Final Local Transport Plan 2006/07 - 2010/11

As explained above the more detailed segment analysis we have undertaken has been combined into common themes, with local examples highlighted where appropriate. The conclusions are summarised in the following five sections.

This is recognised as the key issue. As such it has been the subject of a separate study, and has also been considered at length internally and in collaboration with DfT officials. We have used the initial set of ITIS journey time data for 2003 (See Figure 4.4), to produce network maps in various ways for the ten authorities to give them an insight into the performance of the highway network. Consideration of these maps and associated statistics enabled us to select our key congestion routes in line with DfT requirements. Following discussions with DfT, 15 routes were finally agreed and are shown in Figure 4.5. Most of them are on radial routes into the regional centre or other key centres, and many are also on our Quality Bus Corridors ( QBCs) on which we intend to continue to make further improvements.

Our congestion study was undertaken mainly in 2005, and completed in early 2006. The study was undertaken during the period when the DfT itself was grappling with the issue of appropriate congestion indicators, and the final choice of indicator was taken too late to be incorporated in our study.

The study showed that:

• the existing general level of congestion in Greater Manchester is similar to that of other major urban areas in England
• congestion is not homogenous; not all the network is affected to the same extent in the morning peak by congestion, and, despite common perception, the most severe delays on average tend to be on classified roads rather than motorways.  However motorways are affected by incidents , which because of the large flows, have a disproportionate effect on journey time reliability.
• businesses in Greater Manchester have learnt to live with morning peak congestion and seem to be fairly inelastic to small increases in delay
• congestion is expected to increase in the longer-term with traffic growth over the next decade and beyond as the sub-region’s economy develops and prospers
• the LTP2 strategy should be able to cope over the coming 5-year period, but will need augmentation in the future if the economic aspirations of the city region are to be achieved

The study has been useful, although it has not been able to answer all the questions definitively. As the DfT itself has found, while the availability of ITIS journey time data is a great step forward, the most appropriate way to analyse and interpret it is not yet clear. However, the study has provided us with a sound foundation on which to build, and we are currently undertaking further analysis as part of our pump-priming work as we develop our bid for TIF funding.

In order to understand existing and future accessibility problems and to determine our Strategy and plans to deal with them, we have established three Strategic Accessibility Partnerships – in Education, Employment, and Health/Food – which include key partners from all relevant sectors. We have used Accession software to identify the location and extent of accessibility problems, and have informed the discussions and action plans of the respective partnerships.

There are some common problems across the three sectors:

• Location of Facilities - Employers and supermarkets have a tendency to start up or to relocate without considering public transport access. Rationalisation and specialisation of education will also have implications for the way in which people access schools and colleges. To ensure facilities are accessible we understand the need to integrate the land use planning process so that accessibility is an important consideration in the granting and submission of applications for developments, particularly those which will create significant travel demand (such as a large number of new jobs) across the conurbation. Direct access by bus to many supermarkets is often not available. This can be a significant barrier to some non-car owners who consequently have difficulty accessing fresh food.
• Evening accessibility - Accessibility to services in the evenings (after 6.00pm) can be very poor in many areas because of the low frequency of bus services generally available. Many evening routes are supported financially by the PTE and frequencies have to reflect the subsidy budget available. People believe that when travelling in the evening they are more likely to encounter anti-social behaviour. This perception contributes to a feeling of insecurity on public transport, and therefore creates a major barrier to accessibility.  
• Bus service coverage - There are low levels of bus services provided to some important destinations, such as higher and further education colleges, and some hospitals (including Rochdale and Wythenshawe). This is likely to become increasingly significant as the process of reconfiguration of front line services progresses, as demand for new trips currently not served by public transport will begin to emerge. Coverage of bus services also tends to be less comprehensive in semi rural and rural areas reflecting the lower levels of demand that exist. (see Fig 4.6). The challenge has been to ensure that residents of these areas without access to a car are still able to access key facilities. In addition there have been some specific findings from our studies, including:
  • central Rochdale and Oldham wards have poor access by public transport to employment
  • job vacencies at Trafford Park  are not well linked to areas of unemployment in Salford by public transport
  • access to higher/further education is generally poorer than to primary/secondary education (this is largely because trips to higher/further education are less localised)
  • cycle access to education facilities, particularly in the north and east of the conurbation, is in need of major improvement
  • access to healthcare by public transport on the northern and eastern rural fringes of Greater Manchester is generally poor
  • some residential areas have poor access to fresh food outlets (despite problems defining what constitutes such an outlet)

There are opportunities to deal with these issues, including:

• better location of facilities through work with major employers to explain the benefits of taking locational decisions with accessibility planning in mind
• work with big employers and operators to understand how traditional shift patterns have changed and how public transport timetables can react to this 
• work with the health sector to understand and react to the impacts of front line service reform through continued close involvement in the ongoing reconfiguration of services across Greater Manchester
• changes in the method of service delivery
• providing better information to users so that people are aware of the public transport options available to them
• persuading / assisting operators to provide specific improvements in services through schemes such as Kickstart and demand responsive services to plug the gaps in the conventional network
• continue the close collaboration with education institutions to make sure transport operators keep pace with changes to the timing of the school day and in the longer term the potential impact on school travel of the choice agenda in ongoing education reform 
• providing better access and secure storage provision for bicycles at identified secondary schools and higher / further education establishments. This is underway through improved travel planning processes at district level

We have identified measures to meet these issues in the work programme in Chapter 5.

External Accessibility

In addition to the above, there is a wider definition of accessibility, which applies to the connectivity of Greater Manchester with the rest of the region, the country and indeed other countries. This very much relates to economic growth in the city region. While most measures to improve these links are outside the remit of the LTP2, it is important that local transport and wider Greater Manchester economic, social and environmental issues are taken into account by the relevant organisations to ensure an holistic approach. This is particularly true in terms of congestion objectives as changes to the strategic road and rail networks can directly influence the amount of traffic on local networks and vice versa. Particular attention will need to be

given to Trans-Pennine rail links, management of motorway capacity, links to the Airport, freight paths on the modernised West Coast Main Line and congestion at ports and rail interchanges which receive containers bound to and from Greater Manchester.

Improvements for People with Mobility Difficulties

Our transport plans and strategies need to improve the accessibility of facilities for people with mobility difficulties. Our concessionary fares scheme and our Ring & Ride service are both designed to ensure that people who find it difficult to use conventional public transport are still able to access the facilities they need to reach. The ten Greater Manchester authorities also intend to continue to improve local accessibility by introducing more dropped kerbs and tactile surfaces, and upgrading crossing facilities to make them as user friendly as possible. We also recognise the need to continue to improve the accessibility to the local public transport network, and have adopted three specific targets designed to make the bus fleet, bus stops and local rail stations more accessible.

The main focus here has been in continuing to monitor trends in Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) casualties, both in total and for children, and to address the worst problem areas. We have enhanced our countywide road accident / casualty database / GIS (GMAXI) to provide enhanced analytical and mapping features to road safety specialists in their respective District Offices and in Greater Manchester Police (GMP). Analysis is provided quarterly, including the latest twelve months totals in the key KSI categories, but also for the vulnerable categories of pedestrians and pedal cyclists. The analysis is undertaken countywide, and separately by District, and is discussed at the regular meetings of the Road Accident Prevention Group attended by all authorities and GMP.

We have sought to identify areas of concern on two separate subsections of the road network: the main roads ( motorways / A class roads / B class roads) network and the minor roads network. Table 4.1 below shows that almost two thirds of all KSI casualties in Greater Manchester occur on main roads. However, the picture is very different for Child KSI casualties, with 55% occurring on minor roads. To meet our local targets for 2010 (our contribution to the national targets), a two-pronged approach is needed targeting accidents separately on major and minor roads.

Table 1 Road Casualties Greater Manchester, 2000 to 2004

	Motorways, A roads and B roads	Other Roads
All KSI casualties	3449	1951
Child KSI casualties	506	627

In Spring 2005 a new tool was provided within our mapping software to enable a new type of cluster analysis to be undertaken. Rather than using traditional methods to identify accident hotspots by allocating accidents to predefined junctions, road lengths or grid squares, this new analysis allows clusters to emerge naturally from the data itself. The user sets a radius and minimum casualty criterion, and the software identifies all clusters where the criterion is met. By selecting separately on main roads and minor roads, it is possible to identify much more accurately where the major hotspots lie. The clusters shown in Figure 4.7 were created by this method and show countywide KSI accidents on Motorways, A and B roads. Similar plots have been produced and used to look at hotspots for other subsets of road accidents including accidents involving child KSIs (Figure 4.8) and those involving other vulnerable road users.

As can be seen clearly from Figure 4.7, the main clusters of accidents on major roads lie in Manchester, particularly in Manchester City Centre and along the road to the south (Oxford Road) that runs through the university and hospital area, reflecting the large number of pedestrian / vehicle conflicts in these areas. Other clusters lie on the main radial routes to the city centre particularly from the south and east including the A57 and A6. The A6 from Stockport town centre to the county boundary is also heavily clustered. Accident clusters can also be seen in other Greater Manchester town centres, particularly Ashton-under-Lyne, Bolton, Oldham, and Rochdale.

