TfGM Bus franchising

[Bletchleyite]

I think I may have put my point over badly, I am aware of all the points you raise but I feel you are missing mine. Metrolink is not a tram system it is a light rail network it does not do what tram networks do, in other cities as they were designed to be tram networks, Metrolink is a low cost heavy rail replacement, and I would think that the cost of a Metrolink stop is not much less than the basic requirements for a rail halt.

Quite a bit less, I'd think. A few breeze blocks or a load of soil to raise the platform to "railway height" isn't the costly bit. But the platforms are short (about 60m) and because crossing on the level is allowed you don't need lifts, bridges etc. I doubt it costs substantially more than a couple of raised-platform bus stops.

I would suggest that it remains that most journeys in Greater Manchester are short riders within there local areas and the tram no use for that.

Merseyrail is very much used for local journeys. I think there is a cultural thing in GM about that - "bus is for local, tram/train for going to Manchester" - the same exists in MK where "trains are for going to London" despite offering very quick journeys compared with bus - but that doesn't happen in places that have "grown up" with dense and frequent local rail networks like the Tube and Merseyrail*.

So what's better long term - pandering to that issue, or fixing it? "The bus gets me to the station to continue my journey" is the culture integration should bring.

* Even though it became what it is now in the late 70s/early 80s, the routes it runs on had frequent services for years.

 

[GusB]

We have been advised that there have been some further developments on the franchising front, therefore this thread has been re-opened for further discussion.

 

[johncrossley]

In the latest GMCA meeting notes, there were more details about the proposals, notably regarding fares

https://democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/documents/s16968/HPEOS%2020211007%20Bus%20Franchising%20and%20BSIP%20Update.pdf

 Removal of multi-operator fare system barriers via the introduction of franchising - with options to start this GMwide from Tranche 1;

 Introduce a London-style flat fare for single trips (target £1.55), that will be extended in validity to become a Hopper (as in London) to permit a change of bus within one hour of the start of the trip;

 Building on the current offer, introduce one-day and one-week bus travelcards offering the freedom of the network and which encourage discretionary trips that make good use of seats that would otherwise be empty. Travelcards are the most popular fare product in Greater Manchester and we aim to build on that success. This will be facilitated by Pay As You Go contactless that will see day and weekly capping introduced at the same price as the equivalent Travelcard, aiding more flexibility and ease of travel;

 Introduce Bus and Metrolink multimodal fares as per London, where users pay only the fare for the higher single leg of the journey;

 Extend the concessions policy to cover i) 25% discount for 18-21s and ii) 40% discount for groups (including at least one adult, off-peak only);

 Introduce an integrated ticketing proposition that will see customers benefit from access to Pay As You Go and capping across bus and Metrolink using contactless and other forms of payment. Providing best fare and flexibility to customers across the network;

 Introduce future Account Based Mobility Services which will bring together our retail channels (including contactless, online, mobile app and convenience stores options) for customers;

 Account Based Mobility will be the foundation for integrated ticketing and information services as well enabling access to a wider mobility offering including bike hire and future initiatives such as Travel Hubs/Park and Ride and scooters; and

 This inclusive ambition will allow those eligible for lower fares to register, for example, concessionary cards and manage account balances for travel. This capability will also allow for users with a preference for cash to access the benefits of flexible fares and capped charges across modes. These users may, for example, top-up their travel balance at convenience stores in a similar manner to Oyster users in London.

I think the most interesting aspect is the proposal to cap a combined single bus/tram trip at the highest of the bus or tram fare, which I guess will generally be the tram fare given the proposal for a cheap flat bus single.

 

[domcoop7]

In the latest GMCA meeting notes, there were more details about the proposals, notably regarding fares

https://democracy.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/documents/s16968/HPEOS%2020211007%20Bus%20Franchising%20and%20BSIP%20Update.pdf

I think the most interesting aspect is the proposal to cap a combined single bus/tram trip at the highest of the bus or tram fare, which I guess will generally be the tram fare given the proposal for a cheap flat bus single.

Trying to decode Local Authority Management Buzz Word Speak is difficult at the best of times, but this has to win the prize - it's not until page 13 that anything substantive is said!

On the fares, it's worth noting (and it's something that TfGM don't advertise loudly) that this is, in fact, a separate issue to Bus Franchising per se. As you can see from the bullet points, they hope to introduce their new ticketing system accross the whole of Greater Manchester from Tranche 1 (proposed to be sometime in 2023) even when 2/3rds of the area isn't subject to bus franchising.

