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!
I don't think you read what I wrote. I said in the context of a highly controlled, centrally mandated system where operators are not free to add value AND there is no competitive advantage from existing premises, how does an operator achieve competitive advantage. Fuel is relatively fixed (even with a bit of hedging) and so the next port of call are staff T&Cs which is why the unions were dead against the Nexus proposals
I don't frankly care what competitive advantage operators do or don't have. The system should exist primarily for the benefit of the passenger and nobody else. Perhaps it's now too much for the benefit of the operator?
There is the odd bus operator that puts effort into genuinely adding value on local bus services. Most of them have, or have had, something to do with Alex Hornby, though there are other pockets of it e.g. in the better managed Stagecoach subsidiaries. I don't believe Arriva adds any form of value in any form anywhere, they are just awful. First have small pockets of it too but mostly just carry on with the same old pink and purple dross. By and large, though, they just manage demand and rake the money in. It needs to be kicked into touch for the passenger's benefit.
(There are three others, Lothian, Nottingham and Blackpool, but those of course aren't privatised)
Not true. That's the point on partnership - the LA can make certain rules that tie in operators so that they only get the investment if they play ball.
But the operator can go "I don't want the investment", throw up two fingers and carry on as they were. Which I'm sure is what they would do, because if I was a for-profit business manager I would too.
Exactly the point. You don't need to change much to get those sorts of things done but TfGM and local authorities haven't done it. It doesn't matter if it's a regulated bus or a deregulated bus if the traffic is still the same, on street parking is not controlled, etc etc
The idea that there are massive savings to be had is fanciful. Already, it is apparent that many of the routes that ran parallel to Metrolink have been reduced following the abstraction of patronage from them after the Metrolink expansion. Same with the wasteful competition - it barely exists now that operators have sold out or moved into their own areas.
I'm not talking about financial savings. It's still a success if it costs the same but delivers better integration, both within and across modes, by removing the artificial barriers that are put in place by operators who want, naturally, to protect their income, and thus by integration of fares, timetables and stop locations to promote an integrated multi-modal journey as desirable, rather than sitting on a bus for over an hour when you could be there in 45 minutes by changing from bus to tram or train.
The aim is an integrated urban transport system, with one cross-mode fare set and no on-road competition, where each mode does what it's good at. Buses are good at low demand and short journeys. Trains and trams are good at shifting lots of people a longer way. Put them together and you have something that can genuinely rival the car. More money just means you can have more of it.
Yes, but the question here is what happens to e.g. the Arriva Bolton / Wigan Chorley service? It's not subsidised at the moment, so co-ordination between local authorities is irrelevant.
The route has competition on rail, and also potential for other bus routes. If National Express Bus wins the tender for "GM Buses North", will TfGM pay them to run a service benefiting passengers outside their area? Only if there's money to be made. But given the possible enforced modal shift to rail, there's not going to be as much money to be made. And given there's nothing stopping Arriva (or whoever) from operating Preston - Chorley - Adlington / Preston - Chorley - Standish - Wrightington Hospital (Let's say - as potential viable routes outside the GM boundary) as commercial services outside of TfGM remit, there's not going to be much money to be made on the existing routes. So chances are they'll get cut back and turned around at GM's boundary.
The mechanism is there to support it, they are paid to operate the services within Manchester, if they think there is a commercial benefit from extending the route they are freely able to do that and will keep all the revenue from it. Any services that cross into the franchise area are required to meet the minimum vehicle standards and accept TfGM tickets for the Manchester portion of the journey. The work for the scheme identified 110 cross border bus services of which 24 currently didnt meet the minimum standards required of operators within the franchise area.
But then the logical extension of that is not only to regulate but also to nationalise (well, not literally, but rather for TfGM to become an operator again). It's a bit like "competition" in the energy sector which is really just about economies in how you are billed. They are the same electrons from the same power stations whoever sends your bill.
Personally, that actually makes more sense to me than the high level prescriptive franchising system that is proposed. Like I said before, under the TfGM system, the operator is not much more than the name at the top of the letterhead on internal mail. What's the point?
You don't get any innovation (which is what a dynamic private sector can provide) and you don't save any money.
