How the pandemic has exposed the flaws in Manchester’s bus network.
Dubbed ‘the workhorse of transportation’, millions of people around the world rely on a bus to reach their destinations safely and on time. Yet, like many cities, Manchester’s buses have become infrequent, unreliable and overcrowded.
Albert Charles, a pensioner living in Altringham, has been waiting at a bus stop near Piccadilly Gardens for 35 minutes. He doesn’t own a smartphone so isn’t able to check when his bus is due, but he knows it’s already very late.
He says: “They are just terrible. They never turn up on time.”
“They seem to have got a lot busier since they put the prices down. If you don’t keep your eye out around here, they’ll drive right past you.”
After learning the 263 wasn’t due for another 21 minutes, he gives up waiting and starts walking towards the nearest tram stop.
“Jesus. That’s ridiculous. Ten past eleven! That’ll have been 50 minutes since I got here.”
“I’ve had cancer twice, see. When I went to Christie’s Hospital last week, I waited an hour for a bus home. I got a taxi on my way there because I daren’t risk a bus, I’d miss my appointment.”, he says.
It’s a story that’s all too common in Manchester and other cities around the world, where buses have become a symbol of the failures of public transportation. While many rely on buses as an affordable and convenient way to get around, the reality is that they often fall short of expectations.
Pascale Robinson has been involved in the campaign for franchised buses. She said: “Bus companies tend to have a model where they cherry-pick the services most profitable. These are often not the services we need, so bus companies use government money to run the really essential services. These days local authorities have less and less money to do this, therefore creating a skeletal bus service”.
Manchester’s buses are falling into crisis. The 350 million bus journeys a year that were in the mid-80s have become just under 200 million today. On top of this, the pandemic of the past three years has the left the network even more depleted that it already was.
After years of being dictated to by Westminster, in 2017, Manchester was given trailblazing devolutionary powers that, with a new mayor at the helm, allowed it make decisions for the people of the city. In a radical, £133 million shake up of the transport network, Andy Burnham has introduced measures to bring the city’s buses under a franchised model. For the first time in 40 years, buses will be run for the “good for passengers, good for the workforce, good for the operators and good for Greater Manchester.”
Since the 1950’s, buses have battled against the rising popularity of the car. With the end of petrol rationing after WWII and the development of motorways that provided efficient long-distance travel, the motor vehicle has been the choice of transport for most families and commuters.
Paul Williams, a historian at Greater Manchester Transport Museum, charts the decline of buses in Manchester throughout the 20th century.
He said: “In the 1950’s the television came along. People will be surprised at how much television changed our society. No one got the bus to the cinema or music halls anymore”.
In the 1960s, a major shift in transport administration aimed to combine the fragmented bureaucracy of the previous decades into a more efficient form of government. In 1969, Manchester saw the creation of South East Lancashire North East Cheshire (SELNEC), a combined transport authority that coordinated Greater Manchester’s public transport service. This reflected a trend towards the consolidation of transport services and larger regional authorities that increased efficiency and integration.
However, these changes failed to stop the gradual decline in passenger numbers. SELNEC stayed in public ownership until the 1980s when Thatcher’s government began to privatize public utilities. This was a radical change in politics that aimed at reinvigorating years of stagnation. In the transport sector, Paul notes how this was a three-stage process.
He said: “Firstly, Thatcher believed that government, of any level, should not be involved in creating services that should, or could, be provided by private companies. So, she privatises Britain’s utilities and was quite open in saying ‘authorities should not be running bus companies or any companies
“Secondly, the Thatcher government was in favour of deregulation. This meant getting rid of red tape, specifically, the highly regulated Road Traffic Act of 1930.”, he said.
This meant private bus companies could now enter a market that was previously controlled exclusively by local councils.
He continued. “Its immediate impact was increased competition on busier routes, with competitive tactics including low fares, high frequencies or the use of nippy minibuses to reach new areas. However, unremunerative routes were often withdrawn and either simply ended or were tendered by the local authority who paid for these services as a social need. The former system of cross-subsidy ended, creating a steep rise in subsidies for quieter routes.”
One of the worst impacts of deregulation was caused by stripping Traffic Commissioners of their ability to set standardized fares. In Sheffield a ‘fair-fares’ scheme reduced the price of all bus tickets by ten times the rate of other cities, removing thousands of cars off the roads by providing affordable transport for workers in the region. This was quickly made illegal, promoting growth in car parks around the city.
