2nd Local Transport Plan Progress Report

Examination of trends over time is difficult because of frequent changes to the methodology.

Examination of trends over time is difficult because of frequent changes to the methodology.

Wigan 5%.

See changes to targets section

Note that good performance is indicated by a lower % figure. Comparison between districts and over time is difficult because of methodology variations. Contact individual authorities for details.

Poor road condition can have an adverse impact on Road Safety (BV99) and on  Cycling (LTP3)

2007/8 milestones were:
Bolton 36%
Bury 35%,
Manchester 14%,
Oldham 34%,
Rochdale 19%,
Salford 26%,
Stockport 23%,
Tameside 18%,
Trafford 13%,
Wigan 13%

Where Districts have not met targets this is often the result of focusing investment on reducing trip claims; an activity which has improved the whole network, not just higher category footways. In Rochdale, programmes were re-evaluated since the setting of the target; footway improvements alongside major highway schemes were prioritised in order to improve value for money and improve accessibility to key destinations.

• Accidents are caused by driver/pedestrian error (intentional or unintentional), vehicle defects and highway layout/defects
• Engineers only have influence over the highway element
• Analysis is undertaken by districts to identify problem sites for treatment as Local Safety Schemes, including speed reduction schemes such as traffic calming
• Specific speeding hotspots are identified for safety camera enforcement
• Road Safety Officers target specific groups for suitable education, training and publicity campaigns aimed at improving road user attitude, behaviour and skills.
• Through the GM Road Safety Groups, concerns regarding the enforcement of poor and illegal driving across the network as a whole can be raised with GMP.
• Outside our influence are accidents caused by vehicle defects

Initial analysis of the NRSI wards and districts in Greater Manchester shows that targeted interventions appear to have had a beneficial effect, although further year's data is required to confirm this.

The trend in KSI casualties is disappointing, particularly the lack of reduction in fatal casualties over time. This is a national trend, but one that needs to be addressed.

One of the reasons that Greater Manchester is having difficulty meeting this target, is because the number of KSI casualties per head of population was already low compared with other areas of the country during the base years. If KSI casualties per head of population are considered, then Greater Manchester is doing well compared to other areas. In 2006 Greater Manchester had the lowest KSI casualty rate per head of population when compared to any of the former metropolitan counties or shire counties. At the same time, seven of the ten Greater Manchester districts were in the top 25% of best performing authorities in terms of KSI per head of populations. All but Manchester were in the top third. As Manchester is the regional centre, it is not surprising that it has a much higher casualty rate per head of population, since it attracts more people from outside the authority boundaries than the other districts.

Analysis undertaken on the 2007 fatal accidents in Greater Manchester shows that 46% of these accidents were likely to have been caused by illegal behaviour. Of these nearly 50% were caused by young people aged between 17 and 25. The other 54% of fatalities were caused by either poor driving skills or poor road skills (e.g. drunk pedestrians/cycling off the pavement in front of vehicles etc.).

The recent increase in cycling may have led to an equivalent increase in KSI cycle casualties on A&B roads, although other evidence shows that the risk for cyclists can decrease as more people cycle.

The relatively high figure for Bury is influenced by an unusually high value in 2005, for which there is no single cause, which has distorted the 3-year figure. Bury and Trafford started with particularly low rates / head of population, but this was also the case in Stockport, which has performed well. The Performance Group and central Road Safety Team are examining the reasons for this and Greater Manchester performance, and identifying best practice.

For more information see 8 ‘Safer Roads’ section.

Other relevant indicators include:
LTP3 Cycling – increases in cycling may lead to an increase in KSI casualties
LTP11 Walking - increases in walking may lead to an increase in KSI casualties
LTP12 Mode share to key centres – a shift to public transport should decrease KSI casualties

GMTU Report 1408 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007 (Main Report)
GMTU Report 1409 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007 – Countywide Tabulations
GMTU Report 1410 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007- District Tabulations and Comparisons
GMTU Note 436 - Towards the Establishment of an Absolute Performance Indicator for KSI Casualties [presented to LTP Steering Group 9 November 2007]

Based on a single year, all child casualties were nearly 54% below the base (average 1994-1998) and have met the national targets of 50% by 2010.

