TfGM Bus franchising

[GusB]

This is clearly an emotive topic. I will ask again that everyone keeps a civil tongue.

Please note that the reporting of posts as off-topic because you do not agree is not a valid reason for using the report system.

 

[carlberry]

The odd thing is that, whenever the 'integrated system' idea comes up the examples always become 'buses that feed into trams/trains'. The idea that buses might actually be a better solution for a lot of people as they provide a journey nearer to where people live or where they want to get to is usually ignored, as is the inconvenience involved with changing. If somebody was intended to deliver a long term plan that involved control over land use and delivering on congestion reduction it would be an easy sell, however too many elements of the Manchester proposals, like many before them, either hint at or directly state that the aim is to have control over the system and then to use that control to force people to do the 'right' thing as defined by some central planners. When the money runs out (if it's ever there) the losers will be bus passengers where the services can be cut to ensure money is still available for trams and trains.

 

[daodao]

The odd thing is that, whenever the 'integrated system' idea comes up the examples always become 'buses that feed into trams/trains'. The idea that buses might actually be a better solution for a lot of people as they provide a journey nearer to where people live or where they want to get to is usually ignored, as is the inconvenience involved with changing. If somebody was intended to deliver a long term plan that involved control over land use and delivering on congestion reduction it would be an easy sell, however too many elements of the Manchester proposals, like many before them, either hint at or directly state that the aim is to have control over the system and then to use that control to force people to do the 'right' thing as defined by some central planners. When the money runs out (if it's ever there) the losers will be bus passengers where the services can be cut to ensure money is still available for trams and trains.

Well put.

One of the critical issues relating to public transport use is land use planning. There is still a tendency in the Anglo-Saxon world (USA/UK/Australia etc.) to think about ease of access for major new facilities (shops/hospitals/sports stadia etc.) in terms of car travel and build facilities some distance from major town centres.

A recent example is the new acute hospital for the Aneurin Bevan Health Board at Llanfrechfa Grange near Cwmbran, which has replaced many of the functions of the Royal Gwent Hospital situated close to the centre of Newport and thus many bus services. The sole bus service to this new hospital is Newport Transport route 29B via Caerleon, which runs hourly daytime (every 30 minutes in the peaks) to/from Newport and every 30 minutes to/from Cwmbran; there are no late evening services after approximately 2000.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The odd thing is that, whenever the 'integrated system' idea comes up the examples always become 'buses that feed into trams/trains'. The idea that buses might actually be a better solution for a lot of people as they provide a journey nearer to where people live or where they want to get to is usually ignored, as is the inconvenience involved with changing.

To be fair, my fairly lengthy reply above does suggest where running buses into the city centre might make sense - typically where the bus component would by distance be much longer than the rail component is where it becomes pointless doing a connection (for example, I would not have the Wilmslow Road corridor artificially run somewhere like Longsight for a connection, I'd run it into Manchester), or actively negative such as the Gateshead forced change which was just a plain silly idea and completely discredited the concept. As it is still raised widely as an example of why not to do it, TWPTE may well have caused other beneficial examples not to take place, so they really should have thought better about it.

Changing is indeed inconvenient, but the majority of people care more about journey time where all else is equal. There will be some who due to limited mobility find changing difficult, but then equally those people are going to find it hard to move around e.g. Manchester city centre, though, because it's so big; they are more likely to want to go to their local supermarket (for example) which in a lot of cases will be on or near the "shuttle bus" route anyway.

If somebody was intended to deliver a long term plan that involved control over land use and delivering on congestion reduction it would be an easy sell, however too many elements of the Manchester proposals, like many before them, either hint at or directly state that the aim is to have control over the system and then to use that control to force people to do the 'right' thing as defined by some central planners.

The aim is certainly central control which provides many benefits - out of interest, do you feel that London should not have this, should be deregulated, or if not what's different about it?

When the money runs out (if it's ever there) the losers will be bus passengers where the services can be cut to ensure money is still available for trams and trains.