Manchester City Council have identified that pedestrian / vehicle conflicts at signalised junctions are a major contributor to the clusters in the city centre. They have embarked on a programme of converting many of these junctions to an all red phase for traffic, allowing pedestrians to cross safely on all arms. As part of this conversion programme the junctions are being remodelled.

The area through the university and hospitals has a lot of pedestrian activity. A study is currently underway to look at through traffic movements in the area and see whether such traffic can be rerouted to reduce the amount of vehicle / pedestrian conflict.

Sites with high numbers of KSI accidents where there is evidence of a speeding problem are being targeted by fixed and mobile safety cameras. The safety camera programme is operated through the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership (Drivesafe), in which all ten districts and the Greater Manchester Police co-operate closely.

Many of the accidents off the main road network occur on housing estates, for example to the south of Bolton centre, to the west of Wigan centre, and in Wythenshawe in South Manchester. All districts have a set of criteria by which such sites are prioritised for implementation of road safety schemes. These criteria typically involve the number of casualties, with weighting being given to children, KSIs, traffic speed and the proximity of schools and health centres.

Additionally, where there is felt to be a speeding problem, mobile enforcement may be undertaken. These sites may be enforced by the police or by the safety camera partnership under the 15% of enforcement allowed at sites of community concern. The districts and police have worked closely on an agreed methodology for identifying such sites.

More generally, it is cluster analysis of this kind which is driving our road safety programme, both in engineering measures and in the education and training programmes in schools and the wider community.

Like many urban centres in the UK, GM's air quality is heavily affected by road transport emissions. All of Greater Manchester's AQMA's, depicted in Fig 4.9, have been declared on the basis of predicted exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide NO₂ objective in 2010 if corrective action is not taken. Potentially harmful "peaks" of particulates and NO₂ occur in urban centres throughout GM.

In GM, emission levels linked to the average active car stock are falling in line with the national trend; however, there is a forecast increase of over 200,000 cars from 2001 to 2010, with an associated increase in car journeys. In particular, the extra car kilometres travelled per year are contributing significantly to transport linked CO₂ emissions. A further issue negating the impact of cleaner technologies concerns the rise in popularity of sports utility vehicles (SUVs). In general, SUVs produce more emissions than other types of car due to larger engine sizes .

The key emission associated with buses in GM is particulate (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Although across Greater Manchester buses contribute only a small proportion of total emissions, diesel engines are the main source of both particulate and nitogen dioxide. The GMPTE and GM Districts actively work with bus operators to promote clean technologies, and buses with less polluting Euro-standard engines are gradually increasing in number. Many air quality issues associated with buses in GM are localised due to the nature of bus transport i.e. fixed routes and stationary public transport hubs. The most vulnerable sites are urban areas with high bus use and/or a high proportion of older buses, such as Oxford Road and Piccadilly Gardens in the regional centre. As a consequence, even though buses produce a proportionally small amount of pollution compared to other forms of transport in GM, they tend to have a significant health impact due to the high level of population exposure .

Despite making up a relatively small proportion of vehicles on the GM roads, heavy and light goods vehicles contribute over 60% of the emissions of nitrogen oxides and over 40% of PM10s. National measures, such as the introduction of Euro standards will partially address this issue but further local transport measures and action is required.

Chapter 5 sets out the main measures by which we intend to tackle air quality.

Climate Change

Recognising the need to “think global and act local” the Greater Manchester Authorities are keen to play their part in ensuring that, over time, the impact of transport on the global environment is reduced through measures designed to reduce carbon emissions. Opportunities will also be taken to encourage the wider use of alternative fuels in line with the Government’s strategy to increase the use of renewables.

While, within the next five years, we are not forecasting an overall reduction in the number of vehicle miles, LTP2 does however contain a range of measures which, combined, will reduce the level of road traffic when combined with the “do nothing” scenario.

The longer term GMITS strategy proposes a programme of measures including -:

• investment in high quality public transport alternatives to the private car
• measures to encourage higher levels of walking and cycling for shorter trips
• a land use planning strategy which seeks to reduce car dependency
• all underpinned by a strategy designed to encourage behavioural change

The direction of travel set by LTP2 is towards a future in which enhanced public transport combines with modernised vehicle fleets to deliver accessibility with lower levels of carbon emissions.

