Public Document
Greater Manchester Transport Committee
DATE: Friday, 9 October 2020
TIME: 10.30 am
Agenda
Item Pages
1. Apologies
2. Chairs Announcements and Urgent Business
3. Declarations of Interest 1 - 4
To receive declarations of interest in any item for discussion at the meeting. A blank form for declaring interests has been circulated with the agenda; please ensure that this is returned to the Governance & Scrutiny Officer at the start of the meeting.
4. Minutes of the GM Transport Committee - 14 August 2020 5 - 10
To consider the approval of the minute of the GM Transport Committee held 14 August 2020.
5. Minutes of the GMTC Sub Committees 11 - 26
To note the minutes of the GMTC Sub Committees held during September 2020 –
Bus Services – 11 September Metrolink & Rail – 18 September
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed via www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk, please speak to a Governance Officer before the meeting should you not wish to consent to being included in this recording.
6. GMTC Work Programme 27 - 32
Report of Gwynne Williams, Deputy Monitoring Officer, GMCA.
7. Transport Network Performance Update 33 - 48
Report of Bob Morris, Chief Operating Officer, TfGM.
8. Our Pass Pilot Update 49 - 56
Report of Steve Warrener, Finance & Corporate Services Director, TfGM.
9. Impact of Road Safety Schemes 57 - 74
Report of Peter Boulton, Head of Highways, TfGM.
10. Cycling and walking update and forward look report 75 - 98
Report of Richard Nickson, Programme Director of Cycling & Walking, TfGM.
11. GM 2020 Delivery Plan 99 - 104
Report of Simon Warburton, Director of Strategy, TfGM.
12. Date of next meetings
Bus Services Sub Committee – 13 November 2020 Metrolink & Rail Sub Committee – 20 November 2020 Full Committee – 18 December 2020
For copies of papers and further information on this meeting please refer to the website www.greatmanchester-ca.gov.uk. Alternatively, contact the following: Governance & Scrutiny Officer: Nicola Ward 0161 778 7009 [email protected]
This agenda was issued on behalf of Julie Connor, Secretary to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Churchgate House, 56 Oxford Street, Manchester M1 6EU
Members Representing Political Party Stuart Haslam Bolton Conservative Richard Gold Bury Labour Angeliki Stogia Manchester Labour Naeem Hassan Manchester Labour Ateeque Ur-Rehman Oldham Labour Phil Burke Rochdale Labour Roger Jones Salford Labour David Meller Stockport Labour
Warren Bray Tameside Labour Steve Adshead Trafford Labour Joanne Marshall Wigan Labour Sean Fielding GMCA Labour Roy Walker Mayoral appointment Conservative John Leech Mayoral appointment Liberal Democrat Dzidra Noor Mayoral appointment Labour Howard Sykes Mayoral appointment Liberal Democrat Shah Wazir Mayoral appointment Labour Barry Warner Mayoral appointment Labour Doreen Dickinson Mayoral appointment Conservative Peter Robinson Mayoral appointment Labour Nathan Evans Mayoral appointment Conservative Mark Aldred Mayoral appointment Labour
Substitutes Representing Political Party Beverley Fletcher Bolton Conservative Lucy Smith Bury Labour Basat Shiekh Manchester Labour Eddy Newman Manchester Labour Mike McCusker Salford Labour Matt Wynne Stockport Labour Barry Holland Tameside Labour James Wright Trafford Labour Paul Prescott Wigan Labour Eamonn O’Brien GMCA Labour David Wilkinson Mayoral appointment Liberal Democrat John Hudson Mayoral appointment Conservative Linda Holt Mayoral appointment Conservative Angie Clark Mayoral appointment Liberal Democrat
This page is intentionally left blank GM Transport Committee on 9 October 2020
Declaration of Councillors’ interests in items appearing on the agenda
NAME: ______
Minute Item No. / Agenda Item No. Nature of Interest Type of Interest
Personal / Prejudicial /
Disclosable Pecuniary Personal / Prejudicial /
Page 1 Page Disclosable Pecuniary Personal / Prejudicial /
Disclosable Pecuniary Personal / Prejudicial /
Disclosable Pecuniary Agenda Item 3
PLEASE NOTE SHOULD YOU HAVE A PERSONAL INTEREST THAT IS PREJUDICIAL IN AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, YOU SHOULD LEAVE THE ROOM FOR THE DURATION OF THE DISCUSSION & THE VOTING THEREON.
1 QUICK GUIDE TO DECLARING INTERESTS AT GMCA MEETINGS This is a summary of the rules around declaring interests at meetings. It does not replace the Member’s Code of Conduct, the full description can be found in the GMCA’s constitution Part 7A. Your personal interests must be registered on the GMCA’s Annual Register within 28 days of your appointment onto a GMCA committee and any changes to these interests must notified within 28 days. Personal interests that should be on the register include: Bodies to which you have been appointed by the GMCA
Your membership of bodies exercising functions of a public nature, including charities, societies, political parties or trade unions. You are also legally bound to disclose the following information called DISCLOSABLE PERSONAL INTERESTS which includes: You, and your partner’s business interests (eg employment, trade, profession, contracts, or any company with which you are associated) You and your partner’s wider financial interests (eg trust funds, investments, and assets including land and property). Any sponsorship you receive. Page 2 Page FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THIS INFORMATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE
STEP ONE: ESTABLISH WHETHER YOU HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA If the answer to that question is ‘No’ – then that is the end of the matter. If the answer is ‘Yes’ or Very Likely’ then you must go on to consider if that personal interest can be construed as being a prejudicial interest. STEP TWO: DETERMINING IF YOUR INTEREST PREJUDICIAL?
A personal interest becomes a prejudicial interest: where the well being, or financial position of you, your partner, members of your family, or people with whom you have a close association (people who are more than just an acquaintance) are likely to be affected by the business of the meeting more than it would affect most people in the area.
the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest.
2 FOR A NON PREJUDICIAL INTEREST FOR PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS YOU MUST YOU MUST Notify the governance officer Notify the governance officer for the meeting as soon as you realise you have a prejudicial interest (before or during for the meeting as soon as you the meeting) realise you have an interest Inform the meeting that you have a prejudicial interest and the nature of the interest Inform the meeting that you Fill in the declarations of interest form have a personal interest and the nature of the interest Leave the meeting while that item of business is discussed
Fill in the declarations of Make sure the interest is recorded on your annual register of interests form if it relates to you or your partner’s interest form business or financial affairs. If it is not on the Register update it within 28 days of the interest becoming apparent. TO NOTE: YOU MUST NOT: You may remain in the room participate in any discussion of the business at the meeting, or if you become aware of your disclosable pecuniary Page 3 Page and speak and vote on the interest during the meeting participate further in any discussion of the business, matter participate in any vote or further vote taken on the matter at the meeting If your interest relates to a body to which the GMCA has appointed you to you only have to inform the meeting of that interest if you speak on the matter.
3
Page 4 Page
4 Agenda Item 4
MINUTES OF THE VIRTUAL MEETING OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER TRANSPORT COMMITTEE HELD ON FRIDAY 14 AUGUST VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS
PRESENT:
Councillor Mark Aldred (in the Chair) Wigan Council Councillor Richard Gold Bury Council Councillor Stuart Haslam Bolton Council Councillor John Leech Manchester City Council Councillor Naeem Hassan Manchester City Council Councillor Shah Wazir Rochdale Council Councillor Phil Burke Rochdale Council Councillor David Meller Stockport MBC Councillor Doreen Dickinson Tameside MBC Councillor Warren Bray Tameside MBC Councillor Peter Robinson Tameside MBC Councillor Nathan Evans Trafford Council Councillor Steve Adshead Trafford Council Councillor Joanne Marshall Wigan Council
OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Eamonn Boylan Chief Executive, GMCA & TfGM Bob Morris Chief Operating Officer, TfGM Alison Chew Interim Head of Bus Services, TfGM Kate Brown Director of Corporate Affairs, TfGM Simon Elliott Head of Rail Programme, TfGM James Baldwin Senior Policy Officer, TfGM Gwynne Williams Deputy Monitoring Officer, GMCA Nicola Ward Governance Officer, GMCA
GMTC 56/20 APOLOGIES
Resolved /-
That apologies be noted and received from Councillor Howard Sykes (Councillor Angie Clark substituting), Councillor Roger Jones, Councillor Angeliki Stogia, Councillor Atteque Ur-Rehman and Councillor Sean Fielding.
GMTC 57/20 CHAIRS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND URGENT BUSINESS
Resolved /-
That there were no Chair’s announcements or urgent business. Page 5
GMTC 58/20 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Resolved /-
That it be noted that Councillor Phil Burke declared a personal interest in relation to item 6, Transport Network Performance as an employee of Metrolink.
GMTC 59/20 MINUTES OF THE GM TRANSPORT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 10 JULY 2020
Resolved /-
1. That the minutes of the meeting held 10 July 2020 be approved. 2. That an update on Road Safety Schemes be considered at a future meeting of the GMTC.
GMTC 60/20 GOVERNANCE REPORT
Gwynne Williams, Deputy Monitoring Officer GMCA introduced a report which gave Members the opportunity to review the governance arrangements of the Greater Manchester Transport Committee to ensure they could most effectively undertake their role and functions as set out in the Committee’s Terms of Reference.
Members sought clarification as to whether they would be able to substitute for one another across sub committees, officers confirmed that the appointed substitutes would be asked to attend if a Member of the sub-committee was not available.
Resolved /-
1. That it be agreed to establish two sub committees to specifically look at Bus Services and Metrolink & Rail Services.
2. That Chairs for the sub committees be appointed as follows – Bus Services – Cllr Roger Jones Metrolink & Rail Services – Cllr Doreen Dickinson
3. That the following Members be appointed to each of the Sub Committees.
Bus Services Councillor Roger Jones Councillor Angeliki Stogia Councillor Mark Aldred Councillor Sean Fielding Councillor Warren Bray Councillor Phil Burke Councillor David Mellor Councillor Barry Warner
2 Page 6 Councillor John Leech Councillor Nathan Evans Councillor Roy Walker
Metrolink & Rail Services Councillor Peter Robinson Councillor Richard Gold Councillor Joanne Marshall Councillor Atteque UrRehman Councillor Dzidra Noor Councillor Steve Adshead Councillor Shah Wazir Councillor Naeem Hassan Councillor Howard Sykes Councillor Doreen Dickinson Councillor Stuart Haslam
GMTC 61/20 TRANSPORT NETWORK PERFORMANCE UPDATE
Bob Morris, Chief Operating Officer, TfGM took Members through a report which provided an overview of Transport Network Performance in Greater Manchester for July 2020 during the Coronavirus pandemic.
Regarding Metrolink, Government had recently confirmed funding up until 26 October which totalled £1.6m weekly and would allow the continuation of the current service pattern. Members thanked those officers who had successfully negotiated with Government for this further funding. However, concern was raised as to the illustrated spike in anti-social behaviour on Metrolink services in May 2020, officers confirmed that this was attributed to the key performance indicator being measured against the number of journeys, so as patronage levels fell but incidents of ASB remained the same, this looked like a spike but actually was nothing significant. Members further asked whether incidents of ASB could be defined clearly by location within future reports, so that potential hotspots could be identified.
