Access for All? Metrolink plans to trash the Trans Pennine Trail ... Take action now!

For those who have not yet discovered the Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) it is an "exciting route for walkers, cyclists and horse riders linking the North and Irish seas, passing through the Pennines, alongside rivers and canals and through some of the most historic towns and cities in the North of England."

The Trans-Pennine Trail runs coast-to-coast between Southport and Hornsea and is 215 miles (346Km) long. A north-south route connects Leeds and Chesterfield and a spur to York means there are approximately 350 miles (560 km) of Trans Pennine Trail available for people to explore. Within Greater Manchester, the TPT winds its way through Trafford, Manchester and Stockport. The website describes how canal and railway paths take you through Warrington to Trafford, where the TPT picks up the River Mersey once again following a winding riverside path along the Mersey through the southern suburbs of Manchester, passing by Chorlton Water Park and heading via Didsbury to Stockport.

Last year, the Trans-Pennine Trail celebrated its 21st birthday with a series of events supported by Manchester, Stockport and Trafford councils and people from the local communities who enjoy using the Trail.

The Trans-Pennine Trail provides an ideal traffic-free route to encourage a wide range of walking and cycling activities for both recreational, utility and commuting journeys so at a time when Greater Manchester is developing policies in the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) to encourage more people to walk & cycle you would hope that the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) would be working to improve the facilities and access provided by this wonderful local resource..... unfortunately current proposals from GMPTE/Metrolink would suggest otherwise.

As part of the Metrolink extension works in Didsbury, GMPTE / Metrolink current plans will see the installation of a series of steps into the Trans Pennine Trail route in the Sandhurst Road vicinity as part of the Metrolink extension works in Didsbury.

Apparently, the original designs provided to Manchester City Council and Sustrans indicated that the Trans-Pennine Trail  would make use of ramps at the Sandhurst Road area – thus ensuring that a level access route was maintained.  Despite protests from various user groups, Metrolink seem unwilling to recognise that introducing a series of steps, into what was previously a level access cycle and walking route, will create a major obstacle for a wide range of current, and potential users.

GMPTE/Metrolink did consult on the proposed modifications to the TPT but because the initial development plans indicated that ramps would be used, providing continued level access, the concerns raised were mainly in relation to the temporary re-direction of the TPT.

It was not until late February 2011 that it became apparent that the upgraded Trans-Pennine Trail would now involve the installation of a series of steps which would have a major impact on access.  Enquiries about the possibility of consultation and consideration of other options received the following response:

“[There is] No opportunity to influence the design… this is the design that we are going to construct.”

Not a response likely to re-assure local residents and user groups that their concerns and needs are being taken into account by Metrolink.  Enquiries about why the initial designs have now been changed to steps, received the response that the use of ramps were not feasible as they would “cost millions”. So far, no information has been provided that outlines which, if any, alternative options were examined or what the criteria and cost figures are for the steps or ramp options.
  
Metrolink is currently saying that each set of steps will have “cycle gutters” to enable people to wheel their bicycles up and down the steps.  But this will not be much use for people carrying loaded panniers who will struggle to achieve such manoeuvres – whether they are cycle touring or simply returning from the local shops with their weekly groceries. Also, many users will find the steps an unwelcome and impassable barrier. People such as parents with prams or double pushchairs, electric and manual wheelchair users and their attendants, mobility scooters users, families cycling with child buggies or “tag-alongs” and many mobile elderly people who struggle to navigate steps. Many people are likely to find it very difficult, if not impossible, to navigate six sets of steps and will therefore be effectively deterred from using the Trans-Pennine Trail.

Now, the land that the Trans-Pennine Trail is situated on is currently owned by Manchester City Council - who also have responsibilities for the maintenance of the TPT within the Manchester area. So it can be argued that the Trans-Pennine Trail should be considered as a facility or “service” provided by Manchester City Council for the residents of Manchester. If this is indeed the case, then according to the Council’s Access 2000 Strategy:

“Since October 1999, there is a duty presented by Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act to ensure that every Council service is accessible to disabled people. The Access 2000 Strategy will help to ensure that no part of the City Council creates physical barriers to disabled people using its services. By carrying out best practice for its own design schemes, the City Council will be leading by example, in order to encourage others to follow suit.” (Emphasis added) (Section 1.4)

This would seem to make a strong case that Manchester City Council must intervene in this case to ensure that Metrolink, acting as a developer in this case, do not create physical barriers that prevent disabled people, and other residents, from accessing the Trans-Pennine Trail facility.

There is a certain level of irony when reading the commitment outlined in the draft that Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan (LTP3) proudly claims that: "Our proposals to improve the coverage and quality of public transport, to manage the highway network, improve the pedestrian environment and remove barriers to cycling will help to encourage more car users to change the way they travel."  (Section 4.3.3.1, Page 34, Draft Local Transport Plan - LTP3).

