New report on buses by @CentreforCities (interestingly sponsored and supported by three companies that operate [franchised] buses). I'm going to the launch event in Manchester later. Very strong & clear findings, great to see how far we've come in England. https://www.centreforcities.org/publication/improving-urban-bus-transport/

We are now at the stage where even I, a long time supporter of cities having the right to control their own buses, think we can afford to be careful. In Greater Manchester I've got no doubts, franchising is worth trying, let's try it. But in smaller cities? I'm not so sure.

Buses in small cities like Oxford, Reading, York, Brighton, etc... often work fine. You've got a single local authority and usually a single operator and they can work together quite well. And you don't need to worry about intermodal and intercompany co-operation much.

The cities shouldn't be banned, as now, from deciding for themselves. And just having the power to franchise if they really want will spur bus operators into thinking harder about meeting the needs of the city. But I think that often the best decision will be no change.

But into the report, top findings are,
Buses can help improve city productivity. (YES! something bus operators often miss).
Buses support inclusive growth.
Buses enable higher urban housing concentration.
Buses are better for the environment and air quality than cars.

#TheMostImportantGraph, to which I have added an annotation. How bus use in major cities outside of London went from double the level of London to half the level of London. It's important. Lots of factors as well as forced deregulation, but deregulation was a factor. No doubt.

Love a box. This is a good box.

Next up, what are the problems with buses in big cities outside London now?
No cross-subsidy between routes. Yes! £1.50 fare in South Manchester vs. £3.50 fare in North Manchester is bad.
Bus wars. Yes. It's a short-term gain with long-term costs. Leads to bus congestion too.

But the biggest problem are the 4th, 5th, and 6th that the report mentions.
No control = no Oyster card. People in Manchester are still queuing up to buy complex and changing bus tickets that don't work across modes. Meanwhile on the regulated tram, tap-in and tap-out. Easy!

No control = no investment. When a city invests in bus lanes today what's the financial return? Almost nothing. When it invests in bus lanes under franchising, it reduces the cost of buying the franchise. The business model changes, and that encourages investment.

No control = less democracy and less incentive to protect funding. I don't think this happens much, but when councils are under huge financial pressure there must be a temptation to say "we're not allowed to control the buses, blame the cuts on operators not us".

This is an absolutely savage graph. Love it. I leave commentary to the reader.

Section 5 describes The Bus Services Act and the progress of the big city regions. Section 6 is a really useful comparison of enhanced partnerships (the option most big city operators are currently arguing for) and franchising (what Greater Manchester wants). It's excellent.

TLDR: Section 6 -- you are not getting an easy and simple fares and payment system for multi-modal public transport like in Lille, Paris, Barcelona, Hamburg, London, etc... without franchising.

Section 7 and Section 8 are sensible and now I'm going to go to the launch event of this report. I will be cycling, not taking the bus. If it were raining, I'd probably take the tram.

First up Abellio London Bus saying they're keen on franchising. Keen to enter the market. Keen to compete. Keen to drive down costs. Capitalism

Second up @PascaleRobinson is excellent on the community need for better and integrated and understandable services. Then GM Chamber of Commerce on why business wants franchising. And @SirRichardLeese on how hard they've worked for so long to get here. Fantastic stuff. All ace.