It had been a steady period for rail services, however there had been a recent announcement from Northern regarding the temporary removal of the Rose Hill – Piccadilly service. TfGM had opposed this removal, and had continued to work with Northern to ensure alternative provision was available for passengers. In response to this, Northern explained the reasons for the temporary removal of this service between 14 September and 14 December, including a number of staff remaining shielding, a delayed driver training programme, significantly low patronage compared to other routes and the potential other transport links within this area. It was confirmed that if possible, the service would be reinstated before December, and that specific complaints would be dealt with as a matter of priority. Members expressed their strong dissatisfaction with the removal of this service, due to the significant impact on passengers. It was reported that TfGM had put a number of options to Northern, however, each option was not deemed possible. Therefore, it was suggested that the GMTC write to the Rail Minister to express their concerns with this proposal and Northern’s overall communication with the relevant stakeholders. Members reminded the Committee that Northern was now a nationalised service, and therefore the Rail Minister needed to address this inequality for the Rose Hill/Marple area
3 Page 7 that also impacted the whole of Greater Manchester.
Members added that the Rose Hill service has often been unfairly impacted by Northern, and that passenger numbers were substantive. Rose Hill station serves both Marple Hall High School and Marple Sixth Form and the current proposals for rail replacement services would not allow sufficient time for journeys to school and the impact of congestion on the local road work in September. Current timetables allow 10 minutes, whereas commercial services allow for 30 minutes. There was a strong local feeling against this decision, with a petition of over 5000 signatures to evidence the views of residents. Members felt that Marple already suffered from a poor local transport offer, and had recently also had bus services removed. Northern reported that there had only been a 4% increase in passenger numbers from Rose Hill in comparison to a 77% increase from Marple, and therefore capacity has been allocated where it was needed most.
Rail operators reported that there had been a slight decline in face covering compliance during the recent hot weather, but that there were a number of communications campaigns running to encourage and advise of their use, with the possibility of a fine for non-compliance. Members asked whether there were figures available in relation to the number of fines issued for non- compliance, officers confirmed that this specific data was not currently available, but that an educate and persuade approach had been used over enforcement in most instances. Members were concerned that some members of the public were aware of the guidelines but choosing not to comply, and therefore a stronger enforcement approach should be pursued.
In relation to rail stations, 25 lifts across Greater Manchester were now operational when ticket offices were closed, resulting in improved access levels for passengers with mobility issues. Members welcomed this improvement.
Northern confirmed that there would be an introduction of new trains before the end of the year on south east routes in Greater Manchester, which would also require some additional training.
In relation to bus services, patronage had continued to increase across all operators and the Bus Priority Programme early findings report had been submitted to DfT in relation to Oxford Road Scheme and Vantage Service on Leigh Guided Busway. Furthermore, bus stations and interchanges had returned to normal opening levels.
Highways levels had now reached 85% of normal levels. Members asked how many of these journeys could be attributed to people moving from public transport to their cars, as some routes seemed to be busier than they were pre-covid. Officers confirmed that the regional centre trips were on a par with other GM areas, however future travel surveys would be the only way to determine how many of those would have previously been trips made on the public transport network. Further to this, Members asked whether there would be a tipping point to congestion levels being reached. Officers confirmed that each road has an individual tipping point, and that some roads were already reaching levels of congestion.
Members questioned as to how often public transport units were cleaned, officers confirmed that cleaning regimes had been increased across all modes, with regular deep cleans and fogging having been introduced.
In relation to communications, Members were pleased to see clear messages regarding the return to use of public transport. However, urged that capacity is made available for the envisaged
4 Page 8 increase in passengers in September once schools return. Officers confirmed that Metrolink was now operating at its maximum capacity, but that bus and rail were stepping up in increments to reach full capacity as soon as possible.
Resolved /-
1. That the report be noted.
2. That it be noted that funding for Metrolink for the period of 4 August – 26 October had been received by TfGM.
3. That it be noted that TfGM had objected to the temporary removal of rail services to Rose Hill between 14 September and 14 December 2020, and were working with Northern to ensure alternative services would be provided.
4. That a breakdown of the location of anti-social behaviour incidents on Metrolink be brought to a future meeting of GMTC.
5. That it be noted that the 85% current level on the highways are cross GM but that this does not indicate that congestion levels have been reached as each road has its own tipping point.
6. That it be noted that in relation to ensuring the highest level of face covering compliance, personal accountability was also vital to support current communications and enforcement activity.
7. That the GM Transport Committee write to the Rail Minister to urge for the re- instatement of the rail service to Rose Hill between September-December.
8. That it be noted that Northern would review the timings of the rail replacement timetable for Rose Hill/Marple – Romiley and liaise directly with Councillor Clarke.
GMTC 62/20 SCHOOL TRANSPORT: PREPARATIONS FOR SEPTEMBER
Alison Chew, Head of Bus Services, TfGM took Members through a report which provided an update on the approach to planning for the return of pupils to schools in September and the wider transport implications.
Following the publication of the report, further guidelines had been issued by Government, including confirmation of a £40m funding package for additional transport capacity to be provided for schools during the first term of 2020/21. Greater Manchester has been allocated £2.25m of this fund which would be fully auditable to DfT.
There had been further guidance published by DfE on 11 August which covered transport to places of education. It particularly focussed on key issues including managing public transport demand, promoting active travel, engaging with employers, staggered start and finish times, providing dedicated transport to schools and places of education, social distancing, appropriate ventilation and face coverings for over 11’s, and how to respond to any case of infection.
5 Page 9
Officers across GM had recently met and TfGM had provided an update on this guidance. Work was ongoing with operators regarding potential pressures on network, and additional available capacity and officers were now analysisng the best places for this funding to be used to support pupils in returning to school in liaison with Local Authorities.
A back to school communication campaign had also been launched this week, which promoted advice within this guidance to parents, pupils and general members of the public.
Members asked whether there was a model DfT survey to parents across GM to ensure consistency, officers agreed to look into this, liaise with Local Authority leads, and report directly back to the Committee.
In relation to the available funding to support additional school services, Members asked whether it could be applied to train services for pupils who use this mode. Officers agreed to check this and also review rail services particularly to Knutsford school and report back to Cllr Adshead.
In respect of bus services, Members asked whether this funding would allow for pre-covid levels of patronage. Officers confirmed there would be full capacity available on school services, but that there was no available funding to increase capacity on the commercial network.
Resolved /-
1. That the report be noted.
2. That TfGM endeavour to ensure that the DfT parents’ survey in relation to schools transport be coordinated across GM, and report back to the GMTC.
3. That details as to how available Government funding for additional school services is also be applied to rail be reported direct back to Councillor Adshead, specifically in relation to school travel to Knutsford.
4. That it be noted that Northern would share Government’s ‘Guidance for Parents’ in relation to social distancing once schools re-open with Members of the GMTC.
GMTC 63/20 GM TRANSPORT COMMITTEE WORK PROGRAMME
Gwynne Williams, Deputy Monitoring Officer for the GMCA took Members through the draft Work Programme for the Greater Manchester Transport Committee and the two newly constituted sub committees.
Resolved /-
1. That the Work Programme be noted.
2. That there be an update on Road Safety Schemes be provided at a future meeting.
6 Page 10 Agenda Item 5
MINUTES OF THE VIRTUAL MEETING OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER BUS SERVICES SUB- COMMITTEE HELD ON FRIDAY 11 SEPTEMBER AT 10:30AM VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS
PRESENT:
Councillor Roger Jones (in the Chair) Salford City Council Councillor Roy Walker Bury Council Councillor John Leech Manchester City Council Councillor Angeliki Stogia Manchester City Council Councillor Sean Fielding Oldham Council Councillor Phil Burke Rochdale Council Councillor Barry Warner Salford City Council Councillor David Meller Stockport MBC Councillor Warren Bray Tameside MBC Councillor Nathan Evans Trafford Council Councillor Mark Aldred Wigan Council
OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Alison Chew Interim Head of Bus Services, TfGM Jenny Coates Services Planning Officer, TfGM Lindsay Dunn Senior Governance & Scrutiny Officer, GMCA James Lewis Section Manager, Services Planning, TfGM Michael Moore Bus Planning Officer, TfGM Stephen Rhodes Customer Director, TfGM Nick Roberts Head of Services & Commercial Development, TfGM Martin Shier Bus Partnerships Delivery Manager, TfGM Lee Teasdale Senior Governance & Scrutiny Officer, GMCA Gwynne Williams Deputy Monitoring Officer, GMCA Nicola Ward Senior Governance & Scrutiny Officer, GMCA
GMTBSC 01/20 APOLOGIES
Resolved /-
That apologies be noted and received from Bob Morris (TfGM)
GMTBSC 02/20 CHAIRS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND URGENT BUSINESS
The Chair welcomed all to the meeting. As a matter of urgent business, the Chair noted that the ongoing industrial dispute between Go North West and Unite was a matter of concern and therefore an update on the current situation would be provided as part of Item 5 on the agenda.
Resolved /-
That the ongoing industrial dispute between Go North West and Unite be considered as urgent business for discussion as part of Item GMTBSC 05/20. Page 11
GMTBSC 03/20 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Resolved /-
That there were no declarations of interest.
GMTBSC 04/20 APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR
It was advised that a nomination had been received for Cllr Warren Bray to be Vice-Chair of the Greater Manchester Bus Services Sub-Committee for the year 2020/21. All present supported the nomination.
Resolved /-
That Councillor Warren Bray (Tameside MBC) be appointed as Vice-Chair of the Greater Manchester Bus Services Sub-Committee for the year 2020/21.
GMTBSC 05/20 BUS OPERATOR COMMENTS ABOUT BUS SERVICES IN GM BETWEEN MARCH AND SEPTEMBER 2020
Bus operators were invited by the Committee to provide feedback on bus services in GM over the previous six months, with a particular emphasis on the impact of Covid-19 restrictions on services.
Comments raised by bus operators included the following:
All operators stated their number one concern had been the safety of their staff and customers – with all responding quickly to the requirements of government guidance in terms of PPE and appropriate risk assessments. Additionally, increased cleaning regimes were put in place, contactless transactions were encouraged, and vehicle capacity was reduced to support social distancing. All operators wished to put their thanks on record to all frontline staff who had supported the running of services over the past few months, and additionally, the operational support offered by TfGM. This had been particularly pressing during the first months of lockdown, when vital transportation was kept operating for front line key workers and the NHS. The number of services in operation were now being ramped up to close to previous levels, with a considerable amount of focus at present being on ensuring the safe return of children to schools and colleges. Many of the operators introduced apps which allowed customers to see how busy each service was, allowing them to make an informed decision on whether to attempt to board. Operators were concerned that they were now at the point of maximum capacity under social distancing restrictions and patronage guidelines and did not have the scope to meet any further increases in demand. Work was taking place with TfGM around providing additional school services with funding provided by the Department of Education.
2 Page 12 It was advised that the X43 ‘Witchway’ Service continued to be severely impacted by the re-rerouting caused by the closures on Deansgate/Blackfriars Bridge bus stops, and whilst most services were at 60% of previous patronage now, this service had stalled at 25%. This was concerning for passenger journey time, but equally was concerning from an environmental standpoint due to the extra mileage that the re-routing forced.
The Chair thanked the operators for their contributions and invited comments and questions from the Committee Members.
A Member noted concerns raised by residents in relation to delays caused by the pop-up cycle lane development on the A56. Were the congestion/re-routing problems here, and on Deansgate/Blackfriars Bridge the only hotspots at present, or were there other conurbation issues? It was advised that the initial issues with the pop up cycle lane on the A56 had been largely mitigated following frank and open discussions with Trafford Council. However, as highways levels increased, these measures would be further observed and dialogue with Trafford Council would continue.
Concern was expressed by an operator about Deansgate and Blackfriars Bridge being closed for works in such quick succession and the perceived lack of coordination between the neighbouring Manchester and Salford authorities on this. The Chair advised that he knew from personal experience that Manchester and Salford Councils were in frequent contact regarding bus routes and highways.
A Member advised that he had received complaints from residents in the Hopwood area of Heywood that schoolchildren were being refused from buses and told to get specific schools buses, even when they did not live on the school bus route. Issues had also occurred when attempting to use the ‘Our Pass’. Did all operators have procedures in place specifically for school times and the increased patronage? It was advised that Diamond Bus Services had been working with TfGM to review services around schools to ensure there is enough capacity on the commercial network to provide further support to dedicated schools’ services.
Members queried whether some existing routes were in danger of being withdrawn due to the losses associated with reduced patronage throughout the pandemic. Operators agreed it was concerning and there would be a need to balance the books. However, it was also hoped that once the need for such stringent social distancing requirements passed, that there would be opportunities for bus operators to work together to promote services and a get the residents of GM making the most of the services offered to them. It was considered that the services within the most ‘rural’ parts of GM would those most at risk.
