Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[Bletchleyite]

It has to be done one way or another. If electric cars become standard in a few years but buses continue to be mostly diesel run then, rightly or wrongly, the bus will have no credibility as a green form of transport.

There are quite a lot of electric bus projects out there at the minute - the longest running "proper" one is probably the MK route 7 inductive charging experiment, but TfL have some now (most notably the Red Arrows which I believe are called that again) and there are others. I think we will reach the point of being able to have all single decker city buses electric before very long, maybe 5-10 years. Double deckers are more difficult as the larger batteries are heavier, though it would perhaps provide a "double whammy" motivation to go 3 axle to be able to go electric *and* fit aircon/air cooling of some kind.

Though amusingly the MK electric buses have diesel heaters!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There are a number of examples of the BBC "targetting" buses, including their so-called "Reality check", which claimed that back in the 1980s - when diesel engines and emissions were far worse than they are now AND there were 50% more buses on Britain's roads - buses were the cause of 10% of road based pollution. Today, with far more cars on the road; far less buses and Euro6s emitting as little as 3% of NoX/PM10s as their 1960s equivalents - buses supposedly cause 16% of road based pollution. They have never blamed taxis, good vehicles or (of course) 30 year old diesel trains for any of the North West's pollution problems.
More recently, a detailed report came out covering the worst 10 pollution "hot spots" in GM (and similarly in other conurbations), with the BBC simply ignoring the facts. Granada Reports (and even, iirc, the MEN) identified these 10 locations, and with exception of Princess Road through Moss Side, all 10 were served by 4 or less buses (each way) per peak hour. Indeed, most were on the M60, where virtually no buses run!
Its all very well going on about electric buses in the Netherlands or biogas buses in Sweden, but who's going to pay for them?

If the BBC reports on Andy Burnham's plans (or more accurately GMCA's recommendations) I will watch with great interest, but AFAIK other than during and immediately after the Mayoral Election period, neither the BBC nor Granada have mentioned the subject. The MEN has raised it on more than one occasion, but nothing on TV. TBF, there isn't anything to report and, I suspect, irony of ironies, the current Northern Fail situation will be used as an excuse to delay it.

Take all that on board but is that really a reflection of some anti-bus agenda from the BBC; I doubt that they are so bothered to actually take an anti-bus editorial position!

After all, something like this is perhaps indicative of the issue https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...r-news/mayor-andy-burnham-vows-never-13657145 No politician with a view to continued power is going to be anti-car and so if you NEVER say anything that the car lobby will rail against (no pun intended), any mention of pollution is going to have to focus on anything that isn't a car! Articles such as this reinforce the issue that it's buses to blame https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...should-every-bus-manchester-electric-11339038

 

[Dentonian]

Absolutely pivotal in terms of the bus industry is the health of the high street. Where you have critical mass, like Manchester city centre or Trafford Centre, there will still be enough to have these anchor stores and so promote shopping trips but not in places like Stockport, Bolton or elsewhere. It is more pronounced in northern England, we have a two speed economy with higher employment and greater economic activity in the south of England and a dying towns and not just in GM but arguably similar places like Rotherham, Doncaster, South Shields and Sunderland, Stockton and Middlesbrough.

Given that the next part of Metrolink is to the Trafford Centre (and so more abstraction from buses on a key corridor), then the scope for increasing bus travel in the same manner as Bristol is even further reduced!

Trouble is, in different ways, you are looking at he problem through the eyes of economists, statisticians and planners, not human bus passengers. Yes, the state of the economy is a fundamental factor, and it isn't going to change, but how is it being tackled/mitigated. We've seen in Bolton how both passengers and businesses have reacted angrily to the location of the new Interchange away from the Market area, and Stockport are reacting in the obvious populist, Portas inspired way, of reducing parking costs. Two particular points about Stockport's move;
1. It seems to have been spurred by the closure of M&S, which means they clearly haven't noticed where the neighbouring M&S closure is - in the middle of a Free car park with 750 spaces!
2. They are trialing free parking for four hour periods at one of their town centre car parks. Understandable, I suppose but which car park have they chosen? Heaton Lane, right next to the site of the temporary bus station whilst the new Interchange is built!

As for Metrolink to the Trafford Centre, yes it will abstract from buses on a key corridor (in terms of Stagecoach's bean counters), but once on unique stretches of route (and remember X50 is limited stop anyway), it runs through sparsely populated industrial areas to get to the expensive, upmarket Shopping Centre. In other words, its the sort of conversion that won't impact on local, car-less tax-payers in the way that Phase III has. 20 years ago, there was no Trafford Centre, just like there was no Media City.

 

[radamfi]

Though amusingly the MK electric buses have diesel heaters!

As do the BYD/ADL buses on London routes 507 and 521.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As do the BYD/ADL buses on London routes 507 and 521.

I guess the issue is that the batteries to also heat a bus would need to be pretty big, and there's little waste heat to use. The only other viable option would probably be some kind of storage radiator, but the bricks are heavy.

 

[Dentonian]

The issue is that cars mostly use petrol and buses use diesel. In the 80s we still had leaded petrol. Petrol is not great for CO2 emissions but is significantly better than diesel for air quality. So I can believe that as a proportion buses will be more polluting than in the 80s, certainly for the types of pollution that affect local air quality.



It has to be done one way or another. If electric cars become standard in a few years but buses continue to be mostly diesel run then, rightly or wrongly, the bus will have no credibility as a green form of transport.

In the 1980s most cars were indeed petrol, but since then diesel has become a much bigger proportion (although this will now reverse because all the "experts" have decided they were wrong to suggest diesel was cleaner than petrol). Further, car ownership (mainly diesel) has grown faster in that same period, especially in suburban areas where the bus industry (with help from the politicians) has failed the car less. And, unless I'm mistaken virtually all taxis are diesel.

The bus has no credibility as a green form of transport, precisely because the car owning, middle class, middle income*, rail loving Media have told the public that it has no credibility!

