There are already a number of purpose built interchanges within the Metrolink network, hoping for an integrated future. There may even be already some people taking advantage of these facilities despite the current financial penalty for changing mode. On the other hand, Central Park has clearly been designed for bus connection yet isn't used at all. Integration is not rocket science and is the norm in most developed countries. Britain or Manchester isn't so special that integration isn't possible. Other countries have high car ownership, motorways, traffic congestion and car orientated development, yet still manage to have integrated services.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment
- Thread starter HSTEd
- Start date
- Status
There are already a number of purpose built interchanges within the Metrolink network, hoping for an integrated future. There may even be already some people taking advantage of these facilities despite the current financial penalty for changing mode. On the other hand, Central Park has clearly been designed for bus connection yet isn't used at all. Integration is not rocket science and is the norm in most developed countries. Britain or Manchester isn't so special that integration isn't possible. Other countries have high car ownership, motorways, traffic congestion and car orientated development, yet still manage to have integrated services.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Am I correct that concessionary pass holders that have TfGM concessionary travel pass can travel on Metrolink services, free of charge offpeak Monday to Friday, all day Saturday and Sundays. However if you have a concessionary travel pass issued by any other English local authority you have to pay a fare.
In comparison, holders of either a TfGM or other local authority concessionary travel pass, can travel free of charge offpeak Monday to Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday on most bus services within the TfGM area.
It will be interesting to see how this situation will be resolved.
In comparison, holders of either a TfGM or other local authority concessionary travel pass, can travel free of charge offpeak Monday to Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday on most bus services within the TfGM area.
It will be interesting to see how this situation will be resolved.
The mismatch there is modal, not geographical. Under the NCBS (or is it still ENCTS), all Concessionary holders can travel on all local buses in England "off-peak", whether that is someone from Leeds travelling in Manchester or someone from Tameside travelling in Blackpool. There are slight variations in what is termed "off-peak", for instance in GM its after 0930 on weekdays, but all day Sat/Sun and public holidays. It also varies with disability passes, as some people with severe disabilities can travel for free in the (morning) peak as well.
Free travel after morning peak on Local Rail and Metrolink is only available to GM Council tax-payers, as it is financed by the 10 GM Local Authorities. This costs about £14 million a year, which I believe is broadly similar to TFGM/GMCA's Subsidised Service budget for non-School buses.
As an aside, although I suspect most members will know, all Rail users travelling into a Manchester mainline station (CTLZ on the ticket) are entilted to free Metrolink travel within the city centre at all times. Apart from holders of bus/tram "getmethere" tickets, all passengers arriving in the city by bus pay full fare on Metrolink.
Its certainly "possible", but it will take a lot of money (and I &*don't* just mean Investment) and a change in political attitudes/prejudices, regarding everything from volume crime to traffic light phasing.
KendalKing
Established Member
I am a frequent traveller between Carnforth & Manchester, and have never had CTLZ printed on any of my Rail Tickets.
I'm sure your ticket would still be valid on Metrolink across the city centre, though.
I'm pretty sure you can only get Manchester CTLZ tickets when travelling from a Greater Manchester station (may have changed since I last bought one 7 years ago!)
You can get around it by splitting your tickets (ie Carnforth to Blackrod, Blackrod to Manchester CTLZ) if you desperately wanted to though...
That only applies to tickets from within Greater Manchester and a few stations outside.
Sorry, I didn't know that. Presumably, he ones outside are such as Glossop and New Mills
I think
Knutsford, Mobberley, Ashley, Glossop, Hadfield, Dinting, Disley, New Mills Central, New Mills Newtown, Glazebrook
is the complete list.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Who would have been responsible for the cost of construction of the modern two-story car parks adjoining the Manchester Metrolink stops at Whitefield and at Radcliffe that I saw when making a visit to Bury this week. Are those some of the purpose built interchanges to which you make mention in your posting above?
