Greater Manchester Bus Franchising Assessment

[TheGrandWazoo]

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.

Both correct in that it is the customer experience that does count - it has to be something that cannot be easily replicated online as you can't compete merely on cost. However, the retail market has changed so much in 10 years, let alone 20.

However, it is noticeable that it is the retail park type facilities, rather than the high street locations, that are being retained in many instances.

In terms of B&Q, two things have happened. Firstly, DIY just isn't as popular as it once was. We are increasingly time poor so we're just not hammering stuff like we were; we get a man who can in many instances! Seemingly everyone of my parents' generation could turn their hand to most things, whereas many of my peers less so, and even less so in the generation below.

If you want me to get very nerdy (no pun intended), B&Q spotted this and so closed a lot of stores but also elected to massively reduce their SKU ranges within store so that the store footprint could be shrunk. This drove massive savings as it reduced their overall stockholding (less capital tied up), reduced obsolescence and pilferage, and in some cases, they didn't even hold stock in their distribution centres but pushed it to the manufacturer. They also saw that the market was heading from DIY to Tradesmen..... hence they purchased Screwfix!!

Even with more space, the retail park rather than the high street is often cheaper and that's with more square footage for the reasons I mentioned earlier such as free standing mezzs and utilities. There are other issues such as retail deliveries where a delivery may be with a rigid vehicle or urban artic (30' trailer) into a goods yard or drivers having to push rollcages or pallets through the front of a store whilst attracting the ire of the local traffic wardens. A retail park allows a 45' artic to be used, a dock leveller to be used and straight into a secure stock room where the goods can be left; hence deliveries can be done at any time and that reduces fleet costs as vehicles are double shifted.

Therefore, whilst the square meterage at a store may be greater, there are massive hidden efficiencies.

 

[nerd]

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.

I don't see retail parks disappearing; but I do see a radical shakeout with successful retailers concentrating in the more viable ones; and the others going bust and being sold off for housing.

Which begs the question of what constitutes a viable retail park site? Thias article is a couple of years old - and so has not picked up on the current wave of closures - but it makes good points.

http://www.jll.co.uk/united-kingdom...ticle-what-parks-will-look-like-in-the-future

Key points:

- units will be much smaller on average;
- many more units per site;
- essential inclusion of a range of eating-out, street food and entertainment options;
- inclusion of small-units providing services (key cutting, shoe repair, watch repair, hairdressing, nailbars).
- structures differentiated with higher value construction and design;
- higher environmental standards; preferably with parts of the site facing away from parking and roads - e.g. riverside;

And this major consideration:

Ease of access, circulation and egress are vital. The main strengths of an OOT park are around accessibility and convenience and the provision of a stress-free, congestion free and cost effective shopping trip. So if it takes an age to get on, find a space or get off a park, shoppers are unlikely to return.

Conversely car usage is expected to decline in future, particularly in our overcrowded cities and amongst younger, more environmentally aware generations. Between 1992 and 2011 the proportion of 17-to-20-year-olds holding a driving licence fell from 48% to 35%. Parks are overly reliant on car-borne trade and this could leave them potentially vulnerable in future. Parks that already benefit from strong public transport links will have real competitive advantage

.

What is not spelled out is that many of the 'key points' above depend on greatly increased numbers of employed staff on site; eateries need catering and waiting staff, more units need more sales staff; services need service staff; higher value external environment needs maintenance and cleaning staff. These staff need to be able to get to work; and it cannot be assumed that they will be able to afford car travel. Which emphases that retail parks with good public transport access are likely to have a much more secure future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What that posting says to me is that we should actually consider banning new build retail parks - as everything described there is much more suited to a town or city centre (or to small "local centres" in the areas where people live with most access to be on foot or by bicycle). And possibly redeveloping existing ones for housing.

OK, DIY "sheds" won't work well in centres and by their nature can't really work in a smaller store (not that you can't have a small hardware store, but if you want a shower tray or a stack of fence panels...), but they tend to stand alone anyway (or on an industrial estate) rather than being on a retail park.

