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!
