TfGM Bus franchising

[507021]

there are some seats in the North West where Labour could put forward a zoo monkey with no policies and still win because people are just 'anti conservative' and the other parties don't normally put up much opposition.

Just briefly, as I don't want to derail the topic or start another political debate, but there are very valid reasons behind the general anti-Tory sentiment in Liverpool. I don't doubt that what you've said is the case in a lot of areas across the country where both main parties are concerned, but there's a a lot more to it in Liverpool's case. For the record, I generally vote Labour for my own reasons, but I have voted against them a number of times when I feel another party's candidate is more deserving of my vote.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Just briefly, as I don't want to derail the topic or start another political debate, but there are very valid reasons behind the general anti-Tory sentiment in Liverpool. I don't doubt that what you've said is the case in a lot of areas across the country where both main parties are concerned, but there's a a lot more to it in Liverpool's case. For the record, I generally vote Labour for my own reasons, but I have voted against them a number of times when I feel another party's candidate is more deserving of my vote.

Indeed, we all know the areas where traditionally, you could put a rosette of the appropriate colour onto a farmyard animal and it would win. That's why all this rubbish about it being a potential referendum by default on the merits of franchising Manchester's buses is just that. People vote for a myriad of reasons; single issue dominating like Brexit are few and far between and a response of 12,500 souls is perhaps indicative of how important an issue it is for most people.... it isn't. That's a response rate of just over half of 1%

Now, I asked this question before.... There's been a lot of stuff about fares and integration.... What is the actual measure of success that was specified for these proposals?

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

The public didn't have a say on bus deregulation back in the 1980s either - the break-up of the NBC, the running of municipal operators off the road and the flogging-off of public assets such as bus stations and depots at rock-bottom prices. It wasn't even included in the 1983 Conservative Manifesto - I've checked - at least Andy Burnham has franchising in his programme. He'll win handsomely this time round again, even in Tory Trafford (the votes are tallied by borough).

 

[Goldfish62]

Most users of the 192 are not wanting to go to Piccadilly Rail station. Or from Stockport station. Both are several minutes walk from any housing or most central locations that people are going to. I've travelled between the two many times and my choice of transport has varied depending on my exact start and end points (and travel time - not many trains running after midnight).

I completely agree.

 

[carlberry]

The public didn't have a say on bus deregulation back in the 1980s either - the break-up of the NBC, the running of municipal operators off the road and the flogging-off of public assets such as bus stations and depots at rock-bottom prices. It wasn't even included in the 1983 Conservative Manifesto - I've checked - at least Andy Burnham has franchising in his programme. He'll win handsomely this time round again, even in Tory Trafford (the votes are tallied by borough).

Deregulation predated the 1983 election. The 1979 manifesto is the one you'd need to look at which also signalled that they'd flog off any state assets they could get their hands on.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Deregulation predated the 1983 election. The 1979 manifesto is the one you'd need to look at which also signalled that they'd flog off any state assets they could get their hands on.

Correct - when was the Hereford trial area? 1981? Again, given the position the country was in during 1978/9, I don't think it was a referendum on bus deregulation!

 

[185]

Bebbington
West Kirkby

Where are these places?? Certainly not a Wirralite

Anyway, would suggest that those buses referred to as 'competing' with Merseyrail on Wirral are mostly used for short hops, very few people are on the bus all the way from end to end. Exceptions (on Wirral) travelling to Bhead/Liverpool being:-
437 from Upton & Greasby; 432 Liscard & Poulton (not New Brighton); 472 Heswall & Pensby / Irby; 464 Higher Bebington & Tranmere; 1 & X1 Cheshire Oaks
- all notably being areas not (or badly) served by trains, where the buses pick up the slack.

In Manchester, the 192, my local route rarely sees anyone travel end to end.... except for passengers going to Stepping Hill hospital - a door to door service which has a better service that the awful rail service to Woodsmoor - miles from the hospital, sporadic service, recently starting two hours later & finishing three hours earlier than normal "coz of covid". Trundling slowly up the A6 sitting in traffic and often a ten minute wait for a driver swap at the Apollo - the train does it in seven minutes.

 

[317 forever]

Why do you put so much emphasis on printed media? There is endless coverage on the internet and campaigning is increasingly done on social media these days. The Tory candidate has Tweeted a lot about her preference for a partnership. There is also local radio. People have more ways than ever to be informed. If they choose to be apathetic, then that is also their right.

Where was the referendum to introduce bus deregulation? That was imposed on the country by the national government. It could have avoided by the country voting Labour in 1983.