• Engineers can influence child casualties on the routes to and from school through Safer Routes to School schemes

• Road Safety Officers can influence child behaviour through education targeted specifically at this age group and their parents

District trends are largely explained by the low base years casualty rates / population in some areas (such as Trafford and Bury), and levels of deprivation (such as Oldham). More detail can be found in the 8 ‘Safer Roads’ section.

Pedestrian casualties fell by 9% between 2006 and 2007.

There is a concern that the fall may not be a real one, but one that has been caused by changes in reporting procedures.

Other relevant indicators include:

LTP3 Cycling – increases in cycling may lead to an increase in slight casualties

LTP11 Walking -  increases in walking may lead to an increase in slight casualties

GMTU Report 1408 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007 (Main Report)
GMTU Report 1409 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007 – Countywide Tabulations
GMTU Report 1410 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007- District Tabulations and Comparisons

This is a significant achievement given the general decline in bus patronage outside London.

GMPTE can:

• Provide 'socially necessary' bus services  where operators can not provide them, subject to funding
• Work with operators to improve the reliability of these supported services
• Improve waiting facilities (bus stops and bus stations)
• Provide information about services

Highway authorities can:

• manage congestion (which affects reliability and increases journey times)

• introduce bus priority measures, e.g. bus lanes to speed buses up

• improve the pedestrian environment so that people are more likely to walk to the bus stop

Adult patronage has risen, due to strong growth on QBCs and general improvements in reliability, punctuality and vehicle quality. This has been partly offset by falling child patronage, where a long term downward trend (the number of children of secondary school age will decline by 11% by 2013) may have been accelerated by an increase in the concessionary fare. The number of trips by elderly people has increased in the short term because of free fares, but the long term trend is downwards as more elderly people hold driving licenses and have access to a car.

In recent years, adult and elderly sectors of the market have both increased. However, this has been partially offset by a decline in the numbers of children travelling by bus, affected in part by the increase in the concessionary fare from 50p to 70p from April 2007.

Although bus patronage is slightly below the target value, it is within the limits of tolerance set in LTP2.

Stretched LTP2 target a 24% increase between 2003/04 and 2010/11 (ie. 16.6% increase over LTP2 period)

• Make improvements to passenger waiting facilities that would not otherwise be made by the operators

• Improve pedestrian routes to stations

• Provide car and cycle parking at stations

• maintain performance through the Franchise Agreement
• improve waiting facilities

• provide car and cycle parking at stops

Target to be revised with new data source

GMPTE can provide additional services where there is a social need, but this is limited by the funding available. HIghway authorities can help to reduce bus journey times by managing traffic congestion.

The indicator is classified as amber because progress is unclear. The indicator has not been found useful in adequately reflecting accessibility to jobs and services, because it is very sensitive to the choice of key interchanges and cannot be broken down to District level. For these reasons, it is under review, and an indicator better suited to reflect authorities progress with LAAs will be developed.

Note: LTP1a monitors access to centres that have multiple facilities such as further education,financial services and post offices, and good transport interchange facilities to reach other services, such as medical facilities and education. The percentage of people with access to a bus service is higher than that measured by this indicator.

GMPTE can provide additional services where there is a social need, but this is limited by the funding available. Highway authorities can help to reduce bus journey times by managing traffic congestion.

The indicator is classified as amber because progress is unclear. The indicator has not been found useful in adequately reflecting accessibility to jobs, and cannot be broken down to District level. It is unclear how sensitive it is to certain changes, and what level of change represents a serious problem. In future, access to jobs will be reflected by the new national LAA indicator NI 176.

GMPTE can provide additional services where there is a social need, but this is limited by the funding available. Highway authorities can help to reduce bus journey times by managing traffic congestion.

The 2007 values for local authority areas nationally range from 95.72% (City of London) to 83.84% (Rutland). Greater Manchester authorities exhibit the largest range compared to other Metropolitan areas.

We are on target. Present policy, with the exception of development planning and parking standards, is to encourage non-car modes rather than discourage car use.

