(23 Oct 2018, 3:13 am)Stanleyone wrote If a surcharge were to be introduced it would most likely discourage those that get on the bus and get off 1 stop later. We also have a number of all day free passes, for instance that guy who was attacked in Gateshead, made massively public by the online collection (Alan forgot his surname) holds an all day free pass, does beg a question of why does someone need an all day pass.  Also maybe stricter rules on the companion pass, number of people i see on a regular basis with a different "carer" is astounding.

(23 Oct 2018, 7:11 am)Andreos1 wrote I agree it is a 'Brucey Bonus' in the context free travel isn't something they were expecting when they started work. Having paid in to the system, I don't see any issue in them getting something as a reward. Something to assist them. Just like the TV licence perk, war time pension allowance and heating allowance. 
Whether me, you or uncle Tom Cobley get a state pension when we hit retirement is a moot point in this discussion. This is about now and what I think will be a disaster if the surcharge you propose is introduced. 

To touch on your point about the smaller independents picking up work. 
A number of those operators were around running work prior to 86. They ran around offering services between the two pass systems and have done since.
Yes, they may operate marginal tendered lifeline services - but a number of those services were abandoned well before the current system came in to play. A number since.
Any number of factors exist in those routes success or lack of success. I think we all know that it doesn't just boil down to the ENCTS pass scheme. 

Your point about the surcharge raising funds and providing 1000 extra buses, assumes the current rate of central government funding maintains the current status quo. 
Any drop in funding or a push on other vital services in an LA area, could easily see funds diverted or consolidated elsewhere. 
As an example, some LA's have levied surcharges on green waste collections. I haven't seen an improvement in bin collection service. I've never seen the frequency increase (quite the opposite).

One quick question though. 
The surcharge you propose. Will the operator still recieve support from PTE's/LA's under the current 'no better/no worse off' guise or will that change?

(23 Oct 2018, 3:38 pm)Tamesider wrote Rather than cut and paste, I will just comment on two points raised.

1. "Unsustainable" was probably the wrong word. What I meant was if a "surcharge of £1" was introduced, it wouldn't last, and would be £1.10 within a year and so on and so forth. 

2. Most concessionaries do not get all day free travel. However, there is an argument that they should. One of the main essential journeys is to/from the GPs and (for reasons someone in Primary Care might know), tend to be given morning peak appointments (except Mondays when Children are prioritised. Certainly, I have always felt that 0930 is ridiculously late as most bus borne commuters need to be behind their desk/counter etc before 0900, which with today's traffic means setting off well before 0800. Similarly, Schools start between 0815 & 0845 so the peak demand is well passed by 0930. Indeed, in eastern GM, peak hour service enhancements nowadays finish soon after 0800, wheras even a decade ago, it would have been 0845 ish.

I would ban free concessionary on Rail travel full stop. Partly because only a minority of concessionaries (mainly those in better off areas and/or who own a car) can access Rail and partly because such journeys are less likely to be essential. Not many local supermarkets or Health services have rail stations or tram stops. To make matters worse, because (heavy) rail tickets are not checked on boarding - if at all! - Concessionary travellers usually get away with boarding 10, 15 or more minutes before 0930.

• I would propose a £1 flat fare system, regardless of distance. This would alleviate concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to alight the bus earlier than necessary. I think a £1 fare is also manageable financially; low enough to not discourage people making the journeys in the first place. A major benefit of ENCTS is its ability to combat social isolation. That said, an ENCTS pass is useless if your service has been added to the list of routes killed by bus pass. I wonder how many people would love to have the Scarborough Express X60/X61 back for their cheap day out, even if it meant having to contribute a little bit? I still maintain ENCTS was the demise of more useful services such as the X7 (Sunderland - Wingate - Middlesbrough); the maths just doesn't work out on express services.
  

• The 'new' surcharge system would run alongside the current re-imbusrment system. The amount currently contributed by LAs for ENCTS re-imbursments would not change; effectively the operator keeps the re-imbursment, the LA keeps the surcharge. The surcharges would generate extra income to slow down and hopefully reverse the dramatic decline in operated bus mileage. As the bus operator is keeping the same amount of re-imbursment as present, this complies with the 'no worse off, no better off' rule.
  