 

[Dentonian]

In July's Buses mag, Julian Peddle comments that "Manchester" - by which he means the Office of the Elected Mayor of *Greater* Manchester - could have spent the £243 million Transforming Cities Fund on buying out First and Stagecoach Manchester. Notwithstanding, Grayling being on record saying Greater Manchester should NOT have been given the option of Bus Reform, surely there is no way on earth a Tory Government would allocate money for a locally elected Authority to buyout a private sector operation? At the very least, Stagecoach would refuse to sell unless the price was considerably higher, even if First opted to cut and run.

 

[Robertj21a]

In July's Buses mag, Julian Peddle comments that "Manchester" - by which he means the Office of the Elected Mayor of *Greater* Manchester - could have spent the £243 million Transforming Cities Fund on buying out First and Stagecoach Manchester. Notwithstanding, Grayling being on record saying Greater Manchester should NOT have been given the option of Bus Reform, surely there is no way on earth a Tory Government would allocate money for a locally elected Authority to buyout a private sector operation? At the very least, Stagecoach would refuse to sell unless the price was considerably higher, even if First opted to cut and run.

Presumably it was £242m for Stagecoach and £1m for First ?

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably it was £242m for Stagecoach and £1m for First ?

£242,999,999 for Stagecoach and £1 for First?!

There's a big difference between regulating the network via franchising and bringing the operators back into public ownership. I believe councils are still prohibited from buying or setting up new operators, and operators that are still council owned have to trade at arms length with the council forbidden from favouring them over their competitors. The remaining council-owned operators do have the advantage that their corporate objectives can be around social benefits rather than maximising profit, and this is probably one reason why the places they serve tend to have better bus service and higher bus ridership (even if they have trams as well!).

Even if they were allowed, it's unlikely GM would want to directly operate buses. As well as wasting the capital that could be used directly for public benefit, they end up being responsible for huge numbers of staff, buses and facilities. Without competition the operator would attract accusations of inefficiency and introducing competition would create industrial relations issues - Dublin is probably the best example of this.

What is proposed is something similar to the London model, where operators would bid to run individual routes or bundles of routes according to defined frequency and quality standards. TfGM would set all the fares, collect the revenue and pay the operators an agreed fee to provide the service. If this is done properly then all operators ought to be able to offer a quality service similar to that provided elsewhere by council-owned operators, thus removing the main benefit of council ownership.

 

[ivanhoe]

In July's Buses mag, Julian Peddle comments that "Manchester" - by which he means the Office of the Elected Mayor of *Greater* Manchester - could have spent the £243 million Transforming Cities Fund on buying out First and Stagecoach Manchester. Notwithstanding, Grayling being on record saying Greater Manchester should NOT have been given the option of Bus Reform, surely there is no way on earth a Tory Government would allocate money for a locally elected Authority to buyout a private sector operation? At the very least, Stagecoach would refuse to sell unless the price was considerably higher, even if First opted to cut and run.

Stagecoach would decide what was best for their shareholders first as the article stated. Interesting as well to note in the same article that60% of Tram passengers used to use the bus. I suspect a fair % of the 40% were train passengers when the railway ran from Bury to Victoria and from Altrincham to Piccadilly. Also interesting to note the level of subsidy for trams and trains when compared with buses. Buses are still seen as the poor relation by a landslide.

 

[nerd]

Presumably it was £242m for Stagecoach and £1m for First ?

First's bus operations in the UK are looking pretty healthy at the moment. Their current financial woes are primarily due to their over-optimistic franchise bid for the Trans Pennine Rail services (plus longstanding problems with their US Greyhound operations). The recent sharp downturn in rail growth has put most rail franchisees in serious difficulties.