Measures to encourage a modal shift to public transport, walking and cycling can reduce road traffic mileage as can land use policies that affect the location of new development.  However, there are a number of important factors over which we have limited, indirect or no control, including:

• State of the economy and lifestyle choices
• Motoring and public transport costs
• Continuing rise in car ownership
• Continuing increase in licence holding, particularly among women
• Increasing amount of home-working

Area wide road traffic in 2007 was almost exactly on target.  There was a larger than expected increase on B roads between 2006 and 2007.  This was due in part to recounting of some sites not counted for a lengthy period of time that showed increases above the year on year trend.  In reality, this increase would be spread evenly over the intervening years and more closely match the target trend. Performance in the SEMMMS area in particular has been encouraging, with a 2% decrease in area-wide traffic recorded.

The lack of increase in all motor traffic is consistent across all time periods between 07:00 and 19:00 on a weekday.  Most of the traffic growth in Greater Manchester is on motorways, as was predicted when setting the target. LGV flows are growing at a faster rate than all vehicles whilst HGV flows are decreasing.
 

GMPTE's Tracking Surveys from 2001 suggest that since 2006 the difference between the numbers of respondents using the car more or less (than 12 months previously) has converged, again suggesting that car use growth is slowing.

Measured by over 60 automatic cycle counters across the county on different types of routes.

• improving cycle infrastructure and providing a continuous, coherent cycle network and cycle parking at stations
• targeting trips to schools and colleges, and amenities
• Maintenance of infrastructure
• Cycle training, promotion and education

However, the level of cycling, particularly over the short term, can be affected by such factors as the weather, over which we have no control.

Development of routes to stations, secure parking and facilitating carriage of cycles can help boost public transport use by combining modes.
It could also potentially impact on the amount of walking(LTP11), and public transport use (NI177) if it replaced these modes for some trips.

All Schools                27.6%

Subsidiary indicators:

LEA primary              40.1%
LEA secondary         12.7%

Percentage of pupils travelling by car. The data now comes from the National School Census submitted annually by Local Authorities in January, and released by DfT in August.. The baseline year is 2006/07 and used data from the school census data submitted in January 2007 comprising:

• School census data from all GM schools with an STP in place
• School census data from at least 50% GM schools without an STP in place

For 2007/08 school census data submitted in January 2008 was used. There was an improved response rate compared to the baseline. Data has been weighted to Local Authority primary and secondary school pupils to give representative values for GM as a whole.

(GREEN for primary schools, RED for secondary schools)

The LTP4 indicator is for all pupils combined, in accordance with DfT requirements. However, the new LAA indicator requires primary and secondary schools to be separated. We have therefore described both the LTP indicator, together with the separate percentages for primary and secondary schools. The separation of the data should enable a fuller understanding of the overall trend.

The following tables show the reworked trends and targets.

189 school travel plans were implemented in 2007/08
64% of local authority schools now have an STP.

Six districts have shown improvement since the base. Two, Bolton and Manchester, have shown little or no change while a further two, Rochdale and Tameside, have shown an increase in car use between the base and 2007/08.

Tameside and Manchester have relatively high percentages of “other” modes in the base and it maybe that some of these have shifted to car in 2007/08.
Generally, improvement has come at primary rather than secondary schools whereas the target predicted the reverse.
Increased walking rather than increased public transport use were responsible for decrease in car use in most districts.
It may be that increases in the price of concessionary fares are having an impact whereas the full benefits of the introduction of yellow buses are yet to be achieved.
The lowest (best) value of the indicator was achieved in the authority with the highest car ownership (Stockport).
Changes in the indicator are small and further data next year will aid analysis of trends

As more students travel to school by means other than the car, this will result in an increase in walking (LTP11) and cycle trips (LTP3). It is also likely to reduce Congestion (LTP7),  Area wide road traffic kilometres (LTP2), peak traffic flows to urban Key Centres (LTP6) and  the mode share of car trips to key centres (LTP12) and will have a positive effect on Air quality (LTP8) and Climate change (LTP9). Poor Bus punctuality (LTP5) increases the likelihood of travelling to school by car. It might also be expected to have an contributory effect on NI156 obesity in Year 6 children.

