Memorandum by the Greater Manchester Passenger
Transport Authority and Executive (RT 36)
THE GREATER MANCHESTER METROLINK SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1. Greater Manchester Passenger Transport
Authority and the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive
welcome this opportunity to present joint evidence to the sub-Committee's
Inquiry into Light Rapid Transit (LRT) Systems. Our evidence is
based on our experience with the Greater Manchester Metrolink
system which is acknowledged both nationally and internationally
as a successful LRT system. However, the Authority has an open
mind on other forms of LRT and is about to take a decision on
whether or not to promote a busway system on part of the route
between Manchester and Leigh.
2. The evidence is set out as follows:
— In Annex 1 we describe the background
to the Metrolink system explaining why it was built, what alternatives
were considered, the different phases of the system and the methods
of funding. This should assist the Committee, and in particular
Members who are not familiar with the Metrolink system to put
the evidence in a wider context.
3. The evidence itself begins by explaining,
on the basis of our experience, why Light Rapid Transit systems
have a major role to play in creating an integrated transport
network in large urban areas. It then goes on to address, in turn,
the specific issues the Commitee is to consider.
— the main problems faced in creating
a Light Rapid Transit system at each stage in the process from
concept to operation.
— the successes of the Metrolink system,
our views on the reasons for this success and how we intend to
build on this in our plans for the expansion.
— the Committee's request for suggestions
on what further help can be given to assist the growth of Light
Rapid Transit systems in the United Kingdom.
THE ROLE
OF LIGHT
RAPID TRANSIT
SYSTEMS
4. We should state at the outset that both
the Authority and GMPTE are firmly of the view that Light Rapid
Transit systems can and should play a major role in urban public
transport in the future. They have the potential to provide a
high quality, frequent service, at an operating cost level which
can be funded from passenger revenues, and which can give better
access than heavy rail to town and city centres. They can combine
elements of the speed of heavy rail with the flexibility to penetrate
conurbation centres. They therefore attract people out of their
cars, help regenerate the country's economy and reduce social
exclusion.
5. These conclusions are illustrated clearly
by the success of Metrolink. It has been successful as a mode
of transport by combining good accessibility of its suburban stations
to their catchment areas, centrally sited interchanges in the
town centres at the outer ends of each line, on street operation
giving good penetration into the centre of Manchester, high frequency
to reduce waiting times for passengers, journey times which are
faster than the car in the peaks, equal to the car in the off-peak
and faster than the bus at all times, and high levels of passenger
security.
6. Its success as a mode of transport has
led to other benefits. These include:
— Reduced traffic levels as a result
of attracting trips from the car leading to reduced environmental
emissions from traffic, fewer road accidents and less congestion.
— Greater social inclusion as a result
of creating a fully accessible system which has given high quality
transport to the whole community.
— Economic benefits resulting from
better access to jobs, shops, entertainment and leisure facilities.
This in particular strengthens the role of the town centres and
the regional centre and reinforces social inclusion.
7. Light Rapid Transit can deliver these
benefits because of its ability to combine segregated sections
of track—in our case the former rail lines into the centre
of Manchester—with the ability to share existing road space
with other traffic to gain access to town and city centres. Rail
based LRT systems have the additional benefits that they are normally
electrified and can reduce atmospheric pollution even further
than bus based systems.
8. The permanence of a Light Rapid Transit
system has long term benefits. Location decisions can be made
in the confidence that the service will continue to be provided—especially
if it is being procured under a long-term operating concession.
Furthermore, the long-term nature of the network will encourage
the private sector to take a larger part of the risk as the experience
of the second Phase of Metrolink set out in the Annex (para 10)
demonstrates.
9. These are benefits which cannot be achieved
by buses alone. The benefits of LRT are reinforced by making it
part of an integrated transport system. For example, Metrolink
is used by over 600,000 people a year to complete journeys to
Manchester by rail. Bus is a major feeder mode to Metrolink at
key stations. This is being reinforced by the Greater Manchester
Integration project which has already widened the scope of inter-modal
ticketing for example.
10. Finally, whilst most of Greater Manchester's
experience with Light Rapid Transit has been with the Metrolink
system which is rail based, the Authority and GMPTE believe that
there is a role for bus based LRT systems in areas where patronage
is likely to be lower. A 7 kilometre guided busway is being developed
in the Leigh area as part of a Quality Bus Corridor linking Leigh
and central Manchester.