Presumably TfGM had paid for the new car parks. There is also a multi-storey car park at Hollinwood. There are several other car parks built as part of the recent network expansion.
I was thinking more about bus/tram connections in the discussion above.
[/QUOTE]
As you've "disclosed" elsewhere you don't use buses on the principle of deregulation - I often wonder if that is why so many Labour politicians despise bus users - which suggests you have the luxury of private transport. As I exemplified, I was talking about the majority usage in captive markets. By captive, I don't just mean that there is no competing bus service, but also that these are low car-ownership areas, so the majority of bus users have no choice but to pay these fares. Whichever comparison you use; costs of other modes; cost increases of other modes; changes in availability/quality of other modes; costs of buses even a few miles away - run by the *same* company etc. etc, there is absolutely nothing reasonable about them.
I don't know what happened there, but somehow the words of someone else have been attributed to me. Must have been the slip of the mouse. I have deleted that message.
As I explained elsewhere, I live near a main rail station in the South East and commute into London. Therefore I have no need for buses near my flat, nor a car, as everything I need is within walking distance. I do, however, use buses in London a lot, and also in other countries, especially the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland.
For the avoidance of doubt, I think those fares are far from "reasonable".
Last edited:
Ah! Apologies. I did think it was out of keeping with your other comments, but when you raised the principle of not using deregulated buses, I did start to chime with past comments/attitudes of some Councillors inn this neck of the woods.
Rod Harrison
Member
- Joined
- 15 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 121
I agree with your comments about Labour and deregulation. I lived in Manchester when the old sheds were the order of the day. The standard of rolling stock (particularly Stagecoach) has improved immeasurably since they took over. Franchising only works in London because of the congestion charge which means buses can be heavily subsidised. I am sure that the taxpayers of Greater Manchester will be absolutely delighted to have at the extra charges to reduce bus fares and pay for the repainting of 1800 buses. Typical Labour economics Cuba Marxist style,
Privatisation and competitive tendering of public services is a typically right-wing philosophy, so it is illogical to call it "Cuba Marxist". If we were talking about nationalisation and heavy subsidisation you might have a point. Transport in US cities is still nationalised and has subsidised low fares. Does that mean the USA is a commie country? Switzerland is also notoriously conservative. It has particularly low tax and requires its citizens to buy expensive health insurance. Yet, not only does it have the best integrated transport in Europe if not the world, city transport is publicly owned and run.
London's congestion charge only covers a tiny part of the city, particularly since it was scaled back to its original zone by Boris, and doesn't even cover the whole of Zone 1. The income from the charge, once the cost of running the scheme is deducted, is very small compared to TfL's budget.
I think you slightly mis-understood my comments. I was referring to a minority of Labour politicians who act as if those who stick to buses are "Judas"'s. As regards Bus Reform, iirc ALL 8 Mayoral Candidates stated that they would adopt it in one form or another. Certainly, the Conservative candidate was all for it. Whilst there is a variety of views on how to fix the "mess" of deregulation, virtually everyone agrees De-reg has failed. A poll in the MEN (some years before the "TwitFace" revolution, so therefore more representative of long-term residents) found over 95% of Greater Mancunians disagreed with Bus deregulation. Even one time Conservative Minister Steven Norris conceded that as far as Manchester was concerned, "Deregulation wasn't the success we had hoped it would be".
I note you said "used to live" in Manchester, so I don't know when exactly you are referring to. In fairness, Stagecoach have invested well in GM, but First and Arriva's record is appalling. If you take the "Vantage" buses out of the equation, nearly two-thirds of First Manchester's fleet is now over 10 years old.
Besides, just because buses have number plates showing 10/60 something, doesn't mean to say they are of high standard. Stagecoach's investment seems to have come at a cost of failing to refurbish buses, and their branding/marketing has become a joke in recent years. My local route is supposed to be run with '65 reg Euro 6 Enviro 400 MMCs, but on Saturday, I saw 7 of the 11 workings on the route (and endured two), and of these 6 were 08/58/09 regd standard Enviro 400s which don't seem to have been re-upholstered from the day they were delivered!
