Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[Bletchleyite]

Most interesting for me is the blue and yellow shaded area around Frankfurt (RMV), where the overall Verbund has rail integration, but the co-ordination of the bus timetables is undertaken by the individual regions! That is the equivalent of TfGM being responsible for the fares, but the borough councils each being responsible for timetables and route planning within their own area.

Taken on the German background that buses exist for local journeys i.e. to/from the local railway station, that does make a lot of sense. You could imagine a Parish Council, say, having a good handle on how the local people live.

In the context of a UK style network it doesn't, though.

 

[edwin_m]

Taken on the German background that buses exist for local journeys i.e. to/from the local railway station, that does make a lot of sense. You could imagine a Parish Council, say, having a good handle on how the local people live.

In the context of a UK style network it doesn't, though.

There's a big difference between integrating the fares and integrating the timetables (which is what the previous poster notes is done locally in certain German regions). Bus timetables can generally be structured around centrally-set train timetables providing they are reasonably regular, and connections don't matter for something like Metrolink which is frequent enough not to need that sort of co-ordination. The key thing is to make sure the fare structure allows change of vehicle and mode without penalty.

 

[Dentonian]

Contactless just means that if someone nicks your wallet, they will likely be able to get a couple hundred quid off you in a few minutes.
By the time you react or the automatic protection kicks in they could have used the card a half dozen times at £30 a time.

I wonder how bad the legal fight over what transactions were fraudulent would be......


But either way - how about a flat fare for public transport journeys in a single borough, and then a second higher rate for journeys in more than one borough?

That would prove interesting where I live, which is close to borders involving three GM boroughs. If I walk one way (350 metres), I can cross at a ped-x and double back to a sheltered stop/timing point involving crossing a boundary, or I could walk the other way to avoid crossing a boundary. At the other end of the estate, I would ped-x (this is nearer 600 metres and crosses a dual carriageway), before crossing he boundary (by 10 metres!) to catch a bus back into my borough, and the same in reverse. Staying in the one borough would mean involve an extra 300 metre walk. And as for the train; well that involves a 900 metre walk crossing from borough A to borough B, before boarding the train, which a few hundred metres later crosses into borough C!

Noting the dangers of contactless, it all goes to show that you must keep the option of paying on board - without punishment - even if more and more options are made available to reduce the number of people wanting/needing to do this. Just had yet another example illustrating my point about traffic lights being the biggest problem: I've just missed a connection because the bus I was on took 6 minutes to complete the last 0.75 miles into Stockport Bus Station; Traffic was light and the bus did not stop at the one stop on the section of route. However, it was stopped at three of the four sets of traffic lights on the section of route; geting through the first only to stopped at the next 20 metres later. Further, although both the uneccessarilly delayed bus and the one I eventually left Stockport on were Stagecoach Enviro400 MMCs (which are all supposedly Wi-fi equipped) neither had Wi-Fi working!

 

[Robertj21a]

That would prove interesting where I live, which is close to borders involving three GM boroughs. If I walk one way (350 metres), I can cross at a ped-x and double back to a sheltered stop/timing point involving crossing a boundary, or I could walk the other way to avoid crossing a boundary. At the other end of the estate, I would ped-x (this is nearer 600 metres and crosses a dual carriageway), before crossing he boundary (by 10 metres!) to catch a bus back into my borough, and the same in reverse. Staying in the one borough would mean involve an extra 300 metre walk. And as for the train; well that involves a 900 metre walk crossing from borough A to borough B, before boarding the train, which a few hundred metres later crosses into borough C!

Noting the dangers of contactless, it all goes to show that you must keep the option of paying on board - without punishment - even if more and more options are made available to reduce the number of people wanting/needing to do this. Just had yet another example illustrating my point about traffic lights being the biggest problem: I've just missed a connection because the bus I was on took 6 minutes to complete the last 0.75 miles into Stockport Bus Station; Traffic was light and the bus did not stop at the one stop on the section of route. However, it was stopped at three of the four sets of traffic lights on the section of route; geting through the first only to stopped at the next 20 metres later. Further, although both the uneccessarilly delayed bus and the one I eventually left Stockport on were Stagecoach Enviro400 MMCs (which are all supposedly Wi-fi equipped) neither had Wi-Fi working!

