieving the aims other than confiscating the main businesses of the existing operators and relegating them to contractors.

I agree. People on here are quite confident about TUPE applying, but - absent some political pressure (which in fairness would probably come) - the first set of franchisees will probably not be TUPE unless its the same drivers doing the same routes out of the same depots. If Stagecoach won North Manchester and Oldham and decided to run it out of Hyde Road, I can't see how TUPE could possibly apply. They'd have to take on all the existing drivers and managers, on varying terms and conditions of employment, and then make them redundant and fund the redundancy pay if they weren't needed. Of course if GM gets the depots, and makes it a condition of the franchise that routes have to be run from a particular depot, then TUPE would apply. But expect this to be priced into franchise bids.

To be fair I don't hark back to GMT as a halcyon era - as you say it had many faults, too.

It, and GM Buses North / GMS Buses were not good at all. But of course they didn't need to be, because they had a captive market in a relatively poor part of the country going through post-industrial contraction with little car use and with (for the era) above average road infrastructure (meaning much less traffic congestion).

That could be different this time around, but I wouldn't bet on it. Somebody (sorry I can't find it) said up-thread "buses should be a public service like emptying bins". Emptying bins is absolutely awful in Greater Manchester, precisely because of political interference and control. In my area they're collect only one every three weeks. It's a dire system, that nobody in their right mind would want. No private service provider would offer such a system (in fact one guy in Oldham or Bolton bought a bin lorry and is offering additional collections for a fee!). Yet the council tell us in their multi-million propaganda leaflets (that they can funnily afford despite "Tory Austerity") that everyone's really happy and satisfied with the bin collections and it's a great success and contributes to recycling, and nobody has rubbish that can't fit into the bins, and nobody has rat problems or vermin issues. Even though I personally spoke to people in pest control who confirm they've never been busier, ever.

If (when) that attitude transfers to the bus system ("we know best, and whatever we decide will be a success"), then I'd be worried.

 

[johncrossley]

That could be different this time around, but I wouldn't bet on it. Somebody (sorry I can't find it) said up-thread "buses should be a public service like emptying bins". Emptying bins is absolutely awful in Greater Manchester, precisely because of political interference and control. In my area they're collect only one every three weeks. It's a dire system, that nobody in their right mind would want. No private service provider would offer such a system (in fact one guy in Oldham or Bolton bought a bin lorry and is offering additional collections for a fee!). Yet the council tell us in their multi-million propaganda leaflets (that they can funnily afford despite "Tory Austerity") that everyone's really happy and satisfied with the bin collections and it's a great success and contributes to recycling, and nobody has rubbish that can't fit into the bins, and nobody has rat problems or vermin issues. Even though I personally spoke to people in pest control who confirm they've never been busier, ever.

Maybe bin collection should no longer be a council provided service so that you have to pay a private company to empty your bins directly? Sounds unrealistic, but that's what happens in Ireland. From what I've seen the charges can be eyewatering.

 

[dm1]

The difference between a supermarket and a public transport system is that the former is likely to be profitable when providing a useful service (albeit with fairly thin margins). A public transport system (or in this case a component thereof) is only profitable on its own merits in rare cases, but in order to be useful to society it has to serve routes that may not be profitable in themselves.

There are different models of tendering/franchosing that determine where the revenue risk lies. Generally, either the risk lies with the organisation running the tendering process (the operator is paid a fixed operating cost), or the risk lies with the operator and it participates in the tender by naming a price for which it is prepared to run the route (surplus or subsidy, ideally within a regulated fare environment). Mostly the result from the passenger perspective is similar, but the latter approach gives the operator some autonomy and an incentive to attract new passengers to the service.

 

[Greybeard33]

Apples and oranges. At the moment, if somebody moans to Councillor Heckmondwyke that the bus doesn't go to the bingo, they can say "not our problem". Or even more likely "vicious Tory funding cuts are at fault and the only way to reverse it is Franchising".

Post Franchising, it's on them. They'll probably palm it off on the Mayor, and having a single sole individual responsible for 3.5 million people is a convenient way to avoid issues being dealt with (since the Mayor losing 1000 votes over a bus route issue is not going to make a ha'pporth of difference to the votes in GM.) But the temptation for councillors or the mayor to interfere will be irresistible. In fact, it's kind of the whole point. They're ideologically wedded to being able to control the system. It's unlikely they're going to get that control, but then choose not to use it.

TfGM already has complete control of the Metrolink system as well as of the tendered bus services. Where is the evidence that councillors and/or the mayor "interfere" in a detrimental way? As opposed to exercising proper democratic oversight of a public body?

 

[Llandudno]

Once the students are back the 42/43 would easily be profitable even without even regular BSOG.

The 192 is odd as it directly parallels a railway - can anyone imagine for example that level of service on the Liverpool-Ormskirk bus (half hourly I think)? What it does illustrate is how unacceptably bad the service on that railway is, and I suppose how awkward the location of Stockport station is with respect to the town.

In all fairness there are numerous buses between Liverpool City Centre, Aintree and Maghull before the service thins out after the Saveaway bus ticket boundary runs out enroute to Ormskirk.

Similarly the bus service beyond Hazel Grove towards Buxton is only half hourly - with High Peak Bus fares!

I agree that a regular and reliable clockface 15 minute frequency from 0600-2400 like Merseyrail with modern electric trains would revolutionise rail travel between Hazel Grove and Manchester, even more so if it continued to say, Bolton - but that’s another issue!

 

[domcoop7]

TfGM already has complete control of the Metrolink system as well as of the tendered bus services. Where is the evidence that councillors and/or the mayor "interfere" in a detrimental way? As opposed to exercising proper democratic oversight of a public body?

There's not a lot they could do, is there? TfGM are hardly going to build a new tram line because some councillor wants it. But changing a bus route to suit is clearly possible.

 

[Greybeard33]

There's not a lot they could do, is there? TfGM are hardly going to build a new tram line because some councillor wants it. But changing a bus route to suit is clearly possible.

So give an example of an existing subsidised bus route that TfGM has changed "because some councillor wanted it".

 

[lincman]

So give an example of an existing subsidised bus route that TfGM has changed "because some councillor wanted it".

Can somebody give the stability rate for tendered services in Manchester, looking at notes from the committee they appear to change quite frequently.