“The future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed” science fiction author William Gibson famously wrote. This is definitely the case with public transport in the UK. Whilst London’s intermodal fare zones and payment system are world class, all other British cities still have fragmented fares, between modes, and between operators of the same mode. Essentially they exist in a third world public transport feudalism, with far less ridership per capita than European cities of comparable size.
Buses outside London were privatised and deregulated by the Conservative government in 1986, which fragmented the long standing and somewhat integrated public transport networks. Legislation was passed in 2017 to give England’s mayors powers to introduce public transport franchising, although the process has proven to be slow and difficult. Only now, after 37 years of bus privatisation failure, are English regions taking actions to reverse it.
English Devolution is coming
Whilst the Labour government announced its English Devolution White Paper in mid-December 2024, much was already underway in a few regions to devolve bus services back to their regions. We look at some of these now, then catch up to the present to analyse the potential for recently announced White Paper to further change the public transport devolution landscape.
Why Bus Franchising is the Starting Point
Bus franchising is the starting point for most cities’ devolution path, as bus networks carry most cities’ public transport riders, and it is the most widespread mode. Franchising returns the decision-making powers over bus routes, timetables, and fares to the region’s public transport authority. It also provides greater public control over how funding is used to support the local transport network across different modes, for instance to better coordinate buses with local rail and tram networks.
With civic control also comes the great potential of aligning transport plans with urban and economic planning, ensuring that new housing and employment developments are well connected to the transport network.
The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice report describes the results of the UK’s bus privitisation:
“Privatization has not delivered a service that provides good value for money. Private operators’ primary goal is to earn a profit for shareholders, rather than provide the best possible service. Companies extract profits in the form of dividends, which otherwise could be reinvested in the system [emphasis ours]. They largely choose to run only profitable routes, resulting in cuts or forcing local transport authorities to step in at additional public cost. And far from taking buses off the government books, privatization has left the public on the hook for billions of pounds a year in subsidies.”
Public Transport, Private Profit: The Human Cost of Privatizing Buses in the United Kingdom
Under franchising, private operating companies will be able to bid for operating contracts, for a fair price for the services provided, a reasonable profit margin, and some incentives and penalties for good and bad performance. But the networks will be designed, managed, and promoted by government transport authorities. And the transport authority keeps any profit.
The Evolution of Devolution
Devolution of UK public transport has traditionally been difficult as England’s structure of local government has oftentimes evolved ad hoc. It requires a redrawing of the patchwork of agreements between a city’s transport authority and the private transport operators, and often neighbouring local governments. On top of that is the desire to better align the political and economic geography, for an inclusive transport network that represents the modern city. This has been done before, but involves tough choices.
Devolution has arguably benefitted ScotRail considerably. Its popular revival of its Borders Railway is a case in point, vastly outperforming its ridership estimates, and which it hopes to extend south to Carlisle.
We now turn our gaze south to a number of English cities that are pioneering the devolution process in the realm of public transport. As well as back north to a Scottish city starting on the same path. Other UK cities and regions are watching closely and taking notes.
Manchester is leading the Devolution Charge
Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) is the first British city outside of London to develop a unified bus and tram ticketing system, using the powers of the Bus Services Act 2017 to take control of its bus services. Its goal is to unify its public transport network reduce the passenger cost of travel, increase public transport mobility, and its use. It is the first non-London city-region to bring buses under local control in almost 40 years.
The first stage was the establishment of the region’s Bee Network, bringing buses back under public control in phases, started in Wigan, Bolton, and parts of Salford and Bury. The second phase was rolled out in March 2024, bringing Oldham, Rochdale, parts of Bury, Salford and North Manchester into this network. The remaining parts of Greater Manchester’s bus services joined the Bee Network from 5 January 2025, with plans to bring local train services into the network by 2030.
This follows the introduction of daily capped bus fares in 2023 to help with the cost of living – £2 for single journeys and £5 for an AnyBus All Day Travelcard. These have proved popular with passengers and have contributed to a 12% increase in bus trips, and it is being extended. Furthermore, despite the Government announcing that the national bus fares cap will rise to £3 in 2025, Greater Manchester’s Mayor has kept the £2/£1 single fare for the region to the end of 2025, as part of his plans to simplify a lower cost fare structure. Other improvements include single fares allowing passengers free transfer between Bee Network buses within one hour of purchase, and reductions to pass price to reduce the complexity and cost of travel.
