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!
That the point, Covid has changed everything, not just now but in the future. Even if the frequencies on many routes in GM are high, that doesn't translate into heavy usage. It is clear when travelling on even lower frequency buses in London that (pre-Covid) overcrowding was a significant problem. In Manchester they seemed to be happy to run at a high frequency without being exceptionally busy.
There is no need to be fixated with certain affluent suburbs as it is clear that pre-Covid bus usage was problematic throughout the conurbation, even in areas which ought to be so-called "good bus territory", hence such an urgent need for change.
This conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but premature.
I stated in a previous post that it is difficult to assess now the extent to which public transport use will recover post Covid and thus make commercial operation viable again on most routes. Until this becomes clear, it is not possible to make rational long-term investment decisions and unwise to commit major costly capital investment. A decision now to introduce franchising is unwise as it antagonises existing operators, who seem reluctant to co-operate, and may not be necessary for the majority of principal routes.
That the point, Covid has changed everything, not just now but in the future. Even if the frequencies on many routes in GM are high, that doesn't translate into heavy usage. It is clear when travelling on even lower frequency buses in London that (pre-Covid) overcrowding was a significant problem. In Manchester they seemed to be happy to run at a high frequency without being exceptionally busy.
There is no need to be fixated with certain affluent suburbs as it is clear that pre-Covid bus usage was problematic throughout the conurbation, even in areas which ought to be so-called "good bus territory", hence such an urgent need for change.
It was your blanket statement that puzzled me, as if there was some over-riding factor involved that would now apply - regardless of specific pockets of profitibility.
Franchising was definitely needed before Covid because of the awkward mix of commercial and tendered routes making it difficult to enforce route rationalisation and integration. Post Covid there would be no need for franchising if all routes become tendered anyway, but more likely there would be a small number of commercial routes (192, Fallowfield routes and maybe a few others) with everything else tendered. In such a circumstance it would seem silly to maintain deregulation with all its quirks just because a few routes are still profitable in isolation. It certainly seems that post-Covid there is less of a debate about the end of deregulation and more people seem to have come to the conclusion that the authority should be largely in charge, whether that is through franchising or a strict partnership.
I remain to be convinced that Burnham has the ability to fund a comprehensive and frequent network across the GM area. It may just be me but the finances don't look likely to work out. I hope he has a Plan B.........
It appears that not all contributors to this thread have yet had the opportunity to study the new English National Bus Strategy: Bus back better - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Prime Minister's Foreword makes clear his government's commitment to bus reform:
Last year, we announced £3bn of new funding to level up buses across England towards London standards. This strategy describes how we will use that money. Just as we already have in the capital, we want main road services in cities and towns to run so often that you don’t need a timetable. We want better services in the evenings and weekends, to reflect people’s 24-hour lives and to provide safe, reliable transport for key workers. In places unserved or barely served by conventional buses, such as rural villages and out-of-town business parks, we want more demand responsive services with smaller vehicles.
The Strategy appears to discount a return to commercial services post-Covid:
And then came COVID-19. Bus use has held up more strongly than rail in the pandemic, but as with the railways it has accelerated the challenges to an operating model that was already in trouble. Few services could now survive without emergency state support. If we are not to abandon entire communities, services cannot be planned purely on a commercial basis.
COVID-19 has caused a significant shift from public transport to the private car. To avoid the worst effects of a car-led recovery – cities and towns grinding to a halt; pollution, road injuries, respiratory illness and carbon emissions all rising – we need to shift back quickly, by making radical improvements to local public transport as normal life returns. Buses are the quickest, easiest and cheapest way to do that.
The Strategy appears to be agnostic as between franchising and Enhanced Partnerships:
Franchising powers are only available automatically to Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) but can be provided to other Local Transport Authorities (LTAs) through secondary legislation. We will support any LTA which wishes to access franchising powers, and which has the capability and intention to use them at pace to deliver improvements for passengers.
But franchising is not the only route to better and more locally accountable bus services. An Enhanced Partnership is a statutory arrangement under the 2017 Bus Services Act which can specify, for example, timetables and multi-operator ticketing, and allows the LTA to take over the role of registering bus services from the Traffic Commissioners. 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.
But the strategy makes clear that all local authority areas must adopt one or the other, unless they choose to rely entirely on commercial services with no central government funding:
By the end of June 2021, we expect all LTAs, except MCAs which have started the statutory process of franchising bus services, to commit to establishing Enhanced Partnerships across their entire areas under the Bus Services Act, and all operators to co-operate with the LTA throughout the process. LTAs which also wish to pursue franchising may do so – but they should commit to implementing Enhanced Partnerships in the meantime until the franchising process, which can be lengthy, is complete.
