TfGM Bus franchising

[domcoop7]

More likely they'll come to an agreement with those operators for it to be a GM service inside GM and a commercial one outside of it, i.e. some sort of direct award. That's the pragmatic approach. It'll cost them a lot more to tender their own duplicate if those went away or ran non-stop inside GM.

There's plenty of this sort of peripheral stuff within the edges of TfL's area.

Actually you've just hit on something there. I'd be pretty sure (just a guess because I haven't reread the Act and the regulations), that the power to do this wouldn't exist. It would run foul of EU competition laws.

If TfGM say to Arriva "we'll pay you £x for running services on the 352", then that opportunity has to be available to Stagecoach, First, Diamond, etc. Which of course it wouldn't be, since only Arriva run the 352. They'd have to offer subsidy to anyone running a deregulated bus on that corridor, and they'd have to give a service permit to anyone to permit them to do so. EU law has a specific exception for rail contracts, which allows Direct Awards for up to 10 years maximum, so long as the contract is published 12 months in advance and so long as the value of the award is no higher than a reasonable rate of return on the capital invested and as long as there is no competition with commercial operators. As far as I know, there is no special provision for buses that would apply to the GM situation.

We also then have the situation regarding GM ticketing and equipment.

Under the Transport Act 2000 (as amended by the Bus Services Act 2017), the authority is supposed to publish the standard conditions which will apply to Service Permits (i.e. non-franchised buses). I have just searched the Greater Manchester Combined Authority / Mayor website, the "Doing Buses Differently" site and the TfGM website, and can't find the published document anywhere (if it even exists yet!). But what I find interesting is that the bare bones of the Act and the regulations (which are The Franchising Schemes (Service Permits) (England) Regulations 2018) don't say anything about revenue sharing. It just says that an authority can require the Service Permit bus to accept tickets it specifies, and to sell tickets at a specified price. On my reading, there's nothing saying they have to give the ticket receipts to TfGM, nor anything to say that TfGM have to reimburse the operator for tickets it has to accept.

So Arriva can be forced to cap its ticket prices to TfGM levels, and issue TfGM tickets, but they can keep all the money themselves. But on the other hand, they have to accept any passenger with a TfGM ticket even if not bought from them, and TfGM don't have to pay. That's what the regulations say.

If / when they introduce contactless price capping, trying to untangle that is just going to be a mess. For the Franchised operator it doesn't matter - TfGM gets the money anyway and the operator gets paid by them for running the bus. But for commercial operators divying up their share is important! It's not just the need to buy Oyster equipment which as others have said have put paid to most cross-boundary services in Greater London. It's the financial effects. It seems to me like they'll only get paid for passengers who buy a single that doesn't get capped, or who buy a ticket to /from outside the Greater Manchester area (and thus have to buy an Arriva fare rather than a TfGM ticket).

Again, there does seem to be a lack of planning here. Perhaps we'll see the Abbey Lakes turnoff reinstated after all! (I live literally 20 minutes away round the corner from there, and it isn't usable in present condition BTW. Also interesting is that the outbound bus stop is a TfGM maintained bus stop but it is actually on the Lancashire side of the border, but I digress).

===

On the withdrawal of the commercial services by Rotala, whilst looking up the regulations for the above, I came across provisions which actually anticipated that happening. The Act and the regs specifically make the TUPE regulations (which transfer drivers over to the new company) apply not just to the existing company but also to any former company that de-registered services before the Franchising contract came in (section 123X(2) Transport Act 2000). The Act also allows the authority to extend the notice period required to deregister commercial services before Franchising is introduced up to 112 days (which TfGM have done). So it was obviously realised when the laws were passed that a commercial operator who loses a bid may throw in the towel, but the 112 days notice requirement would be enough to stop anyone pulling out. Given that, it seems a ten month period between announcing the winner and starting the operation is the problem. If they'd shortened it to 112 days (16 weeks or 4 months) they wouldn't have this problem. If they'd run a London-style Franchising competition, 4 months would be more than enough, but adding all the stuff about buying depots and procuring transfer of fleets, etc., is probably why they've allowed longer.

​

 

[Man of Kent]

Part of the reason why most cross boundary non-TfL routes were withdrawn was the need to have Oyster equipment on the bus. There might be similar technological issues in GM.

Probably not. TfGM smartcards and other media are ITSO compliant (as are all English National Concessionary Travel Scheme passes) and so should work on any modern ticket machine. Oyster is not ITSO compliant, a result of pre-dating the establishment that the rest of the transport industry (half-heartedly) uses.

