TfGM Bus franchising

[TheGrandWazoo]

Actually, TfL do own some depots and lease them out to operators. I believe the list is Ash Grove, Brixton Tramshed, Edgware, Fulwell, Twickenham, Walworth, West Ham and Uxbridge.

Sorry - I meant in general. There are some specific ones that are quirks of history. Edgware and Uxbridge are co-located with tube stations/bus stations and so they are leasehold properties. Ash Grove, Brixton Tramshed and Walworth were non-operational at transfer from LT to the privatised operators and so were retained IIRC. Fulwell (Abellio) was the old London bus sales so it was also non-operational.

The difference between this and Manchester was that you have Uxbridge as a leasehold but it is essentially a Metroline depot and therefore much the same as owned depots at Alperton etc. In Manchester, somewhere like Bolton would be Diamond now but were they to lose the tender, the proposal was that they would have their depot purchased at rock bottom "fair market value" rates and it would simply be adopted by the lucky tenderer (e.g. Abellio). The staff would doubtless transfer to the winning tenderer and Rotala would have a load of buses to redeploy/dispose of. Hence why you would see a lot of leasing of buses rather than purchasing (as in London) and that also puts up costs.

 

[Ken H]

Sorry - I meant in general. There are some specific ones that are quirks of history. Edgware and Uxbridge are co-located with tube stations/bus stations and so they are leasehold properties. Ash Grove, Brixton Tramshed and Walworth were non-operational at transfer from LT to the privatised operators and so were retained IIRC. Fulwell (Abellio) was the old London bus sales so it was also non-operational.

The difference between this and Manchester was that you have Uxbridge as a leasehold but it is essentially a Metroline depot and therefore much the same as owned depots at Alperton etc. In Manchester, somewhere like Bolton would be Diamond now but were they to lose the tender, the proposal was that they would have their depot purchased at rock bottom "fair market value" rates and it would simply be adopted by the lucky tenderer (e.g. Abellio). The staff would doubtless transfer to the winning tenderer and Rotala would have a load of buses to redeploy/dispose of. Hence why you would see a lot of leasing of buses rather than purchasing (as in London) and that also puts up costs.

Assuming the franchises last 5 years, then bus operators will only take on 5 yr leases. will there be a decent market for 5 yr old buses. if not then residual values will be low which would put up leasing costs. unless Burnham guarantees the leases for 10 yrs, like the government is having to do for trains.
and there will be some very tires assets at the end of leases. why invest in a bus you will cease to operate in 12 months?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The whole franchising thing seems to be based on the 1970s when bus usage, and traffic levels were completely different. Car ownership is significantly higher and, thanks to the ongoing pandemic, many people, and firms, will want home working to continue. Whilst the latter may reduce traffic levels it will reduce the number of people wanting to give up their cars. With the best will in the world most people have at least 100 yards (160 metres for younger subscribers) to walk to a bus stop which almost certainly will not go where they want and will require a walk or another journey. Franchising won’t change this and I wouldn’t catch a bus, even if it was being heavily subsidised by the poor bloody motorist, if I had a car which would take me quicker and easier to my place of work or leisure. Furthermore, more and more places of employment, retail and leisure are located out of town centres. If the routes are wrong why pay millions when they can just use current regulations to improve the current services. Just don’t get it. Fortunately I’m not a Greater Manchester taxpayer though one of my daughters and one granddaughter are both going to have to pay for this.

By the sounds of it (no disrespect) you're one of those motorists who wouldn't use public transport if it was free and from their door to their destination, i.e. you simply prefer your private car. The only way to deal with those drivers is as @TheGrandWazoo has rightly said the "stick" of things like taxation of company parking and parking charges. (I'm less convinced by congestion charges as they require complex charging infrastructure and hardly anyone drives through city centres if they can avoid it; better would just be to make all parking a bare minimum of £20-£30 a day within those areas).

On the other hand, there are people who don't like driving in cities (because it isn't much fun, to be honest) and plenty who simply wouldn't drive into Manchester city centre (I know for a fact neither my Mum nor my sister would). Those people are presently being pushed into driving because of poor connectivity. Improving connectivity is likely to get those people onto public transport.

