TfGM Bus franchising

[Ken H]

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.

Are Trent-Barton co-operative? Dont they have their own tickets? Mango? What about Kinch?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are Trent-Barton co-operative? Dont they have their own tickets? Mango? What about Kinch?

Certainly not as co-operative, and indeed when Wellglade (the owners of Trent Barton and Kinch) took over operating the tram that killed a chunk of the integration.

 

[smtglasgow]

The London comparisons (and eye watering costs) cited by those who want to stick with the status quo never seem to fully appreciate the unique qualities of transport in the capital. A large part of the excessive costs in London are down to the demand for last mile journeys from the tube. Buses have to carry large volumes (at high frequencies) for an extended peak period – is there anywhere else in Britain where the peak is still going strong well beyond 7pm? Late evening services offer decent frequencies to cater for a tube network where last trains don’t reach the suburbs till 1am. Greater Manchester deserves much better than it gets now, but a ‘London-style network’ needn’t come with all the bells and whistles of the current tfl offering. You could create something transformative for a fraction of the cost, and if it reverses the decline in bus use then the benefits become obvious.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The London comparisons (and eye watering costs) cited by those who want to stick with the status quo never seem to fully appreciate the unique qualities of transport in the capital. A large part of the excessive costs in London are down to the demand for last mile journeys from the tube. Buses have to carry large volumes (at high frequencies) for an extended peak period – is there anywhere else in Britain where the peak is still going strong well beyond 7pm? Late evening services offer decent frequencies to cater for a tube network where last trains don’t reach the suburbs till 1am. Greater Manchester deserves much better than it gets now, but a ‘London-style network’ needn’t come with all the bells and whistles of the current tfl offering. You could create something transformative for a fraction of the cost, and if it reverses the decline in bus use then the benefits become obvious.

I'd say looking at what a comparable German city has (e.g. Hamburg, Berlin or Muenchen) would be a better guide than London's very specific needs. That's typically not throwing excessive frequencies at everything, but rather good integration in terms of ticketing and timetabling.

 

[Purple Orange]

I'd say looking at what a comparable German city has (e.g. Hamburg, Berlin or Muenchen) would be a better guide than London's very specific needs. That's typically not throwing excessive frequencies at everything, but rather good integration in terms of ticketing and timetabling.

Quite. Not enough attention is given to what happens in other comparable sized cities elsewhere in the world. The model for London wont always work everywhere.

 

[Ken H]

I'd say looking at what a comparable German city has (e.g. Hamburg, Berlin or Muenchen) would be a better guide than London's very specific needs. That's typically not throwing excessive frequencies at everything, but rather good integration in terms of ticketing and timetabling.

Yes, but how much subsidy do they chuck at their urban transport? Is ther an appetite for that level of subsidy in UK. Would people be prepared to pay for public transport through their taxes?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite. Not enough attention is given to what happens in other comparable sized cities elsewhere in the world. The model for London wont always work everywhere.

It's of particular note that London basically throws frequency at any given problem - if your bus and Tube run every 2 minutes, there is no need to integrate timetables at all. But some of the more peripheral bits of German cities have half-hourly S-Bahn services, which requires a rather different approach of actually having to plan things to connect.

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

Yes, but how much subsidy do they chuck at their urban transport? Is ther an appetite for that level of subsidy in UK. Would people be prepared to pay for public transport through their taxes?

That is more of a factor of the chosen fare levels than anything else. If Manchester does want a £1.55 bus fare then it will need to do so. But if the farebox income is about the same you aren't going to need any more subsidy even if you regulate - yes, you'll need staff to manage the regulated system, but also you won't need Stagecoach etc to have their own timetabling department because they'll be told what the timetable is as London operators are.

I think the overall fare levels need to be considered separately from regulation even if Manchester appears to be going for both - you can have either without the other - commercial bus companies will lower their fares if you pay them the money they'd lose by doing so.

 

[Ken H]

It's of particular note that London basically throws frequency at any given problem - if your bus and Tube run every 2 minutes, there is no need to integrate timetables at all. But some of the more peripheral bits of German cities have half-hourly S-Bahn services, which requires a rather different approach of actually having to plan things to connect.

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



That is more of a factor of the chosen fare levels than anything else. If Manchester does want a £1.55 bus fare then it will need to do so. But if the farebox income is about the same you aren't going to need any more subsidy even if you regulate - yes, you'll need staff to manage the regulated system, but also you won't need Stagecoach etc to have their own timetabling department because they'll be told what the timetable is as London operators are.