I don't think this is how it will work, simply because much Manchester bus operation is commercial, which means if you cut it too much the income will be reduced, not increased.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

A recent example is the new acute hospital for the Aneurin Bevan Health Board at Llanfrechfa Grange near Cwmbran, which has replaced many of the functions of the Royal Gwent Hospital situated close to the centre of Newport and thus many bus services. The sole bus service to this new hospital is Newport Transport route 29B via Caerleon, which runs hourly daytime (every 30 minutes in the peaks) to/from Newport and every 30 minutes to/from Cwmbran; there are no late evening services after approximately 2000.

Were that in Germany (and they certainly do do that sort of thing - sometimes the available land forces you to do it), it would have a frequent shuttle bus (Eilbus, probably) connection from just outside to Cwmbran bus station via the railway station[1] for connections, timed to connect well. And due to the high demand for travel to/from hospitals, there's a good chance that the journeys added to the system to get there by both staff and patients (remember, it needs to be thought about it like that, not just say a quid for a short shuttle bus journey - you need to consider the full additional income to the system against the cost of the shuttle[2]) rather than going by car would actually be profitable overall.

[1] OK, in Germany they'd be the same place in most cases, but again there are cases where that's just not feasible.
[2] Failure to do this was one of the issues with the Beeching report - that is, if your local branch line wasn't there, you might just drive (or take the bus instead) all the way to your destination, not just to the nearest railhead.

 

[edwin_m]

The odd thing is that, whenever the 'integrated system' idea comes up the examples always become 'buses that feed into trams/trains'. The idea that buses might actually be a better solution for a lot of people as they provide a journey nearer to where people live or where they want to get to is usually ignored, as is the inconvenience involved with changing. If somebody was intended to deliver a long term plan that involved control over land use and delivering on congestion reduction it would be an easy sell, however too many elements of the Manchester proposals, like many before them, either hint at or directly state that the aim is to have control over the system and then to use that control to force people to do the 'right' thing as defined by some central planners. When the money runs out (if it's ever there) the losers will be bus passengers where the services can be cut to ensure money is still available for trams and trains.

The very idea of feeder buses is to bring the public transport closer to where people live, without condemning those people to a sub-standard service simply because they don't live within walking distance of rail. Most city centre destinations are best served by rail, not least because buses in inner cities become affected by traffic congestion, but as suggested above buses can also be used to connect out-of-town destinations into the network when they don't themselves have a rail link.

I agree that continuity of funding is critical to an integrated public transport network. This is where our system sometimes leads to expensive rail investment in cases where much less (in whole life terms) spending on a bus-based solution might have been a better answer. A rail scheme involves a large capital spend, and having done that the state would look a bit silly if it cancelled the ongoing subsidy needed to keep the service running. Bus schemes cost much less but probably involve ongoing payments, bus passengers tend to be less politically influential, and our system of government places responsibility for them with local authorities but also routinely starves them of the necessary funding. But when Greater Manchester tries to break out of this situation, it ends up starting debates like this one...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that continuity of funding is critical to an integrated public transport network. This is where our system sometimes leads to expensive rail investment in cases where much less (in whole life terms) spending on a bus-based solution might have been a better answer. A rail scheme involves a large capital spend, and having done that the state would look a bit silly if it cancelled the ongoing subsidy needed to keep the service running. Bus schemes cost much less but probably involve ongoing payments, bus passengers tend to be less politically influential, and our system of government places responsibility for them with local authorities but also routinely starves them of the necessary funding. But when Greater Manchester tries to break out of this situation, it ends up starting debates like this one...

The debate is fine, indeed it will (when had at a political level rather than just on here) lead to the new system being done in the best possible way by avoiding silly situations like Gateshead which just discredit the whole thing. But I think we do need to trial this, and GM has been chosen for that trial. If it fails, then it should end, be re-de-regulated (!) and we should never speak of it again other than to perhaps discuss if London too should be deregulated (why should it be different?) - but when it succeeds (and I'm sure it is a when) we should consider how it can be applied much more widely in other cities with good rail networks - Liverpool, and indeed Newcastle but done more sensibly, should follow next.

 

[radamfi]

Bus schemes cost much less but probably involve ongoing payments, bus passengers tend to be less politically influential, and our system of government places responsibility for them with local authorities but also routinely starves them of the necessary funding.