*TGW may well be right about low paid jobs at the bottom of the Media ladder, but I doubt the presenters and researchers are scraping by on £12k a year - and indeed, they often talk about their car/rail based commute from leafy north Lancashire.

 

[radamfi]

In the 1980s most cars were indeed petrol, but since then diesel has become a much bigger proportion (although this will now reverse because all the "experts" have decided they were wrong to suggest diesel was cleaner than petrol). Further, car ownership (mainly diesel) has grown faster in that same period, especially in suburban areas where the bus industry (with help from the politicians) has failed the car less. And, unless I'm mistaken virtually all taxis are diesel.

The bus has no credibility as a green form of transport, precisely because the car owning, middle class, middle income*, rail loving Media have told the public that it has no credibility!

*TGW may well be right about low paid jobs at the bottom of the Media ladder, but I doubt the presenters and researchers are scraping by on £12k a year - and indeed, they often talk about their car/rail based commute from leafy north Lancashire.

Most if not all traditional London-style taxis are diesel, but other taxis such as private hire cars/Ubers etc. are often Toyota Prius hybrids.

It is good to be concerned about the disadvantaged in society, but the fact is the majority of people in this country are middle class and it is important that public transport appeals to a wide cross-section of society if we want public transport to have some kind of future. It is possible for buses to appeal to the middle class. Buses in London are now used by the middle class a lot more than they used to be.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Trouble is, in different ways, you are looking at he problem through the eyes of economists, statisticians and planners, not human bus passengers. Yes, the state of the economy is a fundamental factor, and it isn't going to change, but how is it being tackled/mitigated. We've seen in Bolton how both passengers and businesses have reacted angrily to the location of the new Interchange away from the Market area, and Stockport are reacting in the obvious populist, Portas inspired way, of reducing parking costs. Two particular points about Stockport's move;
1. It seems to have been spurred by the closure of M&S, which means they clearly haven't noticed where the neighbouring M&S closure is - in the middle of a Free car park with 750 spaces!
2. They are trialing free parking for four hour periods at one of their town centre car parks. Understandable, I suppose but which car park have they chosen? Heaton Lane, right next to the site of the temporary bus station whilst the new Interchange is built!

As for Metrolink to the Trafford Centre, yes it will abstract from buses on a key corridor (in terms of Stagecoach's bean counters), but once on unique stretches of route (and remember X50 is limited stop anyway), it runs through sparsely populated industrial areas to get to the expensive, upmarket Shopping Centre. In other words, its the sort of conversion that won't impact on local, car-less tax-payers in the way that Phase III has. 20 years ago, there was no Trafford Centre, just like there was no Media City.

No - quite wrong. I'm looking at this as a bus passenger (I'm a human last I checked) and a realist. Have you not noticed the carnage on high street? The amount of occupied retail space was predicted to fall this year with a retail analyst saying "Occupied retail space in UK town centres is estimated to decline by 0.8% in 2018 as retailers choose to close underperforming stores in high street locations where footfall has weakened and they continue to focus investment on destination stores in more attractive locations, while food service and leisure operators also move in to satisfy changing consumer needs." Essentially, the big places like Manchester and Trafford Centre will survive but smaller towns won't.

That was in January and it's absolutely true as the HoF and M&S announcements highlight. Fact is, in five years, non food internet sales have more than doubled - it's now 1 in 4 of all sales and that is really affecting bus patronage.

Now, it's counter-intuitive to suggest that towns should have free parking to help bus services and, in the past, I'd have subscribed to that view. However, the growth of internet retailing has changed everything - you do know you can buy stuff with your phone? Now it's a case of removing as many barriers to customers as possible to protect retail footfall and keep stores open.

If you think the Metrolink to TCen isn't going to take a lot of traffic from the local buses, it would fly in the face of experience and, you'd question, why they would be doing it.

ps I'm not a bean counter but I know quite a few - they're actually quite nice people. I also know a number of bus company managers and, if you ask them, they are citing the p*55poor ENCTS remuneration and reducing retail footfall (and impact on passenger figures) together with increased traffic congestion (usually from poorly parked white vans making internet deliveries) as the main issues that are impacting their operations!

pps - please stop the middle class rubbish. Tony Livesey may talk about his drive in from Burnley but researchers are probably on not much more than £16k, blinded by the potential riches that they hope they'll get from a career in the media. There's a very funny Charlie Brooker skit on that very subject!

 

[158756]

Trouble is, in different ways, you are looking at he problem through the eyes of economists, statisticians and planners, not human bus passengers. Yes, the state of the economy is a fundamental factor, and it isn't going to change, but how is it being tackled/mitigated. We've seen in Bolton how both passengers and businesses have reacted angrily to the location of the new Interchange away from the Market area, and Stockport are reacting in the obvious populist, Portas inspired way, of reducing parking costs. Two particular points about Stockport's move;
1. It seems to have been spurred by the closure of M&S, which means they clearly haven't noticed where the neighbouring M&S closure is - in the middle of a Free car park with 750 spaces!
2. They are trialing free parking for four hour periods at one of their town centre car parks. Understandable, I suppose but which car park have they chosen? Heaton Lane, right next to the site of the temporary bus station whilst the new Interchange is built!

I don't know the Bolton situation, but when Accrington's bus station was relocated businesses complained both that the buses had moved away (replaced by car parking) and because the buses had moved nearer (displacing the car parking)! I don't think anything can be done about the town centres. Free parking doesn't seem to make much, it any difference, I doubt better buses would either. Off topic, but what's wrong with Stockport town centre? I'd have thought it should be better able to retain shops and have more potential for redevelopment than most other towns in GM. I'd expect a couple of others to keep M&S through the current closure program. The Denton retail park one was a goner if as an outlet store it didn't sell food.