 

[Goldfish62]

Probably not. TfGM smartcards and other media are ITSO compliant (as are all English National Concessionary Travel Scheme passes) and so should work on any modern ticket machine. Oyster is not ITSO compliant, a result of pre-dating the establishment that the rest of the transport industry (half-heartedly) uses.

The one scenario I see where it could be a problem is if TfGM introduces tap on - tap off and cross boundary operators don't have the relevant equipment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually you've just hit on something there. I'd be pretty sure (just a guess because I haven't reread the Act and the regulations), that the power to do this wouldn't exist. It would run foul of EU competition laws.

You can work around it when tendering. If a company is already running a commercial route and you want to pay for a short extension to that route, if you put out that extension on its own to tender but include in the documents that it's OK if it's run as part of something else, then that company is pretty much certain to be cheapest because the extra mileage is marginal. I've seen that done in Milton Keynes with planning gain contracts several times now. Others can bid but there's no chance of them winning in practice.

An interesting question is how every other European country handles this. Remember that despite a lot of posts in this thread, regulated operation is the norm throughout the EU, but not every area is actually tendered.

So Arriva can be forced to cap its ticket prices to TfGM levels, and issue TfGM tickets, but they can keep all the money themselves. But on the other hand, they have to accept any passenger with a TfGM ticket even if not bought from them, and TfGM don't have to pay. That's what the regulations say.

This can be handled in a tender as well. For instance, in Milton Keynes up to about 2010, all evening and Sunday tenders were required to accept (but not issue) MK Metro day tickets and passes even though they got no revenue for them. That was just part of the tender to cost in when bidding. This only stopped as a means of saving money.

If / when they introduce contactless price capping, trying to untangle that is just going to be a mess. For the Franchised operator it doesn't matter - TfGM gets the money anyway and the operator gets paid by them for running the bus. But for commercial operators divying up their share is important!

Is it that important? With System One tickets at present, isn't it the case, as I recall, that the seller of the ticket keeps all the revenue on the basis that that'll basically even out, and there's no railway style clearing system in the background? So might TfGM allow Arriva, Transdev etc to keep anything it sells on those routes on the same basis?

 

[M60lad]

If you look at 247 and CAT5 routes both take similar but slightly different routes to/from Partington so I wouldn't say its direct competition and in fact I'd go as far as to say that CAT5 takes a longer route now from Altrincham-Partington.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

An interesting question is how every other European country handles this. Remember that despite a lot of posts in this thread, regulated operation is the norm throughout the EU, but not every area is actually tendered.

Because it's a different situation in every other European country. You have operational packages that are controlled by local authorities that are put out to competitive tender - therefore, it complies with European competition rules. That is also what GM are doing within their patch so that complies. It is the deregulated environment outside of GM which is different.

A direct award, where a business is simply awarded a piece of business, would not comply with EU competition rules nor UK Government procurement rules (except with specific exceptions - this includes de minimis but also on grounds of critical infrastructure, health security e.g. pandemic response, or national security etc).

 

[landgateblue]

Does anybody know what routes Go North West have got in the 2 small franchises they won?

 

[WatcherZero]

Circulars from Wigan Bus Station, stuff like the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 613, 639, 640, 641 etc.. though I dont have an exact list.

From what can be made out one of the small franchises only Go North West bid on (they bid on every single large and small franchise) but the initial competition rules were that companies that won large bus depot contracts couldnt operate small depot contracts to stop them using the muscle of the state furnished depot to undercut smaller bidders, so they would have had to consider the value for money ramifications of awarding a contract that only received one bid and whether they could bend the award rules. The other small franchise they apparently got multiple bids but none at a price they were happy with, so they decided to roll it into the larger Wigan franchise rather than retender it.

 

[landgateblue]

Circulars from Wigan Bus Station, stuff like the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 613, 639, 640, 641 etc.. though I dont have an exact list.

From what can be made out one of the small franchises only Go North West bid on (they bid on every single large and small franchise) but the initial competition rules were that companies that won large bus depot contracts couldnt operate small depot contracts to stop them using the muscle of the state furnished depot to undercut smaller bidders, so they would have had to consider the value for money ramifications of awarding a contract that only received one bid and whether they could bend the award rules. The other small franchise they apparently got multiple bids but none at a price they were happy with, so they decided to roll it into the larger Wigan franchise rather than retender it.

thank you...

 

[158756]

Circulars from Wigan Bus Station, stuff like the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 613, 639, 640, 641 etc.. though I dont have an exact list.