Members stated that the apps created on levels of bus capacity were very useful, and it was hoped that this offer would remain permanently.
Concerns were raised about the latest revised timetable information not being updated at bus stops, leading to confusion and inconvenience for patrons. TfGM Officers advised that timetable changes had to take place at such frequency initially that it was not possible to keep pace with this at all bus stops, efforts had been made during the main period of lockdown to direct passengers to digital timetable information, and temporary signs at stops provided information on how to access these. A scheme to update the timetable at all bus stops was now about to commence, this would be a significant undertaking across GM, but all stops
3 Page 13 would soon reflect the current updates times.
Members sought assurances that first and last services were being retained even where other services were being reduced. Operators confirmed that they had sought to retain first and last services throughout the entirety of the period, including the lockdown, as these were often particularly important for key workers such as hospital staff.
Go North West – Unite Industrial Dispute
The Chair invited Go North West to provide an update on the latest position regarding the ongoing industrial dispute.
Go North West had purchased the Queens Road depot in 2019 and had sought to modernise working practices to bring them in line with the latest ways of working. Some old rules had long remained in place at the depot that was causing the Queens Road location to lose close to £2m per annum. It was stated that as a result of implementing these new practices staff would each be offered a £5k share in the benefits, a no redundancies guarantee and inflation backed payrises in 20/21 and 21/22. There would be no cuts to pay, to hours, or any reduction in the rules. Over 20 meetings had taken place with Unite, who were opposed to the changes, but had not tabled any counter proposals. Therefore, Go North West had issued a S188 notice as an attempt to instigate fresh talks. The S188 would allow the company to re-contract the drivers, and provided a 45-day window in which to undertake negotiations.
Members, being mindful that they could not intervene in employment issues, discussed the issue. It was clear both sides had a very different view of the existing dispute and therefore it was vital that both sides returned to the discussion table to ensure no loss of service for the residents of GM.
Resolved /-
1. That the updates from bus operators be noted by the Committee. 2. That it be noted that bus operators wished to put their thanks on record to all frontline staff who had supported the running of services over the past few months, and also the operational support offered by TfGM. 3. That it be noted that many bus services are now reaching capacity under social distancing restrictions and maximum patronage guidelines. 4. That the impact of the closure of Deansgate and Blackfriars bus stops on congestion and additional journey time be noted. 5. That it be noted that Diamond and TfGM would review services around schools to ensure there is enough capacity on the commercial network to further support dedicated schools services. 6. That it be noted that the initial concerns with the pop up cycle lane on the A56 have been mostly mitigated, however as highways levels increase these measures would be further observed, and dialogue with Trafford Council would continue. 7. That the update on the ongoing industrial dispute between Go North West and Unite be noted by the Committee. 8. That the Committee expresses its wish to see the above noted dispute resolved to the satisfaction of all parties at the earliest opportunity.
4 Page 14
GMTBSC 06/20 FORTHCOMING CHANGES TO BUS SERVICES
Nick Roberts (Head of Services & Commercial Development, TfGM) advised the Committee that an addendum to item 6 had been necessary due to the receipt of a notification from GB Coaches Ltd (operating under the North Western trading name) that they would be ceasing services with immediate effect. This was an unusual situation, and did not abide by usual practice, and despite TfGM’s best efforts to work with them, they did not reply to TfGM’s attempts to contact them. Due to the nature of the incident, TfGM had reported the matter to the Traffic Commissioner for North West England.
Members stated that they were appalled by the unacceptable actions of GB Coaches Ltd. Local Councillors had been in contact with TfGM about the alternative routes available to Denton at the present time due to the unavailability of the 205/305 and 236 routes. It was accepted that the 205 & 305 routes were underutilised and may be hard to justify going forward. However, the 236 route was heavily used by residents and required reinstatement at the earliest opportunity.
It was advised that most of the 236 route remained served with just a couple of stops affected. It was understood that another service coming into the area had been registered to alight at those stops.
Members raised issues with Service 180. A petition had been submitted in regards to this service several months ago, members sought further clarity on how best to submit a petition to be acknowledged by the GM Transport Committee at the earliest opportunity in future. The Chair agreed that a written procedure was needed for the receipt of petitions. It was suggested that petitions should be submitted to TfGM and then a report be brought to the next relevant committee or sub-committee for oversight.
A number of concerns were raised about the impact that the reduction of services on the 180 route had upon residents of Greenfield, particularly school services. The alternative provision involved 2 buses and a long wait was considered by residents to be unacceptable. There were also concerns about the lack of service on a Sunday, removing a public transport route into the Peak District.
It was advised that the number of trips on Service 180 had been increased on 30th August 2020 in line with other service uplifts. However, it was advised that it was a very lightly used service, with an average of 5 customers per journey on weekdays, and 3 on weekends. There was no plan to withdraw the service but it was important to highlight that it was lightly used. The service was now increased in its ‘strongest’ markets, namely off-peak shopping times. It would be considered again in October, but any decisions would be demand led.
Councillor Mellor stated that comments had been received in relation to Service 130 in Heald Green. It was agreed that these would be passed on to TfGM officers.
Councillor Burke expressed thanks to First for taking over the 587 Service from Yorkshire Tiger.
Resolved /-
5 Page 15 1. That the Committee requests a procedure as to how the Greater Manchester Transport Committee is able to informally receive petitions for submission to TfGM. 2. That the cessation of services operated by GB Coaches Ltd under the North Western trading name with immediate effect and TfGM’s reporting of the matter to the Traffic Commissioner for the North West of England, be noted. 3. That it be noted that First confirmed that service 180 would retain its current timetable, focussed on demand, which was predominantly off peak. 4. That it be noted that Councillor Mellor would submit suggestions regarding service 130 direct to TfGM. 5. That the changes to the commercial network and the proposals not to replace the de- registered commercial services as set out in Annex A, be noted by the Committee. 6. That the Committee agrees that no action is be taken in respect of changes or de-registered commercial services as set out in Annex A. 7. That it be noted by the Committee that no services fall under Annex B. 8. That the Committee be minded to approve the proposed changes to general subsidised services set out in Annex C.
GMTBSC 07/20 FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL DEDICATED HOME TO SCHOOL/COLLEGE TRANSPORT
A report was provided updating the Committee on the proposed approach for the allocation of the £2,249,016 grant received from the Department of Education for additional dedicated home to school/college transport.
90% of GM’s children travelled on these services, but with social distancing restrictions in place, funding for the provision of more trips was required. The report set out the approach and the criteria that had been used for which services received the additional support. Around 300 extra trips were taking place each day on the network now and these were closely monitored, to ensure the high levels of demand remained, and changes could be made if required.
Resolved /-
That the approach to allocate the £2,249,016 grant received by Greater Manchester from the Department for Education for ‘Additional Dedicated Home to School and College Transport’, be noted by the Committee.
GMTBSC 08/20 RING AND RIDE SERVICES
It was advised that the Ring and Ride Service had been hit hard by service impacts due to the nature of the clientele. The services were initially removed, and during April/May started to be reintroduced for essential journeys only. All drivers were issued with PPE and enhanced cleaning regimes were put in place. Initial usage was low upon reintroduction, at only 2% of pre-covid levels. This was up to 11% by July.
The service was now on normal operating hours, but was still only at 16% of pre-covid usage. Steady monitoring would continue going forward.
6 Page 16
Resolved /-
That the impact of Covid-19 on the Ring and Ride service be noted by the Committee, specifically the re-introduction of fully social distancing-compliant vehicles for essential travel only.
GMTBSC 09/20 GMTC TRANSPORT WORK PROGRAMME
Gwynne Williams (Deputy Monitoring Officer, GMCA) updated the Committee on the current work programme.
Members suggested that an item considering how best to encourage the public to safely return to public transport be brought to a future meeting of the Transport Committee.
Members expressed concern about bus lane cameras, with several requests having been made and not addressed. It was agreed that a report be brought to a future meeting on the installation and current use of cameras in bus lanes across GM.
Resolved /-
1. That the updated GMTC Transport Work Programme be received by the Committee. 2. That an item considering how best to encourage the public to safely return to public transport be brought to a future meeting of the Transport Committee. 3. That a report be brought to a future meeting on the installation and current use of cameras in bus lanes across GM.
GMTBSC 10/20 DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS
Resolved /-
That the future meeting dates be noted by the Committee.
GMTBSC 11/20 EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
Resolved /-
That, under section 100 (A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public should be excluded from the meeting for the following items on business on the grounds that this involved the likely disclosure of exempt information, as set out in the relevant paragraphs of Part 1, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.
GMTBSC 12/20 FORTHCOMING CHANGES TO BUS SERVICES – PART B
7 Page 17 Resolved /-
That the financial implications of forthcoming changes to the bus network be noted by the Committee.
8 Page 18 MINUTES OF THE VIRTUAL MEETING OF THE GREATER MANCHESTER METROLINK AND RAIL SUB COMMITTEE HELD ON FRIDAY 18 SEPTEMBER AT 10:30AM VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS
PRESENT:
Councillor Doreen Dickinson (in the Chair) Tameside MBC Councillor Richard Gold Bury Council Councillor Stuart Haslam Bolton Council Councillor Naeem Hassan Manchester City Council Councillor Dzidra Noor Manchester City Council Councillor Atteque Ur-Rehman Oldham Council Councillor Shah Wazir Rochdale Council Councillor Angie Clark Stockport Council Councillor Peter Robinson Tameside MBC Councillor Steve Adshead Trafford Council Councillor Joanne Marshall Wigan Council
OFFICERS AND OPERATORS IN ATTENDANCE:
Mark Angelucci TfGM Guillaume Chanussot Keolis Daniel Coles Network Rail Lindsay Dunn Governance Officer, GMCA Chris Jackson Northern Lucja Majewski Transpennie Express Victoria Mercer Metrolink Service Delivery Manager, TfGM Daniel Vaughan Head of Metrolink, TfGM Caroline Whittam Head of Rail Franchising, TfGM Gwynne Williams Deputy Monitoring Officer, GMCA Lindsay Dunn Governance & Scrutiny, GMCA Nicola Ward Governance & Scrutiny, GMCA Lee Teasdale Governance & Scrutiny, GMCA
GMTMRC 01/20 APOLOGIES
Resolved /-
That apologies be noted and received from Councillor Howard Sykes (Councillor Angie Clark substituting).
GMTMRC 02/20 CHAIRS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND URGENT BUSINESS
That there were no Chair’s announcements or urgent business.
Page 19 GMTMRC 03/20 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Resolved /-
That there were no declarations of interest.
GMTMRC 04/20 APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR
Resolved /-
That Councillor Dzidra Noor be appointed as Vice-Chair of the GMTC Metrolink & Rail Sub- Committee for the Municipal Year 2020/21.
GMTMRC 05/20 LOCAL RAIL SERVICE PERFORMANCE
Caroline Whittam, Head of Rail Franchising TfGM took Members through a report which provided an update on local rail service operation and performance across Greater Manchester. It particularly focussed on the period from March 2020 following the start of the Coronavirus pandemic. From this period, all Rail Operators introduced a key worker timetable which provided minimal service coverage but was designed to meet the needs and shift patterns of local key workers. Since then, there had been several timetable changes as government guidance had begun to encourage people back into the workplace, and schools resumed. Over this period performance had been excellent, with all operators reporting PPMs (Public Performance Measure) in the high nineties, the challenge ahead would be to retain this high performance whilst bringing further services back online. Dialogue and engagement across operators and with TfGM had been very positive throughout this period, and all parties were keen to maintain partnership working and collaboration going forward.