It will also be interesting to see what the Department for Transport make of any bid from GMPTE (soon to be Transport for Greater Manchester) for Local Sustainable Transport Funds (LSTF). The DfT assessment criteria for LSTF bids includes the following:

"28. Proposals which also demonstrate the following characteristics will be favourably considered in the assessment process.

* have the support of a range of community interests; and
* incorporate plans for partnership working in the design and delivery of solutions with external bodies, which could include the private sector community and voluntary sector organisations and transport operators." (Page 14).

The Trans-Pennine Trail provides an ideal traffic-free route to encourage a wide range of walking and cycling activities for both recreational, utility and commuting journeys. The Metrolink extension to Didsbury should be providing an ideal opportunity to improve the quality and access to this popular service.

It seems unlikely that if, as currently planned, Metrolink effectively trashes the Trans Pennine Trail that this will do much to encourage support from local voluntary and community groups!

Take Action now!

If you value the Trans Pennine Trail and would prefer that Metrolink does not create barriers to people walking and cycling on the TPT then please consider doing one (or more) of the following:

1) Email the councillors on the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) who are supposed to provide oversight and guidance for Metrolink. Those nice people at Love Your Bike have created an email action to help you contact all the GMITA members in your local area.

2) Or send your own message to your local councillors who are members of the GMITA.

3) Attend the Manchester Cycle Forum on Tuesday 15th March.  A GMPTE representative will be attending to discuss Metrolink / Trans Pennine Trail and am sure they would love to hear your views.

Time: 5pm for 5.15pm start.   Venue: The Town Hall, Room 11 - Ground Floor

4) Attend the Stockport Cycle User Group on Wednesday 16th March. A GMPTE representative will be attending to discuss Metrolink / Trans Pennine Trail and am sure they would love to hear your views.

Time: 6-8pm.  Venue: Stockport Town Hall



Update 16th March.

Email action - In just two days, over 240 people from all 10 GM council areas have sent emails to their local councillors who are GM Integrated Transport Authority members asking them to request Metrolink to come up with a better solution.

Manchester Cycle Forum (15th March) - After 50 minutes of discussion and detailed objections, Councillor David Royle, who chairs the Cycle Forum, made it very clear to the Metrolink representative that they must rethink their plans. "This is NOT the right solution".

Manchester Friends of the Earth / Love Your Bike tabled the following resolution which was passed unanimously.

"This Cycle Forum is seriously concerned that the current Metrolink proposals to introduce sets of steps into the Trans Pennine Trail in the vicinity of  Sandhurst Road, Didsbury will seriously degrade access to the Trans Pennine Trail for both visitors and local residents of Manchester. This cycle forum calls on Manchester City Council to work with GMPTE/Metrolink to ensure that the Trans Pennine Trail continues to offer 'access for all' to encourage more people to walk and cycle on the Trans Pennine Trail for recreational, utility or commuting journeys."

Some media coverage:

Didsbury Life: Metrolink and The Trans-Pennine Trail

Inside the M60:  Cyclists up in arms over Metrolink proposals to install steps on Trans Pennine Trail

Fetch.It Didsbury: Metrolink – a step too far for the Trans-Pennine Trail

Ask Bury: Metrolink – a step too far for the Trans-Pennine Trail

Greater Manchester transport... heading in the wrong direction?

At the forthcoming Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) Policy and Resources committee (Friday 19th November) the committee members will consider whether to continue the ban on cycle carriage on Metrolink trams. Whilst no decision has yet to be formally announced, the portents do not look good. The GMPTE press release states that:

"The final recommendation from the working group - to maintain the current position - will be considered by the Authority's Policy & Resources Committee on Friday 19 November." A direction of travel that has been picked up by both local and national media and the main report on cycle carriage recommends that the Committee should:

"endorse the decision reached by the Cycles on Trams Working Group that there should be no trial for the carriage of bicycles on trams and the current policy regarding cycles on trams should remain in place and cyclists should be encouraged to park their bikes at Metrolink stops or use folding bikes and carry them fully covered on trams;"


There are a series of report that the Committee are meant to base any decision on. It is a small sign of progress that these reports are available prior to the meeting via the GMITA website.

One report, entitled "Item 04. Implications and Costs of Tram modifications" states that:

"5.1  The total cost of the modification of the mixed tram fleet would be approximately £3,312,000 when taking into account the costs of design, removal of seats, fitting the space with a bicycle restraining system, project management, risk and contingency allowance.

5.2  Any trial of the carriage of bicycles would be very difficult until all trams have been modified to enable the carriage of bicycles as cyclists would have no idea when the next modified tram will arrive at their chosen boarding point, therefore no meaningful trial could take place prior to the tram refurbishment programme being completed."  and that:

"5.5  The cost of modification to trams for the carriage of bicycles therefore represents poor value for money.

