Final Local Transport Plan 2006/07 - 2010/11

The Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan has been drawn up in the context of the financial guidelines from Central Government, and we have therefore started from a position of having to prioritise the problems which will be dealt with, and the minor works schemes.

In terms of options considered, we examined a highway-based strategy as a basis for the future, but concluded that a public transport-based approach represented the best way forward in terms of meeting Greater Manchester's objectives by supporting a growing economy and regeneration in a sustainable way with measures to increase cycling and walking for shorter trips. Analysis of options has shown that Metrolink provides a better solution than buses on the corridors proposed for Phase 3, in terms of capacity and attractiveness compared with the car mode. This means, however, that buses will be the major transport mode on other corridors not served by rail or Metrolink - hence our proposals for enhanced bus priority, including busways to secure major journey time improvements.  Moving down to the level of ITB  programmes, problem analysis may show that there is only one practicable solution in the case of a specific local issue, and option generation will not therefore be appropriate. In other instances, a range of potential solutions may be revealed by studies (see the Trafford Park Study in para 5.2.2 and the options considered in the SEMMMS studies, leading to the programme in para 5.8)

As stated in Chapter 2 the key strands of GMITS are to focus on greater use of public transport for trips to centres, enhancing facilities to encourage short journeys to be made by foot or by cycle and using and use planning and regeneration strategies to minimise trips to out of centre locations. Within this context, analysis of the problems and opportunities resulted in the establishment of what we want to achieve by the end of the LTP2 period, under each of the shared priorities, and in addition for other important issues such as the Regional Centre and transport system maintenance. This then guided the development of our overall programme and hence concentrated our resources into areas where they can have the greatest effect.

Engagement between each Authority, stakeholders and the public has played an important role in shaping the programme locally. Often Township or Neighbourhood Groups have helped to influence the types of measures selected, especially in regeneration or residential areas. Some examples are indicated in the detailed work programme appendices.

Authorities have considered the cost of schemes against outcomes - for example potential casualty reduction rates - and chosen those which offer good value for money and are deliverable within an acceptable timescale. This is demonstrated by the instance quoted in para 5.1, where area wide traffic calming in Manchester did not prove to represent optimum value for money in terms of number of accidents saved, and instead there was a switch to site-specific local safety schemes. Another example which has demonstrated the  value for money approach is the decision noted in the same section to target cycling improvements on routes which link key origins and destinations, rather than piecemeal provision of facilities.

Rail investment schemes need particular scrutiny for cost-effectiveness, given the number of players involved, which makes schemes expensive, and the problem of allocating any increased costs to any of the partners. This may mean that we shall have difficulty in putting forward a sizeable improvement programme, even though the need is clear.

LTP2 also seeks to deliver a number of major public transport and highway schemes as set out later in the chapter. 36 schemes were assessed against regional and sub-regional objectives, as well as against value for money and deliverability. 16 of these were identified as Greater Manchester priorities, and were put through the regional prioritisation process. 11 of these have been identified as priorities for the Regional Funding Allocation, with a further 2 as contingencies. The Plan will continue to explore alternative potential funding sources to enable other schemes to be delivered.

Greater Manchester's major schemes have been subjected to a prioritisation process incorporating value for money considerations and deliverability as well as consistency with regional and sub-regional objectives. A do-nothing situation has always been considered, along with routing options where they exist. An example is the Glossop Spur from the A628 Mottram-Tintwistle by-pass, where 'do nothing' would still mean much traffic intrusion in Mottram village; a shorter scheme simply connecting the existing A57 to Woolley Bridge would only relieve Woolley Lane and not Mottram Village, whereas the full scheme removes through traffic from both locations, with consequent maximisation of benefits.