The plan is that by 2028, Greater Manchester will have a fully integrated, public transport system, with bike, bus, tram, and train under the Bee Network brand. In addition, TfGM will upgrade to step-free access for 60% of rail stations on local network by 2028, up from 43% at the end of 2024.
Design and implementation of a contactless ‘tap-in, tap-out’ fare payment across different transport modes in Greater Manchester is also underway, the first outside of London. TfGM, Great British Railways Transition Team (GBRTT), and DfT are working to develop the first pilot on Manchester rail, to be launched in March 2025. Also under development are fare simplification, with daily and weekly fare capping being introduced on Bee Network buses and trams in March 2025. Like Oyster, TfGM would calculate the best fare for them, giving passengers more flexibility and saving them money. Trains will be added to capping at a later date, and the train fare integration will be “subject to agreement with government in the approach to national fare reform”. The overall goal is to greatly simplify public transport and make car free living a cheaper, easier reality.
With the election of the new government in the 2024 General Election, Manchester’s devolution process now appears to be switching into a higher gear – eight key local train routes have been identified to join the Bee Network by 2028, extending seamless travel across buses, trains, and trams:
- Rochdale stopping services
- Ashton-under-Lyne and Stalybridge
- Glossop, Hadfield, and Rose Hill Marple via Guide Bridge
- Alderley Edge and Buxton via Stockport
- Airport stoppers
- Wigan via Golborne
- Wigan via Atherton (and continuing to Southport)
- Wigan via Bolton (and continuing to Southport)
These will, however, require DfT agreement and will be a test of the new government’s actual commitment to transport devolution.
Manchester is also planning for new tram and tram-train lines, and faster bus routes. In addition, a city centre underground rail line is being studied to further improve mobility, for long-term ridership growth. Here is the list of the 15 current priorities for expanding the rapid transport system with new lines, extended lines, and/or converted lines have just been identified for further analysis to:
- Make best use of existing network infrastructure.
- Serve major centres, whether on or away from existing lines, and link to jobs in key growth areas.
- Provide frequent and fast services – running on mainly segregated alignments.
- Tram-train Pathfinder: Bury – Heywood – Rochdale – Oldham
TfGM is using funding allocated in DfT’s City Regional Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) to develop an Outline Business Case for Manchester’s first potential tram-train route. It would connect Bury, Heywood, Rochdale, and Oldham, using Metrolink tram-train ‘Next Generation Vehicles’. The entire 25km route length would use existing Metrolink, National Rail, and East Lancashire Railway tracks.
- Tram and busway options from North Manchester toward Middleton and Northern Gateway
There is a gap in the rapid transit network between the Metrolink Bury line and the National Rail line to Rochdale. The business case for tram and busway options is currently being investigated in this corridor, as well as the surrounding areas.
- Tram-train through East Manchester towards Glossop, Hadfield, and Marple
The railway lines to Glossop and Hadfield, and to Rose Hill Marple, are two of the eight rail lines earmarked to join the Bee Network by 2028. Longer-term options are for tram-train services on these lines to terminate at Manchester Piccadilly.
- Tram-train from Tameside to Stockport via Denton and Reddish
Analysis of lines centred on Stockport, such as a Tameside–Stockport–Airport service.
- Tram and/or tram-train from South Manchester to Stockport and Hazel Grove
A business case is being developed for a Metrolink extension to Stockport town centre and beyond, including tram-train options.
- Tram-train from Stockport to the Airport
A potential tram-train service between Stockport and Manchester Airport. This would depend on the prior completion of the Metrolink Airport line ‘Western Leg’ (see below).
- Metrolink Airport line ‘Western Leg’ completion
The completion of the full Metrolink Airport line, serving key areas including Wythenshawe Hospital and Medipark, existing and proposed housing, and the expanded Terminal 2 and Airport City. Some powers for its construction and operation remain in place from the 1990s.
- Tram-train services to the north-west, west, and south-west of the Airport
Options include directly connecting the Metrolink Altrincham line to the Airport via the existing Mid Cheshire line and the proposed Airport line Western Leg.
