Giles Semper The Means LLP

Drivers do not spend more, but they cost more:

incentivising access to UK shopping centres by public transport and walking

Giles SemperThe Means LLP

Summary

• What retailers think about cars & parking• The behaviour of shoppers in centres owned by The Mall

Corporation• Similar experience from other UK Centres• Conclusions

What retailers think about cars & parking

What most retailers believe

Bike

6

Actual%

Shopkeepers Perception

%

Actual%

Shopkeepers Perception

%

Actual%

Shopkeepers Perception

%

Actual%

Shopkeepers Perception

%

41 55 42 10Bristol 13 11 22

Graz 16 12 32 58 44 25 8 5

Study

Bus Car Walk

What experience shows

York – retailers reported 20-30% increase in turnover following pedestrianisation

Hass-Klau 1993 – ‘many [German] towns show increases in the region of 20-40%’ after pedestrianisation

There is even a ‘knock-on’ positive effect upon retailers outside the pedestrianised area

The behaviour of shoppers in centres owned by The Mall Corporation

The Mall Corporation

• 17 sites around the UK• All in town and city centres• All centres have substantial

paid-for car parking. Most car parks are owned by The Mall, but some are council owned (and therefore lack investment)

• We have looked at six of them• We will feature three – 1

‘historic town’, 1 London centre, 1 other

Norwich

Uxbridge

Ilford

Walthamstow

Bristol

Sutton Coldfield

The Mall Corporation

• Norwich – historic, cathedral city

• Bristol – thriving big development city

• Walthamstow – upcoming city-centre area dominated by the young

• IIford – east London suburb • Uxbridge – university-

dominated market town• Sutton Coldfield – wealthy

dormitory town in Birmingham Bristol

Ilford

Walthamstow

Uxbridge

Sutton Coldfield

Norwich

LONDON

Conditions of survey

Data from ROI Group Exit survey (doesn’t include

those not shopping) Minimum 300 full interviews

per centre per year Negligible number of cyclists

Survey findings

Survey findings

Survey findings

Survey findings

Survey findings

Survey findings

Survey findings

Survey findings

Question: What is your opinion of this Mall? % of respondents agreeing with ‘I couldn’t get along without it’

Similar experience from other UK Centres

Camberwell shoppers survey 2008

• Admittedly low level of car use• The highest spenders were

walkers, followed by bus travellers

TfL’s bus user study 2009

Average spend per month, per mode

4,637 users across 15 London town centres

Walk £135.89Bike £114.27Bus £105.45Taxi/minicab £105.03Car £94.91Train £89.21Tube £86.53

Conclusions

Conclusions

• Gradual decline in car-borne shoppers

• Local ‘walk-up’ market has high spending power

• Shoppers arriving by public transport & walking are often from high socio-economic categories

• However major retailers now only need 75 stores to reach 50% of the population. 20 years ago it was 175 stores. This is probably due to increased mobility – by car.

Incentivising access

• The big prize for retailers is reducing the land given over to car parking

• Possible to levy higher parking charges on remaining drivers

• Retail centres can make a virtue of not catering for the car

• Partnerships with public transport operators to incentivise these modes (e.g. ‘we will refund your bus fare’)

• A wide range of other mobility management measures

Thank you

Giles SemperThe Means LLP01554 780170

giles.semper@themeans.co.uk

ADVIERECOMM 2010

Involving the private sector in

promoting Public Transport

Niels de Vries

Shopkeepers campaign

• Three months pilot in Apeldoorn (population:136.000 )

• Joint contribution to keep mall accessible

• Customers receive a free bus ticket

• Tickets are valid till 1 month after the pilot has finished

Aim of campaign

Involving private sector in promoting Public Transport and to investigate if the private sector is willing to make a collective contribution for anaccessible shopping mall.

Philosophy

• Link between the accessibility of an area and the property/location value in that area.

• Public Transport has an added value for a destination:1% improvement in the accessibility leads to an increase of 0,3% of the property value (DTZ Zadelhoff & VU Amsterdam)

• Shopkeepers have a direct financial interest in more customers coming by car or public transport

Philosophy

• Public Transport doesn’t transport customers of a bus or a train, but customers of a destination.

• Customers add value to a destination

Joint Marketing

• The idea behind the marketing campaign was Joint Promotion. Veolia did the branding of the campaign, the shopkeepers took care of the communication to their customers.

• Common sticker with the logo of the campaign• Joint Promotions will lead to the selling of more

bus tickets and more purchases in shops: Joint Sales

Branding

The logo of the campaign Live

Bicycle cabs

Smallest bus in Holland

Bicycle lottery

Joint Promotion en Sales

Results

• In 3 months time shopkeepers gave away +/- 65.000 bus tickets. Veolia announced tickets were used regularly;

• Participating shopkeepers: 81;• Customers of shopping mall were very enthusiastic

about campaign;• Majority of shoppers were familiar with the campaign;• Shopkeepers were very positive, they say their

customers really like it to receive a free bus ticket.• Positive side effect: employees of shops were using bus

tickets as well.

Points of improvement

• Shopkeepers are not allowed to spend money on local initiatives, because majority of shops are franchise

• Pilot period was too short to determine the elasticity of the price

Points of attention

• Convince headquarters and property owners that bad accessibility will result in a decrease of property value.

• Increase the area in which people can use the bus tickets.

Contact

Niels de Vries

Advier bv

Niels.de.vries@advier.nl

www.advier.nl

www.mobiliteitsloket.nl