Instead what this is about is something different, the Bus Service Improvement Plan to be submitted to the government this month and which apparently has £3 billion of funding available for all local authorities in England. So if their bid is successful, GM is angling to get London style subsidies to pay for London style bus fares, and cash for 1020 new electric buses. But if not successful, they'll still be proceeding with the Franchising plan (subject to the outcome of the judicial review).

Hence why this is peppered with buzz words about "levelling up" and "climate emergency" and "Right Mix" (whatever that means) and "London Style" (18 mentions in the document!).

What will be interesting is to see how this fares with other bids. I can't see how the government could justify multi million subsidies for bus users in Manchester and London, but not Sheffield, Birmingham or Hartlepool for example. Let alone Lincolnshire, Cumbria or Cornwall.

 

[Wolfie]

Trying to decode Local Authority Management Buzz Word Speak is difficult at the best of times, but this has to win the prize - it's not until page 13 that anything substantive is said!

On the fares, it's worth noting (and it's something that TfGM don't advertise loudly) that this is, in fact, a separate issue to Bus Franchising per se. As you can see from the bullet points, they hope to introduce their new ticketing system accross the whole of Greater Manchester from Tranche 1 (proposed to be sometime in 2023) even when 2/3rds of the area isn't subject to bus franchising.

Instead what this is about is something different, the Bus Service Improvement Plan to be submitted to the government this month and which apparently has £3 billion of funding available for all local authorities in England. So if their bid is successful, GM is angling to get London style subsidies to pay for London style bus fares, and cash for 1020 new electric buses. But if not successful, they'll still be proceeding with the Franchising plan (subject to the outcome of the judicial review).

Hence why this is peppered with buzz words about "levelling up" and "climate emergency" and "Right Mix" (whatever that means) and "London Style" (18 mentions in the document!).

What will be interesting is to see how this fares with other bids. I can't see how the government could justify multi million subsidies for bus users in Manchester and London, but not Sheffield, Birmingham or Hartlepool for example. Let alone Lincolnshire, Cumbria or Cornwall.

London style subsidies??? You do know that the DfT operating grant to TfL finished in FY 2017/18?

 

[domcoop7]

London style subsidies??? You do know that the DfT operating grant to TfL finished in FY 2017/18?

They agreed to remove the DfT grant because they got business rates retention instead (which incidentally, Greater Manchester also has powers over, and used towards funding of Metrolink Trafford extension, for example). Greater Manchester clearly doesn't feel they have sufficient money available locally (hence them bidding for funds from the government).

My point wasn't so much about where the money comes from (business rates, tube fares, congestion charges, the government); it's the need for the money in the first place. Of course all buses are subsidised already by way of Fuel Duty rebates, Concessionary pass schemes, etc.

But London Buses as a business unit in the last year pre-Covid required a £722 million operating subsidy. Greater Manchester's bus budget for the last year pre-Covid was a bit over £80 million. If GM want "London style" fares, they are going to have to have subsidies (from somewhere) closer to £700 million than £80 million.

 

[Wolfie]

They agreed to remove the DfT grant because they got business rates retention instead (which incidentally, Greater Manchester also has powers over, and used towards funding of Metrolink Trafford extension, for example). Greater Manchester clearly doesn't feel they have sufficient money available locally (hence them bidding for funds from the government).

My point wasn't so much about where the money comes from (business rates, tube fares, congestion charges, the government); it's the need for the money in the first place. Of course all buses are subsidised already by way of Fuel Duty rebates, Concessionary pass schemes, etc.

But London Buses as a business unit in the last year pre-Covid required a £722 million operating subsidy. Greater Manchester's bus budget for the last year pre-Covid was a bit over £80 million. If GM want "London style" fares, they are going to have to have subsidies (from somewhere) closer to £700 million than £80 million.

Agreed. But as a London taxpayer l object to it being from me.

 

[Purple Orange]

Agreed. But as a London taxpayer l object to it being from me.

If it comes from central government, we all contribute.

 

[domcoop7]

Agreed. But as a London taxpayer l object to it being from me.

Going off topic here, but I can see that point of view. Likewise as a Greater Manchester taxpayer, I'm not too chuffed at the prospect of council tax bills (the most regressive tax we have) being ramped up for no benefit other than to provide a platform for Andy Burnham to try for the third time to become Labour leader.

I also think that the capital city and the only international world city on our shores is going to cost more to run than any other place in the country (other than special cases, e.g. Northern Ireland).

