Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[carlberry]

Last time I looked both First and Stagecoach were happy to bid for and run contracts in the regulated London market, so there is no reason why they shouldn't also do so in Manchester.

I'm not aware of First bidding in London anytime recently and Stagecoach has an on off relationship. However why wouldn't they? London operates with contracts and hasn't done anything differently since being publicly owned. The Manchester operations were sold off on the belief that the operation was deregulated and that was reflected in the price the government got.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not aware of First bidding in London anytime recently and Stagecoach has an on off relationship. However why wouldn't they? London operates with contracts and hasn't done anything differently since being publicly owned. The Manchester operations were sold off on the belief that the operation was deregulated and that was reflected in the price the government got.

And laws change. Tough.

 

[Robertj21a]

It's very difficult to comment until we have a better idea of what is planned. Tendering of individual routes, as per London, may well be what is considered likely but it might be tendering for whole areas, some form of franchise arrangement etc etc - we really don't know enough at this stage.

 

[LAIRA]

Last time I looked both First and Stagecoach were happy to bid for and run contracts in the regulated London market, so there is no reason why they shouldn't also do so in Manchester.

First London was sold a few years back because the margins were not high enough.

 

[edwin_m]

First London was sold a few years back because the margins were not high enough.

Which goes to show they were making more profit in places like Manchester.

 

[Robertj21a]

First London was sold a few years back because the margins were not high enough.

And First Group needed as much capital as possible ! (and still do.......)

 

[Dentonian]

I think it's great that Mr.Burnham is going to make these wonderful improvements to bus services all across GM. It will be really interesting to see the costings, and just how much the magic money tree can be shaken.

Why shouldn't Magic money trees be "planted" outside London?

 

[Dentonian]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion I suppose, but how are we going to tackle congestion and social exclusion when an increasingly unpunctual bus costs over £1.25 a mile to get to the nearest Supermarket or secondary health centre, whilst petrol/diesel is less than 20p a mile and parking is free in the vast majority of cases. The other point is that resources have been poached from these captive market (ie. low car ownership) routes, to compete in the slightly better off west of the county, where they will still be paying £1.50 for 5-6 mile journeys. It is this massive disparity that needs tackling, unless you want a "car or curfew" society.

For a week, £15 is quite good value. I doubt that very many buy a single ticket.[/QUOTE]

You'd be surprised! Although, in many cases I suspect its irregular travellers who have been let down by Rail or someone promising them a lift. Nevertheless, Single fares are still going to be used by (for instance) the elderly attending morning GP appointments (they will delay their return home until after 0930 if relevant), people going shopping who expect to come home by taxi, due to a combination of heavy bags and a prospective long wait for a bus, and obviously those not expecting to return the same day (eg. people going away for the weekend). £15 is good value if you are a full time commuter travelling 5 or more miles to work - less so if you are a part timer travelling just a couple of miles.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

People going shopping who expect to come home by taxi, due to a combination of heavy bags and a prospective long wait for a bus

I selected this part of your posting as I have heard this stated scenario being discussed on more than one occasion whilst in Macclesfield town centre in recent times.

 

[plcd1]

Last time I looked both First and Stagecoach were happy to bid for and run contracts in the regulated London market, so there is no reason why they shouldn't also do so in Manchester.

First sold up in London as they were desparate for funds to try to clear down some of their debt and thus improve their "gearing".

It is worth noting that London is becoming much tougher for operators due to massive downward pressure on tender prices from TfL - they want another £375m of savings in the next few years. Furthermore TfL are slashing services which is reducing income and workload for operators. This may cause some of them to revise their view about wishing to remain in the London market. I would not be astonished to see Go Ahead or Metroline try their hand in Greater Manchester *if* the proposed structure of services / contracts offers the prospect of a return and spreads risk away from their London operations. RATP might also be interested.

If Mr Burnham is citing London as a massive success story for buses then I fear he needs to get an urgent, independent update and not believe whatever spin is coming from City Hall. All is not well - another 9% mileage cut is expected over 2 years in London.

