Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[Dentonian]

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.

I think this is largely going to be a matter of timing. If (as they both did last April) First and Stagecoach increase fares for M-ticket users by double inflation, and for traditional cash users by triple inflation, then that can only be described as a premium for non iPhone owners/users, not a discount for those with iPhones. Now, if we are talking about a situation whereby the average 2 mile bus journey that now costs £2.50-2.70 (cash), being reduced to say £2 cash (ie. I nice easy, single coin transaction) or £1.80 off-bus by whatever means, then that is a discount.
I am also interested to note that the "re-regulation" exercise (whether through Franchising or not) forsees an increase in both BRT and stopping services. This sounds very promising, although it would be interesting to see what happens in practice in terms of socio-geograhical coverage and "comfort" on normal stopping services.
The latter is simply the expectation that current standards of seating are maintained provided that cushions are replaced more frequently than at present (which seems to be once, if it all in a buses entire lifespan). Though, as an aside, I don't understand why modern bus (and car, for that matter) backrests need to curve inwards bending the spine forward.
As regards coverage, you mentioned earlier that BRT is more for identified routes from higher car ownership areas (eg. south Stockport) to Employment hotspots. Hopefully, the improved (or maybe restored would be more accurate, for those of us around before 1986) will mainly be for the low car-ownership areas.

 

[Dentonian]

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.

The Annual bus only ticket (£699 iirc) was also abolished, with the 28-day ticket now costing £65 thus representing an increase of over 20%

 

[Dentonian]

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.

.
So, if you take "filthy, stinking" Euro6 buses out of Manchester, do you do the same for filthy, stinking, cars, taxis, vans, artics, motorbikes and scooters? In practise, how would it work anyway? There are all the setbacks of changing modes ie. walking between stop/station, poor punctuality of two vehicles instead of one, and then once you've thrown people off the train at the edge of the city, how do they get to the office/shops? Are they going to have to change again to a tram (about 4 minutes walk for the main concourse at Piccadilly). If so, there are going to have to be more trams (at £3 million each!) because the current ones are full? They, in turn are going to congest the city more, causing further traffic jams for those 1-5 occupancy diesel vehicles still left in the city.

Your "champagne environmentalism" might be appropriate in your part of the world, but in GM there are still around 350,000 households without private transport, so the more inconvenient or impractical you make our public transport, the more people will have to acquire cars, or just not go out further than they can walk. There are three family members in my household, and all of us have different health problems limiting how far we can walk.

 

[Dentonian]

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.

How does a 30 foot long bus carrying (peak time average) more than 20 times; 2x14 ft long cars/taxis clog the roads? And that's before you get into the argument of less buses leading to higher car ownership (to maintain practical access to jobs, shopping, health services), which in turn leads to an exponentially higher car use because petrol/diesel is so much cheaper per mile than any form of public transport. I don't own a car, but I believe modern cars are very reliable. Whether it is signal failure, illegal incursion, wrong type of wind, staff shortage, strikes etc, the rail network both heavy and light is totally unreliable. Buses are slow and have their own punctuality problems, but they are a damn sight more reliable than rail.

 

[HSTEd]

Buses should not be run if they are empty.

We should also not be skewing demand onto buses by not providing an entirely multi-mode fare structure.
Our objective is to handle the cities transport needs with the minimum total expenditure - if passengers transfer across modes it saves the system, and thus the passengers money.

We should do everything in our power to make transfers as feasible as possible - and then we should arrange services so that there is the minimum of unnecessary excess demand.
This might result in bus services being split, or being chopped and changed around to avoid huge amounts of air being carted around.

Passengers on a bus route paralleling a tram or railway line should pay the same fare as peple on that line for the same journey.

 

[Dentonian]

Buses should not be run if they are empty.

We should also not be skewing demand onto buses by not providing an entirely multi-mode fare structure.
Our objective is to handle the cities transport needs with the minimum total expenditure - if passengers transfer across modes it saves the system, and thus the passengers money.