The latest timetable change had taken place for most operators on the 6 September (13 September for Northern) which had overall provided another service uplift, however officers had indicated some concerns regarding Northern’ s proposal to temporarily withdraw the Manchester- Rose Hill line. The position in relation to this line had moved on considerably, and with thanks to officers and Members, the Rail Minister had asked Northern to re-instate three journeys per day for the benefit of passengers, specifically those travelling to Rose Hill/Marple to access educational establishments. Furthermore, there had been a reduction in services to Swinton, with the period of 9-11.30am being particularly adversely affected. Further discussions with local councillors and Northern were planned to consider how the impact of these changes on passengers may be mitigated.
Members asked when the industry were anticipating further patronage demand. Officers reported that this was unclear, and dependent on a number of factors including local lockdown restrictions and that the industry was anticipating a changeable and difficult winter season. Although communications had moved from an ‘essential travel only’ message to ‘travel safely’ it was considered that the country was not yet in a position for the industry to move encouraging more people back onto public transport as yet.
Members reported that there was no clear signage at Hyde North station in relation to the
2 Page 20 provision of the three daily services to Rose Hill. Northern agreed to check this and install as necessary.
Members of the committee asked for an update in relation to the current status of the Emergency Measures Agreement (EMA) and the potential for future rail franchising. Officers reported that these measures had recently been discussed in Parliament and the outcomes of those decisions was anticipated shortly. With regards to rail franchising, it was expected that the Williams Review (due for publication later in the year) would give further clarity on the direction of travel, but that it was likely, as a result of Covid, that this would look different to what was initially anticipated. Transpennie Express added that they were also unaware of any announcements in relation to the EMA as yet, but would update the Committee when possible.
Resolved /-
1. That the report be noted. 2. That as a result of detailed negotiations, there had been an updated situation in relation to the Rose Hill line, specifically the extra provision of 3 trains (2 morning peak, 1 afternoon) per day to support access to educational establishments in Marple, further supplemented by a rail replacement bus service throughout the day. 3. That it be noted that TfGM would be arranging a meeting between Northern and the Salford City Mayor to discuss the reduction in services to Swinton. 4. That a further update on December rail timetable changes be presented to the M&R Committee at the next meeting. 5. That it be noted that Northern agreed to ensure there was adequate signage to reflect current operational services at stations along the Rose Hill line. 6. That further information with regards to the next plans for Government’s Emergency Measure Agreements and the future of franchising agreements were anticipated to be announced shortly and included in the Williams review (expected autumn 2020) and would be provided to the Committee once available.
GMTMRC 06/20 UPDATE FROM NORTHERN
Chris Jackson, Regional Director Northern gave an update to the Committee on the last couple of periods, the current picture for the company and future plans. Northern were now running 2,000 trains per day, providing 85% of the pre-covid network coverage. The return of schools had been successful, with some services being flexed as a result of unforeseen demand.
Onboard revenue collection had now re-commenced which would be a vital element to the recovery and sustainability of the industry. Patronage levels were c. 33% of normal levels, and there was some concern that the initial message of ‘essential travel only’ had caused anxiety amongst passengers that now needed some reassurance communications regarding the safety of the train service in order to encourage them to return. Face covering compliance had generally been good, but with the support of the British Transport Police, stronger enforcement for non-compliance was being put into place. Members of the Committee recognised the essential need for revenue protection to re-commence and for a strong adherence amongst passengers on the requirement to wear face coverings whilst on board and at train stations.
3 Page 21 Northern now had 139 drivers (out of 994) who had to pause their training as a result of covid, and further to this, 42 drivers had also retired during this period. These resourcing levels had a direct impact on the availability of drivers to maintain the Rose Hill line, and the resulting decision to temporarily suspend services. In addition to the school services, Northern had provided a number of rail replacement services and ring and ride provision for passengers on this line. From 26 October 2020, there would be a 90 minute service along this line, with a full timetable return anticipated for the 14 December 2020. Members welcomed this new position, and further planned uplift to Rose Hill services. Reportedly the additional schools services had been well used, and issues with the rail replacement services addressed promptly. Furthermore, Northern had assured Members at a special meeting regarding these changes that this would not be a pre-cursor to the permanent closure of the Rose Hill line.
In relation to performance, it was positive to see that despite difficult circumstances, it had been strong. It was recognised that this was crucial to maintain as timetables were increased and further passengers returned to the network. Northern were clear that this period had given a good opportunity to do things differently and would be urging colleagues to look at how congestion along the Castlefield Corridor could be addressed to support aspirations for improved punctuality. Members thanked Northern for their good general coverage and strong performance across the network, especially during the period of the key worker timetable, as this made a significant difference to those being required to travel to work.
All new trains (Class 159s) were available, however they were being rolled out onto the network inline with completed driver training. The refurbishment of other units was also progressing, which included upgrades to seat coverings to make the trains easier to clean. Members asked whether these new trains would be seen on the Hyde Loop, it was confirmed that one of the schools services was made up of a Class 159 unit, and from 21 September there would be further new trains added to this line.
Flexible season ticket trials were also underway, with a tap-in tap-out design to allow season tickets to benefit those with varying travel patterns. An extension had also been applied to the discounts available for the educational season tickets. Members recognised that season ticket sales will be key to the future success of operators, but that consideration must be given to the level of annual fare increases as to not further dissuade passengers from returning. Northern added that there had been significant season ticket refunds made over the past few months which had created a substantial revenue black hole that would be a likely contributing factor to the levels of ticket prices in 2021.
With regards to staffing levels, there had been a number of staff who had been required to isolate over the past week, the impact of this and local lockdown measures still being difficult to predict.
Members of the Committee asked for an update as to how successful the Operator of Last Resort had been to date. Northern confirmed that it had been positive so far, with a series of improvements having been made to staff accommodation, passenger experience and that there was currently a good outlook for the future of the arrangements. The 100 day plan was significant and far reaching, and despite the impact of Covid remained a substantial focus for the organisation.
In relation to works on the Gauxholme viaduct, members asked that Northern give further
4 Page 22 consideration as to how passengers can access Littleborough and Smithy Bridge stations as rail replacement is not always accessible. It was confirmed that there was a planned meeting with STORM (the local user group) to look at the plans for these works and determine whether the rationale behind the decisions is accurate. Members added that station adoption groups and ‘friends of’ groups were clear assets to any station, and should be effectively used to improve the experience for passengers and support operators in encouraging people back onto the rail service.
Resolved /-
1. That the update from Northern be noted. 2. That it be noted that there are a number of new ticket options on trial, including a flexible season ticket. 3. That it be noted that from 26/10 there would be a 90 minute service on the Rose Hill line. 4. That the slides presented by Northern be shared with members of the M&R Sub Committee. 5. That it be noted that revenue protection would now re-commence across services, to help address the long term commercial viability of the train network. 6. That during the period of 24 Oct – 1 Nov there were engineering works planned for Gauxholme Viaduct that would have an impact on stations at Littleborough, Smithy Bridge and in relation to this, Northern would be meeting with Network Rail and the user group Storm to consider available options. 7. That the essential travel message was now only being promoted in areas of local lockdown, but that it would be necessary for both Operators and politicians to work together to address passengers confidence in returning back to public transport. 8. That it be noted that Class 195 new trains are being regularly added to the network, including those services on the Hyde loop.
GMTMRC 07/20 LOCAL STATIONS UPDATE
Caroline Whittam, Head of Rail Franchising TfGM took the Committee through a report which provided the latest update on rail stations across Greater Manchester. Specifically it detailed information about the Access for All Programme, improvements to Mills Hill Park and Ride, interventions undertaken and those planned for the future within the RSIS (Rail Station Improvement Schemes) Programme, work undertaken by the Rail Station Alliance and an update on Community Rail. In relation to this, congratulations were extended to Hindley Station for their recent Small Station award.
Members asked why an update on the accessibility at Newton and Godley stations had not been included in the report, officers confirmed that this was part of a different programme, but could be included in future reports.
Resolved /-
1. That the report be noted. 2. That it be noted that Northern would respond directly to Cllr Peter Robinson with relation to works planned for Newton and Godley stations on the Hadfield Line, and information included in a future report.
5 Page 23 3. That congratulations be extended to Hindley train station who recently received a highly commended award at the National Rail awards.
GMTMRC 08/20 METROLINK PERFORMANCE REPORT
Victoria Mercer, Metrolink Service Delivery Manager, TfGM introduced a report which detailed operational performance of Metrolink over the last year, with a focus on the most recent quarter.
Since the start of the Covid pandemic there had been a considerable impact to patronage, with a record low of 5% of normal levels in April 2020, and current levels of c. 40%. Full network coverage is now available, but with social distancing measures in place, each tram can only accommodate 23% of normal capacity. Over this period there had been four service pattern changes and two further enhancements as Government guidelines evolved and more people returned to the workplace. There had been a shift from the usual busiest lines, to those that serve Oldham, Rochdale and Manchester Airport, requiring some movement of units to accommodate the number of passengers in these areas. The network was now working to a 10 minute frequency, which is under continuous review.
The next planned service change is scheduled for January 2021, but will be dependent on the current Government guidance. Officers are very much aware of the changing picture, and the recent ‘essential travel only’ message applied in the North East of England. The impact of self-isolation since the return to schools and the introduction of the track and trace programme had also become evident as there had been an increase in the number of staff isolating.
Performance had remained above target over the last quarter, and despite Covid, the Trafford Park line was able to open on the 23 March and had seen patronage continue to grow steadily. There had been a reduction in the number of ASB incidents in early 2020, but as more passengers had returned to the network this had begun to increase and therefore there had been a number of targeted interventions through Travelsafe and other partners to address any particular hotspot areas. Some of these interventions had been designed to particularly increase awareness of the requirement to wear face coverings, and again these had been specifically targeted to areas of lower compliance. However, general compliance across the network had been recorded as c. 80-90% which was positive.
There had been a series of changes made to minimise the risk of Covid spread units, including enhanced cleaning regimes, increased signage to encourage social distancing and contactless payment options. Members asked whether the ability to only accommodate 23% of normal capacity was proving a challenge. Officers confirmed that it was becoming a challenge on some lines and certain times, and that that the return to schools had exacerbated this challenge further. However, the spread of double units across the network, and the 10 minute service frequency was ensuring that there was the maximum opportunity for passengers to maintain social distancing on the majority of services.
Flexible season ticketing had also been introduced through the carnet ticket that allows 10 day passes for the price of 9 to be used within a 28 day period. Members asked that further consideration be given to this flexibility as working patterns had changed significantly and
6 Page 24 passengers may not be able to use their full ticket allowance within a 28 day period.
Funding from DfT to support the operational costs of Metrolink had been secured until the 26 October, and there were ongoing discussions about future funding packages. Members questioned as to whether the level of funding was sufficient, officers reported that it only covered operating costs, and was subject to detailed audit and reconciliation.
Resolved /-
1. That the report be noted. 2. That face covering compliance had been recorded as between 80-90% with some variance on lines and times of day and that targeted intervention had been undertaken to address areas of poorer compliance. 3. That it be noted that Government’s Light Rail Funding offer had been extended until the 26 October 2020 which covers operating costs only, and there were ongoing discussions with DfT regarding future funding packages. 4. That it be noted that capacity had begun to become an issue on some peak time services under the current social distancing guidance. However, in additions to the use of doubles across the network, recent TfGM communications campaigns had been designed to encourage people to travel outside peak times where possible. 5. That it be noted that further ticket options to ensure value and flexibility were being considered by TfGM.
GMTMRC 09/20 GMTC TRANSPORT WORK PROGRAMME
Gwynne Williams, Deputy Monitoring Officer GMCA introduced the latest work programme for the GM Transport Committee and asked for Members suggestions as to future items for inclusion.
In relation to the work programme of the sub committees, a Member asked whether they could receive details of each agenda in order to submit contributions via another Member on the sub committee if required.
Resolved /-
1. That the Work Programme be noted. 2. That Members of the Metrolink & Rail Sub-Committee be given details of the publication of papers for the Bus Services Sub-Committee.
GMTMRC 10/20 DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS
Resolved /-
That the future meeting dates be noted by the Committee.
7 Page 25 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
Greater Manchester Transport Committee –
Draft Work Programme
October 2020 – December 2020
The table below suggests the Committee’s work programme from September to November 2020.