• The £1 rate would be pinned to inflation, which at current rates would mean a 10p increase every 5 years. This would be a commitment in legislation.
  

• As I propose, the surcharges would not actually be collected by the LAs as such, but deducted from ENCTS re-imbursments owed to the operator (remembering current system also still in place), effectively saving the administration of moving the money from the operator to the LA then *some* of it back again. This could mean operators could choose to compete with one-another by only charging ENCTS passengers say 70p or 80p and absorbing the shortfall themselves. They may even choose to offer a period ticket equivalent, say £6/week, ensuring loyalty on competitive corridors. 
  

• Current restrictions on journeys before 9:30am would be removed, the flat surcharge system would prevent the need for restricted travel. 
  

• The money raised by the surcharges would be ring-fenced and could only be spent on supporting local bus services. Typically this would mean subsidy of otherwise unsustainable commercial services. In effect, core, profitable commercial routes which carry hundreds of ENCTS passengers would support socially necessary services used by few. I believe as the money is being handled by a third party, the LA, this would get around the deregulation cross-subsidy rules. If councils (or PTEs) were struggling to spend this new-found money, community groups may put forward bids for new services that if successful, would be given 2-year trial periods. In an ideal world, this would be in tandem with increased use of imposing section 106 agreements on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings whereby public transport provision must be incorporated into new developments from their inception. 
  

(23 Oct 2018, 8:17 pm)James101 wrote Yes, there has always been marginal operators and marginal routes. And yes the decline has been set in since '86. Would you not agree, however, that the rot has really set in since 2010? Particularly in non-PTE areas? Since 2010 I've lived in Hartlepool, various places in Greater Manchester and now Stoke-on-Trent. As I've mentioned previously, almost half of bus infrastructure in Hartlepool has fallen into disuse from service retrenchment. In S-o-T the final sliver of bus support was recently cut when the council 'sold the family silver' by literally giving away the council-owned fleet previously used to operate a handful of supported routes. At least in Nexus/TFGM areas there is still the lesser-spotted supported bus service to be found. 

There are infinite variables in why a service succeeds or fails, but do you not concede ENCTS is a detriment to the marginal service rather than its support?   


There's a lot of hypotheticals being batted around regarding my surcharge proposal, which is fine as the whole thing is as hypothetic as things get anyway! To offer some detail of what I had in mind, though how possible it all is I do not know:

• I would propose a £1 flat fare system, regardless of distance. This would alleviate concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to alight the bus earlier than necessary. I think a £1 fare is also manageable financially; low enough to not discourage people making the journeys in the first place. A major benefit of ENCTS is its ability to combat social isolation. That said, an ENCTS pass is useless if your service has been added to the list of routes killed by bus pass. I wonder how many people would love to have the Scarborough Express X60/X61 back for their cheap day out, even if it meant having to contribute a little bit? I still maintain ENCTS was the demise of more useful services such as the X7 (Sunderland - Wingate - Middlesbrough); the maths just doesn't work out on express services.
  

• The 'new' surcharge system would run alongside the current re-imbusrment system. The amount currently contributed by LAs for ENCTS re-imbursments would not change; effectively the operator keeps the re-imbursment, the LA keeps the surcharge. The surcharges would generate extra income to slow down and hopefully reverse the dramatic decline in operated bus mileage. As the bus operator is keeping the same amount of re-imbursment as present, this complies with the 'no worse off, no better off' rule.
  

• The £1 rate would be pinned to inflation, which at current rates would mean a 10p increase every 5 years. This would be a commitment in legislation.
  

• As I propose, the surcharges would not actually be collected by the LAs as such, but deducted from ENCTS re-imbursments owed to the operator (remembering current system also still in place), effectively saving the administration of moving the money from the operator to the LA then *some* of it back again. This could mean operators could choose to compete with one-another by only charging ENCTS passengers say 70p or 80p and absorbing the shortfall themselves. They may even choose to offer a period ticket equivalent, say £6/week, ensuring loyalty on competitive corridors. 
  

