Bus Services Act 2017

[TheGrandWazoo]

It's strange they come at a time when Stagecoach are starting to aggressively compete against Go Ahead on some routes: they've started new express routes from Newcastle to Sunderland and Stockton recently, as well as more services to Cobalt. It feels like cutting the bread and butter to pay for some MD willy waving.

They're hardly competing aggressively. Stagecoach have set up the X24 and it barely touches the Go Ahead services between Sunderland and Newcastle; arguably more of an impact on the Metro.

As for the X55, it will operate 3 times a day and only one of those will begin/finish at Stockton as a positioning run. It will provide a direct Hartlepool to Newcastle service as per the old United X55.

 

[HSTEd]

In Manchester you could probably make significant savings from rationalising the Oxford Road bus routes if ll buses are on the same ticketing regime. No need for all the First buses that duplicate Stagecoach services

 

[WatcherZero]

That might be true if the London level of service and fares are replicated. The costs of running the buses don't depend on what operating model is adopted. If extra regulation and co-ordination means service can be made more attractive at relatively little cost then the extra revenue might exceed the extra cost.

Yeah the London bus fares are kept artificially low whereas the fares are set commercially in Manchester and balanced to make a profit to the operators of the 90% of services which are commercial rather than subsidised.

Looking at the budget £18m is spent on general services with another £5m on free Metroshuttle and community taxi bus. £15m is spent on Yellow school buses for a total of £37.5m in subsidised service costs. The subsidised services generate revenue of £10.5m for TfGM a net cost of £27m.

There are 8m passenger miles a year of subsidised services and 198m passenger miles a year of commercial services.

 

[nerd]

In Manchester you could probably make significant savings from rationalising the Oxford Road bus routes if ll buses are on the same ticketing regime. No need for all the First buses that duplicate Stagecoach services

Or vice versa;

- predatory pricing and scheduling along the biggest volume south Manchester routes has been one of the major factors suppressing overall demand, and adding to city centre congestion. But predatory pricing works by locking competitors out of high-value sub-markets so as to enforce general barriers to market entry. So it remains the case that these are high-demand, high-value routes, and they will need a substantial volume of capacity provided along them.

Sticking my neck out, I might expect;

- divvying-up of major South Manchester routes between First and Stagecoach; maybe one taking the '41/43' set, and the other the '42' set (more than half a dozen different services in recent months have been carrying number 42)

- potentially creating an entirely new cross-city Uni-Uni 'busway' route linking Fallowfield to Frederick Street - served by single-deck, buses with multiple doors (and maybe articulation) - with pre-ticketing and high proportions of standing space. Long-term (and maybe short term) I would expect these to be battery powered.

- integrated ticketing, branding and route maps across Metrolink and bus services. I would expect a standard flat-rate single as a basic 'no frills' bus fare (with the option of discounted multi-buy tickets); but all other fares - day/weekly/monthly - to include central zone tram and train as well. Other than for the day tickets, these are likely to be priced higher than the current predatory weekly one-operator fares, but will incorprate cross-operator and cross-mode access into basic day/week/monthly tickets.

- possibly separation of fare structure along the guided buswy (and other BET routes) from those for stopping bus services. Likely implying a higher flat-rate fare for end-to-end travel along BRT routes; but with added value of city-zone travel on trams and trains to compensate. Clearly, a major benefit from franchising is potential for better integration of tram and bus services - encouraging multi-mode trips - but that possibly implies that longer-distance, limited-stop, higher internal spec, busway services, should be priced more like trams and less like buses.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They're hardly competing aggressively. Stagecoach have set up the X24 and it barely touches the Go Ahead services between Sunderland and Newcastle; arguably more of an impact on the Metro.

They've spent money on getting the Omnilinks down, and doing them up, and same with the coach for the X55. The 22 has had a PVR increase to support the extension to Cobalt and Silverlink, and is needing another one because of the roadworks at the Coast Road, even though the 22 seems to mostly carry fresh air between Wallsend and Cobalt.