- Busway corridors to the west and east of the Airport
These would provide more local connections and complement tram or tram-train options.
- Metrolink Trafford Park line extension
A short extension of this line to serve major developments and regeneration at Trafford Waters, Salford Stadium, and Port Salford.
- Tram-train on the line to Warrington Central
This longer-term option performs well on the prioritisation principles – but it is not known where this line would go in central Manchester. Hence this route is also being considered for a new central Manchester tunnel.
- Tram connection from Salford Quays to Salford Crescent
A short Metrolink extension could connect The Quays and MediaCityUK with Salford Crescent railway station.
- Further Metrolink tram connections between the city centre and Salford Crescent
- Tram-train on the Wigan via Atherton line
This is one of the eight rail lines planned to join the Bee Network by 2028, and may reach central Manchester via a new tunnel. Options for spurs towards Leigh and Bolton will also be considered.
- A step change in Regional Centre capacity
Longer-term options for major new tunnelled capacity in the Region’s Centre:
- North-west to south-east
Connecting the Bolton and Wigan (via Atherton) rail lines with the Airport and Stockport rail lines – which could release capacity on the crowded Castlefield Corridor.
- South-west to north-east
Connecting Metrolink lines (especially those with no on-street running ie Altrincham, East Didsbury, and Bury) – which could allow longer vehicles and higher frequencies, and free up the other Metrolink lines. This option could be Metrolink-only, or it could share main line rails.
Nonetheless, all existing passenger and freight services must be considered in planning any new tram-train service, and would require significant collaboration with the rail industry. Nonetheless, some of the business case are currently being investigated.
Liverpool is also bringing buses back under public control
Inspired by recent successes in Manchester, other UK cities are launching similar schemes. Liverpool Mayor Steve Rotheram announced in 2023 that he is introducing bus franchising to enable the Merseyside region to set routes and fares. It will become the second region to overturn decades of bus deregulation in England. As with its northern rival, the goal is to create a London-style integrated public transport system, with contactless ticketing and capped fares, across Merseyside’s buses and trains.
Other Regions are also Implementing Similar Improvements
Devolution is not actually necessary for UK intermodal fare integration. But it typically makes it easier to achieve. Newcastle’s Northumberland Line opened in December 2024, with rail users able to use their Pop Pay As You Go smart cards and Android phones for free interchange with the Tyne and Wear Metro, according to the fare zones shewn below. The Northumberland Line’s operator, Northern Rail, worked with Nexus and Northumberland County Council to develop integrated fares for multi-modal journeys. Traditional rail-only tickets are also available on this line.
Northumberland County Council initiated the reintroduction of passenger service on the local freight rail line to Ashington to expand mobility to communities isolated from good public transport. The Council then pushed to integrate the line’s fares with the Tyne and Wear Metro network. The region has also created a new Combined Authority that started operation in May 2024. It will work on extending integrated public transport fares to the region’s buses and other rail services.
The council is not stopping there. They hope that the new devolution powers will allow them to further integrate ticketing of additional local rail services. The new North East Mayoral Combined Authority will develop a business case to deploy the Pop card onto such trains, as well as urge the Government to support it in discussions with Great British Railways and Northern Rail. The following map shews the other local rail lines which could be included in such an integrated fare scheme:
The goal is to also integrate ticketing with other transport modes such as cycle and e-scooter hire, buses, Park and Ride, EV charging, and car clubs. This will enable complete door to door journeys, with a single card or payment option, under a simple fare scheme.
Mayors of numerous other regions, such as West Yorkshire, East Midlands ran on similar platforms of introducing integrated ticketing, tap-and-go fares, and fare caps across their regions. We shall cover fare caps in a following installment of this series.
KISS Principle – Keep It Simple Silly
Public perception of transit usefulness is based greatly on how simple it is to use. Hence the use and great popularity of simplified schematic maps of subway and metro systems around the world. Simplicity also has a place in fare structure – not too many categories, options, or different passes, as well as a fare being valid on all public transport in an area.
Some fare structures, especially in some UK cities, present users with dozens of complicated fare options, passes, and intermodal combinations thereof. The prospective transport customer either walks away confused and frustrated, or pays more than they should.
