396 route last November - TfGM decided to reroute it away from Ashton, but it was changed at the last minute and an emergency contract put out for a replacement service 397. The local councillor involved is leader of Oldham Council and sits on GMCA transport committee.
This is where the London system of public consultation on service changes results in a better informed decision because everyone has the opportunity to present their views, which are not drowned out by any particularly vocal campaign group.
Probably, but there's a disconnect between what people say and what people do.
But that is an example of local democracy in action, restoring a service that was valued by the local community.
Who knows? I've just spent 20 minutes going through minutes of the TfGM bus subcommittee back to September 2020. The only mention is things like "members noted the revised options put forward by officers after member concerns". There's no minutes of why the service was changed in the first place, and why they changed it back afterwards. So clearly some sort of discussion has gone on behind closed doors. But who knows if it was "a service valued by the local community" or a 90 minutes frequency exercise in shuffling fresh air around from one place to another?
I'd say the National Curriculum is more like vehicle accessibility regulations, driver licensing rules, working time rules, etc. Stuff that applies to everybody.
IMO bus routes are a key part of the strategy of the transport system. Where the buses go, or don't, is fundamental to the users and so their elected representatives absolutely should take an interest in route planning. In the school analogy this is equivalent to a decision as to whether or not a Spanish course should be offered in the curriculum.
I have no problem with elected officials taking an interest with bus routes. But it's not easy to divorce the timetable/network design aspect from the duty and rostering side as the first part dictates the second part. Unless inefficient schedules are OK.
Given that they've spent since 1986 tendering out parts of the network I think they can! Costings are not some dark art and there are plenty of people at TfGM who used to work for operators.
Operators can do what they like on commercial services. That was the whole point of deregulation - giving operators absolute freedom of what they operate devoid of all external funding.
With regards to the last time that a major transport plan was proposed by the "transport supremos", that was supposed to use a two-band congestion charge around Manchester in order to bring about a £2.8bn boost to public transport for Greater Manchester, the local electorate in Greater Manchester were given the opportunity to express their democratic rights in a referendum. I have been in my archives to find information on all the cumulative and area referendum statistics of same.
Perhaps it might be that if people were aware that increased taxation will be needed to attain the London type system, it might not have had the same sort of result as the consultation which is portrayed as a swing to nothing with no downsides.
There is relatively little moorland or countryside included within the boundaries of Greater Manchester, just a little in the boroughs of Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside, plus the semi-rural ward of Bowdon/Dunham/Warburton where I live. The big issue for public transport is the relatively low population density of much of suburbia built post WW1 (and especially post WW2), which cannot support frequent (i.e. "turn up and go") public transport services.
I stated that there is some moorland in Rochdale, Oldham and Tameside; there is very little in Bolton and Bury - most of the moorland near these 2 towns (e.g. around Belmont) is in Lancashire.
If that be the Governmental view, rather than one chosen large city conurbation, why have the Government not brought this into operation in other large conurbations such as Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield, Newcastle in the Midlands and North that all have modern tramway and metro systems between them?
Yes but the point that being answered was what was the relevance of @Xenophon PCDGS reference to the congestion charge referendum.
Indeed, and only achievable through nearly a billion pounds worth of revenue support annually which apparently isn't going to be forthcoming in Greater Manchester as there's no high profile tax raising, no congestion charge, no major cuts to services etc. So this London style style network is going to be achieved without any of that, being achieved by removing wasteful competition (that barely exists) and squeezing the bus barons margins (which are barely any larger than those in London).
But London's support was in the process of being removed anyway. Obviously post Covid everywhere will need funding, in London and outside London.
There are number of main bus routes into central Manchester on major arterial roads that serve densely populated localities; they date back to the days of the first generation tramways and can sustain minimum daytime service frequencies of at least every 10 minutes, i.e. "turn up and go". These are generally commercially viable (the Covid epidemic excepted). Other examples include routes 50 and 219, which also parallel electrified rail lines. These are not the problem routes/areas; it is the low density suburban sprawl, particularly affluent areas with mainly private housing (e.g. Bramhall), for which public transport provision is problematic.
And will London still have the bus network it enjoys? No, many cuts have been made and more to come. GM and elsewhere will need funding just to maintain most of the peripheral services.