From 1 July 2021, only LTAs and operators who meet these requirements will continue to receive the COVID-19 Bus Services Support Grant (CBSSG) or any new sources of bus funding from the Government’s £3bn budget. The terms and conditions of CBSSG already make clear that it is discretionary. The new funding will also be discretionary. As part of wider reform of the Bus Service Operators Grant – see below – we will consult on linking payment of that reformed grant to these commitments. By the end of October 2021, we expect all LTAs to publish a local Bus Service Improvement Plan, detailing how they propose to use their powers to improve services. We expect actual delivery of Enhanced Partnerships by April 2022. From that date, the new discretionary forms of bus funding from Government will only be available to services operated, or measures taken, under an Enhanced Partnership or where a franchising scheme has been made. In addition, only services operated under these statutory agreements will be eligible for the reformed Bus Service Operators Grant, subject to consultation.
Are those on here who oppose franchising in GM in favour of the alternative of prescriptive Enhanced Partnerships as described in the Strategy? If so, how do you expect that to deliver greater benefits than franchising for the same central government funding, in the form of the reformed Bus Services Operators Grant and the CBSSG?
I remain to be convinced that Burnham has the ability to fund a comprehensive and frequent network across the GM area. It may just be me but the finances don't look likely to work out. I hope he has a Plan B.........
...and that is the real issue.
Much has been written about the pros and cons of the current/proposed regulatory regimes. I’d be surprised if anyone on this forum has a problem with the basic principle of a good quality public transport system. However, there is no mythical money tree, and even before the impact of Covid, the profits of the commercial bus operations would only go a relatively small way towards to providing the necessary funding for the dramatic improvements envisaged.
Substantial sustained funding will be required, and if that is to be forthcoming from somewhere, then I think we’d all welcome that degree of funding being made available to an industry that we all have an interest in. Unfortunately, nobody has yet indicated what that source will be, which is leading to much of the cynicism.
Commercial bus operation is not dead on the main corridors. Bus route 192 (Manchester to Hazel Grove) is entirely commercial and on other routes such as 11/11A (Stockport-Gatley-Altrincham), or Stockport-Cheadle Hulme (routes 313/368), only late evening and some Sunday journeys are subsidised.
Nothing is entirely commercial at the moment. Every route receive central government funding.
In normal circumstances I assume the 192 is very profitable, but no idea by how much. That 18bph comes at a huge cost to offset the revenue. Would the 192 be able to continue long term without funding at 18bph with 30-40% less revenue coming in? I don't know the answer to that, but what I would ask is why would Stagecoach want to continue operate on that basis? The company has an obligation to its shareholders and if that means slashing frequencies to maintain margins then so be it.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
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.
The volume of services in London is such that even some of the more recent cuts have not been that noticeable. GM of course wouldn't start from this basis as many services are surprisingly sparse.
Regarding funding, pre-Covid the significant operational surplus from the Tube was used to cross-subsidise the bus network. Some how I can't see Metrolink being in an equivalent position.
It appears that not all contributors to this thread have yet had the opportunity to study the new English National Bus Strategy: Bus back better - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
The Prime Minister's Foreword makes clear his government's commitment to bus reform:
The Strategy appears to discount a return to commercial services post-Covid:
The Strategy appears to be agnostic as between franchising and Enhanced Partnerships:
But the strategy makes clear that all local authority areas must adopt one or the other, unless they choose to rely entirely on commercial services with no central government funding:
Do nothing is not an option!
Are those on here who oppose franchising in GM in favour of the alternative of prescriptive Enhanced Partnerships as described in the Strategy? If so, how do you expect that to deliver greater benefits than franchising for the same central government funding, in the form of the reformed Bus Services Operators Grant and the CBSSG?
Enhanced Partnerships are clearly preferable to Franchising by their very nature, as they are co-operative agreements rather than authoritarian Bolshevik-style diktats.
Some local authorities that already do not subsidise services (e.g. Cumbria) and others who subsidise little (e.g. North Yorkshire) may choose to rely entirely on commercial services with no central government funding.
Nothing is entirely commercial at the moment. Every route receive central government funding.