There seems to have been quite a lot of busways built in England in the last 20 years or so, GM being one of the main beneficiaries. Quick Googling suggests that Britain has a lot of busways compared to other European countries, although France and the Netherlands seem to have a few as well. It's possible we build busways when light rail may have been built in other countries, for example Leigh - Salford and Cambridge - St Ives.

 

[edwin_m]

There seems to have been quite a lot of busways built in England in the last 20 years or so, GM being one of the main beneficiaries. Quick Googling suggests that Britain has a lot of busways compared to other European countries, although France and the Netherlands seem to have a few as well. It's possible we build busways when light rail may have been built in other countries, for example Leigh - Salford and Cambridge - St Ives.

That is possibly true, although an alternative explanation is that we ran down our rail network (both heavy and light) more than some other countries. The Leigh busway was built about the same time as Metrolink extensions, which I think means that a conscious decision was made to select a different mode for that route. One possible reason is the amount of street running on the non-busway part of the route, for which a Metrolink solution would have required expensive and congestion-prone street track (although that raises the question of why the Ashton route, with similar extent of street running, ended up as a tram).

 

[radamfi]

the losers will be bus passengers where the services can be cut to ensure money is still available for trams and trains.

Do we need to compartmentalise people as "bus" or "tram/train" passengers? It's all public transport. Keeping the same fare structure for bus and tram would be helpful to avoid such silos. TfL trams are priced the same as London buses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do we need to compartmentalise people as "bus" or "tram/train" passengers? It's all public transport. Keeping the same fare structure for bus and tram would be helpful to avoid such silos. TfL trams are priced the same as London buses.

Yes, exactly. The concept is one transport system, using each mode to do the things it's good at[1], and people in it are passengers, not bus, train or tram passengers.

Does that mean that there might be losers to any change? Of course. Any change has winners and losers. The key is that there are more winners than losers, and I'm certain there will be.

[1] Trains are good at moving large numbers of people long distances, buses are good at moving smaller numbers of people short distances, trams are sort of in the middle.

 

[radamfi]

The Leigh busway was built about the same time as Metrolink extensions, which I think means that a conscious decision was made to select a different mode for that route. One possible reason is the amount of street running on the non-busway part of the route, for which a Metrolink solution would have required expensive and congestion-prone street track (although that raises the question of why the Ashton route, with similar extent of street running, ended up as a tram).

That route also enjoys more priority than the Ashton tram route. There is also the north-south bus scheme. TfGM have done a lot of bus priority in recent years.

 

[edwin_m]

That route also enjoys more priority than the Ashton tram route. There is also the north-south bus scheme. TfGM have done a lot of bus priority in recent years.

The securing of priority on the Ashton tram route is a bit more subtle, as it involves encouraging through traffic to use Ashton Old Road while the tram uses Ashton New Road.

 

[radamfi]

The securing of priority on the Ashton tram route is a bit more subtle, as it involves encouraging through traffic to use Ashton Old Road while the tram uses Ashton New Road.

I have never thought of that before. I wonder if before and after traffic counts show that to be the case?

The A6 through Salford used to be a race track with a 40 mph limit, and now has a 20 mph limit with speed bumps. Through traffic is now recommended to use the A57.

 

[carlberry]

Do we need to compartmentalise people as "bus" or "tram/train" passengers? It's all public transport. Keeping the same fare structure for bus and tram would be helpful to avoid such silos. TfL trams are priced the same as London buses.

It's a wonderful idea, however it wont be tram/train services that'll be first in line for cuts/reorganising when money needs to be saved!

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a wonderful idea, however it wont be tram/train services that'll be first in line for cuts/reorganising when money needs to be saved!

Rightly so, because they form the core of a city transport system, whereas buses serve to fill the gaps. It's also easier to get lost bus routes back than lost railways.

There may be exceptions to this - such as perhaps you could close the Rose Hill branch and replace with a bus shuttle if it came to it (and save about 50p) but most of the GM rail network is more important than that. Thinning of frequency would be possible, though, provided connecting bus services were rearranged accordingly.

 

[carlberry]

The aim is certainly central control which provides many benefits - out of interest, do you feel that London should not have this, should be deregulated, or if not what's different about it?