 

[radamfi]

If Mr Burnham is citing London as a massive success story for buses then I fear he needs to get an urgent, independent update and not believe whatever spin is coming from City Hall. All is not well - another 9% mileage cut is expected over 2 years in London.

Clearly if you compare, say, 2015 and 2020, that wouldn't look great. But if you compare, say, 1986 and 2020 or even 2000 and 2020, there would still be a massive improvement in both bus service levels and per capita usage. Some bus services in London are being thinned out due to rail improvements.

Most importantly, the proportion of trips by car is still significantly lower than 20 or 30 years ago.

 

[nerd]

For a week, £15 is quite good value. I doubt that very many buy a single ticket.

You'd be surprised! Although, in many cases I suspect its irregular travellers who have been let down by Rail or someone promising them a lift. Nevertheless, Single fares are still going to be used by (for instance) the elderly attending morning GP appointments (they will delay their return home until after 0930 if relevant), people going shopping who expect to come home by taxi, due to a combination of heavy bags and a prospective long wait for a bus, and obviously those not expecting to return the same day (eg. people going away for the weekend). £15 is good value if you are a full time commuter travelling 5 or more miles to work - less so if you are a part timer travelling just a couple of miles.

Indeed Dentonian.

If we look at UK cities outside London where bus usage continues to be high, a common factor is a flat-rate single fare; Edinburgh, Nottingham, Reading. Commonly set somewhere between £1.50 and £2.00. Which, of course, we also find in Manchester; but only on those routes (41,42, 43) where operators are in competition with one another. All the evidence is that offering such single fares is economically sustainable and attracts large numbers of passengers who would not otherwise travel by bus. But for current operators in GM, an economic flat-rate single would attract regular customers away from their £15 weekly ticket offer; which in turn would mean that such passengers were no longer locked into using that operator's services to the exclusion of those of their rivals. For a monopolist, ,there is always more value from inhibiting passengers from using a rival, than there is in growing passenger demand for their own services; and it is the extra potential revenue unlocked from removing these systematic inhibitions against filling potential passenger demands, that a franchising scheme would primarily be looking to as the basis for service expansion and improvement.

 

[Dentonian]

Indeed Dentonian.

If we look at UK cities outside London where bus usage continues to be high, a common factor is a flat-rate single fare; Edinburgh, Nottingham, Reading. Commonly set somewhere between £1.50 and £2.00. Which, of course, we also find in Manchester; but only on those routes (41,42, 43) where operators are in competition with one another. All the evidence is that offering such single fares is economically sustainable and attracts large numbers of passengers who would not otherwise travel by bus. But for current operators in GM, an economic flat-rate single would attract regular customers away from their £15 weekly ticket offer; which in turn would mean that such passengers were no longer locked into using that operator's services to the exclusion of those of their rivals. For a monopolist, ,there is always more value from inhibiting passengers from using a rival, than there is in growing passenger demand for their own services; and it is the extra potential revenue unlocked from removing these systematic inhibitions against filling potential passenger demands, that a franchising scheme would primarily be looking to as the basis for service expansion and improvement.

You forgot the 38!

First sold up in London as they were desparate for funds to try to clear down some of their debt and thus improve their "gearing".

It is worth noting that London is becoming much tougher for operators due to massive downward pressure on tender prices from TfL - they want another £375m of savings in the next few years. Furthermore TfL are slashing services which is reducing income and workload for operators. This may cause some of them to revise their view about wishing to remain in the London market. I would not be astonished to see Go Ahead or Metroline try their hand in Greater Manchester *if* the proposed structure of services / contracts offers the prospect of a return and spreads risk away from their London operations. RATP might also be interested.

If Mr Burnham is citing London as a massive success story for buses then I fear he needs to get an urgent, independent update and not believe whatever spin is coming from City Hall. All is not well - another 9% mileage cut is expected over 2 years in London.