I think the overall fare levels need to be considered separately from regulation even if Manchester appears to be going for both - you can have either without the other - commercial bus companies will lower their fares if you pay them the money they'd lose by doing so.

Problem then is what incentive is there for the private bus company to improve things. If they are on a fixed income, why would they invest in newer buses, better shelters, wifi and PIS, or even frequency enhancements? The whole thing would stagnate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Problem then is what incentive is there for the private bus company to improve things. If they are on a fixed income, why would they invest in newer buses, better shelters, wifi and PIS, or even frequency enhancements? The whole thing would stagnate.

I'm a bit confused what situation you're talking about there.

If you mean tendering as is proposed, the bus company is not intended to invest or innovate - like say Council-contracted bin emptying, their job is to do exactly what the contract tells them to do and nothing more or less. The innovation comes from the tendering body like TfL (who are innovative in some ways, e.g. ticketing, but not others, e.g. marketing).

If you mean if bus operators were paid to reduce fares in a commercial setting, they'd still be collecting the remaining fare percentage, and such payment may well be per-journey as concessionary pass acceptance often is. In essence it would be a grant available to those registering commercial bus services in the area. Think of it as an elevated BSOG or a partial concessionary pass payment with the condition being (as per concessionary passes reduce it by 100%) to reduce the fare charged.

I'm not suggesting the latter - my point is just that reduced fares and regulation are two entirely separate things and you can have one without the other.

 

[Deerfold]

It's of particular note that London basically throws frequency at any given problem - if your bus and Tube run every 2 minutes, there is no need to integrate timetables at all. But some of the more peripheral bits of German cities have half-hourly S-Bahn services, which requires a rather different approach of actually having to plan things to connect.

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



That is more of a factor of the chosen fare levels than anything else. If Manchester does want a £1.55 bus fare then it will need to do so. But if the farebox income is about the same you aren't going to need any more subsidy even if you regulate - yes, you'll need staff to manage the regulated system, but also you won't need Stagecoach etc to have their own timetabling department because they'll be told what the timetable is as London operators are.

I think the overall fare levels need to be considered separately from regulation even if Manchester appears to be going for both - you can have either without the other - commercial bus companies will lower their fares if you pay them the money they'd lose by doing so.

London bus companies are told how many journeys there need to be in each hour. They then draw up timetables to match these requirements.

 

[Goldfish62]

The London comparisons (and eye watering costs) cited by those who want to stick with the status quo never seem to fully appreciate the unique qualities of transport in the capital. A large part of the excessive costs in London are down to the demand for last mile journeys from the tube. Buses have to carry large volumes (at high frequencies) for an extended peak period – is there anywhere else in Britain where the peak is still going strong well beyond 7pm? Late evening services offer decent frequencies to cater for a tube network where last trains don’t reach the suburbs till 1am. Greater Manchester deserves much better than it gets now, but a ‘London-style network’ needn’t come with all the bells and whistles of the current tfl offering. You could create something transformative for a fraction of the cost, and if it reverses the decline in bus use then the benefits become obvious.

Agree with all that. Those who want to stick with the status quo seem to be in denial that the world has changed in the past couple of years and sustaining current networks is going to involve more public money. Carrying on as if everything was the same as before March 2020 is simply not an option.

Apart from maintaining attractive end-to-end frequencies throughout the traffic day and a cheap flat fare, which are both essential if you're to promote buses as a genuine alternative to taxi or private car, there are many reasons why the net cost of the London network is so high, including in no specific:

higher wages which reflect the cost of living in the capital,
cost of premises rental/business rates,
bus specification,
the amount of investment in service control without which the network would not be able to function,
generous layover times to absorb traffic delays,
decisions by successive mayors which mean a high proportion of users travel free for which TfL receives no statutory reimbursement

As you rightly allude to, a lot can be done without the need to resort to a lot of the expense which costs London so much.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Agree with all that. Those who want to stick with the status quo seem to be in denial that the world has changed in the past couple of years and sustaining current networks is going to involve more public money. Carrying on as if everything was the same as before March 2020 is simply not an option.