Sorry, you're just getting paranoid over nothing. As you've said yourself, you don't even understand how contactless cards work - yet you're more than happy to be totally against anything to do with them !. You do realise just how many millions of transactions there are nowadays, safely transacted, across every industry, retail outlet etc ?

 

[Dentonian]

Sorry, you're just getting paranoid over nothing. As you've said yourself, you don't even understand how contactless cards work - yet you're more than happy to be totally against anything to do with them !. You do realise just how many millions of transactions there are nowadays, safely transacted, across every industry, retail outlet etc ?

Whoa! I'm only going off what has been said further up the thread, and I do take steps to keep cards and cash safe. For instance, I don't carry a wallet. That said, it sounds like if the card is stolen the consequences are worse than losing a straightforward Bank/Debit Card. My point though, apart from this constant attitude of exploiting every problem to marginalise those that can't conform, is that all we've had in this country (outside Greater London at least) when it comes to transport is its all stick and no carrot, or at best, we'll beat you over the head with a stick now, so that some of you can have a carrot in 10 or more years time.

 

[nerd]

Noting the dangers of contactless, it all goes to show that you must keep the option of paying on board - without punishment - even if more and more options are made available to reduce the number of people wanting/needing to do this. Just had yet another example illustrating my point about traffic lights being the biggest problem: I've just missed a connection because the bus I was on took 6 minutes to complete the last 0.75 miles into Stockport Bus Station; Traffic was light and the bus did not stop at the one stop on the section of route. However, it was stopped at three of the four sets of traffic lights on the section of route; geting through the first only to stopped at the next 20 metres later. Further, although both the uneccessarilly delayed bus and the one I eventually left Stockport on were Stagecoach Enviro400 MMCs (which are all supposedly Wi-fi equipped) neither had Wi-Fi working!

If the options of paying cash on board is retained; then we should nevertheless expect some degree of premium (or otherwise expressed, a discount for off-board ticketing). This is very common, and does not appear to generate much in the way of consumer resentment.

But underlying this question is a the wider issue that the whole exercise of reversing deregulation in GM rests on radically expanding ridership. There are two components to this expansion: the introduction of limited-stop, premium seating, express, longer distance, bus services - which TfGM intend to badge and brand as Bus Rapid Transit; and the expansion of stopping bus ridership, primarily through integrated ticketing and removing predatory priced penal fare levels for users other than regular weekday riders. But these two markets - longer distance BRT riders and shorter distance stopping bus less-regular users - do not necessarily have common interests or aspirations. The BRT market is driven primarily by improved service comfort, speed and reliability; fare levels are of secondary importance, as generally such users are comparing against daily commuter car costs (petrol and daily parking costs) and these are typically far higher than daily BRT fares. But stopping bus users tend to be much more incentivised by price; and less by time saved or comfort. For the former market, eliminating on-board ticketing is a strongly positive move; for the latter market it is more likely to be seen as negative.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However it does create a difficulty that some people boarding a local bus will be on the first leg of a complex zonal journey that will inevitably take longer to sell than a simple flat fare.

The Transfare system in Tyne and Wear worked perfectly for this type of scenario.

Or, to be more accurate, it did before the bus companies pretty much killed it off with their predatory pricing (yes, I'm looking at you, Go North East).

It wasn't a flat fare but, being zonal, it was relatively straightforward for everyone to understand.

 

[carlberry]

The Transfare system in Tyne and Wear worked perfectly for this type of scenario.

Or, to be more accurate, it did before the bus companies pretty much killed it off with their predatory pricing (yes, I'm looking at you, Go North East).

It wasn't a flat fare but, being zonal, it was relatively straightforward for everyone to understand.

How can a bus company kill off a cross modal ticket by offering people cheaper travel? The cross modal ticket should still be cheaper than buying two separate tickets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How can a bus company kill off a cross modal ticket by offering people cheaper travel? The cross modal ticket should still be cheaper than buying two separate tickets.

They price a through bus journey such that it makes people *not* make the multi-modal journey.

 

[carlberry]

They price a through bus journey such that it makes people *not* make the multi-modal journey.

So people get a direct journey at a cheaper rate, and that's a bad thing?
However a cheaper journey in one corridor wouldn't kill off the general concept of a cross modal ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So people get a direct journey at a cheaper rate, and that's a bad thing?