London has produced many fine benefits; The bendi buses fiasco, the Boris buses costs, the cuts to bus services because of Crossrail (before finding out if the passengers actually wanted to transfer to Crossrail), cutting the buses anyway even before Crossrail had opened and the recent drop in passengers!
Of course most of this can be ignored because vast amounts of money were available to cover up the problems however the taps have been turned off and (for the rest of the country) they were never on!

 

[Bletchleyite]

London has produced many fine benefits; The bendi buses fiasco, the Boris buses costs, the cuts to bus services because of Crossrail (before finding out if the passengers actually wanted to transfer to Crossrail), cutting the buses anyway even before Crossrail had opened and the recent drop in passengers!
Of course most of this can be ignored because vast amounts of money were available to cover up the problems however the taps have been turned off and (for the rest of the country) they were never on!

TfL are not of course perfect. I guess you'd support dereg for London, then? In some ways I am more accepting of that, if so, than that London should have a regulated, (fairly) integrated system but Manchester not.

 

[carlberry]

Rightly so, because they form the core of a city transport system, whereas buses serve to fill the gaps. It's also easier to get lost bus routes back than lost railways.

There may be exceptions to this - such as perhaps you could close the Rose Hill branch and replace with a bus shuttle if it came to it (and save about 50p) but most of the GM rail network is more important than that. Thinning of frequency would be possible, though, provided connecting bus services were rearranged accordingly.

Which is the most important point. Currently bus passengers have, in the evil bus companies, people who are actually (slightly) interested in serving/protecting their interests. The current suggestions for Manchester don't protect their interests because money will always be diverted to trams or trains because the user are more vocal, even if it isn't the best use of the money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is the most important point. Currently bus passengers have, in the evil bus companies, people who are actually (slightly) interested in serving/protecting their interests. The current suggestions for Manchester don't protect their interests because money will always be diverted to trams or trains because the user are more vocal, even if it isn't the best use of the money.

I'd probably contend that in most cases it is the best use of the money, because rail can move more people more quickly.

We need to stop thinking about "bus passengers" and "rail passengers" and start, in a city context, of thinking of "public transport passengers", or even better "sustainable transport passengers" as cycling is an important part of the mix too, as is walking.

 

[edwin_m]

Which is the most important point. Currently bus passengers have, in the evil bus companies, people who are actually (slightly) interested in serving/protecting their interests. The current suggestions for Manchester don't protect their interests because money will always be diverted to trams or trains because the user are more vocal, even if it isn't the best use of the money.

They're interested until reduced profit or some other commercial reason means the service is dropped entirely and local government has to stump up or watch that happen.

Trams tend to cover their operating costs, so there's no reason to abandon them unless some major capital investment is needed. Bus routes that are commercial (ie most of them) also cover their operating costs, otherwise they wouldn't be running.

What is essentially needed is some sort of long-term funding commitment for buses, a bit like what happens with heavy rail where the franchise process implies a multi-year commitment and no doubt whatever replaces it will do the same. And the broader issue is that central government needs to stop treating local authorities as a convenient scapegoat for austerity.

 

[Mwanesh]

We can argue here.Manchester had an opportunity to buy the First business and run it .That would have been a test case of what they can do .

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Hello all - was all a bit busy yesterday so had to catch up on the various posts. I've read them but won't get into cropping individual quotes etc from them. There's some fine and well argued points on both sides.

From my perspective, these are some of the central points:

• I don't believe that the current system is some fantastic, market forces led, utopia - far from it
• That a different approach can be explored
• The proposals that are laid out, however, don't address the central issues around public transport usage (and specifically bus usage)

The proposals are supposed to provide a London style network but they don't. The funding to achieve that just isn't there. Cutting a bit of operators margin is not going to liberate that much. Taking Stagecoach as the main example, reducing their margin from 2018/9 levels to something akin to a regulated industry standard (looking not just at London but globally) would benefit the coffers by about £6m. Look at the other main operators (Go NW, Diamond, First, Transdev) and there's probably not much extra to be gleaned. The costs of running such a framework will certainly eat into that pretty quickly.

The other suggestion is that the real savings will come from removing wasteful competition. However, is that really actually happening. Aside from Oxford Road and the odd spat between Diamond and Vision, there is actually very little in terms on on-road competition between operators to be rationalised away; the network has found its level where operators run what they have to in order to obtain the returns and move passengers.