Apart from maintaining attractive end-to-end frequencies throughout the traffic day and a cheap flat fare, which are both essential if you're to promote buses as a genuine alternative to taxi or private car, there are many reasons why the net cost of the London network is so high, including in no specific:

higher wages which reflect the cost of living in the capital,
cost of premises rental/business rates,
bus specification,
the amount of investment in service control without which the network would not be able to function,
generous layover times to absorb traffic delays,
decisions by successive mayors which mean a high proportion of users travel free for which TfL receives no statutory reimbursement

As you rightly allude to, a lot can be done without the need to resort to a lot of the expense which costs London so much.

We all know that the world has changed and I think we all want improved public transport in whichever quarter we live.

My issue has always been that there’s a public, political view that you can London style this or that without the money; that it can be achieved via margin erosion of the “fat cat bus barons” or chopping out all this nasty duplication or on road competition (that doesn’t really exist).

I’m just not convinced that this is the best way to spend any monies that are available; the example of Cornwall Council in spending its cash on ridiculous obscure bus routes and its proposal to embark on a fares pilot when the government were advocating not using public transport is hardly reassuring!

 

[Goldfish62]

We all know that the world has changed and I think we all want improved public transport in whichever quarter we live.

My issue has always been that there’s a public, political view that you can London style this or that without the money; that it can be achieved via margin erosion of the “fat cat bus barons” or chopping out all this nasty duplication or on road competition (that doesn’t really exist).

"London-style" is an easy way to sell something to the public and politicians. It doesn't mean that's what the end product is going to look like. The TfGM franchising model looks far more like that of Oslo, Copenhagen or Singapore than London, but the vast majority of people haven't used buses in those cities.

In respect of margins and the "fat cat bus barons" I'm the first to agree that that premise is largely based on ignorance and the ridiculous notion that profit is bad, evil shareholders, etc. What hasn't helped though is Stagecoach's total negativity towards any sort of formal partnership with TfGM all along. As well as franchising they have been been opposed to enhanced partnerships. Stagecoach GM makes a handsome 15% margin (proviso here is what it might be be post-Covid) and while its network in GM is pretty good in isolation I am not all convinced that there's a level of reinvestment commensurate with the high margin that's being achieved. As regards the other main objector, Rotala, they are being completely opportunistic. They were all for franchising before they expanded, then suddenly against it post-expansion.

Regarding on road competition there was a modest amount that could have been removed pre-Covid, eg Oxford Road corridor, but I imagine that case is rather weak now.

My personal view is that an enhanced partnership would have produced most of the benefits for much less cost than franchising. However, to reiterate what I said above Stagecoach were fundamentally opposed to any form of formal partnership (they have form on this elsewhere) and the outline mechanism to force them into one (funding through Bus Back Better) didn't exist at the time that franchising was conceived and formally approved. Had Bus Back Better been tabled a couple of years ago I think things would have moved in the EP direction.

My beef with Cornwall is not the network (which was after all planned pre-Covid), but its disastrous implementation. Incidentally, Cornwall is where the first element of Bus Back Better that hasn't been delivered. It stated that the low fares pilot would be introduced this Autumn. There is no sign of that happening.

 

[markymark2000]

In respect of margins and the "fat cat bus barons" I'm the first to agree that that premise is largely based on ignorance and the ridiculous notion that profit is bad, evil shareholders, etc. What hasn't helped though is Stagecoach's total negativity towards any sort of formal partnership with TfGM all along. As well as franchising they have been been opposed to enhanced partnerships. Stagecoach GM makes a handsome 15% margin (proviso here is what it might be be post-Covid) and while its network in GM is pretty good in isolation I am not all convinced that there's a level of reinvestment commensurate with the high margin that's being achieved. As regards the other main objector, Rotala, they are being completely opportunistic. They were all for franchising before they expanded, then suddenly against it post-expansion.

Regarding on road competition there was a modest amount that could have been removed pre-Covid, eg Oxford Road corridor, but I imagine that case is rather weak now.

My personal view is that an enhanced partnership would have produced most of the benefits for much less cost than franchising. However, to reiterate what I said above Stagecoach were fundamentally opposed to any form of formal partnership (they have form on this elsewhere) and the outline mechanism to force them into one (funding through Bus Back Better) didn't exist at the time that franchising was conceived and formally approved. Had Bus Back Better been tabled a couple of years ago I think things would have moved in the EP direction.

Stagecoach did partake in the OneBus partnership and out forward their own partnership with a profit share I think for TFGM. Taking on loss making tenders and integrating them etc etc. Everyone has a preference on how they would prefer this to end up and Stagecoach' preference is 'as is', compromise with partnership, dead set against franchising.