I don't remember where I saw it but I'm sure I read that the two small franchises Go North West got were really tiny, like single digit PVR between the two. If that's true I think it might just be the 6xx routes, with routes 1-6 being part of the main Wigan franchise along with everything else currently operated by Stagecoach.

 

[WatcherZero]

The 1-6 routes are operated by a single bus each. (Odd route the bus goes clockwise round the circular loop even it goes anti-clockwise or vice versa)

 

[U-Bahnfreund]

Because it's a different situation in every other European country. You have operational packages that are controlled by local authorities that are put out to competitive tender - therefore, it complies with European competition rules. That is also what GM are doing within their patch so that complies. It is the deregulated environment outside of GM which is different.

A direct award, where a business is simply awarded a piece of business, would not comply with EU competition rules nor UK Government procurement rules (except with specific exceptions - this includes de minimis but also on grounds of critical infrastructure, health security e.g. pandemic response, or national security etc).

I've looked at the relevant EU legislation mainly from a rail point of view, so I'm not 100% sure how it works for buses (since directive 2014/25/EU also applies to bus services), but the current rules can be read in the consolidated EU regulation 1370/2007 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con...02007R1370-20171224&qid=1675810728601&from=EN

To summarise article 5 (Award of public service contracts), public transport services can be direct-awarded for a number of reasons, but applicable to bus services seem only two: if it's an in-house operation or a company owned by the authority that's doing the direct award (subparagraph 2), or if it's a small contract with an annual value of less than 1 million Euro or provision of less than 300,000 km per year, or 2 million Euro/600,000 km for really small bus companies with 23 or less buses (subparagraph 4).

Now, I don't know if UK law might even go further in banning direct awards, but EU legislation does allow it (and in even more cases for rail operations). In my former home city in Germany, the main bus operator owned by the city operates under a direct award according to subparagraph 2, while a handful of regional bus routes are operated by Deutsche Bahn buses under individual direct awards according to subparagraph 4.

 

[WatcherZero]

A lot of them were still tendered though, for example Arriva had won quite a few local contracts in Germany, When DB put it up for sale they separated out the German operations to keep.

 

[Bungle965]

Keep the topic of conversation to TfGM Bus Franchising please

 

[Man of Kent]

The 1-6 routes are operated by a single bus each. (Odd route the bus goes clockwise round the circular loop even it goes anti-clockwise or vice versa)

According to what is on the Stagecoach website, that only applies to the current 5 and 6 timetables. 1/2 require 3 and 3/4 require 6 buses. The frequencies specified in the TfGM large Wigan franchise documents (which also included current Diamond route 635) were the higher ones before reductions were implemented (I think) during 2022.

 

[domcoop7]

Seven bus services in Greater Manchester saved costing £2.5m

Seven bus services across Greater Manchester have been saved as transport bosses announce funding worth £2.5m to keep the routes running. It follows Diamond's decision to cut bus services after missing out on a major contract.

The operator will still run some of the first buses to be brought under public control later this year, but Go North West will run most of the franchised bus services in Bolton and Wigan as well as parts of Salford, Bury and Rochdale. Last month, Diamond and Vision said they would be cutting services from April due to the 'uncertainty' created by the bus franchising announcements.

However, mayor Andy Burnham promised to 'pull out all the stops' to save services which were set be scrapped when Diamond pulls a fifth of its bus fleet from the Bolton depot. Now, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) has said it will subsidise some of the bus routes which were under threat.

Later in the article:-

TfGM boss Stephen Rhodes Greater Manchester's transport committee on Friday (February 17) that around 28 buses must now be sourced alongside additional drivers for these services to continue operating. He explained that income from fares on these routes will cover some of the costs of subsidies, but the move will ultimately require approximately £2.5m from TfGM's budget.

This money will partially come from government funding given to the city-region from the Bus Recovery Grant and Bus Service Improvement Plan. Similar steps were taken last summer to save dozens of bus services which were set to be withdrawn or reduced because they were deemed unprofitable.

However, Diamond said it was not withdrawing services for financial reasons, but because of the 'uncertainty' created by bus franchising. Councillors on the transport committee were warned of further instability as all buses in Greater Manchester are brought under public control by 2025, starting in September.

Mr Rhodes said he could not guarantee that TfGM would be able to subsidise all services that are withdrawn by operators during the franchising process.

Based on that report, it literally seems not to have occurred to anyone before now that this would be a risk (given that councillors were only now warned of further instability and of the possibility of them not being able to afford to subsidise future withdrawn routes during the franchising process.)

