Saturday, 26 February 2011

Pedal Powered Ancoats

Fancy a local history tour with a difference?  Then you might want to try the Pedal Powered Ancoats trip.

Described on the Quaytickets booking form as being a:

"venture into Ancoats, 'the world's first industrial suburb', not on foot but by bike.  Tour Guides Kate Dibble and Emma Fox lead you on a tour of the towering mills and the pioneering industrial canals that made Manchester ‘Cottonopolis’. 

The industrialisation of Ancoats was so intense and dramatic, even by Manchester's own standards, that by 1849 it was stated that "Ancoats...is to Manchester what Manchester is to England".  Ancoats is being considered for UNESCO World Heritage Site status; come and see why.   You’ll hear stories of the wretched squalor, the teenage gangs called scuttlers, Little Italy, ice cream wars, glass making, early aircraft, music, and unique architecture.  Pedal into the 21st century to watch the former 'Cardroom Estate' being transformed into trendy New Islington.  Peep into a tunnel, a bell tower, and a room in a mill walled up since the war.  Explore Angel Meadow where policemen walked round in threes.  By the end of the tour you’ll be able to say that you’ve ridden down every street in Manchester.

Tour starts at the junction of Great Ancoats and Redhill Street, bring your own bike.  It lasts approximately two hours and price includes a drink and a cake.  Under 16s must be accompanied by an adult.
Saturday 5th March.  Start time: 1pm."

PS I don't know anything about this tour and unfortunately I am busy on that Saturday but it sounds interesting.... if anyone goes along please post a comment on this blog.  

Friday, 25 February 2011

Happiness is.... cycling to work !

Well probably not a great surprise to anyone who regularly cycles but it is nice that the all-round benefits of cycling to work, as well as for leisure/utility trips, are becoming more widely recognised...

A report published in 2010 by the Young Foundation entitled 'The State of Happiness - Can public policy shape people’s wellbeing and resilience?' highlighted recent research that illustrated how "commuting in crowded conditions and long commutes are both associated with lower levels of frustration tolerance and job stability as well as with poor health and work absences." Basically, as shown in the graph below, the longer the commute time the less happy people are.
But it is not just the length of commuting time that is important - it is also how much control people have over their journey times that plays a large part in the stress and frustration of commuting to work.  Traffic congestion, roadworks and finding somewhere to park can mean that for many journeys by car or public transport there is little control over the reliability of journey times - which can lead to stress and frustration - or unhappiness.

A more recent report by the New Economics Foundation 'Measuring our progress : The power of well-being' highlighted that "studies comparing the experiences of commuting by bicycle and car report that cyclists find their mode of transport at least as flexible and convenient as those who use cars, with lower stress and greater feelings of freedom, relaxation and excitement." (*)

Or put more simply, cycling provides a more reliable and controllable means of travelling to work (or the shops, pub, school etc) and when you add in the cost-savings and health-benefits of regular cycling then.... cycling can really make you happier !


(*) Anable, J. & Gatersleben, B. (2005). All work and no play? The role of instrumental and affective factors in work and leisure journeys by different travel modes. Transportation Research Part A 39, 163–181.

Sunday, 6 February 2011

Cycle parking?... my Kingdom for some cycle parking

To somewhat massacre Shakespeare's "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" quote from Richard III, it would appear that Trafford does not fare well when it comes to the provision of places to park your bicycle.
In a recently published report "Greater Manchester - Cycling Progress Report" (GMTU Report 1637 January 2011, not yet available online) it is noted that whilst analysis of "cycle trips into most key centres and cycle carriage on trains suggest that there is a continuing increase in cycle usage within Greater Manchester, with the exception of cycle parking in key locations where a slight decrease has occurred since 2008." [Wow - Shakespeare eat your heart out!]

But the report does provide a handy little table that summarises the number of cycle parking locations across Greater Manchester along with a breakdown of the number of locations per local authority. (See Table 20 below)
According to these figures, Trafford would appear to be in the relegation zone.  But then again, when it comes to considering 'parking' issues Trafford Council seems to have trouble with the concept that bicycles need cycle parking facilities too and that to encourage more people to cycle - they need somewhere safe and secure to park their bikes!

First we had the recent consultation on the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) from Trafford Council (1) which had an entire section focused on 'Parking' (page 37) listing 12 objectives (subject to funding of course!) - unfortunately none of these related directly to cycle parking. The LIP consultation closed on 31st January 2011, so you have missed your chance to comment - but those nice people at Love Your Bike did point out this little oversight [as well as some bigger ones - Ed] to Trafford Council.  The LYB submission should be available at the Love Your Bike website.