 

[daodao]

I don't know the Bolton situation, but when Accrington's bus station was relocated businesses complained both that the buses had moved away (replaced by car parking) and because the buses had moved nearer (displacing the car parking)! I don't think anything can be done about the town centres. Free parking doesn't seem to make much, it any difference, I doubt better buses would either. Off topic, but what's wrong with Stockport town centre? I'd have thought it should be better able to retain shops and have more potential for redevelopment than most other towns in GM. I'd expect a couple of others to keep M&S through the current closure program. The Denton retail park one was a goner if as an outlet store it didn't sell food.

The main department store in Stockport Borough is John Lewis, at the Cheadle Royal retail park. The nearest M&S is at Handforth Dean retail park, just outside the Stockport Borough boundary. Both have massive car parks and are adjacent to the main A34 trunk road. The only public transport to both retail parks is the roundabout route 312 from Stockport, which runs hourly Mon-Sat only.

 

[nerd]

No - quite wrong. I'm looking at this as a bus passenger (I'm a human last I checked) and a realist. Have you not noticed the carnage on high street? The amount of occupied retail space was predicted to fall this year with a retail analyst saying "Occupied retail space in UK town centres is estimated to decline by 0.8% in 2018 as retailers choose to close underperforming stores in high street locations where footfall has weakened and they continue to focus investment on destination stores in more attractive locations, while food service and leisure operators also move in to satisfy changing consumer needs." Essentially, the big places like Manchester and Trafford Centre will survive but smaller towns won't.

That was in January and it's absolutely true as the HoF and M&S announcements highlight. Fact is, in five years, non food internet sales have more than doubled - it's now 1 in 4 of all sales and that is really affecting bus patronage.

Now, it's counter-intuitive to suggest that towns should have free parking to help bus services and, in the past, I'd have subscribed to that view. However, the growth of internet retailing has changed everything - you do know you can buy stuff with your phone? Now it's a case of removing as many barriers to customers as possible to protect retail footfall and keep stores open.

If you think the Metrolink to TCen isn't going to take a lot of traffic from the local buses, it would fly in the face of experience and, you'd question, why they would be doing it.

ps I'm not a bean counter but I know quite a few - they're actually quite nice people. I also know a number of bus company managers and, if you ask them, they are citing the p*55poor ENCTS remuneration and reducing retail footfall (and impact on passenger figures) together with increased traffic congestion (usually from poorly parked white vans making internet deliveries) as the main issues that are impacting their operations!

pps - please stop the middle class rubbish. Tony Livesey may talk about his drive in from Burnley but researchers are probably on not much more than £16k, blinded by the potential riches that they hope they'll get from a career in the media. There's a very funny Charlie Brooker skit on that very subject!

Some good points there TGW; it is certainly true that bus use is more strongly linked into shopping than is any other public transport offering, so the 'carnage on the high street' hits off-peak bus ridership especially. But the 'carnage on the high street' is also a 'carnage of the retail parks'; it is not just that internet shopping is hitting at department stores for high cost items; it is also that low-cost retailers - Aldi,Lidl, B&M -are replacing the big out-of-town superstores for the weekly shop. And the business model of low-cost retailers is always to concentrate on smaller sites in local centres with minimal, or no, dedicated car park provision. Meanwhile other town centre retail is thriving; Altrincham are losing out on a department store; but have a booming retail attraction in their food market; and associated food court. Stockport are looking to do the same in a conversion of their market hall in similar manner. I suspect it is the Manchester Fort and equivalents, that are reallly at risk, as they have limited scope for re-invention.

I share your impatience with lazy categorisation of public transport demand in 'class' terms; the evidence is that both age and ethnicity are much more important. There is a serious issue for those seeking to maximise bus demand in the growth of Uber use amongst younger adults. Though in so far as access to Uber leads to a deferral of car-buying (and indeed driving test taking) this population is one that remains potentially receptive to returning to bus travel, if that can be provided in a mode that they find meets their needs and pockets. This is precisely the demographic and demand category that the current deregulated bus operators have contrived to deter from using stopping buses; and precisely the category most likely to be attracted onto stopping bus use by simplified fares, standard cross-mode and cross-operator ticketing, extended network options, higher service frequencies and more off-peak services.

But otherwise, differential ethnic patterns of bus demand are strongly apparent. Persons raised in continental Europe (especially EU accession countries) tend to have a strong inclination to use trains, trams and buses, even where cars are accessible in the household. British Indian populations tend to be more strongly inhibited against bus use; while Black African populations remain more likely to be bus users in urban areas. But neither British Asian or British African populations are likely to envisage train travel as a regular transport option; even in areas where there are local train services.

The best study of all this places a great deal of emphasis on transport choice as a learning culture; users become acculturated to restricting their choice to a narrow range of modes; but if they can be encouraged to broaden their perspectives, previous inhibitions can be overcome. This has been the strong experience of the various busway projects; those who previously would not have considered riding a bus as a viable option, now tend to be strongest in favour of it. In that respect, the steady and consistent increase in the mean age of acquiring a private car creates the considerable potential for expansion of bus use in populations that may previously have been inhibited. So long as you don't have a car, or have a car but see it as solely a 'family travel' facility; so long you are likely to be receptive to a suitably packaged offer of public transport accessibility.

http://www.theitc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ITC-ORR-Road-Rail-Attitudinal-Report-Final.pdf

The key point here being that public transport modes are not in overall competition. It may well be that opening a tram route abstracts from previous bus and rail use along that corridor. But overall the new route offer additions to the cross-modal urban transport system; and for the groups where the potential for increase use appears to be greatest, that is a big plus factor. So in the longer term; all public transport modes are likely to benefit from increased demand generated by increased functionality of the system as a whole.

 

[radamfi]

The decline in retail shows how important it is that public transport doesn't just cater for a very narrow range of trip purposes. On both bus and rail discussion here, there is so much emphasis placed on shopping. PT should be targeting the same wide variety of trip purposes and destinations that cars are used for. So that means trips other than shopping in town centres. There are plenty of people using buses and trains in London on Easter Sunday, presumably not many of them going shopping.