As mentioned, there will be no "big bang" requiring 1800 or so buses to be repainted rapidly, and the financial practicalities can be considered by the various parties and raised in the 12 week public consultation. Normally, buses would require repainting ever 3-4 years anyway. And you are making a massive assumption if you think taxpayers will object to reduced bus fares. They demand cheaper rail and tram fares, and are happy to pay directly for free concessionary fares on those modes. Maybe, by "Taxpayers" you are referring to the vociferous Motoring and Taxi lobbies, rather than the hundreds of thousands who can't afford (or who have health issues) to drive, but are seeing their Council taxes being spent to benefit those that can.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
I suspect that the poster may have been referring to some sort of centrally controlled apparatus that controls and shapes bus services not based on what people want or need (aka the market). Instead, giving the public what they (the apparatus) think that people should have.
The piffle about orange buses and a central brand etc is as pointless as the hoopla about blue passports. It's an absolute irrelevance.
Now, I'm actually not against franchising as long as businesses who have legitimately purchased operations in good faith are subsequently compensated. After all....
Imagine you'd bought a former council house. It had been sold to a previous tenant under right to buy for a discounted price. You'd subsequently bought it. Then the council comes along and says that it's not fair, and that they'd made a mistake in the past. They're now going to take it off you and sell it in a raffle but you are free to buy tickets for that raffle..... That would be grossly unfair and yet we expect to take operations off firms (First/Stagecoach) who bought them in good faith from those who purchased them (Management and Staff) from the local councils.
Another major issue is that there is some sort of belief that there's loads of unwanted duplication and therefore this "cost" can be removed and used to enhance services (though often the same people say it's a monopoly, operators are in cahoots and that services are cut to the bone). There are a few instances where there is some competition but, for the most part, there isn't so this duplication dividend is illusory. Instead, the real issue is that the removal of competition and duplication is actually nothing other than funnelling people onto local train and tram services to prop them up, necessitating change.
Now, people will say that change isn't an issue as long as ticketing is sorted etc and will doubtless illustrate their point with selected examples from their personal hobby horses in Western Europe. Ticketing can be overcome, but in many instances, you will then incur a time and buggeration penalty as people lose their direct links and have to travel via two modes.
However, my greatest concern is that this is being pushed by a Tory government. Part of the localisation agenda etc. Why am I suspicious? Perhaps it's just a ruse to remove the last vestiges of central funding.... What it isn't is a panacea that people may think it is. Without proper funding (and I see no reason to believe that any political party is going to change), bus services are in the midst of reducing government expenditure (sneakily reducing funding via local authorities), reducing revenue as high street footfall continues to decline vs increasing costs from congestion and staff costs. Don't see much in the GM world, despite the welcome warm words, that really challenges those three main factors. Of course, Greater Manchester could always have a congestion zone........
I presume you have read this
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmtrans/611/611.pdf
You obviously disagree.
I sense that some bus enthusiasts would rather have more people going by car than losing bus passengers to a train or tram. An interconnecting network can also mean changing between different bus services, meaning that more people find the bus useful compared to now. It doesn't always mean bus losing to train/tram/metro. When people object to the concept of a system where more change of vehicle is required, they ignore the potential in journey possibilities that currently don't exist or are unattractive.
The question is, what approach leads to a greater overall modal share for public transport? If indeed providing direct services along the British format is more optimal, then other countries would follow the British example. Taking Zurich as an example. Most bus services from outside the city terminate at the end of the tram network. Instead, they could extend those bus routes to the city centre. It would cost money in extra buses and drivers, but it's a rich country so they could afford it.
If "forced interchange" doesn't improve the modal share for public transport, then there would be no point doing it.