The Final Report of the Scottish Executive Transferability of Best Practice in Transport Policy Delivery found that the most significant factor in effective transport policy implementation is integrated ticketing.
A Brief History of Intermodal Fares
Hamburg created the first truly intermodal integrated public transport system in 1966, a revolutionary idea at the time. Several other German cities followed in the next decade, and the idea spread to Paris, London, and many other European cities.
There are three and a half models for intermodal fares for a large city, the European, the London, the North American, and the rest of the world, listed in declining order of mobility that each enables:
European Model
Regionally integrated fares, as well as service planning for consistent and optimised customer experience, are almost universal in public transit systems in Western Europe’s largest metropolitan areas. This Learning from Europe: Organize regionally and focus on the customer article describes the advantages of this model.
Network effects are crucial. Combining large public transport networks under unified fare zones makes passenger mobility exponentially better, as well as considerably cheaper. Cities realise economies of scale, and the integrated networks attract many more new riders, partially or mostly covering the cost of the cheaper passenger fares.
London Model
The London Model integrates Underground, and trains like the European model, but does not include buses. London (nee Croydon) Trams have their own fare zone. Whilst London Buses has a separate fares model from the Underground and trains, travellers can at least tap on and off both networks and get the right fare up to the daily fare cap, so it does includes buses in that way. In other British cities, you might be able to tap on or off buses or trams, but there isn’t a joint fare cap.
North American Model
As we saw in the first installment of this series, most large North American cities have separate fare systems for their subway and commuter rail networks
Third World Model
In most Third World cities, there are no intermodal zones at all. All modes, and often individual rapid transit lines, are operated by separate agencies with their own fares and fare rules. Bus service can be especially fragmented between dozens or hundreds of different operators, with little or no free transfers. This is bewilderingly complex to the user, and makes long distance and complex trips confusing, difficult, and very costly.
UK non-London Cities’ intermodal fares mess
The current fare systems of UK cities like Manchester and Birmingham is a mix of North American and third world models – uncoordinated and competing modes, creating a chaotic and bewildering face of public transport. Whilst these two cities offer various one-day passes that allow unlimited travel on bus, train, and/or tram, they just add to the users’ decision burden and information overload. The cities don’t yet have the ability to make occasional journeys using more than one mode on the same fare, with the relevant fare calculations done behind the scenes, deducted from the passenger’s bank card at the end of the day. The key is to have intermodal travel free and automatic applied, without current and potential passengers having to think about which pass to buy, which mode to use, and how much it’s all going to cost.
Smartcards & Smartphone Payment on their own are not the Solution
Although intermodal integration greatly simplifies the public transit system for passengers, it made fare cost allocation far more difficult. Smart card technology is an optimal solution, as it offers detailed passenger origin-destination data as well as agency billing and payment information.
Some transit agencies use smartcards merely as an e-purse, not a means to increase mobility by providing free transfers between modes. In such cases, the smartcard can be used to pay for trips across a number of transit agencies, simplifying fare payment, but not making transfers between them any cheaper. This is a regressive fare regime and does not utilize smartcards to their full potential, merely using it as a cash replacement.
Transit agencies are realizing that to attract people to transit, the fare system has to be as simple to use, convenient, and as hassle free as possible. The motive behind proof-of-payment (POP), initiated in Europe in the 1960’s, and used for North America’s new LRT lines, starting with Edmonton’s LRT line in 1978. POP increased passenger convenience, faster station entrance and egress, and lower equipment costs. With random ticket inspection, fare evasion is generally between 1-3%.
The Proposed English Devolution
In December 2024, the new government proposed a more comprehensive devolution strategy, in its English Devolution White Paper – Power and Partnership: Foundations for Growth. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander stated in the Observer that a key aim of devolution was to promote growth alongside service improvement by devolving power over transport issues to the local level. These newly devolved powers will shift how local railways are operated – giving local leaders the ability to specify services that better meet the needs of their region, and to drive local growth.