The fares increases and service cuts are very disappointing after the north east bus operators promised everyone that if Nexus' QBC application was turned out we'd get a better service. Stagecoach are, instead, providing a much worse service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

- possibly separation of fare structure along the guided buswy (and other BET routes) from those for stopping bus services. Likely implying a higher flat-rate fare for end-to-end travel along BRT routes; but with added value of city-zone travel on trams and trains to compensate. Clearly, a major benefit from franchising is potential for better integration of tram and bus services - encouraging multi-mode trips - but that possibly implies that longer-distance, limited-stop, higher internal spec, busway services, should be priced more like trams and less like buses.

Disagree. I'd rather see a Verbundtarif - same fare for a single journey or day ticket across all modes, recognising that in a city transport system there is a need for them to complement, not compete. They can complement in different ways, of course - they can feed each other, they can add capacity and they can provide different service speeds - but in principle the fare should be based on how far you're going, not based on what mode(s) you use to do it, as that is rarely a matter of actual choice.

If there are affordability issues, this should be handled by way of discounts for people in specific financial situations (e.g. low income households), not by having buses as a cheap "third class" mode.

 

[Taunton]

I do wish people would be careful about terminology. TfL raises income from fares, investment grant, a paltry council tax levy, charges for services (incl Freedom Pass income), Crossrail grant (ring fenced), borrowing and a share of business rates. There are political decisions taken about the level of fares and the scope of service offered. Where I will agree with the OP is that the bus network makes an operating loss in the region of £660m but that is funded within TfL's overall income. The decision to sustain that loss is a political one driven by keeping fares pretty low and things like frequencies, hours of operation and the scale of the network pretty high. The Mayor could decide tomorrow that the bus network would be made profitable and it could be done. However the political fall out and consequences for London's economy means it is very unlikely that any Mayor would do it.

It's not a "paltry" council tax levy, and rises well ahead of inflation every year. Those of us who pay London Council tax would be grateful if others would not come along and reach into our pockets for yet more money.

Where we live there is one established, well-patronised double deck route to the major points. There are also two single-deck routes started in recent times which go nowhere significant (and even that by a roundabout route) and rarely have more than half a dozen passengers in them, often less. There is also a relatively recent all-night double-decker. On the occasions I have been up early and seen it, this is always conveying total fresh air.

 

[nerd]

Disagree. I'd rather see a Verbundtarif - same fare for a single journey or day ticket across all modes, recognising that in a city transport system there is a need for them to complement, not compete. They can complement in different ways, of course - they can feed each other, they can add capacity and they can provide different service speeds - but in principle the fare should be based on how far you're going, not based on what mode(s) you use to do it, as that is rarely a matter of actual choice.

I think I am working to similar principles Neil; but seeing rather different implications. Average trip distance on Metrolink in Manchester is well over twice average trip distance on stopping buses. So if fares are to be based on how far you are going, tram passengers should expect to pay twice as much per person (on average) as bus passengers. We can see the same principle applied by Transdev for their bus operations; period tickets including their WitchWay and RedExpess services are set higher than those for local buses.

An alternative approach is what can be seen in Croydon; where Tramilink fares are set the same as bus fares; but since Tramlink trips are on average lmuch longer than bus trips, this results in under-pricing of tram fares, and consequent operation of Tramlink at a loss.

In the absence of subsidy, common fares across all modes will tend to lead to excessive fares per distance for stopping bus users, and inadeqjuate fares per distance for BRT and tram users. Which is terms of social equity, is likely the wrong way round. Failure to extract profit from longer travelling passengers, unnecessarily reduces funds available to support shorter distance (and usually less affluent) travellers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think I am working to similar principles Neil; but seeing rather different implications. Average trip distance on Metrolink in Manchester is well over twice average trip distance on stopping buses. So if fares are to be based on how far you are going, tram passengers should expect to pay twice as much per person (on average) as bus passengers.