There is a difference between the energy company example, because they can innovate - enter into cheaper contracts with generators, advertise differently, offer different pricing, reduce costs by going online, bundle deals with other fuels or broadband, etc. This is more like the council choosing between Serco or Capita to print out the rates bills each year. The provider has no say in anything and the end consumer probably doesn't even realise it isn't the council providing the service.
Thus, the network benefits cannot be properly achieved in that context, because people will always be priced off changing operator/mode. And the core of a city transport network is that you deliver more effective travel precisely by offering a quality of interchange between modes.
That doesn't mean you need Gateshead-esque stupidity. But as I said, the best way to serve the outer parts of Altrincham, say, are not with a direct bus into Manchester taking well over an hour. Rather, it's a shuttle bus to the station to pick up a tram - at the same price, on the same ticket.
Will there be some routes better served by a through bus to Manchester? Obviously there will, and those routes should remain served in that way. But it's silly to take the present situation and say "people would rather have a direct bus so let's keep doing that", because people are pushed hard in that direction by financial and operational penalties. It costs much more to do a bus-tram or bus-train journey, so people won't do it. In a city transport network, it should cost the same.
Just to be clear (and I'm not necessarily falling out with what you're saying), what cost/price are you envisaging for a bus + tram journey?
The current Metrolink tram fares, already under TfGM control, are priced much higher than that of bus so it's not like London.
To use an Altringham example, with peak fares, the Arriva bus day ticket is £4.70.
The TfGM System One Any Bus is £6.00.
The Metrolink day ticket is £7.10.
The TfGM System One Tram + Bus is £7.50, so a 40 pence 'penalty' for changing modes. But, looking at it the other way around, TfGM themselves already consider using a tram rather than just buses to be worth an extra £1.10 from the passenger vs. the £6.00 Any Bus ticket.
Are you envisaging that a bus + tram connection wouldn't incur the additional 40 pence, or something else? The problem is, any change to re-model the network for bus + tram connections would presumably still involve the current void between bus and tram prices, and I cannot see the tram prices being decreased to address this, as it would leave them hugely down on revenue.
First have small pockets of it too but mostly just carry on with the same old pink and purple dross. By and large, though, they just manage demand and rake the money in. It needs to be kicked into touch for the passenger's benefit.
(There are three others, Lothian, Nottingham and Blackpool, but those of course aren't privatised)
Probably not the best examples to have used. Blackpool, who've only just gone Contactless on 29th January 2021, 2 years+ after First had done the entire UK fleet?
Regardless of the regulatory framework, First have been doing lots and lots of stuff the past few years to bring simplified and speedier ticketing to the fore among other technological developments, and the new app is award winning. Sure, there's room for improvement, but it's not all about the colour the buses are painted in spotters' photos.
At the moment the System One ticketing collective is a commercial company owned by the commercial bus companies, TfGM and Northern rail own shares in it but neither have a majority share.
The fares are set so that the overheads of the ticket transaction, advertising and travel information are on top of the equivalent operator product, so the bus companies are essentially double charging for the administration and operation costs and ensuring their own product always has a commercial advantage over the collective product.
The Metrolink day ticket price is £7.10 peak, £4.90 offpeak (peak is between 7am and 9.30am in the mornings only)
There are no peak times on buses in Greater Manchester
Stagecoach dont offer a whole of Greater Manchester day pass themselves offering a Wigan only one for £4.60 and a rest of Greater Manchester excluding Wigan one for £5.00
Arriva offer one covering Wigan, Salford, South Manchester and Stockport for £4.70
Go Northwest offer one that operates in the areas of Greater Manchester that Arriva dont cover (Namely North Manchester, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale and a service to Warrington) for £4.80 online and £5.20 on the bus.
At the moment the System One ticketing collective is a commercial company owned by the commercial bus companies, TfGM and Northern rail own shares in it but neither have a majority share.
The fares are set so that the overheads of the ticket transaction, advertising and travel information are on top of the equivalent operator product, so the bus companies are essentially double charging for the administration and operation costs and ensuring their own product always has a commercial advantage over the collective product.