5.6 Funding for the capital works to adapt trams for the carriage of bikes is unsecured."

Whilst it is true that there would now be a cost associated with retrofitting the new trams to be able to carry bicycles this rather neatly sidesteps the point that if, as was agreed in 2003, the new trams had been DESIGNED to carry bicycles then most of these retrofit costs would not apply.

On the 18th November 2002, in a letter to a local newspaper, Concillor Roger Jones (the then GMPTA chair) stated that:
 
“Whilst there is a clear realisation that taking bikes on existing trams is not possible, GMPTE will be purchasing many more trams as part of its third phase of Metrolink expansion out to the airport, Ashton under Lyne and Oldham and Rochdale. The Authority has unanimously agreed to the principle of allowing bikes on trams during non-peak hours, however, this is subject to the resolution of a number of very important issues.”

It is not as if the cycling community has been remiss in reminding GMPTE/GMITA that the Greater Manchester transport system would be a little more integrated if the Metrolink system allowed cycle carriage. See for example, Greater Manchester Cycle Campaign's publications 'Cycle Carriage News' which has been regularly posted to relevant GMITA councillors and GMPTE  officers. In June 2008, Love Your Bike organised a press stunt with cardboard bikes to illustrate how easy it was to carry bikes on the off-peak tram network.

The GMITA reports focus relentlessly on the possible problems and dangers that might be associated with cycle carriage whilst ignoring developments in a wide and growing range of cities in Europe and North America that already have, or are introducing, public transit networks that permit (or in some cases positively encourage) people to combine their cycle journeys with the different public transport modes. For example, the table below was part of the Love Your bike and GMCC submissions to the GMITA Cycles on Trams Working Group. The Koln tram system is both more complex and larger than Manchester. It has 11 lines and carries nearly ten times the number of daily passengers. Koln utilises similar trams to Manchester (the Metrolink M5000 tram is a slightly modified version of the K5000), switching between rail lines (linking Bonn) as well as travelling through the city centre, and both being regulated via the driver. 

If you haven't already spotted it, the big difference is that Koln permits passengers to travel with their bicycles.  The Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority has chosen not to allow the integration of bicycles with the Metrolink or bus services - this is in marked contrast to many other cities worldwide who have been able to overcome the barriers and obstacles that GMITA/GMPTE seem to think are such a problem.

One of the key reasons given for continuing with the ban on cycle carriage on the Manchester trams, is that the £3.3 million retrofit costs are too high and not currently secure. But these costs are so high, precisely because the GMITA/GMPTE failed to ensure that the new trams ordered were configured to be able to carry bikes.  The GMPTE bureacratic machine, which appears hostile to bicycles travelling on the public transport network, has played a blinder !




There is also a report purporting to show that there are no clear off-peak periods on the Metrolink system and a new public survey that shows a lower level of support than the passenger survey looking at people's attitude towards cycle carriage which was carried out by GMPTE in 2002 but never published.


What the GMPTE press release doesn't mention and the media don't seem bothered to comment on is that before respondents got to answer the questions about cycle carriage they were required to read (and indicate that they had understood) the following:


"If bikes were allowed to be carried on trams, there are several implications as a result:
 
1. To satisfy UK safety regulations, seats would need to be removed to allow enough space to enable bikes to be carried, for example:
 
o To allow 2 bikes per tram – approximately four to six seats would need to be removed
o To allow 4 bikes per tram – approximately 8 to 12 seats would need to be removed
 
2. The number of bikes allowed on a tram at any one time would need to be self regulated by the cyclists and other passengers as the trams do not carry onboard Metrolink staff in the saloon at all times.
 
3. The carriage of bikes may introduce a risk of collision with the bike by passengers, especially if the tram had to stop sharply.

4. Please tick to confirm you have read and understood these implications.  Yes   No."



It is interesting that the Committee report on cycle carriage (Item 08) notes that the evidence from Northern Rail (who are enthusiastic about encouraging passengers to travel with their cycles) have reported that:


"They have no record of accidents involving passengers and cycles, although the occasional claim (one or two per annum) for dry cleaning is presented where contact has been made by clothing and bicycle chains or other dirty parts of the bike."

and even the (in)famous Mott MacDonald report stated that:

"It should be noted that from the information obtained from systems where cycles are permitted on trams, none have reported any safety issues or referred to any claims resulting from bicycle carriage."

So what do you do if you don't really want to facilitate cycle carriage on the Metrolink system? How about creating a potential concern (see Point 3 above) - even though all the evidence you have from your own research and consultants suggests that there is a minimal risk of such an event happening - and introduce this into the survey before the respondent answers the key questions... I think this is what researchers would call a "loaded question".


