TfGM Bus franchising

[johncrossley]

Ask someone in Lambeth, or Chiswick, or Stratford "how far is it to London?" and you'll probably get "where do you mean?"

Strange that you use zone 2 or 3 locations for your argument (the traditional district of Lambeth that is part of the London Borough of Lambeth is largely in zone 1!) If you asked that question in Romford (Zone 6) then many people will think of "London" as "central London". But it would be daft for TfL to rename itself TfGL to accommodate people in the outer areas who consider themselves still in the pre-1965 counties. TfGM still has a "G" in it, so they still acknowledge historical boundaries.

We can compare, quite easily, because the service is budgeted and we know how much they'll spend. The answer is measured in tens or hundreds of millions of pounds more under Franchising than it did under pre-privatisation - let alone compared to the privatised system.

Obviously there's going to be an initial start up cost. But the ongoing revenue expenditure will surely be lower than pre-1986 (in real terms) because they are using private companies.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Obviously there's going to be an initial start up cost. But the ongoing revenue expenditure will surely be lower than pre-1986 (in real terms) because they are using private companies. will the said start-up cost finally be eventually recouped

In what year in the future do you envisage the initial start-up cost to be finally recouped?

 

[daodao]

But the ongoing revenue expenditure will surely be lower than pre-1986 (in real terms) because they are using private companies.

That is a non-sequitur. As there are far fewer bus passengers nowadays, the cost to local authorities in terms of subsidised services is much greater for those authorities like Greater Manchester that are profligate in providing such services especially on evenings and Sundays.

 

[johncrossley]

As there are far fewer bus passengers nowadays

London has more passengers than it did before privatisation using far less subsidy.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

London has more passengers than it did before privatisation using far less subsidy.

One might ask how much the population of that "London" area has increased in the referred-to time period.

 

[johncrossley]

One might ask how much the population of that "London" area has increased in the referred-to time period.

The per capita usage has increased.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

London has more passengers than it did before privatisation using far less subsidy.

Have you got any facts to back up that assertion?

The real question is whether the extra money provides benefits that justify the expenditure. No doubt nobody will ever agree on that. One side of the political spectrum will point to declining ridership and fewer route miles; another lot will say it's brilliant, Burnham is the best and hate crime incidents on buses have gone down by 75%; the final lot will say Starmer has ruined it and it would work fine if only we fully renationalise the bus owning groups, increase pay for drivers by 70% and Free Palestine.

Nearly spat my tea out with the last line - No Pasaran!

I've kept out of this and watched with interest but my two penneth...

Image/livery - You can fully understand why they've elected to replicate the tram colour scheme in the pursuit of an integrated system image. FWIW, I think it's quite a dull image - the yellow is rather washed out and the contrast with the Merseytravel yellow and black is quite pronounced. We can all understand the Bee connotation and it has greater significance after the Arena bombings. Whilst I know that many folks outside the city boundary are still proud of their local roots (i.e. they don't live in Manchester, they live in <insert name of nearby local town>), I don't see any great issue with the Bee and it being a Manchester symbol. It's subjective but I think they've missed a trick in having a really strong, eye-catching image.

Reducing Costs - Let's look at where can cost benefits come from? There is a very limited amount of competition/duplication experienced on road. There's potentially a bit of overbussing on the Oxford Road, and the skirmishes in the Swinton area. Other than that, there really isn't some massive peace dividend to be gained. As we've seen in the last couple of years, Go NW had a battle to remove the archaic terms and conditions from its staff but Stagecoach grasped the nettle in the early days and, as we know, the driver market is such that savings aren't readily to be had.

Another area is by "sticking it to the man" and simply ratcheting down margins (if indeed that is a cost) through the agreement of compulsory tendering. Again, like the peace dividend, this seems seductive with thoughts of a load of fat margin to be redistributed. Whilst Stagecoach has returned good margins historically, other businesses haven't and so the idea that moving to franchising will unlock a load of cash simply isn't the case. Moreover, all businesses need to return a reasonable margin and the difference between what GM operators make vs. those margins in London isn't that great. In addition, the punitive penalty charges that London makes (and indeed are common in public sector procurement) mean that businesses simply build that risk into their commercial and operating models so major cost savings are unlikely to realised.

What other options are there? A widespread rationalisation of links whereby existing services are truncated and people funneled onto tram and train is difficult to swallow (loss of existing links) and is the capacity actually there in peak?