The Metrolink day ticket price is £7.10 peak, £4.90 offpeak (peak is between 7am and 9.30am in the mornings only)
There are no peak times on buses in Greater Manchester
Stagecoach dont offer a whole of Greater Manchester day pass themselves offering a Wigan only one for £4.60 and a rest of Greater Manchester excluding Wigan one for £5.00
Arriva offer one covering Wigan, Salford, South Manchester and Stockport for £4.70
Go Northwest offer one that operates in the areas of Greater Manchester that Arriva dont cover (Namely North Manchester, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale and a service to Warrington) for £4.80 online and £5.20 on the bus.
You have just highlighted in microcosm some of the myriad of different ticketing options in Greater Manchester before you add in the various child, student, job seekers tickets etc.
There are also Wayfarer tickets, various rail rover and ranger tickets, Plusbus and evening peak restrictions on most rail journeys starting and ending in Greater Manchester. I guess at some point flexible season tickets or carnet tickets will be added soon.
The franchise system enables the introduction of a simpler integrated ticket system (although I am sure GMPTE could have instigated this many years ago like Merseytravel) - let’s hope they can achieve it!
The franchise system enables the introduction of a simpler integrated ticket system (although I am sure GMPTE could have instigated this many years ago like Merseytravel) - let’s hope they can achieve it!
Stagecoach dont offer a whole of Greater Manchester day pass themselves offering a Wigan only one for £4.60 and a rest of Greater Manchester excluding Wigan one for £5.00
I don't frankly care what competitive advantage operators do or don't have. The system should exist primarily for the benefit of the passenger and nobody else. Perhaps it's now too much for the benefit of the operator?
There is the odd bus operator that puts effort into genuinely adding value on local bus services. Most of them have, or have had, something to do with Alex Hornby, though there are other pockets of it e.g. in the better managed Stagecoach subsidiaries. I don't believe Arriva adds any form of value in any form anywhere, they are just awful. First have small pockets of it too but mostly just carry on with the same old pink and purple dross. By and large, though, they just manage demand and rake the money in. It needs to be kicked into touch for the passenger's benefit.
(There are three others, Lothian, Nottingham and Blackpool, but those of course aren't privatised)
You might not care about the competitive advantage but that is the system that TfGM are proposing and that is the law of unintended consequences. You can choose to ignore it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and the trade unions know it.
I agree with the criticism of some substantial chunks of the bus industry; you can say the same about PTEs and local authorities as well.
But the operator can go "I don't want the investment", throw up two fingers and carry on as they were. Which I'm sure is what they would do, because if I was a for-profit business manager I would too.
That's why you have partnerships. Operators are crying out for some levelling of the playing field in terms of traffic congestion and investment. That, and a constructive way of working, rather than what has happened in the past in having been continually BSOG unilaterally removed, an underfunded ENCTS scheme, more stringent emissions from LEZs and CAZs
You honestly think that they will turn that down if there's a few strings attached? However, the usual approach is some ham-fisted public sector bovine.
But they're not selling London-style control to the public via the consultation. Control means nothing without having benefits. They are selling London-style benefits and that isn't having fewer buses out.
I'm not talking about financial savings. It's still a success if it costs the same but delivers better integration, both within and across modes, by removing the artificial barriers that are put in place by operators who want, naturally, to protect their income, and thus by integration of fares, timetables and stop locations to promote an integrated multi-modal journey as desirable, rather than sitting on a bus for over an hour when you could be there in 45 minutes by changing from bus to tram or train.
The aim is an integrated urban transport system, with one cross-mode fare set and no on-road competition, where each mode does what it's good at. Buses are good at low demand and short journeys. Trains and trams are good at shifting lots of people a longer way. Put them together and you have something that can genuinely rival the car. More money just means you can have more of it.
No, I was referring to the savings to finance benefits. If you want to have London-style service and fare levels, as promised by Andy Burnham, how is that delivered without the funding? There is no great peace dividend from removing wasteful competition. Overbussing of corridors is minimal.
The public is being told how things could be London style, so aside from each bus being yellow and centrally controlled, where's the benefit? Multimodal tickets exist now - are they going to be cheaper to remove the modal change penalty? That costs so where's the money coming from? There's a possible margin saving (vs profits) but it won't be much and will largely be swallowed up by the management and governance structure to administer this.