Of course, this ignores the issue of competition between public transport modes. Again, how much of that actually happens. As someone who used to live in Trafford, I remember the services that used to dominate Washway Road. They are a shadow of what they were since Metrolink was introduced. We can see the same in Oldham to Manchester. There's been massive transference of passengers from bus to Metrolink, and what were parallel bus services have declined accordingly; that explains much of the ridership decline across GM.

Hence why I have concerns that removal of direct links won't be because there is duplication but instead a dogmatic approach to coerce people onto trams whether it is convenient on not. Taking the 263 (on my aforementioned Washway Road corridor), that would seem to duplicate the Metrolink. However, I doubt anyone is actually taking it from Altrincham to Manchester. The reason it exists is that it not only serves areas that are not served by other means but also service a series of overlapping journey options and passenger flows. I don't know if the research has been done but I wonder how much of the traffic that it has into Manchester city centre is gleaned from the section north of Stretford, where the service serves Hulme and leaves the parallel Metrolink?

Another aspect mentioned has been to mention feeder bus services into the Metrolink. Well, that could be done now. In Altrincham, there's a piecemeal collection of local hourly buses that are run, I think under tender. That could be increased now - nothing to stop that happening except for the funding. The fact is that a London style network comes with a London type price tag, and that's not being addressed.

Nor is the focus on a car based transport network. Whilst some bus priority exists, much of it is poor in design (a personal gripe of @Bletchleyite and rightly so). It's not even a patch on Leeds! Again, these proposals don't face into the issue of burgeoning car use because no politician is prepared to do anything to upset the private car motorist. There are still roadside parking spaces on major roads in the city centre - not side streets but main routes. Of course, this is because of how fundamental car parking charges are as a source of revenue as well as the fear of a backlash from motoring groups and the general public. God forbid that a congestion charge or an emissions charge would be considered.

Instead, we have a populist approach to hammer the evil bus companies but it doesn't matter if the bus is publicly controlled or painted yellow if it's still stuck in the same congestion as now.

I don't think the current situation is perfect. There are changes needed and we've seen in places like Bristol, Brighton, Nottingham and Reading that it can be done (and even those could be better) and it's not because dependent on ownership model or concerns about competition law. It's about making public transport attractive vs. the private car and levelling the playing field. These proposals don't address the fundamentals - it's eye catching politics but without the money, I fear we will see services being disconnected/cut on a dogmatic "you must change" basis and cross subsidy so you have remaining services disadvantaged to prop up a wealth of socially necessary basket cases rather than a true view of public transport being a means of mass transit.

 

[RT4038]

They're interested until reduced profit or some other commercial reason means the service is dropped entirely and local government has to stump up or watch that happen.

Trams tend to cover their operating costs, so there's no reason to abandon them unless some major capital investment is needed. Bus routes that are commercial (ie most of them) also cover their operating costs, otherwise they wouldn't be running.

What is essentially needed is some sort of long-term funding commitment for buses, a bit like what happens with heavy rail where the franchise process implies a multi-year commitment and no doubt whatever replaces it will do the same. And the broader issue is that central government needs to stop treating local authorities as a convenient scapegoat for austerity.

So after 250 posts in this thread, we have gone back to the theme that one of the main bus issues is funding, and specifically long-term funding commitment. The TfGM franchise proposal does nothing to address this issue. More than likely costs will go up way beyond any savings from the current system, and unfunded political gestures made with fares and socially necessary services, damaging the revenue base, culminating in service cuts being made. As @TheGreatWazoo points out, you can only have London style services with London style funding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So after 250 posts in this thread, we have gone back to the theme that one of the main bus issues is funding, and specifically long-term funding commitment. The TfGM franchise proposal does nothing to address this issue. More than likely costs will go up way beyond any savings from the current system, and unfunded political gestures made with fares and socially necessary services, damaging the revenue base, culminating in service cuts being made. As @TheGreatWazoo points out, you can only have London style services with London style funding.