We should do everything in our power to make transfers as feasible as possible - and then we should arrange services so that there is the minimum of unnecessary excess demand.
This might result in bus services being split, or being chopped and changed around to avoid huge amounts of air being carted around.

Passengers on a bus route paralleling a tram or railway line should pay the same fare as peple on that line for the same journey.

Buses don't run if they are empty! Except when running "dead" to/from depot - when they do not get FDR* incidentally. I have been using buses regularly for the last 44 years, with the vast majority of my peak journeys being in east Manchester, south Tameside and north Stockport, and until about 4/5 years ago, I would say 95% of these journeys averaged 50+ passengers at any given point on the route. And to/from Manchester was no busier than to/from Stockport or to/from Ashton, albeit I rarely travel at the height of the morning peak nowadays.
If you are handling the city's needs (what about the major towns???) with the minimum total expenditure, than how does spending billions on rail achieve that better than a few dozen extra (net) £200k buses with a much quicker lead time?
Your emphasis of making transfers as feasible as possible is the opposite of banning buses from the city, as expressed by bletchley-ite (I wonder if he works for the BBC?)
Finally, I like the idea of passengers paying the same fares on competing (sorry, parallel) routes, and look forward to Stagecoach reducing the DaySaver by 40p and it being on valid on trams across the city to accomplish this. Just as bus users in the Sale Moor/Northern Moor (and doubtless across Oldham/Rochdale) areas will look forward to reductions in their bus fares. Outside the city centre, tram fares usually undercut bus fares, and outside the peaks, rail fares often undercut bus fares.

* I utterly refuse to call it a Grant. If I give you £100 tomorrow, for you to spend and invest however you want, and all I ask is that you give me £64 back on 6th April 2019, who is giving a grant to who?

 

[nerd]

As regards coverage, you mentioned earlier that BRT is more for identified routes from higher car ownership areas (eg. south Stockport) to Employment hotspots. Hopefully, the improved (or maybe restored would be more accurate, for those of us around before 1986) will mainly be for the low car-ownership areas.

TfGM have identified three different flavours of rapid transit; Bus Rapid Transit, Tram/Tram-train, metro-style rail. All three appear to be intended to provide for equivalent trip length (5km-50km), and all three would provide 4 services per hour on each route as a minimum frequency. And all three would have a speed in service "signficantly faster than stopping bus services". Hence both current LSM busway and Metrolink run at an average speed in service of 20-25kph. Passenger surveys along the LSM busway show a very similar user profile to that for Metrolink; and hence significantly different (more affluent, more educated, more likely to own a car but leave it at home) than those on stopping buses.

So the choice of which rapid transit mode goes along which corridor is determined by a combination of existing legacy infrastructure, and likely ridership levels. Where there is an existing commuter rail line (e.g. perhaps Glossop/Hadfield) then the expectation may be that it would convert to metro-style operation (running through the city centre in a tunnel). Where part of the route is shared with a mainline rail services (e.g perhaps Rose Hill Marple) then it may be converted to tram-train. And where there may be space capable of being released to provide a buslane within a dual carriageway; then BRT could be indicated.

But on top of this, there likely to be a difference in total potential route ridership. A tram route, run with double units at 10tph, can be expected to carry around 10m passengers per year. Similar for a metro. TfGM originally estimated that the LSM busway might carry up to 2.9m passengers per year - although they have likely revised this upwards a bit. But even so, the logic is likely to be that outer suburban centres with lower density housing would likely be better served by BRT, while counterpart centres with higher density housing might be better served by a tram or metro. Which could well then imply that BRT services might be more appropriate for higher car ownership areas, simply because these tend also to be lower density.

