(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.
Given the amount of passengers complaining about the overcrowding on the V1/2, I can only assume bus usage would increase but there simply aren't enough buses on the busway to cope with the demand.
Then add on (in my opinion) the Park and Ride isn't easily accessible for those coming from the M61, that won't increase passenger numbers on the V1/2 (ignoring the above point, the more easilly accessible P+R sites are, the more people will be willing to use them).
A thing to highly consider though especially in Manchester. When there is a decline in bus usage, there is probably a good reason aside from the costs. Things like the Metrolink expansions, new train lines/stations things like that will more than likely reduce the numbers. I will admit though that the rising costs of bus travel, reduced frequencies, funding cuts will all all be factors, I do think it is worth remembering that other transport numbers may increase as a result of improvements in those areas.
Unsure if scheduled coach tickets are counted as part of bus usage figures but that will be interesting to know. I'm sure a lot more people are travelling via National Express and Megabus these days and of course lots of new services/new destinations.
So, when you mention about the decline in bus usage, it is possibly due to improvements elsewhere in transport as well as the obvious factors meaning decline in bus usage, may not be so bad after all.
I do think that bus franchising is a bad idea though personally. As have been mentioned, TFL are losing a lot of money just on the bus network. The whole thing though it is good as lots of new buses with more eco friendly engines etc, a lot of the smaller operators will just not be around any longer. Look at London, how much is owned by big companies? Little companies for their own reason tend to keep away from London. Possibly due to the amount of new buses needed in tenders or they simply can't compete on price, I don't know but all franchising will do is knock any little guys out and keep the 'big boys' in. It is well known in the industry that tenders of any sort, people put in stupid prices and make a lot more money than they do running services commercially. That then takes away money from the overall funding pot leaving passengers in a similar if not worse case than at current. What he would be better doing in my opinion is just subsidise lower fares. Bus priority can all be done without franchising everything. Just look at the V1/2, bus priority and not really any inconvenience to anyone. It is a shame though the busway isnt bigger and link more places. Also if it was open to all operators, that would be interesting like Cambridge and Luton with all the different companies with different services to different places.
(19/01/2018 17:56)Barney Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand your comment.
The comment is correct - and its worrying that people close to the Mayor's office thought otherwise. Having said that, we only have the MEN's word for it, so it could just be propoganda lies. The basic story doesn't make sense anyway. It says that a "tenner" is to be levied on each GM household to raise £3-4 million. Except there are 1.2 million households in GM. I assume it is talking about 2018/9 only, so there will be no "buses" to pay for! OK, the basic groundwork of pulling together evidence to advise the Mayor on Bus Reform does involve spending money, but not £15 x 1.2 million households that the MEN is implying. Whatever, is recommended - and don't forget there is a public consultation later this year - is unlikely to be delivered before at least the 2020/21 Council tax year. Consequently, there should be no question of Police/Fire/Waste Disposal type levy before then.
However, your original point holds; people in this country seem quite happy to subsidise the relatively well off in their travel choices, but there is a hoo-ha whenever there is the slightest whiff of it being spent on those who have less of a choice in the first place.
(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.
And what about those that don't use Rail (heavy or light) and who can't access leisure services and don't have kids etc. etc. They still have to pay Council Tax. Manchester might not get a proportionally improved service, but that might be because its already been recognised that its the other 9 boroughs - well, maybe not Salford - that are suffering the worst decline in services/VFM
(19/01/2018 18:24)Nicholas Wrote: [ -> ]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.
True! But its a more moderate fall and expected to be a temporary blip due to the opening of numerous rail lines in recent years and major roadworks across TfL which are mostly due to be completed soon. Just as importantly, it has identified the biggest longer term drops in patronage are on routes where speeds are declining, and they have the powers to try and find answers to that.
All the signs are that without Reform, GM's decline in patronage will further accelerate, as stability gets worse and fare rises continue to outstrip inflation by at least 3:1 - unless you live in Swinton, of course!
(19/01/2018 21:35)Brickmill Wrote: [ -> ]True! But its a more moderate fall and expected to be a temporary blip due to the opening of numerous rail lines in recent years and major roadworks across TfL which are mostly due to be completed soon. Just as importantly, it has identified the biggest longer term drops in patronage are on routes where speeds are declining, and they have the powers to try and find answers to that.
All the signs are that without Reform, GM's decline in patronage will further accelerate, as stability gets worse and fare rises continue to outstrip inflation by at least 3:1 - unless you live in Swinton, of course!
I’ve mentioned this before on here that as you say reform is needed in the bus routes of gm, but it can’t be done without proper ticket integration (and ideally re-regulation/franchising). Different modes of transport need to complement each other rather than duplicating, and there needs to be the capacity on railed transport to allow bus passengers to feed in.
Sadly April’s changes see a fundamental change to one of the few innovative routes to appear in recent years - the x5. I’m a regular user, often to connect with the train in stockport southbound. Originally the x5 just abstracted passéngers from sections of the 41/370/371, but now it carries many unique passengers Persuaded by its motorway use. Rerouting it along the A roads in gatley& Cheadle adds nearly 20 minutes to the journey off peak alone, and I suspect patronage will take a hit. A backwards step sadly.
(19/01/2018 22:33)djb Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve mentioned this before on here that as you say reform is needed in the bus routes of gm, but it can’t be done without proper ticket integration (and ideally re-regulation/franchising). Different modes of transport need to complement each other rather than duplicating, and there needs to be the capacity on railed transport to allow bus passengers to feed in.
Ticket integration seems to be progressing irrespective of the type of regulatory Reform that may or may not happen. However, that won't necessarily address the problem of fares being unaffordable and increasingly variable based on where you are travelling. Beyond that, different public transport modes do need to complement rather than compete, but that should not mean bus users being forced to change. Notwithstanding, extra capacity on Rail would be far more expensive to the tax-payer and take longer to deliver. You've recognised the capacity problem on Rail, but all modes need to improve reliability and punctuality massively to make integration practical, never mind desirable. Beyond that you have to consider the various negatives of halving to physically change vehicles with no short term possibility of proper, safe, comfortable local interchanges.