Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester

[Barney]

Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester
I hear that Andy Burnham is meeting with various stake-holders today to begin the process of introducing bus franchising in Greater Manchester. I would be interested to hear the views of members on this topic and wonder whether Steve Rotherham might follow suit.

[motormayhem1]

RE: Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester
I beleive merseyside wont follow suit just yet as thats why the quality partnerships are taking place so that merseytravel have more say in how the services operate but still allow companies to run commercial services.
Merseytravel want operators to enter the bus alliance so more input can be put in and control over routes.

[Brickmill]

RE: Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester

(13/12/2017 12:44)Barney Wrote:  I hear that Andy Burnham is meeting with various stake-holders today to begin the process of introducing bus franchising in Greater Manchester. I would be interested to hear the views of members on this topic and wonder whether Steve Rotherham might follow suit.

Not strictly true. The Press Release makes it clear that Andy Burnham has NOT yet decided that Franchising is the chosen way to go, rather it confirms that he is putting everything into place to make sure that all the information Mayors etc are entitled to under the Act will be made available as soon as possible. Basically, the status quo is failing and he wants/needs it changing as quickly as legally possible. Of course, the meeting took place *before* the two main Operators announced more inflation eclipsing fare rises. Not that EITHER event has been picked up by the MEN.

[mr t]

RE: Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester
I very highly doubt franchising will ever happen here, simply too expensive to maintain and operate and the mayor will baulk when he sees the costs involved. It was used a threat couple of years ago under the Alliance and if certain standards and conditions not met over the trial 4 years operators would be kicked out of the town centres and routes taken off them, and then franchising would be brought in instead if they all didnt comply.
However only 2 operators signed up, the 5 small ones didnt because of the cost involved on training, bus improvements, eco changes to engines, and data sharing and stuff that was being laid down, so they cannot be penalised still make the same money as they did anyway and still change stuff all the time in Avons case, and Arriva have continuously cut and chopped routes along with Merseytravel.

The Alliance and QBPs was "meant" to be the middle ground massive piece of co-ordination agreement settled for, between the operators, councils and Merseytravel all promising to co-ordinate routes better by removing competition, tackle congestion hotspots, improve vehicles with wifi and bigger buses and eco friendly, driver training, ticket usage, with Merseytravel only really ending up "overseeing" the parties concerned but actually without actually any official control or ability to change stuff or routes like they wanted or introduce 24/7 operation on all the QBPs for a trial last year, 2 were started and are under threat because there is no financial support from Merseytravel. However we know Stagecoach and Arriva always invest in new vehicles every year anyway regardless of the Alliance even though they all made big shouts of how much they were both investing into the supposed Alliance.

I dont think there are enough operators left in Merseyside now to compete for franchsing, HTL & Cumfy are virtuallyall Solo operators so wouldnt be able to run any big routes, plus Avons buses are older and break down with constant driver problems with all 3 about so they would end up just losing their contracts constantly, just like now with Arriva and Stagecoach running virtually everything just like now, and being able to charge extra premiums because they know it is only 1 or the other who can win, the only alternatives being Halton (better buses but based in Widnes so only a south Liverpool operator) and Hattons, which is very small and obviously only covers St Helens, and all 5 are very close to full with only 1 depot each and their managers not really bothered about doubling their size in 10 years.

The council spending on the Alliance is virtually nil, even scrapping bus lanes and plans to narrow The Strand, Victoria Street, block Lime Street outside the station and narrow the rest of it next year, plus remove most of buses from Dale Street/Castle Street/James Street, plus close Mann Island so we know where their priorities lie - completely anti bus, plus Merseytravel are removing all bus/train timetables in the St Helens area at bus/train stations and libraries from January to save money as well as cutting half its contracts this year, so we also know where their priorities lie. Not spending extra millions on contracts and extra staff to monitor they are all abided by and set out correctly.

The GM area has always been a lot more on top when it comes to pushing ideas for the future hence the now massive metrolink, trains and trams to the Airport, its own road link to motorway, the M60 project plus lots of bus priorities, 2 massive football stadiums both with tram and train stations. Plus they still have like 20 operators and a lot of competition compared to Merseyside.

Liverpool has no bus lanes no trams, no Airport links except a bus, no park & ride but we do have bike lanes and bike stations everywhere and more to come coz Joe loves bikes and thats it, plus the train network has not been changed since it was introduced in the 70s, plus the M62 that is half finished at the Rocket in the 70s, and M58 again unfinished. We only got Edge Lane to full dual carriageway 8 years ago, 40 years after M62 scheme was scrapped, and the Thornton bypass, also about another 40 years late. The railway bridges were meant to be widened to remove congestion on Wavertree Road, Walton Lane, Hornby Road and Townsend wre also planned from the 60s. Merseytram would have been 10 years old by now, with 3 different lines including the Airport and a park & ride scheme.