The market does not provide services based on public want or need. It is based on providing what the Operator views as its ideal "customer" ie. a tech-savvy 20 something using buses whilst they are still learning to drive and travelling short distances into "regional centres". I'm quite sure the "public" don't want to spend £3.70 on a 4.5 mile journey in the eastern quadrant of Greater Manchester, when the SAME company charges £1.50 for the same distance in the western quadrant and also has more modest discounts in the north and south.
People want to get from A to B as quickly and cheaply as possible. All transport networks compromise both of those. The current UK model has many problems however it does help to prevent the 'nanny knows best' approach that any planned network has. This is especially the case when engineering or political issues are allowed into the mix. A nicely planned network sounds wonderful, until people have their local bus reduced because the authority has to justify the cost of the tram by forcing people onto it or slowed down because one local councillor is being harassed by a couple of loud constituents. It doesn’t matter how many times you quote the Zurich model, it’s the same as the Tyne and Wear model and, as soon as people were offered the choice, they took the option of direct travel to where they wanted to go, not direct travel to the nearest collection point that was convenient for the network.
At least 'forced interchange' is a more honest way of referring to reducing people's choices than 'reducing competition'! Manchester will have some money chucked at it for a while however when that runs out it's unlikely that anybody will actually benefit other than a few lawyers.
So do you think that Switzerland and most other countries have got it wrong?
Do you believe that "forced interchange" reduces the modal share for public transport? If so, why would other countries do it? It would be certainly easier to justify the British method to the lay person, because who can argue with having a direct bus?
The trouble is that GM's operators have made the commercial decision to do exactly what you are warning a cash strapped local authority would resort to. Stagecoach (and to a lesser extent, First) have ruthlessly got rid of low quality competitors across GM over the last couple of decades, but as soon as Phase III of Metrolink comes along, they run a mile - even more so for Arriva. Stagecoach and First are still quite happy to compete with each other on selected corridors, but that has come at a price for the rest of the county's bus passengers. Notably, the only place where Stagecoach have fought Metrolink is Chorlton - which using 1990s parlance is the "Yuppie" capital of North West England.
The irony of all this is that if the Elected Mayor office first came into being 5 years ago, when Stagecoach Manchester was still a well run Operator with high punctuality figures & decent level services in low car ownership areas, and First had finally accepted their fares were too high, then there may have been a strong argument against Franchising. However, EYMS sold Finglands to First, and along with certain other changes (I believe), that has led to a sharp decline in Stagecoach's performance, and First seem to have halted their improvements in Reliability/Punctuality - probably in part due to the high average age of the fleet. Both operators have the gall to compete across the city, reduce suburban services to "resource" the bus war, and then whinge at city centre congestion.
There has to be some strategic reason for this bus war. There is unlikely to be a financial benefit as I would have thought that both operators are losing money. The best reason I can think of is that they need to demonstrate that there is some competition in GM, enabling them to "prove" that it isn't a cartel.
Without much more knowledge and experience of the system I wouldn't judge Switzerland's system, however the Swiss been asked if they want to change it?
Do you believe that giving people a choice is wrong?
Too much of what has been implemented in the past, and what's been talked about in connection with all recent UK transport systems, is about concentrating on building high cost infrastructure and then trying to justify it by forcing people onto it
I doubt the Swiss have been asked that, but were the British people asked if they wanted bus deregulation? Yes, it was probably in the 1983 manifesto, but I doubt many people, if any, voted for that reason, especially in GM.
"Choice" is not the relevant question here. There may be a choice between different operators when buses compete and when buses compete with other modes, but by providing that choice, those resources can no longer be used to provide other transport services. Therefore some other people don't even have a choice of one.
There is only one question that matters. Which model achieves the highest total public transport mode share?
Stan Drews
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,154
Is it the model with the highest total public funding?
Note, I'm not talking about deregulation vs franchising for this argument. This is about whether more patronage is achieved by competition, or when competition doesn't happen and those resources are deployed elsewhere in the transport network. Competition between modes existed before deregulation and still exists to an extent in London so franchising does not necessarily imply the end of competition.
- Status