I don't believe that's true, because of one key thing - London fares are very low - £1.50 is well below even the short hop fare of most commercial bus services. For example, the MK "cross city" fare is now £3, double what it would cost to go about 3 times as far in London, and the lowest fare other than the very-short-journey town-centre hop (which in essence competes with walking) is £2.

Yes, seasons bring it down, but not that much, and many people don't use seasons.

Higher fares (as already apply on commercial services) is another way of increasing income.

 

[radamfi]

London got decent funding post 2000 and was able to throw money at the bus network. This period followed quite a long period of relative austerity as the government was more interested in seeing efficiencies as a result of privatisation/tendering. Now London is experiencing cost savings again, but it is quite possible that more favourable funding could become available in the future, for example under a new Labour government. Manchester didn't enjoy such benefits in 2000 from the Blair government as it didn't have a mayor and in any case it is debatable how you can spend money as efficiently on a deregulated system, when the whole principle is that it is supposed to be self-sufficient. If there is more funding available in the future then maybe Manchester would be more likely to get it if it has a mayor and franchising. If it is still deregulated then the government may well give it all to London like in 2000.

It might be worth mentioning that London buses got *less* funding than the rest of the country before Livingstone, as it was roughly cost neutral. Other areas had to pay for tendered services, as councils/PTEs were not able to cross-subside from commercial services.

 

[Greybeard33]

Under an integrated system the through bus might be replaced by a series of shorter routes that feed into various tram stations, allowing those people to make a faster journey with a smooth interchange, without paying extra for doing so. These could also be structured to provide those local journeys. For example there could be two bus routes starting at Sale station, that would go opposite ways along the A56 and interchange at Timperley and Dane Road stations before continuing into the residential areas further east and perhaps returning to Sale station in a loop. These would provide convenient links for local journeys into the centre of Sale and also act as tram feeders.

Hence why I have concerns that removal of direct links won't be because there is duplication but instead a dogmatic approach to coerce people onto trams whether it is convenient on not. Taking the 263 (on my aforementioned Washway Road corridor), that would seem to duplicate the Metrolink. However, I doubt anyone is actually taking it from Altrincham to Manchester. The reason it exists is that it not only serves areas that are not served by other means but also service a series of overlapping journey options and passenger flows. I don't know if the research has been done but I wonder how much of the traffic that it has into Manchester city centre is gleaned from the section north of Stretford, where the service serves Hulme and leaves the parallel Metrolink?

I have occasionally (when not in a hurry) taken the 263 all the way from Altrincham to the University area. No changes and a relatively cheap single operator fare. But it is quicker to take the Metrolink to St Peters Square, then one of the frequent buses up Oxford Road, or to take the train to Piccadilly, then the frequent 147 bus direct from the station. IMO the route would be better split up as @edwin_m suggests above, with the inner portion through Hulme terminating at Trafford Bar or Stretford. Long radial routes like the 263 are very vulnerable to traffic delays, especially in the peaks, and the consequent unreliability discourages use.

One of the most pernicious features of the current system is the single operator daily ticket, priced to actively disincentivise changing between bus operators, let alone changing between modes. Stagecoach Manchester example: Adult single £3.50, Stagecoach dayrider £5.00, "get me there" 1 Day AnyBus (multi-operator) £6.00, "get me there" 1 Day AnyBus & Tram (all day) £9.00. Similar differences with weekly/monthly/annual season tickets.

I think a London-style simpler, integrated fare structure would increase overall public transport patronage, and hence total farebox revenue, particularly for cross-city or orbital journeys that require a change between bus operators, as well as for journeys that are quicker with a change between modes.

 

[carlberry]

One of the most pernicious features of the current system is the single operator daily ticket, priced to actively disincentivise changing between bus operators, let alone changing between modes. Stagecoach Manchester example: Adult single £3.50, Stagecoach dayrider £5.00, "get me there" 1 Day AnyBus (multi-operator) £6.00, "get me there" 1 Day AnyBus & Tram (all day) £9.00. Similar differences with weekly/monthly/annual season tickets.

I think a London-style simpler, integrated fare structure would increase overall public transport patronage, and hence total farebox revenue, particularly for cross-city or orbital journeys that require a change between bus operators, as well as for journeys that are quicker with a change between modes.