Members are invited to further develop, review and agree topics which they would like to consider. The work programme will be reviewed and updated regularly to ensure that the Committee’s work remains current.
The key functions of the Committee are –
Accountability: active and regular monitoring of the performance of the transport network, including the Key Route Network, the operation of the GM Road Activities Permit Scheme, road safety activities, etc as well as all public transport modes. This role will include holding service operators, TfGM, highway authorities and transport infrastructure providers to public account, and to recommend appropriate action as appropriate;
Implementation: oversee the delivery of agreed Local Transport Plan commitments. This includes the active oversight of the transport capital programme, and decisions over supported bus services network to be made within the context of policy and budgets set by the Mayor and the GMCA as appropriate; and
Policy Development: undertake policy development on specific issues, as may be directed by the Mayor and / or the GMCA
Page 27
October 2020
MEETING TOPIC CONTACT PURPOSE ALLIGNMENT DATE OFFICER TO WHICH KEY FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE
Full Transport Bob Morris, To review performance of the Accountability Committee Network TfGM transport network, including the Performance Key Route Network and all public transport modes. To hold
service operators, TfGM, highway authorities and transport infrastructure providers to public account and to recommend appropriate action.
Our Pass Pilot Kate Brown To receive an update on the Our Accountability Update Pass pilot.
Impact of Road Peter To review the outcome of Accountability Safety Boulton previously implemented road Schemes safety schemes.
Cycling & Richard To oversee the proposals for Implementation Walking Nickson, schemes under the Cycling & Challenge TfGM Walking Challenge Fund. Fund Update
GM 2020 Simon To review the draft GM 2020 Policy Delivery Plan Warburton Delivery Plan prior to sign off by Development the GMCA.
Page 28
November 2020
MEETING TOPIC CONTACT PURPOSE ALLIGNMENT DATE OFFICER TO WHICH KEY FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE
Bus Changes to the Alison Chew To note forthcoming changes to Implementation Services Bus Network and Nick the bus network and to review Sub and Review of Roberts, and make decisions relating to Committee Subsidised Bus TfGM supported bus services within Services the context of policy and Budget budgets set by the Mayor and GMCA as appropriate.
Bus Alison Chew To report on the overall Accountability Performance performance of bus services. Report
Review and James Lewis To inform members of the Accountability Planning of approach to re-planning / re- General tendering bus services going Subsidised Bus forward. Services
Cameras in bus To review the use of cameras in Accountability lanes bus lanes across GM.
Update from All Operators To inform the Committee of the Accountability Operators latest challenges, issues and achievements across the bus network.
Page 29
MEETING TOPIC CONTACT PURPOSE ALLIGNMENT DATE OFFICER TO WHICH KEY FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE
Metrolink Feedback from Caroline To receive an update following Accountability & Rail Central Whittam the Central Manchester Rail Services Manchester Task Force review. Sub Rail Task Force Committee Rail Simon Elliott To review performance across Accountability Performance the rail industry. Report
Rail timetable Caroline To update on planned rail Implementation change update Whittam timetable changes. (December)
Metrolink Daniel To review overall performance Accountability Performance Vaughan of Metrolink. Report
Page 30
December 2020
MEETING TOPIC CONTACT PURPOSE ALLIGNMENT DATE OFFICER TO WHICH KEY FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE
Full Transport Bob Morris, To review performance of the Accountability Committee Network TfGM transport network, including the Performance Key Route Network and all public transport modes. To hold
service operators, TfGM, highway authorities and transport infrastructure providers to public account and to recommend appropriate action.
City Region Simon To give Members the Plan Warburton opportunity to discuss the main elements of the City Region Plan, which focusses on an investment programme over the next two years to support the delivery of the GM 2040 Delivery Plan.
To be scheduled –
Page 31
RAPS – to review the coordination of works across the highway.
Rail station update – 6 monthly update to M&R sub-committee
Page 32
Agenda Item 7
Greater Manchester Transport Committee
Date: 09 October 2020
Subject: Transport Network Performance Update
Report of: Bob Morris, Chief Operating Officer, TfGM
PURPOSE OF REPORT
This report provides an overview of Transport Network Performance in Greater Manchester for August 2020.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Members are asked to note the contents of the report.
CONTACT OFFICERS:
Alex Cropper Interim Head of Operations 0161 244 1122 [email protected]
Julie Flanagan COO Sponsor and 0161 244 1164 Support Officer [email protected]
Page 33
Risk Management – not applicable Legal Considerations – not applicable Financial Consequences – Revenue – not applicable Financial Consequences – Capital – not applicable
Number of attachments included in the report: 1
o Appendix A: Glossary
BACKGROUND PAPERS: Nil
TRACKING/PROCESS Does this report relate to a major strategic decision, as set out in the No GMCA Constitution
EXEMPTION FROM CALL IN Are there any aspects in this report which None means it should be considered to be exempt from call in by the relevant Scrutiny Committee on the grounds of urgency? GMTC Overview & Scrutiny Committee Not applicable Not applicable
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 2
Page 34
1 OVERVIEW
1.1. The Greater Manchester Transport Committee has a key role to oversee the provision of transport services including the performance of Metrolink, Bus and Rail Operators and the Strategic Highways Network on behalf of residents, businesses and visitors. The Committee also oversees the move towards the Our Network vision for an integrated transport network for Greater Manchester, as set out in the 2040 Transport Strategy.
1.2. This network performance report covers performance across all transport modes in Greater Manchester for August 2020 during the Coronavirus pandemic.
2 OVERALL NETWORK PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
2.1. Passenger numbers have continued a steady increase across all modes and with the exception of the highway network, are still significantly below pre COVID levels.
2.2. Whilst June and July saw several important steps made to lift the lockdown in Greater Manchester, each impacting on the transport network, August included the UK Governments deferment of some higher risk sectors re opening and together with GM specific measures relevant to the transport network:
01 August: GM lockdown begins (can’t meet people outside your household in houses or private gardens)
02 August: GM declare a Major Incident, enabling an increased response
03 August: “Eat out to help out” starts:
10 August: Metrolink extend 10-minute frequency on Saturdays until 8pm to support the leisure, bars and restaurant demand and
A joint Department for Education/DfT press release announced additional short- term funding to ease pressure on transport as children return in September.
2.3. Operational performance across rail, bus and Metrolink has remained high albeit with reduced patronage. However, passengers have continued to complain to TfGM and on social media about the enforcement of face coverings on public transport. TfGM through the Travelsafe Partnership has co-ordinated several multi-agency targeted operations to engage with public transport users and encourage the use of face coverings.
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 3
Page 35
2.4. Additionally, media campaigns have been increased in conjunction with partners to target key areas such as Altrincham, Oldham and Ashton at times of the day when usage drops, and this has also led to increasing compliance levels and improved feedback from the travelling public.
2.5. The detail contained later in this report covers the modal response and performance during the period, noting that certain detail is now covered in the MRN and Bus sub committees.
3 NETWORK OVERVIEW
Metrolink
3.1. The 10-minute service in operation across network, with all available trams in use and two- thirds of the services being doubles.
3.2. Patronage is just below 50% of pre-covid levels. Recent growth appears to have stalled following government announcements and the rise in local rates.
3.3. Face covering usage continues to improve overall morning peak compliance increasing currently at 83% and evening peak compliance at 77%. Compliance of the face covering rule amongst secondary school children is lower than that for adults. This is being addressed through engagement with the schools and continued enforcement activity on the network.
3.4. Currently 11.5% of services exceed the theoretical capacity, allowing for 1m social distancing.
3.5. There is an increasing number of staff in self-isolation but so far this has not impacted on services.
Rail
3.6. From the 06 July, enhanced train plans were introduced to increase services levels from the key work timetable introduced on the 23rd of March to around 75% of pre-Covid levels (68% for Northern).
3.7. Estimated rail patronage across Greater Manchester now stands around 35%, with TPE reporting patronage around 32% of pre-Covid levels. Piccadilly Station footfall has been steadily increasing with footfall levels around 63% of pre-Covid levels, Victoria in excess of 5,000 passengers per day. (based on Northern Driver Passenger Counts and Network Rail Station Counts).
3.8. Face covering compliance among rail passengers has slightly dipped, with compliance levels on Northern services between 70-80%, higher for TPE and other long-distance services.
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 4
Page 36
TfGM will continue to work with Train Operating Companies (TOCs), British Transport Police (BTP) and Travel Safe Officers (TSOs) to raise awareness of the mandatory requirement to wear face coverings whilst at stations and on-board public transport.
3.9. Whilst rail patronage for TOCs serving Greater Manchester remain within Social Distancing requirements, overcrowding at weekends, and to leisure and coastal destinations such as the Peak District and Southport remain common. Northern have introduced additional services to cope with this demand, although services remain busy.
3.10. Friday and Saturday’s remain the busiest days of the week, with outer peak (Mid/late afternoon) and leisure travel being prominent, although recent weeks suggest a greater uptake in AM Peak travel indicating a re-emergence of commuter travel.
3.11. The operational performance of rail services remains high, with PPM averaging around 95% and CaSL below 3%.
3.12. Train services across Greater Manchester will be increased on 14 September, with the uplift seeing an expected 80-85% of pre-Covid services re-instated. The focus of this will be to provide capacity for people returning to work and education, whilst maintaining current levels of performance.
3.13. The December 2020 timetable will build further on uplifting capacity and frequency and should see around 90-95% of pre-Covid services restored.
3.14. Department for Transport (DfT) has extended the emergency funding arrangements for the UK rail industry for the next six to 18 months. Emergency Measures Agreement (EMA's) are
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 5
Page 37
now replaced by Emergency Recovery Measures Agreements (ERMA's) that have tougher performance targets and lower management fees (max 1.5%).
3.15. DfT will continue to cover TOCs’ cost, revenue and capital risk. There is also the potential for an additional performance-based fee based on measures including punctuality, passenger satisfaction and financial performance
3.16. Each of the ERMAs requires that by mid-December 2020 the TOC agrees with DfT whether, and if so, how much, parent company support or other payments would have been required to terminate the pre-existing franchise agreements had the pandemic not occurred.
3.17. The DfT has also stated it intends to begin discussions with the TOCs to transition to new, directly awarded contracts for the longer term, which would come into effect at the end of the ERMAs.
Bus
3.18. Bus operators have returned to operating 100% of pre-Covid service levels, as measured by operated mileage from September.
3.19. Bus patronage has returned to approximately 60% of pre-Covid levels. However, with the restrictions recently announced there is a concern that patronage might start to fall again.
3.20. TfGM has completed a survey on behalf of the Combined Authority on the use of additional short term DfT funding for the duplicate school services where we estimate a forecasted expenditure of £2,194,053. We have requested that this amount be secured for the remainder of the autumn term
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 6
Page 38
3.21. Following the introduction of 288 additional duplicate school services to support the commercial routes, TfGM have been working closely with operators and schools to closely monitor usage to ensure efficiency of the network and respond to changing conditions.
3.22. Bus covering compliancy on the dedicated school services has been raised as one of the major issues since the beginning of the new term, it is not a mandatory requirement on school services. TfGM is working collaboratively with key stakeholder to promote the use of face covering by students, with various activity days to increase awareness of their importance planned.
Highways
3.23. Government advice and measures implemented in response to the pandemic continue to effect travel patterns and are reflected demand on the highway network. The eat out to help out scheme increased traffic during the afternoon and evening period with the profile for Wednesday 26th August, the last day of the scheme being akin to a Friday.
3.24. The return of schools and increased opportunity to return to workplaces saw an increase in traffic volumes, with growth strongest during the morning peak period. During the week ending 20th September traffic volumes were an equivalent to 12% below typical. Volumes on the SRN volumes in GM are 13% below the same time last year.
3.25. Following a review of journey times and traffic volumes peak plans have been reintroduced on a number of routes during the evening peak period. Local measures which support social distancing, walking and cycling will remain in place in a number of locations including the Regional Centre.