Metrolink

Phase 1 of Metrolink (between Bury and Altrincham through central Manchester) has been running since 1992 and Phase 2 (between central Manchester and Eccles) since 2000. The system has been very successful in achieving high patronage and securing modal switch from the car. However, the total tram stock is insufficient to deal adequately with demand and with the need for trams to be out of commission for repairs and/or regular maintenance. This should be dealt with as the provisional approval for Phase 1 and 2 renewals and capacity upgrades proceeds to full approval, and the improvements are then secured. We believe there is substantial extra potential for the use of these services, particularly in the peak period for those travelling to work, and we will be seeking to achieve this within the lifetime of LTP2.

The uncertainty relating to the further extensions of Metrolink (which underpin our longer term strategy) and their operation, together with the rolling stock issues referred to above, have led to some slight reductions in service performance. We are seeking to ensure that GMPTE continues to support and encourage the operator in providing the best possible service while negotiations continue with regard to the further extensions we are seeking.

Bus

As the main mode of public transport in Greater Manchester, the bus has a key role to play in securing modal shift away from the car, and also contributing to social inclusion. The Greater Manchester Bus Strategy has assessed its current performance, and the following description of problems and issues  is taken from that document.

 In common with almost all other areas outside London, trends in bus patronage have been generally downwards in recent years. However, there was a period of growth from 2000/01 to 2003/04, after which decline has resumed. Passenger loss is concentrated on the concessionary group of passengers, who are not only sensitive to fare increases, but are also shrinking owing to increased licence holding and more travel to school by car. Full fare-paying patronage has, by contrast, increased or remained stable over recent years. Our studies indicate that patronage is higher than it would have been if action had not been taken. The main reason for this is thought to be the introduction of cheaper weekly tickets by the main operators, and at a local level the success of our Quality Bus Corridors. However problems remain. They are identified from three main sources:

• internal analysis of monitoring and patronage information
• surveys of, and complaints from, passengers
• the views of operators

The most recent survey of all Greater Manchester residents (2003/04) showed that only 55% were satisfied with the local bus services. Whilst satisfaction amongst users is higher, this data suggests that the current regime is not delivering what people want. The key problems identified by passengers are reliability, frequency, quality of some waiting facilities, accurate information and the cost of fares. These all add up to a need for better service quality.

Poor reliability is a particular problem affecting less frequent services. Congestion contributes to this and to punctuality issues.

Rail

The railway network is now generally operating more reliably than in the recent past, with fewer cancellations and better time keeping. This is probably the main reason why we have seen steady increases in rail patronage at all times of day over the last few years. However, we believe there is the opportunity to secure further growth during the LTP2 period. Furthermore, several long-term closures in the south of the conurbation have held back demand.

To help achieve net benefits and better value for money, the GMPTE hopes to work closely with Network Rail as they develop the Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for North West England.  There is concern, however, that the Regional Planning Assessment (RPA) is making unduly pessimistic assumptions especially with respect to the future level of economic activity in central Manchester and the geographic spread of development.  These assumptions and those regarding future changes impacting on the highway network may adversely influence other pieces of work, including the RUS.

In addition to the RPA and RUS there is the ongoing review of the Northern Franchise.  These three studies create considerable uncertainty over the future shape of the rail network in the North West of England and the ability of the rail industry to contribute to delivery of the GMITS, including mode shift away from cars to public transport.  We are hopeful, however, that through partnership a realistic rail strategy can be developed that is acceptable to stakeholders.

As to the problems with the network itself in Greater Manchester, they are not new. If we are to be successful in continuing to increase patronage we need more and better rolling stock, comprehensive enhancement of passenger waiting facilities and improvements in capacity into and through the Manchester Rail Hub.

The Railways Act 2005 opens up new opportunities as well as raising issues of concern. The way in which the GMPTE responds will be dependent on how the details of the arrangements work out in practice.

The Greater Manchester Authorities are supportive of the need to ensure optimal use of the railway and recognise the difficulties caused by the considerable fixed costs associated with railway infrastructure and stations, as well as the difficulty of disaggregating shared costs between individual operators and services. The authorities will therefore wish to work with partners so as to achieve increasing benefits from past and new investment, and ensure the efficient provision of railway services. Section 5.2.1 sets out our proposals for the rail network.

The GMPTA/E is also aware of the implications of under-utilised stations, both in financial terms and in opportunity cost. Before agreeing a way forward for these stations, however, more information is needed on the costs associated with these assets and how financial savings could be used elsewhere, both to make the local rail network more attractive overall and to improve the effectiveness of the transport network as a whole. Associated with this is changes that may be made to ensure the delivery of the objectives set out within our Bus Strategy. It is essential that any revisions to the rail network have clear advantages overall so that the number of current and future passengers benefiting exceeds those who are inconvenienced and that improved value for money is achieved from any changes. Therefore, any network change consideration must be made not only in the light of current usage of assets but also in the context of future demand generated by new residential or commercial development.