As for the 'fat cat bonuses', everyone seems to forget that Stagecoach did explicitly state that it was London which kept them going through covid because their profits were so high. It's also visible when you look at the tender costs, an equivalent tender in Manchester versus London could cost 3-4x higher. Putting higher costs aside, they also make more profit because they know they can. They may want £100k per year for a commercial bus but will go for £150k per year for an equivalent tender in London because they can. What is the end result? As long as they are still the lowest bidder, TFL won't reduce routes so they just pay it.
Franchising helps the 'greedy fat cats', not stops them. It also means more greedy fat cats as smaller firms can't compete and the big firms start coming in who want the higher profit margins.

My beef with Cornwall is not the network (which was after all planned pre-Covid), but its disastrous implementation. Incidentally, Cornwall is where the first element of Bus Back Better that hasn't been delivered. It stated that the low fares pilot would be introduced this Autumn. There is no sign of that happening.

Launching the bus network in the middle of COVID and originally trying to set up the fares thing in the middle of COVID. The end result isn't horrendous but as you say, the implementation was dismal. Should have been built up slightly slower so there were less teething troubles for GoAhead.

 

[Goldfish62]

Stagecoach did partake in the OneBus partnership and out forward their own partnership with a profit share I think for TFGM. Taking on loss making tenders and integrating them etc etc. Everyone has a preference on how they would prefer this to end up and Stagecoach' preference is 'as is', compromise with partnership, dead set against franchising.

As for the 'fat cat bonuses', everyone seems to forget that Stagecoach did explicitly state that it was London which kept them going through covid because their profits were so high. It's also visible when you look at the tender costs, an equivalent tender in Manchester versus London could cost 3-4x higher. Putting higher costs aside, they also make more profit because they know they can. They may want £100k per year for a commercial bus but will go for £150k per year for an equivalent tender in London because they can. What is the end result? As long as they are still the lowest bidder, TFL won't reduce routes so they just pay it.
Franchising helps the 'greedy fat cats', not stops them. It also means more greedy fat cats as smaller firms can't compete and the big firms start coming in who want the higher profit margins.

The three London based Stagecoach Opcos' accounts ending May 2020 show a combined profit before tax of 3.8% (0.06% in 2019). In contrast Stagecoach Manchester in the same period made a 15.8% profit, in monetary terms over double that made in London and on under half the turnover.

There is no scope for making large profits in the London market. What it is does provide is relatively stable income because TfL takes the revenue risk. I'm not sure where you got the idea that there are large profits to be made in London. I was deeply involved in it for a number of years and can assure you that's not the case!

I have outlined some of the main reasons why costs are higher in London than elsewhere in post #911 and it's got nothing to do with operators "being able to get away with it". Look at what's happened to Tower Transit. It's lost so many routes because it hasn't been able to get its cost base right and thus has been unable to compete effectively with other operators.

The onebus "partnership" was proposed to be informal with any party being able to walk away at any time. That's why I stated that Stagecoach are fundamentally opposed to formal partnerships.

Regarding your comment that small operators can't compete in a tendering environment, Uno and Sullivans would probably disagree with you and in the case of GM specific groups of routes are being specifically reserved for SMEs (small and medium enterprises) to bid for.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Oct 2021 ==

Launching the bus network in the middle of COVID and originally trying to set up the fares thing in the middle of COVID. The end result isn't horrendous but as you say, the implementation was dismal. Should have been built up slightly slower so there were less teething troubles for GoAhead.

I actually think Go Ahead did a grand job getting it up and running. The fault for lack of integration lies entirely with the council.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Stagecoach GM makes a handsome 15% margin (proviso here is what it might be be post-Covid) and while its network in GM is pretty good in isolation I am not all convinced that there's a level of reinvestment commensurate with the high margin that's being achieved. As regards the other main objector, Rotala, they are being completely opportunistic. They were all for franchising before they expanded, then suddenly against it post-expansion.

Of course, if you look at the other main operators in Manchester, they are nowhere near that figure. Perhaps it's a reflection that Stagecoach are ruthlessly efficient at managing their business.

As for Rotala, they bought Bolton depot in the belief that it would be a London style, route by route tendering. The London style environment clearly didn't stretch that far and they could lose their business overnight for nothing. If it were your business, I'd suggest you might act similarly?