PROBLEMS FACED
IN DEVELOPING
LIGHT RAPID
TRANSIT SYSTEMS—EXPERIENCE
OF METROLINK
11. No undertaking of the scale of any LRT
system can be without problems. Of the many problems faced and
overcome in Greater Manchester, we would draw the subcommittee's
attention to three areas:
— disruption during construction.
Getting Powers
12. GMPTE has now made three successful
applications under the Transport and Works Act for the Eccles,
Airport and Ashton-under-Lyne Metrolink extensions and the Authority
will shortly decide whether to authorise the GMPTE to apply for
powers for the Leigh Guided Busway. We also have Parliamentary
powers for extensions to Oldham and Rochdale, Trafford Park and
Didsbury besides those for the original line and the Salford Quays
extension.
13. Whatever the intention was, there is
no doubt that the TWA procedures are lengthier and more expensive
for promoters than the Private Bill procedures they replaced.
The cost of an Application which goes to Public Inquiry is likely
to be in the range of £1.5 million to £2 million compared
with £1 million for a Private Act. Much of this is due to
the more onerous obligations placed upon the promoter (eg environmental
issues) by the TWA procedure.
14. Many of the issues are technical but
are nevertheless important and have an impact on the total length
of time taken from initial planning of a scheme to a decision
to grant or withhold powers. This has increased considerably under
the new procedures. One result is that this can frustrate the
Authority's policy of minimising the effects of uncertainty and
blight during the planning process. The main point of principle
is that the Inquiries are both detailed and adversarial in nature
and this increases the costs of appearing for both promoters and
objectors. What is now required is an open, official review of
the working of the Transport and Works Act, which includes all
parties involved in the process, including promoters and objectors,
building on the valuable work done by the Chartered Institute
of Transport in 1996.
15. Two major points of principle do need
to be brought to the Committee's attention. First, when granted,
powers under the TWA only last five to 10 years in most cases.
We are now finding that five years is not sufficient to develop
the funding case, obtain funding, draw up and let contracts particularly
where central government funding is involved. Without powers it
is not possible to obtain definite commitments to funding from
either the public or the private sectors. This is compounded by
the latest PFI guidance which effectively means that the process
of seeking private sector funding can only start after public
sector funding is secured.
16. As a result, renewal of powers under
the TWA is becoming increasingly necessary. It is appreciated
that many complex issues are involved but this is one area which
needs further study and attention.
17. The second issue is that the Inquiries
under the TWA include the funding case for the proposals as part
of their terms of reference. However, until powers have been obtained
no definite funding plan can be drawn up. In many respects, promoters
are caught in a loop—they have to defend their funding proposals
to get powers whilst at the same time need the powers to enable
the funding package to be assembled.
Funding
18. The second major problem area is funding
itself. The first issue here is the way in which central government
funds local authorities and the PTAs. If a major LRT scheme attracts
credit approvals it attracts Revenue Support Grant to cover the
costs of servicing and repaying the borrowing. Although the PTAs
incur the costs, the present local authority funding regime only
allows the RSG to go to the District Councils. The PTA's debt
charges therefore have to be met by their levy on the District
Councils which falls as part of a District Council's expenditure
totals which can still be subjected to capping. Thus by developing
a major LRT scheme:
— the PTA is forced to increase its
levy to cover debt charges;
— the District Councils have to increase
their "cappable" expenditure to meet the levy.
19. Furthermore any increased RSG received
by the Districts is not separately identified or ear marked and
the whole process is not transparent. This creates unnecessary
difficulties for both the Authority and the District Councils.
20. Hence the PTA's have made proposals
that in future major capital schemes funding and the associated
RSG to be paid direct to the PTA. Hence government money will
be properly allocated for the purposes it was given.
21. Turning to the government's proposals
that in future LRT schemes would be funded from the proceeds of
workplace parking charges and road user charges, the Committee
should be aware that all Greater Manchester Districts and the
PTA have expressed a willingness to explore pilot area status
further with the Government. However, we have two concerns in
this area:
— first, we believe that it is essential
that the improvements to public transport should be well in hand
before the introduction of the charges. To do this will require
authorities to have the powers to borrow against the future income
stream from the charges. Alternatively the private sector could
borrow within the project but this will have a much higher cost
than the borrowing by the public sector but in any event will
still want guarantees of the future income stream.
