The OneBus robust reaction to the Manchester “Doing Buses Differently” consultation is unsurprising given the long running obsession that Manchester’s ruling elite has with regaining control of its buses, and their refusal to accept anything less.
The public consultation documents invite responses from all and sundry. However you will need to have time on your hands – there are some 1,039 pages of text, charts and figures to understand what they plan, and another 323 pages of transport strategy delivery plans and evidence to put it into context. Several million pounds has already been spent getting this far, and it has covered every angle – or so they think.
Unsurprisingly, it concludes that franchising is the way forward, despite offering a lower cost-benefit ratio than partnership alternatives. Aside from the £122m proposed to spend on transition, there is no intention to put any more operating subsidy into Manchester’s buses than there is today. While drawing heavily on the London model, it is intended that the Manchester service subsidy spend in 2023/24, when franchising is fully implemented, will be £19.2m per annum – about what it is today. Transport for London (TfL), meanwhile, spends £670m on its buses – and is budgeting to spend roughly the same in 2023/24.
With the proposed Manchester franchised network around 20% the size of its London sibling, one would expect proportionate subsidy levels, adjusted for the relative cost of operation. Let’s be generous, and say they’re half. In round terms, that means it would need a franchising subsidy level of around £67m per annum. This leads to one of two conclusions – either Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) is going to be 3.5 times better at planning networks, marketing and protecting revenues than TfL… or it has its numbers wrong. Common sense tells me it’s the latter.
What’s in it for the customers? If you believe the numbers, they are promised a unified bus livery, with unified fares. The fares are going to rise by RPI +1.4% each year, and by 2039/40, when TfGM hopes that all the transition expenditure will have been paid for, there will be 25% fewer passengers and a bus network 25% smaller than it is today.
Now, I’m no enemy of franchising. It’s a legitimate way to run a network and practised successfully all over Europe. Transition from deregulation – never tried before in the UK – is more challenging when today’s incumbents have running, viable businesses. Yes, it worked in Malta (after three years of chaos) and it could work here. But to stop the decline in Manchester patronage also requires some major transport policy initiatives.
Either you put in the money, which needs to be around £45m per annum in Manchester’s case (incidentally the current value of TfGM’s unfunded Phase 2 wish list), or you constrain motorists with emission control zones, red routes and congestion charges, as London has. Manchester has no plans to implement any of these measures – hoping improved bus services alone will make motorists ditch cars and flock to buses… a forlorn hope. Their own projections demonstrate that won’t happen in a sufficiently meaningful way.
So who would benefit from Manchester’s franchising plans? Certainly not the Mayor, or members of the Combined Authority. They get continual criticism for annual inflationary fare increases and service cuts. Nor will it be the council tax payers, if there are external shocks to costs.
Try as I might, I can spot only two beneficiaries. The first are the bus paint manufacturers. The second is TfGM, which plans to increase its headcount from 860 to 942.
Tim Gibson
Leeds