All of this without the cost of funding the TfGM administrative apparatus to manage the whole process.

Increasing Revenue - the most virtuous circle is to grow your revenue and have more passengers spending more money. Again, you have the seductive idea that if you reduce fares, patronage will grow to fill spare capacity and even fund additional capacity. Were it so simple, commercial operators would be doing that surely, it being in their interest? Of course, part of the justification for this is the reduction of fares to the majority of users so upping fares is a non starter.

Alternatively, you can attract other revenue to fund improvements in the form of taxation (see earlier attempt at congestion charging) such as workplace parking charges. How palatable that will be, you can only guess.

There are other funds available from central government. GM has secured some of this; there is some in the BSIP but much of the remainder is allocated to fund capital expenditure, not ongoing revenue support. There could be a way in which revenues could increase and costs reduce. Make services more attractive simply by being able to speed up bus services through improved priority. Improved timetable resilience (and not sandbagging of schedules) provides greater passenger confidence and reduces the time differential with the private car to help improve revenues whilst faster times can reduce resources and costs. Whilst GM has funds for additional bus priority, previous failures to tackle this and the reticence to upset car owners mean that we are left with the current piecemeal approach.

We all want better bus services; I had two spells living in GM with my local operators being Arriva/Stagecoach (probably narrows it down) of which the former was not great, and then after time away, I had First and SLT as my local firms, so I know the variability of service quality. However, "London style" buses come with a very large price tag and I'm not seeing how Andy Burnham (who I actually like) is going to square the circle of better, cheaper services without doing something to upset people (taxation, restricting road usage). Once the bogeyman of bus barons is gone, where next?

Sorry for the long post

 

[Bletchleyite]

Increasing Revenue - the most virtuous circle is to grow your revenue and have more passengers spending more money. Again, you have the seductive idea that if you reduce fares, patronage will grow to fill spare capacity and even fund additional capacity. Were it so simple, commercial operators would be doing that surely, it being in their interest? Of course, part of the justification for this is the reduction of fares to the majority of users so upping fares is a non starter.

What this misses is integration. A bus service connecting an area to the local tramstop costing nothing on top of the tram fare isn't going to ever make a deregulated operation money, and if you charge £2 for it people won't use it. But in a fully integrated system, that single bus running round an estate might bring in twenty expensive tram fares an hour and thus be entirely worth it.

This is one form of growth that deregulation cannot deliver, other than a model a bit like a privatised version of Northern Ireland's Translink where one private company runs the entire public transport system. (Yes, you can tender that bus service, of course, but that's not really deregulated operation, and under dereg a disreputable large operator who doesn't like the fact that all their passengers have defected to a superior rail service can drop their bus fare to £1 or even free and run it off the road despite this being good for nobody other than them).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What this misses is integration. A bus service connecting an area to the local tramstop costing nothing on top of the tram fare isn't going to ever make a deregulated operation money, and if you charge £2 for it people won't use it. But in a fully integrated system, that single bus running round an estate might bring in twenty expensive tram fares an hour and thus be entirely worth it.

Are you hopeful that eventually there will be enough bus drivers to run all such extra aspirational services?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

What this misses is integration. A bus service connecting an area to the local tramstop costing nothing on top of the tram fare isn't going to ever make a deregulated operation money, and if you charge £2 for it people won't use it. But in a fully integrated system, that single bus running round an estate might bring in twenty expensive tram fares an hour and thus be entirely worth it.

This is one form of growth that deregulation cannot deliver, other than a model a bit like a privatised version of Northern Ireland's Translink where one private company runs the entire public transport system. (Yes, you can tender that bus service, of course, but that's not really deregulated operation, and under dereg a disreputable large operator who doesn't like the fact that all their passengers have defected to a superior rail service can drop their bus fare to £1 or even free and run it off the road despite this being good for nobody other than them).

Of course - the great clarion call of integration. Were that to be the case, TfGM could already have used funds to initiate a series of increased local services in somewhere like Altrincham (which are already subsidised) safe in the knowledge that they would be self-sustaining with funds being generated on Metrolink to go into the TfGM coffers.

I'd be intrigued to understand examples where a bus operator has successfully managed to ward off the impact of a superior rail service. I can think of numerous examples of where that hasn't happened, not least in Greater Manchester where the extension of Metrolink to Oldham has abstracted much of the bus trade and a consequent reduction in bus services - see also Washway Road corridor, or on Weaste Road.