 

[edwin_m]

The decline in retail shows how important it is that public transport doesn't just cater for a very narrow range of trip purposes. On both bus and rail discussion here, there is so much emphasis placed on shopping. PT should be targeting the same wide variety of trip purposes and destinations that cars are used for. So that means trips other than shopping in town centres. There are plenty of people using buses and trains in London on Easter Sunday, presumably not many of them going shopping.

And that also emphasises the importance of bus services in the evening and outside shopping hours on Sundays!

However I suspect public transport will never compete for retail park journeys, with very limited exceptions. A lot of people will be buying large/heavy items, the locations aren't normally PT-friendly, and for these reasons there isn't enough demand to sustain diversion let alone creation of a bus route.

 

[nerd]

And that also emphasises the importance of bus services in the evening and outside shopping hours on Sundays!

However I suspect public transport will never compete for retail park journeys, with very limited exceptions. A lot of people will be buying large/heavy items, the locations aren't normally PT-friendly, and for these reasons there isn't enough demand to sustain diversion let alone creation of a bus route.

Maybe; but bulky items also now tend to be delivery items. Once you become accustomed to internet shopping for clothes, books and groceries; you are less likely to take a trip to a retail park for household goods or bulky electronic kit. One key point is that the urban bus is potentially much more internet-friendly than the private car; for this generation of younger adults (once they have a next-bus app on their phone and full e-ticketing) getting into and out of a town centre from inner supurbs by bus has become a much more straightforward option than even for young adults 20 years ago. A car still needs to find a parking space at the destination, still needs to negotiate a route through congestion and road-works; and still needs to be kept safely somewhere accessible to your home. I am getting on a bit now; so likely not typical, but a major inhibition to my using a car for bulky shopping is that I have no guarantee there will be an empty parking space within carrying distance of my house, on my return.

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe; but bulky items also now tend to be delivery items. Once you become accustomed to internet shopping for clothes, books and groceries; you are less likely to take a trip to a retail park for household goods or bulky electronic kit. One key point is that the urban bus is potentially much more internet-friendly than the private car; for this generation of younger adults (once they have a next-bus app on their phone and full e-ticketing) getting into and out of a town centre from inner supurbs by bus has become a much more straightforward option than even for young adults 20 years ago. A car still needs to find a parking space at the destination, still needs to negotiate a route through congestion and road-works; and still needs to be kept safely somewhere accessible to your home. I am getting on a bit now; so likely not typical, but a major inhibition to my using a car for bulky shopping is that I have no guarantee there will be an empty parking space within carrying distance of my house, on my return.

If that is so then the retail parks are facing the same challenges as the high street. If they disappear they are no longer an issue for transport provision, but if they survive they will probably only do so because they have easy road access and parking - so still won't be easy to serve by public transport.

 

[Dentonian]

No - quite wrong. I'm looking at this as a bus passenger (I'm a human last I checked) and a realist. Have you not noticed the carnage on high street? The amount of occupied retail space was predicted to fall this year with a retail analyst saying "Occupied retail space in UK town centres is estimated to decline by 0.8% in 2018 as retailers choose to close underperforming stores in high street locations where footfall has weakened and they continue to focus investment on destination stores in more attractive locations, while food service and leisure operators also move in to satisfy changing consumer needs." Essentially, the big places like Manchester and Trafford Centre will survive but smaller towns won't.

That was in January and it's absolutely true as the HoF and M&S announcements highlight. Fact is, in five years, non food internet sales have more than doubled - it's now 1 in 4 of all sales and that is really affecting bus patronage.

Now, it's counter-intuitive to suggest that towns should have free parking to help bus services and, in the past, I'd have subscribed to that view. However, the growth of internet retailing has changed everything - you do know you can buy stuff with your phone? Now it's a case of removing as many barriers to customers as possible to protect retail footfall and keep stores open.

If you think the Metrolink to TCen isn't going to take a lot of traffic from the local buses, it would fly in the face of experience and, you'd question, why they would be doing it.

ps I'm not a bean counter but I know quite a few - they're actually quite nice people. I also know a number of bus company managers and, if you ask them, they are citing the p*55poor ENCTS remuneration and reducing retail footfall (and impact on passenger figures) together with increased traffic congestion (usually from poorly parked white vans making internet deliveries) as the main issues that are impacting their operations!

pps - please stop the middle class rubbish. Tony Livesey may talk about his drive in from Burnley but researchers are probably on not much more than £16k, blinded by the potential riches that they hope they'll get from a career in the media. There's a very funny Charlie Brooker skit on that very subject!

Its some years since Tony Livesey was a regular on Northwest Tonight but back in the here and now if I was a provider of Rail Replacement s I would be screwing the Rail Industry for every penny I could get not only because Northern are desperate but because of the gratuitous digs from the Media and the likes of Tim Farron. It's one thing to complain about replacement PCVs taking longer than trains - which I assume is the argument from reasonably minded commuters - but to deliberately stand in front of 2 Stagecoach E400 MMCs to lament absent Sprinters and Pacers is utterly in necessary. Separately, what rates are ENCTS "make up" nowadays? Last I heard, TfGM paid something like 60pc which at £4.50 plus per round trip would presumably mean Ops getting c £1.25 per journey.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Maybe; but bulky items also now tend to be delivery items. Once you become accustomed to internet shopping for clothes, books and groceries; you are less likely to take a trip to a retail park for household goods or bulky electronic kit. One key point is that the urban bus is potentially much more internet-friendly than the private car; for this generation of younger adults (once they have a next-bus app on their phone and full e-ticketing) getting into and out of a town centre from inner supurbs by bus has become a much more straightforward option than even for young adults 20 years ago. A car still needs to find a parking space at the destination, still needs to negotiate a route through congestion and road-works; and still needs to be kept safely somewhere accessible to your home. I am getting on a bit now; so likely not typical, but a major inhibition to my using a car for bulky shopping is that I have no guarantee there will be an empty parking space within carrying distance of my house, on my return.