9% in two years is no worse than in GM; Bus movements from all TFGM bus stations (ie. all except Piccadilly Gardens) dropped by 10% between Sept 2014 & August 2016, and fare rises have accelerated since then, so further cuts are likely as people switch to cars/rail.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

9% in two years is no worse than in GM; Bus movements from all TFGM bus stations (ie. all except Piccadilly Gardens) dropped by 10% between Sept 2014 & August 2016, and fare rises have accelerated since then, so further cuts are likely as people switch to cars/rail.

How much of this percentage decrease went towards any recorded percentage increase in passenger usage of the expanded Manchester Metrolink system?

 

[Dentonian]

How much of this percentage decrease went towards any recorded percentage increase in passenger usage of the expanded Manchester Metrolink system?

I fear quite a bit, although it would largely be confined to Wythenshawe, Ashton, Oldham and Rochdale. It can be read a number of ways, but the Bolton Evening News seem to have picked up on something Andy Burnham said in his speech, but wasn't part of the Press Release on the GMCA website - and that is that intermodal competition, especially between Metrolink and Bus must stop.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I fear quite a bit, although it would largely be confined to Wythenshawe, Ashton, Oldham and Rochdale. It can be read a number of ways, but the Bolton Evening News seem to have picked up on something Andy Burnham said in his speech, but wasn't part of the Press Release on the GMCA website - and that is that intermodal competition, especially between Metrolink and Bus must stop.

Though being one who is resident exterior to the land of the TfGM empire, I have always associated the Manchester Metrolink system as offering a service akin to a fast limited stop service compared to the usual all-stops bus services, so not really comparable.

 

[Dentonian]

Though being one who is resident exterior to the land of the TfGM empire, I have always associated the Manchester Metrolink system as offering a service akin to a fast limited stop service compared to the usual all-stops bus services, so not really comparable.

The three phases are rather distinct;

Phase 1; Bury-M'cr-Altrincham effectively replaced heavy rail with just the odd extra stop. It was however, partly responsible for the loss of the odd peak only service from Hillock/Unsworth to Manchester, and the evening 263. The latter was re-instated with "KickStart" funding some years later.

Phase 2: This was mainly in line with the development of Salford Quays and its impact on Eccles-Manchester buses was initially minimised by its rather time consuming indirect routing.

Phase 3; Apart from new direct links from the Chorlton area to Wythenshawe and the Airport, this phase is little more than direct competition for the commercial bus industry. Most obvious of all being the Ashton service which not only shadows the 216 bus route for 90% of its length, but has longer journey times than the limited stop 236/237 had before construction of the new line began. Phase 3 obviously divides he market because it gives car owners and people with good physical health (or just lucky enough to live near the stop) a choice, but leaves car-less, less healthy people at the mercy of a declining bus service.....which surely must result in a combination of greater car ownership (and therefore, use) and greater soci-economic exclusion, in the long run. In the old days, Limited stop/Express buses complimented "stoppers", so lets hope that, with Bus Reform, this is how Andy Burnham (and his successors) envisages a "post-competition" network.

 

[nerd]

The three phases are rather distinct;

Phase 1; Bury-M'cr-Altrincham effectively replaced heavy rail with just the odd extra stop. It was however, partly responsible for the loss of the odd peak only service from Hillock/Unsworth to Manchester, and the evening 263. The latter was re-instated with "KickStart" funding some years later.

Phase 2: This was mainly in line with the development of Salford Quays and its impact on Eccles-Manchester buses was initially minimised by its rather time consuming indirect routing.

Phase 3; Apart from new direct links from the Chorlton area to Wythenshawe and the Airport, this phase is little more than direct competition for the commercial bus industry. Most obvious of all being the Ashton service which not only shadows the 216 bus route for 90% of its length, but has longer journey times than the limited stop 236/237 had before construction of the new line began. Phase 3 obviously divides he market because it gives car owners and people with good physical health (or just lucky enough to live near the stop) a choice, but leaves car-less, less healthy people at the mercy of a declining bus service.....which surely must result in a combination of greater car ownership (and therefore, use) and greater soci-economic exclusion, in the long run. In the old days, Limited stop/Express buses complimented "stoppers", so lets hope that, with Bus Reform, this is how Andy Burnham (and his successors) envisages a "post-competition" network.

not sure that Phase 3 has had such an effect on bus patronage. There is very little change to peak period passenger numbers into Manchester from Ashton; and of course the numbers entering Manchester from Chapel Street have gone up a lot. The services that dropped in the most recent reports are those along Oxford Road; and that is likely due much more the ongoing Oxford Corridor works than to competitiion from Metrolink. Othewise, however, it is the local stopping buses (those not running into the city centre) that have seen the most drop in patronage.