— second, there has to be a clear regional
dimension to the charging issue. Greater Manchester cannot put
itself at a disadvantage within the region by agreeing to charges
if neighbouring authorities can attract developments without charging.
22. In their Local Transport Plan, the PTA
has submitted proposals for developing the full Metrolink network
under a Single Contract. This would give a 100 kilometres network
including Oldham, Rochdale, Manchester Airport, Ashton-under-Lyne,
Didsbury and Trafford Park. Furthermore, work on funding packages
shows that a funding requirement from Government is needed of
some £30 million per year. If the whole of this could be
raised from workplace charging it would mean charging between
50 and 60 pence per day per workplace parking space.
23. The final area of difficulty relating
to funding is the arrangements for cost sharing with the statutory
undertakers. The government recently proposed a reduction in the
contribution that they are required to make towards the costs
of relocating their apparatus in order to build an LRT system
from 18 per cent to7.5 per cent. This contribution is meant to
represent the betterment element in the process where for example
an old gas main is diverted and replaced with a new one—thus
reducing future maintenance costs for the gas company.
24. Had this been implemented before the
Eccles extension was being built the effect on the costs of building
the extension would have been an increase of £0.350 million.
The costs of future extension would be increased by an estimated
£5 million as a result of the proposed change—which
we believe is not justified and should not be implemented.
SUCCESS OF
LIGHT RAPID
TRANSIT
Metrolink Phases 1 and 2
25. The first phase of Metrolink has been
a major success. Before the system opened the Altrincham and Bury
lines carried about 7.5 million passengers a year. Phase 1 of
Metrolink carries well over 13 million passengers a year. The
reasons for this success are set out below.
26. First, the system offers journey times
for most of its passengers which are shorter than the bus in both
the peak and the off-peak, shorter than the car in the peak and
about the same as the car in the off-peak. In addition it provides
as good if not better penetration of central Manchester than the
bus and the car—thus reducing the time people have to spend
walking to and from their destinations.
27. Second, the service is very frequent,
every five minutes in the morning peak, every six minutes in the
off-peak and evening peak and every 12 minutes in the evenings.
It is very reliable, over 99 per cent of contracted mileage is
oeprated. All stops have CCTV supervision from the control centre.
28. Third, it is fully accessible. This
in itself has created new travel opportunities for people in wheelchairs,
with shopping trolleys and with children in prams and buggies.
As a result, new users have been attracted to Metrolink which
in the past either could not be made at all or had to be made
by car.
29. Another feature of the line which has
contributed to its success is the fact that at the outer ends
of the line there are two major District centres, Bury and Altrincham.
As a result there is a well balanced traffic in both directions
for most of the day. Trams running towards Bury or Altrincham
in the morning peak, whilst not as full as those going into Manchester,
nevertheless have healthy loads. In the off-peak, as passengers
travelling out of Manchester get off, they are replaced by passengers
travelling into Altrincham and Bury and vice-versa.
30. One measure of this success is that
for journeys between the catchment areas of the stops Metrolink
now has a market share of over 58 per cent compared to 17 per
cent for the rail service it replaced. The market share of the
car has fallen from 55 per cent to 33 per cent.
31. It is estimated that as a result of
building Metrolink over 2.5 million car journeys per year have
been taken off the road network. This reduced traffic volumes
on the main roads into Manchester which run parallel with the
line, by between 2 per cent and 8 per cent. Such changes ae small
in absolute numbers but can make a lot of difference to the levels
of congestion on the roads affected.
32. This leads to further benefits in terms
of reduced pollution. Metrolink consumes only 60 per cent of the
primary energy requirement per passenger kilometre of a car journey.
It produces no atmospheric pollution within the urban area and
even allowing for the pollution in electricity generation, there
is a net reduction in a number of air pollutants including carbon
dioxide and carbon monoxide. It therefore makes a contribution
to improving urban air quality.
33. The transfer of trips from the car to
Metrolink has reduced road accidents. Metrolink itself has a good
accident record and in total the cost of accidents within Greater
Manchester has been reduced.
34. The first line served an already developed
area and three major centres and little evidence of any regeneration
impact was gathered. However, the system has been positively welcomed
by the business community. There is no evidence that it has taken
trade away from Altrincham and Bury, indeed the Chambers of Trade
in these towns reported an increase in trade when it opened. Central
Manchester has been undergoing a process of regeneration both
before and after the 1996 bomb explosion and Metrolink has helped
to contribute to this.