In normal circumstances I assume the 192 is very profitable, but no idea by how much. That 18bph comes at a huge cost to offset the revenue. Would the 192 be able to continue long term without funding at 18bph with 30-40% less revenue coming in? I don't know the answer to that, but what I would ask is why would Stagecoach want to continue operate on that basis? The company has an obligation to its shareholders and if that means slashing frequencies to maintain margins then so be it.
I accept your clarification. The services I referred to do not receive TfGM subsidies, and pre-Covid were commercial, but at present (as you state) are receiving Covid-related central government funding.
The volume of services in London is such that even some of the more recent cuts have not been that noticeable. GM of course wouldn't start from this basis as many services are surprisingly sparse.
Regarding funding, pre-Covid the significant operational surplus from the Tube was used to cross-subsidise the bus network. Some how I can't see Metrolink being in an equivalent position.
I'd suggest part of the reason some of the recent cuts have been less noticable is the introduction of the hopper fare. Even though the cuts may have been a little too extreme using it is an excuse in certain locations, it has mitigated their effect significantly, and in some cases the hopper has even significantly improved the usable journey possibilities (direct bus or multiple connecting buses rather than only the direct bus).
If that isn't a good example of how improved fares integration can reduce operating costs significantly I don't know what is.
Enhanced Partnerships are clearly preferable to Franchising by their very nature, as they are co-operative agreements rather than authoritarian Bolshevik-style diktats
Some local authorities that already do not subsidise services (e.g. Cumbria) and others who subsidise little (e.g. North Yorkshire) may choose to rely entirely on commercial services with no central government funding.
That then risks no bus services at all in Cumbria or North Yorkshire.
Unless operators are content to shut down their businesses they'll be wanting to go into enhanced partnerships as that appears to be the only way (apart from agreeing to franchising) to get post-Covid funding that will keep services going. What isn't explained in the national bus strategy is what happens in a situation where operators are willing to go into an enhanced partnership, but a local authority simply doesn't want to participate, thus effectively condemning the public to no bus services.
I am still interested in what the eventual outcome might be of the separate judicial review applications of Rotala and Stagecoach, as that surely will leave both companies with decisions for future operation in Greater Manchester to consider.
I'd suggest part of the reason some of the recent cuts have been less noticable is the introduction of the hopper fare. Even though the cuts may have been a little too extreme using it is an excuse in certain locations, it has mitigated their effect significantly, and in some cases the hopper has even significantly improved the usable journey possibilities (direct bus or multiple connecting buses rather than only the direct bus).
If that isn't a good example of how improved fares integration can reduce operating costs significantly I don't know what is.
I admire the way you have ignored the points that were made, or have tried to make a positive out of a clear negative.
The hopper fare wasn't an enabler to achieve a more cost effective operation. In fact, it may well have exacerbated an already challenging situation. The fact is that the hopper fare cut revenues to TfL and that has actually been the catalyst for many of the route cuts because the money simply isn't there.
And it still doesn't cover how London, with a significant benefit to its bus network from cross subsidy by the tube, is in any way going to be replicated in Greater Manchester. With some irony and somewhat depressingly, bus travel in London was declining as fast as the other PTE areas
Substantial sustained funding will be required, and if that is to be forthcoming from somewhere, then I think we’d all welcome that degree of funding being made available to an industry that we all have an interest in. Unfortunately, nobody has yet indicated what that source will be, which is leading to much of the cynicism.
Exactly this. If Andy Burnham has managed to find some magic formula to sell to the public where taxes aren't being increased, fares aren't going to go up, buses aren't going to be cut, and improvements are going to be realised simply by reducing profit margins slightly, then great.
In fact, here's a question to the general populace and apologies if Mr Burnham has been clear on this..... What is the standard that defines a successful outcome? If it's merely "integration", well that's a contributory factor or feature in pursuit of a goal. So what has been confirmed as being a successful target. Has there been a commitment to a 5% increase in bus patronage?
London subsidies were reduced with a view to removal, IIRC, as part of a deal between the Mayor of London and the Government whereby the Mayor would get to keep certain business rates and "network enhancement" monies. It was an accounting trick predicated upon Crossrail coming into operation and increasing land values, and allowing higher business rates and infrastructure levies to be charged which the Mayor obviously had his eyes on. But despite this, there have been significant cut backs in bus provision, particularly outer London.
Greater Manchester is nothing like Greater London. Central London is a world level business district, competing with the likes of Hong Kong, New York, and Singapore. The pull of Central London is such that it even attracts a small but significant numbers of commuter *from* Manchester as it is! Let alone outer boroughs. The fact that Bromley has the population density of Greater Manchester doesn't mean that the whole city region of Manchester (which as a poster above rightly said includes large amounts of semi-rural land) will be able to get the transport network of outer London.