Are you hopeful that eventually there will be enough bus drivers to run all such extra aspirational services?

They'll be made spare by reductions on all these duplicating services

 

[Fleetmaster]

There seems a trend of people raising unnecessarily high expectations for the Bee Network, presumably so that they can then complain when things don’t live up to these standards that were never enshrined in legislation (e.g. see also comments about strikes or buses never being late)

Maybe they’ll have a lower average age than Manchester has had over the past decade, but even London (and places cited by enthusiasts as better than average like Edinburgh) doesn’t have brand new buses on every route..,

…but if Burnham insisted on only buses under three years old in Manchester then there’d be complaints about this making things unnecessarily expensive.., he can’t win

I judge my expectations of the Bee Network entirely on the messaging of Burnham. He hasn't been shy about the benefits of franchising. Some of his claims have seemed quite absurd to people who know buses. He has been nakedly populist and fast and loose with his interpretation of history and other very basic concepts. He has absolutely set himself up for a fall.

If it turns out all we see is what could have achieved at far less public expense by using the other powers provided in legislation but which still allow for market driven solutions to passenger needs, powers he insisted were insufficient to bring the improvements he claims are now inevitable, then he should be prepared to accept what is coming. A veritable whirlwind of we told you so.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They'll be made spare by reductions on all these duplicating services

Hopefully, they will not be attracted by other driving options.

 

[tbtc]

I judge my expectations of the Bee Network entirely on the messaging of Burnham. He hasn't been shy about the benefits of franchising. Some of his claims have seemed quite absurd to people who know buses. He has been nakedly populist and fast and loose with his interpretation of history and other very basic concepts. He has absolutely set himself up for a fall.

If it turns out all we see is what could have achieved at far less public expense by using the other powers provided in legislation but which still allow for market driven solutions to passenger needs, powers he insisted were insufficient to bring the improvements he claims are now inevitable, then he should be prepared to accept what is coming. A veritable whirlwind of we told you so.

I’m not a huge fan of the guy but he’s one of the very few Mayors (or equivalent) to focus significantly on buses since Livingston did so in London twenty years ago

Some of the criticism of him is so over the top that I wouldn’t be surprised to see a post where someone suggests that “all double deckers will be open toppers in Manchester because it’ll obviously never rain in Burnham’s utopia”… so that the same people can complain when it the clouds inevitably open during the first week of operation

Yes, he’s made some big claims but “boosterism” is one of the few tools available to politicians, he’s a salesman, he’s trying to encourage public transport use across the board - Lord knows we’d all criticise him if he just stuck to trams (since Metrolink is something he can control a lot more readily than the muddle of bus operations)

Maybe it’s just me but there seems to be something in the general Enthusiast mindset that gets quite sniffy when someone tries to improve things - e.g. for all the good done by Transdev/ Blazefield it only takes one vehicle breakdown or delay to trigger the response of “oh, but I thought your company was meant to be Amazing”

(See also First’s “transforming travel”, to show its not just one group that’s affected)

I guess we’re so used to the vicious circle of managed decline and cutbacks that anyone trying to improve things is mocked

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess we’re so used to the vicious circle of managed decline and cutbacks that anyone trying to improve things is mocked

And to such gross conservatism that things that are done elsewhere that improve the experience, e.g. tap on/off smartcards, are only just becoming a thing.

Oyster was first issued in 2003, twenty years ago.

Meanwhile, most buses in the UK still take ten to thirty seconds per passenger to have a chat and conduct a transaction as you might in a shop, all the while it's sitting there and costing money (and discouraging use, because slower = less attractive).

And that is not the only example.

The industry needs a huge kick up the backside, however that is delivered.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2023 ==

I judge my expectations of the Bee Network entirely on the messaging of Burnham. He hasn't been shy about the benefits of franchising. Some of his claims have seemed quite absurd to people who know buses. He has been nakedly populist and fast and loose with his interpretation of history and other very basic concepts. He has absolutely set himself up for a fall.

I judge them on whether he'll make the situation better, even if some of his suggestions may be mildly hyperbolic. Because I want the network to succeed, whatever the model. And with regard to the model, commercial operation is failing the whole country over (close to the whole industry is in managed decline), so why would you not at least try something different?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I judge them on whether he'll make the situation better, even if some of his suggestions may be mildly hyperbolic. Because I want the network to succeed, whatever the model. And with regard to the model, commercial operation is failing the whole country over (close to the whole industry is in managed decline), so why would you not at least try something different?