But on the other hand, a lot of "London" taxes don't come from London anyway. Council Tax in London is consistently amongst the lowest in the country (despite having the best services). Business Rates and Corporation tax revenue from London Headquartered large companies isn't all generated by Londoners - the few pounds of profit from my weekly shop in XYZ supermarket, or on the card transaction fees in ABC Bank will eventually (after being aggregated with the few pounds from millions of other customers) make it's way around and a certain portion of that goes to a head office somewhere in the Square Mile or Canary Wharf and gets taxed there. Which is why all these memes about "London's taxes pay for the whole UK" are misleading.

 

[Wolfie]

If it comes from central government, we all contribute.

There is a massive South-North shift of funds.

 

[Purple Orange]

There is a massive South-North shift of funds.

To echo above, it is massively off topic. However that is not a concern to me personally. My part of the country generates more tax revenue than it consumes (South Greater Manchester & North Cheshire), yet it would be very selfish to say “I object to funding going to less affluent areas of the country in order to provide a more equitable and consistent public service”.

 

[GusB]

Whether or not there is a South to North shift of funds, it is not a subject for discussion in this thread. Let's stick to the topic, please.

 

[daodao]

Instead what this is about is something different, the Bus Service Improvement Plan to be submitted to the government this month and which apparently has £3 billion of funding available for all local authorities in England. So if their bid is successful, GM is angling to get London style subsidies to pay for London style bus fares, and cash for 1020 new electric buses. But if not successful, they'll still be proceeding with the Franchising plan (subject to the outcome of the judicial review).

All being well, the bid will fail. Greater Manchester has far more extensive bus services than neighbouring local authorities such as Cheshire East, and does not merit additional funding for buses. The arrogant Burnham needs to be told to "do one".

 

[johncrossley]

Going off topic here, but I can see that point of view. Likewise as a Greater Manchester taxpayer, I'm not too chuffed at the prospect of council tax bills (the most regressive tax we have) being ramped up for no benefit other than to provide a platform for Andy Burnham to try for the third time to become Labour leader.

I also think that the capital city and the only international world city on our shores is going to cost more to run than any other place in the country (other than special cases, e.g. Northern Ireland).

London is exceptional but GM is still one of the biggest urban areas in Europe. Manchester should really in the same league as Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Frankfurt yet is not even close when it comes to city transport.

 

[Goldfish62]

All being well, the bid will fail. Greater Manchester has far more extensive bus services than neighbouring local authorities such as Cheshire East, and does not merit additional funding for buses. The arrogant Burnham needs to be told to "do one".

Burnham is the mayor of Greater Manchester, not Cheshire East. If Cheshire East wants better buses maybe they should have tried harder in the past.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Oct 2021 ==

London is exceptional but GM is still one of the biggest urban areas in Europe. Manchester should really in the same league as Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Frankfurt yet is not even close when it comes to city transport.

Even more so when it's in the big league as regards European tram networks.

 

[Purple Orange]

All being well, the bid will fail. Greater Manchester has far more extensive bus services than neighbouring local authorities such as Cheshire East, and does not merit additional funding for buses. The arrogant Burnham needs to be told to "do one".

I’m so glad we don’t have you as Mayor!

 

[RT4038]

But London Buses as a business unit in the last year pre-Covid required a £722 million operating subsidy. Greater Manchester's bus budget for the last year pre-Covid was a bit over £80 million. If GM want "London style" fares, they are going to have to have subsidies (from somewhere) closer to £700 million than £80 million.

Surely the size of the GM bus operation is not similar to that of London? Taking into account the relative population size, if London required £722m last year, then GM would be closer to £250m, and probably less because operating costs will be lower? Not sure whether the two quoted sums (one an operating subsidy and the other a bus budget) cover the same things (i.e. do both or neither cover concessionary fare re-imbursement?)

All being well, the bid will fail. Greater Manchester has far more extensive bus services than neighbouring local authorities such as Cheshire East, and does not merit additional funding for buses. The arrogant Burnham needs to be told to "do one".

It will be almost certain that they will get something out of their bid., but probably not as much as they would like!

 

[javelin]

On the fares, it's worth noting (and it's something that TfGM don't advertise loudly) that this is, in fact, a separate issue to Bus Franchising per se. As you can see from the bullet points, they hope to introduce their new ticketing system accross the whole of Greater Manchester from Tranche 1 (proposed to be sometime in 2023) even when 2/3rds of the area isn't subject to bus franchising.

I think you are confusing two different fare issues.