 

[nerd]

Stagecoach would decide what was best for their shareholders first as the article stated. Interesting as well to note in the same article that60% of Tram passengers used to use the bus. I suspect a fair % of the 40% were train passengers when the railway ran from Bury to Victoria and from Altrincham to Piccadilly. Also interesting to note the level of subsidy for trams and trains when compared with buses. Buses are still seen as the poor relation by a landslide.

The article is polemical; and ill-informed. Like other shills for the larger operators, he continues to maintain that the Bus Services Act is 'confiscatory'; when this assertion has clearly been refuted both by parlaiment and the courts. Bus Deregulation outlawed exclusive rights to run bus services along routes (outside London); so the operators have no property in such routes to confiscate.

Moreover he is clearly ill-informed in asserting that Metrolink operations are subsidised; where in fact they run with a substantial surplus; part of which is being reinvested in further line extensions. Moreover the figure of 60% extraction of tram passengers from bus travel dates back to Metrolink phase 1. On the Phase 3 extended system, the majority of tram users state that they would otherwise have travelled by private car. There is no doubt that some extraction from bus to tram has happened in Manchester, but the majority of tram travellers are 'new'; in that they had not previously travelled the route at all.

The comments about First's busway operations are interesting though. He suggests that these may be less successful than expected due to cost of providing peak period services; which on the face of it not credible. We know that Vantage passengers carried have far exceeded First's expectations - both peak and non-peak - so assuming that they set their operations up to be commercially viable, it is not likely that they are losing money now. Indeed since the busway bypasses congestion points along the route, operator costs for Vantage services at peak will be less than those for the competing Stagecoach X34 services, simply by being less vulnerable to delay. Where operating the busway may well have been tricky for First is in their decision (entirely theirs) to apply their standard stopping-bus day and weekly fare structures. Compare Transdev charging a premium for the 36 service between Harrogate and Leeds. In my view, Bus Rapid Transit fares should be integrated with those of other Rapid Transit modes - tram, train - and not those of stopping buses; simply because BRT trips tend to be so much longer - and operator cost per passenger carried is broadly proportional to time spent on the bus.

 

[Robertj21a]

The article is polemical; and ill-informed. Like other shills for the larger operators, he continues to maintain that the Bus Services Act is 'confiscatory'; when this assertion has clearly been refuted both by parlaiment and the courts. Bus Deregulation outlawed exclusive rights to run bus services along routes (outside London); so the operators have no property in such routes to confiscate.

Moreover he is clearly ill-informed in asserting that Metrolink operations are subsidised; where in fact they run with a substantial surplus; part of which is being reinvested in further line extensions. Moreover the figure of 60% extraction of tram passengers from bus travel dates back to Metrolink phase 1. On the Phase 3 extended system, the majority of tram users state that they would otherwise have travelled by private car. There is no doubt that some extraction from bus to tram has happened in Manchester, but the majority of tram travellers are 'new'; in that they had not previously travelled the route at all.

The comments about First's busway operations are interesting though. He suggests that these may be less successful than expected due to cost of providing peak period services; which on the face of it not credible. We know that Vantage passengers carried have far exceeded First's expectations - both peak and non-peak - so assuming that they set their operations up to be commercially viable, it is not likely that they are losing money now. Indeed since the busway bypasses congestion points along the route, operator costs for Vantage services at peak will be less than those for the competing Stagecoach X34 services, simply by being less vulnerable to delay. Where operating the busway may well have been tricky for First is in their decision (entirely theirs) to apply their standard stopping-bus day and weekly fare structures. Compare Transdev charging a premium for the 36 service between Harrogate and Leeds. In my view, Bus Rapid Transit fares should be integrated with those of other Rapid Transit modes - tram, train - and not those of stopping buses; simply because BRT trips tend to be so much longer - and operator cost per passenger carried is broadly proportional to time spent on the bus.

Not sure why you should feel that the cost of providing the peak period services is not credible. It all depends on what the pvr (peak vehicle requirement) amounts to when compared with the standard (off peak) requirement - and how many trips each peak period bus/driver can do etc etc.