35. So far as Phase 2—the Salford
Quays and Eccles extension is concerned, evidence of the regeneration
impact was readily apparent in that the Developers along the line
agreed to contribute £12 million to the funding of the line
in cash and free transfer of land. Furthermore, in 1996 the PTA
commissioned the Centre of Economics and Business Research (CEBR)
to undertake an analysis of the regeneration impact of the Metrolink
network. This showed that once built the full network would increase
GDP by £169 million per annum and create 5,000 permanent
jobs.
36. Finally, but importantly, integration
has been a key element in the success of Metrolink. Physical integration
exists at purpose built interchanges at Altrincham and Bury—where
the bus services in the area terminate at the Metrolink station.
This is backed by day and period tickets valid on both modes.
In central Manchester the main Metrolink station is next to one
of the main bus terminal points in Piccadilly Gardens. Integration
with the rail network takes place at Altrincham, Deansgate, Piccadilly
and Victoria stations. Through fares are available between all
rail stations in Greater Manchester and the Metrolink network
and all tickets from these stations to central Manchester are
available on Metrolink at no extra cost to the passenger.
37. In summary, we believe that to be successful,
a Light Rapid Transit system has first of all to offer a level
and quality of service which are much better than existing public
transport and are competitive with the car. To be commercially
successful, it needs to serve an appropriately sized market and
have a number of sources of traffic along the line—ideally
at each end to generate a balanced flow of passengers and maximise
the use of available capacity. If it can achieve this then the
wider benefits of regeneration, reduced congestion, pollution
and accidents will follow.
Future Phases of Metrolink
38. Although Metrolink has been successful,
its impact is confined to a small area of the conurbation. However,
the Authority's objective is to create a network of Light Rapid
Transit services in Greater Manchester comprising the Metrolink
network and other forms of LRT where they are appropriate. For
example we are developing the case for a busway system on part
of the route between Leigh and Manchester. The Eccles line is
the second phase of the Metrolink system and will shortly open.
39. Since 1989 GMPTE has obtained powers
for several extensions to the system which will add the following
lines:
— Manchester Airport via Wythenshawe
40. The PTA have submitted proposals in
their Local Transport Plan to complete the whole of this network
under a single contract. The top priority for further Metrolink
extensions is the line to Rochdale via Oldham which would replace
a poorly performing heavy rail line, divert it, largely on street,
into Oldham town centre and extend it, on street into the centre
of Rochdale. In this way new bus-Metrolink interchanges would
be created, thus furthering integration. Converting the line to
Metrolink in this way will improve penetration of the two town
centres and overcome the main cause of the poor performance of
the rail line which is the remoteness of the main stations from
the centres of the towns they serve. There is also considerable
scope for the line serving and acting as a catalyst for regeneration
at several points along the route.
41. Both the Airport and the Ashton-under-Lyne
lines will create new public transport routes for part of their
length and for the other part will run in or adjacent to the existing
highway. The Airport line will also serve the Wythenshawe estate
in south Manchester just north of the Airport and link the suburbs
of Firswood, Chorlton and Sale Moor with each other, Wythenshawe
and the Airport. It will play an integral part in helping the
Airport achieve its commitment to having 25 per cent of trips
to and from the Airport by means other than the car by 2005. Its
primary role in this respect will be in relation to staff transport.
It will open up new catchment areas for staff and will also reduce
journey times for many existing staff. The number of staff working
at the Airport is expected to increase from 17,000 currently to
24,500 in 2005. However, the number of staff car parking spaces
will remain at the current level of 5,000.
42. The line will also serve and link Wythenshawe
Town Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital and a number of regeneration
sites in the Wythenshawe area as well as improve public transport
links between Wythenshawe and central Manchester. Again, it will
create new public transport routes which will reduce journey times
including a new public transport crossing of the M60 and the River
Mersey between Chorlton and Sale Moor.
43. The Ashton-under-Lyne extension will
serve the site of the Commonwealth Games stadium and provide this
with a direct link to the city centre. It will also directly serve
two major redevelopment sites, one in east Manchester and one
to the west of Ashton-under-Lyne. It will also improve the public
transport service in the corridor as a whole by creating two new
sections of route and two underpasses which will enable the trams
to avoid the congested crossings of the Manchester inner and intermediate
ring roads.