Yes, when you consider a public transport system as a whole rather than a bus network and a rail network. If it was the same price they might well choose the faster connectional journey.

 

[Tetchytyke]

How can a bus company kill off a cross modal ticket by offering people cheaper travel?

They can a) price it in such a way as to make it cheaper to buy two singles and b) refuse to allow it for bus/bus connections, regardless of operator.

The scheme is now both very expensive and heavily restricted.

 

[carlberry]

They can a) price it in such a way as to make it cheaper to buy two singles and b) refuse to allow it for bus/bus connections, regardless of operator.

The scheme is now both very expensive and heavily restricted.

Offering cheaper travel might cause a, however b is down to the organisation of the scheme not bus company pricing policies.

 

[carlberry]

Yes, when you consider a public transport system as a whole rather than a bus network and a rail network. If it was the same price they might well choose the faster connectional journey.

They're still free to choose even if the price is different. For any of these journeys people also have the choice of a taxi. Should the Taxi journey be the same price as using the bus?

 

[edwin_m]

The Transfare system in Tyne and Wear worked perfectly for this type of scenario.

Or, to be more accurate, it did before the bus companies pretty much killed it off with their predatory pricing (yes, I'm looking at you, Go North East).

It wasn't a flat fare but, being zonal, it was relatively straightforward for everyone to understand.

It still had the problem that when your first leg was on a bus, you'd have to know the zone containing your destination, or have a big map on each bus stop, or delay the bus while you and the driver work out between you which zone the destination was in.

How can a bus company kill off a cross modal ticket by offering people cheaper travel? The cross modal ticket should still be cheaper than buying two separate tickets.

If the journey requires one change regardless, and one option is two buses with the same operator, then selling a cheaper single-operator ticket helps the company to keep its passengers - but means those passengers have less choice unless they pay over the odds. Similar to the situation with travellers making a return journey on a multi-operator route having to decide whether to buy a day ticket or two singles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They're still free to choose even if the price is different. For any of these journeys people also have the choice of a taxi. Should the Taxi journey be the same price as using the bus?

There's an argument for having Anruf-Sammel-Taxi style organised group taxis as public transport on some routes in the regular fare system, yes. But not for a separate taxi, no, as that's private transport.

 

[radamfi]

They're still free to choose even if the price is different. For any of these journeys people also have the choice of a taxi. Should the Taxi journey be the same price as using the bus?

The whole point is to maximise public transport patronage and minimise car use as much as possible within the available budget. The pricing policy should be adjusted accordingly.

 

[carlberry]

The whole point is to maximise public transport patronage and minimise car use as much as possible within the available budget. The pricing policy should be adjusted accordingly.

In that case there is no issue; somebody can pay more to change modes and use public transport or stay on the same mode and use public transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In that case there is no issue; somebody can pay more to change modes and use public transport or stay on the same mode and use public transport.

But then that skews what you have to provide and so increases cost. If you have a bus A-B-C and a frequent rail service B-C, you might find you need a 10 minute frequency A-B but only hourly A-B-C if you stop skewing demand by way of pricing[1]. It also has the advantage of not clogging up your city centre with (filthy stinking diesel) buses - take a trip to somewhere like Hamburg and compare it with Manchester.

[1] Actually, Germany tends to skew demand by way of pricing the other way - the connectional journey is cheaper, there are selected long through Schnellbus routes that cost *more*, the usual approach is that they are priced as First Class.

 

[carlberry]

But then that skews what you have to provide and so increases cost. If you have a bus A-B-C and a frequent rail service B-C, you might find you need a 10 minute frequency A-B but only hourly A-B-C if you stop skewing demand by way of pricing[1]. It also has the advantage of not clogging up your city centre with (filthy stinking diesel) buses - take a trip to somewhere like Hamburg and compare it with Manchester.

[1] Actually, Germany tends to skew demand by way of pricing the other way - the connectional journey is cheaper, there are selected long through Schnellbus routes that cost *more*, the usual approach is that they are priced as First Class.

If costs are the issue then using pricing to reduce the demands on rail will actually produce more of a return, especially if it's removed altogether. This would also produce the money for a fleet of electric buses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If costs are the issue then using pricing to reduce the demands on rail will actually produce more of a return, especially if it's removed altogether. This would also produce the money for a fleet of electric buses.