The fact that you state that you want the network to succeed betrays a certain leaning rather than a totally unbiased wish to see what actually transpires over a number years in a real-life operational scenario and then to judge matters on what actually has transpired.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I’m not a huge fan of the guy but he’s one of the very few Mayors (or equivalent) to focus significantly on buses since Livingston did so in London twenty years ago

Some of the criticism of him is so over the top that I wouldn’t be surprised to see a post where someone suggests that “all double deckers will be open toppers in Manchester because it’ll obviously never rain in Burnham’s utopia”… so that the same people can complain when it the clouds inevitably open during the first week of operation

Yes, he’s made some big claims but “boosterism” is one of the few tools available to politicians, he’s a salesman, he’s trying to encourage public transport use across the board - Lord knows we’d all criticise him if he just stuck to trams (since Metrolink is something he can control a lot more readily than the muddle of bus operations)

Maybe it’s just me but there seems to be something in the general Enthusiast mindset that gets quite sniffy when someone tries to improve things - e.g. for all the good done by Transdev/ Blazefield it only takes one vehicle breakdown or delay to trigger the response of “oh, but I thought your company was meant to be Amazing”

(See also First’s “transforming travel”, to show its not just one group that’s affected)

I guess we’re so used to the vicious circle of managed decline and cutbacks that anyone trying to improve things is mocked

I do actually like Andy Burnham. I am pleased, and wary, when politicians start focusing on buses though I'm open to believing that he is being altruistic in this respect.

However, that's not to say that we can't be appropriately critical when looking at the scheme. My perspective comes from a purely practical, financial point of view. Some of the very laudable objectives have to be paid for. There's a perception that it is a utopian vision - all upsides with a raft of improvements and being largely self financing through margin reduction and an overall growth in ridership. There are few "sticks" in terms of taking road space for bus priority and removal of roadside parking, let alone the more overt moves in congestion charging or increased taxation. Those are legitimate questions. I have drawn a parallel to Brexit before. Remember, 52% knew what they were voting for... replacing an imperfect reality with a utopian vision. The sunlit uplands where we could have our cake and eat it. No downsides, and if you highlight the issues, you're just being negative. I was never a fan of Red Ken but I did respect his motives in pushing public transport and the difficult decision to introduce the congestion charge but I don't see that from Andy Burnham.

Also, the fast and loose use of stats for political expediency is shown - where we had 350m for the NHS, we now have politicians on both sides of the divide being disingenuous with figures on bus use. Andy Burnham highlights the decline in bus patronage in Greater Manchester without once ensuring that they reflect the impact and passenger abstraction of Metrolink's expansion yet TfGMs own figures show how public transport use has changed as Metrolink has grown. A bit like Boris showing how bus use declined since deregulation as an argument for his plans yet failing to show how bus use had fallen more sharply before 1986.

As regards the enthusiast fraternity, I think it's much more mixed than a general mindset. There are many haters in the Transdev world (and TrentBarton) and conversely, it's because they think that the things that they do to improve things are mere fripperies. Money spent on "marketing guff" is a waste when all we really need is a bus in a single colour with black and white timetables. Some gricers will bemoan the loss of individual liveries (though will they miss Arriva, First or Stagecoach when there's provincial buses aplenty) but others will welcome the promise of more buses to photograph or travel upon. I get the requirement for a strong unified image - just my personal opinion that it could have been stronger.

I think we all genuinely want bus operations to improve. I'd like to see everywhere have politicians and operators as committed as those in Brighton or Reading where forward thinking on all sides is backed up by effective bus priority and investment in vehicles/operations to truly put the bus in front of the car (literally). Just don't see how it can be all carrots and no sticks, and how the books will be balanced.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fact that you state that you want the network to succeed betrays a certain leaning rather than a totally unbiased wish to see what actually transpires over a number years in a real-life operational scenario and then to judge matters on what actually has transpired.

Do you want it to fail?

We've had nearly 40 years of bus deregulation, and it's failed in most places in the UK, with managed decline the mantra even when rail was experiencing massive growth. Thus if it improves on that I'm good with it.

 

[mangad]

Strange that you use zone 2 or 3 locations for your argument (the traditional district of Lambeth that is part of the London Borough of Lambeth is largely in zone 1!) If you asked that question in Romford (Zone 6) then many people will think of "London" as "central London". But it would be daft for TfL to rename itself TfGL to accommodate people in the outer areas who consider themselves still in the pre-1965 counties. TfGM still has a "G" in it, so they still acknowledge historical boundaries.