Well after all that excitement, along comes Trafford Council's survey on Parking facilities. Now, perhaps you are hoping that the Council's concept of 'parking' would have broadened to include cycle parking.  Unfortunately closer inspection of the survey indicates that any such hopes will be dashed. 

If you want to, you can complete the survey here. And whilst, your prose doesn't need to reach Shakespearean heights - perhaps you would like to suggest to Trafford Council that they broaden their thinking about 'parking' facilities in Trafford.

Notes:
(1) Transport in Trafford: A Local Area Implementation Plan. Draft for Consultation, January 2011

Saturday, 15 January 2011

Cyclists 'left unprotected by police and courts'

Well I had certainly hoped to start the New Year on a happier note but the combination of several national media stories and bicycle blogs about how the legal system doesn't deal with dangerous, or should that be murderous, driving cases and then cycling past a billboard advertising a Manchester-based law firm offering to save a drivers licence if they had been charged with driving too fast, over the alcohol limit or in a dangerous manner prompted me look a little closer into how the legal system responds to cycle related incidents.

A BBC London news article reported on 7th January 2011 that fomer British Boxing champion Gary Mason had died in a cycling collision in London. The article stated that:  "Mason, 48, was on his bicycle in Sandy Lane South, Wallington, on Thursday morning when he was involved in a collision with a van. The retired fighter was pronounced dead at the scene." and that: "A man has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by careless driving and bailed until March pending further inquiries."

Whilst the exact details of the case are not (yet) known it is interesting to note that the driver was only charged with causing death by careless driving.

Careless (or Inconsiderate) Driving is defined by the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 3ZA, as amended by the Road Safety Act 2006) as being driving that:

“falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.” A driver is regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons
“only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving”.

Whilst Dangerous Driving is defined as driving that:

“…falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.” …"dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property;” [Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991. Section 2A.]

On 9th January, the Independent newspaper published an article highlighting the Gary Mason case as well as the experience of barrister Martin Porter who was documented his recent experiences with the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) after having been assaulted by one driver and threatened with being killed by another.  The details of the assault incident and the woeful response from the police and CPS are detailed on Martin Porter's blog - the Cycling Lawyer. (The details of the driver threatening to kill incident have been removed from the blog as the police have re-opened the case and are currently investigating).

In 1997, the Lord Chief Justice had observed how the the figures for Careless Driving or Dangerous Driving (CDDD):

"seem to us to show that the offence is regarded by the Courts as less serious than in fact it is: less serious than Parliament intended it to be and less serious than the public in general regard it. It is a trite observation, and I make no apologies for making it, that the motor car is a potentially lethal instrument. Any driver who fails to realise that what he is doing at the wheel is creating a risk when to any ordinary person such risk would be obvious, or, even worse, sees the risk and nevertheless takes a chance on avoiding disaster and so kills, is prima facie deserving of severe punishment. In our view such punishment should in many cases involve immediate loss of liberty."

By March 2006, Alistair Darling (then Transport Secretary) was arguing in the House of Commons that: 'It is important that the courts actually regard somebody who kills somebody using a car in the same way as if they had used any other means of killing people,''and that 'It's important that drivers realise that the minute they sit behind the wheel of a car they are potentially driving something that can cause death or serious injury.'' (BBC News, 8 March 2006).

However, any progress appears to be slow and piecemeal and cycling & walking campaign groups, such as the CTC,  continue to argue that the police and legal system do not show sufficient interest in prosecuting drivers who cause the deaths or serious injury of pedestrians or cyclists and that even where there are prosections the sentences imposed do not reflect the seriousness of the crime. 

A fascinating paper by Jake Voelcker entitled "A Critical Review of the Legal Penalties for Drivers Who Kill Cyclists of Pedestrians" takes as its starting point a CTC news comment:"

“A driver has been fined just £800 for ‘careless driving’, following the death of a cyclist. The case follows an all-too-familiar pattern, where a cyclist is killed yet the driver escapes with a small fine and a driving ban for ‘careless’ driving due to serious anomalies in the legal framework of ‘bad driving’ offences.” (CTC 'Newsnet', 27th October 2006)

The review provides a fascinating and clear, if depressing, picture of how poorly the legal system responds to cases where drivers have killed, or seriously injured, cyclists.

Amongst many interesting comparisons the review highlights how the "Health and Safety regulations would not permit thousands of one-tonne steel and glass machines with exposed moving parts to repeatedly pass feet or inches away from unprotected workers on the shop floor at well over 10m/s (HSE 1998, Sect.11). Yet this is the situation in our towns and cities today. Why are drivers allowed to impose this danger on pedestrians without more strict prosecution of liability?"