Regarding on road competition there was a modest amount that could have been removed pre-Covid, eg Oxford Road corridor, but I imagine that case is rather weak now.

The amount of on-road competition now is negligible and was pre-Covid.

My personal view is that an enhanced partnership would have produced most of the benefits for much less cost than franchising. However, to reiterate what I said above Stagecoach were fundamentally opposed to any form of formal partnership (they have form on this elsewhere) and the outline mechanism to force them into one (funding through Bus Back Better) didn't exist at the time that franchising was conceived and formally approved. Had Bus Back Better been tabled a couple of years ago I think things would have moved in the EP direction.

I think in the GM (and Tyne and Wear) instances, it was the case that there was no real appetite from TfGM or Nexus for partnership so the battle lines were already drawn.

My beef with Cornwall is not the network (which was after all planned pre-Covid), but its disastrous implementation. Incidentally, Cornwall is where the first element of Bus Back Better that hasn't been delivered. It stated that the low fares pilot would be introduced this Autumn. There is no sign of that happening.

Whilst the implementation timetable was farcically optimistic (and I think that Go Ahead did a fairly decent job in getting things up and running as best they did), I think you're being overly kind on Cornwall.

If the idea is to fundamentally promote modal shift onto buses, then it isn't served by sending out buses to carry fresh air in areas of low population density. This is the problem with TfL as much as Cornwall with focussing on "hobby horse" services rather than fundamentally moving the needle. Do we want to move more people, genuinely effecting modal change, or do we just want to provide a myriad of "options" to people that have the laudable objective of providing social mobility but can never have more than a barely minimal impact? I keep going back to this but it really needs to be about making the bus (and public transport generally) more attractive as an option - improved reliability of service, more competitive journey times, improved information (both online and roadside)....

People on this forum are passionate about public transport but are also atypical. Most passengers aren't desperate for multi-modal transfer tickets etc - they want a bus that turns up and isn't stuck in traffic. What's Andy Burnham said about bus priority...?

 

[johncrossley]

The amount of on-road competition now is negligible and was pre-Covid.

It depends what you call 'competition'. The direct route between Middleton to Manchester is one of the main corridors yet there are two different companies. The full routes may not the same route but they overlap between Manchester and Middleton which is a pretty long distance. They both have their own separate tickets. Could you imagine London routes 53 and 453, for example, having different tickets? It would be unthinkable.

 

[Goldfish62]

As for Rotala, they bought Bolton depot in the belief that it would be a London style, route by route tendering. The London style environment clearly didn't stretch that far and they could lose their business overnight for nothing. If it were your business, I'd suggest you might act similarly?

If that's the case I don't know what planet they've been on for the past few years. Way back in 2015 when TfGM kicked the whole thing off it was made more than clear that the preference was for area tendering and not individual route tendering. If Rotala chose not to listen then that's their fault and somewhat incompetent of them.

The amount of on-road competition now is negligible and was pre-Covid.

I certainly would not have described it as negligible pre-Covid.

I think in the GM (and Tyne and Wear) instances, it was the case that there was no real appetite from TfGM or Nexus for partnership so the battle lines were already drawn.

I think that's fair comment, although the fact that certain GM operators only became enthusiastic about partnerships once franchising was mentioned speaks volumes.

People on this forum are passionate about public transport but are also atypical. Most passengers aren't desperate for multi-modal transfer tickets etc - they want a bus that turns up and isn't stuck in traffic. What's Andy Burnham said about bus priority...?

A bus turning up and turning up on time, together with it being clean, the driver not being rude or looking like a scarecrow and the fares being reasonable really are the absolute bare minimum standards in order to maintain your existing customer base. It need to be better than that to attract modal shift, replace existing customers who inevitably die out as part of the cycle of life and attract discretionary extra journeys among your existing customer base.

I think you're grossly underestimating the desire for multi-modal/multi-operator ticketing. That issue has been raised time and time again by people in GM. There have many complaints appearing in the local press in Cornwall from people who now have to buy to two tickets/passes where they used to be able to use one. As mentioned recently in this thread the appetite for last-mile bus travel from tube stations in London is considerable, helped by daily and weekly capping. I was in Walthamstow the other day and there were huge numbers of passengers transferring between tube and bus at Blackhorse Road, many just travelling a bare handful of stops on the bus.

As regards what Burnham has said about bus priority, I've no idea, but that needs to be addressed in the BSIP. What I am extremely disappointed about though is that he has decided to exclude cars from the GM Clean Air Zone requirements.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I certainly would not have described it as negligible pre-Covid.