 

[HSTEd]

Buses don't run if they are empty! Except when running "dead" to/from depot - when they do not get FDR* incidentally. I have been using buses regularly for the last 44 years, with the vast majority of my peak journeys being in east Manchester, south Tameside and north Stockport, and until about 4/5 years ago, I would say 95% of these journeys averaged 50+ passengers at any given point on the route. And to/from Manchester was no busier than to/from Stockport or to/from Ashton, albeit I rarely travel at the height of the morning peak nowadays.

Then if a future Metrolink or similar service expansion decimates passengers along a route, you would support rationalisation of the bus service to favour those sections of the route that are still heavily trafficked?

If you are handling the city's needs (what about the major towns???) with the minimum total expenditure, than how does spending billions on rail achieve that better than a few dozen extra (net) £200k buses with a much quicker lead time?

Because buses cost more to operate on a marginal cost basis - a tram might be expensive to install but once you have the route, it is cheaper to move passengers on it per passenger mile than a bus.
Less staffing per passenger moved, lower fuel costs and lower maintenance costs per passenger moved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your emphasis of making transfers as feasible as possible is the opposite of banning buses from the city, as expressed by bletchley-ite (I wonder if he works for the BBC?)

I don't work for the BBC, no. Who I do work for is of no relevance.

I don't propose to ban buses from the city centre. I propose to stop artificially encouraging people not to interchange by way of the fares system, which at present encourages single-operator, single-vehicle journeys, and should instead charge the same for a journey of a given distance whichever public transport modes you use.

Finally, I like the idea of passengers paying the same fares on competing (sorry, parallel) routes, and look forward to Stagecoach reducing the DaySaver by 40p and it being on valid on trams across the city to accomplish this. Just as bus users in the Sale Moor/Northern Moor (and doubtless across Oldham/Rochdale) areas will look forward to reductions in their bus fares. Outside the city centre, tram fares usually undercut bus fares, and outside the peaks, rail fares often undercut bus fares.

Take the income required to operate the service (bus, train and tram), divide it by passenger miles (then make it a bit more granular[1] e.g. zonally) - done.

[1] This step is optional - we could take the Dutch OV-Chipkaart model and make it pure-kilometric.

 

[carlberry]

Because buses cost more to operate on a marginal cost basis - a tram might be expensive to install but once you have the route, it is cheaper to move passengers on it per passenger mile than a bus.
Less staffing per passenger moved, lower fuel costs and lower maintenance costs per passenger moved.

A classic accounting fiddle! If you ignore all the costs that makes something expensive it's suddenly cheap!
Basically because we've spent a fortune, and decimated vast areas, to install these new toys then we're going to force people to use them even if they don't want to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A classic accounting fiddle! If you ignore all the costs that makes something expensive it's suddenly cheap!
Basically because we've spent a fortune, and decimated vast areas, to install these new toys then we're going to force people to use them even if they don't want to.

Who's saying that? What is being proposed, at least by me, is to equalise the fares (on a revenue neutral basis), which means people will use what they prefer to use and not what is cheaper.

 

[nerd]

A classic accounting fiddle! If you ignore all the costs that makes something expensive it's suddenly cheap!
Basically because we've spent a fortune, and decimated vast areas, to install these new toys then we're going to force people to use them even if they don't want to.

Not really carlberry. Simply counting operating costs, and ignoring infrastructure cost. But the same is also true for buses in the deregulated system; although buses are charged a facility fee for access to bus terminals, they not charged for the costs of the roadspace they occupy. This was one of the major flaws in the original deregulated system; in that it treats roadspace as a free-good. Properly, all road users would be charged for (very costly) road space.

Overall - and including a proportion of infrastructure costs - trams are cheaper than buses per passenger mile for all ridership levels greater than around 2,000 per hour at peak periods (according to some comparative studies done by TfL about 10 years ago). One key finding of these studies is that bus costs are very variable over time; with costs per passenger mile higher in peak periods, than during weekday offpeak daytime periods; and higher again in the evening. Whereas trams have a much flatter cost profile over the day - though with costs lowest at peak, as that is when ridership is highest. Buses also carry more passengers at peak, but this is more than counteracted by increased costs due to running slower.