Most probably, yes, if you look at it that way. So in my model it'd cost the same if you travel from Rochdale to Manchester by tram, by train or by bus, or by any combination of the three you feel like. But travelling from Miles Platting to Manchester would be cheaper because it's shorter.

There are a few models that work for this. You can use a London style, German style (or Merseytravel style, which is a bit different again) zonal system. Or you can use a Dutch style system of a flat "starting" fare plus a per-km fare based on actual distance from touching in and out.

We can see the same principle applied by Transdev for their bus operations; period tickets including their WitchWay and RedExpess services are set higher than those for local buses.

For season tickets a zonal approach is in my view best.

In the absence of subsidy, common fares across all modes will tend to lead to excessive fares per distance for stopping bus users, and inadeqjuate fares per distance for BRT and tram users.

Only if you use flat fares, which I probably wouldn't favour except in small towns.

Which is terms of social equity, is likely the wrong way round. Failure to extract profit from longer travelling passengers, unnecessarily reduces funds available to support shorter distance (and usually less affluent) travellers.

Absolutely - but you do it based on distance travelled, not based on an assumption of mode, because if you do it on mode you perpetuate the whole "buses are peasant wagons" nonsense. If you want to travel from Manchester to Salford, a typical short distance journey that is often done by people of lesser means, it should cost the same to do it by train, tram or bus - but travelling from Manchester to Altrincham should cost more, say, because it's further!

Subsidy isn't really relevant to that argument, because the extent to which it is needed in such a regulated system simply depends on what level you set the fares to (and whether you overprovide on uneconomic routes).

 

[matt_world2004]

I wonder how much of tfls £600 million bus subsidy is paying for concessionary education travel. £600. Million per london borough is about £18.5 million. I imagine for urban areas outside london that is a similar amount to their school bus budget.

 

[nerd]

Most probably, yes, if you look at it that way. So in my model it'd cost the same if you travel from Rochdale to Manchester by tram, by train or by bus, or by any combination of the three you feel like. But travelling from Miles Platting to Manchester would be cheaper because it's shorter.

There are a few models that work for this. You can use a London style, German style (or Merseytravel style, which is a bit different again) zonal system. Or you can use a Dutch style system of a flat "starting" fare plus a per-km fare based on actual distance from touching in and out.

Stopping bus services are not that practicable for longer trips (over around 4km) - consequently most cities find a flat-fare approach to bus pricing be economically viable. Technically this subsidises longer-distance bus travellers at the expense of shorter distance bus travellers; but since the latter vastly outnumber the former, graduated distance fares would offer limited savings for short distance stopping bus users. With the added advantage of a flat fare that there is no need to touch-off, greatly reducing dwell-time at stops.

The corollary of this would be that single fares for Metrolink users would continue to be zonal, while those for bus users would be flat-rate; so if you really wanted to spend two hours on a stopping bus, you could ride all the way from Rochdale to Manchester for a flat-rate single bus fare, and save on the tram fare. All I am saying is that BRT fares are likely better priced similarly to tram fares, than to stopping bus fares.

Absolutely - but you do it based on distance travelled, not based on an assumption of mode, because if you do it on mode you perpetuate the whole "buses are peasant wagons" nonsense. If you want to travel from Manchester to Salford, a typical short distance journey that is often done by people of lesser means, it should cost the same to do it by train, tram or bus - but travelling from Manchester to Altrincham should cost more, say, because it's further!

Subsidy isn't really relevant to that argument, because the extent to which it is needed in such a regulated system simply depends on what level you set the fares to (and whether you overprovide on uneconomic routes).