The review concludes that "it must be admitted that driving is not an absolute human right, but is a privilege enjoyed only by some. In choosing to drive – despite being aware of the potential consequences – a driver has entered into a form of contract where they are be responsible for the consequences of their actions. In this light it is only fair that, whether through recklessness or simply a moment of carelessness, if the consequences of driving are death then the driver is penalised accordingly. Currently this is not the case: an £800 fine for taking an innocent life seems a ludicrously low price to pay."


CTC's SMIDSY (Sorry Mate I Didn't See You) campaign aims to highlight the need for a change in both the legislation and the way that the police and courts respond to careless and dangerous driving cases. CTC believes that:

• The framework of ‘bad driving’ offences and sentencing should be fundamentally overhauled
to reflect the unacceptability of endangering and intimidating other road users. Sentences
should reflect the potential severity (not just the actual outcomes) of such offences, but with
a much greater emphasis on long driving bans, re-testing and community-based sanctions
such as restorative justice.
 

and that the statutory framework of bad driving offences needs to be reviewed with two key aims in mind:
• To relate sentencing more closely to the standard of driving rather than the outcome.
• To remove the implication that driving that causes danger can be dismissed as mere
‘carelessness’.  (More details here)


Meanwhile, closer to home, the billboard below was recently spotted on Ashton Old Road, heading north from the City Centre and is advertising the services of the legal company, Hammond Trotter.  With offices in Bury and London,  the company's website proudly announces that they are "Specialist solicitors who will fight for your driving licence."

The company website claims that:
"Our team has many years experience in the field of criminal defence work and we believe that we are the only firm in England and Wales that delivers the best results possible for clients with road traffic problems."  

The car image on the billboard has clearly been involved in a crash of some form (the front of the car is badly crumpled and damaged). The advert text asks the question: Driving Offence?
Speeding?
Excess Alcohol?
Dangerous Driving?

with the strapline of "Save your licence with Driving defences.com" [which is a division of Hammond Trotter LLP].

According to the Department for Transport "Contributory factors to reported road accidents data tables" drivers being impairedby alcohol was a contributary factor in 10% of the road crash fatalities in 2009 whilst driving in a careless, reckless manner or when in a hurry was a contributary factor in 19% of the road crash fatalities. Aggressive driving was responsible for 9% of road crash fatalities. Unfortunately, it would appear that Hammond Trotter won't be short of potential customers.



Best wishes for 2011 and may you all cycle safely.

Saturday, 4 December 2010

How many bottoms can TfL fit on a (cycle hire) bicycle ?

The London Assembly Transport Committee has recently released a report " Pedal power: the cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways" (November 2010)  that casts a beady eye over the operations of the 'Boris Bikes' cycle hire scheme and cycle superhighways in London.

As a cycle hire scheme for Manchester is one of the options being considered for inclusion in the next Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan there are important lessons to be learnt from the operation of cycle hire, or bike share, schemes in London and elsewhere.

The Greater Manchester LTP3 consultation document states that "we also need innovative solutions to help people to cycle as part of their daily lives, so we are looking closely at recent city centre cycle hire schemes to take the best from these and other marketing initiatives." (Page 12). 

Consideration of a cycle hire scheme was also contained in the recent report to the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA) Policy & Resources committee which recommended that members consider:  "iv) a major bicycle hire scheme, similar to that in operation in London, should be explored for Manchester City Centre and adjacent areas of Salford."  The somewhat spurious reasoning for this particular committee to support a cycle hire scheme was that it would remove the need for integrating cycle carriage into the GM transport network - particularly Metrolink trams.... but I digress.
The London Assembly report states that they "found great enthusiasm for the cycle hire scheme but there remain questions about how it is being funded. It is not clear exactly how much sponsorship Barclays has provided for a scheme which has now been running for four months" and that "over 20 per cent of respondents to our survey had started cycling as a result of the scheme and over 80 per cent thought it good value for money. One comment received, representative of the views of many, described it as “a very significant enhancement to life in London”.

Overall the report  is positive and supports the continued development of the cycle hire scheme, but the report also highlights that: 

"TfL reports that the annual operating cost of the scheme will be £18 million which it expects to be met from charges and sponsorship. To date in 2010/11, TfL has received only £1.9 million of income from charges largely because the roll out to casual users was delayed by six months and has missed the summer months. TfL now expects the scheme to be self-financing in two to three years and for the income to start contributing to its £79 million set up costs by 2017/18." (Page 7) with regard to the issue of funding, the report concludes that:

"The costs and funding arrangements for the cycle hire scheme remain opaque. TfL has not told the Committee how much Barclays has paid to date for its branding of the scheme. The argument that all details of the relationships between TfL and Serco and Barclays are confidential is not a compelling one. The details of these deals determine how much of the costs of the scheme have to be met from farepayers at a time of huge pressure on TfL’s finances. It is in the public interest for these details to be made available to the Committee. This would be in line with the Mayor’s commitment to transparency about public expenditure."