Which makes it all the more surprising (and encouraging) that 53% of people still supported the principle of cycle carriage on Metrolink. You can see the survey questionnaire for yourself here.

In some ways we shouldn't be surprised at this continuing hostility towards cycle carriage - the bureacratic process behind the decision in January 2010 to continue with the ban on cycle carriage was a disgrace, even one of the councillors at a subsequent meeting described it as "shoddy and shabby". Despite repeated Freedom of Information requests, the main report by consultants Mott MacDonald, was not made available for public scrutny until after the Capital Projects committee had voted to continue with the ban on cycle carriage. See for example the Manchester Evening News "GMPTE's 'dirty tricks' over bike ban on trams" article.  At the time the Guardian Cycling blog also commented that:

"Now I don't know enough about Manchester's trams to judge the issue with any authority. But overall, it's one of the most depressing transport documents I think I've ever read. If there's a potential problem, they've found it. Cyclists are seen purely as an annoyance, something to be managed."

It is this fixation on the bicycle as a problem combined with the apparent unwillingnes to consider how combining the public transport network with bicycles can help create a truly sustainable and integrated transport system which is so disappointing.  This lack of understanding of why people may want to combine cycle journeys with other public transport modes is epitomised by the comment below which was posted on the Manchester Evening News website in response to the "Metrolink set to stand firm on bike ban after passenger survey" story

"If you are on a bike why do you need to get on a tram. On yer bike..... "

Am assuming this comment was made by a member of the public ... but unfortunately the recent  reports and Committee recommendation would appear to indicate that this same lack of understanding is also prevalent amongst GMITA councillors and GMPTE officers.

More worringly, there is an another report up for discussion at the Committee Meeting on the 19th November. Item 11. "Potential for 'Tram-Train' to play a role in the development of local train services in Greater Manchester" does what it says on the tin and outlines the potential to develop a Tram-Train service across Greater Manchester to replace an unspecified number of heavy rail services.  The report acknowledges a number of key challenges but exhibits a positive, can-do approach suggesting that all these obstacles can be overcome. It is interesting to contrast this can-do approach on a subject which presumably GMPTE officers support with the negative, can't do / problem laden approach to cycle carriage on the tram service.

But clearly if the GMITA/GMPTE get the go ahead to create a Tram-Train network then it follows that there will be more destinations in Greater Manchester that will become inaccessible to people wishing to combine bicycle journeys with the public transport system.


Meanwhile... people in Greater Manchester are being consulted on the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) vision and strategy that amongst other things wants to create a sustainable transport system for Greater Manchester.  As part of LTP3, it is likely that Greater Manchester will make a bid to the Local Sustainable Transport Fund which seeks to support local authorities that introduce (amongst other things):
"Measures could include encouraging walking and cycling, initiatives to improve integration between travel modes and end-to-end journey experiences".

In public transport jargon poor integration between travel modes and poor end-to-end journey experiences are often referred to as the “problem of the last mile”. These are situations where the person’s final destination is up to a mile away from the nearest public transport stop and so they, often quiet reasonably, chose to travel by car. Having the option to use a bicycle for this final stretch makes it more likely that the journey could be made by a combination of public transport and bike, instead of the entire journey being made by car.  

An integrated transport network that enables customers to combine sustainable modes, such as allowing users to combine Metrolink and cycle carriage could help some people overcome the “problem of the last mile”.

Now, bearing in mind that Manchester / Greater Manchester has already been unsuccessful in bids for Cycyling Demonstration City and Sustainable Travel City funding (partly) because of the perceived lack of "high-level" political support and lack of coherent GM wide cycling policies - it will be very interesting to see what the Department for Transport will make of the direction that GMITA is heading in with regard to the integration of cycles with the public transport network in Greater Manchester.

Perhaps we could start by having the vision and committment to follow our European sister cities and design a truly integrated transport system. Perhaps then the "Integrated" in GMITA can then be spoken without any irony.

A list of councillors who are members of the Policy and Resources Commitee is available here 

(see below)
Labour
1 Councillor Andrew Fender (Manchester)  Email: cllr.a.fender@manchester.gov.uk
2 Councillor  David Jones  (Oldham)  Email: david.r.jones@oldham.gov.uk
3 Councillor Alan Godson  (Rochdale) Email: alan.godson@rochdale.gov.uk
4 Councillor Roger Jones (Salford) Email: councillor.jones@salford.gov.uk


5 Councillor  Barry Warner (Salford) Email: Councillor.Warner@salford.gov.uk
6 Councillor Alan Whitehead (Tameside) Email c/o: victoria.fletcher@tameside.gov.uk
7 Councillor Roland Griffin (Trafford)  Email: roland.griffin@trafford.gov.uk
8 Councillor Patricia Holland (Wigan) Email: P.Holland@wigan.gov.uk
9 Councillor Eunice Smethurst (Wigan) Email: E.Smethurst@wigan.gov.uk