• Current restrictions on journeys before 9:30am would be removed, the flat surcharge system would prevent the need for restricted travel. 
  

• The money raised by the surcharges would be ring-fenced and could only be spent on supporting local bus services. Typically this would mean subsidy of otherwise unsustainable commercial services. In effect, core, profitable commercial routes which carry hundreds of ENCTS passengers would support socially necessary services used by few. I believe as the money is being handled by a third party, the LA, this would get around the deregulation cross-subsidy rules. If councils (or PTEs) were struggling to spend this new-found money, community groups may put forward bids for new services that if successful, would be given 2-year trial periods. In an ideal world, this would be in tandem with increased use of imposing section 106 agreements on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings whereby public transport provision must be incorporated into new developments from their inception. 
  

(23 Oct 2018, 8:44 pm)Tamesider wrote You've (inadvertantly) highlighted something else about travel patterns amongst ENCTS and non-commuters in general. In such as GM, Long distance and/or Express services barely exist. I would say the vast majority of Concessionaries travel between 1 and 5 miles - certainly in the eastern half of the county where few services are longer than about 8 miles (which I'm guessing is shorter than your erstwhile Scarborough Express) and average bus speeds are in single figures, even off-peak. OTOH, I rarely see these "one-stoppers" or anything like. Equally, I'm not sure many Concessionaries travel more than three round trips a week to make a £6 ticket worthwhile. Even with the removal of actual time restrictions, many elderly people still don't like encountering boisterous schoolchildren, so the "window of oppurtunity" isn't very big once low frequencies, slow journeys and times at destinations are factored in.

(23 Oct 2018, 8:17 pm)James101 wrote Yes, there has always been marginal operators and marginal routes. And yes the decline has been set in since '86. Would you not agree, however, that the rot has really set in since 2010? Particularly in non-PTE areas? Since 2010 I've lived in Hartlepool, various places in Greater Manchester and now Stoke-on-Trent. As I've mentioned previously, almost half of bus infrastructure in Hartlepool has fallen into disuse from service retrenchment. In S-o-T the final sliver of bus support was recently cut when the council 'sold the family silver' by literally giving away the council-owned fleet previously used to operate a handful of supported routes. At least in Nexus/TFGM areas there is still the lesser-spotted supported bus service to be found. 

There are infinite variables in why a service succeeds or fails, but do you not concede ENCTS is a detriment to the marginal service rather than its support?   


There's a lot of hypotheticals being batted around regarding my surcharge proposal, which is fine as the whole thing is as hypothetic as things get anyway! To offer some detail of what I had in mind, though how possible it all is I do not know:

• I would propose a £1 flat fare system, regardless of distance. This would alleviate concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to alight the bus earlier than necessary. I think a £1 fare is also manageable financially; low enough to not discourage people making the journeys in the first place. A major benefit of ENCTS is its ability to combat social isolation. That said, an ENCTS pass is useless if your service has been added to the list of routes killed by bus pass. I wonder how many people would love to have the Scarborough Express X60/X61 back for their cheap day out, even if it meant having to contribute a little bit? I still maintain ENCTS was the demise of more useful services such as the X7 (Sunderland - Wingate - Middlesbrough); the maths just doesn't work out on express services.
  

• The 'new' surcharge system would run alongside the current re-imbusrment system. The amount currently contributed by LAs for ENCTS re-imbursments would not change; effectively the operator keeps the re-imbursment, the LA keeps the surcharge. The surcharges would generate extra income to slow down and hopefully reverse the dramatic decline in operated bus mileage. As the bus operator is keeping the same amount of re-imbursment as present, this complies with the 'no worse off, no better off' rule.
  

• The £1 rate would be pinned to inflation, which at current rates would mean a 10p increase every 5 years. This would be a commitment in legislation.
  

• As I propose, the surcharges would not actually be collected by the LAs as such, but deducted from ENCTS re-imbursments owed to the operator (remembering current system also still in place), effectively saving the administration of moving the money from the operator to the LA then *some* of it back again. This could mean operators could choose to compete with one-another by only charging ENCTS passengers say 70p or 80p and absorbing the shortfall themselves. They may even choose to offer a period ticket equivalent, say £6/week, ensuring loyalty on competitive corridors. 
  