GMTU Note 453 'LTP4 and NI198 Mode of Travel to School - Methodology and Provisional Indicator Values'
Technical Guidance on Monitoring the LTP2 Mandatory Indicators - LTP4
Annex 4 Local Economy and Environmental Sustainability - NI198

Target to be revised due to new data source from 2008/09.

Bus reliability is the number of services that operate against the number scheduled.

Punctuality of all timed services was 84% (2007/08 milestone 83%)
Reliability of all timed services was 95.1% (2007/08 milestone 97%)
Figures are a Moving Annual Average based on the first 3 quarters of 2007/08 (see below)

However, there are a number of important factors over which we have limited, indirect or no control, including: the state of the economy and lifestyle choices, decisions of public transport operators, capacity constraints on public transport and the location of existing development.    

Base slightly revised.  Not all sites were surveyed in equivalent months as some surveys were moved or repeated due to operational problems. No seasonal adjustment has been made.  Revisions may be required in the future to accommodate traffic management changes.

Petrol prices nationally increased by 20% between February 2007 and February 2008 and may have had an affect on traffic flows.

Transport Statistics Greater Manchester Report No 1387

However, there are a number of important factors over which we have limited, indirect or no control, including: the state of the economy and lifestyle choices, decisions of public transport operators, capacity constraints on public transport, the location of existing development and the fact that some key centres eg Bury attract park and ride trips.    

Vehicle flows into other key centres vary by centre but, on average, they are 2% down.

Summary of trends by authority

Data

Transport Statistics Greater Manchester Report No 1387

It should be noted that this indicator measures delay / person on a limited number of routes in the am peak only, so care must be taken when comparing this to other indicators of congestion.

• Improved enforcement of traffic regulation orders
• Improvements in traffic signal plans
• Encouragement of travel planning to promote modal shift
• Improvements in bus operation to reduce boarding times
• Roadspace reallocation.

However, there are a number of risk factors which may have a negative impact on the congestion indicator, including:

• Economic and regeneration influences with growth in jobs leading to additional demand for travel
• New developments on individual routes
• Competing priorities – especially improving road safety by adding pedestrian facilities
• Reducing delay on congestion routes causing traffic to be displaced onto these routes from elsewhere
• Motorway congestion and traffic incidents causing traffic displacement
• Short-term delays in bus boarding, prior to improved ticketing,due to increases in bus patronage leading to higher bus stop dwell times
• Actions of other partners such as Highways Agency, bus operators, etc.

It should be noted that the 2006/07 value is based on single day local surveys. Baseline and all future surveys will be over 3 days.

Greater Manchester LTP2 Annex – Supporting Technical Documents

The Air Quality Action Plan has identified a number of influencing actions including:

• Roadside emissions testing, vehicle clean up programme
• Taxi licensing review
• Air quality training, promotional campaigns
• Manchester Airport Air Quality Partnership
• Planning guidance and mitigation measures, travel plans
• GM fuel strategy
• Freight best practice guidance, freight drivers’ map and sustainable distribution guidance
• Potential road user charging

However, there are a number of important factors over which we have limited control, including:

• Fleet composition, including fuel choice, vehicle and engine size
• The influence of the national economy, lifestyle factors and local regeneration on travel patterns
• Some factors relating to motorway use, including congestion and subsequent re-routing of traffic onto local roads, especially HGVs
• Actions of other partners such as Highways Agency, bus operators, etc.

The original LTP2 2004 baseline and 2005 figures were output from the Sub-Regional Highways Model. This has been superseded by the GM Saturn model, which has been used to produce 2005 and 2006 figures. The 2006 performance indices described in this report have been estimated by applying the percentage change in NO_x emissions between 2005 and 2006 calculated from the Saturn model to the 2005 indices estimated from the Sub-Regional Highways Model, at a district level.

A review of LTP targets (January 2008) recommended that the Air Quality sub-group consider a replacement methodology for LTP8 Modelled Concentration of NO₂ at worst case receptor sites in each District’s AQMA since it was no longer an LTP mandatory indicator.