Two-and-a-half million pounds to keep a less than current frequency on some routes for a little under six months. Given the level of foresight and competence that the highly paid* officers at Transport for Greater Manchester have demonstrated, it doesn't bode well for the future.


[* 8 staff members on over £100k and four directors on at least £200k according to the last accounts]

(edited for tyops)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Short term pain, long term gain. The journey to a properly integrated network may be a rough one, but it will be better in the end. There is a good reason no other Western country has free commercial urban operation.

 

[Cesarcollie]

Short term pain, long term gain. The journey to a properly integrated network may be a rough one, but it will be better in the end. There is a good reason no other Western country has free commercial urban operation.

And they all spend a lot more on buses than we do! Not saying that’s a bad thing, but will politicians in the UK ever do that, irrespective of whether franchised or commercial?

 

[158756]

Based on the report presented at the meeting https://democracy.greatermanchester.... GMTC 20230217 Bus Network Stabilisation.pdf it sounds like the routes will be saved but no action will be taken on the frequency reductions. The 163 will be saved but reduced to every 15 minutes. I wonder if this policy of not supporting frequencies above every 15 minutes will be extended to other routes once franchising starts and everything comes under TfGM?

 

[WatcherZero]

If you watch the video of the meeting Diamond has agreed under pressure to keep one of the 7 routes operating on a commercial basis (though it doesnt say which one, probably the 163) while TfGM will take over funding the other six routes on a subsidized basis between the date Diamond regregisters them in April and their replacement with franchised services in September (as with all subsidized services TfGM keeps all the farebox revenue from the service up until breakeven after which its shared with the operator). To continue to operate the working week services 26 additional buses and drivers have been sourced from outside the region, however there isnt the financial resources to cover the weekend frequency reduction (as it would mean bringing in drivers and buses just to work weekends). They return to their previous frequency in September when Go-Ahead takes over operating the services from Diamond.

 

[daodao]

Short term pain, long term gain. The journey to a properly integrated network may be a rough one, but it will be better in the end. There is a good reason no One other Western country has free commercial urban operation.

With respect to the freedom to operate bus services, the behaviour of TfGM under the direction of the Greater Manchester Authority and its boss Mr A Burnham is more akin to that of a totalitarian dictatorship, not a Western liberal democracy. It is also advantageous financially for public transport to be operated commercially wherever possible, with the state only stepping in to support essential routes where otherwise significant populations would be deprived of public transport access. The bus franchising model being introduced by TfGM is unlikely to improve public transport, but is very likely to increase the burden on hard-pressed local council taxpayers.

A significant reason why public transport provision is poor in the UK and affects its commercial viability is land-use planning, which deliberately encourages low density suburban housing and out-of-town locations for retail and key service facilities, such as hospitals. The rise of on line retail and service provision, home working and Zoom/MS teams for meetings, has reduced the need to travel and thus public transport use long-term as a result of the Covid pandemic.

 

[johncrossley]

The behaviour of TfGM under the direction of the Greater Manchester Authority and its boss Mr A Burnham is akin to that of a totalitarian dictatorship, not a Western liberal democracy.

Does that mean all transport authorities and city mayors in the Western world outside the UK also behave in a similar manner?

 

[RT4038]

Does that mean all transport authorities and city mayors in the Western world outside the UK also behave in a similar manner?

Depends what you are measuring against, and the circumstances of change from commercial to subsidised/tendered/franchising of bus operations in their areas (if they were ever operated in a deregulated manner?) .

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does that mean all transport authorities and city mayors in the Western world outside the UK also behave in a similar manner?

And, by extension, should all municipal services such as bin emptying and schools be commercial? This is a silly argument in my view, and again we are the only ones in the developed world to do it.

 

[johncrossley]

Depends what you are measuring against, and the circumstances of change from commercial to subsidised/tendered/franchising of bus operations in their areas (if they were ever operated in a deregulated manner?) .

Surely it is the end point that matters? Manchester is continuing with privatised buses when many capitalist countries have state owned and run buses.

You can't seriously argue that mistakes made in the past cannot be fixed?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Feb 2023 ==

And, by extension, should all municipal services such as bin emptying and schools be commercial? This is a silly argument in my view, and again we are the only ones in the developed world to do it.

Actually, in Ireland they have deregulation for domestic bin collection! You can choose from various providers and choose from unlimited collections for a flat fee or pay by kg. But they don't allow deregulation for local buses. That would be considered insane. Commercial services are allowed but they have to be approved by the regulator.

 

[jammy36]

The behaviour of TfGM under the direction of the Greater Manchester Authority and its boss Mr A Burnham is akin to that of a totalitarian dictatorship, not a Western liberal democracy.

