General Results of Analysis

It is well known that increases in car ownership, and the subsequent use of the cars are the main contributors to increasing problems of congestion and poor air quality. In Greater Manchester, car ownership has continued to grow. National Census results show an increase of 184,000 cars between 1981 and 1991, and an increase of a further 194,000 cars between 1991 and 2001. There were over 1 million cars owned in Greater Manchester in 2001, an average of almost one per household. Licence holding trends are shown in Fig 4.1.

Some 42,500 additional cars were used for the journey to work in Greater Manchester in 2001 compared with 1991. In addition people have continued to increase the length of their journey to work, with the average length of car journeys to work up from 9.2 km to 10.0 km. Most of these journeys to and from work take place in the already congested morning and evening peak periods.

It is clear that car ownership provides additional freedoms, and is regarded as essential by many individuals and households. However, transport planners need to try and ensure that appropriate alternatives and incentives / disincentives are provided to ensure that car use is moderated, particularly for the journey to work.

There are other related problems. Travel to school by car has also been increasing, adding to local congestion and air quality problems. This is linked to falling levels of cycling and walking, to school and work, but also more generally. All these trends relate, in some measure, to concerns about personal safety and security which now appear to be felt more keenly. There are also issues with some of the public transport services which are essential for the 33% of households in Greater Manchester who do not own a car, and which provide an alternative for those who do. In particular, there are peak capacity problems on the very popular Metrolink services and some rail services, including those from Bolton and  Wigan  to the regional centre. For the most part, buses share road space with other vehicles and hence, as congestion increases, so the buses are also delayed.

Forecasting

We have used our Strategy Planning Model (SPM) to make forecasts of future problems, and assess the extent to which we can tackle them under different scenarios. This output was considered alongside a range of other information when considering the nature and scale of future conditions. It was also used to inform target setting.

In order to provide a context for the SPM results, it is worth highlighting some recent observed trends in travel in Greater Manchester:

  • average trips per person per annum are remaining stable, but there is a continuous modal transfer to car from other modes
  • average trip lengths by all motorised modes are increasing
  • as a result, vehicle mileage has been increasing, but with most of it on motorways – 41% overall increase on motorways compared with just 2.5% on local roads in the last 10 years (with respective figures for cars being 46% and 4%) Figs 4.2 and 4.3 indicate recent traffic trends.
  • more recently – in the last five years – we have seen trips by car to the regional centre remaining stable, while trips by rail / Metrolink have increased by 10%
  • we have information on journey times on local roads in 1999 and 2003: the results show little change, partly because of the completion of the M60 in 2000
 

Driving Licence Holding in GM

 
 
 

Motorway Traffic Flows 1991-2004

 
 
 

Traffic Flows on 'A' and 'B' Roads 1991-2004

 

Policy

TheStrategy Planning Model

The SPM is a complex computer based tool which is able to test and quantify the interactions of transport and land use policies. It was developed between 1996 and 1999, and has been updated and refined in the period to date. It is able to give an indication of the relative outcomes of different transport and land use policies under different economic scenarios.

Two economic growth scenarios were used for LTP2 testing: the first replicated the assumptions in the national TEMPRO forecasts, while the second reflected the more optimistic growth envisaged under the City Region Development Plan case. We also examined a do minimum reference case against a LTP1+ LTP2 scenario. It is also worth noting that we have included the provisionally approved enhancements to Metrolink Phases 1 & 2 in all the transport strategies, including the reference case. These tests have provided us with a range of quantified outcomes to guide our subsequent analysis, and have been particularly useful in ensuring that many of our key targets have been set in a consistent manner. The SPM is particularly useful in distinguishing between different overall transport strategies, and the relative effects of economic, land use and transport factors. It is better at considering traffic and public transport rather than walking and cycling. It is not intended to examine the effect of smaller scale transport interventions, and cannot always provide output on an exactly comparable basis with our LTP2 indicators.

The SPM forecasts that economic growth could generate between 25,000 and 35,000 new jobs by 2011. It also forecasts that between 2001 and 2011 there will be a general growth in travel in Greater Manchester by car and public transport. Traffic growth on local roads is forecast to be in the range 4% to 6% compared to the range 5% to 7% in the reference case (ie without LTP1 and LTP2 investment), while daily bus trips are forecast to grow by 5% to 12% against a reference case of a reduction of between 2% to 7%.  In addition, rail passengers are forecast to continue the robust growth displayed through the late 1990s and early 2000s: 13% to 20% compared to 4% to 11%. In contrast, Metrolink passengers are forecast to grow at a more modest rate of 7%-15%. This result arises because the model is forecasting that the investment proposed in competing non-Metrolink modes in LTP2 will allow some people to choose to travel by other modes who would otherwise have used Metrolink.  Evidence to date suggests that the model may be overly optimistic about the attractiveness of these modes compared to Metrolink.

Travel to the Regional Centre and other key centres is forecast to increase between 2001 and 2011, with a greater share of the trips using non-car modes. LTP2 reinforces this trend, so supporting the CRDP’s objective for regenerating the centres.

The SPM suggests a continuing decline of cycling and walking; although this area is not well modelled by the SPM, this does highlight the pressures on these modes and the need to take action to boost their attractiveness.

Our strategy for accommodating anticipated economic growth during the LTP2 period is, therefore, to:

  • improve public transport for trips to centres, in particular by
    • increasing Metrolink usage by 11% by providing extra capacity through the approved phase1/2 renewal scheme
    • increasing bus usage by 4% by implementing a range of coordinated measures through the Corridor Partnership approach
    • increasing rail usage by 12% through station improvements, including additional car parking
  • target investment in better facilities to encourage short journeys to be made by foot or by cycle (to stop the decline in walking and to increase cycling by 6%)
  • use land use planning and regeneration strategies to minimise trips to out of centre locations
  • implement network management measures to avoid a worsening of congestion.

Back to Top