 

[edwin_m]

The whole franchising thing seems to be based on the 1970s when bus usage, and traffic levels were completely different. Car ownership is significantly higher and, thanks to the ongoing pandemic, many people, and firms, will want home working to continue. Whilst the latter may reduce traffic levels it will reduce the number of people wanting to give up their cars. With the best will in the world most people have at least 100 yards (160 metres for younger subscribers) to walk to a bus stop which almost certainly will not go where they want and will require a walk or another journey. Franchising won’t change this and I wouldn’t catch a bus, even if it was being heavily subsidised by the poor bloody motorist, if I had a car which would take me quicker and easier to my place of work or leisure. Furthermore, more and more places of employment, retail and leisure are located out of town centres. If the routes are wrong why pay millions when they can just use current regulations to improve the current services. Just don’t get it. Fortunately I’m not a Greater Manchester taxpayer though one of my daughters and one granddaughter are both going to have to pay for this.

If you're not prepared to walk 100 yards then you're probably a lost cause for any form of public transport.

 

[Robertj21a]

Assuming the franchises last 5 years, then bus operators will only take on 5 yr leases. will there be a decent market for 5 yr old buses. if not then residual values will be low which would put up leasing costs. unless Burnham guarantees the leases for 10 yrs, like the government is having to do for trains.
and there will be some very tires assets at the end of leases. why invest in a bus you will cease to operate in 12 months?

It will be interesting to see if there's an option to continue for, say, 7 years for those operators who have achieved good performance over the initial 5 year contract (i.e much as London).

 

[Hey 3]

If you're not prepared to walk 100 yards then you're probably a lost cause for any form of public transport.

I agree.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2021 ==

Speaking of this TFGM bus franchising(re-regulation), I support the idea and Diamond(my local bus operator) and especially Stagecoach have took us (GM people) for a ride and I think this scheme will be popular if it means cheaper tickets and intergrated ticketing with the train and tram.

 

[Ken H]

I agree.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2021 ==

Speaking of this TFGM bus franchising(re-regulation), I support the idea and Diamond(my local bus operator) and especially Stagecoach have took us (GM people) for a ride and I think this scheme will be popular if it means cheaper tickets and intergrated ticketing with the train and tram.

lets see how much subsidy it needs.....

 

[Robertj21a]

I agree.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2021 ==

Speaking of this TFGM bus franchising(re-regulation), I support the idea and Diamond(my local bus operator) and especially Stagecoach have took us (GM people) for a ride and I think this scheme will be popular if it means cheaper tickets and intergrated ticketing with the train and tram.

I will be keen to hear how enthusiastic you are after a few years, when the ongoing costs have to be paid for, most presumably by the local residents.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're not prepared to walk 100 yards then you're probably a lost cause for any form of public transport.

I think that's a more concise way of putting what I meant. Such motorists will need the "stick", I guess, as no public transport "carrot" will be adequate to attract them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2021 ==

I will be keen to hear how enthusiastic you are after a few years, when the ongoing costs have to be paid for, most presumably by the local residents.

I don't live in GM to be fair, but I certainly do think the provision of a quality public transport network is a very good thing to spend Council Tax on as it meets almost all social objectives you can imagine - environmental and inclusion-based.

 

[Hey 3]

I think that's a more concise way of putting what I meant. Such motorists will need the "stick", I guess, as no public transport "carrot" will be adequate to attract them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2021 ==



I don't live in GM to be fair, but I certainly do think the provision of a quality public transport network is a very good thing to spend Council Tax on as it meets almost all social objectives you can imagine - environmental and inclusion-based.

I fully agree, I would be more than happy to spend Council Tax on public transport(Trains, Trams, Metros, Buses).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I fully agree, I would be more than happy to spend Council Tax on public transport(Trains, Trams, Metros, Buses).

What would you spend less on in your Council Tax bill in order to compensate for it....or does this Socialist Panacea mean that those bills would rise at a time when people are trying to make their home budget last?

How long will it take to recoup the monies spent up front that have been allocated to this particular money pot?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2021 ==

I don't live in GM to be fair, but I certainly do think the provision of a quality public transport network is a very good thing to spend Council Tax on as it meets almost all social objectives you can imagine - environmental and inclusion-based.

I too live outside the borders of the TfGM empire (thankfully) and can think of other items than Public Transport in my Council Tax bill that would benefit the local electorate. As has been often said before, when people put forward their project attachments, public transport is way down the list.

 

[Robertj21a]

I fully agree, I would be more than happy to spend Council Tax on public transport(Trains, Trams, Metros, Buses).

So would I but that's not likely to be a view shared by the majority of the locals who use their car all the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So would I but that's not likely to be a view shared by the majority of the locals who use their car all the time.

I wonder what the prevailing view in London is, as that's where (figuratively) Greater Manchester wants to be?

 

[Hey 3]

So would I but that's not likely to be a view shared by the majority of the locals who use their car all the time.

Yes, but without making Trains, Trams, Metros, Buses cheaper and because of the love of a car, the locals would rather pay road tax than that.