If I moved to Croydon, I'd keep the car, but only use it for towing the caravan, "big" fortnightly shopping trips, and journeys out of the London. If I moved closer to Central London than that, I'd question keeping a car at all, as the economics don't add up, and the necessity would go away. [Although I wouldn't move there so it's academic].
There is no location in Greater Manchester outside the literal City Centre of Manchester where I could move to and seriously consider not having a car. That's not to say people don't live there without cars - they do. But most people are going to find life considerably easier in Greater Manchester with a car as opposed to most of London where the benefits aren't as great.
So put that all together, and what have you got? You've got a system (London) with 2.2 billion passenger journeys - which is 3.6 million journeys per square mile per year. Vs Greater Manchester which 0.4 million journeys per square mile per year. There are nine times more bus passengers in any particular area of London on average than in Greater Manchester.
You have the "pull" of Central London which is an order of magnitude greater than the "pull" of Manchester City Centre.
You have a greater need for private car use in Greater Manchester than in London, and consequently a greater proportion (and increasing) of journeys by car vs public transport. And Greater Manchester as a poorer region has lower car use than most of the country, and is only going to increase year or year.
And you have billions of pounds of subsidy for London which Manchester doesn't have (and in all fairness as Northerner, I'd fully accept that Manchester isn't justified in getting).
Can we just stop making these false comparisons between Greater London and Greater Manchester.
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.
Because before you make a major change you trial it somewhere. If it's a success, I would fully expect urban commercial operation to completely disappear in due course. If it's a failure, the existing system will be retained.
I would be astonished if it fails.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Almost nothing was genuinely commercial before anyway. Coach operation is wholly commercial - no BSOG, no registration requirement, only regulation being basically the same as applies to lorry operations. Almost no urban bus routes would be viable on that basis. So-called commercial stage carriage operation receives BSOG which is effectively a discount/tax relief on fuel duty, and by way of the registration requirement is (lightly) regulated beyond being free to do whatever.
So what is a valid comparison? There are many cities outside the UK with good levels of usage, some smaller than GM and less dense than GM, some with even less claim to be a world city than Manchester, but people discount them because of various reasons. That leaves Greater London as the only major city where deregulation doesn't exist.
And you have billions of pounds of subsidy for London which Manchester doesn't have (and in all fairness as Northerner, I'd fully accept that Manchester isn't justified in getting).
I'd suggest part of the reason some of the recent cuts have been less noticable is the introduction of the hopper fare. Even though the cuts may have been a little too extreme using it is an excuse in certain locations, it has mitigated their effect significantly, and in some cases the hopper has even significantly improved the usable journey possibilities (direct bus or multiple connecting buses rather than only the direct bus).
If that isn't a good example of how improved fares integration can reduce operating costs significantly I don't know what is.
I'd have sympathy for that argument if before covid the Hopper fare was generating new fare paying customers.
If I suggested a ticket scheme which could cut the potential revenue received, but didn't end up growing passenger numbers and also cut services to mitigate all that, I'd be sacked!
London may not get the grant it did but London's buses are massively subsidised by both the congestion charge and the surplus from the tube. Where will GM get its money from?
Is it no longer the case that London Undergound financial affairs when in profit go towards subsidising the London regional bus services?
The Manchester Metrolink system was brought up some postings ago, but is it not the case that particular light rail system was meant to be a self-financing entity?
I bet that the Blessed Jeremy would have chuckled more than once when reading the postings on this thread.
Yes but can you not see... if you throw money at London's buses, introduce a congestion charge, all against the backdrop of a huge population growth, you will have high bus usage.
Manchester doesn't have the money, doesn't have the congestion charge, and whilst the population has grown, it hasn't by nearly the same amount.
Because before you make a major change you trial it somewhere. If it's a success, I would fully expect urban commercial operation to completely disappear in due course. If it's a failure, the existing system will be retained.
I would be astonished if it fails.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Almost nothing was genuinely commercial before anyway. Coach operation is wholly commercial - no BSOG, no registration requirement, only regulation being basically the same as applies to lorry operations. Almost no urban bus routes would be viable on that basis. So-called commercial stage carriage operation receives BSOG which is effectively a discount/tax relief on fuel duty, and by way of the registration requirement is (lightly) regulated beyond being free to do whatever.