Private companies entering the market were able to run inner-city services at reduced rates. However, quieter, and more rural routes that couldn’t turn a profit became neglected over time because they were no longer topped up by successful council-run routes in the city centre.
He continued, “The third and final thing on the mind of the conservative transport secretary was the 1972 local government act that had created Greater Manchester County Council and all the other metropolitan county councils north of London. These were really big, really powerful local authorities. They were also almost all dominated by Labour leadership.
“Margret Thatcher, already distrustful of big government was determined to break up these metropolitan county councils including, but not only, Greater Manchester.”, he said.
The Labour council’s opposition to this policy was rooted in the idea that control of local services should not be dictated by Westminster. In 1986, the Greater Manchester Council, which was responsible for operating the Greater Manchester Transport Buses (GMTB) that had replaced SELNEC, ceased to exist. By October of that year, the buses were deregulated to introduce competition. While GMTB was still collectively owned by the now-separated councils, competition from emerging companies and pressure from the central government meant almost all of its fleet was sold to private companies in the 1990s. The routes in northern Manchester were sold to First Group and in the south, Stagecoach.
The Conservative policies that fragmented the city’s councils were broadly reversed after 2012 when Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) and Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) were created, in a sense, echoing the decade of consolidation in the 1960s. It took years to re-establish a strategic overview of the splintered councils transport system but when it did, those making decisions were once again able to act on a grander scale.
After the last railway station in the area closed in 1969, Leigh had become cut off from the rest of Greater Manchester. In an effort to combat this involuntary seclusion, TfGM worked with Salford Council to provide a link to the city centre for workers. breaking the mould of previous decades in 2016, TfGM create a much-needed franchised route — The Leigh Guided Busway. While this route was still run by a private company, a contract was awarded by the council via a tendering process, rather than using a free market approach. This gave First Group a 10-year contract from TfGM to run the V1 and V2 routes. The £122 million project connected Leigh and other former coalfield towns in the area to Manchester.
Despite its high cost, the investment was deemed an overwhelming success. Nearly a million passenger journeys were made in the first six months with 20% of passengers reporting switching from their cars. After three years, 600,000 car trips per year along the route had transferred to bus ridership. This equated to 3 million individual passengers being carried on the service, up by 1 million in two years.
Peter Abel, from Friends of Earth Manchester who helped in the campaign Better Buses for GM, spoke about the impact of the scheme.
“It was largely a success because Salford Council bit the bullet and took out an entire car lane to make a proper bus lane that went all the way to the Manchester border. It became a reliable service with new hybrid buses, WIFI, USB charging points, and tables upstairs.”
A modern and green service that was challenging the status quo of the past 30 years had been introduced to Manchester.
The remarkable thing about this scheme was its orchestrator. Andy Burnham, the MP for Leigh in 2016, by this time a seasoned politician, helped push the project through a wall of local opposition. He said: “People across the Leigh and Tyldesley areas have had to put up with poor public transport links for far too long. The busway will give people quality services, that are more frequent than trains, at half the price.”
A year later in 2017, when campaigning to be mayor, he said:
“Bus services throughout Greater Manchester are too often run for the profit of the operators and not for the benefit of the passengers.
“If I am elected as Mayor on May 4, I will use new powers to make buses more affordable, more reliable and work in the public interest.”
Evidently, this was a promise he was determined to bring to life.
Jules Armah lives near Leigh in Ellenbrook and commutes on the V1 and V2.
He said: “I’ve lived around there for about 10 years, so I remember it before this service was introduced. It used to be carnage. This has definitely made an improvement.”
Jules went on to say that despite this, the V2s had dropped in frequency during the pandemic and became more of a top-up service for the V1. Since then, passenger numbers during rush hour have largely recovered but the route hasn’t increased regularity to accommodate for this. Jules waited at the bus stop for about 10 minutes until three buses went past at the same time, all displaying ‘BUS FULL’ signs.
“Look a V2, and there’s some space on this one.” he joked while shuffling to the back of the crammed bus.
“It’s always been busy but after the pandemic and once the Clean Air Zone was announced, a lot more people started getting the bus again. Now they have a few more buses running but they’re always full”
“I think when they first launched the system, they probably weren’t expecting it to be as popular as it was. They could do with revising it or having another look to check the numbers because there’s definitely been another spike in passengers.”