44. The East Didsbury line would reinstate
a public transport service on a disused railway line. It would
link several of the suburbs of south Manchester with each other
and provide links to the Airport, Altrincham and Eccles routes
as well as a fast link to the centre. However, it currently lacks
a major traffic attractor at the outer end. The Authority has
recently authorised public consultation on an extension of this
line to Stockport which would help to relieve traffic congestion
in the Mersey Valley between Didsbury and Stockport. Stockport
would provide a major attraction which would encourage patronage
and a more evenly balanced loading on the route.
45. The Trafford Park extension will serve
two major employment centres, Trafford Park and the Trafford Centre.
The PTA have agreed to build this line provided no public funding
is required as it believes that the private sector including the
developers in the area could fund the line.
46. All of these extensions would be integrated
with the rest of the public transport network. The Rochdale and
Ashton-under-Lyne lines would terminate at the bus stations in
these towns. The Airport line would terminate at a purpose built
interchange for bus, coach, train and Metrolink which would be
the hub of the Airport's internal transport system as well. Integration
at other points on each line is also planned.
47. Whilst these extensions can be built
over a number of years on a line by line basis, the Authority
sees major benefits in letting a single contract for completion
of the above network. This would:
— avoid repeated and expensive tendering
processes and changes of operator on the system as individual
lines are added to the network;
— create, with the Quality Bus Corridor
network which includes the Leigh Guided Busway LRT scheme, an
integrated county-wide network of quality public transport which
can be a viable alternative to the car;
— obtain the benefits of this network
at a much earlier stage.
48. Annex 2 gives, in summary, the benefits
which the full Metrolink network would bring. It will be noted
that each of the extensions will serve or has the potential to
serve more than one potential source of traffic. Each extension
will provide a better quality and more competitive public transport
service than is there now. There is every reason to believe that
the conditions for success which were found in Phase 1 will be
found in the other extensions as well.
49. The Authority and GMPTE firmly believe
that Light Rapid Transit in different forms is the key to providing
the backbone of a high quality public transport system in major
conurbations. Whilst there is a capital expenditure involved in
initially creating the system, there is also a long term stream
of benefit flowing from the investment. Metrolink has demonstrated
that people can be attracted from their cars and there is now
a pressing need to achieve this on a wider scale.
WHAT HELP
CAN BE
GIVEN
50. Without doubt the most important help
to future development of Light Rapid Transit is for the sub-Committee
to emphasise to the government the role LRT can play in achieving
its White Paper objectives and the benefits it can bring in appropriate
circumstances. Based on our experience our view is that the circumstances
in which LRT systems will be successful are:
— serving a major urban conurbation;
— having major traffic attractions
at each end of the route;
— serving corridors with significant
volumes of traffic;
— being able to offer a service which
is competitive with other modes;
— a network, rather than just one or
two lines.
51. Our experience has shown that Light
Rapid Transit, by combining the best features of the train and
the bus, can increase and retain public transport patronage in
urban areas and consequently give a wide range of benefits which
cannot be achieved by other modes.
52. Where these benefits are clearly demonstrable,
government needs to allocate funding for well justified schemes.
The White Paper and subsequent "daughter" documents
have been less than helpful in this respect although, in fairness,
the Deputy Prime Minister has repeatedly said in public he is
impressed by the Greater Manchester Metrolink. Light Rapid Transit
has the potential to meet many of the objectives of government
transport policy at least in the conurbations—where the
problems are most severe.
53. In summary the ambivalent position taken
in the White Paper needs to be replaced with a positive and constructive
policy.
54. Other areas in which the sub-Committee
could ensure that assistance is given include:
— reviewing and, where necessary, revising/amending
the Transport and Works Act procedures to make it easier, cheaper
and quicker to for both promoters and objectors to put their cases;
— once granted, allowing powers to
last for a period which is sufficiently long for the public and
private sector funding to be secured and contractual and construction
processes to take place;
— giving local authorities the powers
to borrow against future revenue streams;
— making the revenue support which
government gives for credit approvals to build LRT systems flow
directly to the PTAs;
— reconsidering the proposed reduction
in the contribution which Statutory Undertakers make to the costs
of diverting their equipment;
55. These measures would help to create
a climate in which the positive development of Light Rapid Transit
in its various forms can take place and enable it to play its
full role in achieving a sustainable transport system.
October 1999
| 
