(12/02/2019 22:31)Quackdave Wrote:  I would suggest that even if the majority don't use the services directly, the majority do use the roads of Greater Manchester; and are therefore using the services of public transport indirectly, i.e. keeping those roads from grinding to a halt through an excess of cars.

In any case, assuming that the services of a hypothetical publicly-owned bus operator were priced to break even (once the initial cost of re-acquisition had been paid off), there would be absolutely no reason for this to be "not acceptable" to the majority, since it would be costing them nothing.

(12/02/2019 23:24)gilesbus1 Wrote:  Depends though if it can always make profit which no company can guarantee forever, they can't even guarantee it next year.

(12/02/2019 23:24)gilesbus1 Wrote:  I want to be able to identify the bus without needing to look at a blind at the front and know that is my bus, I want the staff to be the same and I also want the interior to be clean and tidy, I don't think that is a big ask.

(12/02/2019 23:24)gilesbus1 Wrote:  Depends though if it can always make profit which no company can guarantee forever, they can't even guarantee it next year. No one can things are driven quite often by various market forces. Bus operators at the moment have a number of external challenges, both locally and on a national level.

They range from the growth of Internet Shopping and the collapse of various retailers on the high street, to the growth of the private car, I understand some considerable number of extra cars went onto Greater Manchester's roads over the last 3-4 years or so. I don't want to quote a figure for how many as I cannot remember what the figure was but it was extremely high. Then you've got the growth of Metrolink, the collapse of many pubs. All of it makes it really hard to find any growth opportunities, then income has been lost since the introduction of the pensioners free fares, and while there may be some income coming in it doesn't cover operating costs, then there is the difficulty of hiring staff as people either don't want to work in the industry or can't, e.g the Anti-social hours involved, the low pay rates, and lack of decent pension levels, and then those who can't drive because of mild disability or ill health that would love to drive but are prevented from doing so.

> The timing is also too obvious to draw an inevitable conclusion, but it would be interesting to know;
a. How has GM's car ownership increase compared to other large conurbations?
b. Even more pertinently; is it particular parts of GM that has seen this increase?

As you say, the longer-term causes are many and varied, but I'm not sure the on going collapse of pubs can be a major factor in a sudden surge in car ownership/reduction in bus use, so long after the change in licencing hours, and the Free Concessionary Fares has much less of an impact here than elsewhere, for the stark reason that the Retirement to "End of Active Life" period is so short and there is every reason it will get shorter still!



Greater Manchester Transport didn't have these challenges to this degree and still made large losses in most years of its existence. The same apply s to some of the municipal predecessors also.

> Depends on how you define "large" losses, bearing in mind that per head, GMT's subsidy was second *lowest* of any PTE area overall, and again there was a wide differentiation between the areas contributing a surplus and those surviving on cross-subsidy

The only hope of guaranteeing profit is either some kind of congestion charging or to take Edinburgh's lead and remove most of the car parks and then bus use would have to grow, except Manchester won't do so because most local Councils have an interest in the profits made from the car parks and also the car owners are also voters and they don't want a caning at the next Local Election.

> Sadly true and Andy Burnham has gone on record to categorically rule out Congestion Charging, anyway. Using your own (accurate) logic, if he were to do a U-turn, not only would our version of "gilets jeunes" storm his offices and hang him high, they would destroy the concept of Elected Mayor forever. It goes back t a question I have been asking myself more and more recently (based on the difference between what Elected officials ACTUALLY say and what the Media report). Also, how representative are the deeply prejudiced and powerful Media and Lobby movement on this so-called Democracy? Is your average Motorist really happy to spend £1500 on getting the rich and powerful to Heathrow and Hatton Garden an hour quicker in 14+++ years time, but can't bear to pay £15 (or a penny, even) so that his/her less fortunate relation, friend or neighbour can improve their job prospects, access to medical services, healthier food etc. etc? And, are they really so short-sighted that they don't consider the effects (financial and quality of life) of reduced congestion (and I venture to suggest, reduced Crime)? After all INRIX have just told us how many billions Congestion is costing motorists. Apparently, it doesn't cost existing bus passengers in the same gridlock a single penny, so there's proof that sticking to the bus saves you money..................(tongue not quite as firmly embedded in cheek, as you might think)


All that is needed to say buses are owned by Manchester Buses or whatever it might be called would be a logo or a name on the front, nothing else needs to be Corporate. I want to be able to identify the bus without needing to look at a blind at the front and know that is my bus, I want the staff to be the same and I also want the interior to be clean and tidy, I don't think that is a big ask.

> Any franchised Operation certainly won't be called *Manchester* buses. One of the arguments in favour of Bus Reform is the "double-speak" of the Operators who rabbit on about Regional centre congestion and then cut services everywhere *except* Manchester and Salford.



Also no I don't want to see Brian Souter cry as John Luke does, I see him as someone who has just simply been a successful business man and unfortunately that means making commercial decisions in order to maintain profit, and any companies that don't go out of business and deserve to go out of business. Also Brian Souter would never lose out as he would get money for the company in any case or the garages and the vehicles if he can't recoup money that way, so which ever way he won't lose and wether he operates buses in Manchester or not he will still be the largest operator in the Country bringing in the biggest profits so unless you want to pay him and several other business leaders several Billion to nationalise all the buses in the entire Country that won't change or worry him.