The Vantage service, deemed one of the most popular bus initiatives since the 80s, was now struggling to accommodate the regular flow of workers to and from the city. In 2020, the V2 clocked in a total of 41,800 miles. However, during the pandemic, the service saw a reduction of 27,150 miles, a drop of 65%. This was the worst reduction in miles of any service in Greater Manchester throughout the pandemic.
While the V1 sustained roughly the same mileage between 2020 and 2023, it was forced to balance out the reduced V2 service. This meant both routes became overcrowded, often driving past stops full of people. One online petition demanding an improvement in the service reached 1,785 signatures. This begs the question, why did such a popular route that so many people had come to rely on collapse under pressure?
It’s possible the service has been a victim of its own success. GMCA, having seen the service plateau at a solid passenger rate before covid, may have failed to anticipate how reliant the people of Leigh were on this service. This meant when the V2, like most services, cut its mileage during the pandemic, the service became far too crowded and left people stranded.
Those that subscribe to free market economics would suggest that this is a flaw in the franchised model. If a service can’t effectively adapt to the changes in supply and demand, even during an unanticipated event like COVID-19, the model will be doomed to let people down. TfGM will have to ensure that this new system doesn’t become too rigid to adapt to its surroundings.
When asked why the reduction in mileage along the V2 route was the worst in GM despite being a popular and busy route, TfGM stated: “The Vantage V1 and V2 services continue to offer a quality experience to the thousands of people who use travel daily along the guided busway. While passengers are returning to the service post-Covid, currently patronage levels are at approximately 80% of pre-pandemic demand. Like other modes of public transport, greater levels of working from home and hybrid working has had an impact on patronage.
The private bus routes didn’t fare any better. The 142 bus route runs south from the city centre through Wilmslow Road to Didsbury. This route is often cited as one of the busiest bus corridors in Europe. It acts as an artery for Manchester’s biggest universities, hospitals and the infamous ‘Curry Mile’ and provides access to the centre from the south. Yet, the 142 saw the second largest reduction in mileage with a cutback of over 20,000 miles, equivalent to a 37% decrease since the pandemic began.
The 142, one of the few bus services to run late into the night, can often create chaos for people trying to get home after a night out. With students, late-night-ravers and night-time economy workers all using this route to get home, it often means people pay an excess of £20 to take a taxi instead. This image, taken at 3:30 am, shows a bus stop more crowded than you’d typically expect to see at peak rush hour.
Collectively, during the pandemic period, Greater Manchester saw a reduction in 408,583 miles, a drop of 14% in three years since February 2020 to 2023. Comparing this to data from 2015–2020, we see a shallower decline of 9% in five years. The reduction in mileage following the pandemic, predominantly caused by cancelled routes, has left residents with a network on its knees. This is a trend that can be seen almost everywhere outside of London.
Cllr Roger Jones, chair of GMCA Bus Sub-Committee said: “What panicked us most, once the pandemic came to an end and [Government] subsidies were withdrawn, was tram, rail and bus services patronage were still only at 80%.
“We were very concerned about what would happen. The last thing we wanted to do, just before starting a franchising process, was to withdraw any services.
Due to a combination of people feeling exposed to the virus when using public transport and more individuals working from home, buses saw a decline to a low of 15% patronage during April 2020, at which point it was subsidised by the UK government to ensure key workers could still move about the city.
“After the pandemic, Andy Burnham announced the reduction in fares, including the capped £2 single, to try and boost passenger numbers. At our last meeting, TfGM were able to provide figures that show we are beginning to have an impact, with more and more passengers coming back.”
The decline in public transport use during the pandemic had been hovering significantly under the pre-pandemic levels. Measures put in place under the new franchising system, including the expansion of capped ticket fares that was introduced last September at the cost of £15 million, has brought passenger numbers back to full capacity.
Nevertheless, mileage has yet to see an increase to pre-pandemic levels, let alone return to 21% higher levels of 2015. With bus companies still running services at a much-reduced rate, the impact of the pandemic has left Manchester without enough buses to reach the increasing demand, making buses over-crowded, infrequent and not dependable/ irregular
One possible explanation for this is that bus companies, which were previously deregulated, may experience a reduction in profitability under the new franchised system due to uncertainties surrounding the tendering process for contracts. Diamond, a bus company in the area, removed around 30 buses (one-fifth of its subsidised fleet) after failing to secure a contract for the first section of the franchising process in Bolton, Wigan, and parts of Salford. Despite this, the company continued to run its commercial services. This decision move was made for “stability as we transfer into franchising”, described by one councillor as “reeking of sour grapes”.