Could it? Did the Conservatives really have bus deregulation in their manifesto? I thought it was just a Nicholas Ridiculous Ridley concoction.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Where was the referendum to introduce bus deregulation? That was imposed on the country by the national government. It could have avoided by the country voting Labour in 1983.

Ah yes - the 1983 Labour manifesto and election. Dubbed by Gerald Kaufman as the longest suicide note in history. Not many people voted Labour in 1983 - 144 seat majority.

Could it? Did the Conservatives really have bus deregulation in their manifesto? I thought it was just a Nicholas Ridiculous Ridley concoction.

Yes. It said "We have already taken important steps to improve the standards of public transport. We have lifted restrictions on long-distance coach services. As a result, about one hundred new express coach services have been started, fares have been substantially reduced and comfort improved. We shall further relax bus licensing to permit a wider variety of services. We shall encourage the creation of smaller units in place of the monolithic public transport organisations which we have inherited from the Socialist past, and encourage more flexible forms of public transport. City buses and underground railways will still need reasonable levels of subsidy. But greater efficiency and more private enterprise will help keep costs down."

1983 Conservative Party Manifesto - CONSERVATIVEMANIFESTO.COM

The full text of all Conservative Party manifestos from 1900 to the present.

www.conservativemanifesto.com

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah yes - the 1983 Labour manifesto and election. Dubbed by Gerald Kaufman as the longest suicide note in history. Not many people voted Labour in 1983 - 144 seat majority.


Yes. It said "We have already taken important steps to improve the standards of public transport. We have lifted restrictions on long-distance coach services. As a result, about one hundred new express coach services have been started, fares have been substantially reduced and comfort improved. We shall further relax bus licensing to permit a wider variety of services. We shall encourage the creation of smaller units in place of the monolithic public transport organisations which we have inherited from the Socialist past, and encourage more flexible forms of public transport. City buses and underground railways will still need reasonable levels of subsidy. But greater efficiency and more private enterprise will help keep costs down."

1983 Conservative Party Manifesto - CONSERVATIVEMANIFESTO.COM

The full text of all Conservative Party manifestos from 1900 to the present.

www.conservativemanifesto.com

Oh, the irony that buses are mainly operated by a small number of very large companies rather than local Councils!

I do get the feeling that they reckoned on a "Malta bus" owner-operator style outcome for deregulation, i.e. Bob buys a bus and runs it himself. The trouble there is that the regulatory requirements e.g. 56 day rule meant that was effectively impossible, and the system created was only ever going to work for large companies.

 

[Goldfish62]

Oh, the irony that buses are mainly operated by a small number of very large companies rather than local Councils!

I do get the feeling that they reckoned on a "Malta bus" owner-operator style outcome for deregulation, i.e. Bob buys a bus and runs it himself. The trouble there is that the regulatory requirements e.g. 56 day rule meant that was effectively impossible, and the system created was only ever going to work for large companies.

That was actually what Nicholas Ridley envisaged - that each driver owned their own bus and ran their own service. Total nonsense and an appalling way to provide a public transport network.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That was actually what Nicholas Ridley envisaged - that each driver owned their own bus and ran their own service. Total nonsense and an appalling way to provide a public transport network.

Indeed - that much was madness.

However, let's not kid ourselves that pre-deregulation was the land of milk and honey. Greater Manchester Transport was grossly inefficient - for instance, in 1986, they were able to close SIX garages, and three of those were in early 1986 in readiness for dereg. Depots at Leigh and Hindley were maintained whilst they had the huge former LUT Atherton site.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed - that much was madness.

However, let's not kid ourselves that pre-deregulation was the land of milk and honey. Greater Manchester Transport was grossly inefficient - for instance, in 1986, they were able to close SIX garages, and three of those were in early 1986 in readiness for dereg. Depots at Leigh and Hindley were maintained whilst they had the huge former LUT Atherton site.

That is one of the problems with actual nationalised operation (and is why it's often cheaper to outsource e.g. bin emptying). But doesn't London-style operation avoid that by promoting private sector style efficiency in the businesses actually operating it?

 

[johncrossley]

What stopped the Tories going for the private monopoly option, which is basically like today's 'enhanced partnership', which many people here seem to prefer? They seemed happy with that for other utilities. They could have just privatised London buses without imposing tendering.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

That is one of the problems with actual nationalised operation (and is why it's often cheaper to outsource e.g. bin emptying). But doesn't London-style operation avoid that by promoting private sector style efficiency in the businesses actually operating it?