Government sources further explained that English devolution would allow people to use contactless payment systems to integrate local train, bus, and tram journeys under a single fare, versus having to pay for separate, but transferring, journeys. Looking further ahead, such integration could be extended to include bike and e-bike share use. Another goal is to no longer need to refer approval of minor transport infrastructure, such as new cycle lanes, to Westminster. By streamlining approval, removing steps and a source of delay, England would have an expedited approvals process.
The White Paper will also require Great British Railways to work in partnership with region mayors to help develop rail services to meet their local economic, educational, and urban development goals.
English devolution vs other UK nations’ devolution
Whilst there are many factors to the proposed devolution, including changing the structure of local and regional government, we shall restrict ourselves to its impact on transport and related infrastructure. Furthermore, constitutional issues are not our area of expertise, so we shall only look at the broadest of strokes analysis of how such issues may affect transport.
The White Paper describes increasing England’s region’s powers, but let’s compare these proposed powers against the devolution powers that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have.
Legislative power and fiscal autonomy
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland were granted autonomy in the devolution Acts of 1998. This allowed them to legislate and control income and property taxes, direct the revenue, and shape incentives. Scotland and Wales have used these powers to expand their railway networks.
English regions will have not have the same powers – their fund raising control will be limited to council tax and business rates – and even both of those will still be tightly regulated by central Government. In addition, these regions will remain heavily dependent on government grants, with all their conditions and constraints. In effect, English mayors and combined authorities will still be administering national policy, rather than being able to control it themselves.
Still answering to Westminster
The devolved Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland governments are accountable to their own legislatures. In contrast, English combined authorities will still be subservient to Westminster, with the Secretary of State retaining significant oversight powers. The UK government can alter, reduce, or revoke England’s powers depending on their whims, so this is not by any means full devolution.
With Upside comes Potential Downsides
Devolution can offer cities and region many benefits:
- Local control over transport strategy and priorities – By having more control over transport, and related issues of housing, skills, and planning, local leaders can better align policies to optimise them.
- Local control over taxation and incentives – With more control over local taxation, including implementing specific taxes, devolution can generate more revenue that can be directed as needed locally.
The Risks of Devolution
As with anything in life, there are risks that must also be mitigated:
- Local capacity – Some areas may not have the capacity or expertise to manage devolved powers effectively without adequate support from the central government.
- Co-ordination issues – Devolution of powers to areas could lead to a lack of coordination between places in tackling ‘national’ issues, such cross country rail investment, where multi-area collaboration is vital.
- Inequalities between areas – Devolution may exacerbate existing economic and social inequalities between areas if some areas be better placed to take advantage of new powers than others.
Summary
It is clear from European and London experience that intermodal fares, usually as fare zones, has improved public transport mobility considerably. Ridership has increased significantly in these cities, a testament to the power of simple, understandable, and friction-free transfers.
With contactless fare payment with riders’ own payment methods (credit and debit cards, smart phones and watches, togs), makes it even easier to pay for public transport.
Bus franchising is the first step to allowing cities and regions to re-integrate their urban transport services into a unified transport network, with its own ticketing system. It can then cross-subsidise services in poorly-connected areas. Once privatised bus operations are brought under civic control, going the next step to integrate other modes, such as local train and trams services, becomes much easier.
Public transport devolution also allows dramatic simplification of a region’s public transport network. Three objectives for this were outlined for the new Welsh bus system, which are elegantly stated (updated for the general case of any city):
- One Network – All modes are linked together, easy to navigate, and connect to the national railway network.
- Coordinated Timetables – Timetables which are easy to use and provide convenient connections between services and modes.
- One Ticket – Much simpler ticketing which enables travel across the region on public transport, with affordable, easy to understand, and consistent fares. This is especially important for discounted fares and passes, which have been notoriously difficult to implement across different operators.
Furthermore, simplification of fares for passengers also means simplification for agencies, operators, drivers, and staff, millions of times over per year. Often, operational simplification drives transport authority changes that also benefit riders.
This is the second on the series on the Grand Unified Theory of Public Transport Fares. Here are the other parts, published and planned:
- North American Cities Join the Fare Zone Club: Finally Integrating Intermodal Fares – Part 1
- English Settlement: Devolving Powers to Enable Intermodal Fare Integration – Part 2
- Transport Agency Structure is Critical – Part 3
- Fare Capping – Part 4