Tricky issues here; buses should not be seen as 'peasant waggons' (or more accurately perhaps - transport tailored to the needs of young adults, students , retired persons and the unwaged). Nevertheless, the predatory pricing strategies of the unregulated bus market have picked out these groups as primary bus users, and marketed bus fares specifically favouring them and constraining other potential markets - Uni-rider cards; Magic Bus services, weekly one-operator tickets. For some of these users - those who regularly travel short distances but only ever use one service - franchising could imply increased fares. Hence, to my mind, the need for the flat-rate single to be 'no frills' to keep it as low as possible - London charges £1:50; Lothian charges £1:60. Not much more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The corollary of this would be that single fares for Metrolink users would continue to be zonal, while those for bus users would be flat-rate; so if you really wanted to spend two hours on a stopping bus, you could ride all the way from Rochdale to Manchester for a flat-rate single bus fare, and save on the tram fare. All I am saying is that BRT fares are likely better priced similarly to tram fares, than to stopping bus fares.

And what I'm saying is that in my model (which is used in most of Germany at least) there is just a "public transport fare" based on distance in some way, often zonal. Therefore tram fares are the same as bus fares are the same as train fares.

Hence, to my mind, the need for the flat-rate single to be 'no frills' to keep it as low as possible - London charges £1:50; Lothian charges £1:60. Not much more.

You're aware that other than the quirk of the Airport (which also commands a premium by bus) Lothian charge pretty much the same for a tram ride? It's not a Verbundtarif, but it's not far off.

 

[nerd]

And what I'm saying is that in my model (which is used in most of Germany at least) there is just a "public transport fare" based on distance in some way, often zonal. Therefore tram fares are the same as bus fares are the same as train fares.

I have no special insight into TfGM's thinking, so it is possible that they will look to those German exemplars; but more likely in my view that experience in and Edinburgh and London will be considered more relevant. I do know that TfGM have laid great emphasis on the potential for simplified bus fares to unlock current suppressed demand for single journeys. I tend to interpret that as favouring flat-rate fares - and by implication, creating differing fare structures for trams and buses. Given the much greater average trip length on trams in Manchester than on counterpart tram systems in Germany, I cannot see flat rate (or timed rate) fares as workable on Metrolink.

What TfGM are certainly saying is that they see franchising as enabling high demand routes to subsidise lower demand, 'thinner' routes. But that in turn requires extracting profit from routes serving higher demand, more affluent, user populations. TfGM are well aware that TfL have cut themselves off from a major potential source of revenue funding through their reluctance to apply differential pricing to Tramlink compared to buses. Tramlink is priced as the bus, where the DLR is priced as the Tube; but the user profile of the two services are much the same, so this represents a loss of opportunities for profit.

You're aware that other than the quirk of the Airport (which also commands a premium by bus) Lothian charge pretty much the same for a tram ride? It's not a Verbundtarif, but it's not far off.

I am also aware that Lothian weekly tickets include access to the tram (except to the airport I believe); but their day and single tickets do not. Hence my presumption of similar for TfGM. You could think of the Lothian strategy as having two tram zones (the outer of which only has the one stop); or as a separate pricing for access to the airport. Either way, a pricing approach for a tram system 14km long, is not likely to apply well for one 92 km long.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am also aware that Lothian weekly tickets include access to the tram (except to the airport I believe); but their day and single tickets do not. Hence my presumption of similar for TfGM. You could think of the Lothian strategy as having two tram zones (the outer of which only has the one stop); or as a separate pricing for access to the airport. Either way, a pricing approach for a tram system 14km long, is not likely to apply well for one 92 km long.

No, hence zones.

What I really oppose is charging differently per mode. It's not my fault my journey requires two buses, or a bus and a tram, or one bus, or a train. I want to make a journey of length N km. It should cost me the same to make a journey of length N km as for you to do so, even if mine involves a train, a tram and a bus, and yours involves the convenience of a direct bus, train or tram.

Per mode pricing in cities is nonsensical. It needs to be considered and planned as a single network.

 

[nerd]

No, hence zones.

What I really oppose is charging differently per mode. It's not my fault my journey requires two buses, or a bus and a tram, or one bus, or a train. I want to make a journey of length N km. It should cost me the same to make a journey of length N km as for you to do so, even if mine involves a train, a tram and a bus, and yours involves the convenience of a direct bus, train or tram.