 

[daodao]

not sure that Phase 3 has had such an effect on bus patronage. There is very little change to peak period passenger numbers into Manchester from Ashton; and of course the numbers entering Manchester from Chapel Street have gone up a lot. The services that dropped in the most recent reports are those along Oxford Road; and that is likely due much more the ongoing Oxford Corridor works than to competition from Metrolink. Otherwise, however, it is the local stopping buses (those not running into the city centre) that have seen the most drop in patronage.

Several long-established bus routes have ceased or had frequencies reduced in recent years due to the expansion of Metrolink into South Manchester and Wythenshawe. Withdrawals include the 109 (formerly 44) from Wythenshawe Hospital to Piccadilly via Northern Moor and Princess Road and 84 (formerly bus 94 and originally tram 37) from Southern Cemetery via Seymour Grove to the city centre. There are now only 2 bus routes (85 and 86, each running every 10 minutes Mon-Sat daytime) from Chorlton to the city centre, with few journeys now extending south of Chorlton Bus station. Regarding the Oxford Road routes, passengers from Didsbury to the city centre can now use Metrolink.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We surely are not going to experience a "Big Brother 1984" syndrome by those charged with the provision of public transport. Is this not a democracy, where people have the right to make their own choice to use either a bus or a tram as the feeling takes them.

Imagine if some political view decreed that all the main supermarkets were to be one grey-image branding, leaving shoppers with the scenario seen in some of the Warsaw Pact countries in the pre-Communist downfall years.

 

[radamfi]

We surely are not going to experience a "Big Brother 1984" syndrome by those charged with the provision of public transport. Is this not a democracy, where people have the right to make their own choice to use either a bus or a tram as the feeling takes them.

What if excessive competition between buses and trams means that people elsewhere don't have a bus service?

What if co-ordination between buses and trams means that more people use public transport overall?

Such a "Big Brother" syndrome is in place in most developed countries when it comes to the relationship between buses and other modes of transport, even America which is supposed to be the epitome of the free market.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What if excessive competition between buses and trams means that people elsewhere don't have a bus service?

Most bus services stop at all stops, offering access to those areas not covered by any nearby tram stop. Look at the example of the Manchester Victoria Metrolink line that has its next stop at Monsall, then at Central Park, then at Newton Heath and Moston or the other line from Victoria that has its next stop at Queens Road, then at Abraham Moss, then at Crumpsall. Look at all the existing bus stops in those areas and there is no meaningful competition between those two modes of transport.

 

[radamfi]

Most bus services stop at all stops, offering access to those areas not covered by any nearby tram stop. Look at the example of the Manchester Victoria Metrolink line that has its next stop at Monsall, then at Central Park, then at Newton Heath and Moston or the other line from Victoria that has its next stop at Queens Road, then at Abraham Moss, then at Crumpsall. Look at all the existing bus stops in those areas and there is no meaningful competition between those two modes of transport.

The point is, resources that are used to compete with the tram could be used to provide or improve bus services elsewhere. Nobody is saying that buses should be withdrawn from parallel bus routes, but there is no need to have excessively high frequencies or to provide long through services where connections with tram services might lead to a greater overall use of public transport within a certain budget.

 

[Blackpudding]

What if excessive competition between buses and trams means that people elsewhere don't have a bus service?

The point is, resources that are used to compete with the tram could be used to provide or improve bus services elsewhere.

Perhaps they should have thought of this before they built the tram lines and bear in mind that when they have problems with the tram network the bus takes the strain I think I will stick with the bus thanks.