• Current restrictions on journeys before 9:30am would be removed, the flat surcharge system would prevent the need for restricted travel. 
  

• The money raised by the surcharges would be ring-fenced and could only be spent on supporting local bus services. Typically this would mean subsidy of otherwise unsustainable commercial services. In effect, core, profitable commercial routes which carry hundreds of ENCTS passengers would support socially necessary services used by few. I believe as the money is being handled by a third party, the LA, this would get around the deregulation cross-subsidy rules. If councils (or PTEs) were struggling to spend this new-found money, community groups may put forward bids for new services that if successful, would be given 2-year trial periods. In an ideal world, this would be in tandem with increased use of imposing section 106 agreements on new housing developments of over 100 dwellings whereby public transport provision must be incorporated into new developments from their inception. 
  

(23 Oct 2018, 9:51 pm)James101 wrote I think your observation points to another ENCTS flaw. ENCTS is fine on journeys such as say the 168 (TFGM) or 309 (NEXUS) where the route is A-B-C-D and a large bus is theoretically able to fill its capacity several times over en-route as passengers make intermediate journeys, perhaps ENCTS holders are even more likely to do so as they may be more inclined to make practical journeys to their nearest supermarket/post office/medical centre. The same theory applies to the other type of urban route, the local shuttle - 38 (TFGM, Ashton) or 53/54 (NEXUS), whereby buses are on short circuits, constantly generating new fares. 

Where ENCTS falls down is on the longer distance service, say the X61 Manchester - Blackpool or even Durham - Scarborough. Both could carry very good loads, but as the nature of the service means the the driver, the bus and its diesel are all occupied for vast amounts of time without any new fares (or ENCTS pass beeps) being collected. This is fine if passengers are all paying their way (hence the expansion of megabus and Snap), but a full bus can literally run at a loss if it's full of ENCTS who are effectively invisible under the 'no better or worse off' rule.

(24 Oct 2018, 8:43 am)Andreos1 wrote A few points to note. 
I've no idea what the impact of an ENCTS pass is on a route. Successful or not. I'm not privy to that data. 
I would suggest it has a positive impact on some routes, where margins are supplemented. 
The opposite on others. 
But that has the potential to open up a whole other can of worms with regard to other financial support operators get and that was done to death (much to eezypeazy's chagrin) in the QCS thread.
So I won't touch on it again. 

Hartlepool's bus service is a mess. I believe it points towards greed, mismanagement or other factors within the operator. 
You will know about the impact it has on communities, along with other decisions by hospital bosses has hit the town hard. 
I would suggest there aren't many spare £1 coins kicking around amongst some in the Hartlepool area. 

The point you make about express services is an interesting one. 
Whether connected to increase in ENCTS passes or not, the express services that were nominally limited stop, have more stops now. 
Granted the X10 was done for operational reasons, but I would bet a few quid, that when Dalton Park was chosen for a split, fiancial factors and the prospect of picking up ENCTS passes played a part in the decision making process. 

My other point, relates to the whole idea in general. The 'no worse off' process is partly because of EU State Aid rules and how UK Governments perceive the potential of the scheme to break those rules.
There is a line or two about this within policy documents. 
Would the potential to break those rules still exist under the £1 or £6 surcharge?

(23 Oct 2018, 9:51 pm)James101 wrote I think your observation points to another ENCTS flaw. ENCTS is fine on journeys such as say the 168 (TFGM) or 309 (NEXUS) where the route is A-B-C-D and a large bus is theoretically able to fill its capacity several times over en-route as passengers make intermediate journeys, perhaps ENCTS holders are even more likely to do so as they may be more inclined to make practical journeys to their nearest supermarket/post office/medical centre. The same theory applies to the other type of urban route, the local shuttle - 38 (TFGM, Ashton) or 53/54 (NEXUS), whereby buses are on short circuits, constantly generating new fares. 