You do get private sector efficiency in terms of operation but it's not a panacea. Not least that it relies on having whether the service that you are procuring is correct.

NB4L was built under a competitive tender for TfL but was it the right thing to be buying?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What stopped the Tories going for the private monopoly option, which is basically like today's 'enhanced partnership', which many people here seem to prefer? They seemed happy with that for other utilities. They could have just privatised London buses without imposing tendering.

Well, some have argued for the "BR plc" model of railways, but I'm not sure how well that would have worked for buses.

To me the biggest flaw in partnerships is that they don't include rail. In urban areas, integration is key.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

They seemed happy with that for other utilities.

They deregulated the electricity industry in a similar fashion though.

The tories used various methods to privatise and to deregulate various industries.

Well, some have argued for the "BR plc" model of railways, but I'm not sure how well that would have worked for buses.

To me the biggest flaw in partnerships is that they don't include rail. In urban areas, integration is key.

It's an important factor but it's not the most important nor a goal in itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's an important factor but it's not the most important nor a goal in itself.

I suspect I'd rank it higher than you would. Highest priority is perhaps a bit strong, but if you were developing a public transport system for a city from scratch integration would be the whole basis of it.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I suspect I'd rank it higher than you would. Highest priority is perhaps a bit strong, but if you were developing a public transport system for a city from scratch integration would be the whole basis of it.

Integration is an enabler, not a goal in itself, which is one of the glaring issues of the Manchester proposals.

It should be promoted but not in a slavish, ideologically pure, sense.

Note that research has shown that price is not the major consideration that people think. The main issues were convenience (i.e. were travel options available when they wanted), time and distance. Distance is especially interesting as it shows that too close and people will walk/cycle. People will use public transport based on distance but a real disincentive is speed (or lack of).

The Manchester proposals don't tackle the inherent problems of congestion affecting the speed and reliability of bus services. They don't have any targets, that I can see, that are measurable improvements i.e. how will the success of the scheme be measured? Surely in terms of improved patronage and modal shift, but I can't see that being stated though if I've missed it, please shout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It should be promoted but not in a slavish, ideologically pure, sense.

Clearly the "Gateshead example" needs avoiding, but that's just an extreme one and there aren't that many of them. Once you get away from silly examples, bus providing short shuttle journeys to the nearest rapid transit rail station on a complementing rather than competing timetable is very much the way to design such a system from scratch (and thus the best way to progress existing systems).

Furthermore there are clear benefits to making centres of cities places for pedestrians and bicycles - not roads, buses and large bus stations, like terminally-ugly Piccadilly Gardens.

To use a non-Manchester example, Oxford Street is oppressive and unpleasant with all that traffic.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Clearly the "Gateshead example" needs avoiding, but that's just an extreme one and there aren't that many of them. Once you get away from silly examples, bus providing short shuttle journeys to the nearest rapid transit rail station on a complementing rather than competing timetable is very much the way to design such a system from scratch (and thus the best way to progress existing systems).

Furthermore there are clear benefits to making centres of cities places for pedestrians and bicycles - not roads, buses and large bus stations, like terminally-ugly Piccadilly Gardens.

To use a non-Manchester example, Oxford Street is oppressive and unpleasant with all that traffic.

It's not just the Gateshead example.

If you're talking about a network of feeder buses in Altrincham, allowing easy progression on the Metrolink.... you can do that. They can do it now. And yes, that makes sense.

However, as I've mentioned before, you have routes like the 33 along Eccles New Road. It runs parallel to Metrolink and yet is operated on a commercial basis. Why? Is it that it actually provides a function that Metrolink doesn't? I mean, how on earth do the 135 and other routes running from Bury to Manchester sustain themselves unless there's some other usage that the seemingly parallel Metrolink doesn't. However, that's apparently where "duplication" exists.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're talking about a network of feeder buses in Altrincham, allowing easy progression on the Metrolink.... you can do that. They can do it now. And yes, that makes sense.

It's difficult to do it in a financially viable way at present because the bus has to "wash its face" financially on its own for a bus company to be willing to do it, and if it's tendered they can't grab income from the railway/trams. In an integrated model you instead consider "does adding these buses cause an overall increase in income or social inclusion", because having a convenient, ideally electric bus service timed to connect with the tram will cause the sale of more tram* tickets (say).

* Mode-agnostic through tickets from Altrincham to Manchester, ideally.