To date, the London scheme has attracted over 100,000 registered members, who are making 15,000 cycle trips per day (averaged over the whole week), although the average number of weekday trips is higher at 21,000-24,000. But, this is just over half the target of 40,000 daily trips, although it should be noted that the scheme was only opened up to to casual users on 3rd December, albeit with some initial problems. TfL expects to reach an average of 27,000 trips per day by March 2011 and to reach the target of 40,000 trips per day in future (unspecified) years.

















Phase 1 of the London Scheme was supposed to have enabled members and casual users to 
use 6,000 bikes at 400 docking stations with over 10,000 docking points. However, the full scheme may not be in place until March 2011 and the London Assembly report indicates that 348 docking stations have been established. (Information from TfL provided on 24 November 2010).

How many docking stations are needed will continue to a subject for discussion, with the London Cycling Campaign arguing that the functionality of the scheme depends on the full complement of 400 docking stations being completed. 

Recently released bike share data highlighted how people in Lyon, France's second-largest Metropolitan area,  make 16,000 trips every day using the Vélo’v scheme. The Velo 'v has 4000 bikes available at nearly 350 stations around the city which has 480,660 inhabitants although the population of its metropolitan area is estimated to be 1,757,180. Despite being many times smaller than London, this scheme has nearly as many docking stations, as are planned for London and two-thirds of the bicycles.

Since it began in 2005, the Velo 'v scheme has tracked the start and destination locations as well as trip time.  Researchers at the École Normale Supérieure de Lyon crunched the data from the 11.6 million bike trips and found that:
  • Lyon, the third largest city in France, is traversed via a cluster of narrow, one-way streets which adds to the driving distance for just about any destination. Lyon bike share data shows, however, that bike trip distance is often shorter than what an equivalent car trip might be. Reasons for this might be shortcuts and a great number of wrong way cyclists riding on the sidewalks. There are no bike lanes in Lyon.

  • Average cycling speed is about 10 km/hr — about 6 MPH. 

  • The fastest cycling speeds are during the morning commute, when the average rises to almost 15 km/hr (9 MPH). In Lyon, this sedate speed is faster than the average driving speed in that congested city.
The Lyon data has also been used to create maps showing the most heavily cycled routes.(See above).

The London Assembly report also raised concerns about how effective the cycle hire scheme had been in encouraging people to switch from car travel. The report states that:

"Our survey found less than one per cent of journeys are replacing those previously made by car; TfL’s planning assumptions were for a five per cent shift from car to bike." (Page 8)

In response to complaints about the lack of bicycles, Serco has doubled its total number of redistribution staff and vehicles but as the report highlights, this in turn has:

 "led to questions about the environmental impact of the scheme. It was originally expected that only electric vehicles would be used for redistribution. Serco is now using 14 electrically powered vehicles, 10 Focus/Mondeo vehicles and, on a temporary basis, three 7.5 ton lorries and four Sprinter vans. It also uses 10 Nissan vans for on-street maintenance. It has told the Committee that it is undertaking a fleet review in light of the different redistribution requirements." (Page 18)


Whilst many (most?) cycling campaigns are supportive of cycle hire schemes there are concerns that such schemes will divert limited resources from other, possibly more cost-effective, projects and initiatives that promote and support cycling.  See for example the comments from one cycle organisation with regard to the proposed San Francisco Penisula Bike Share scheme:

"Dedicating $7.9 million to an unproven, risky project like bike sharing seems a poor use of limited funds, when other bicycle projects have proven track records to replace automobile trips with bicycle trips."

Hopefully, Manchester can learn lessons from other cities that have successfully introduced cycle hire schemes but until more details of any proposed scheme are made available there will remain key questions on both operational issues and potential costs.  Not least, the question of where will the funding come from and will it genuinely be "new" funding or more a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul."  Watch this space.


This committee has not held any meetings...

Am sure that Bolton Council take transport issues very seriously and there will undoubtedly be very good reasons why the Bolton Council Transport Working Group has not held any meetings since May 2010 - but would be interested in hearing what they are.... 

Comments welcome.

Monday, 15 November 2010

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!