Can I ask where you think/believe the substantial sustained funding will be coming from, to give you such confidence in its success?
There are numerous bus services which were commercially viable, even if the additional BSOG revenue wasn’t available. There would clearly be many that would become loss-makers without it, but to suggest almost nothing was viable, is complete nonsense.
Yes but can you not see... if you throw money at London's buses, introduce a congestion charge, all against the backdrop of a huge population growth, you will have high bus usage.
Manchester doesn't have the money, doesn't have the congestion charge, and whilst the population has grown, it hasn't by nearly the same amount.
The congestion charge is only a tiny proportion of TfL's revenue. Despite the congestion charge, buses still get stuck in severe congestion, much worse than that experienced in Manchester. 20 mph limits and cycle path construction contribute to that (I have no problem with either I hasten to add), as well as the huge increase in various kinds of taxis and delivery vehicles. It isn't all plain sailing running buses in London.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Is it no longer the case that London Undergound financial affairs when in profit go towards subsidising the London regional bus services?
The Manchester Metrolink system was brought up some postings ago, but is it not the case that particular light rail system was meant to be a self-financing entity?
I bet that the Blessed Jeremy would have chuckled more than once when reading the postings on this thread.
I'd have sympathy for that argument if before covid the Hopper fare was generating new fare paying customers.
If I suggested a ticket scheme which could cut the potential revenue received, but didn't end up growing passenger numbers and also cut services to mitigate all that, I'd be sacked!
And that's why the pure-commercial, non-systemic line is the wrong line to take for urban transport.
The hopper fare removed a significant source of unfairness - people, often poorer people, needing to pay two fares because their journey didn't work on one bus. I think it needs to go further, such that any bus journey taken within an hour of tapping in or out of a Tube or National Rail journey being included in the rail fare, as only then can the bus genuinely be the connectional "gap filler" which is what it does best. I do recognise why London specifically needs a separate "bus only" fare level, though, as it's not possible to add much additional Tube capacity so you genuinely do need to price some people onto buses, not true of Manchester and definitely not of say Liverpool.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There are numerous bus services which were commercially viable, even if the additional BSOG revenue wasn’t available. There would clearly be many that would become loss-makers without it, but to suggest almost nothing was viable, is complete nonsense.
I guess you probably know - overall, in a typical urban large bus operation like Stagecoach Manchester, what proportion of income comes from BSOG (or rather did pre-COVID)?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes but can you not see... if you throw money at London's buses, introduce a congestion charge, all against the backdrop of a huge population growth, you will have high bus usage.
Manchester doesn't have the money, doesn't have the congestion charge, and whilst the population has grown, it hasn't by nearly the same amount.
I don't really see why the population is that significant. A regulated system would provide improvements in a small town, too. Though it's probably less necessary, as a single-operator town is de-facto the same thing, and trains and trams are typically not really involved.
The key thing is, whoever it is, that a single guiding mind* controls all public transport in the urban area and has the absolute, non-negotiable final say over everything. It works reasonably OK if that's Stagecoach's planners, say - that's pretty close to how it is in the Lake District**, for example (they even for example do through single fares with a change there). It just doesn't work when you have multiple operators/modes who all like their own little fiefdom.
* Doesn't need to be one person, can be a committee. But the point is that it's a single entity.
** Yes, I know, it isn't an urban area, but in transport requirement terms it sort-of is, because of the high tourist demand. There is a lot in common between urban and busy National Park operations in terms of demand and problems caused by car traffic.
Yes but can you not see... if you throw money at London's buses, introduce a congestion charge, all against the backdrop of a huge population growth, you will have high bus usage.
Manchester doesn't have the money, doesn't have the congestion charge, and whilst the population has grown, it hasn't by nearly the same amount.
Well, the GM share of the £3bn bus levelling up funding, promised by central government over and above the emergency Covid subsidies, will surely be a start.
What is your proposed alternative to franchising, given that the Bus Strategy effectively states that the DfT will not support a return to the pre-Covid fully deregulated system?
Because before you make a major change you trial it somewhere. If it's a success, I would fully expect urban commercial operation to completely disappear in due course. If it's a failure, the existing system will be retained.
Does this mean that comparison with the existing London operations is not allowable. London seems to be mentioned as much as Manchester on this thread recently.
Incidentally, with reference to past comments about Germanic phraseology being used on this thread, does China or Japan also have particular phrases for transport modes that could be also used in postings?
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.