Analysis of available diffusion tube data from all sites across the County since 1996 shows a longer downward trend in background NO₂ concentrations, although this is not apparent from 2001 onwards. AURN data combined from 5 background sites shows a more consistent downward trend in NO₂ concentrations within a shorter time period from 2004 to 2007.

Annual Mean NO2 Concentrations In Roadside and Kerbside Sites (Popup full image) 

The graph below shows trends in roadside and kerbside NO₂ concentrations. There is not such a clear downward trend in roadside concentrations particularly post-2001 and it appears that whilst overall emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NO_X) from vehicle exhausts are reducing, the proportion of actual NO₂ is higher at the roadside.

In spite of broad downward trends, available data from roadside sites in the Air Quality Management Areas shows levels well in exceedance of the 40μm3 national objective for 2005 and accordingly the European obligation for 2010. By contrast a recent baseline diffusion tube survey undertaken by the Highways Agency on the conurbation’s motorway network show many current AQMA locations with NO₂ concentrations within the EU limit. Further work is therefore required to establish the overall picture across the network.

Currently it is necessary to add caution to any conclusion drawn from monitoring data. However, broad downward trends in NO₂ concentrations would appear consistent in part with the introduction of Euro standards but also with a significant contribution from local level enforcement of industrial processes, vehicle emissions testing and associated awareness raising.

The estimated change in NOx emissions for the County is broadly on target. Overall, emissions fell by 5 percent relative to 2005, due to modelled changes in traffic flows, speeds and fleet composition, in addition to vehicles becoming cleaner and less polluting. Further work would be required, however, to estimate the contribution of each of these factors to the overall change .

Local figures are heavily affected in particular by heavy goods vehicles on motorways. We have limited influence on Highways Agency roads especially where most trips begin and end outside Greater Manchester, such as on the M6 in Wigan.

The difference between falling NO_x emission rates from traffic, and measured roadside levels of NO₂ could be due to a number of factors, including:

• There may be more NO₂ emitted directly from vehicle exhausts than previously thought, especially as there is a greater proportion of diesel engined vehicles than previously expected, and engine technology has changed
• Increasing background levels of ozone which speed the formation of NO₂ from NO_x.

 The need for further national research on this matter has been identified.

National PSA28: to meet NAQS objectives for NO₂ by 2010
LAA NI 194:Level of air quality – Reduction in NO_x and primary PM₁₀ emissions through local authority’s estate and operations.
This indicator is affected by area wide road traffic kilometres (LTP2), cycling (LTP3),  modal share to school (LTP4a&b),  peak traffic flows to urban centres (LTP6), LTP7 congestion (LTP7), walking (LTP11), and  mode share to key centres (LTP12). It also has some relation to NI 194 NOx/PM10 emissions from Local Authority estates and operations.
Nitrogen oxides are also greenhouse gases and contribute to climate change, although they are not part of the LTP9 Climate Change indicator.

GMTU Report 1331 The Greater Manchester Emissions Inventory 2005 Update
GMTU Report 1387 Transport Statistics Greater Manchester 2007
GMTU Reports 1388 to 1397 District Transport Statistics Reports 2007

The LTP identified a number of influencing actions including:

• Modal shift to public transport/ walking through travel plans, targeted investment in non-car modes and smarter travel initiatives all limiting traffic growth on local roads
• Improvements in vehicle technology
• Successful regeneration of key centres resulting in shorter trips by car
• Planning controls
• Increase in proportion of cars with more than one occupant, through the promotion of car sharing.
• Sustainable distribution guidance
• Freight best practice guidance and freight maps
• Cycling Strategy

However, there are a number of important factors over which we have limited control, including:

• Central government legislation, taxation and fuel prices
• Composition and age of vehicle fleet
• Economic growth
• Increasing trip lengths
• The influence of the national economy, lifestyle factors and local regeneration on travel patterns
• Some factors relating to motorway use and, including congestion and displacement, especially of HGVs
• Actions of other partners such as Highways Agency, bus operators, etc.

GMTU Report 1387 Transport Statistics Greater Manchester 2007
GMTU Reports 1388 to 1397 District Transport Statistics Reports 2007
Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan 2 Annex – Supporting Technical Documents

for disabled people

We have encountered problems getting a consistent interpretation across all authorities following external audit.  This indicator is under review and is not likely to be continued.