But the basic point remains; passengers on a tram will pay full fare to travel standing up; which they tend not to do on buses; and since that allows more paying passengers to be carried in the same space by the same levels of driving staffing, that makes trams more cost effective. But only along corridors that attract high levels of passenger demand.

 

[edwin_m]

Also trams can be 60m long in Manchester (coupled pairs at present but no reason why they shouldn't order some longer single units). The longest double-articulated bus is less than half that, and many bus routes will have constraints that would prevent use of such a large vehicle. Even a double decker is less roadspace-efficient than a tram, particularly when in motion when the space between a vehicle and the one in front doesn't much depend on what type of vehicle is.

So a single tram and driver can handle far more passengers than a single bus - but I agree this only works on busy routes where there are enough passengers to justify a large vehicle without reducing the frequency to something unattractive.

 

[carlberry]

Not really carlberry. Simply counting operating costs, and ignoring infrastructure cost. But the same is also true for buses in the deregulated system; although buses are charged a facility fee for access to bus terminals, they not charged for the costs of the roadspace they occupy. This was one of the major flaws in the original deregulated system; in that it treats roadspace as a free-good. Properly, all road users would be charged for (very costly) road space.

Overall - and including a proportion of infrastructure costs - trams are cheaper than buses per passenger mile for all ridership levels greater than around 2,000 per hour at peak periods (according to some comparative studies done by TfL about 10 years ago). One key finding of these studies is that bus costs are very variable over time; with costs per passenger mile higher in peak periods, than during weekday offpeak daytime periods; and higher again in the evening. Whereas trams have a much flatter cost profile over the day - though with costs lowest at peak, as that is when ridership is highest. Buses also carry more passengers at peak, but this is more than counteracted by increased costs due to running slower.

Buses already pay road tax, however if road space is seen as costly why shouldn't trams be changed for the space that they take up as well? Again it's a way that anything can be proved if you change the figures around. However the original point want that trams are not very good at shifting large numbers of people, it was the idea that people shouldn't be forced onto trams just to try to justify them.

 

[carlberry]

Also trams can be 60m long in Manchester (coupled pairs at present but no reason why they shouldn't order some longer single units). The longest double-articulated bus is less than half that, and many bus routes will have constraints that would prevent use of such a large vehicle. Even a double decker is less roadspace-efficient than a tram, particularly when in motion when the space between a vehicle and the one in front doesn't much depend on what type of vehicle is.

So a single tram and driver can handle far more passengers than a single bus - but I agree this only works on busy routes where there are enough passengers to justify a large vehicle without reducing the frequency to something unattractive.

I'm not sure what the point is here. Trams take more passengers as they're bigger, and they could take more passengers if they got even bigger. It's the same idea some airlines had which was the reason for developing the A380 then finding passengers actually wanted more direct flights which needed smaller planes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure what the point is here. Trams take more passengers as they're bigger, and they could take more passengers if they got even bigger. It's the same idea some airlines had which was the reason for developing the A380 then finding passengers actually wanted more direct flights which needed smaller planes.

But a Boeing 777-300ER is still a very big aircraft, is cheaper to maintain as it has two engines, easier to staff as it is single-decked, and is more efficient overall. That's why that size is a bit of a sweet spot, not just a desire for direct travel. And changing planes is a much bigger hassle than changing between public transport modes at a well designed interchange. Not to mention that a lot of people are scared of flying but I don't think I ever met someone scared of trams and buses.

The present setup of disintegrated services, fares, timetables, poor interchanges etc puts people off changing. In countries that do changing well, people change. On the Tube, people change without even thinking about it. Do it well and views will, er, change. And a more efficient - not to mention easier to use - network can be developed.

 

[nerd]

Buses already pay road tax, however if road space is seen as costly why shouldn't trams be changed for the space that they take up as well? Again it's a way that anything can be proved if you change the figures around. However the original point want that trams are not very good at shifting large numbers of people, it was the idea that people shouldn't be forced onto trams just to try to justify them.