Per mode pricing in cities is nonsensical. It needs to be considered and planned as a single network.

'Fairness' is a slippery matter in public transport provision; I recall the Green candidate for London mayor running on a policy of abolishing all zones; saying it was 'unfair' that someone whose travel to work required them to cross London from one side to the other should pay more per day than someone who had the llucky fortune of living only a single bus stage away from their worklplace. (the stereotypical Green voter lives in leafy suburbia)

And then it is often claimed to be unfair for public transport investment should be concentrated into one particular route or corridor; no taxpayer money should be spent on transport unless every taxpayer benefits -whether they use public transport or not.

I rather think the key criterion is system efficiency; moderated somewhat by political acceptability. So the question for your your preferred 'public transport fare'; is 'will it provide more, or less, public transport capacity and public transport coverage for a given level of public funding resource?' So long as users are able to get where they want to at a fare level they can afford, it does not matter that another user (on another mode) is travelling for less money. Much better to have a wider choice of 'unfair' transport options, than a narrower choice in which we all pay the same. I think you will find that your preferred common fares simply fails to raise as much revenue for re-investment as does the alternative of pricing separately by mode.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Much better to have a wider choice of 'unfair' transport options, than a narrower choice in which we all pay the same.

I fundamentally don't agree at the most basic level. Much better to have a single, coordinated public transport network in a city, at a single price structure across all modes including unlimited interchange (plus discounts for reasons of social inclusivity, e.g. child fares at the simplest level, but also discounts for those of limited means and the likes), as a key part of the city infrastructure (and seen and sold as such). Only that level of quality will give the car a serious run for its money.

There are still choices then - car, motorised public transport, taxi, bicycle, foot. Though you also integrate to a more limited extent within those too, e.g. provision of excellent cycle storage facilities at all key public transport nodes, whatever the mode (down to a couple of Sheffield stands at most bus stops), provision of keenly-priced and well-located park and ride, design and location of stations/stops to optimise walking distances, off-peak cycle carriage on all modes primarily as a means of rescue, Anruf-Sammel-Taxi services to fill off-peak bus network gaps (DRT operated using group shared taxis under contract to a timetable preferably integrated into the fares system) etc.

 

[nerd]

I fundamentally don't agree at the most basic level. Much better to have a single, coordinated public transport network in a city, at a single price structure across all modes including unlimited interchange (plus discounts for reasons of social inclusivity, e.g. child fares at the simplest level, but also discounts for those of limited means and the likes), as a key part of the city infrastructure (and seen and sold as such). Only that level of quality will give the car a serious run for its money.

I can see that you may not be happy with the proposition that the public transport system that is best, is the one that raises most revenue from those that can afford to pay.

But I would be happy to extract an alternative criterion from your posting above; that the public transport system that is best, is the one that provides the most opportunities for regular travellers from within the city to get to where they want to, without the use of private cars. I would be happy to go with that as a general rule; would you?

But if so; could you expand a bit on why you might believe that access to public transport for reluctant private car users would be greater with a single 'public transport fare'? Are there many travellers who would use a tram if the fare were the same as that of the bus; but not if it was higher than the bus?

There is a lot of survey information on travellers switching from car use to public transport use (both for Metrolink and other tram systems, and for the Leigh and Cambridgeshire busways). One interesting finding is that fare levels are not that important; much more weight is given to convenience, speed, comfort, penetration, connectivity, reliability and frequency. In so far as that may be the case, it can well be argued that there is no 'unfairness' in charging higher fares to tram users (who travel faster, more reliably, more frequently and often more comfortably, than do bus users).

I would guess that fare structure that distinguished stopping buses from other modes would generally turn out better on this criterion; but I am happy to hear any evidence that you may propose otherwise.

 

[edwin_m]

I wonder if the answer is flat fares on buses and zonal fares on trams, but including a bus journey within the zone either end of the tram journey. That still charges people more for the faster mode but removes the financial penalty of changing en route.

It would of course mean selling a wide range of tram tickets on every bus.