Setting targets can be problematic as sampling of routes can result in large variations in the returned values from year to year.

Seven out of the ten authorities met their milestone targets for 2007/08. However, all except Oldham have improved since the start of LTP2.

Oldham identified missing signposts as the primary reason for failure, and have implemented a programme to address this. Latest figures for 2008 indicate that they are now achieving levels of 65% and are back on track.This indicator applies to all PRoW regardless of their transport function, and is under review: see 4.2 ‘Review of Indicators’.

• Introduction of safe, convenient crossing facilities
• Removing obstructions on the footway
• Ensuring footways are well maintained
• Land use policies that link residential , employment and leisure venues
• Improved signing and promotion

However, the level of walking, particularly over the short term, can be affected by such factors as the weather, over which we have no control.

Information on the usual mode of travel to school (both primary and secondary schools) indicates an increase in walking of around 2% from the start of LTP2.

The GMPTE Tracking Surveys (see ‘Residents' satisfaction with public transport’) also indicate that GM residents are walking more; in the Summer 2008 survey 18% of residents said they were walking more than 12 months previously, and only 5% said they were walking less.

Pedestrian data collected via automatic pedestrian counters shows a mixed picture across the county with average daily pedestrian flows increasing at some sites between 2005 and 2007 and falling at others. In particular, 24-hour pedestrian flows have dropped in some of the key centres.

A mixed picture is also shown by the manual pedestrian counts to measure LTP 12a&b. These are undertaken on a three-year cycle at crossing points into the key centres. During the morning peak, seven of the 10 key centres pedestrian flows increased between the most recent survey and the base line survey undertaken between 2001 and 2003. Pedestrian flows into Bolton, Bury and Altrincham centres all fell, although in the case of Bolton and Altrincham they initially rose. During the off-peak, pedestrian flows into six of the 10 key centres increased and two centres remained the same. In the remaining two districts (Stockport and Rochdale) pedestrian flows rose then fell below the baseline. However, it should be noted that these are carried out on one day and are therefore greatly affected by other variables such as the weather.

 An increase in walking can have a positive effect on Area wide road traffic kilometres (LTP2), Modal share to school (LTP4a&b), Peak traffic flows to urban Key Centres (LTP6), Congestion (LTP7), Air Quality (LTP8), Climate change (LTP9), and Mode share to Key Centres (LTP12). It can have a negative effect on Cycle trips (LTP3).

National Travel Survey 2007 [available at: www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/personal/mainresults/nts200 7 ]
GMTU Report 1387 Transport Statistics Greater Manchester 2007
GMTU Reports 1388 to 1397 Transport Statistics by District 2007
GMTU Report 1408 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007 (Main Report)
GMTU Report 1409 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007 – Countywide Tabulations [draft copy available at www.gmtu.gov.uk ]
GMTU Report 1410 Casualty Statistics Greater Manchester 2007- District Tabulations and Comparisons [draft copy available at www.gmtu.gov.uk ]

Period (07:30-09:30)

• Further investment in bus travel and improvements to rail stations in Regional Centre

• Actions to improve public transport, walking and cycling

• Parking price policy to discourage long stay parking in central area

The target takes account of Manchester City Council's Local Public Service agreement of a 3.6 percentage point increase in the share of non-car trips to the Regional Centre between 07:30 and 09:30 on a 2005/6 base by 2008/9.

The LTP identified a number of influencing actions including:

• Additional investment in improving attractiveness of buses forecast to delay further decline in patronage
• LTP investment and careful land use planning
• Workplace travel plans
• Car parking standards and the location of car parks
• Successful regeneration leading to greater wealth, car ownership and use of cars.

However, there are a number of important factors over which we have limited, indirect or no control, including:

• State of the economy and lifestyle choices
• Decisions of Public Transport operators
• Use of key centres for rail-heading (e.g. Bury into Regional Centre)
• Changes in central Governmental development control policies regarding out-of-centre development.