The county name is Greater London, so Transport for Greater London would be a more accurate name. But "London" has also long been used as a shorthand for the county. The predecessor organisation was "London Regional Transport". And indeed the brand London Transport was first used in 1933. It's headed up by a Mayor of London. And - truthfully - in terms of noticeable political impact, the City of London doesn't dominate the county. In short, it's unlikely anyone thought much of it.

in contrast Transport for Greater Manchester was pretty much an expanded version of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. The City of Manchester is quite a large, dominating thing. The Combined Authority is made up of politicians from each of the county's councils. There's various intense rivalries between some of them - especially Salford. In short, whilst Transport for Manchester would be a far neater, tidier name, it is never going to happen because there's too much interest in ensuring it doesn't. I'd really argue it's far more politics than anything else.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do you want it to fail?

We've had nearly 40 years of bus deregulation, and it's failed in most places in the UK, with managed decline the mantra even when rail was experiencing massive growth. Thus if it improves on that I'm good with it.

As I said, an unbiased view of what has actually taken place over a period of years. Remember, this was not a "big bang" launch, but one that was phased over three phase periods of time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I said, an unbiased view of what has actually taken place over a period of years. Remember, this was not a "big bang" launch, but one that was phased over three phase periods of time.

Where do you believe privatisation and deregulation has been a genuine success for normal on-road* deregulated bus operation, i.e. has caused an ongoing growth of passenger numbers and avoidance of a process of managed decline, ignoring the challenges of COVID?

Once one discounts arms-length municipals, I can't think of any that didn't at some point have Alex Hornby working for them or some other demographic oddity e.g. Southern Vectis which has a large number of non-driving passholders and a load of tourists not taking cars over due to the high cost. I certainly can't think of any major city where there's been anything other than managed decline, though sometimes slower than others.

Where it's "succeeded" is in near-removing bus subsidy, but that's been at the expense of huge cuts that in some places make Serpell on the railway look minor. That's not a success.

Coaching on major routes has arguably grown, but coaching is a very different market from local bus indeed.

* I don't think the likes of the various Busways count, as they're a bit of an odd bus-rail hybrid and are semi-regulated.

 

[Goldfish62]

The fact that you state that you want the network to succeed betrays a certain leaning rather than a totally unbiased wish to see what actually transpires over a number years in a real-life operational scenario and then to judge matters on what actually has transpired.

How can you actually have no opinion whatsoever on whether you want to see it succeed? Meaning no disrespect, but I'm sure you really do have a view one way or the other.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where do you believe privatisation and deregulation has been a genuine success for normal on-road deregulated bus operation, i.e. has caused an ongoing growth of passenger numbers and avoidance of a process of managed decline, ignoring the challenges of COVID?

Once one discounts arms-length municipals, I can't think of any that didn't at some point have Alex Hornby working for them or some other demographic oddity e.g. Southern Vectis which has a large number of non-driving passholders and a load of tourists not taking cars over due to the high cost. I certainly can't think of any major city where there's been anything other than managed decline, though sometimes slower than others.

Where it's "succeeded" is in near-removing bus subsidy, but that's been at the expense of huge cuts that in some places make Serpell on the railway look minor. That's not a success.

All that I asked for was an unbiasd evaluation of the project when all three phases have been launched and time has elapsed so that the said evaluation can be viewed, nothing more, nothing less. Are you confusing my posting with the one made by @Fleetmaster ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

All that I asked for was an unbiasd evaluation of the project when all three phases have been launched and time has elapsed so that the said evaluation can be viewed, nothing more, nothing less. Are you confusing my posting with the one made by @Fleetmaster ?

Ah, I thought you were suggesting my view was biased and thus incorrect.

The project is ongoing, so maybe we can evaluate it in 40 years to give it the same length of run as deregulation, though I doubt either of us will be around to do that!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ah, I thought you were suggesting my view was biased and thus incorrect.

The project is ongoing, so maybe we can evaluate it in 40 years to give it the same length of run as deregulation, though I doubt either of us will be around to do that!

Five years, rather than forty years, should be a good time period. That will take me through to my eighty-third birthday.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Five years, rather than forty years, should be a good time period. That will take me through to my eighty-third birthday.