 

[nerd]

I wonder if the answer is flat fares on buses and zonal fares on trams, but including a bus journey within the zone either end of the tram journey. That still charges people more for the faster mode but removes the financial penalty of changing en route.

It would of course mean selling a wide range of tram tickets on every bus.

That looks like a good idea for me edwin_m. The issue though is more the fare that should be charged where a tram trip follows a bus trip? I have proposed that the flat-rate bus fare should not include a tram trip; but that all day/weekly/monthly bus tickets would include city zone tram use as well as unlimited bus trips. And then a second higher value day/weekly/monthly that includes unlimited travel across bus/train/tram - which in my view would simply be the current peak and off-peak tram system card. Priced perhaps at £4 for a daily bus ticket, and £5/£7 for an off-peak/peak full system daily ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can see that you may not be happy with the proposition that the public transport system that is best, is the one that raises most revenue from those that can afford to pay.

I am certainly not happy with that, no. That is the description of a progressive taxation system, not a public transport system. If we wish to provide public transport in that manner, it should be fully funded by way of progressive taxation and should be free, or very heavily discounted (nominal charges promote respect, but I'm talking £1/through fare, £2 day ticket on all modes type levels here), at the point of use. There is an argument for that approach but I wouldn't say it is a viable option for the UK at the present time.

But I would be happy to extract an alternative criterion from your posting above; that the public transport system that is best, is the one that provides the most opportunities for regular travellers from within the city to get to where they want to, without the use of private cars. I would be happy to go with that as a general rule; would you?

Yes, that seems reasonable. I would add that that must not be to the disadvantage of those users for whom the provision of a direct service of whatever type is not viable, hence my view on multi-modal ticketing.

But if so; could you expand a bit on why you might believe that access to public transport for reluctant private car users would be greater with a single 'public transport fare'? Are there many travellers who would use a tram if the fare were the same as that of the bus; but not if it was higher than the bus?

I think so, yes, certainly in London. But the thing I find really unacceptable is the typically very high cost (until you hit the Travelcard cap) of a single journey going, in London, say, bus-Tube-train-bus-tube, or something, because of the lack of proper through ticketing.

There is a lot of survey information on travellers switching from car use to public transport use (both for Metrolink and other tram systems, and for the Leigh and Cambridgeshire busways). One interesting finding is that fare levels are not that important; much more weight is given to convenience, speed, comfort, penetration, connectivity, reliability and frequency. In so far as that may be the case, it can well be argued that there is no 'unfairness' in charging higher fares to tram users (who travel faster, more reliably, more frequently and often more comfortably, than do bus users).

I could at a push concede to a structure that was along the lines of a cheaper bus-only fare plus an all-modes fare to recognise the principle you note (and I think that may be what London would need due to Tube overcrowding). However, what such a thing does is means you need to provide for through journeys using buses otherwise you disadvantage people that way. In a proper German-style system, these are limited; buses are used to connect you to and from your nearest rapid transit railway station. And that is my model of preference.

Taking Manchester as an example, you simply wouldn't have Manchester to Oldham trunk bus routes. Oldham would have a local bus network connecting to Metrolink, on which you would complete your journey, on one through fare. And Manchester city centre would be a much nicer place without all those filthy diesel fume belching buses. Imagine a network where there was no fossil-fuel powered public transport in our city centres at all. How good would that be?

To get an idea, take a look at a public transport map for say Hamburg and see just how few routes penetrate the city centre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder if the answer is flat fares on buses and zonal fares on trams, but including a bus journey within the zone either end of the tram journey. That still charges people more for the faster mode but removes the financial penalty of changing en route.

It would of course mean selling a wide range of tram tickets on every bus.

You *could* have two levels.

1. A fare for a bus-only journey, unlimited changes of vehicle within a defined time period.

2. A fare for a through public transport journey, by zone, of any kind, within a defined time period.

I don't think "on either end" is adequate, as it again limits scope for non-city-centre radial journeys without financial penalty.