If that is so then the retail parks are facing the same challenges as the high street. If they disappear they are no longer an issue for transport provision, but if they survive they will probably only do so because they have easy road access and parking - so still won't be easy to serve by public transport.

The issues of town centres vs. retail parks are quite mixed. As we've seen, there are casualties in those chains who have been predominantly on retail parks (Toys R Us with various others in torment) though arguably more through poor management than the overall shift to online and, of course, overheads are generally lower on retail parks and there's the benefits of plentiful free parking too!

The key point here being that public transport modes are not in overall competition. It may well be that opening a tram route abstracts from previous bus and rail use along that corridor. But overall the new route offer additions to the cross-modal urban transport system; and for the groups where the potential for increase use appears to be greatest, that is a big plus factor. So in the longer term; all public transport modes are likely to benefit from increased demand generated by increased functionality of the system as a whole.

Public transport modes may well serve different markets (often a distinction between bus and train) but the issue still remains that Metrolink has, does and will abstract traffic from nearby bus services. For instance, phase 1 of Metrolink did attract a lot of car drivers (about 30% of total) and 20% were completely new journeys. However, 20% were taken from local buses, and as Metrolink continues to expand (over the strongest corridors), the ability to achieve Bristol like growth is massively constrained and is more so.

new users (trips not previously made)

 

[nerd]

The issues of town centres vs. retail parks are quite mixed. As we've seen, there are casualties in those chains who have been predominantly on retail parks (Toys R Us with various others in torment) though arguably more through poor management than the overall shift to online and, of course, overheads are generally lower on retail parks and there's the benefits of plentiful free parking too!

Toys R Us, Mothercare, Carpetright, Homebase have all gone. B&Q is in serious difficulties. Halfords has posted profit warnings. PCWorld has shut down many of its retail park units to concentrate into central shopping centre sites. Some of these are poor management; but most also report being hit by a combination of internet competition and inflexible fixed costs associated with retail park units. There is no such thing as 'free' parking; someone is always paying, and if there is no charge being collected from the user, then that cost will be a charge on the tenants' rents - and so adds to their overheads. Which is why you wono't see Aldi in a retail park. Hence, while rental costs per sq m may be lower in a retail park, the fact that the units are characterisitically much larger inm area means that overall rental overheads are higher. Businesses in retail parks need to be shifting a lot more in the way of goods to break even.

In Halfords case an additional factor is reported; which is that customers are unwilling to buy high margin goods in a retail park. They expect prices to be not much higher than those from internet traders. So, to Halfords frustration, their attempts to establish a trade in higher value bikes has been conspicuously unsuccessful. In a town centre specialist bike shop, customers will be reckoning to spend £1,000 or more; often much more. But in Halfords the same customers won't spend more than £500.

Public transport modes may well serve different markets (often a distinction between bus and train) but the issue still remains that Metrolink has, does and will abstract traffic from nearby bus services. For instance, phase 1 of Metrolink did attract a lot of car drivers (about 30% of total) and 20% were completely new journeys. However, 20% were taken from local buses, and as Metrolink continues to expand (over the strongest corridors), the ability to achieve Bristol like growth is massively constrained and is more so.

My point is that the loss of bus demand due to abstraction of bus trafffic onto a new tram lilne need not lead to a drop in bus use overall. The obvious example of this is Nottingham, where total annual bus boardings have remained constant around 48m over the past ten years; even though the NET tram network has doubled in size.

But what has always been strong in Nottingham is a fare structure to encourage cross-modal trips. Hence the expansion in tram usehas grown the whole market for public transport travel; so that bus services, as a proportion of that overall demand, have grown too - to an extent that balances the loss of business on individual corridors. But fare structures implemented by bus operators in Greter Manchester consistently penalise cross-modal travel with higher fares; as operators trie to contrive so that they can keep any demand growth they generate only to themselves.

Which demonstrates a key principle. The architects of bus deregulation understood demand for bus services solely as demand for bus journeys along an individual route. So they sought an ideal of bus networks split into individual routes, with operators competing on each. But that works only for a portion of bus demand. For many other users, bus demand is a component of overall public transport demand; such users seek the facility to enter the network at one point, exit at another point, and pay a standard fare for their trip independent of the particular modes of travel used. By excluding this second tranche of demand, bus operators in GM have missed out on the potential growth in bus patronage linked into the growth in tram network coverage.

 

[158756]

Which is why you wono't see Aldi in a retail park.

Eh? Round here you won't find them anywhere other than retail parks. Here Aldi and Lidl have been driving the growth of out of town shopping in recent years.

My point is that the loss of bus demand due to abstraction of bus trafffic onto a new tram lilne need not lead to a drop in bus use overall. The obvious example of this is Nottingham, where total annual bus boardings have remained constant around 48m over the past ten years; even though the NET tram network has doubled in size.

But what has always been strong in Nottingham is a fare structure to encourage cross-modal trips. Hence the expansion in tram usehas grown the whole market for public transport travel; so that bus services, as a proportion of that overall demand, have grown too - to an extent that balances the loss of business on individual corridors. But fare structures implemented by bus operators in Greter Manchester consistently penalise cross-modal travel with higher fares; as operators trie to contrive so that they can keep any demand growth they generate only to themselves.

Which demonstrates a key principle. The architects of bus deregulation understood demand for bus services solely as demand for bus journeys along an individual route. So they sought an ideal of bus networks split into individual routes, with operators competing on each. But that works only for a portion of bus demand. For many other users, bus demand is a component of overall public transport demand; such users seek the facility to enter the network at one point, exit at another point, and pay a standard fare for their trip independent of the particular modes of travel used. By excluding this second tranche of demand, bus operators in GM have missed out on the potential growth in bus patronage linked into the growth in tram network coverage.