I fully agree that there are two operators who have not performed but do these proposals tackle the fundamental issues facing bus operators. It really doesn't matter if the bus is blue or yellow, privately controlled or centrally mandated, if the thing is stuck in traffic
Just to be clear (and I'm not necessarily falling out with what you're saying), what cost/price are you envisaging for a bus + tram journey?
The current Metrolink tram fares, already under TfGM control, are priced much higher than that of bus so it's not like London.
To use an Altringham example, with peak fares, the Arriva bus day ticket is £4.70.
The TfGM System One Any Bus is £6.00.
The Metrolink day ticket is £7.10.
The TfGM System One Tram + Bus is £7.50, so a 40 pence 'penalty' for changing modes. But, looking at it the other way around, TfGM themselves already consider using a tram rather than just buses to be worth an extra £1.10 from the passenger vs. the £6.00 Any Bus ticket.
Are you envisaging that a bus + tram connection wouldn't incur the additional 40 pence, or something else? The problem is, any change to re-model the network for bus + tram connections would presumably still involve the current void between bus and tram prices, and I cannot see the tram prices being decreased to address this, as it would leave them hugely down on revenue.
I think what I would do is move it progressively to everything costing the same. This would probably mean nudging bus fares up and tram fares down over a period of a few years, but to start with what you say - the tram fare including any connecting bus journeys - would be a good start (and is something London needs to do!)
The System One tickets need switching from being split by mode to being split zonally in some way. The Metrolink zones but with more detailed lines on a map so they can be applied to bus and heavy rail would be a plan.
Probably not the best examples to have used. Blackpool, who've only just gone Contactless on 29th January 2021, 2 years+ after First had done the entire UK fleet?
Regardless of the regulatory framework, First have been doing lots and lots of stuff the past few years to bring simplified and speedier ticketing to the fore among other technological developments, and the new app is award winning. Sure, there's room for improvement, but it's not all about the colour the buses are painted in spotters' photos.
As TfGM/GMPTE don't have the power to impose such a system might the bus operators have blocked it? Merseytravel has had multi-mode zonal tickets for years so there was less scope to object to something that has been established since the 1980s, whereas Greater Manchester only introduced any form of any-operator ticketing in the late 1990s, 1998 I think.
Also System 1 is not solely controlled by TfGM, it's a consortium of them and the operators. Whereas the Merseyside ticketing system is I believe wholly controlled by Merseytravel, which again goes back to how it came into being and when.
What is worth noting about the Merseyside system is that it is pretty much fully on the German model with the exception of the existence of Solo and Railpass - the zone concepts (of honeycomb style zones with "big zones" and "little zones" within them) are basically the same.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
You might not care about the competitive advantage but that is the system that TfGM are proposing and that is the law of unintended consequences. You can choose to ignore it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and the trade unions know it.
TfGM will only get rubbish if they are lazy and sloppy in their specifications. I suspect we may disagree on whether they will be or not; they would do well to take advice from TfL on their methods of specification of bus tenders.
Lack of integration is a fundamental problem. Admittedly it's one the UK has almost never got right, but it is a big problem and a massive barrier to attracting people out of cars. Put simply, a long bus journey will NEVER attract anyone out of a car, because buses are slower, less comfortable and less private than your car. You need to make good use of rail to do that.
I do get that the "stick" methods have benefit, but the UK doesn't even dangle the smallest of carrots. And the carrots work well in those countries that do urban public transport well.
But they're not selling London-style control to the public via the consultation. Control means nothing without having benefits. They are selling London-style benefits and that isn't having fewer buses out.
No, I was referring to the savings to finance benefits. If you want to have London-style service and fare levels, as promised by Andy Burnham, how is that delivered without the funding? There is no great peace dividend from removing wasteful competition. Overbussing of corridors is minimal.
The public is being told how things could be London style, so aside from each bus being yellow and centrally controlled, where's the benefit? Multimodal tickets exist now - are they going to be cheaper to remove the modal change penalty? That costs so where's the money coming from?
It will need to be done so things "meet in the middle". Like with rail fare simplification that means some will pay more, but the overall outcome will be fairer - a fares system based on how far you travel, not on which modes you use, and definitely not one actively penalising interchange. Because there will be losers, it's necessary to implement it over time, but a good first step would be bus connections always included in (slightly increased) rail fares.
