Final Local Transport Plan 2006/07 - 2010/11

The first Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan provided a comprehensive strategy for transport in the Greater Manchester conurbation and was awarded Centre of Excellence status for the quality of the strategy.  This strategy has now been further developed into the longer-term GMITS.  Overall, as stated in our Fifth Annual Progress Report, we are on course to meet 61% of our targets for LTP1, confirming that the strategy is one which is capable of being delivered, and is producing beneficial outcomes. The key areas where we are on track for LTP1 are:

• Most road safety targets
• Modal share to the regional centre
• Rail and Metrolink patronage
• School travel
• Accessibility

However, the delivery of the LTP1 strategy has proved problematic in some areas, in particular:

Rail

LTP1 included ambitious plans to improve stations and open new ones, but we have had limited success in this area, partly due to the financial difficulties of the rail industry and partly due to the fragmented nature of the industry at the time which made it difficult to negotiate solutions. For LTP2, proposed improvements will be brought forward in the context of the Regional Planning Assessment, Route Utilisation Strategy and Franchise Review processes. In terms of increasing  capacity, service and/or infrastructure enhancements are likely to be difficult to achieve, so we are focusing on seeking to acquire more rolling stock to increase the length of existing trains. While this will meet the short-term need for additional capacity until 2011 we need to continue to work with Government over the need for longer-term infrastructure enhancements.

Bus

We have reviewed the outcomes of the Quality Bus Corridors. The original aims were to reduce bus journey times, reduce the variability of bus journey times, increase the comfort and convenience of bus travel for all users, ensure that bus services provide a real alternative to car use and improve pedestrian and cycling facilities along the corridors.  Experience has now shown that it is difficult to achieve significant journey time savings from bus priority measures on all-purpose roads.The need to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as to provide for parking and servicing in local centres, can increase journey times for all traffic. However, the schemes have achieved a significant improvement in bus journey time reliability, improved journey times relative to the car and increased patronage. Hence further QBC improvements will be implemented during LTP2 to deliver more of these outcomes. However, more significant improvements to bus journey times will require us to develop a ' QBC plus' approach and to develop stretches of segregated busway, where possible, to complement Metrolink expansion and provide high quality and dedicated priority for buses.

Since LTP1, improvements have been made to the bus network through GMPTE and the District Councils working with operators on a voluntary basis via the Integrate project. However, performance still falls short of passenger requirements in a number of respects. Significant interventions are needed if the bus is to attract people away from their cars in sufficient numbers to respond to the forecast economic growth without adding to congestion. For LTP2, the Corridor Partnerships approach will be adopted to integrate bus services and infrastructure improvements with wider economic and social strategies in partnership with operators.  Where this does not prove possible  or successful, and the only practical way of delivering the required improvements is through either a statutory Quality Partnership or, as a last resort, a Quality Contract, we will seek the powers to introduce these and have undertaken preparatory work to facilitate this.

Walking and Cycling

LTP1 has not been as successful in increasing walking and cycling as had originally been envisaged.  There are a number of reasons for this, including:

• Over-ambitious targets, including a reflection of the Government's National Cycle Strategy target at the time,
• Underestimating the length of time it takes to develop a positive societal change in attitude towards walking and cycling,
• Continuing increases in car ownership and use, and trends encouraging longer journeys,
• The time taken in planning our approach and establishing the necessary delivery conditions, which, although essential in ensuring the effectiveness and value of future projects, did not result in sufficient actual schemes on the ground
• Insufficient attention was paid to marketing improvements in a coherent and targeted way
• Resources tended to be spread too thinly across the sub-region

In LTP2 a more realistic target setting exercise has been undertaken to take account of the issues above.  For the investment programme, resources will be targeted on routes which link key origins and destinations to provide a more focused approach to the provision of facilities.  More attention will be given to the roles of marketing and travel planning. We are therefore going to direct  resources more effectively on those areas where we believe we can make a real difference.

Road Safety

During LTP1 some authorities tried an area based approach to improving road safety, for example Manchester City Council initially focused on area wide traffic calming schemes as a measure to improve community safety. However, analysis of the impact of this strategy has shown that it has not provided the optimum value-for-money in terms of the numbers of accidents saved. For LTP2 the City Council will therefore focus on developing site-specific local safety schemes to address those areas with the worst accident records.  This approach is also being mirrored in the other nine authorities within Greater Manchester.

Partnership Working

Over the past five years a number of sub-regional and regional strategies have been developed, but each of the separate transport delivery agencies have developed their own plans and programmes to implement these strategies. During LTP1 there has been a move towards more partnership working to try to align these plans and programmes.  However, this has been only partially successful, and there is a need for a greater degree of partnership working to develop detailed LTP2 implementation plans.  We are therefore developing Corridor Partnerships to align objectives and targets between partners and ensure that public transport modes complement one another