Liberal Democrats
10 Councillor Richard Knowles (Oldham)  Email: cllr.r.d.knowles@oldham.gov.uk
11 Councillor Keith Whitmore (Chair) (Manchester) Email: cllr.k.whitmore@manchester.gov.uk
12 Councillor David Wilkinson (Bolton)  Email: david.wilkinson@bolton.gov.uk
13 Councillor Malcolm Bruce: (Rochdale) Email: malcolm.bruce@rochdale.gov.uk
14 Councillor Craig Wright (Stockport)  Email: cllr.craig.wright@stockport.gov.uk
15 Councillor David Sandiford (Manchester) email: cllr.d.sandiford@manchester.gov.uk


Conservatives
16 Councillor Ian Macdonald (Salford)  Email: councillor.macdonald@salford.gov.uk
17 Councillor Barry Theckston (Bury) Email: b.theckston@bury.gov.uk
18 Councillor Doreen Dickinson (Tameside)  Email: doreen.dickinson@tameside.gov.uk
19 Councillor Ian Duckworth (Rochdale) Email: ian.duckworth@rochdale.gov.uk
20 Councillor Brian Rigby (Vice Chair) (Trafford) Email: brian.rigby@trafford.gov.uk


Perhaps you would like to email them ahead of Friday's meeting?


Finally, this blog usually tries to focus on positive suggestions and proposals to improve cycling provision and sustainable transport options in Greater Manchester..... so lets end with some positives. 

The proposals outlined by the Capital Projects committee in January 2010 to increase the level of cycling parking and other cycling infrastructure at Metrolink and bus stations is to be welcomed. The meeting agreed:

"That Recommendation 2 (Endorse the decision that the GMPTE should continue to provide investment for cycle facilities on the Metrolink network, rail stations and any future proposals, such as the anticipated Park and Ride facilities, be endorsed) be strengthened to reflect that GMPTE provide increased investment for cycle facilities on the current Metrolink network , rail stations and any future proposals such as the anticipated Park and Ride facilities."

As always, the devil will be in the detail(ed) plans but this increased expenditure on cycle parking is to be welcomed.



We should also welcome, possibly with a great fanfare and drum roll,  that at the Policy and Resources committee meeting members will consider,  and in all likelihood agree, a report that states:

"3.2 During the meeting on 13th August 2010 it was made apparent that the current policy of allowing the carriage of folding bikes on trams if fully encased is confusing. The terminology `fully encased` is implying to cyclists that the folding cycles must be carried in a hard container.

3.3 In fact the encasement is intended to protect the tram and passengers clothing from soiling and therefore does not need to be a hard enclosure. Most folding cycles are capable of being enclosed in a lightweight bag that folds to pocket size and can be purchased as a specific item from the bike manufacturer (Brompton for example).

3.5 To prevent further confusion it was agreed that the wording of the information posters should be changed to reflect this position. The suggested wording is ‘fully covered’ rather than fully encased."  [Item 05 DDA compliance, folding bikes policy, heavy rail experience. Available here]

This is in response to the criticism of the Metrolink policy that stated that even a folded brompton bicycle needed to be "fully encased". Even though a folded Brompton takes up a lot less space than many small prams or even some bags. (See photo).

A point that was demonstrated with a certain amongt of tongue-in-check by those lovely people at Love Your Bike who decided to board the trams with a range of folding items (deckchairs, ironing boards etc) which do not appear to be prohibited compared to an uncased folded Brompton which is.  You can watch the video here and read the Guardian and BBC articles.

So.. after all this deliberation and despite trams on the Newcastle Metro and Croydon Tramlink allowing folded bicycles to be carried without the needed to be covered - GMITA will change the policy from "fully encased" to "fully covered".  Am wondering whether other passengers will be expected to "fully cover" their shoes or the wheels of prams, buggies or other assorted objects when the outside conditions are wet or muddy!

Trafford finally get on board the bus lane ?

Well here we are in October 2010 and another consultation on a Local Transport Plan (LTP3) is upon us.  A key part of the two previous LTP strategy documents was a focus on work to create a network of quality bus corridors to provide priority routes for public transport bus services across Greater Manchester.

These Quality Bus Corridors (QBCs) are designed to help buses avoid traffic congestion bottlenecks and so help provide a more reliable bus service - they also double up as very wide cycle lanes. 

 

The two photographs are of a bus corridor on Upper Chorlton Road - the north bound carriageway of which falls within Trafford Borough Council's responsibility.  Despite the "bus lane" road markings and the blue sign that makes it very clear that the lane is only meant to be used by buses, cycles and taxis between the hours of 7am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm (Monday to Friday) - for the best part of the last three years this "bus lane" has functioned as a 24 hour car park facility.