I think it's a tad unfair to blame this solely on the bus operators. As long as they are separate entities both bus and tram need to take a decent cut of any combined ticket price. Is TfGM willing to take less for Metrolink? Otherwise the buses would just be offering their service for free, which is a sure fire way of decreasing bus use by 100%. Nottingham does charge more for using multiple modes. The ticketing does seem simpler, but that will also be helped by the fact that even when the zones come in Manchester's tram fares are significantly more complicated, and potentially expensive, than Nottingham's.

 

[Robertj21a]

Toys R Us, Mothercare, Carpetright, Homebase have all gone. B&Q is in serious difficulties. Halfords has posted profit warnings. PCWorld has shut down many of its retail park units to concentrate into central shopping centre sites. Some of these are poor management; but most also report being hit by a combination of internet competition and inflexible fixed costs associated with retail park units. There is no such thing as 'free' parking; someone is always paying, and if there is no charge being collected from the user, then that cost will be a charge on the tenants' rents - and so adds to their overheads. Which is why you wono't see Aldi in a retail park. Hence, while rental costs per sq m may be lower in a retail park, the fact that the units are characterisitically much larger inm area means that overall rental overheads are higher. Businesses in retail parks need to be shifting a lot more in the way of goods to break even.

In Halfords case an additional factor is reported; which is that customers are unwilling to buy high margin goods in a retail park. They expect prices to be not much higher than those from internet traders. So, to Halfords frustration, their attempts to establish a trade in higher value bikes has been conspicuously unsuccessful. In a town centre specialist bike shop, customers will reckong to spend £1,000 or more; often much more. But in Halfords the same customers won't spend more than £500.



My point is that the loss of bus demand due to abstraction of bus trafffic onto a new tram lilne need not lead to a drop in bus use overall. The obvious example of this is Nottingham, where total annual bus boardings have remained constant around 48m over the past ten years; even though the NET tram network has doubled in size.

But what has always been strong in Nottingham is a fare structure to encourage cross-modal trips. Hence the expansion in tram usehas grown the whole market for public transport travel; so that bus services, as a proportion of that overall demand, have grown too - to an extent that balances the loss of business on individual corridors. But fare structures implemented by bus operators in Greter Manchester consistently penalise cross-modal travel with higher fares; as operators trie to contrive so that they can keep any demand growth they generate only to themselves.

Which demonstrates a key principle. The architects of bus deregulation understood demand for bus services solely as demand for bus journeys along an individual route. So they sought an ideal of bus networks split into individual routes, with operators competing on each. But that works only for a portion of bus demand. For many other users, bus demand is a component of overall public transport demand; such users seek the facility to enter the network at one point, exit at another point, and pay a standard fare for their trip independent of the particular modes of travel used. By excluding this second tranche of demand, bus operators in GM have missed out on the potential growth in bus patronage linked into the growth in tram network coverage.

Nottingham is quite an interesting case, but possibly not as clear cut as it first appears. When the trams started, operation was sub-contracted to a consortium involving Transdev and Nottingham City Transport. Most of the local urban routes were still operated by NCT (with TrentBarton generally operating the longer distance and rural routes) and, as such, it was in everyone's interests to have fares that allowed use on the trams and the local NCT buses. Some years ago, NCT was replaced by TrentBarton and the previous ticketing arrangements were changed accordingly. I believe the changes affected tram/bus use for a while but they have since been recovering, largely due to the new tram lines.

 

[radamfi]

I think it's a tad unfair to blame this solely on the bus operators. As long as they are separate entities both bus and tram need to take a decent cut of any combined ticket price.

If there is "blame" to be apportioned, it is to national government who have imposed the need for both modes to be financed independently. Is there a similar scenario in Europe outside the UK and Ireland? I can't think of one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is why you wono't see Aldi in a retail park.

Actually you do - the Milton Keynes Westcroft store is. They go where it makes sense - preferably their own self-build site, but if one isn't available (MK land is all designated purpose so there's very little land you can just buy up and build stuff) they won't rule (mixed rather than primarily non-food) retail parks out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Toys R Us, Mothercare, Carpetright, Homebase have all gone.

The thing about all of those is that quite simply they were rubbish. Toys R Us had clinical stores (no better than supermarkets who flog toys for next to nothing) in which the first sign you saw as you entered to all intents and purposes said "oi, we know you're a thief, so leave your bags in your car so you won't get away with it". Mothercare was not selling an awful lot the supermarkets and Argos weren't. Carpetright was not very good. Homebase was a pale imitation of B&Q (for the hobbyist) or Wickes/Screwfix (for the serious DIYer) - and now Bunnings is having trouble for the same reason - there simply isn't room in the market for another player. All of them had lost their way in some way or another, regardless of where they were located. That tends to happen with chains after a while - turning them is like turning a supertanker.

B&Q is in serious difficulties.

That I didn't know, and that specific one is surprising. Maybe Wickes/Screwfix are making too much of an inroad?

Halfords has posted profit warnings

Lost their way a bit perhaps, again?

PCWorld has shut down many of its retail park units to concentrate into central shopping centre sites.

And done a deal with Tesco to move onto their sites. But people have always bought computer equipment by mail order (even when you had to phone up to do it) - it's no surprise that the Internet shifts the most boxes in that context other than in the "premium experience" sector like Apple Stores.

For many other users, bus demand is a component of overall public transport demand; such users seek the facility to enter the network at one point, exit at another point, and pay a standard fare for their trip independent of the particular modes of travel used. By excluding this second tranche of demand, bus operators in GM have missed out on the potential growth in bus patronage linked into the growth in tram network coverage.

I do very much agree with this - yet it's taken London over a hundred years to realise (and even then only in part with the bus only Hopper), and other cities aren't really following.

 

[edwin_m]

If there is "blame" to be apportioned, it is to national government who have imposed the need for both modes to be financed independently. Is there a similar scenario in Europe outside the UK and Ireland? I can't think of one.

Indeed. The legislative structure outside London effectively forces bus operators to compete at the point of use with trams and with other bus operators. Even widely revered ones such as TrentBarton have had to resort to fairly low tactics when faced with competitors trying to cherry-pick their prime routes.