However, as I've mentioned before, you have routes like the 33 along Eccles New Road. It runs parallel to Metrolink and yet is operated on a commercial basis. Why? Is it that it actually provides a function that Metrolink doesn't? I mean, how on earth do the 135 and other routes running from Bury to Manchester sustain themselves unless there's some other usage that the seemingly parallel Metrolink doesn't. However, that's apparently where "duplication" exists.

I don't know the 33. The 135 works because the main road runs mostly (other than around Whitefield) about 2km (or more) away from the tram line, so they are not really competing even though they have the same two ends. This is a bit like the fact that a Stockport-Manchester 42 doesn't compete with the railway because Wilmslow Road is nowhere near one.

Having said that I reckon at least some people would connect to tram at Besses or Whitefield to avoid the long slog through Cheetham Hill if the fares were integrated.

Edit: looked at a map, and the 33 is similar through Salford itself - the tram is too far away to serve places near the M62, and it's so close into Manchester that a connection wouldn't make sense (see Gateshead).

 

[lincman]

It's not just the Gateshead example.

If you're talking about a network of feeder buses in Altrincham, allowing easy progression on the Metrolink.... you can do that. They can do it now. And yes, that makes sense.

However, as I've mentioned before, you have routes like the 33 along Eccles New Road. It runs parallel to Metrolink and yet is operated on a commercial basis. Why? Is it that it actually provides a function that Metrolink doesn't? I mean, how on earth do the 135 and other routes running from Bury to Manchester sustain themselves unless there's some other usage that the seemingly parallel Metrolink doesn't. However, that's apparently where "duplication" exists.

The thing to remember is that the service Metrolink provides is totally different to bus services, by enlarge Metrolink is purely a lower cost replacement for local heavy rail services with some tweaking. I believe it is quite good at what it does but will never be a replacement for the bus.

 

[RT4038]

That was actually what Nicholas Ridley envisaged - that each driver owned their own bus and ran their own service. Total nonsense and an appalling way to provide a public transport network.

To our ordered minds it may be appalling, but it is the way of providing public transport in some countries, and a means of giving drivers a stake in the capitalist economy, rather than the adversarial management vs. employees system that had prevailed in this country previously.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To our ordered minds it may be appalling, but it is the way of providing public transport in some countries, and a means of giving drivers a stake in the capitalist economy, rather than the adversarial management vs. employees system that had prevailed in this country previously.

And it is of course how basically the entire taxi and private hire industry works.

 

[RT4038]

And it is of course how basically the entire taxi and private hire industry works.

Quite!

 

[johncrossley]

Well, some have argued for the "BR plc" model of railways, but I'm not sure how well that would have worked for buses.

To me the biggest flaw in partnerships is that they don't include rail. In urban areas, integration is key.

I suppose in theory the local authority could specify the routes, fares and tickets in a partnership, so buses could be made to run to the station etc. This would be little different to franchising. Franchising means you have the extra cost of administering the tenders, but presumably you would save money in the long run due to driving down costs by getting cheaper companies. That's why I don't see how a partnership can be cheaper all things being equal.

It's not just the Gateshead example.

Can you give examples from outside the UK where 'ideological' integration occurs where, in terms of overall patronage and/or value for taxpayers' money, 'British style' operation would be preferable?

 

[Llandudno]

Clearly the "Gateshead example" needs avoiding, but that's just an extreme one and there aren't that many of them. Once you get away from silly examples, bus providing short shuttle journeys to the nearest rapid transit rail station on a complementing rather than competing timetable is very much the way to design such a system from scratch (and thus the best way to progress existing systems).

Furthermore there are clear benefits to making centres of cities places for pedestrians and bicycles - not roads, buses and large bus stations, like terminally-ugly Piccadilly Gardens.

To use a non-Manchester example, Oxford Street is oppressive and unpleasant with all that traffic.

You could also use a Manchester example, Oxford ROAD, equally oppressive and unpleasant with all that traffic, plus the bizarre on street car parking facility on Oxford Street.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could also use a Manchester example, Oxford ROAD, equally oppressive and unpleasant with all that traffic, plus the bizarre on street car parking facility on Oxford Street.

Yes, true. It's amazing how much nicer and European-feeling it could be if it was tram and cycle only. Even electric buses can't match that ambiance.

 

[Goldfish62]

To our ordered minds it may be appalling, but it is the way of providing public transport in some countries, and a means of giving drivers a stake in the capitalist economy, rather than the adversarial management vs. employees system that had prevailed in this country previously.

It's certainly a system seen in some developing countries, but the UK is not a developing country! If the framework for operating public transport is primarily built around benefit to the owner/driver rather than the user then that really is appalling.