The reasons for this stretch back to 20th September 2007 when Trafford Council sought authorisation for the Upper Chorlton Road, Old Trafford and Edge Lane, Stretford (Reserved Bus Lane) (Peak Hours) Order and announced that:

"NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Trafford Borough Council proposes to make an Order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The effect of the Order will be to prohibit all vehicles other than buses, pedal cycles and taxis from entering, proceeding or waiting in the bus lanes during the stated days and hours:-

RESERVED BUS LANE - PEAK HOURS
Monday – Friday 0700 – 1000 and 1600 - 1900
Upper Chorlton Road, Old Trafford - north side.

This "Reserved Bus Lane Order on Upper Chorlton Road" became operative on 7^thApril 2008 but according to Trafford Council there were no enforceable waiting restrictions within the bus lane.

Unfortunately, Trafford Council never got round to applying for the powers to be able to enforce ‘moving traffic offences’ (ie travelling in a bus lane).  In August 2009, Trafford Council stated that the "Council may obtain powers to carry out this type of enforcement in the future, but the cost of doing so would probably not be justified, in view of the relatively short lengths of bus lanes that we currently have within Trafford."

It went on to add that "Enforcement of any parking that takes place within a bus lane, by a Civil Enforcement Officer, has proved difficult using the bus lane traffic regulation Order. The Council is therefore considering a proposal to introduce corresponding waiting restrictions, in addition to the bus lane, that could be enforced by its Civil Enforcement Officers, however, the time span for such a proposal is approximately 6-9 months."

Finally, in September 2010, a report has been sent to the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation which stated that Trafford Council wanted "To seek approval to introduce waiting restrictions along Upper Chorlton Road, Old Trafford."  We are seeking confirmation that this request was approved.

So over 3 years after the original Reserved Bus Lane (Peak Orders) Order was submitted, Trafford Council have finally got round to obtaining the necessary powers to stop this "bus lane" from being used as a car parking facility.  We can only hope that any necessary enforcement actions are implemented a little more speedily.... but then again if the rumours that Trafford Council are planning to reduce its Highways Department from the current workforce complement of 28 down to 12 staff are accurate - then the wait for any future bus corridor enforcement may have to wait for many more buses to come along... 

You have until the 24th December 2010 to submit your suggestions and comments on the Local Transport Plan (LTP3) consultation.  Perhaps you might like to comment on bus lanes and parking enforcement..... just a thought !

Low emission vehicles and smoky buses

Cycling along Oxford Road the other day near Whitworth Park I noticed a lovely green (in colour) sticker in the back window of a Finglands bus which proudly proclaimed that "this is a low emission vehicle".

So I was a bit surprised to be enveloped in a cloud of black sooty fumes when the bus pulled out from the bus stop....if this was a low emission vehicle I would hate to be behind a vehicle that had high emissions!

That got me wondering who has responsibility for verifying the claims that specific vehicles meet a "low emission" standard. A quick call to GMPTE pointed me in the direction of the Dirty Diesels Campaign webpage which informs us that:

• "Well-maintained vehicles should produce very little smoke, except when they are starting up, accelerating hard, or climbing steep hills.

• However, some vehicles emit dense plumes of smoke, and may not meet legal emissions standards, they may be Dirty Diesels!

• Dirty Diesels cause air pollution, can be a health hazard and are bad for the environment."

On these criteria I don't know whether the bus I was behind would be classed as a 'dirty diesel' but if you come across a vehicle you think qualifies as a Dirty Diesel then please report it via the website form or by email to cleanervehicles@manchester.gov.uk

You will need to provide the following information:

• Vehicle registration number:

• Bus (vehicle) company name:

• Location of bus/vehicle:

• Date and time of sighting:

• Your contact details: (although you can remain anonymous if you so wish!)

Complaints about excessive or smoky emissions from commercial vehicles such as lorries, buses, coaches, will be passed to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) the Government agency responsible for controlling exhaust emissions from such vehicles and they should supply a smoke test to show that the bus either did not breach the limit or has been fixed.

If you report a smoky taxi then the complaint will be referred to your Local Authority Licensing Section. 

GMPTE only has powers to control 'dirty diesels' on the land it directly owns (generally bus stations), but Manchester City Council (the red wardens) have powers to fine buses that are stopped and producing 'unnecessary pollution' from idling enginges. So if you know any 'hot spot' areas where this happens, report it.

Unfortunately it would appear that VOSA only keep records for 3 months which is not very good for monitoring whether specific bus companies have a poor record on emission levels. A subject matter for a future blog.

More details on air quality and transport emissions can be found on the Environmental Protection website.

Happy cycling and breathe easy.

GMPTE Consultation on cycle storage (Deadline 7th June - ish!)