In theory Integrated ticketing does not necessarily require franchising, though it does make it far far easier, especially in a multi-operator area like GM. A big stumbling block would be extension of the agreggated pay as you go contactless system from Metrolink. You'd have to get all operators, who can change at any time, to agree how the aggregated funds are distributed. Good luck with that. Can you name anywhere outside London where integrated ticketing between bus and rail-based modes has been successful? I guess the way they plan to implement it early is something like making compliance a precondition of applying for a franchise.

Flat subsidised fares, as opposed to local funding of routes, are pretty much dependant on some kind of franchising/public control of the service itself as far as I'm aware.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In theory Integrated ticketing does not necessarily require franchising, though it does make far far easier, especially in a multi-operator area like GM. Can you name anywhere outside London where integrated ticketing between bus and rail-based modes has been successful? I guess the way they plan to implement it early is something like making compliance a precondition of applying for a franchise.

Integrated season and day ticketing exists in a number of the PTE areas (but not, ridiculously, GM). It is very successful on Merseyside, for example, though not as successful as in MTL days when operator season tickets were not offered at all.

Integrated single ticketing is very rare - operators seem quite precious about this.

 

[Goldfish62]

Instead what this is about is something different, the Bus Service Improvement Plan to be submitted to the government this month and which apparently has £3 billion of funding available for all local authorities in England. So if their bid is successful, GM is angling to get London style subsidies to pay for London style bus fares, and cash for 1020 new electric buses. But if not successful, they'll still be proceeding with the Franchising plan (subject to the outcome of the judicial review).

Hence why this is peppered with buzz words about "levelling up" and "climate emergency" and "Right Mix" (whatever that means) and "London Style" (18 mentions in the document!).

What will be interesting is to see how this fares with other bids. I can't see how the government could justify multi million subsidies for bus users in Manchester and London, but not Sheffield, Birmingham or Hartlepool for example. Let alone Lincolnshire, Cumbria or Cornwall.

It's worth noting that word from the DfT is that this £3bn funding is expected to last eight years. Divided by 82 top tier local authorities that gives an average of £4.6m pa each, which isn't a lot. I suspect that most of it will be swallowed up propping up existing networks once Bus Recovery Grant (BRG) is abolished in April and we'll find that Bus Back Better is quietly shelved.

 

[javelin]

Integrated season and day ticketing exists in a number of the PTE areas (but not, ridiculously, GM). It is very successful on Merseyside, for example, though not as successful as in MTL days when operator season tickets were not offered at all.

Integrated single ticketing is very rare - operators seem quite precious about this.

How delightfully medieval, that's just the low-hanging fruit of integration. I'm talking proper smart integration like you'd get in London.

Besides, GM already has something similar to Merseyside, the Get Me There smart card. Roaring success, that.

For instance there is no possibility to provide an aggregated pay-as-you-go ticketing across modes. GM is the only area to have this apart from London, but it's currently confined to just Metrolink, and extending it really relies on having control of fares and services. There's also no ability to charge just the most expensive fare of a multimodal trip for instance to encourage using mass transit, as TfGM want.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's worth noting that word from the DfT is that this £3bn funding is expected to last eight years. Divided by 82 top tier local authorities that gives an average of £4.6m pa each, which isn't a lot. I suspect that most of it will be swallowed up propping up existing networks once Bus Recovery Grant (BRG) is abolished in April and we'll find that Bus Back Better is quietly shelved.

Of course, it will be weighted towards the larger authorities but you do highlight an important issue. £3bn sounds a lot (and I'd happily have it my current account) but it's £375m p.a. - when you look at the £722m that London requires, it's not a lot. It's almost as if it's another Boris B*****t Bluff......

In terms of Greater Manchester, it would be much better if there could be a consensus that would enable pro-bus policies to be actually enacted. Whilst Manchester has some bus priority (but not enough), it really is piecemeal in places like Stockport or Bolton. Until we start removing road space for cars, buses are going to continue to be stuck in traffic congestion, and that does not discriminate on the basis of public or private ownership of the bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How delightfully medieval, that's just the low-hanging fruit of integration. I'm talking proper smart integration like you'd get in London.

Besides, GM already has something similar to Merseyside, the Get Me There smart card. Roaring success, that.

The Get Me There card isn't comparable. What is is the System One period and day tickets, but the day tickets are very expensive compared with Merseyside and the period tickets don't include Metrolink, which wasn't that much of an issue when it was just Bury-Altrincham but now increasingly is.