Given that it takes roughly 3 to 5 years for a single new subsidised route to become commercially viable (if it ever will, but it's certainly been the pattern followed as I've watched Milton Keynes grow) I think 5 years is far too short. I think you'll need to be looking 20+ years from now, or about 10 years from the full "switchover" to give the network time to develop properly.

I think with rail privatisation you couldn't really judge until the early to mid-2010s when it had all settled down and most of the planned improvements like the WCML upgrade were complete (but before the more recent meddling kicked off). And I think along similar lines it'll take another 10 years past COVID to see how things settle down in that new era.

 

[RT4038]

Where it's "succeeded" is in near-removing bus subsidy, but that's been at the expense of huge cuts that in some places make Serpell on the railway look minor. That's not a success.

That does rather depend on the evaluation criteria (depending on your point of view) - near-removing bus subsidy (and the savings accruing) could be the only, or most important, and therefore termed a success.

All that I asked for was an unbiasd evaluation of the project when all three phases have been launched and time has elapsed so that the said evaluation can be viewed, nothing more, nothing less.

I doubt an unbiased evaluation is possible, especially with nebulous social factors involved. Who is going to do that, with sufficient knowledge, and on what criteria? Those who are pro deregulation are unlikely to want to admit that they were wrong over the last 37 years and those against are going to want to show that they were right. Anyone with a neutral view probably doesn't know enough anyway!

Given that it takes roughly 3 to 5 years for a single new subsidised route to become commercially viable (if it ever will, but it's certainly been the pattern followed as I've watched Milton Keynes grow) I think 5 years is far too short. I think you'll need to be looking 20+ years from now, or about 10 years from the full "switchover" to give the network time to develop properly.

At least 10 years from full switchover, by which time other factors will have overtaken things, making meaningful evaluation difficult anyway.

Instead of slinging mud at each other, lets see how this pans out and learn from both positives and negatives. There is no one right answer.

 

[Andyh82]

I judge my expectations of the Bee Network entirely on the messaging of Burnham. He hasn't been shy about the benefits of franchising. Some of his claims have seemed quite absurd to people who know buses. He has been nakedly populist and fast and loose with his interpretation of history and other very basic concepts. He has absolutely set himself up for a fall.

I agree he has been populist in many comments, playing to the crowd, trotting out the usual lines about big bad fat cat private companies making massive profits. Often unions and the like would quote profits of say the entire worldwide Go Ahead Group rather than Go North West Limited.

It’s often suggested that anything wrong with current bus (and train) operation would be fixed by public ownership - fares will be reduced, routes increased in frequency, new routes, every bus brand new

If Labour win the next general election, Burnham, and the other Labour metro mayors, and the Mayor of London won’t have anyone to blame for anything that falls short of a perfect operation. They won’t be able to blame fat cat private companies, and also won’t be able to blame ‘the Tories’ in central government for not funding the regions properly

 

[Wolfie]

I agree he has been populist in many comments, playing to the crowd, trotting out the usual lines about big bad fat cat private companies making massive profits. Often unions and the like would quote profits of say the entire worldwide Go Ahead Group rather than Go North West Limited.

It’s often suggested that anything wrong with current bus (and train) operation would be fixed by public ownership - fares will be reduced, routes increased in frequency, new routes, every bus brand new

If Labour win the next general election, Burnham, and the other Labour metro mayors, and the Mayor of London won’t have anyone to blame for anything that falls short of a perfect operation. They won’t be able to blame fat cat private companies, and also won’t be able to blame ‘the Tories’ in central government for not funding the regions properly

Haha You really don't understand politicians well. A future Labour government would be blaming the Tories for years and years. Just like the current lot still try blaming the last Labour government from time to time ...

 

[Fleetmaster]

It will honestly be very interesting to hear what excuses Burnham has for the changes not producing the expected results. I give him two years after the last award, to show some kind of benefit to passengers.

Not every expected benefit, but something tangible. Be that more route miles, earlier/later buses, higher frequencies, or cheaper fares. It should not take two years to bed in the new management culture, integrate the network, begin the first round of optimization, and add a significant number of buses and drivers.

If he blames industrial relations, operator performance, supply chain issues, traffic or the economy, you will know you're never ever getting what was promised.

 

[Man of Kent]

The per capita usage has increased.

It peaked in London in 2008/09 and 11 years later, had declined to less than 82% of that figure.
The North West also peaked the same year, but has now declined to 74% of that figure.
All according to DfT statistics https://assets.publishing.service.g...ploads/attachment_data/file/1132738/bus01.ods