I am not suggesting that passengers should be 'forced onto trams', and I am not sure anyone on here has done so; rather the point has been that those passengers whose trips require connecting over several modes should not be penalised for doing so in paying higher fares.

Nevertheless; public policy must recognise road space as a highly constrained asset. It is entirely right then that transport authorities should prioritise investment in those modes of transport that carry the highest numbers of passengers in the least space. Where trams run full; that it a tram.

 

[HSTEd]

Trams can sustain higher average speeds than buses in almost all non true BRT scenarios, and proper BRT costs almost as much as the tram without thr capacity benefits.

The bus timetable in an integrated system would not look like it does now. Bus routes would naturally tend to be shorter as the current routes have end to end traffic that would tend to switch to the tram or other modes

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most German cities are good examples of how to set up integrated transport systems with common fare systems. London isn't bad, but unlike almost everywhere else it suffers from a Tube system that is full and near-impossible to expand, so it is necessary to provide bus capacity to take the slack and to price people onto buses. This is not true in any other UK city where rail is present - for instance, Metrolink could easily have capacity near doubled by ordering more trams to run all services doubled up (or ordering 4-section single trams), and similarly the Manchester area DMU "S-Bahn" could have capacity similarly increased just by increasing the CAF DMU order to allow 2-car running to cease.

In the one case where London is about to have significant extra rail capacity (Crossrail), bus routes are being curtailed and changed accordingly.

 

[Dentonian]

TfGM have identified three different flavours of rapid transit; Bus Rapid Transit, Tram/Tram-train, metro-style rail. All three appear to be intended to provide for equivalent trip length (5km-50km), and all three would provide 4 services per hour on each route as a minimum frequency. And all three would have a speed in service "signficantly faster than stopping bus services". Hence both current LSM busway and Metrolink run at an average speed in service of 20-25kph. Passenger surveys along the LSM busway show a very similar user profile to that for Metrolink; and hence significantly different (more affluent, more educated, more likely to own a car but leave it at home) than those on stopping buses.

So the choice of which rapid transit mode goes along which corridor is determined by a combination of existing legacy infrastructure, and likely ridership levels. Where there is an existing commuter rail line (e.g. perhaps Glossop/Hadfield) then the expectation may be that it would convert to metro-style operation (running through the city centre in a tunnel). Where part of the route is shared with a mainline rail services (e.g perhaps Rose Hill Marple) then it may be converted to tram-train. And where there may be space capable of being released to provide a buslane within a dual carriageway; then BRT could be indicated.

But on top of this, there likely to be a difference in total potential route ridership. A tram route, run with double units at 10tph, can be expected to carry around 10m passengers per year. Similar for a metro. TfGM originally estimated that the LSM busway might carry up to 2.9m passengers per year - although they have likely revised this upwards a bit. But even so, the logic is likely to be that outer suburban centres with lower density housing would likely be better served by BRT, while counterpart centres with higher density housing might be better served by a tram or metro. Which could well then imply that BRT services might be more appropriate for higher car ownership areas, simply because these tend also to be lower density.

I assume when you say "Passenger surveys" suggest LSM/Metrolink users are "more educated.......than those on stopping buses", it doesn't literally mean that I'm thick because I don't drive and can't walk long distances? I hope what you actually mean is that they have more academic qualifications and/or more likely to have gone to University. The latter, it could be argued, are because they tend to be younger, so have had more oppurtunity to go to University, as their secondary education was more geared towards continuing in tertiary education. As regards average speeds, it just shows how bad things have got for 20kph to be considered fast, even off-peak. Before, the Ashton-Piccadilly line was devised, the average off-peak 216 down Ashton New Road was 28 minutes, and the erstwhile 236/7 was quicker still!

More generally, you seem to be well versed in at least the basic plans, and I wondered if this Forum has the option for me to contact you privately?