Historically, between 1986 and 1996, it was a hotbed and then a resurgence with UK North. However, in the last 15 years, aside from a bit of a skirmish between First and Stagecoach, there has been very little on road competition.

If that's the case I don't know what planet they've been on for the past few years. Way back in 2015 when TfGM kicked the whole thing off it was made more than clear that the preference was for area tendering and not individual route tendering. If Rotala chose not to listen then that's their fault and somewhat incompetent of them.

It was kicked off in 2019 after the 2017 Bus Services Act. IIRC, the initial statements referred to three areas/procurement tranches but with multiple tranches in those areas so that it didn't disadvantage smaller operators.

A bus turning up and turning up on time, together with it being clean, the driver not being rude or looking like a scarecrow and the fares being reasonable really are the absolute bare minimum standards in order to maintain your existing customer base. It need to be better than that to attract modal shift, replace existing customers who inevitably die out as part of the cycle of life and attract discretionary extra journeys among your existing customer base.

When I said reliability, it means about the ability to realistically provide the service because of congestion and traffic enforcement, not the operator per se. Nothing is being done to curb private car use - see CAZ below

I think you're grossly underestimating the desire for multi-modal/multi-operator ticketing. That issue has been raised time and time again by people in GM. There have many complaints appearing in the local press in Cornwall from people who now have to buy to two tickets/passes where they used to be able to use one. As mentioned recently in this thread the appetite for last-mile bus travel from tube stations in London is considerable, helped by daily and weekly capping. I was in Walthamstow the other day and there were huge numbers of passengers transferring between tube and bus at Blackhorse Road, many just travelling a bare handful of stops on the bus.

However, is that Cornwall issue more to do with a poorly executed tender process where tendered journeys (early am/evening/Sunday) were operated by a different operator and the interavailability of tickets was not sorted out as part of the initial tender spec.

I'm not underestimating multi-modal/operator ticketing; bus passenger surveys across the UK have consistently identified reliability (in terms of both at stop and then journey duration) as being key. Improved frequencies is often cited as are more services going to more destinations is another area highlighted, whilst value for money also comes in. Ticketing doesn't feature in the top 5 and not surprisingly as many passengers are a) undertaking single leg journeys and/or b) already have passes such as ENCTS so it's not a consideration.

As regards what Burnham has said about bus priority, I've no idea, but that needs to be addressed in the BSIP. What I am extremely disappointed about though is that he has decided to exclude cars from the GM Clean Air Zone requirements.

He hasn't said anything of substance; the Congestion Deal document commits to do nothing more than "Identify locations where bus priority can be improved across Greater Manchester" - that's it. However, that CAZ will not include private cars is a typical political move...and I'm generally a fan of Andy Burnham but he's a politician and won't upset the private motorist at all.

 

[johncrossley]

I'm not underestimating multi-modal/operator ticketing; bus passenger surveys across the UK have consistently identified reliability (in terms of both at stop and then journey duration) as being key. Improved frequencies is often cited as are more services going to more destinations is another area highlighted, whilst value for money also comes in. Ticketing doesn't feature in the top 5 and not surprisingly as many passengers are a) undertaking single leg journeys and/or b) already have passes such as ENCTS so it's not a consideration.

Reliability, frequency and value go without saying. Who wouldn't want those things? Ticketing, though, is trivial to fix. What is the advantage of having multiple, independent, fare systems running in parallel in a single city bus network?

 

[RT4038]

Reliability, frequency and value go without saying. Who wouldn't want those things? Ticketing, though, is trivial to fix. What is the advantage of having multiple, independent, fare systems running in parallel in a single city bus network?

@TheGrandWazoo is quoting Bus Passenger Surveys. I suspect that the majority of passengers only travel on journeys satisfied by one bus, or one operator. Therefore multi-operator tickets would not feature as a priority. If ticketing was trivial to fix, it would have been long ago.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Reliability, frequency and value go without saying. Who wouldn't want those things?

It still doesn't get away from the fact that those are the main considerations for passengers, nor does it get away from the fact that there is nothing stated in the Congestion Deal that has definitive proposals to improve bus service reliability by having better bus priority.

 

[Stan Drews]

It depends what you call 'competition'. The direct route between Middleton to Manchester is one of the main corridors yet there are two different companies. The full routes may not the same route but they overlap between Manchester and Middleton which is a pretty long distance. They both have their own separate tickets. Could you imagine London routes 53 and 453, for example, having different tickets? It would be unthinkable.