Where ENCTS falls down is on the longer distance service, say the X61 Manchester - Blackpool or even Durham - Scarborough. Both could carry very good loads, but as the nature of the service means the the driver, the bus and its diesel are all occupied for vast amounts of time without any new fares (or ENCTS pass beeps) being collected. This is fine if passengers are all paying their way (hence the expansion of megabus and Snap), but a full bus can literally run at a loss if it's full of ENCTS who are effectively invisible under the 'no better or worse off' rule.

(24 Oct 2018, 8:20 pm)Tamesider wrote Slightly confusing examples; the 168 is mainly commercially run by Stagecoach and isn't the best example of generating capacity as it is the only route run by either of Stagecoach's (City of) Manchester depots to specify largely single deck workings. 

Also, the X61 Blackpool to Manchester is long gone - although if memory serves did disappear after ENCTS was introduced in 2008. If we are going back into history, maybe a better example would have been the 400/401 "Trans Lancs" Expresses destroyed by the completion of the M60. The section norh of Ashton (400 at least) is still covered by at least 6 stopping buses an hour, but Ashton to Denton has been reduced recently, and Denton to Stockport is just a joke with just one bus an hour (was four by different routes at one point).

(24 Oct 2018, 8:43 am)Andreos1 wrote A few points to note. 
I've no idea what the impact of an ENCTS pass is on a route. Successful or not. I'm not privy to that data. 
I would suggest it has a positive impact on some routes, where margins are supplemented. 
The opposite on others. 
But that has the potential to open up a whole other can of worms with regard to other financial support operators get and that was done to death (much to eezypeazy's chagrin) in the QCS thread.
So I won't touch on it again. 

Hartlepool's bus service is a mess. I believe it points towards greed, mismanagement or other factors within the operator. 
You will know about the impact it has on communities, along with other decisions by hospital bosses has hit the town hard. 
I would suggest there aren't many spare £1 coins kicking around amongst some in the Hartlepool area. 

The point you make about express services is an interesting one. 
Whether connected to increase in ENCTS passes or not, the express services that were nominally limited stop, have more stops now. 
Granted the X10 was done for operational reasons, but I would bet a few quid, that when Dalton Park was chosen for a split, fiancial factors and the prospect of picking up ENCTS passes played a part in the decision making process. 

My other point, relates to the whole idea in general. The 'no worse off' process is partly because of EU State Aid rules and how UK Governments perceive the potential of the scheme to break those rules.
There is a line or two about this within policy documents. 
Would the potential to break those rules still exist under the £1 or £6 surcharge?

(26 Oct 2018, 9:21 am)James101 wrote Just as an aside, I the BIB points out the relative bouancy of GM's bus network if there's only 1 Stagecoach route quiet enough to warrant single deckers. 

(26 Oct 2018, 8:43 pm)Tamesider wrote I think you slightly misunderstood; I said it was the only route run by either of the two city depots (Hyde Road or Sharston) that has single-deckers specifically allocated. HE is a 100% 'decker. Yes, if only due to congestion issues (and poor service levels on weekend mornings), most services need to be 'decker operated. The one "city" exception is the 38 (Little Hulton-Piccadilly) which would easily get away with 14 seater Mercedes 516s from what I've seen (and heard). Many Stockport and Ashton services are run with single-deckers although again, this can cause problems - albeit less so than in the past as so many people in the districts have deserted buses due to the high fares, declining service levels and more unpredictable delays (compared to inner city roads).

(28 Oct 2018, 9:06 pm)James101 wrote I understood. I wasn't picking examples at random, I lived in Dukinfield for a little bit so had an insight into the area's network. I thought the 168 was a good example of an A-B-C-D route as I don't believe anybody would spend 90 minutes going from Ashton to Chorlton, particularly given this obscure link could easily be made more quickly going via the city centre. 