I fully agree that there are two operators who have not performed but do these proposals tackle the fundamental issues facing bus operators. It really doesn't matter if the bus is blue or yellow, privately controlled or centrally mandated, if the thing is stuck in traffic
Again, that's a separate issue and doing one neither precludes nor requires the other. FWIW, anyone designing bus infrastructure should be required to spend at least 2 weeks using buses in German and Dutch cities and they'd realise that the UK near enough always wastes money and at the same time does it wrong! (Milton Keynes a prime example - all the bus lanes on Midsummer Boulevard do is cause accidents by people turning left across buses - there is a way they could provide benefit but they didn't do it). Clue: you almost never need long bus lanes, just clever junction design - the UK almost seems to use bus lanes as a stick against car drivers rather than actually doing them well!
So the benefit of bus Franchising is that fares will increase?
This is precisely the sort of "Gateshead Stop" / "Mersey Tunnel ban" thinking that proponents say wouldn't happen this time, isn't it?
Looks good on a power point slide in a Council office somewhere. Takes no account of what people want or need.
"Thanks TfGM! My journey on the bus to work from Diggle to Ashton is more expensive now! But at least I can get to Reddish by bus, train and tram for the same price! (Even though I don't actually want to go there)"
So the benefit of bus Franchising is that fares will increase?
This is precisely the sort of "Gateshead Stop" / "Mersey Tunnel ban" thinking that proponents say wouldn't happen this time, isn't it?
Looks good on a power point slide in a Council office somewhere. Takes no account of what people want or need.
"Thanks TfGM! My journey on the bus to work from Diggle to Ashton is more expensive now! But at least I can get to Reddish by bus, train and tram for the same price! (Even though I don't actually want to go there)"
We seem to be fixated on the integration aspect and not recognising some of the fundamental issues.
I fully get the argument on integration and making that easier and simpler. I really do. However, the fact is that TfGM haven't even got the simplest things right. I have seen bus priority infrastructure in the Netherlands and Germany and Denmark and Sweden - that TfGM can't get THAT sorted is hardly inspiring me to let them have a go at running buses. It really is like fretting about interior design, fixtures and fittings when you can't even get the basic fabric of the house right!
And why haven't they sorted these? What has stopped them from sorting this in the last 10 years? It hasn't stopped Brighton or Nottingham?
As for my "race to the bottom comment", I explained then and subsequently that it was about staff terms and conditions. You can put in all sorts of Service Level Agreements with complex service credit mechanisms to penalise poor performance etc, as well as highly prescriptive rules on vehicle livery, vehicle specification, etc. In fact, if you do that quality based mandating, then the only other levers for operators to tender against are a) a bit of fuel - mostly that is defined by fuel duty anyway b) margin - most operators are actually working on the same minimum margins and c) depressing staff terms and conditions even outside of TUPE. It was the latter point that I referred to in "race to the bottom" and it's why the unions do not want franchising.
There are many other ways to use partnerships, and indeed franchising, to deliver improvements. These GM proposals are based on reducing fragmentation and simplification, improving integration and improving routes away from the main corridors, and without a London style price tag. Andy Burnham has mentioned on several occasions about the £1.50 London cap vs single tickets in Manchester costing £4. Clearly, part of the attraction of the consultation was to stress the cost benefits; how does that happen if costs are what they are, and operator margins are a relatively small part of the equation. If the costs are largely fixed, and there is now little on-road competition and overbussing, and we expect to have better services in the burbs and lower prices, how is that circle squared? London and other European cities/regions have great public transport largely because of the funding.
These proposals seem to revolve about having a common image (so every bus is yellow), multi-modal tickets and integration and... what else? Unless, of course, the real saving is to remove substantial chunks of the bus network? The 33 Worsley to Manchester - truncate that at Eccles and get the tram. The 100 from Warrington to Manchester - truncate at Trafford Centre and get the tram. 97 or 135.... you get the picture. My concern in that bus services cease to be operated for the benefit of all passengers and simply as a conduit into the tram system, and resources save used to indulge in whatever is deemed as socially desirable... Meanwhile, other buses remain stuck in a morass of traffic as bus priority is a totally separate argument and is the responsibility of....oh, hang on. Still, you do get a yellow bus....