Unthinkable? Why?
If a cheaper weekly ticket was offered just for the 53, why would that be a problem for someone who was happy to only use the 53. Cheaper rail tickets frequently exist, on lines with more than one operator, where you are content to only use one particular operator.

Not having a ticket that can be used on all operators/modes would be unthinkable, but there aren’t many major urban areas where that isn’t available.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

@TheGrandWazoo is quoting Bus Passenger Surveys. I suspect that the majority of passengers only travel on journeys satisfied by one bus, or one operator. Therefore multi-operator tickets would not feature as a priority. If ticketing was trivial to fix, it would have been long ago.

Indeed I am and, as I indicated, many passengers don't see it as a factor as simply, they have a twirly pass or they have a single leg journey.

If I'm travelling from Farnworth to Bolton, I'm not fussed if the bus ticket is multi-modal etc; I want it to arrive on time (not delayed in traffic) and then not be further delayed so I arrive on time.

 

[johncrossley]

@TheGrandWazoo is quoting Bus Passenger Surveys. I suspect that the majority of passengers only travel on journeys satisfied by one bus, or one operator. Therefore multi-operator tickets would not feature as a priority. If ticketing was trivial to fix, it would have been long ago.

Maybe people choose single bus journeys because the fare system discourages changing?

Obviously in the current system there is no incentive to harmonise fares between different operators.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Maybe people choose single bus journeys because the fare system discourages changing?

Obviously in the current system there is no incentive to harmonise fares between different operators.

No - it's because most people don't need to make multi-leg journeys...and it still doesn't get away from what is actually important to passengers which isn't being addressed.

 

[RT4038]

Maybe people choose single bus journeys because the fare system discourages changing?

Maybe it does, but it is clearly not high in passenger priority. Why change if you can make the journey on a single bus?

Obviously in the current system there is no incentive to harmonise fares between different operators.

Which shows that it is not trivial to fix.

 

[johncrossley]

Unthinkable? Why?

I suppose TfL could theoretically offer a different fare on London bus 53 than 453. But it seems a pretty random thing to do, and what would be the point? TfL could split their network into odd and even numbers and have a different fare scale on each. If you want to use an odd and even number route then you could get a more expensive 'all number' ticket. If you proposed that, people would think you were insane. But that is effectively what you have in Manchester, except the routes are split into 4 or 5 batches.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Oct 2021 ==

Maybe it does, but it is clearly not high in passenger priority. Why change if you can make the journey on a single bus?

There's only so many places you can go on a single bus. Maybe you've actually hit on a possible reason for low usage outside London? I'd be curious to see analysis on proportion of trips carried out by single/multiple vehicles in various cities the size of Manchester elsewhere in Europe.

Which shows that it is not trivial to fix.

Many cities outside Britain seem to manage it.

It doesn't require huge investment to fix, unlike other items on the wishlist. Just a policy change.

 

[dm1]

@TheGrandWazoo is quoting Bus Passenger Surveys. I suspect that the majority of passengers only travel on journeys satisfied by one bus, or one operator. Therefore multi-operator tickets would not feature as a priority. If ticketing was trivial to fix, it would have been long ago.

The problem with such a survey is that you are surveying the passangers that are already on the bus. You don't consider all the passengers that would be on the bus, if the ticketing system were better and more intuitive. A classic case of "survivorship bias"

The main way to make bus services profitable (or at least not hugely loss-making) without raising fares is to increase the number of passengers using them. That means attracting new bus users.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with such a survey is that you are surveying the passangers that are already on the bus. You don't consider all the passengers that would be on the bus, if the ticketing system were better and more intuitive. A classic case of "survivorship bias"

The main way to make bus services profitable (or at least not hugely loss-making) without raising fares is to increase the number of passengers using them. That means attracting new bus users.

Agreed.

The people you want to survey are car drivers*, and the question being "why don't you go by public transport"?

Very commonly you'll get "I have to get two buses and pay twice and it takes ages because I have to wait half an hour between them" and similar, at least once you've weeded out "it smells of wee"** and such.

* I'd say "and cyclists", but as cycling is to be encouraged over even bus travel this is not a valid target market.
** Not wee, but damp. The fix is pressure ventilation as used in London, or full aircon (both of which also mitigate COVID). But that costs money...