3.26. At the Regional Centre cordon traffic volumes increased 2% from the previous week and are now equivalent to 16% below typical. The increase in volumes was driven by weekday traffic which was 3% up on the previous week. Evidence suggests that there are more trips being made through the regional centre attracted by lower journey times.
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 7
Page 39
3.27. Analysis of GMRAPS data shows there has been an increase in the number of roadworks undertaken as immediate/emergency works. This makes it difficult for Authorities to coordinate works and manage disruption to the Highway and Public Transport network.
3.28. Further road closures to support economic recovery and social distancing are anticipated across the regional centre with a potential to impact bus operators and add to congestion.
3.29. The growth in trips on the GM transport network during week ending 20th September were driven by an increase in active travel. The largest contribution in terms of trip numbers came from walking, flowed by cycling. Cycle activity was an estimated 15% up and walking activity was an estimated 11% up.
3.30. Workday cycle volumes were 35% up on last week with Monday 14th September having the highest levels of cycling activity since 25th June.
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 8
Page 40
3.31. The reopening of universities and the return of students has been reflected in the cycle volumes on the Oxford Road corridor. Last week cycle numbers at the Totem on Oxford Road were 19% up on the previous week. This is the third consecutive week of growth in cycle activity on Greater Manchester’s busiest cycle route.
3.32. Data from the AI sensor adjacent to the emergency active travel measures on Deansgate show that from August 1st cycling activity has been on average 63% above the same period in 2019.
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 9
Page 41
3.33. In light of increased traffic volumes and congestion returning to a number of corridors the emergency walking and cycling measures on the A56 in Trafford have been reviewed. Sections of the pop-up measured on the A56 have been removed. An alternative route along Talbot Road has been identified.
3.34. Continued progress of delivery of Mayor's Cycling and Walking Challenge Fund with £100m of business cases to be assessed over next 6 months and 50 miles of network to be delivered by end of 2021.
3.35. First phase of delivery Government's Emergency Active Travel Fund (£3m in GM) is nearing completion. Announcement of GM allocation for second phase expected in early October.
Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)
3.36. There has been a small decrease in the number of reported incidents of crime and anti-social behaviour on Metrolink and an increase on the bus network during August, this is linked to an increase of fare evasion reports as a result of persistent use of fraudulent cards to purchase high value tickets.
3.37. The overall rate of incidents (per million passenger journeys) has increased from 26 during the 12 months to August 2019 to 29. The spike in the rate of incidents on Metrolink, observed during March-June, is attributed to the Covid-19 lockdown, which led to a huge drop in patronage alongside proportionally increased use of the network by some groups of individuals. This combined with a reduction in staff deployments which would traditionally have acted to deter anti-social behaviour
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 10
Page 42
Reported incidents of Crime and ASB (per million journeys)
3.38. The table below shows the number of monthly reported incidents of Crime & ASB occurring on Metrolink for the period Sept 2019 - Aug 2020.
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 189 217 237 192 203 206 184 137 199 157 200 193
3.39. Partnership Days of Action took place throughout August at: Altrincham (04 Aug), LEGB (07 Aug), Oldham (14-17 Aug), Trafford Centre (17 Aug) and Ashton (25 and 01 Sept.) Feedback from partner agencies and the public has been positive and higher rates of face coverings compliance noted.
3.40. To support the ongoing response to Covid, the TravelSafe Partnership has committed to run weekly Days of Action throughout September, these remain dynamic in order to support wider Greater Manchester priorities such as student return but also where rising infection rates are occurring.
3.41. Following the assault of a couple at St. Werburghs Rd on the 25 July, CCTV was provided and the suspected offender identified. He was arrested and has now been bailed pending formal identification procedures.
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 11
Page 43
3.42. On 25 and 26 August, police received reports that two women had been sexually assaulted by a male on public transport in the Stockport and South Manchester areas. He was apprehended by the Transport Unit and has been charged with two counts of sexual assault by touching. He has been released on bail and is due to appear at Court on 29 Sept.
3.43. GMP’s Transport Unit have produced an infographic bringing together the results and activities during August:
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 12
Page 44
4 NETWORK PERFORMANCE SCORECARD
Metrolink1 Status Target Achieved Trend Metrolink Punctuality G 90% 94.0% I Metrolink Reliability G 99% 99.8% I Rail1 Status Target Achieved Trend Northern Punctuality (PPM) G 83.0% 93.9% S Northern Reliability (CaSL) G N/A 0.8% S Northern Right Time A N/A 74.3% W TPE Punctuality (PPM) G 88.5% 94.5% S TPE Reliability (CaSL) G N/A 3.2% S TPE Right Time A N/A 76.3% W Network Rail Delay Minutes G 43,400 19,970 W Bus2 Status Target Achieved Trend Network Bus Service Reliability G 97.0% n/a S Commercial Bus Service Reliability G 97.0% n/a S Subsidised Bus Service Reliability G 97.0% n/a S Network Bus Overall Punctuality G 80.0% n/a S Commercial Bus Overall Punctuality G 80.0% n/a S Subsidised Bus Overall Punctuality G 80.0% n/a S Network Bus Regularity R 97.0% n/a S Commercial Bus Regularity R 97.0% n/a S Subsidised Bus Regularity n/a 97.0% n/a n/a Highways2 Status Target Achieved Trend Highways Journey Time Reliability G 90.0% 91.4% S Highways Level of Delay (Average) G 30.0% 25.2% S Network Safety Status Predicted Actual Trend Killed and Seriously Injured (rolling 12m to Aug ‘19) R 558 695 I Status Previous Current Trend Incidents per Million passenger Journeys (rolling 12m to R 27 29 W June ’20) Several KPIs suspended as a result of Covid-19 See Appendix A for glossary. Reporting Periods: This report covers Aug 2020 generally with the latest September data referenced where useful Trend key: W = Worsening, S= Stable, I = Improving
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 13
Page 45
APPENDIX A
Glossary
Measure Description RAG thresholds
Metrolink Punctuality Percentage of trams departing GREEN if equal to or above 90% less than two minutes late. RED if less than 90%.
Metrolink Reliability Percentage of planned miles Target for 2019 is 99%. operated. RED if less than 97%. AMBER if 99% - 97%. GREEN if 99% or above. Northern Punctuality PPM = Public Performance GREEN if equal to or above the (PPM) Measure. The percentage of target. services arriving at destination RED if below target. (having called at all scheduled stops) within 5 minutes of the planned arrival time. Northern Reliability CaSL= Cancelled and Significant RED if above target. (CaSL) Lateness. % of services part/fully AMBER if equal to target. cancelled or arriving at their GREEN if below target. destination later than 30 minutes after scheduled arrival time. TPE Reliability (CaSL) CaSL= Cancelled and Significant RED if above target. Lateness. % of services part/fully AMBER if equal to target. cancelled or arriving at their GREEN if below target. destination later than 30 minutes after scheduled arrival time. TPE Punctuality (PPM) PPM = Public Performance GREEN if equal or above the Measure. The percentage of target. services arriving at destination RED if below target. (having called at all scheduled stops) within 10 minutes of the planned arrival time. Northern Right Time % of recorded station stops RED if above target. where the train arrived less than AMBER if equal to target. one minute later than its GREEN if below target. advertised time. TPE Right Time % of recorded station stops RED if above target. where the train arrived less than AMBER if equal to target. one minute later than its GREEN if below target. advertised time. Network Rail Delay Total number of Delay minutes GREEN if equal to or below the Minutes attributable to Network Rail. target. RED if above target.
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 14
Page 46
Measure Description RAG thresholds
Bus Service Reliability Scheduled Service Reliability – GREEN if equal to or above the measured by the percentage of target. observed bus departures from a RED if below target. given location compared to the service provision promised to the public. Bus Overall Punctuality Scheduled Service Punctuality – GREEN if equal to or above the measured by the percentage of target. ‘on-time’ observed bus RED if below target. departures from a given location. The definition of an on-time departure is one which is between 60 seconds early and 5 minutes and 59 seconds late, inclusive. Bus Regularity Frequent Service Regularity – GREEN if equal to or above the measured by the percentage of target. occasions where the gap between RED if below target. services is either over 2 times the service headway, or 10 minutes, whichever is the larger number. Service Regularity encapsulates both the reliability and punctuality aspect of a frequent service. Highways Journey Time % of highway journeys completed GREEN > = 90% Reliability (JTR) within an ‘acceptable journey AMBER 80-90% time’, defined as the typical RED < 80% journey time +25%. Highways Level of The difference between the GREEN < 30% Delay (Average) typical journey time (median) and AMBER 30-50% the optimum journey time (5th RED >= 50% percentile) during the peak period. Killed & Seriously Number of people killed or GREEN if equal to or below the Injured (KSI) seriously injured on GM roads. annual forecast projection. RED if above forecast. (DfT developed a forecast for KSI casualties, as part of the Road Safety Strategy. This forecast (based on a central projection) was for a 40% reduction in KSI casualties by 2020 against a 2005-09 baseline. For GM this was no more than 550 KSI per year casualties by 2020.) GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 15
Page 47
GMTC 20201009 Transport Network Performance Update 16
Page 48
Agenda Item 8
GREATER MANCHESTER TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Date: 9 October 2020
Subject: Our Pass Update Report
Report of: Stephen Rhodes, Customer Director, Transport for Greater Manchester
PURPOSE OF REPORT
To provide an overview of Our Pass card uptake and bus travel prior to, during, and after the coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown; and
To provide an overview of Our Pass exclusive (i.e. opportunity) provision as part of Greater Manchester’s ongoing commitment to young people’s development.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Committee is requested to:
1. Note the contents of this report; and
2. Note the next steps and recommendations contained in this report.
CONTACT OFFICERS:
Stephen Rhodes, Customer Director, TfGM – [email protected]
Page 49
Equalities Implications: N/A
Climate Change Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures: N/A
Risk Management: N/A
Legal Considerations: N/A
Financial Consequences – Revenue: N/A
Financial Consequences – Capital: N/A
Number of attachments to the report: None
BACKGROUND PAPERS: None
TRACKING/PROCESS Does this report relate to a major strategic decision, as set out in the No GMCA Constitution
EXEMPTION FROM CALL IN Are there any aspects in this report which N/A means it should be considered to be exempt from call in by the relevant Scrutiny Committee on the grounds of urgency? GM Transport Committee Overview & Scrutiny Committee 9 October 2020 N/A
Page 50
1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
1.1. Applications for Our Pass opened on 1 July 2019 and continue to be available to eligible individuals on an ongoing basis. For a one-off £10 administration fee, young people in Greater Manchester have been able to access free bus travel and other benefits across the city-region since the start of September 2019.
1.2. The purpose of the two-year pilot is to test the outcomes for young people against the strategic objectives of the pilot. The data gathered during the pilot will be used to inform future decisions on investment to support young people with the costs of travel and access to life opportunities.
1.3. Young people and community groups were engaged through the Greater Manchester Youth Combined Authority to co-create the pilot. This included choosing the name, designing the card and contributing to how the scheme operates.
1.4. At 16 years of age, those people face decisions that will shape their lives, but they often also lack the skills they need to travel, explore and navigate the world beyond their doorstep. Our Pass is designed to help rectify that as they start college, apprenticeships, jobs and the transition into adult life. The pilot has the potential to reach c.63,000 young people across Greater Manchester each year.
1.5. Since the scheme launched in September of last year, more than 8.7 million bus journeys have been made by Our Pass card holders1, with almost 300,000 bus journeys per week being made prior to the introduction of the nationwide coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown in March 2020.
1.6. This report sets out the take-up of the scheme and use so far. It also provides an update regarding the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on the pilot and the changes to the administration of the Exclusives (previously known as Opportunities) from August 2020.
2. ACTIVE CARDS
2.1. Since Our Pass went live in September 2019, there has been strong take-up for the card. As at 31 January 2020, there were c.38,200 active Our Pass cards in circulation. Since that date, due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and subsequent nationwide lockdown restrictions, demand for Our Pass had fallen, with only c.900 cards being issued in the following six months. As at 31 July 2020, there were c.39,000 active Our Pass cards in circulation out of an eligible population of c.63,000.