Well its consultation time (again) and those nice people at Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) are "asking for feedback from cyclists and cycling groups in Greater Manchester on work they are having done on the design of future cycling facilities at public transport locations."  They want comments back by Monday 7 June (or very latest 11th June) and the questions are listed below:

GMPTE Cycle Design Guide Consultation:

1.Type and Quantity of cycle storage

* What type of storage should be provided (ie stands/lockers) and if lockers are provided, what sort should they be?

* How many stands/lockers should we be providing at each location and how should the amount vary according to the type of location?

* How should lockers be accessed eg key, swipe card, coin?

2.Location of storage/security issues

*how should the level of security (including lighting, CCTV, natural surveillance) available influence the location of storage or the type provided?

* where should storage be located for easy access & how can access be improved?

3.Availability of storage

* how can we improve the availability of storage/ make sure there is sufficient storage available for occasional users?

* Should storage be available at all locations (eg bearing in mind different levels of security)?

4.Management/ Maintenance and Cost

* how can the management of the lockers be improved?

* how can we maximise the usage of lockers?

* should charging be per use, or a one-off charge?

5.Signage requirements

* what signage is needed to encourage take up (eg to the stations, within the station)

6.Other

* are there any supporting services that are needed to encourage people to cycle to public transport locations?

* anything else, not covered above, that you feel is important?

So if you feel like sending them your thoughts please email responses to moira.percy@gmpte.gov.uk

Now far be it for anyone to suggest what you should write but we would hope that GMPTE are taking note of the GM Cycle Parking guidelines adopted by all Greater Manchester councils.

And those nice folks at Greater Manchester Cycling Campaign (GMCC) have also made useful, but less than flattering, comments on the cycle lockers that have been favoured by GMPTE in the past.  See for example the April 2008 entitled "Useless Cycle Parking : A survey of poor parking facilities in Trafford and surrounding areas" which commented that:

"Sadly, the lockers are too small for any bike larger than a mountain bike. Another problem with this type of locker is that any bikes with full mud-guards going round the rear wheel will find it gets damaged" and that "It can also be quite difficult to lift the bike up onto the rear wheel and manoeuvre it into the locker."

The GMCC report also listed the dimensions of the GMPTE cycle lockers that had been tested in 2008. These were:


Dimensions (Locker)    Dimensions (My Bike):
         183 cm (L)                 189 cm (L)
           68 cm (W)                  66 cm (W)
         110 cm (H)                114 cm (H)

More details of the GMPTE Bicycle Lockers Users Club (BLUC) are available here.

Happy consulting!

Oxford Road closure starts early !

Last year, GMPTE ran a consultation on its plans to remove car traffic from Oxford Road and only permit buses, taxis and bicycles to use a section of the road from Whitworth Park up to the Cornerhhouse. Whilst supportive of the overall plans, many cycling advocacy groups, and reportedly some of the bus companies, were unhappy with the proposed cycling infrastructure designs, and submitted detailed responses.  

The consultation process ended in December 2009 and GMPTE recently confirmed that they had received a significant amount of feedback on the Oxford Rd cycle measures and "as a consequence are reconsidering the design."

GMPTE also confirmed that they will be gathering further views on the best solution for this route, before revised plans are finalised later in the year and that they will formally gathering views from cycling groups on the re-designed scheme. GMPTE are happy to receive any feedback people have but there will be a more formal opportunity to make an informed contribution to the design later in the year.

So you can either send in your comments now or respond to the re-designed scheme later this year. Contact either: consult@gmpte.gov.uk  or  views2009@gmpte.gov.uk

However, given the length of time that Oxford Road will be partially closed for gas main replacement works (see photo), it looks like sections of Oxford Road will be pretty much closed to cars a lot earlier than planned !

They want your views !

Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Passenger Ttransport Executive (GMPTE), in consultation with Salford City Council, have developed a new transport strategy for Manchester city centre and they want your views. Consultations should be submitted by 22nd March 2010.

The introductory blurb for the consultation says that:

"We have identified the need for a  comprehensive strategy to ensure that the transport network can support the significant economic growth forecast to 2020, and delivery of the Strategic Plan for Manchester City Centre published in 2009.   The Strategy sets out a transport masterplan to provide the city centre with a world class transport system and making it a better place to live, work, invest and relax. There is the potential for employment in the city centre to grow by 50,000 by 2020. These new jobs will cause the number of trips into the city centre to grow by a third. To retain essential labour market connectivity, the main thrust of this Strategy must be to maintain access to the city centre by all modes and to strengthen public transport capacity and quality, together with improving conditions for cyclists and pedestrians."

The consultation document is 41 pages long and is available here.   If the Council(s) are serious about making it easier and more enjoyable for people to choose sustainable travel modes to make their journeys into Manchester City Centre, then this strategy needs to include plans for developing effective infrastructure and promotional activities to encourage more people to walk and cycle. It will also need to make clear how these plans are going to be funded.