I had a quick look through the current timetables for the areas I used to live in in GM. Generally most routes had a first service around 07:00 at weekends, much earlier during the week. I'm open to correction, but haven't the Ashton and Stockport locals historically been operated by smaller & single deck buses? Currently E200s; previously B10Ms, Solos, Darts, Nationals and even Mercedes 709Ds all the way back to GM Buses? Regarding fares, I'd point out a Stoke-on-Trent multi operator weekly bus ticket comes in at £19.50 (covering a relatively tiny area), the equivalent in West Yorkshire is £23 and in the West Midlands £31.50(!!). A TFGM bus only system one is just £18. TFGM also provides free town centre circulars in Stockport & Bolton, as well a the revamped 'Free Bus' in the city centre - which I think has been marketed bang on the money as it happens. This is all alongside the Metrolink expansions, which though clearly have impacted corresponding bus corridors, overall wherever Metrolink had been introduced there are now more public transport seats per hour. 

My point is here, though I feel we've moved away from ENCTS, is that PTE areas are generally fairing much better than non PTE area - and I would add that GM is doing particularly fine. Yes, there have been cuts, but only the most minor when compared to similar areas in terms of car ownership and incomes. Relating this back to the Bus Services Bill, I believe this point illustrates the importance of only introducing re-regulation/QCS under the supervision of at PTE - as asking an individual Tory* council to look after your bus services is rather like asking Bernard Mathews to look look after your turkey.  

* - I use Tory as an example as they hold control in Stoke, where I currently live. I've previously lived in Hartlepool, forever controlled by Labour, who were proved even more incompetent as being among the first two councils to remove 100% of bus support way back in 2010. I think the individual leaders of the councils is more relevant than their party alliance when it comes to such matters.

(28 Oct 2018, 10:04 pm)Tamesider wrote I'm surprised at West Midlands charging so much, given that TWM is the dominant operator and I recently researched a possible trip incorporation Wolverhampton, Walsall, West Brom and into B'ham, suggesting a Day ticket would only be about £4.50. metrolink is (at least) a double-edged sword. Being pedantic I would disagree with it meaning more public transport seats per hour, as trams have awful bum perches, not seats. Also, walking time/distance to tram stops is considerably longer than to bus stops and then there is the cost to the tax-payer (Metrolink debt repayments are TFGM's biggest current expenditure). Returning to fares, the main problem is that Day/week tickets in GM are effectively a flat fare. You pay £4.50 if you travel 20, 30 or 40 miles on Stagecoach services, but you still pay £4.50 if you just need to travel 1.5 miles down the road to the Supermarket, Health Centre or minimum wage part-time job. Further, and this is the real proof of the failure of the "free" (haha) market, is that if you live in a low income, low profile suburb or "overspill" estate, you pay £4.50 for these 3 mile round trips, but if you live in a politically correct, middle income area with planned investment (public and private) you pay £3 for a round trip of up to 12 miles into the city centre - and services have been reduced in the low income areas to resource "bus wars" in the trendy areas, which also means your £4.50 may or may not include a seat (probably not in the evening peak), but the £3 in the latter case buys you half a deck to choose from.

The revamped "Free bus" is effectively a disguised cut in service, with reduced links for those arriving on the periphery of the city by bus. Don't forget rail users get free Metrolink travel anyway. The Stockport MetroShuttle is reasonably successful, but would be more of an "integrated" service if it ran in reverse ie. a quick journey up the hill for rail connections, but I think the road layout in Stockport mitigates against this. The Bolton MetroShuttle is less successful, and I think moving the bus station out of the town centre could eventually be its downfall, as the Indoor Market is on its last legs.

Ashton & Stockport locals have been single deckers for most of the time since 1986 (and before in the case of Stockport). However, before de-reg, most services in Tameside were 'deckers, and had to be at peak times! Bus use in Ashton itself has declined sharply since the depot was closed in 1991, though the real money spinners (330, 347 & 409) still stumble on. The rot in Stockport is much more recent, led by service cuts and amalgamations. Reddish Road especially has been virtually halved since 2008 (and more especially 2015).

(31 Oct 2018, 12:18 am)James101 wrote I'm not convinced Metrolink is a double edge sword in that its costs are roughly equal to its benefits. Financially first, Greater Manchester's council tax averages sit very much in the median of the national tally (Telegraph, 2018) - unless you're referring to something else, I don't see an discernible Metrolink levy imposed on GM residents. What I would assert is GM (and all PTE areas), benefit compared to non PTE areas from cross boundary infrastructure projects and standardised timetable formatting, infrastructure branding, etc. On all the expansions since 'Big Bang', the corresponding bus corridor may have taken a hit, but still maintains a service level of at least every 10 minutes. This provides mode options for those unwilling or unable to walk to the Metrolink stop, potentially further away. There is plenty of evidence (academic papers, readily available online), that passengers are willing to walk almost double the distance to a rail/tram stop over a bus stop.