The cheaper one operator fare isn't a disincentive to changing, it's a reduced price if you need less of something. You could say that Tesco also do the same by having a basics line, a normal line and a premium line for lots of ranges. Should trains be allowed to offer first and second class as another example.

In the example about the real disincentive appears to be the jump between bus and bus/tram which is something that could be cured instantly by the transport authority with the current structure if they actually wanted to try this.

 

[edwin_m]

So after 250 posts in this thread, we have gone back to the theme that one of the main bus issues is funding, and specifically long-term funding commitment. The TfGM franchise proposal does nothing to address this issue. More than likely costs will go up way beyond any savings from the current system, and unfunded political gestures made with fares and socially necessary services, damaging the revenue base, culminating in service cuts being made. As @TheGreatWazoo points out, you can only have London style services with London style funding.

But you also need a franchise-like structure to enable extra funding to deliver better service.

The cheaper one operator fare isn't a disincentive to changing, it's a reduced price if you need less of something. You could say that Tesco also do the same by having a basics line, a normal line and a premium line for lots of ranges. Should trains be allowed to offer first and second class as another example.

In the example about the real disincentive appears to be the jump between bus and bus/tram which is something that could be cured instantly by the transport authority with the current structure if they actually wanted to try this.

If it was a zonal fare then it would be charging more for getting something more (a longer journey). A single operator fare means you are penalised for a journey of similar length if it involves more than one operator. And as recent operator divestments have shown, you can't even get round that by choosing to live somewhere where a single operator serves all your likely journeys.

Within a franchise system it would also be possible to charge lower fares for local buses, with a premium for a journey rail, tram or any express buses (what some German systems refer to as Schnellverkehr or rapid transit).

The reason the bus/tram fare is higher is because the bus operators demand it be so, to protect their own single-operator tickets. They are more interested in getting a bigger slice of the cake than in making the cake bigger (not because they are evil, but because the law incentivises them to behave that way).

As @TheGreatWazoo points out, you can only have London style services with London style funding.

I would argue that more passengers would use a user-friendly bus network without all the confusion caused by multiple operators. Interoperability would also make evening and Sunday journeys more viable, where there are several current operators but each one may not have the critical mass of passengers to run outside office/shopping hours.

 

[radamfi]

The cheaper one operator fare isn't a disincentive to changing, it's a reduced price if you need less of something.

How much would the all operators ticket be if single operator tickets didn't exist, or if there was only one operator? If that is less than now, then that is a disincentive.

Aside from that, there is clear user dissatisfaction in having single operator tickets (as expressed in the post you quoted) even if you can make a rational justification for their existence. In London, all you have to do is get on the bus with your bank card and tap it on the Oyster reader. Daily and weekly capping are worked out automatically. A Manchester bus rider has to first decide whether he wants one company or all. Then he is bound by that commitment for the whole time of the ticket validity. If he buys a single operator ticket but then realises he needs another operator, he's out of pocket. Conversely if he buys an all operator ticket "just in case" and only ends up using one operator, he feels ripped off. Either way, the passengers gets a bad impression of the whole ticket buying situation.

 

[158756]

But you also need a franchise-like structure to enable extra funding to deliver better service.

If it was a zonal fare then it would be charging more for getting something more (a longer journey). A single operator fare means you are penalised for a journey of similar length if it involves more than one operator. And as recent operator divestments have shown, you can't even get round that by choosing to live somewhere where a single operator serves all your likely journeys.

Within a franchise system it would also be possible to charge lower fares for local buses, with a premium for a journey rail, tram or any express buses (what some German systems refer to as Schnellverkehr or rapid transit).

The reason the bus/tram fare is higher is because the bus operators demand it be so, to protect their own single-operator tickets. They are more interested in getting a bigger slice of the cake than in making the cake bigger (not because they are evil, but because the law incentivises them to behave that way).

Clearly things would be much better if you could go anywhere for the price of a current single operator ticket, and the break up of First is a prime example of why. There is a bit of bashing the bus companies here though - unless they're going to try to implement zonal fares on the buses the get me there bus/tram fare cannot be less than £7.10, because that's the price of a Metrolink anytime all zones ticket. And how do we know Metrolink (so TfGM as they take the revenue I think?) are willing to take their share of any price cut?