Please do send in your thoughts - either directly to Manchester City Council or leave a comment here.

Integrated Transport Authority ? You're having a laugh!

On Friday 15th January, the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) Capital Projects committee voted to continue the ban on any bicycles travelling on off-peak Metrolink tram services.

The recommendation for the ban was included in the "Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams" report submitted by Metrolink Director, Philip Purdy. This was supposedly a summation of the similarily entitled report by consultants Mott MacDonald, submitted to GMPTE in April 2009. GMPTE failed to respond to two seperate Freedom of Information Act requests made by local campaigners in September/October 2009 and a copy of the consultants report was not made publicly available until 3 hours after the GMITA committee had voted! Which seems a very strange way of upholding the claim GMPTE "consults the public and other stakeholders to improve public transport in Greater Manchester."  Even stranger was that even the Committee members did not seem to have been given a copy of the consultants report prior to the meeting.

The committee voted 7~5 to endorse the following recommendation:

"a) Members are asked to endorse the decision to continue with the current policy to forbid the carriage of bicycles on trams with the exception of folding cycles which should be fully encased."

Now, the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Strategy claims it wants to encourage more trips to be made by bicycle and it considers that 2 to 5 miles is an ideal cycling distance. The GMPTE website states that: “we will continue to adopt a fully integrated approach to influencing travel behaviour with a range of measures to encourage more of the large number of shorter trips to be undertaken by bike or on foot rather than by the private car.”

Manchester's Love Your Bike campaigners have estimated that approximately 90% of the Greater Manchester population will be within a 2.5 mile cycle ride of a tram station when the new Metrolink services are completed. An ideal distance to encourage people to "integrate" a cycle and tram journey and yet the current Metrolink cycle carriage policy even bans the carriage of a folded Brompton bicycle (dimensions are only 58.5cm high x 54.5cm long x 27cm wide) unless it is fully encased.

Compare this with the dimensions of a typical double buggy pram which even when folded are much bigger at 104cm high x 39.5cm long x 74cm wide (See this example).  People can travel on all tram services with an unfolded double pram buggy. It would also appear to be permissible to attempt to travel on all tram services with golf caddys, a double bass (cased), skis and a wide range of other bulky and heavy items.

One group of cyclists that are inconvenienced by the GMPTE's continuing hostile attitude to integrating tram and cycle journeys are the St John's Ambulance - bicycle ambulance volunteers.  Based in Altrincham they regularly have to travel to Heaton Park to provide volunteer first aid services for a range of events. If they were allowed to take their bicycle ambulances on tram services then it would be a good example of an "integrated" transport system: Cycle to Altrincham tram stop, travel to Heaton Park tram stop and then cycle into and around the park.  Because of the current bike ban they need to hire a truck to transport their bicycle ambulances to Heaton Park!

Perhaps the full GMITA committee meeting on 12th February may wish to ponder the meaning of the word "integrated".

The non-magnificent 7 councillors included 3 Conservatives and 4 Liberal Democrats. If you think people should be able to combine a tram journey with a folded Brompton (not fully encased!) at any time or maybe even take their bike on a tram (off peak) for example on a Sunday morning to get easier access to the countryside then please do send a (polite) message to one (or more) of them.

Conservative
Dylan Butt (Trafford - Hale Barns)     (dylan.butt@trafford.gov.uk)
Ian Macdonald (Salford - Worsley)   (councillor.macdonald@salford.gov.uk)
Michael Winstanley (Wigan - Orrell) (M.Winstanley@wigan.gov.uk)

Liberal Democrats
Richard Knowles  - Chair (Oldham - Saddleworth South)  (richard.knowles@oldham.gov.uk)
David Sandiford (Manchester - Didsbury East)   (cllr.d.sandiford@manchester.gov.uk)
David White (Stockport - Davenport & Cale Green) (cllr.david.white@stockport.gov.uk)
Craig Wright (Stockport - Marple North)   (cllr.craig.wright@stockport.gov.uk)

The 5 Labour group committee members argued against the ban and voted for a deferment. They then voted against the ban. These were:
Jim Dawson (Salford - Swinton North)  (Councillor.Dawson@salford.gov.uk)
Andrew Fender (Manchester - Old Moat) (cllr.a.fender@manchester.gov.uk)
Peter Scott  (Stockport - Reddish North)  (scottsclp@aol.com)
Eunice Smethurst (Wigan - Abram)    (E.Smethurst@wigan.gov.uk)
Alan Whitehead (Tameside)                (c/o victoria.fletcher@tameside.gov.uk)


See also this MEN article GMPTE's 'dirty tricks' over bike ban on trams. 


and also David Ottewell's blog:  Metrolink bike ban ‘disgraceful’