2.2. Prior to the lockdown, it was expected that there would be c.44,000 active cards compared to the business case estimate of 46,000 in the first year. The business case estimate, upon
1 To 17 September 2020
Page 51
which the initial budget estimates were calculated, was based on the 75% take-up level of a similar scheme in London.
2.3. On 1 July 2020, applications opened to the third eligible cohort. Since that time there has also been strong take-up of the card by those individuals, with c.17,000 cards being issued to 17 September 2020.
2.4. The following chart shows the increase in total active Our Pass cards each week, from 1 September 2019 through to 17 September 2020, as well as the cumulative number of active cards in circulation each week over that period.
2.5. Regarding card take-up by district, the following chart shows the percentage of eligible 16 to 18-year-olds in each area that had an Our Pass card as at 17 September 2020. At that time, card take-up was above or around the GM average (63%) in seven of the ten districts, with notable exceptions in Oldham (50%) and Trafford (55%).
Page 52
2.6. Further work is currently being planned at a local level to identify specific issues and possible, future interventions to increase take up.
2.7. The following table shows the number of approved applications for the third eligible cohort (c. 17,000), by district, since 1 July 2020.
3. BUS TRAVEL
3.1. As one of his central manifesto commitments, the Mayor announced the introduction of Our Pass to help young people with the cost of using public transport and to help to reverse the decline in public transport use amongst the 16-18 age group. The pilot scheme aims to help reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training. At the
Page 53
same time, one of the key programme aims is to help form lifelong habits of increased public transport use, thereby reducing congestion on Greater Manchester’s roads.
3.2. Free bus travel throughout GM has been available to Our Pass holders since 1 September 2019. From that date through to the end of service on 17 September 2020, over 8.7 million free bus journeys had been made by Our Pass holders.
3.3. Prior to the introduction of Coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown restrictions in March 2020, almost 300,000 weekly journeys were being made using Our Pass cards. However, the widespread closure of schools, businesses and workplaces saw the weekly average fall to around 12,700 journeys between 24 March and 13 June 2020.
3.4. The following chart presents a daily breakdown of the total bus journey numbers and shows the number of unique Our Pass holders making journeys each day.
3.5. The following chart shows an analysis of the average number of bus journeys made per active card holder according to their Local Authority of residence in GM, as at 17 September 2020. The chart also shows that bus use is higher than average amongst Our Pass holders resident in Manchester, Salford, Stockport and Tameside.
Page 54
4. EXCLUSIVES UPDATE
4.1. Between September 2019 and July 2020, a range of Our Pass “opportunities” were made available to cardholders. During that time uptake of those offers was 8,480. The offers available included free access to swimming and leisure centres for all card holders across the ten local authorities. They also included free, sponsored “Our Pass” branded lanyards available to all card holders. In addition, there were discounts and giveaways from Manchester City and Manchester United football clubs, theatre and concert tickets, and a range of careers “tasters” from BBC, ITV and the Royal Exchange Theatre.
4.2. A new Our Pass website was launched in early August 2020, with the aim of increasing uptake of those offers; now referred to as “exclusives”. The new website is administered by The Growth Company and it is intended that new exclusives will be added to the site on an ongoing basis. As at 17 September, 5,280 people have registered accounts on the new Our Pass website.
4.3. The current exclusives include offers from the Co-op, Vimto, Manchester United and Manchester City, and a variety of restaurant and food offers including e.g. from Dishoom. As a result of the current Government guidance, most exclusives are on hold, including those for leisure centres and theatre tickets. However, all exclusives are under constant review in line with the prescribed guidelines, and the Our Pass team are focusing on food and online discount offers to keep up the interest and the momentum despite the challenges created by the pandemic.
5. FINANCE UPDATE
5.1. The GMCA previously approved a budget of £9.3 million to deliver free bus travel in the 2019/20 financial year. The outturn to 31 March 2020 was on budget including both the
Page 55
costs of reimbursing bus operators for Our Pass journeys made and the additional capacity costs necessitated by the pilot. In addition, the GMCA approved £575,000 to deliver and operate the non-travel (i.e. exclusives) elements of the pilot in 2019/20.
5.2. The budget of £15.9 million to deliver free bus travel in the current financial year (2020/21) is provided by, and ‘ringfenced’ within, the Mayoral budget, with the risk of higher than budgeted expenditure underwritten, as previously agreed by GMCA, from the Concessionary Travel Reserve.
5.3. The financial impact of the current and forecast future usage of Our Pass is being evaluated and will be reported to GMCA as part of the regular financial update reports.
6. NEXT STEPS
6.1. An evaluation report will be prepared for submission to the GMCA later this year. The report will provide an evaluation of the scheme so far, noting the disruption to the Our Pass pilot during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
Page 56
Agenda Item 9
GREATER MANCHESTER TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Date: 9 October 2020
Subject: Impact of Road Safety Schemes
Report of: Peter Boulton, Head of Highways, Transport for Greater Manchester
PURPOSE OF REPORT
To review the outcome of previously implemented road safety schemes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The GMTC is requested to:
1. Note the impact of road safety schemes within the report.
CONTACT OFFICERS:
Peter Boulton Head of Highways 0161 244 1411 [email protected]
Page 57
Equalities Implications: Not applicable.
Climate Change Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures: Not applicable.
Risk Management: Not applicable.
Legal Considerations: Not applicable.
Financial Consequences – Revenue: Not applicable.
Financial Consequences – Capital: Not applicable.
Number of attachments to the report: 2.
o Appendix A – Legacy funded road safety schemes. o Appendix B – GM level revenue funded road safety activities.
BACKGROUND PAPERS: None.
TRACKING/PROCESS Does this report relate to a major strategic decision, as set out in the No GMCA Constitution
EXEMPTION FROM CALL IN Are there any aspects in this report which None means it should be considered to be exempt from call in by the relevant Scrutiny Committee on the grounds of urgency? GM Transport Committee Overview & Scrutiny Committee Not applicable Not applicable
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 2 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 58
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform members of the committee about the impact of legacy road safety schemes funded or part funded by the GM Casualty Reduction Partnership (GMCRP) – now referred to as Safer Roads GM (SRGM) or the ‘Partnership’.
2 LEGACY PARTNERSHIP ROAD SAFETY SCHEMES
2.1 Between 2013 and 2016 GM Partners were invited to submit applications for funding to deliver road safety schemes. The funding was not intended to replace existing investment in road safety e.g. local authority road safety schemes, as it was intended to supplement funding for road safety. The priorities for the applications were killed and seriously injured casualties; and vulnerable road user groups including people walking, cycling & motorcycling; and 17-25 year old vehicle occupants.
2.2 Due to the staggered programme for delivery, most schemes do not currently have a full 60 months of post-implementation data, usually required. The investment in highways road safety schemes represents, on average, a reduction of around 64 collisions per year for all GM schemes.
2.3 Following legal advice from the National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme (NDORS) in 2017 and 2018, cost recovery of revenue-based activities only will continue going forward. This means that SRGM is currently unable to contribute towards significant capital investments as has previously been the case with the legacy schemes. Other revenue based activities being delivered at a GM level can be found in Appendix B.
2.4 As TfGM DriveSafe has not provided NDORS courses for police force areas outside of GM since 2016, the ability to invest in road safety has been reduced. Funding for road safety and danger reduction measures has previously been allocated from the transport minor works budget. More recently, investment aimed at growing active travel, including addressing safety and road danger for people walking and cycling, has become available via the Mayor’s Challenge Fund for Cycling and Walking for the Bee Network.
Monitoring of road safety schemes
2.5 Monitoring at an individual scheme level is undertaken by GM Districts with detailed local knowledge of the road network; developments; and road network demand. Safety benefits are normally calculated when all schemes within a programme application year have 60 months of pre and post-implementation data for an equitable comparison.
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 3 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 59
2.6 In order to conduct an interim assessment of the impact of these road safety schemes at a programme level periodically, it is necessary to calculate annual average values based on post-implementation recorded injury collision data. Department for Transport (DfT) average values of prevention based on a consistent willingness to pay (WTP) approach1 using the most recent average value of collision prevention are also used2. This approach encompasses aspects of the valuation of casualties, including the human costs, which reflect pain, grief and suffering; the direct economic costs of lost output, and the medical costs associated with road collision injuries.
2.7 As annual averages have been used, Benefit to Cost Ratios (BCR’s) are limited to a programme entry application year level until a full 60 months of post-implementation data is available for each grouping of schemes. This is to avoid a skewing or distortion of BCR values where less data is available; where fluctuations or inconsistencies in the occurrence of recorded injury collisions may happen during the after period; and to account for more recent provisional data yet to be finalised by the Department for Transport (DfT). This method allows for such fluctuations and provides a more accurate overall estimate of benefits at a programme entry year level. Periodic reports to the Greater Manchester Transport Committee will include additional information on individual schemes as a full 60 months of post-implementation data is available for each grouping of schemes.
2.8 The benefits stated above focus on the value of preventing recorded injury collisions and do not include the value to the economy of preventing congestion; increases in sustainable travel; or other supplementary scheme benefits. Non-infrastructure schemes cannot be monitored in this way and are subject to other methods of evaluation by the respective GM lead delivery organisation.
Legacy funded road safety schemes 2013/14
2.9 Legacy schemes approved during 2013/14 for implementation from 2014/15 now have on average 58 months of post-implementation recorded injury collision data. Based on the available data, the benefits of implementation are estimated to be circa £7.28 million against an infrastructure investment of £1.03 million, representing an estimated Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of approximately 7.1 to 1; or an annual average reduction of 15 injury collisions per year. A list of schemes and descriptions can be found in Appendix A.
1 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/244913/rrcgb20 12-02.pdf 2 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/833800/ras6000 1.ods
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 4 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 60
Legacy funded road safety schemes 2014/15
2.10 Legacy schemes approved during 2014/2015 for implementation from 2015/16 now have between 19 and 55 months (on average 45 months) of post-implementation recorded injury collision data. Based on the available data, the benefits are estimated to be circa £5.3 million against an infrastructure investment of £0.86 million, representing an estimated Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of approximately 6.1 to 1; or an annual average reduction of 15 injury collisions per year. A list of schemes and descriptions can be found in Appendix A.
Legacy funded road safety schemes 2015/16
2.11 Legacy schemes approved during 2015/16 for implementation from 2016/17 now have between 14 and 29 months (on average 23 months) of post-implementation recorded injury collision data. Based on the available data, the benefits of implementation are estimated to be circa £3.1 million against an infrastructure investment of £0.78 million, representing an estimated Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of approximately 4.0 to 1; or an annual average reduction of 17 injury collisions per year. A list of schemes and descriptions can be found in Appendix A.
Legacy funded road safety schemes 2016/17
2.12 Legacy schemes approved during 2016/17 for implementation from 2017/18 now have between 11 and 22 months (on average 17 months) of post-implementation recorded injury collision data. Based on the available data, the benefits of implementation are estimated to be circa £1.85 million against an infrastructure investment of £0.58 million for infrastructure schemes complete and where monitoring data is available, representing an estimated Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of approximately 3.2 to 1; or an annual average reduction of 17 injury collisions per year. A list of schemes and descriptions can be found in Appendix A.
3 CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Although a full 60 months of post-implementation monitoring data is not available for schemes within each programme entry application year, the estimated BCR’s are currently in excess of 3 to 1, demonstrating good value for money. Schemes within the 2013/14 programme entry year, with the greatest amount of post-implementation data available,
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 5 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 61
have a currently estimated BCR of 7.1 to 1; and this is broadly similar to previous independent research commissioned by the DfT3.
4 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Members are recommended to note the impact of road safety schemes within the report.
