Burnham’s buses show why he will likely fail as PM

It’s one of those political facts that everyone repeats without really knowing if it’s true: Andy Burnham has, in his own words, “transformed“The Greater Manchester Bus Service. Burnham’s state-controlled double-decker buses are proof A in the claim that his ‘Manchesterism’ amounts to more than a slogan. Real voters, including in Makerfield, talk about it spontaneously. And even SW1 classes, while often dismissing Our next Prime Minister as a weathervane and lightweight, usually mention buses.

I am a bus lover, a regular user and largely a supporter of Burnham’s ‘Bee Network’, a London-style system operated by private contractors but with timetables, routes, fares and branding controlled and subsidized by the Mayor. And I too, claim a certain paternity. As Boris Johnson’s No.10 transport adviser, I fought off intense lobbying from one of the big bus companies who wanted us to end it. As Burnham always forgets to mention, it was the last Conservative government that gave him the legal powers and large sums of money that made the project possible. Under Johnson we created a fund for “improving the bus service”, £95 million of which was allocated to Burnham, as well as a fund for capital expenditure on new buses, bus stations, trams and light rail lines – of which Burnham received £1 billion in the first tranche alone.

This is why it is slightly annoying – and more than slightly dishonest – on the part of the mayor of claim that “Westminster simply ignores[d] bus” and it has done all the work. But the biggest problem with the Bee Network is this. It has not been a failure. But because of Burnham’s weakness and cowardice, it has yet to deliver on its promises; it has not been transformative; and the large sums spent have brought only modest to moderate improvements.

Another thing Burnham always forgets to mention is that bus usage in Greater Manchester is, in fact, down 12 percent since he took office in 2017. It has fallen almost everywhere during this period due to post-covid working from home, increased traffic congestion and the decline of traditional high streets. But bus use fell more in Greater Manchester during this period than in any other major authority in the North West, including Merseyside and Lancashire.

To be fair, the Bee Network only got underway in March 2023, with the first of three tranches, and the final tranche was only completed in January 2025. Since 2022/3, as Burnham says, there has been a marked increase in bus use in Greater Manchester – 19.4 per cent, according to the latest figures from the Ministry of Transport. This is more than double the national average over the period. But it’s still nowhere near as good as many other places.

While Burnham managed a 19.4 per cent rise, Bristol’s wicked privately controlled bus service increased passenger numbers by 33.1 per cent in the same two years. Over the same period, bus usage increased by 20.5 per cent in Leicester, 19.9 per cent in Southampton, 29.4 per cent in Cornwall, to name just a few, and all this for a fraction of the amount spent per passenger by Manchester. In the North West, two other authorities – Warrington and Halton – increased their use more during this period than Greater Manchester. All of these places still operate buses under the old, largely commercial model. In other words, buses don’t prove Burnham’s claim — which will likely soon be tested across the rest of the country — that state-controlled services are always better.

I think a common brand and ticketing helps drive passenger usage, although this is possible with other ownership models. I also think Burnham’s flat rate of £2 helped – although, in another measure taken for buses by the previous government, the fare in the rest of England outside London was also £2 until Labor raised it to £3 last year. I also supported the Bee Network because I believed the threat of wider franchising would keep the big bus companies in line (as they are) with the wider changes we wanted to make across the sector.

But what really “transforms” a bus service, and what actually gets people out of their cars, is not who controls the buses, who owns them, or what color they are. This is the modest bus lane. The main reason people don’t take the bus is that it’s often slow and unreliable. Bus lanes make buses faster, more punctual and more attractive to passengers, generating more fare revenue.

Faster journeys also allow you to offer the same service with fewer vehicles and drivers, reducing your operating costs. A bus lane can be delivered in about a day, for a few cents, with a few panels and a can of paint. This is one of the most virtuous circles in public policy. Publicly controlled London and privatized Bristol have led to a huge increase in ridership with many new bus routes. The ownership model mattered much less than the political will to grant road space to buses.

Ultimately, even motorists can benefit from bus lanes, as more drivers taking the bus frees up space for those remaining. But in the short term, taking road space away from motorists and giving it to buses slows down car travel and creates a political backlash.

This is what Burnham and other Greater Manchester politicians – unlike leaders in London, Bristol and other places – have been almost absolutely unwilling to risk. As a transportation advisor, I spent a lot of time asking them to create more bus lanes. But most of the time they didn’t want to, and when Boris left, so did I. Result: lots of cool new buses, always stuck in traffic jams. Another consequence: the improvements made to Greater Manchester have been modest in relation to the amounts of public money spent.

Since the launch of the Bee Network, GM’s annual bus subsidies have increased more than doubledfrom £40m in 2022/3 to £84m in 2024/5 (Transport for Greater Manchester’s own accounts show it has more than tripledat £122 million). The franchise has generated costs for establishing a An additional £134 million. Hundreds of millions more were spent on capital spending. Several rather nice new bus stations – ideal places for politicians to have their pictures taken – were built, and Burnham paid at least £80 million to buy the existing operators’ bus garages, which was completely unnecessary (most of these same operators still use the same depots as Bee Network contractors; London, under public control, does not own the vast majority of its bus garages.)

But Greater Manchester’s current bus service has neither doubled nor tripled. He has increased by only 7.5 percentfrom 47.14 million vehicle miles in 2022/3 to 50.67 million vehicle miles in 2024/5. In Bristol, over the same period, service levels increased by 24.5 percent – ​​while grants, according to the DfT, were cut by almost half.

What “Manchesterism” means on the ground is some new ways, but not many; some major frequency improvements, but not that much; and many routes require a few extra trips, often early in the morning or late at night. Makerfield, Burnham’s putative constituency, is a typical example. The main road serving its main town, Ashton, ran every 12 minutes before the Bee Network and now runs every 12 minutes. Evening and Sunday service has increased from one bus every 30 minutes to one bus every 20 minutes, and the last bus now runs an hour later. On the other hand, the end-to-end travel time is slower than it was.

Burnham complaints he has “never known anything as impactful” as the Bee Network. But even his declared plan because it is incredibly unambitious – reaching 200 million trips per year by 2030. That’s barely more than the 195 million made in his first year as mayor.

It had an impact in other ways, of course. The Bee Network was a public relations triumph for Burnham. Nothing is more visible than 1,600 big yellow buses. And the myth of transformation, even if it is not really true, still has its importance and its power: the network is a real local pride.

I also realized that the bus system symbolizes something important about Prime Minister Burnham. This shows how useless he is at making even slightly difficult decisions. In 2024, he was re-elected mayor with a 53-point lead over his closest rival. However, he still did not think he had the political strength necessary to create a few bus lanes and inconvenience a few motorists. What’s the point of being in power if you’re never willing to use your political capital to do anything serious? This is a question we will all soon find the answer to.