 

[nerd]

I think it's a tad unfair to blame this solely on the bus operators. As long as they are separate entities both bus and tram need to take a decent cut of any combined ticket price. Is TfGM willing to take less for Metrolink? Otherwise the buses would just be offering their service for free, which is a sure fire way of decreasing bus use by 100%. Nottingham does charge more for using multiple modes. The ticketing does seem simpler, but that will also be helped by the fact that even when the zones come in Manchester's tram fares are significantly more complicated, and potentially expensive, than Nottingham's.

If there is "blame" to be apportioned, it is to national government who have imposed the need for both modes to be financed independently. Is there a similar scenario in Europe outside the UK and Ireland? I can't think of one.

Nottingham is quite an interesting case, but possibly not as clear cut as it first appears. When the trams started, operation was sub-contracted to a consortium involving Transdev and Nottingham City Transport. Most of the local urban routes were still operated by NCT (with TrentBarton generally operating the longer distance and rural routes) and, as such, it was in everyone's interests to have fares that allowed use on the trams and the local NCT buses. Some years ago, NCT was replaced by TrentBarton and the previous ticketing arrangements were changed accordingly. I believe the changes affected tram/bus use for a while but they have since been recovering, largely due to the new tram lines.

All good points; radamafi is absolutely right that the core issue is the bus deregulation legislation which banns trams and buses being run as a single operation with common ticketing. Effectviely the early years of NET in Nottingham achieved just that, until the Competition Commission broke it up. But at the start, the standard NCT weekly bus pass was simply extended to include tram travel at no extra cost; with the consequence that both tram and bus travel boomed. Which answers 158756's question; when the bus operator is able to offer free travel on the trams, the boost in sales of bus passes is easily able to fund a top-sliced share from each ticket going to the tram operation. But of course that did create an impenetrable barrier to any other bus operator trying to compete with NCT on routes into Nottingham, hence the reason for its being unpicked.

I have no knowledge of the various discussions in GM; so I should not apportion blame. But the rail operators int Manchester do, as a matter of course, offer free onward tram travel within the city centre; and pay over a proportion of the ticket value to TfGM to cover this. I would have thought that the same facility could have been offered on day and weekly bus tickets too - subject to an equivalent payment, and perhaps reciprocal free travel on the buses for tram passengers across the city zone and education precincts.

Again a simple principle, grow the whole system, and make all components of that system simply accessible; and demand will increase across all parts of that system. Whether users travel by tram or bus across the system should be irrelevant both to the fare structure that they pay, and to the compensation paid by the fare-collection authority to the bus/tram/train operators. Which is the core principle of franchising, the fares collected on all transport modes are centrally pooled, so that the compensation from the central pool to contractors providing services will be wholly distinct from the fares collected along that service route.

Which is exactly what bus deregulation banned; as its proponents believed strongly that the 'preferred' travel mode should always be the private car. So bus users should always be considered as 'car users in waiting', and hence the legislation strongly discouraged the emergence of an integrated 'public transport culture' outside London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is exactly what bus deregulation banned; as its proponents believed strongly that the 'preferred' travel mode should always be the private car. So bus users should always be considered as 'car users in waiting', and hence the legislation strongly discouraged the emergence of an integrated 'public transport culture' outside London.

And yet with demand becoming increasingly distributed, surely that concept must now have its day.

 

[nerd]

The thing about all of those is that quite simply they were rubbish. Toys R Us had clinical stores (no better than supermarkets who flog toys for next to nothing) in which the first sign you saw as you entered to all intents and purposes said "oi, we know you're a thief, so leave your bags in your car so you won't get away with it". Mothercare was not selling an awful lot the supermarkets and Argos weren't. Carpetright was not very good. Homebase was a pale imitation of B&Q (for the hobbyist) or Wickes/Screwfix (for the serious DIYer) - and now Bunnings is having trouble for the same reason - there simply isn't room in the market for another player. All of them had lost their way in some way or another, regardless of where they were located. That tends to happen with chains after a while - turning them is like turning a supertanker.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...bros-kingfisher-high-street-retail-mothercare

Obviously it is the ones that are badly run that tend to end up bust; but the common thread in almost all these stories is that the business had expanded too rapidly, with too many loss-making stores on retail park sites. Effectively, the retailer on these sites is having to pay for the parking of every car who arrives there; so any visit that does not create a sale amounts to a loss upfront. That is not a sustainable business model in constrained economic times. On top of that - and specific to B&Q, PCWorld and Halfords - many of these retailers are selling predominantly imported goods whose wholesale cost has increased with the falling pound. What both B&Q and Halfords have found is that other retailers - those not inhibited by a retail park location - have been able to pass these increased costs onto their customers; while those in retail parks are unable to do so. So there is a boom in spending on high value bikes (which should have benefitted Halfords), and a boom in spending on high value gardening products (which should have benefitted B&Q). But the public have been resolutely unwilling to buy high value goods from a retail park site.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the public have been resolutely unwilling to buy high value goods from a retail park site.

Partly because a huge part of buying high value goods is a premium sales experience - typically smaller and much more personal. This can take different forms - the Apple Store is nothing like an oil-strewn local bike shop with the bloke who's worked there for years - but both are premium personal experiences in different ways. It makes the experience of purchase and after-sales support personal and enjoyable in a way that going to a shed in a car park on the edge of town never will be.

Retail parks are quite inefficient, too - much more efficient to have a big central warehouse and delivery than to hold huge stocks in a large number of locations. And "click and collect", which can be done from quite small premises, just about solves the last problem with delivery (not being in).

 

[nerd]

Partly because a huge part of buying high value goods is a premium sales experience - typically smaller and much more personal. This can take different forms - the Apple Store is nothing like an oil-strewn local bike shop with the bloke who's worked there for years - but both are premium personal experiences in different ways. It makes the experience of purchase and after-sales support personal and enjoyable in a way that going to a shed in a car park on the edge of town never will be.