Notwithstanding, I think (understandably) we are expanding beyond Bus Reform into longer-term (>2040) Strategy. As such, I think it might be useful to have an idea of the Timeline of these various schemes. Certainly, given the state of both heavy and light rail in/to GM at present, it simply isn't good enough on any measurement to justify removing alternatives.

As I understand it, most of the evidence to go to GMCA and the Mayor regarding Bus Reform, should be complete in the first 4 months or so of this year. The recommended way forward will then go to a 12-week "public consultation" over the Summer, and based on comments made to the Media including a recent interview on Radio Manchester, it seems the idea is to get everything concrete in place (ie. no going back) before the next Mayoral Election in May 2020. It will then be late 2020/early 2021 before we begin to see the benefits. But when are the infrastructure and any fundamental ticketing changes due to happen.

The other question is; what form will the Public Consultation take?
It will be almost exactly a decade after the TIF Referendum, which included consultation events at many locations spread around he county, as well as more detailed pamphlets for given areas. I know this will not be a Referendum, but I trust it will be fully inclusive of the entire county's population, with broad details of at least their local areas available to everyone?

 

[Dentonian]

But a Boeing 777-300ER is still a very big aircraft, is cheaper to maintain as it has two engines, easier to staff as it is single-decked, and is more efficient overall. That's why that size is a bit of a sweet spot, not just a desire for direct travel. And changing planes is a much bigger hassle than changing between public transport modes at a well designed interchange. Not to mention that a lot of people are scared of flying but I don't think I ever met someone scared of trams and buses.

The present setup of disintegrated services, fares, timetables, poor interchanges etc puts people off changing. In countries that do changing well, people change. On the Tube, people change without even thinking about it. Do it well and views will, er, change. And a more efficient - not to mention easier to use - network can be developed.

Changing planes is a "hassle" in terms of extending the total journey time only. If the connection fails (as it did once with me), then certainly with "legacy" Airlines, you are properly looked after with free sustainence and if neccesary free accomodation. On a long journey, it is also healthier to travel in, say 2x 6 hour stages, than one direct 11 hour flight. Also, Airports have extensive travelators within, or between terminals so, no long walks; they are indoors, so no exposure to the elements, no broken/uneven walkways; they usually have plentiful and clean toilets and places to eat or drink (even if the same doesn't apply landside!)

But yes, you are right, existing Interchange facilities are useless - especially if you want people to transfer in distant suburbs; long distances between "stops"; no shelter from the elements (meterological and criminal); uneven/slippy pavements; poor punctuality; poor reliability (rail more than bus); no facilities etc. etc

 

[Dentonian]

Buses already pay road tax, however if road space is seen as costly why shouldn't trams be changed for the space that they take up as well? Again it's a way that anything can be proved if you change the figures around. However the original point want that trams are not very good at shifting large numbers of people, it was the idea that people shouldn't be forced onto trams just to try to justify them.

I agree with you Carl. And don't forget "Buses" also pay fuel tax, which diesel trains don't. Under deregulation, it would be more accurate to say that Adult bus PASSENGERS pay these taxes, as well as the Operators' commercial taxes; shareholders dividends etc.

 

[Dentonian]

Not really carlberry. Simply counting operating costs, and ignoring infrastructure cost. But the same is also true for buses in the deregulated system; although buses are charged a facility fee for access to bus terminals, they not charged for the costs of the roadspace they occupy. This was one of the major flaws in the original deregulated system; in that it treats roadspace as a free-good. Properly, all road users would be charged for (very costly) road space.

Overall - and including a proportion of infrastructure costs - trams are cheaper than buses per passenger mile for all ridership levels greater than around 2,000 per hour at peak periods (according to some comparative studies done by TfL about 10 years ago). One key finding of these studies is that bus costs are very variable over time; with costs per passenger mile higher in peak periods, than during weekday offpeak daytime periods; and higher again in the evening. Whereas trams have a much flatter cost profile over the day - though with costs lowest at peak, as that is when ridership is highest. Buses also carry more passengers at peak, but this is more than counteracted by increased costs due to running slower.