 

[nerd]

I could at a push concede to a structure that was along the lines of a cheaper bus-only fare plus an all-modes fare to recognise the principle you note (and I think that may be what London would need due to Tube overcrowding). However, what such a thing does is means you need to provide for through journeys using buses otherwise you disadvantage people that way. In a proper German-style system, these are limited; buses are used to connect you to and from your nearest rapid transit railway station. And that is my model of preference.

Taking Manchester as an example, you simply wouldn't have Manchester to Oldham trunk bus routes. Oldham would have a local bus network connecting to Metrolink, on which you would complete your journey, on one through fare. And Manchester city centre would be a much nicer place without all those filthy diesel fume belching buses. Imagine a network where there was no fossil-fuel powered public transport in our city centres at all. How good would that be?

To get an idea, take a look at a public transport map for say Hamburg and see just how few routes penetrate the city centre.

Good questions Neil; one issue that we may not have been considering is whether a franchised bus system might also be wholly redirected towards feeding into rapid transit routes.

Which might be attractive in some respects; as it takes pressure of the radial road network; but then capacity on the tram and train rapid transit systems is not unlimited.

When the Tyne & Wear Metro first opened, many bus routes were redirected to run into Metro stops. No buses crossed the Tyne at all. This proved highly unpopular with off-peak bus users in particular. When the buses were deregulated, the new operators restored the old routes, and Metro ridership levels collapsed.

My view is that there is scope for an additional orbital network of Bus Rapid Transit routes feeding into Metrolink stops; but also for radial Bus Rapid Transit into the city centre along busways and buslanes reserved on radial roads. All BRT routes (in my ideal) would be fully integrated into Metrolink fare structures; with full common charging zones, through-ticketing and no penalty for multiple connections or switching modes. So far, I fully agree with you.

But I see something like the current stopping bus network as still being needed. Not many people might take a stopping bus from Oldham to Manchester. but lots may want stopping bus travel for parts of that route, And this could well follow a different corridor from the tram. One frequent critique of TfGM's strategy is that, by diverting radial demand onto the tram they reduce the viability of shorter distance local radial bus routes. Obviously yuu can't please everyone, but it is worth noting that there are a lot of users (admittedly many of them the stereotype students, older, young families, unwaged) who actively prefer to go by stopping bus. The general general principle of rapid transit can be summarised as 'walk further to travel faster'; but some travellers don't like to walk, and are not that bothered about going fast.

Though there is no need for buses to be dirtier than trams or electrified trains; if they are battery , gas or fuel-cell powered.

 

[Altnabreac]

To get an idea, take a look at a public transport map for say Hamburg and see just how few routes penetrate the city centre.

And those that do penetrate the city centre are mainly bendy bus routes, including some with 2 articulations for maximum capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Obviously yuu can't please everyone, but it is worth noting that there are a lot of users (admittedly many of them the stereotype students, older, young families, unwaged) who actively prefer to go by stopping bus.

Do they prefer it because they like it, or do they prefer it because it's cheaper?

If the latter, offering proper discounts across the multimodal network are the way to achieve that. It is for example to me very silly that the elderly and disabled in the UK receive only free travel on buses; it actively discourages integration of modes. It would be better if free or discounted local travel on all modes of transport was to be provided even if only in the local area.

The general general principle of rapid transit can be summarised as 'walk further to travel faster'; but some travellers don't like to walk, and are not that bothered about going fast.

To some extent. Quality interchange reduces that effect somewhat.

 

[nerd]

Do they prefer it because they like it, or do they prefer it because it's cheaper?

If the latter, offering proper discounts across the multimodal network are the way to achieve that. It is for example to me very silly that the elderly and disabled in the UK receive only free travel on buses; it actively discourages integration of modes. It would be better if free or discounted local travel on all modes of transport was to be provided even if only in the local area.

Older and disabled people have the same access to trams in GM as buses. But the trams stops are set further apart, so persons with restricted mobility may prefer the bus.