 

[nerd]

Not sure why you should feel that the cost of providing the peak period services is not credible. It all depends on what the pvr (peak vehicle requirement) amounts to when compared with the standard (off peak) requirement - and how many trips each peak period bus/driver can do etc etc.

The timetable does contrive some three additional peak period services; but generally the Vantage services run their standard daytime frequency throughout the day. With stopping bus operation, running peak period services creates additional cost because congestion slows the buses down, so more vehicles are required to maintain timetabled frequencies. But the Vantage services experience much less in peak-period time penalties - as the busway and buslanes bypass the congestion choke points - so they don't face the costs of extra crews.

 

[Dentonian]

The timetable does contrive some three additional peak period services; but generally the Vantage services run their standard daytime frequency throughout the day. With stopping bus operation, running peak period services creates additional cost because congestion slows the buses down, so more vehicles are required to maintain timetabled frequencies. But the Vantage services experience much less in peak-period time penalties - as the busway and buslanes bypass the congestion choke points - so they don't face the costs of extra crews.

The usual policy with conventional services is to cut traditional peak services to just maintain the same VR all day. This is nonsensical for a number of reasons; less buses when people need them; less flexibility for routine maintenance off-peak and traditional peak congestion no longer applies. Constant roadworks, crazy school hours and retail-generated car traffic all mean that off-peak lasts barely 3 hours, compared to nearly 7 hours a generation ago.

 

[winston270twm]

All 18 Commercial Bus Operators in Manchester have come together to form 'OneBus', headed by CEO Gary Nolan to reaffirm their commitment to improving bus travel, more info here:
http://www.route-one.net/magazines/emag/routeone748/page_9.html

Is the above partnership an attempt by operators to encourage TfGM to drop the 'Quality Contracts' route in favour of a 'Quality Partnership' ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Until TfGM backs down, then they'll go back to their petty spats again.

They just can't be trusted.

 

[Dentonian]

Until TfGM backs down, then they'll go back to their petty spats again.

They just can't be trusted.

Who's petty spats? Who can't be trusted? Why should TFGM back down if there is a clear mandate for change?

 

[Dentonian]

All 18 Commercial Bus Operators in Manchester have come together to form 'OneBus', headed by CEO Gary Nolan to reaffirm their commitment to improving bus travel, more info here:
http://www.route-one.net/magazines/emag/routeone748/page_9.html

Is the above partnership an attempt by operators to encourage TfGM to drop the 'Quality Contracts' route in favour of a 'Quality Partnership' ?

Looks like emporers new clothes to me? Will it equalise fares across the county?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Who's petty spats? Who can't be trusted?

The bus companies.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The bus companies.

I guess it depends how TfGM approach this.

The Nexus approach was not to engage with NEBOA. They went for the full land grab and whilst the operators mentioned this and that (Arctic Troll's empty promises), they weren't held to these as Nexus weren't interested. It was a bit "shot or bust".

It's a tricky one to call. TfGM could adopt the same approach and just look to centrally control everything and I think that's what they probably want to do - e.g. recasting of a number of services acting almost purely as Metrolink feeders?

However, if they don't wish to do the whole thing, then they do need to a) avoid the operators kicking things into the long grass and b) get the operators to formally sign up to enforceable measures in terms of investment, marketing, controls, ticketing etc.

They can, of course, pursue both paths of engaging with the operators and getting various commitments etc as part of a partnership but with the threat of franchising if they don't "come to the party".

 

[Dentonian]

I guess it depends how TfGM approach this.

The Nexus approach was not to engage with NEBOA. They went for the full land grab and whilst the operators mentioned this and that (Arctic Troll's empty promises), they weren't held to these as Nexus weren't interested. It was a bit "shot or bust".

It's a tricky one to call. TfGM could adopt the same approach and just look to centrally control everything and I think that's what they probably want to do - e.g. recasting of a number of services acting almost purely as Metrolink feeders?