Having experienced life living under totalitarianism I can assure you this statement is utter b*##***s (and I'm hoping is hyperbole on your part, otherwise offensive also to those who've genuinely suffered under such regimes).

 

[RT4038]

Surely it is the end point that matters? Manchester is continuing with privatised buses when many capitalist countries have state owned and run buses.

You can't seriously argue that mistakes made in the past cannot be fixed?

I am merely referring to the comment that in #1551 that 'The behaviour of TfGM under the direction of the Greater Manchester Authority and its boss Mr A Burnham is akin to that of a totalitarian dictatorship, not a Western liberal democracy', and yours about other countries.

There has been a precedent in this country before, when the London Passenger Transport Board was set up in 1933, and much rancour at the time too. The result of that undertaking was fairly mixed too.

 

[markymark2000]

Actually, in Ireland they have deregulation for domestic bin collection! You can choose from various providers and choose from unlimited collections for a flat fee or pay by kg. But they don't allow deregulation for local buses. That would be considered insane. Commercial services are allowed but they have to be approved by the regulator.

To be fair, how much service would Ireland have if it was down to a UK system? I'd say very little to start with. Private companies would likely help grow patronage over there seeing as private companies tend to have less strikes and as long as you get the progressive operators in, not the sit on their backside hoping money rolls in without investing anything, you'd end up with promotion of the bus services there which in the end would create a much better system in my opinion. Dublin especially, the network is dismal. They've a new route and route number for everything, massively overcomplicated network.

America, a developed country but their public transport is dismal because very much like our politicians, they are very car orientated and so there is low investment and only fund things when enough people scream and shout for it.

Canada, another developed country with poor buses.

Australia, developed country now turning to private bus companies and starting a little bit of deregulation.

France, their publicly ran buses in Calais are free and are overran with people trying to cross the channel on small boats. The locals don't get much of a look in on those buses.


It's all well and good looking at things with rose tinted glasses just because you don't like our system but let me ask you this. Given the current state of politics (pro car politicians, reducing public transport funding's, huge strikes on the railway as they don't want to pay for public sector pay rises etc etc), do you honestly think that you will come out with a better system? Andy Burnham has literally said he will cut buses on the busy routes to move the buses to other areas. CUTTING BUSES TO BUSY ROUTES. There are huge uproar in London because of all the cuts to buses. Warringtons Own Buses, a council owned bus company which has higher fares than Arriva. Halton Transport, went into administration because the council wouldn't keep paying for it. All of this is what you are asking for here! And if it isn't, that is the reality of what will happen if we reregulate on any meaningful scale. None of the things which people claim 'franchising solves', are things which can't be done now by working with private bus companies rather than against. IF the same budget was put into local buses now as what would be in place under a franchised system, you'd see significant changes. Truth is, it's easier for you to bash public companies than it is for you to come out and say that it is politicians and councillors who are running down the buses in this country with their actions (with a little bit of help from some shambolic companies granted).

 

[GusB]

Okay, let's get back to discussing the current franchising situation in Manchester. The arguments for and against have been made several times now, and it's utterly pointless going over the same ground again. Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion about elected politicians, but I'd suggest that that is done elsewhere.

Thanks

 

[158756]

If you watch the video of the meeting Diamond has agreed under pressure to keep one of the 7 routes operating on a commercial basis (though it doesnt say which one, probably the 163) while TfGM will take over funding the other six routes on a subsidized basis between the date Diamond regregisters them in April and their replacement with franchised services in September (as with all subsidized services TfGM keeps all the farebox revenue from the service up until breakeven after which its shared with the operator). To continue to operate the working week services 26 additional buses and drivers have been sourced from outside the region, however there isnt the financial resources to cover the weekend frequency reduction (as it would mean bringing in drivers and buses just to work weekends). They return to their previous frequency in September when Go-Ahead takes over operating the services from Diamond.

The 163 must be one of the tendered services because the report says one of the tenders will run at a 15 minute frequency instead of the current 12 minutes. The other services won't add up to 26 buses without the 163 either.

It's not just weekend frequency reductions, it sounds like Diamond are still going ahead with all the proposed Monday-Friday reductions. TfGM's position is they aren't going to pay for anything better than every 15 minutes, which is why I question if that will become a wider policy under franchising.

And if the frequencies are going to go back up in September, who is going to drive the buses. Diamond are going to leave Bolton well short of the necessary staffing to operate everything, so are Go Ahead hiring drivers who are just going to be sitting around until then?