What you're accurately describing around the effective flat-fare concept and captive markets is the bus market more generally, not a uniquely GM situation, the only potential difference in GM being a £4.50 day ticket will take significantly further than a First Potteries £4.50 day ticket or even a £5.50 Stagecoach Teesside day ticket. What I would pick up on is I'm really not sure of the assertion 'politically correct, middle income areas' are getting cheaper fares for longer journeys? Chorlton is about the same distance from the City as Levenshulme and Reddish about equidistant to the City as Sale. All have about the same service level and cost the same to get to on a Stagecoach bus. 

Are the cuts along Reddish road referring to the 7, 329 etc? Yes, there have been cuts here, but even these services still have a 30 minute headway and Reddish still has far reaching links around GM (I give you the 278; making what could be a 5 mile journey last 2.5 hours). What in the grand scheme of things is an inconvenience to bus passengers in GM by way of reduced headways, amalgamated routes or imposed interchange mid journey - in non PTE areas vast geographical areas are having all service provision withdrawn. 

Just as aside on Free Bus - I understand the revamp is a PVR cut of 7 vehicle but I believe it's the best possible thing that could have been offered in light of the passenger numbers falling off a cliff since 2CC. My only though on the whole thing would perhaps be where routes 1 & 2 effectively form an inner & outer loop, perhaps a single 'figure of 8' running in both directions could have provided 2 way links between main stations.

(16 Nov 2018, 4:05 pm)Andreos1 wrote Using the bus for an evening on the tiles for 4 of us. Just under £4 each.
Taxi comes to just over £3 each.

Just days after we see the patter about bus priority measures and all that jazz...

There's an extra car journey tonight because it is cheaper (and quicker) than the bus.

(16 Nov 2018, 4:24 pm)Rob44 wrote Me and the lads I drink with when 3 or more have always done this.  Sometimes a quid more but picked up at door and dropped off at pub - and in reverse can stay at the pub well after last bus has left!

(16 Nov 2018, 4:05 pm)Andreos1 wrote Using the bus for an evening on the tiles for 4 of us. Just under £4 each.
Taxi comes to just over £3 each.

Just days after we see the patter about bus priority measures and all that jazz...

There's an extra car journey tonight because it is cheaper (and quicker) than the bus.

(16 Nov 2018, 8:29 pm)Tamesider wrote And that's before uber/gett/wambamm really take on the bus industry head on. Flat fare for anything more than 3 miles round trip on Stagecoach Manchester is £4.50 (DaySaver) although they do have a £2 single offer on after 1900. Still £4 each though, and as many services don't "need" the extra patronage, it probably means you don't get a seat for your £2.

(26 Nov 2018, 8:02 pm)Venturego wrote Not sure where this should go (I posted initially on this month's GNE thread)

This was interesting Commons committee on "The Health of The Bus Industry:
Should be available to view for a few days:

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/bd81a93e-9743-421a-9cd0-6b611fb5aecd

Particularly from 17:39 and 18:33 etc...

Witnesses: Martin Dean, Managing Director, Bus Development, Go-Ahead Group plc, Bill Hiron, Chair, and Malcolm Robson, ALBUM, Alex Hornby, CEO, Trandsdev Blazefield, and Steven Salmon, Director of Policy Development, Confederation of Passenger Transport (UK)

(28 Apr 2019, 7:55 pm)Andreos1 wrote No idea which thread is most appropriate. 
This one perhaps? 

https://uk.advfn.com/stock-market/london/go-ahead-GOG/share-news/Go-Ahead-Group-PLC-Employee-Benefit-Trust-Share-Pu/79501258

An interesting move. More to come?

(28 Apr 2019, 8:32 pm)Adrian wrote I think they've ran this scheme for a number of years, haven't they? Certainly quite common in the private sector.