 

[Wolfie]

If you're not prepared to walk 100 yards then you're probably a lost cause for any form of public transport.

I agree. Also the credibility of anyone who thinks that 100 yards is 160m (actually 91.44m) is immediately suspect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree. Also the credibility of anyone who thinks that 100 yards is 160m (actually 91.44m) is immediately suspect.

I suspect it was just an error based on the fact that the multiplier from miles to kilometres actually is about 1.6.

 

[Ianno87]

If you're not prepared to walk 100 yards then you're probably a lost cause for any form of public transport.

Don't know about others, but part of the appeal to me of public transport is *because* you need to walk 100 yards.

You see more of the world, interact with more people, takes a bit more time, experience more fresh air.

Driving is often easy...but it's a really, really boring way to live one's life.

 

[Wolfie]

I suspect it was just an error based on the fact that the multiplier from miles to kilometres actually is about 1.6.

That would make sense. It is ironic complaining about having to walk 100m to a bus stop though when in crowded cities you would often have to park further than that away from your house.

 

[dm1]

What would you spend less on in your Council Tax bill in order to compensate for it....or does this Socialist Panacea mean that those bills would rise at a time when people are trying to make their home budget last?

How long will it take to recoup the monies spent up front that have been allocated to this particular money pot?

That is in my opinion a "cost of everything, value of nothing" way of looking at things, which with the austerity policies in recent years has become annoyingly prevalent. The benefits of a functioning public transport system are more difficult to quantify and are only seen in the medium-term, but they are still present and are still significant, and can lead to significant savings elsewhere.

A better bus service doesn't necessarily mean less money in people's pockets, even if more tax income is needed to fund it, but rather likely the opposite. Particularly for more vulnerable members of society, who are currently forced to spend vast sums on taxis because they have no alternative, to name just one example. More generally, every person who switches to using public transport saves all the costs of owning and running a car (or at least a second car per household). Eventually the council could even end up saving money on road maintenance due to fewer cars on the road. People who use public transport are likely to walk more than those who drive, benefiting their health and therefore reducing their costs to the NHS. A well-used bus system also requires less subsidy per passenger than one that is poorly used, near-exclusively by pensioners on ENTCS who pay no fares at all, who have no other option.


There's a concept in transport planning about "captive riders" and "captive drivers". Those who have to drive (utility workers, couriers, ambulances, police, etc) will drive no matter how good the public transport system is. Those who can't drive (or walk/cycle) will use public transport no matter how bad it is. Therefore the only people you can influence with the quality of service or price are those in the middle. The more of those you can persuade to use public transport, the better, and the lower the overall costs to the transport system as a whole (including drivers, costs of congestion etc). The only way to do so is to make the service attractive and affordable, with appropriate frequency and quality of service. Franchising is a good way to acheive that.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A better bus service doesn't necessarily mean less money in people's pockets, even if more tax income is needed to fund it,

Don't forget to highlight the emboldened part of your posting, when you put that particular point forward to the local electorate in printed literature and in local broadcasting media. See how popular that will be!

 

[dm1]

Don't forget to highlight the emboldened part of your posting, when you put that particular point forward to the local electorate in printed literature and in local broadcasting media. See how popular that will be!

If you look at Talinn's switch to free public transport (not that I think that's a good idea, but that's a topic for another thread) more or less precisely that choice was presented to the public. In order to be eligible for the free public transport, people had to be registered in the city, which had higher taxes than the surrounding areas. Arguably the point of the entire exercise was to get those who live in Talinn to register themselves there for tax purposes. The result is, that people were effectively agreeing to pay more tax for a more attractive public transport service.

Personally, if explained well, I don't think people will be as against a policy of using more tax to pay for public transport as you think. Good public transport is also good for those who don't use it, as it leads to less congestion on the roads for those who have to drive. Subsidy for buses also helps more poorer members of society than subsidy for rail, even if I think both have a place.

With increasing attention to the climate crisis, more money will need to be spent on more sustainable transport in any case, so there's no getting around it either way.

 

[Robertj21a]

I just don't feel that the Manchester area can achieve sufficiently large numbers of passengers to enable frequent services to be maintained across a comprehensive route network. I've been all around the area many times over the years and don't see the necessary high volumes that aren't already catered for by the trams and a few existing trunk bus routes run commercially. It's certainly not got London volumes and I find it very difficult to see where the true benefits are likely to be in practice.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you look at Talinn's switch to free public transport (not that I think that's a good idea, but that's a topic for another thread) more or less precisely that choice was presented to the public. In order to be eligible for the free public transport, people had to be registered in the city, which had higher taxes than the surrounding areas. Arguably the point of the entire exercise was to get those who live in Talinn to register themselves there for tax purposes. The result is, that people were effectively agreeing to pay more tax for a more attractive public transport service.