All because the NIMBY brigade and the councils being unable to convince themselves (so much infighting in 70s/80s/90s) and residents about planning for the future was essential for the growth of the region, and which had always been done since WW1 as the city grew and grew outwards, and the slums and terraces and derelict buildings in the inner areas were constantly cleared and people moved outwards. Theoretically there would be no terraced housing left on the inside of Queens Drive and everyone in nice family houses if that process had been completed (like everything else here during 70s/80s - all new roads around Belle Vale, Gateacre, Woolton and Hunts Cross were planned), plus the inner ring motorway network ,which was planned for years after WW2 to link the planned end of M62, M58, Walton Hall Avenue, the new tunnel and the Strand, Parliament Street, Chinatown back to Norton Street, then dropped at the final hurdle with only Leeds Street Hunter Street and Islington ever being implemented but obviously only as normal roads.
Think what congestion would be like now if this was all implemented.

Do we trust Joe or Steve to actually go ahead and properly implement franchising?

[Brickmill]

RE: Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester

(13/12/2017 21:39)mr t Wrote:  The GM area has always been a lot more on top when it comes to pushing ideas for the future hence the now massive metrolink, trains and trams to the Airport, its own road link to motorway, the M60 project plus lots of bus priorities, 2 massive football stadiums both with tram and train stations. Plus they still have like 20 operators and a lot of competition compared to Merseyside.

A touch of "the grass is greener" methinks. As far as bus users/non motorists are concerned, Metrolink and the completion of the M60 have been absolute disasters - alongside the change in School hours and De-reg itself.

FTR, the Etihad does not have a train station - the nearest being Ashburys about a mile away - but both stadia are served by match day buses on top of "service" buses, from the city centre.
Whilst there remains a fair amount of competition in the Tendered market, there is only little competition in terms of commercial services - not that that is necessarily a bad thing, as its proved utterly disasterous for most over the last 31 years!

Also, there are few meaningful bus priorities in GM, and where they do exist they have often caused more harm than good. Bus Lanes are too short and bitty, too often they have narrowed the road from 2 lanes to one (where in some cases they could have been 4 to 3 or at least 3 to 2) and their restricted hours of use means they are grossly outdated. Probably worst of all is that if you are on a bus, you are FAR more likely to be the first vehicle stopped at a red light, than if you were driving a car or van.

[rod_259]

RE: Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester
Noticed an article in the MEN about the cost of Andy Burham’s office which would be £10 per household per year. However, they were going to raise money for franchising which would cost £15 per household per year. Not good if you don’t, and likely won’t use buses! That doesn’t cover any subsidies. Not surprised as nothing comes free and doubtful if Manchester will get a proportionately, if any, improvement in services.

[Barney]

RE: Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester

(18/01/2018 18:41)rod_259 Wrote:  Noticed an article in the MEN about the cost of Andy Burham’s office which would be £10 per household per year. However, they were going to raise money for franchising which would cost £15 per household per year. Not good if you don’t, and likely won’t use buses! That doesn’t cover any subsidies. Not surprised as nothing comes free and doubtful if Manchester will get a proportionately, if any, improvement in services.

£15 per year works out at about 4p per day. If, as is planned, fares are reduced, bus services are enhanced and bus priority schemes are introduced to reverse the decline in bus usage (which has occurred everywhere outside of London since deregulation in 1986) I think it may well be worth it in an attempt to get more people out of their cars, especially at peak times. And I speak as someone who has recently bought a brand new 67 plate car.

[NorthernCounties]

RE: Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester

(19/01/2018 11:55)Barney Wrote:  £15 per year works out at about 4p per day. If, as is planned, fares are reduced, bus services are enhanced and bus priority schemes are introduced to reverse the decline in bus usage (which has occurred everywhere outside of London since deregulation in 1986) I think it may well be worth it in an attempt to get more people out of their cars, especially at peak times. And I speak as someone who has recently bought a brand new 67 plate car.

I believe as the law stands non of that money can be used on buses

[Barney]

RE: Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester

(19/01/2018 14:40)NorthernCounties Wrote:  I believe as the law stands non of that money can be used on buses

I don't understand your comment.

[Nicholas]

RE: Bus Franchising in Greater Manchester

(19/01/2018 11:55)Barney Wrote:  £15 per year works out at about 4p per day. If, as is planned, fares are reduced, bus services are enhanced and bus priority schemes are introduced to reverse the decline in bus usage (which has occurred everywhere outside of London since deregulation in 1986) I think it may well be worth it in an attempt to get more people out of their cars, especially at peak times. And I speak as someone who has recently bought a brand new 67 plate car.

However bus usage in London IS falling, and the network is being cut. Also, TfL has to shore up the bus network to the tune of £1.8 million per day.