My concern in that bus services cease to be operated for the benefit of all passengers and simply as a conduit into the tram system, and resources save used to indulge in whatever is deemed as socially desirable...
I think this is at the root of it, yes. And the key difference is that I think that is a good thing (based on German experience), and you think that is a bad thing. That isn't, of course, a silly example (Gateshead or the Mersey Tunnels*), it's a sensible one (providing short bus routes to connect with longer high capacity rail routes into the city etc).
Fundamentally there's only one way to find out, which is why I am so pleased it is going ahead.
* Gateshead is definitely silly. I'm less convinced the Mersey Tunnel example is and do think there is value with quality interchange, i.e. a decent under-cover interchange directly attached to Hamilton Square station - and I reckon were the disincentives removed, i.e. multi-modal, distance-based or zonal ticketing only and a genuine quality interchange provided, that a good many may voluntarily swap from bus to train to go under the river, just as people do for that sort of trip in London.
I'm less convinced the Mersey Tunnel example is and do think there is value with quality interchange, i.e. a decent under-cover interchange directly attached to Hamilton Square station - and I reckon were the disincentives removed, i.e. multi-modal, distance-based or zonal ticketing only and a genuine quality interchange provided, that a good many may voluntarily swap from bus to train to go under the river, just as people do for that sort of trip in London.
*I* may think that's a good idea (I used to go Lancaster to Liverpool by changing at Preston and Ormskirk just for the experience), and *you* may; the average passenger is just going to say "the bus doesn't go to Liverpool anymore" and probably use a car. A car they may not have had in 1986 but almost certainly do in 2021.
Whatever you think of the merits of de-regulation, you can't deny that the commercial operators run services where people want to go.
*I* may think that's a good idea (I used to go Lancaster to Liverpool by changing at Preston and Ormskirk just for the experience), and *you* may; the average passenger is just going to say "the bus doesn't go to Liverpool anymore" and probably use a car. A car they may not have had in 1986 but almost certainly do in 2021.
Whatever you think of the merits of de-regulation, you can't deny that the commercial operators run services where people want to go.
I have seen bus priority infrastructure in the Netherlands and Germany and Denmark and Sweden - that TfGM can't get THAT sorted is hardly inspiring me to let them have a go at running buses.
As TfGM is not the highway authority for most of the road network, it has to seek permission from the local councils. This is not always forthcoming. Neither is the GM Combined Authority - TfGM's parent body - able to determine most planning matters, which also fall to the local councils. One conclusion from this is that TfGM is not fit for purpose; another is that there are too many layers of government.
As TfGM is not the highway authority for most of the road network, it has to seek permission from the local councils. This is not always forthcoming. Neither is the GM Combined Authority - TfGM's parent body - able to determine most planning matters, which also fall to the local councils. One conclusion from this is that TfGM is not fit for purpose; another is that there are too many layers of government.
GM Combined Authority is made up of those District Councils. I don't know of any District in GM that has turned down the chance to have some free cash for bus priority / cycling measures *when* TfGM have wanted to give it out.
Why would they?
TfGM and its predecessors have been working for over a decade now on Bus Franchising. (see also Nexus). It's been their main aim and they've been lobbying for it since they were AGMA & GMPTE.
They've never had interest in making anything else work.
Commercial bus operators run services that will maximise profit from their assets. Doing short runs to the station to connect with a train is not going to achieve that.
No. A Combined Authority has representatives from the district councils, but it is a separate body, with separate (and largely different) powers. Which powers moved (mainly from unitary district) to the combined authority is different for every CA, so the powers of the Liverpool City Region CA and of the West Yorkshire CA are not identical to those of Greater Manchester. And other than the mayor, it has no elected officials.
Commercial bus operators run services that will maximise profit from their assets. Doing short runs to the station to connect with a train is not going to achieve that.
If people actually wanted to go there then they'd run it. Otherwise the local authority is free to pay for it. The issue appears to be that the current environment doesn't allow for transport planners to force people to do it.
Commercial bus operators run services that will maximise profit from their assets. Doing short runs to the station to connect with a train is not going to achieve that.
The length of journey isn’t the key factor in whether or not a bus service is commercially viable. The main factor is the revenue earned per hour, and it doesn’t matter if that comes from three short 20 minute journeys, one 60 minute journey, or half of a 120 minute journey.