But the basic point remains; passengers on a tram will pay full fare to travel standing up; which they tend not to do on buses; and since that allows more paying passengers to be carried in the same space by the same levels of driving staffing, that makes trams more cost effective. But only along corridors that attract high levels of passenger demand.

But apart from possibly Oxford Road, where do buses currently carry anything like 2000 pax per hour? Trouble is a lot of this is based on statistics and emotionless "Cost Benefit Analysis". It doesn't consider people as human beings, and the level of benefits to some vs. the level of dis-benefits to others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Changing planes is a "hassle" in terms of extending the total journey time only.

I don't know - you often have to re-clear security and do a lot of walking and queueing, which many people find highly unpleasant.

 

[edwin_m]

But a Boeing 777-300ER is still a very big aircraft, is cheaper to maintain as it has two engines, easier to staff as it is single-decked, and is more efficient overall. That's why that size is a bit of a sweet spot, not just a desire for direct travel. And changing planes is a much bigger hassle than changing between public transport modes at a well designed interchange. Not to mention that a lot of people are scared of flying but I don't think I ever met someone scared of trams and buses.

The tram equivalent is probably when it gets too long to fit between the closest spaced road junctions on the network. For Manchester it's not practical to extend beyond 60m although I'm unsure exactly which area(s) dictate this limit. Longer trams operate in other cities, and with any size of tram needing only a driver it's a case of the longer it is the cheaper per seat, until it hits some sort of infrastructure limit.

 

[Dentonian]

A classic accounting fiddle! If you ignore all the costs that makes something expensive it's suddenly cheap!
Basically because we've spent a fortune, and decimated vast areas, to install these new toys then we're going to force people to use them even if they don't want to.

I suspect there is a bit of "inside knowledge" to back up this. Local Councils in GM used to itemise Transport budgets, and these showed that the largest "fixed" element of TFGM/Cs budget was Metrolink debts. By "fixed" I mean they are legally obliged to pay these off, so it takes priority over other items of Expenditure.

 

[HSTEd]

But apart from possibly Oxford Road, where do buses currently carry anything like 2000 pax per hour? Trouble is a lot of this is based on statistics and emotionless "Cost Benefit Analysis". It doesn't consider people as human beings, and the level of benefits to some vs. the level of dis-benefits to others.

There is a large amount of suppressed demand for public transport in Manchester, caused in large part by the poor quality of the current bus offering.
If we change all that, that will change.

Additionally existing rail and tram routes can take more of the transport load than they currently do due to ticketing and other factors.

For example the northern half of the Styal line is criminally underused, if more trains could be run through or the existing trains made to stop additionally at stations like Mauldeth Road, it would significantly ease congestion on the roads and bus system.

There are two trains an hour from Manchester Oxford Road to the Airport, let alone those that reverse at Picadilly - we could have a ready made metro line, especially considering 185s and 319s (the dominant stock types) are already set up to handle large numbers of people on short journeys.
If the improvements through Picadilly's through platform are realised the number running through Oxford Road would increase drastically - and that is the station with the best potential interchange with the bus system at the moment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed - Mauldeth Road, Burnage and Gatley are not dissimilar to Merseyrail stations and need that quality of service. East Didsbury of course now has the tram, though it isn't a terrible interchange which might be used more with a better service.

 

[HSTEd]

East Didsbury to Oxford Road would likely be 19 minutes or so, stopping at all stations.
19 minutes crushes the bus journey time on that leg.

 

[Bletchleyite]

East Didsbury to Oxford Road would likely be 19 minutes or so, stopping at all stations.
19 minutes crushes the bus journey time on that leg.

Though a lot of the bus passengers are actually going to/from Didsbury Village (which of course has the tram) - Parrs Wood where the station is is not heavily populated.