However, if they don't wish to do the whole thing, then they do need to a) avoid the operators kicking things into the long grass and b) get the operators to formally sign up to enforceable measures in terms of investment, marketing, controls, ticketing etc.

They can, of course, pursue both paths of engaging with the operators and getting various commitments etc as part of a partnership but with the threat of franchising if they don't "come to the party".

The question is what would QPs or even an Enhanced QP look like in practise? The only comparison locally is the one on Merseyside which seems to only serve particular routes - into Liverpool of course - where Arriva and Stagecoach compete.
I am bound to say that the idea of solely feeding into Metrolink would be a total disaster. Equally, it would be virtually impossible to achieve within 25, nay 50 years. - both practically and financially. OTOH, politically, "investing" say £5 billion or more in rail for to give the physically fit a choice, is obviously preferable to "subisiding" buses to the tune of £500 million or less so that virtually everyone can benefit.

 

[158756]

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...us-operators-accused-holding-greater-14899089

First not buying any buses while the threat of franchising exists. Stagecoach we know aren't buying anything this year.

With this Onebus thing it sounds like all operators oppose franchising (and why wouldn't they). A protracted period of uncertainty - Grayling claims any franchising is 5 years off - won't help anyone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The question is what would QPs or even an Enhanced QP look like in practise? The only comparison locally is the one on Merseyside which seems to only serve particular routes - into Liverpool of course - where Arriva and Stagecoach compete.
I am bound to say that the idea of solely feeding into Metrolink would be a total disaster.

Even in Germany they don't *solely* feed rapid transit rail. But I do think an integrated network - one that gives quality connections as an option while also allowing through travel at the same fare - would be a huge benefit as a first step. Small re-routeings and timetable tweaks would be a start.

 

[Dentonian]

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...us-operators-accused-holding-greater-14899089

First not buying any buses while the threat of franchising exists. Stagecoach we know aren't buying anything this year.

With this Onebus thing it sounds like all operators oppose franchising (and why wouldn't they). A protracted period of uncertainty - Grayling claims any franchising is 5 years off - won't help anyone.

First (and Arriva) haven't invested for years, so their comments will fall on deaf ears anyway. Besides, they can't get their stories straight; first it was lack of bus priorities, now its uncertainty over Bus Reform. Stagecoach, OTOH, are consistent in their message - its just that their message totally contradicts their behaviour post Finglands.

As for Grayling - of course he will say it will take "until 2023", because he's going to do his damnest to make sure it does!

As an aside, the MEN is also getting tiresome - they are increasingly disallowing comments from the non-twitterati readership on bus related stories and launching these stories on the web in the evening. I wouldn't bet on it being in the paper version tomorrow, given how far down the web page it is already.

What you will notice is that politicians are at least making their case (whether you agree or not) and are being honest in saying that it will cost money, but the Operators are not attempting to engage the public in any way shape or form.

 

[Kahuna47]

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...us-operators-accused-holding-greater-14899089

First not buying any buses while the threat of franchising exists. Stagecoach we know aren't buying anything this year.

With this Onebus thing it sounds like all operators oppose franchising (and why wouldn't they). A protracted period of uncertainty - Grayling claims any franchising is 5 years off - won't help anyone.

I thought it was well known that First in particular aren't buying any new vehicles because of that fact - the newest vehicles are offcasts from other OpCos. Aren't most of Stagecoach's new vehicles leased as well, mainly due to the head honchos also owning ADL?

First don't like any sort of outside control if it affects their strict minimum percentage profit rule they have - the reason they pulled out of London is due to TfL's profit was just under First's expectations. I'd expect a similar thing to happen if TfGM et al ever decide to choose a route they are going to take!

It's probably why One Bus has been created, for a unified voice to tell them to get on with it (queue The Holy Grail's "Get on with it!" bit! ).

K

 

[radamfi]

As for Grayling - of course he will say it will take "until 2023", because he's going to do his damnest to make sure it does!