Cllr Jones said: “Although what happened to Diamond in the tendering process wasn’t a terrible thing from their point of view, they immediately said ‘if we’ve lost contracts, then we may as well pull out of those areas and move to more successful areas.’
“What shocked us is how they did it with the minimum notice possible. We were all stunned. We expected a negotiation over a six-month period, not a fait accompli after a few weeks.”
“As we go through this franchising process, we don’t want bus operators reacting the way Diamond did and immediately cut out their services.”
Following this, TfGM was forced to negotiate with other companies to provide a service that was adequate enough to cover the areas that had been left with no running routes. This was largely successful, bar two routes that Diamond agreed to keep running.
“Over the last few months, the bus operators have collectively said that they accept franchising is going to go ahead.”
This position has only recently changed after a string of court cases made by Stagecoach and Arriva’s parent company, Rotala Plc were brought against GMCA. These legal costs have added to the rising cost of franchising, which is estimated to be at £134 million.
However, one aim of the franchising process is to stabilise the funding modal by reducing shareholder dividends, instead reinvesting profits into the network. It was reported that in 2018, the top three bus firms, handed shareholders £184 million in the last decade, equating to £18.4 million a year. Throughout the year, this has contributed to the rising cost of buses and the reduction of services as profits leave the system.
Interestingly, this privatised model hasn’t been the case everywhere, though. Most notably, Edinburgh’s Lothian Buses stayed within the public control of four inner-city councils and still operates 91 per cent of the city’s services. While it did face competition and pressure to privatise throughout the ’90s and ’00s, the company was able to maintain a steady flow of profit that has contributed to improving, not only the bus network but the city’s transport system as a whole. Before the pandemic, Lothian Buses paid £6 million of its annual profits back into the public purse and helped to improve Edinburgh’s tram network.
Compare this to the £32 million GMCA spends on buses annually, and the difference in models becomes stark. Unlike the buses, Manchester’s Metrolink doesn’t receive any government subsidies meaning ticket fares have to be kept high to keep the service running. Despite this, the trams still run at a £38 million net loss annually. A franchised bus system that’s topped up with a government subsidy and is integrated into the rest of the city’s public transport could help drive down prices making them more affordable for people. As was seen in Leigh in 2016, by incentivising people to use more public transport, car traffic can be reduced, improving air quality, congestion, and noise, while freeing up space in the city for green spaces.
Over the years, the council has also toyed with another initiative to help reduce cars on the road and boost public transport patronage, the Workplace Parking Levy. Because parking is a tax-deductible benefit, many large companies subsidise their parking spaces, making it cheaper for their employees. By charging a levy on medium and large employers’ car parking spaces, money can be raised and invested into the cost of sustainable transport, reducing the fees for buses and trams.
10 years ago, Nottingham became the first city in Europe to introduce a Workplace Parking Levy. Its results were largely positive. Over half of employers didn’t pass on costs to employees and instead encouraged them to leave their car at home when travelling to work. In doing so, they reduced congestion growth by 47% and raised £90 million which was reinvested into better public transport schemes.
Similar schemes were considered in Manchester in 2007 and again in 2018 but were rejected both times. However, as the cost of franchising continues to mount, it may be time to re-evaluate the cost benefits of this decision.
Pascale Robinson said: “When local authorities can plan the network, they are able to give out specific contracts to run specific routes they need. This means while there are private companies involved, the profit margins and standards of services are effectively set by the local authorities.
“In London, where buses were never deregulated, they are able to set standards for disability access, for how green the fleet should be, for how regularly the buses should come, for the cleanliness of buses. It means you get much more for your money and you get a service that works for people rather than just the profits of the bus company.
“We need to see local authorities planning integrated services and we need every penny that we spend on them to go towards improving bus services.”
There is an opportunity for Manchester to look across the cites of the world and build a better performing integrated system that works for the people of Manchester.
Today, on the 4 May 2023 the people of Greater Manchester go to the polls to elect their local politicians. The future of the Manchester bus system should be high on their agenda as they cast their votes.