 

[carlberry]

It's worth noting that word from the DfT is that this £3bn funding is expected to last eight years. Divided by 82 top tier local authorities that gives an average of £4.6m pa each, which isn't a lot. I suspect that most of it will be swallowed up propping up existing networks once Bus Recovery Grant (BRG) is abolished in April and we'll find that Bus Back Better is quietly shelved.

The £3bn is also just a figure at the moment, not a full commitment and it also has to cover the electric buses (4000?) that were promised as part of the announcement. They're more likely to go ahead as Boris and the local authorities can get loads of PR opportunities out of them.

 

[javelin]

The Get Me There card isn't comparable. What is is the System One period and day tickets, but the day tickets are very expensive compared with Merseyside and the period tickets don't include Metrolink, which wasn't that much of an issue when it was just Bury-Altrincham but now increasingly is.

I'm not going to go off on this tangent. The difference in cost is irrelevant; I said they are similar, not the same.

We are talking about whether you need franchising for the type of smart integrated ticketing TfGM wants. As I said, basic forms of integrated ticketing are possible, though not easy, without franchising. So just because Merseyside may have some form of integration for simple tickets is irrelevant. That it may be better than GMs attempt is also irrelevant (but does it occur to you there may be reasons GM hasn't been able to fully integrate smart season tickets and travel cards?). Is it anything like the convenience of smart ticketing options available in London? More complex integration, which is usually of more value to the customer, (especially infrequent users) is harder to achieve in a deregulated system. It's that which is what TfGM wants, and is far beyond the primitive forms of integrated ticketing available in either GM or Merseyside.

 

[edwin_m]

For instance there is no possibility to provide an aggregated pay-as-you-go ticketing across modes. GM is the only area to have this apart from London, but it's currently confined to just Metrolink, and extending it really relies on having control of fares and services. There's also no ability to charge just the most expensive fare of a multimodal trip for instance to encourage using mass transit, as TfGM want.

Nottingham kind of has this with the Robin Hood card, but it doesn't do the second bit, but there are still cheaper single-operator options and no significant zoning which would be needed for a larger area like GM. It has the advantage that the tram and two main bus operators are unusually co-operative, and probably represents about the best that can be done under a deregulated system.

 

[carlberry]

Nottingham kind of has this with the Robin Hood card, but it doesn't do the second bit, but there are still cheaper single-operator options and no significant zoning which would be needed for a larger area like GM. It has the advantage that the tram and two main bus operators are unusually co-operative, and probably represents about the best that can be done under a deregulated system.

Nottingham has the advantage that the local authority is unusually co-operative as well. A deregulated system doesn't prevent any kind of ticketing being available, it just means the local authority has to put some effort into it (using the current legislation) and money has to come from somewhere (as it would under any other system) if you're going to start reducing fare income.

 

[deltic]

They agreed to remove the DfT grant because they got business rates retention instead (which incidentally, Greater Manchester also has powers over, and used towards funding of Metrolink Trafford extension, for example). Greater Manchester clearly doesn't feel they have sufficient money available locally (hence them bidding for funds from the government).

My point wasn't so much about where the money comes from (business rates, tube fares, congestion charges, the government); it's the need for the money in the first place. Of course all buses are subsidised already by way of Fuel Duty rebates, Concessionary pass schemes, etc.

But London Buses as a business unit in the last year pre-Covid required a £722 million operating subsidy. Greater Manchester's bus budget for the last year pre-Covid was a bit over £80 million. If GM want "London style" fares, they are going to have to have subsidies (from somewhere) closer to £700 million than £80 million.

Given Greater Manchester is a third of the size of Greater London, level of support would be nearer £250m than £700m

 

[javelin]

Nottingham kind of has this with the Robin Hood card, but it doesn't do the second bit, but there are still cheaper single-operator options and no significant zoning which would be needed for a larger area like GM. It has the advantage that the tram and two main bus operators are unusually co-operative, and probably represents about the best that can be done under a deregulated system.

The exception that proves the rule, Nottingham's main bus company of course is municipally owned. It would be disingenuous to claim that it is representative of a deregulated market. The situation is wholly different to a market as complex as GM's.

The Robin Hood pay-as-you-go is not the same as aggregated contactless pay-as- you-go either, it's a wallet like the Oyster Card. Aggregated pay-as-you-go is more sophisticated and does all the the fare calculation and contactless payments in a central back-office. You don't need to pre-purchase any card or the funds required to use it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nottingham has the advantage that the local authority is unusually co-operative as well.

Not only that but it also owns the majority bus operator. While it is for legal reasons arms-length (like Blackpool), it will naturally not stir up conflict from its owner and will tend to go along with things it suggests.