Governments have been lying about bus reform for getting on for 20 years now. Transport Act 2000 introduced Quality Contracts but it became clear that they were impossible to implement. Local Transport Act 2008 was supposed to make this easier but when Nexus tried to do it, we realised that any application would fail.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Nexus tried to do it, we realised that any application would fail.

The Nexus bid was so poorly done, it was doomed to fail. I mean, who puts forward a business plan without working capital considerations?

Even in Germany they don't *solely* feed rapid transit rail. But I do think an integrated network - one that gives quality connections as an option while also allowing through travel at the same fare - would be a huge benefit as a first step. Small re-routeings and timetable tweaks would be a start.

I think Dentonian was thinking that buses would solely be feeders, which won't happen. So will the V1/V2 disappear - well no? However, could something like the 100 become a Warrington to Trafford Cen service and feed the Metrolink with the Irlam and Cadishead passengers - possibly?

I thought it was well known that First in particular aren't buying any new vehicles because of that fact - the newest vehicles are offcasts from other OpCos. Aren't most of Stagecoach's new vehicles leased as well, mainly due to the head honchos also owning ADL?

First don't like any sort of outside control if it affects their strict minimum percentage profit rule they have - the reason they pulled out of London is due to TfL's profit was just under First's expectations. I'd expect a similar thing to happen if TfGM et al ever decide to choose a route they are going to take!

I think Stagecoach only lease in London. Also, whilst ADL and Stagecoach have similar owners, they are supposed to be completely independent so Stagecoach cannot be forced to buy ADL - or that's the theory. All to do with corporate governance!

London was sold by First because they needed to offload some stuff to raise the cash they needed. As well as being lower margin than they wanted, it was also soaking up all the capital for new vehicles so they weren't able to invest in the provinces - really noticeable when you look at deliveries in 2010-2012.

 

[Megafuss]

Governments have been lying about bus reform for getting on for 20 years now. Transport Act 2000 introduced Quality Contracts but it became clear that they were impossible to implement. Local Transport Act 2008 was supposed to make this easier but when Nexus tried to do it, we realised that any application would fail.

This is the thing. Nexus almost won. They would have been succesful if they had done it properly. The bus operators won by "default".

NEXUS fundamentally changed how the contracts would be let halfway through the actual consultation process, I understand they realised the route costing were way out.....

 

[Dentonian]

It's probably why One Bus has been created, for a unified voice to tell them to get on with it (queue The Holy Grail's "Get on with it!" bit! ).

K

OneBus is simply GMBOA rehashed. Picked up a leaflet this morning about it, and it includes a web address. I tried it and guess what? Its just a picture with a twitter symbol.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah OneBus is just a brand name of the Greater Manchester Bus Operators Association, a bus industry lobbying group that have been around for quite a few years. Stagecoach (main opponent of franchising) have recently taken the lead, but other than putting some stickers on buses and having a promotion day they havent produced anything to advance their position and the website links to twitter homepage rather than their twitter account which after a week of posts has now gone silent.

 

[nerd]

Bus Reform

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/569/greater_manchester_combined_authority

GMCA meeting this week.

- approve power to appoint an independent auditor (in compliance with the Act).
- approve power to take note any information prepared for auditor assessment to vary substantive elements of any proposed franchising or partnership scheme, prior to submitting for audit
- approve preparatory work to undertake a consultation on a franchising or partnership scheme following the completion of the audit assessment.

:effectively pressing ahead as quickly as possible.

 

[Dentonian]

Bus Reform

https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/569/greater_manchester_combined_authority

GMCA meeting this week.

- approve power to appoint an independent auditor (in compliance with the Act).
- approve power to take note any information prepared for auditor assessment to vary substantive elements of any proposed franchising or partnership scheme, prior to submitting for audit
- approve preparatory work to undertake a consultation on a franchising or partnership scheme following the completion of the audit assessment.

:effectively pressing ahead as quickly as possible.

Very disappointed to read that the consultation doesn't have to be with the public (ie. full fare paying bus passengers and local tax payers).