<\/figure>\n\n\n\nTo achieve its objectives, TfGM has received more than \u00a31bn from the UK central government\u2019s City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement, where \u00a35.7bn in total has been awarded to eight city regions outside of London. The Manchester authority will also allocate government-issued Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) funding. While TfGM says that route specifications and fares will need to be set at a sustainable level that keeps buses attractive to customers, it confirms the need to balance commercial viability<\/strong>. Moreover, its strategy acknowledges the requirement for additional government investment.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cOne reading of Andy Burnham\u2019s (Mayor of Greater Manchester) Bee Network is that it is a direct challenge to Keir Starmer to say: this needs to be funded\u201d, says Professor Jon Shaw, University of Plymouth, who specialises in the geography of transport, travel and mobility. Andy Burnham is a Labour party member, and Keir Starmer, leader of the UK\u2019s left-centre party, the traditional adversary to the Conservative party that de-regulated the bus service, is currently in a strong position in the opinion polls to win the next UK election, taking place later this year (editor’s take: Keit Starmer finally won the election held in July 2024).\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\nThe economics of franchising\u00a0<\/h2>\n\n\n\n Jon Shaw adds: \u201cIf Manchester runs its network well, it will be expensive, but this investment should bring back revenue long term because more people will be using it\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Meanwhile, in April 2024, the Labour party has just announced that if it forms a UK government, it will effectively extend the option of franchising powers to all local authorities that want it<\/strong>. Already, areas not designated a Mayoral Combined Authority can apply for franchising powers, but they have to meet criteria relating to reliability in service delivery and financial management.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cThe economics of franchising comes down to who bears the risk\u201d, says Professor Graham Parkhurst<\/strong>, Director, Centre for Transport and Society at University of the West of England, Bristol. \u201cCurrently, the UK bus network is operated at pretty low cost<\/strong>, even though it receives a lot of subsidy, because the risk is in the private sector. If you\u2019re going to take that away, the public sector will take on the risk premium, and this is sometimes lost in the public discourse. Revenue is key, so the issue comes back to fair pricing, and franchising doesn\u2019t automatically mean that fares will be lower\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/figure>\n\n\n\nVital to establishing commercial viability is increasing patronage<\/strong>, which largely depends on service reliability.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\nPublic transport in UK: increasing patronage will be key<\/h2>\n\n\n\n Buses need to be on time, whether through prioritisation, plus improvements that reduce dwell times, or by minimising congestion. TfGM\u2019s strategy includes plans to increase bus average speeds on key routes. However, between 2011 and 2021, the number of cars available for household use in Greater Manchester grew by 13 percent. The city has stopped short of introducing schemes to disincentivise car driving, like those in London and other urban UK areas, but to increase bus ridership, authorities who believe in greater public control have difficult decisions to make. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn order to run a bus service effectively, it comes with politically difficult issues, like reallocating road space to buses<\/strong>, so there is still massive constraint within which an incoming government would be able to make franchising fully work, even if they had more sympathy to a regulated model\u201d, says Jon Shaw. While comparisons to the relative success of London\u2019s franchised system and high patronage is contrasted against the large subsidy allocated to the capital, a key factor is the city\u2019s relatively low car ownership per household.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\nCurrently, the UK bus network is operated at pretty low cost, even though it receives a lot of subsidy, because the risk is in the private sector. If you\u2019re going to take that away, the public sector will take on the risk premium, and this is sometimes lost in the public discourse. Revenue is key, so the issue comes back to fair pricing, and franchising doesn\u2019t automatically mean that fares will be lower<\/p>Professor Graham Parkhurst<\/strong>, Director, Centre for Transport and Society at University of the West of England, Bristol.<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n\u201cIs that low car ownership caused by external factors, like lack of road and parking space, or is it that a far more comprehensive public transport system makes it possible for people to manage with a lower level of car ownership in London?\u201d, asks Professor Peter White<\/strong>, expert on public transport systems, University of Westminster. \u201cMany cities like Manchester, for example, have a higher level of car ownership that\u2019s grown since the mid \u201880s. I don\u2019t think franchising on its own is going to reverse the car ownership level\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLondon\u2019s success in bus ridership is also down to the city\u2019s integrated transport, and franchising presents the opportunity to enhance the passenger experience, similar to London\u2019s more joined-up approach.\u00a0\u201cLondon has a very longstanding multi-operator ticket and this is the one area where franchising could unlock significant change if there is real willingness to fund it<\/strong>\u201d, says Graham Parkhurst.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/figure>\n\n\n\n\u201cFranchising might enable better coordination of timetables to give regular headways along a route where several operators operate\u201d, adds Peter White. \u201cThat could offer the convenience of integrated ticketing systems, and it would also reduce dwell time\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Is franchising the only way?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n Some UK areas have seen some modal shift from car to bus without requiring franchising. Oxfordshire is the best performing English \u2018county\u2019 region in terms of bus use per capita<\/strong>, with 59 journeys per head of population in the county as a whole, including rural areas, according to recent figures. The city of Oxford also has an effective and long-standing park and ride system.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cSmall, independent operators may find it\u2019s very difficult to operate under a franchised framework in terms of the financial risks they would take when bidding for service contracts, especially in rural areas\u201d, says Peter White. \u201cLarger operators may be able to take on more risk in bidding for that work, and that could squeeze out smaller operators. Long term, that could be quite harmful: they do play a very useful role in service provision\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Confederation of Passenger Transport<\/strong> (CPT) that represents the bus industry in the UK also says that outside the large cities, local leaders may find they can meet their ambitions for local transport more quickly and with less risk by continuing to work in close partnership with bus operators, rather than opting for franchising. The organisation adds that whether a region is franchised or not, the priorities are the same: making sure passengers have more buses going to more places, more quickly and reliably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\u201cWhat matters is how well an operation is run, rather than ownership as such\u201d, says Peter White. \u201cThe issue is more about factors like reliability. Authorities need to look at the outcome that\u2019s being produced. Franchising is a means to an end, rather than an end itself\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So far, the uptake for franchising remains relatively restrained, and is still very much in a period of emergence. In this respect, the situation is largely untested so far in the UK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBoth the initial deregulation in the \u201880s and franchising are, in effect, experiments in how you run a bus service\u201d, says Peter White. \u201cIt\u2019s a pity that we didn\u2019t experiment with franchising when buses were deregulated in the first place, so that we might have had some long-term conclusions from franchising in some of the large metropolitan areas outside London. Instead, we need to allow a couple more years to make any sensible judgment on the outcome\u201d. Alex Byles<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In the UK outside London, there\u2019s growing media attention on the prospect of public ownership of the bus network via franchised services. Can this hybrid model of public ownership with private operation arrest the decline in bus patronage? Margaret Thatcher, UK Prime Minister between 1979 and 1990, was once rumoured to have said something like […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":32088,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1190,1],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
UK on the way to take back public ownership on the bus networks via franchising? - Sustainable Bus<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n