Rail isn't going to be removed altogether in cities, so you might as well forget that one. And replacing rail with bus, whether electric or not, is just going to clog roads up more.

 

[nerd]

So people get a direct journey at a cheaper rate, and that's a bad thing?
However a cheaper journey in one corridor wouldn't kill off the general concept of a cross modal ticket.

I can't recall the details of the Tyne & Wear bus fares (it was a long time ago).

but in terms of currrent operator fare levels in GM;

typical pricing is around £3.50 for a single, £4.50 for a day rider, and £15 for a weekly rider. Day and weekily rider tickets are confined to services of one particular operator.

On that basis; regular travellers are strongly dissuaded from ever buying a single ticket. So a regular cross-operator journey usually involves buying two weekly rider tickets. So a passenger who can make a regular connecting trip on a single operator is £15 week better off than one who has to connect to a service on another operator. The case of a cross-modal trip simply extends the principle.

But there is also a significant perceptual inhibition (or nudge if you like). Having paid out £15 for a weekly ticket, riders are notably less likely to switch modes - even if there is no bus service from the same operator running to their potential destination. This may not be 'rational'; but consumer choices rarely are. Having bought a weekly rider ticket up front, I am strongly predisposed to travel by that operator's services to the exclusion of other transport modes or other operators. So, given the choice of going where I most want to go (but paying for an extra ticket), and going somewhere else (which happens to be accessible on my weekly ticket), I will tend to do the latter, even if the former would otherwise be my highest preference trip.

Hence a non-predatory fare level might be:

around £1.60 for a single, £4.00 for a day rider, and £18 for a weekly rider; but where the weekly and day rider also provides unlimited cross-operator and partial cross-mode travel.

(essentially these are the current fares levels for Edinburgh)

 

[Tetchytyke]

Offering cheaper travel might cause a, however b is down to the organisation of the scheme not bus company pricing policies.

If a bus company refuses to accept a ticket, there is no way of compelling them to do so.

The Transfare system in Tyne and Wear used to include bus/bus transfers, but now it is only bus/Metro or vice versa. This is because a certain bus operator did not want to accept bus/bus tickets.

This means that if you want to transfer from, say, Go to Stagecoach, you have to buy two singles.

 

[4cryingoutloud]

So a regular cross-operator journey usually involves buying two weekly rider tickets.

Why would someone buy 2x£15 weekly riders for a regular journey in Greater Manchester when they could buy an £18 weekly Get Me There, the any-bus smartcard in Greater Manchester?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would someone buy 2x£15 weekly riders for a regular journey in Greater Manchester when they could buy an £18 weekly Get Me There, the any-bus smartcard in Greater Manchester?

Part of the reason is how poorly promoted the "PTE" tickets are. But they still ridiculously lack Metrolink validity.

 

[4cryingoutloud]

Part of the reason is how poorly promoted the "PTE" tickets are. But they still ridiculously lack Metrolink validity.

a) most buses in Greater Manchester have front nearside window sticker advertising Get Me There (which isn't actually administered by the PTE) and they are the only ticket range allowed to be advertised at TfGM bus stops

b) you can now purchase bus+tram peak day tickets and weekly tickets on Get Me There, although these are at a higher price than the bus-only product (largely as a result of the PTE's pricing model for Metrolink, which is not cheap)

 

[Bletchleyite]

b) you can now purchase bus+tram peak day tickets and weekly tickets on Get Me There, although these are at a higher price than the bus-only product (largely as a result of the PTE's pricing model for Metrolink, which is not cheap)

About time. When will that be extended to the CountyCard, i.e. a full bus, train and tram product? And monthlies?

 

[radamfi]

The System One range of tickets was simplified recently. Whilst there is now a bus and tram day ticket valid in peak (still no peak day bus and train ticket), the Bus Card Plus (an add on to a rail/tram season ticket) was withdrawn, which means that the only weekly bus and tram ticket costs £36.60, even if you only need a short tram journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I see the old name "County Card" has returned!

 

[Stan Drews]

The lack of full inter-modal (System One/Get Me There) tickets in the TfGM area over the years has not been down to the private bus operators, but the rail operators and TfGM themselves.