A commercial operator maximises their profits by maximising the number of passenger carried (and possibly the distance, depending on fare structure). This can often be achieved by concentrating on the busiest routes, where the operating costs per passenger would often be lower with a tram. Sometimes the busiest route actually parallels a tramway, built at public expense and less cost-effective because bus operators have cherrypicked the passengers, although most tram routes in GM are probably too fast for much direct bus competition where the tram also serves both ends of the journey.
An integrated transport network requires that buses focus more on feeders and routes needed to provide comprehensive coverage, where the passenger numbers are more in the optimum range for buses. These buses may be less profitable but the figures need to be looked at for the entire network not for a single mode or route.
A commercial operator maximises their profits by maximising the number of passenger carried (and possibly the distance, depending on fare structure). This can often be achieved by concentrating on the busiest routes, where the operating costs per passenger would often be lower with a tram. Sometimes the busiest route actually parallels a tramway, built at public expense and less cost-effective because bus operators have cherrypicked the passengers, although most tram routes in GM are probably too fast for much direct bus competition where the tram also serves both ends of the journey.
An integrated transport network requires that buses focus more on feeders and routes needed to provide comprehensive coverage, where the passenger numbers are more in the optimum range for buses. These buses may be less profitable but the figures need to be looked at for the entire network not for a single mode or route.
Entirely agree. But I think the key point, which Burnham and TfGM won't acknowledge is what you said here:-
"These buses may be less profitable".
We've been told, that fares will go down, bus frequencies to less-served places will increase and it won't cost as much money because the evil capitalist Tory bus company profiteers won't be able to keep their millions which instead will be "re-invested" into the network.
That's simply not possible, unless, e.g. a seismic fare cut had the effect of increasing public transport use to the extent that revenue actually increased. But we have a control experiment for precisely that - London post 1998. Fares were drastically cut, mileage was substantially increased. But the only outcome was the need for more subsidy.
So what's going to happen? Most likely a managed decline, dressed up politically as something good (removing "wasteful competition" or "improving connectivity") and higher Council Tax. And more car usage.
We also know from the Nexus experiment that the alternatives could be much more cost-effective and achieve results more quickly - the figures were hashed out and pored over to the Nth degree.
A commercial operator maximises their profits by maximising the number of passenger carried (and possibly the distance, depending on fare structure). This can often be achieved by concentrating on the busiest routes, where the operating costs per passenger would often be lower with a tram. Sometimes the busiest route actually parallels a tramway, built at public expense and less cost-effective because bus operators have cherrypicked the passengers, although most tram routes in GM are probably too fast for much direct bus competition where the tram also serves both ends of the journey.
An integrated transport network requires that buses focus more on feeders and routes needed to provide comprehensive coverage, where the passenger numbers are more in the optimum range for buses. These buses may be less profitable but the figures need to be looked at for the entire network not for a single mode or route.
Given that bus passenger numbers have fallen every time a tram line has been built in Manchester this appears to be working. I don't know how bus operators are supposed to cherry pick passengers, those that use a bus that parallels a tram are usually using it because it's more convenient for their journey. I'm sure they feel guilty for not using the correct mode.
The length of journey isn’t the key factor in whether or not a bus service is commercially viable. The main factor is the revenue earned per hour, and it doesn’t matter if that comes from three short 20 minute journeys, one 60 minute journey, or half of a 120 minute journey.
But the bus operator can only make money off buses. An integrated transport system can consider the viability of the system as a whole. For instance, they can take a loss on the shuttle bus to the station because it makes them more profit (or reduces the subsidy more) to carry the trunk journey by rail.
This total separation of modes that goes on in the UK (and in Europe pretty much only the UK) is nonsensical. To combat the car they need to work together (and with cycling and pedestrianism, and ironically to a small extent with the car, though only to the extent of P&R provision).
But the bus operator can only make money off buses. An integrated transport system can consider the viability of the system as a whole. For instance, they can take a loss on the shuttle bus to the station because it makes them more profit (or reduces the subsidy more) to carry the trunk journey by rail.
This total separation of modes that goes on in the UK (and in Europe pretty much only the UK) is nonsensical. To combat the car they need to work together (and with cycling and pedestrianism, and ironically to a small extent with the car, though only to the extent of P&R provision).