Students are an interesting case; as they tend to be strongly motivated by discounted fare levels. But there is also now a cultural association of bus travel with 'young adult' freedoms - the stage of life when you are no longer constrained to be taken around in your parents' car.

 

[edwin_m]

You *could* have two levels.

1. A fare for a bus-only journey, unlimited changes of vehicle within a defined time period.

2. A fare for a through public transport journey, by zone, of any kind, within a defined time period.

I don't think "on either end" is adequate, as it again limits scope for non-city-centre radial journeys without financial penalty.

On grounds of practicality the tram tickets might include unlimited bus travel for a certain period too, on the ground that they would only be used either end of a tram journey because anyone wanting to go end to end by bus would get the cheaper bus ticket. By the same logic I think there's probably grounds for cheaper bus-only season tickets, for those who need a cheaper commute and don't mind being slower.

 

[edwin_m]

My view is that there is scope for an additional orbital network of Bus Rapid Transit routes feeding into Metrolink stops; but also for radial Bus Rapid Transit into the city centre along busways and buslanes reserved on radial roads. All BRT routes (in my ideal) would be fully integrated into Metrolink fare structures; with full common charging zones, through-ticketing and no penalty for multiple connections or switching modes. So far, I fully agree with you.

But I see something like the current stopping bus network as still being needed. Not many people might take a stopping bus from Oldham to Manchester. but lots may want stopping bus travel for parts of that route, And this could well follow a different corridor from the tram. One frequent critique of TfGM's strategy is that, by diverting radial demand onto the tram they reduce the viability of shorter distance local radial bus routes. Obviously yuu can't please everyone, but it is worth noting that there are a lot of users (admittedly many of them the stereotype students, older, young families, unwaged) who actively prefer to go by stopping bus. The general general principle of rapid transit can be summarised as 'walk further to travel faster'; but some travellers don't like to walk, and are not that bothered about going fast.

I agree with most of that except that I don't see any need for BRT to parallel Metrolink on corridors like Oldham Road. Those would retain a traditional bus service for shorter journeys or for people wanting a cheaper journey end to end. And I agree BRT bus routes would have tram-like ticketing and fare levels (as would rail fares on routes where the frequency and quality of service were comparable).

The "walk further to travel faster" is addressed in other countries by having feeder buses to rapid transit whether train, tram or potentially BRT. TfGM has gone out of its way to build bus-tram and bus-train interchanges over the years but due to the disincentives in the fare structure I suspect few people other than pensioners interchange between the bus and other modes.

Feeder buses work if the fare incentives are right, the interchange is quick and convenient (as for example at Mumps) and the distance on the fast mode makes it worthwhile. Most of the interchange unpopularity on Tyne and Wear Metro was to do with Gateshead where the interchange was literally in sight of central Newcastle and in the time needed for passengers to descend to the Metro the bus could have got them across the Tyne (or at least that was the perception). Other interchanges such as Four Lane Ends were more sensible, although the walking distance was probably more than it might have been, but after deregulation interchange was not in the interests of the bus operators.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, Gateshead is a poor example of interchange, being that was too close to the city centre for interchange to really make sense.

The presumption would be to interchange as far out as feasible. If not feasible, you would still run the bus to the city centre. Look at the Hamburg MetroBus concept, to continue my example - a small number of high quality, high capacity city centre penetrating buses for routes effectively unserved by rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On grounds of practicality the tram tickets might include unlimited bus travel for a certain period too, on the ground that they would only be used either end of a tram journey because anyone wanting to go end to end by bus would get the cheaper bus ticket.

You're forgetting tram-bus-tram journeys. Or similar.

That's why we shouldn't be thinking "bus ticket" or "tram ticket" but rather "public transport ticket".

 

[radamfi]

If a differential fare structure between bus/tram/metro is advantageous in terms of maximising patronage, why is that principle not widely used in developed countries? Even in American cities subway and bus usually costs the same, although transfers are not always free.