2001/02/03 data includes key centres surveyed between March 2001 and June 2003 and the same pattern applies to following years. Only one estimate is used for each key centre in each year group. Stockport (surveyed in Autumn 2007), Altrincham and Rochdale (surveyed in April 2008) also contributed to the new indicator for 2006/07/08.

The figures are influenced by changes in land use relative to the cordon location (for example large new stores within or on the edge of centres, or the location of car parks), the introduction of new transport infrastructure (for example completion of the Eccles bypass and the opening of Metrolink).

Other relevant indicators include:
LTP2 Area wide road traffic kilometres
LTP3 Cycle trips
LTP4a&b Modal share to school
LTP6 Peak traffic flows to other Key Centres
LTP7 Congestion
LTP8 Air Quality
LTP9 Climate change
LTP11 Walking

LTP2 Appendix A.2, Monitoring Technical Annex.
Transport Statistics Greater Manchester Report No 1289

levels are expected to reach 30m passengers

• Rail Patronage should continue to grow with the introduction of the 3rd platform, marketing initiatives and other opportunities provided by the TransPennineExpress and Northern train operators.

• Demand Responsive Transport services are expected to increase

• Cycling should increase with new cycle routes, promotion on the airport site and the more centrally located cycle centre

Accessibility (LTP1)

Reduction of 5.4 percentage points 2005 – 2007

Reduction of 1.2 percentage points 2005 - 2007

Accessibility has reduced due to contraction of the bus network and possibly an increase in journey time on some routes. Whilst the GM decrease was reversed in 2006, the reduction has continued in the SEMMMS area.

Change in Area Wide Road Traffic (LTP2)

-1% change 2003/04 - 2006/07

+1%

change 2003/04 - 2006/07

The growth in area-wide traffic has been less than for GM as a whole, which is a major achievement.

Cycle Flows (LTP3)

+9% change 2005/06 - 2007/08

+7% change 2005/06 - 2007/08

SEMMMS has seen a greater increase in cycling

Car use to School (LTP4)

<1% increase in car use (to 25.3%) between 2006/07 and 2007/08

1.4% decrease in car use (to 28.7%)

Change not significant, but SEMMMS area has a lower car mode share than GM as a whole.

Congestion (LTP7)

Average journey time decreased from 6.34 to 5.98 between 2004/05 - 2006/07 (a 5.7% reduction)

Average journey time decreased from 4.83 to 4.67 between 2004/05 - 2006/07 (a 3.3% reduction)

Average journey times, as measured on 4 congestion monitoring routes are slower in SEMMMS, but showing greater improvement

Air Quality (LTP 8b)

14% reduction in NOx 2004-2006

11% reduction in NOx 2004 - 2006

NOx emissions from road transport have shown a greater reduction in SEMMMS

Climate Change (LTP9)

1.3% reduction in CO₂ 2004-2006

1.4% increase in CO₂ 2004-2006

CO₂ emissions from road transport on major routes have shown a reduction in SEMMMS, but an increase overall in GM

Accessible infrastructure (raised bus stops) LTP10b

71% (2007/08)

79% (2007/08)

Improvements have yet to be made at a number of stops in the QBC programme, however work at 78% of these is in progress

Accessible infrastructure  (rail ) LTP 10c

41% (2007/08)

52% (2007/08)

Progress on rail station improvements has been slower than expected. Improvements are planned, significantly at Hazel Grove station

Key Centre Modal Split( LTP 12b) - Stockport

Am peak car trips fell from 70% in 2003 to 66% in 2007 (a 6% reduction)

There was a 5% reduction in car trips in key centres in GM over a similar period

Stockport showed a similar reduction in the proportion of car trips to other key centres in GM

KSI Casualties (BV99x)

12% reduction in KSI 2001-03 to 2005-07

9% reduction in KSI 2001-03 to 2005-07

KSI casualties have shown a greater decline in SEMMMS

Child KSI Casualties (BV99y)

39% reduction in child KSI 2001-03 to 2005-07

27% reduction in child KSI 2001-03 to 2005-07

Child KSI casualties have shown a greater decline in SEMMMS

Slight Casualties (BV99z)

25% reduction in slight casualties