Retail parks are quite inefficient, too - much more efficient to have a big central warehouse and delivery than to hold huge stocks in a large number of locations. And "click and collect", which can be done from quite small premises, just about solves the last problem with delivery (not being in).

Absolutely right Bletchleyite; though B&Q (for one) have tried to create a 'premium personal experience' in their stores, with a policy of employing staff with long experience in gardening and DIY. But it is the inefficient use of space that seems to be the killer; retail park units built in the last 25 years are almost always much too big. The low efficiency space then gets filled with stock boxes - which in turn is off-putting to many customers. Off-site warehouses, serving small footprint sales units make much more sense nowadays. Especially as rentals (which include covering the costs of customer parking) are usually proportional to sales area.

Though 20 years ago, the retail industry was saying exactly the opposite; high street retail units would (we were told) need to be wholly rebuilt behind retained facades in order to create 'efficient' large footprint stores; able to compete with the newly emerging retail parks. And a lot of fine buildings were demolished on that reasoning. Now those spaces have no future for booze, clothes, shoes, electric goods or furniture; but can find a ready market for artisan bakery, noodle bars or street food emporiums. But mostly these work best in smaller spaces.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Toys R Us, Mothercare, Carpetright, Homebase have all gone. B&Q is in serious difficulties. Halfords has posted profit warnings. PCWorld has shut down many of its retail park units to concentrate into central shopping centre sites. Some of these are poor management; but most also report being hit by a combination of internet competition and inflexible fixed costs associated with retail park units. There is no such thing as 'free' parking; someone is always paying, and if there is no charge being collected from the user, then that cost will be a charge on the tenants' rents - and so adds to their overheads. Which is why you wono't see Aldi in a retail park. Hence, while rental costs per sq m may be lower in a retail park, the fact that the units are characterisitically much larger inm area means that overall rental overheads are higher. Businesses in retail parks need to be shifting a lot more in the way of goods to break even.

In Halfords case an additional factor is reported; which is that customers are unwilling to buy high margin goods in a retail park. They expect prices to be not much higher than those from internet traders. So, to Halfords frustration, their attempts to establish a trade in higher value bikes has been conspicuously unsuccessful. In a town centre specialist bike shop, customers will be reckoning to spend £1,000 or more; often much more. But in Halfords the same customers won't spend more than £500.

Not wishing to get bogged down in the world of retail logistics and cost bases but, as I say, the world of retail parks is slightly different. The issues with Homebase (which hasn't gone) was a fundamental issue with their owner Bunnings not knowing the UK market whilst Toys R Us has been massively complacent in so many ways, leading to it being saddled with debt. Mothercare haven't confirmed their closures but they've closed so many already - this will take a business who had 400+ stores to somewhere below 100.

Now whilst I take your point that free parking is never truly "free" as it a cost that is recovered somewhere, the perception to shoppers is that it is free. Item A or Item B isn't more expensive in a store in a retail park in comparison to a high street store. In fact, the reality is that in many instances, the costs of a store on a retail park are often much lower than a high street location. That's' because a) they attract lower rents and lower rates b) more modern design means utilities are lower c) purpose built service yards mean that logistics costs are lower. In fact, it is also much easier to increase your sales area by putting in a free standing mezzanine in a store that doesn't attract rates (so you can have 3500 sqm but pay rates only on 2000 sqm).

Therefore, more sales in a lower cost facility means that even if you're paying a bit to the landlord for the parking, the cost is wiped out and in any case, it is free at point of consumption so the perception to the average Joe is that it is free, irrespective of any underlying reality.

My point is that the loss of bus demand due to abstraction of bus trafffic onto a new tram lilne need not lead to a drop in bus use overall. The obvious example of this is Nottingham, where total annual bus boardings have remained constant around 48m over the past ten years; even though the NET tram network has doubled in size.

Well, it need not, but it does! Your example of Nottingham is interesting. Using the table bus110 (trips per head of population for Nottingham), journeys ph fell from 162.2 to 156.5 from 2010/1 to 2014/5, a fall of 5.6 per head. When the next phase opened, the following year recorded a decline to 148.5 - a drop of 8 in one year. Clearly, NET abstracted trade from the buses and that is entirely to be expected. However, you're expecting not just a maintenance or reduced decline of current patronage (as per Nottingham) but substantial growth (as per Bristol).

Bristol has managed to increase loadings overall but it is the sole public transport option for much of the area. Greater Manchester doesn't have that with the Metrolink both in situ and expanding. Also, it should be noted that Bristol's growth hasn't been homogenous but is across certain corridors where there is growth. In GM, some of those growth corridors are already now covered with Metrolink so the ability to grow bus patronage is constrained. That there is a potential latent growth waiting to be tapped in GM - possibly, but to point to Bristol and suggest that it is a trick that can be repeated ignores the substantial differences in public transport provision and the demographics/economic activity of the two cities.

As for the issue of competition, the issue (AFAIK) has been that the ability to offer an integrated ticket should not be a barrier to other entrants into the market. We have plenty of PlusBus schemes whereby participating operators are free to get involved or not.

Now whilst the core principle of franchising is that it does bring revenue to a central pool, the question is whether the economics back that up. You can have more passengers and more revenue - how that is delivered when commercial operators can't do that? If the whole idea is to impose control and remove overprovision, then by definition operators have no ability to innovate - they merely provide a service to a set of KPIs that underpin an SLA. Then there's the cost of administering the franchising regime? And, unlike London, the idea of a congestion charge is dead as the proverbial...

Of course, public transport could and should be better. Give people a good alternative and they will use it and the public and private sectors should be able to work together to deliver it. However, it all boils down to money - Nexus didn't pass that test and I have misgivings in that the bus network will be recast to simply act as a conduit to funnelling people onto the Metrolink and not as a means of delivering a real change (as seemed to be the case with Nexus).