(13/02/2019 22:21)Brickmill Wrote:  A bit of hyperbole creeping in now, both in terms of "billions" and the need to nationalise. It is long held view (even amongst former Conservative Cabinet ministers) that alongside maybe South Yorkshire, Deregulation has failed in Greater Manchester more than any other low car ownership conurbation in the country). The point about South Yorkshire (and I believe this is largely due to Stagecoach themselves), is that whilst South Yorkshire have started to finally see improvements in the last five years or so, the deterioration in GM has accelerated.
And nowhere is this more obvious to those outside the bus than in branding. Which bit of "76" tells you this bus is going down Wilmslow Road and then diving off towards Flixton? Which bit of "MagicBus" tells you this bus will take you through Reddish to Stockport, or down Wilmslow Road to Withington Village? These are not isolated examples in the peak. These are typical of regular, off-peak examples. As for the idea of introducing a "direct" bus from part of Hyde Road corridor to the Trafford Centre and then having X50 branded MMCs outnumbering the few examples actually bought for 201/203 (under Head Office's own Investment rules!) is just utterly bizarre.
I also suggest your underlying inference of wasting public money contrasts with not only the concept of branding (even when the Operator is capable of using it, which post-2014 Stagecoach Manchester demonstrably aren't) is at odds with your suggestion of having the staff the same. You cannot have the same drivers on the same route all the time. Apart from route interworking (itself a GMT efficiency innovation)*, do passengers on a route requiring say, 50 different drivers (based on PVR of mid teens) really value seeing the same face every time they travel. I don't. I just want a driver who observes the rules of the road (which automatically puts them above every other "professional driver" in GM), can adhere to a timetable and is polite to the passenger. And, despite all the deterioration around them the vast majority of drivers I encounter pass on all three counts. I do agree as regards clean and tidy interiors, but with my "compromised" spine, I would be more concerned (as would my doctors) about lack of seat cushions.

(13/02/2019 09:42)Quackdave Wrote:  True, but if services really can't pay their way, then they'll be cut back, regardless of whether private or public, until such as is left does pay its way (or is deemed socially necessary, in which case the taxpayer would be subsidising it anyway). My point was that only the public sector would be willing to break even - and therefore might be able to cut back slightly less.


Each to their own - personally I loathe route- or corridor-specific liveries or branding, they just seem to me to cry out inefficiency, and a lost opportunity to present a smart, uniform image. Call me traditional, but I don't think it's a big ask to look at a bus's destination display to find out where it's going!

There may well be a correlation between networks that are performing well and those that have branding, but correlation does not equal causation - I remain sceptical that the livery of a bus is ever going to be the make-or-break factor as to whether anyone chooses to travel on it. Branding is generally part of a much wider package of quality and publicity, and probably the element that provides the least additional value for the highest cost. There are counter-examples too - Blackpool being the one that springs to mind, they tried corridor colours and it didn't work for them, they reverted to a smart corporate livery and seem to be doing OK. And I notice that you conveniently omit to mention London, with one of the plainest and most uniform liveries in the country (and a merciful lack of route branding), in your list of areas where usage is stable or growing.

(13/02/2019 22:56)gilesbus1 Wrote:  Thats because bus usage is actually falling in London if you view the latest figures, it was growing but is now falling back, hence why there is now a major revision of services with major cuts.

(13/02/2019 23:09)gilesbus1 Wrote:  I disagree Route Branding brings growth. Look again were services are growing, and yes route descriptions are placed on vehicles, not a map, but a route description, no it snot for bus passengers its to attract people who know nothing about bus services who are in there cars who are potential growth market that if you don't you are missing, leaflets also are poor in the TfGM area little black and white fleets you need to go to an office for that don't sell the service printed by TfGm while places outside PTE areas, and thats not just Manchester, try Liverpool and West Yorkshire as well have colour ones, and thats if they can be bothered to print upto date information in the first place when was a bus map last published in Greater Manchester?. Noted First have had to print them in some area's because TfGM can't be bothered, Yet they seem very capable of publishing a totally useless cycling map on a yearly basis and placing it in bus stations were its useless information. Merseytravel cant even be bothered to print anything for St Helens so PTE's have fat chance of attracting anyone to public transport. If they were really serious local bus information it would be posted through every house letterbox for the relevant buses and it would look professional not like its been printed cheaply or not persons forced to go to the internet to get it. The problem is with buses is no information is widely available and thats down to the PTE and peaople like Andy Burnham and Steve Rotherham who frankly don't care about bus usage, especially as they use cars.

Route branding can be done well, think of the advantages to branding the 582 in Traditional Lancashire United Livery with branding along the roof lines above the window and branding on the rear to most windows to say every 7 minutes.

(13/02/2019 22:56)gilesbus1 Wrote:  Thats because bus usage is actually falling in London if you view the latest figures, it was growing but is now falling back, hence why there is now a major revision of services with major cuts.