Again, if you're talking about making a loss on the bus service, then where is that funding coming from?
Now, if we're talking about making the bus network more aligned to the Metrolink so you have buses feeding into the trams and a single fare, let's look at that. Let's just say that you live in Bury and that your bus fare is £3 and the tram fare is £4. We want to remove that cost penalty so that it is £5 or £6. The tram costs are what they are. So if you're looking at the bus fare and reducing the profit element, then how is that achieved?
Unless you're looking at the full network and removing "perceived" duplication. Saying "well there's trams along Eccles New Road so you don't need a bus" and then start cutting routes.
Now, in the consultation, was part of the pitch that bus fares could rise or that bus services would be cut? In terms of overbussing, that really has gone. The margins just aren't there and neither is the competitive threat so frequencies have been dropped. So in the absence of that low hanging fruit, where do the savings come from if there's little additional funding from workplace parking charges or congestion charging?
Given that bus passenger numbers have fallen every time a tram line has been built in Manchester this appears to be working. I don't know how bus operators are supposed to cherry pick passengers, those that use a bus that parallels a tram are usually using it because it's more convenient for their journey. I'm sure they feel guilty for not using the correct mode.
We have seen many corridors where bus services have been massively reduced because the introduction of Metrolink has abstracted trade. The services down Washway Road (A56 Sale to Altrincham) are much reduced and the same has been seen in the northern reaches with the Oldham to Manchester. That the ones that remain must be that they serve a purpose that that Metrolink doesn't provide.
Same with the ones that I highlighted with the 33 and 100.... That they can operate between Eccles and Manchester commercially when other services have disappeared probably indicates that they have a defined role that Metrolink doesn't provide so the idea that they can be removed will disadvantage people. The Gateshead example is dismissed as ludicrous by @Bletchleyite but don't think that it was the only example; there were plenty more.
As TfGM is not the highway authority for most of the road network, it has to seek permission from the local councils. This is not always forthcoming. Neither is the GM Combined Authority - TfGM's parent body - able to determine most planning matters, which also fall to the local councils. One conclusion from this is that TfGM is not fit for purpose; another is that there are too many layers of government.
Appreciate that but that they are unable to use their influence with the met councils is my point.
That TfGM can not get local authorities on board to improve bus priority.... Crikey, that you have better bus priority in Brighton and Hove than in Manchester is appalling, and the solution to that isn't to actually sort it but to pursue franchising?
Some of that purpose is that people use them because the vagaries of the timetable and particularly the lack of fare integration makes it more appropriate from their point of view to take the bus. Conveying those people by tram could reduce the total (tram plus bus) operating cost, and may cost almost nothing if the trams have space. The answer to this question will be different for different corridors, but that's not a reason to ignore the issue completely.
Some of that purpose is that people use them because the vagaries of the timetable and particularly the lack of fare integration makes it more appropriate from their point of view to take the bus. Conveying those people by tram could reduce the total (tram plus bus) operating cost, and may cost almost nothing if the trams have space. The answer to this question will be different for different corridors, but that's not a reason to ignore the issue completely.
To give you an idea, this is an example of an effective bus-rail interchange that encourages switching modes (Google Streetview of Maghull station and associated bus interchange):
Some of that purpose is that people use them because the vagaries of the timetable and particularly the lack of fare integration makes it more appropriate from their point of view to take the bus. Conveying those people by tram could reduce the total (tram plus bus) operating cost, and may cost almost nothing if the trams have space. The answer to this question will be different for different corridors, but that's not a reason to ignore the issue completely.
The 33 along Eccles New Road runs only every 30 mins. Before Metrolink, there were frequent buses. You believe that the ones that remain are simply to serve people who are saving money?
Or is it perhaps to serve those areas between stops where people may not be able to walk to their nearest tram stops? Or that there may be traffic flows such as Weaste to Worsley where the time penalty for interchange isn't worth the hassle?
I can really see the point of enhancing local services in places like Altrincham to act as feeders but savings from cutting existing services, I just don't see. Where Metrolink has expanded, it has had a natural and fully understandable impact on the local bus network. What's left is viable only because it serves a distinct niche.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