Why on earth have you chosen to introduce a settlement in that particular far-off country into this debate? Why not choose somewhere in Tajikistan where people "do as they are told" by the ruling elite.

More nearer to the physical area of the matter in hand in what is commonly referred to Greater Manchester. Have you got the figures for those people in that region who are registered to vote in local elections and the number of those same people who were interested enough to participate in the recent consultation. I would dearly like to know what the percentage was of that total electoral number who actually chose to participate, the matter being high enough in their personal scale of importance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just don't feel that the Manchester area can achieve sufficiently large numbers of passengers to enable frequent services to be maintained across a comprehensive route network. I've been all around the area many times over the years and don't see the necessary high volumes that aren't already catered for by the trams and a few existing trunk bus routes run commercially. It's certainly not got London volumes and I find it very difficult to see where the true benefits are likely to be in practice.

I think experience in the rest of western Europe (including the Netherlands, which like us is a country of mostly house-dwellers so has similar population densities in towns and cities) would suggest that this is just defeatist and isn't the case at all.

If you make the service really good, people will use it. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to operate it every 2 minutes; a 15 minute frequency service can be more than acceptable if connections are timed to work and it's operated punctually.

 

[Robertj21a]

I think experience in the rest of western Europe (including the Netherlands, which like us is a country of mostly house-dwellers so has similar population densities in towns and cities) would suggest that this is just defeatist and isn't the case at all.

If you make the service really good, people will use it. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to operate it every 2 minutes; a 15 minute frequency service can be more than acceptable if connections are timed to work and it's operated punctually.

Certainly not a defeatist, more a realist. Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland etc can all show us how to time perfect connections but I can't think of any similar examples in the UK. We can't even get trains to properly connect with each other.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Certainly not a defeatist, more a realist. Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland etc can all show us how to time perfect connections but I can't think of any similar examples in the UK. We can't even get trains to properly connect with each other.

So we should accept this unacceptable situation rather than try to fix it? This is why I strongly support Burnham's plan. Urban public transport in the UK's large cities (that is, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield and Glasgow, probably, in no particular order) has been unacceptably poor for too long, and the one such city where it isn't unacceptably poor (London) has a regulated system. That is enough for me.

 

[Robertj21a]

So we should accept this unacceptable situation rather than try to fix it? This is why I strongly support Burnham's plan. Urban public transport in the UK's large cities (that is, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield and Glasgow, probably, in no particular order) has been unacceptably poor for too long, and the one such city where it isn't unacceptably poor (London) has a regulated system. That is enough for me.

Speaking just for myself, I'd be happier if it wasn't Burnham involved. I also doubt that he can achieve an integrated network that will make a significant difference across GM. That's before we even get to the costs involved.
If he can achieve the seemingly very difficult then all credit to him and I'll happily congratulate him. Time will tell.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So we should accept this unacceptable situation rather than try to fix it? This is why I strongly support Burnham's plan. Urban public transport in the UK's large cities (that is, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Leeds, Sheffield and Glasgow, probably, in no particular order) has been unacceptably poor for too long, and the one such city where it isn't unacceptably poor (London) has a regulated system. That is enough for me.

This isn't a binary position. Just because the current situation isn't right, it doesn't mean that these proposals are the solution.

If you think that London has a good bus network and that the £1bn a year subsidy it received, or the congestion charge, or the extensive underground network, or the (relative) lack of parking in central London aren't major factors and it all boils down to a regulated system, then I'm afraid that's just not case.

Instead, Manchester isn't going to have that sort of money (and to be fair, London isn't going to) and it's not going to disadvantage the car user by having any punitive measures, then you're not going to have good public transport either. I don't see how Burnham is going to square a circle that no-one else in the world has managed to.

 

[carlberry]

I agree.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2021 ==

Speaking of this TFGM bus franchising(re-regulation), I support the idea and Diamond(my local bus operator) and especially Stagecoach have took us (GM people) for a ride and I think this scheme will be popular if it means cheaper tickets and intergrated ticketing with the train and tram.

The scheme as proposed doesn't suggest cheaper tickets (indeed it even hints at increased bus ticket costs), and integrated tickets already exist.

 

[Goldfish62]

The scheme as proposed doesn't suggest cheaper tickets (indeed it even hints at increased bus ticket costs), and integrated tickets already exist.

The integrated tickets would be lowered to the price of the cheapest operator specific tickets and operator specific tickets abolished.

The increases refer to predicted annual increases.