 

[Robertj21a]

Perhaps they should have thought of this before they built the tram lines and bear in mind that when they have problems with the tram network the bus takes the strain I think I will still with the bus thanks.

Horses for courses. The tram will be the best use of resources for key stops on the key routes - the bus will be best for more localised routes. They shouldn't really need to compete, just complement.

 

[Dentonian]

not sure that Phase 3 has had such an effect on bus patronage. There is very little change to peak period passenger numbers into Manchester from Ashton; and of course the numbers entering Manchester from Chapel Street have gone up a lot. The services that dropped in the most recent reports are those along Oxford Road; and that is likely due much more the ongoing Oxford Corridor works than to competitiion from Metrolink. Othewise, however, it is the local stopping buses (those not running into the city centre) that have seen the most drop in patronage.

I should have specified that in the cases of Wythenshawe, Oldham and Rochdale it was "local" services such as Arriva 18, 19, Stagecoach 369 and First 58, 181/2 etc that have been drastically reduced. In the case of the 216, the off-peak service was halved (albeit still every 10 minutes), with both 216 & 231 reduced at peak times.

Horses for courses. The tram will be the best use of resources for key stops on the key routes - the bus will be best for more localised routes. They shouldn't really need to compete, just complement.

Correct, but under current legislation they do compete, so those without the health to walk long distances to tram stops, are left with reduced bus services - unless they acquire a car, of course. And hat's before we get into arguments about frequent System wide failure and excruciating bum perches on Metrolink.

 

[Dentonian]

We surely are not going to experience a "Big Brother 1984" syndrome by those charged with the provision of public transport. Is this not a democracy, where people have the right to make their own choice to use either a bus or a tram as the feeling takes them.

Imagine if some political view decreed that all the main supermarkets were to be one grey-image branding, leaving shoppers with the scenario seen in some of the Warsaw Pact countries in the pre-Communist downfall years.

There is no choice if the bus ceases to exist - or is cut to an extent it might as well cease to exist. It is the "capitalist" free market that is creating this situation because there are too many companies/modes fighting over too few customers.

 

[Dentonian]

The point is, resources that are used to compete with the tram could be used to provide or improve bus services elsewhere. Nobody is saying that buses should be withdrawn from parallel bus routes, but there is no need to have excessively high frequencies or to provide long through services where connections with tram services might lead to a greater overall use of public transport within a certain budget.

Great in theory, but a chain is only as good as its weakest link. How long is too long for a "through bus service", anyway? Integration is a pipe dream as there are too many barriers to make it work in practice. The problem of fares is being addressed, but what about reliability/punctuality, seat comfort, walking distance at interchanges, walking and waiting environment (climatic and criminal), waiting time etc etc?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is no choice if the bus ceases to exist - or is cut to an extent it might as well cease to exist. It is the "capitalist" free market that is creating this situation because there are too many companies/modes fighting over too few customers.

Never mind, once the true brothers of that red flag are running all to their vision, the proletariat will do as they are damn well told....

 

[edwin_m]

Correct, but under current legislation they do compete, so those without the health to walk long distances to tram stops, are left with reduced bus services - unless they acquire a car, of course.

The intention of franchising is that they will complement rather than competing with each other.

Great in theory, but a chain is only as good as its weakest link. How long is too long for a "through bus service", anyway? Integration is a pipe dream as there are too many barriers to make it work in practice. The problem of fares is being addressed, but what about reliability/punctuality, seat comfort, walking distance at interchanges, walking and waiting environment (climatic and criminal), waiting time etc etc?

It appears to work in Germany and Switzerland.

Never mind, once the true brothers of that red flag are running all to their vision, the proletariat will do as they are damn well told....

In a totally free market your relatively rural area would have no stopping train service (possibly no train service whatever) and probably no bus service either. You would have the choice to drive, assuming you are able to do so and can afford a car, but probably have to pay a monopoly turnpike owner every time as the government would have no role in building roads.

Almost every Western advanced economy, even the USA as mentioned, co-ordinates different public transport modes rather than permitting competition, to achieve the best overall benefit for passengers. The UK really is out of step with everyone else on this.