Peter Boulton Head of Highways
3 DfT Road Safety Research Report No. 108. Contribution of Local Safety Schemes to Casualty Reduction.
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 6 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 62
Appendix A – Legacy funded road safety schemes
2013/14 Legacy schemes approved during 2013/14 for implementation from 2014/15 now have on average 58 months of post-implementation recorded injury collision data. Based on the available data, the benefits of implementation are estimated to be circa £7.1 million against an infrastructure investment of £1.03 million. Safety benefits are normally calculated when all schemes have 60 months of after data. The benefits stated above focus on the value of preventing recorded injury collisions and do not include the value to the economy of preventing congestion; increases in sustainable travel; or other supplementary scheme benefits. Non-infrastructure schemes cannot be monitored in this way and are subject to other methods of evaluation by the respective GM lead delivery organisation. The lead delivery partner is responsible for more detailed individual scheme monitoring. A list of schemes and descriptions can be found below. GMCRP Name Scheme Lead Partner Contrib. £’000 Lee Lane 20mph route scheme. Bolton 77.5 A6 Blackrod By- Signal junction improvements. Bolton 135.9 Pass/ Station Rd Driving Simulator Driving Young Driver Focus / Engaging GM Fire & 55 Van younger people. Rescue Greater Manchester Operation Dice (Casualty reduction focus). GMP 57.1 Police (GMP) A34 Upper Brook Pedestrian and cycle improvements St (Brunswick St (delivered in conjunction with Cross City Manchester 167.5 to Dover St) Bus). Wilmslow Rd/ Cycling Improvements at traffic signal Manchester 100 Wilbraham Rd junction.
B6393 Greengate Safety & Sustainable Travel. Oldham 110.7
A58 Church St – Eastwood St to Victoria St, Littleborough Centre Safety Improvements. Rochdale 159.6 Harehill Rd/ Victoria St
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 7 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 63
GMCRP Name Scheme Lead Partner Contrib. £’000 Play in a Day Workshops – Education 15 High Schools Project. Salford 4.5 in Salford
B6194 Lees Junction improvement & MOVA traffic Tameside 200.4 Rd/Kings Rd signal controller installation. Trixi Mirrors at Vulnerable Road Users signalised (Focus – sites in GM based on left turn TfGM 25 junctions in GM casualty /collisions data). Advanced Stop Vulnerable Road Users Lines at (Focus – sites in GM based on TfGM 45 signalised casualty/collision data). junctions in GM A56 Parallel 80 Cycle Safety Scheme. Trafford Routes Holden Rd/ Manchester Rd Education, Training & Publicity Scheme. Wigan 4.1 Leigh Wigan Town Town Centre Safety Scheme. Wigan 152.6 Centre 1374.9
2014/2015 Legacy schemes approved during 2014/2015 for implementation from 2015/16 now have between 19 and 55 months (on average 45 months) of post-implementation recorded injury collision data. Based on the available data, the benefits are estimated to be circa £5.3 million against an infrastructure investment of £0.86 million. Safety benefits are normally calculated when all schemes have 60 months of after data. The benefits stated above focus on the value of preventing recorded injury collisions and do not include the value to the economy of preventing congestion; increases in sustainable travel; or other supplementary scheme benefits. Non-infrastructure schemes cannot be monitored in this way and are subject to other methods of evaluation by the respective GM lead delivery organisation. The lead delivery partner is responsible for more detailed individual scheme monitoring. A list of schemes and descriptions can be found below.
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 8 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 64
GMCRP Scheme Name Description Lead Partner Contrib. £’000 Plodder Lane / Glynne Street, Route safety scheme linked to maintenance Route Bolton 125 work. Management Scheme Mass Action (Vehicle- Activated Sign) Vehicle Activated Signs at KSI hotspots. Bury 40 Scheme Safe Drive Stay This project focuses on young drivers and GM Fire & Alive passengers (17-25 year olds) through an 61 Rescue opportunity to attend half-day events. Operation Focuses on cycling hotspots on arterial Considerate routes in Manchester to encourage GMP 36 motorists and cyclists to share the road more considerately. Portland St pedestrian safety This project is linked to the Regional Centre Proposals for Cross City Bus Scheme on improvement Manchester 200 package. Portland Street - additional pedestrian improvements.
Safety Improvements for pedestrians Pedestrians and cyclist improvements on St and cyclists - St Oldham 91 Mary's Way. Mary's Way, Oldham Town Centre Townhead Junction Alterations to the Townhead junction as part Rochdale 50 Improvements of Rochdale Town Centre improvements.
Councillor Lane Puffin Crossing Safety Improvements to existing Puffin crossing. Stockport 41 Improvements
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 9 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 65
GMCRP Scheme Name Description Lead Partner Contrib. £’000 B6194 Whiteacre Road / Curzon Road New traffic signals. Tameside 151
Safe Urban Driving –Goods Practical and classroom-based course for Vehicles / Cyclist TfGM 15 Awareness construction and goods vehicle drivers.
A56 / Davyhulme Junction upgrade including a new Toucan Road East crossing, upgrade of existing crossing to Trafford 100 Junction Toucan. Upgrade Kitt Green Community Safety improvements to Kitt Green Road Casualty including enhanced pedestrian crossing Wigan 100 Reduction locations. Project 1010
2015/2016 Legacy schemes approved during 2015/16 for implementation from 2016/17 now have between 14 and 29 months (on average 23 months) of post-implementation recorded injury collision data. Based on the available data, the benefits of implementation are estimated to be circa £3.1 million against an infrastructure investment of £0.78 million for infrastructure schemes complete and where monitoring data is available. Safety benefits are normally calculated when all schemes have 60 months of after data. The benefits stated above focus on the value of preventing recorded injury collisions and do not include the value to the economy of preventing congestion; increases in sustainable travel; or other supplementary scheme benefits. Non-infrastructure schemes cannot be monitored in this way and are subject to other methods of evaluation by the respective GM lead delivery organisation.
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 10 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 66
The lead delivery partner is responsible for more detailed individual scheme monitoring. A list of schemes and descriptions can be found below.
GMCRP Name Description Lead Partner Contrib. £’000 Route scheme linked to planned Bradford Street Bolton 80 maintenance. Kingsway/ Signing, lining and surface improvements to Manchester 84.5 Moseley Road roundabout approaches. Mass action aimed at 4 Improving skid resistance and addressing Manchester 37.4 collision hotspot poor lane discipline / lane changing. sites
Traffic calming, vehicle activated signs and Copsterhill Road Oldham 95 pedestrian improvements.
Manchester Old Road marking & signing scheme over 1km Rochdale 41.3 Road route. Road marking, parking rationalisation, Albert Royds St Rochdale 52 pedestrian refuge and cycle facility. Formal vehicle hard standings and parking spaces to enable enforcement of offences including: Seat belts and mobile phones Formal vehicle along key routes; and speed enforcement at Rochdale 60 hard standings existing locations where there are parking or access issues for GMP safety camera technicians. Purchase of folding bicycles and helmets to Cycle Training enable Bikeability training for children Salford 4.7 Resources without bicycles. Car Seat Fitting Training of staff to undertake fitting clinics Salford 3.5 Clinic across Salford. Theatre in 20 sessions aimed at independent travel for Salford 8.5 Education (TiE) transition years 6 & 7. Hulme Hall Road and Claremont Cycle and pedestrian safety improvements. Stockport 84 Road
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 11 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 67
GMCRP Name Description Lead Partner Contrib. £’000 Route improvement along Sandy Lane / Dukinfield Clarence Street, including new traffic Tameside 160 Corridor signals. Adult Cycle Training, including Adult Cycle publicity/promotion and Metrolink / cycling TfGM 70 Training element (2016/17 and 2017/18). Identification of high priority sites affected Traffic Signal by red-light running. Purchase of Monitoring and monitoring equipment to identify and TfGM 50 Review measure red-light running issues and identify potential improvements. Wellington Road Proposed double mini roundabout to / Woodlands address failure to give way / junction Trafford 97.5 Parkway overshoot Publicity and theatre in education campaign Urban aimed at child pedestrian issues including Wigan 26 Camouflage pedestrian conspicuity. Campaign targeting 17-25 year olds, Rush Hour of Life Wigan 37 including at key locations in Wigan. 991.4
2016/2017 Legacy schemes approved during 2016/17 for implementation from 2017/18 now have between 11 and 22 months (on average 17 months) of post-implementation recorded injury collision data. Based on the available data, the benefits of implementation are estimated to be circa £1.85 million against an infrastructure investment of £0.58 million. Safety benefits are normally calculated when all schemes have 60 months of after data. The benefits stated above focus on the value of preventing recorded injury collisions and do not include the value to the economy of preventing congestion; increases in sustainable travel; or other supplementary scheme benefits. Non-infrastructure schemes cannot be monitored in this way and are subject to other methods of evaluation by the respective GM lead delivery organisation. The lead delivery partner is responsible for more detailed individual scheme monitoring. A list of schemes and descriptions can be found below.
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 12 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 68
GMCRP Name Description Lead Partner Contrib. £’000 Mass Action Mass Action Vehicle-Activated Signing; and Vehicle-Activated Advisory 20mph Speed Limits at two school Bury 35 Signing crossing patrol locations Whitefield Whitefield remedial measures and school remedial Bury 27 parking enforcement measures
A34 Kingsway Manchester 70 New safety camera housings
A627 Ashton Road / Honeywell Pedestrian Improvement Scheme Oldham 50 Lane / Hollins Road junction Glodwick Road (Waterloo St to Pedestrian Improvement Scheme Glodwick Oldham 32 Roundthorn Road (Waterloo Street to Roundthorn Road) Road)
Howard Street Howard Street Nursery Road Safety Rochdale 20 Nursery Improvements
Albert Road / Pedestrian facilities upgrade Salford 100 Wellington Road
Ashton Road and Crookilley Way Vehicle Restraint System (VRS) and Speed Stockport 89 Link Road / Limit Reduction Roundabout Safer Older Safer Older Drivers' Course Stockport 30 Drivers' Course
Walk to School Walk to School Project supported by Living TfGM 50 Project Streets
Henrietta Street Safety Improvements on and around Tameside 82 Area Henrietta Street
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 13 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 69
GMCRP Name Description Lead Partner Contrib. £’000 Kings Road / Upper Chorlton Road junction improvements for cyclist safety. Kings Road / *Incorporated within the wider Chorlton Upper Chorlton Trafford 0 Cycleway scheme that was developed after Road* the road safety scheme was approved – funding not required. Sevenways Sevenways Roundabout Safety Trafford 102 Roundabout Improvements Road Safety Exhibition vehicle to support events in Wigan 51 Roadshow Wigan and elsewhere in GM where available to Partners Theatre in Theatre in Education Tours Wigan 16 Education Tours 754
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 14 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 70
Appendix B – GM level revenue funded road safety activities
Below is an overview of current initiatives and interventions being delivered at a Greater Manchester level.
1. Safe Drive Stay Alive (funded by SRGM)– a Partnership project between GM Fire & Rescue Service (GMFRS) , GMP, North West Ambulance Service, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust and HMP Forest Bank.
The project provides the opportunity for young people to attend an emotionally engaging half day performance where they watch a series of short, emotive films and live speakers from the emergency services and presentations from members of families whose lives have been affected by a serious road traffic collision. The aim of the project is to reduce the risk of the number of young people killed or seriously injured on GM roads as this group is overrepresented.
Current status: Annual performances are delivered to circa 12,000 students. Due to the impact of COVID-19, the November performances have been provisionally rescheduled to March/April 2021, therefore enabling students in the same academic year to attend. If there is continued uncertainty regarding COVID-19 the SDSA team are preparing to provide recorded virtual performances to all colleges as a contingency.
2. Safer Roads GM publicity calendar led by TfGM.
SRGM publicity calendar including via Social Media; online advertising; radio; bus backs; newspaper; and engagement programmes aligned with the National Police and Fire / DfT calendars for Safer Roads. Themes include Think Bike / Think Biker; Drink and Drug Drive; and sharing the road with pedestrians and cyclists etc. The calendar is designed to raise awareness and understanding of risks, using trends and geodemographic data to select various media channels.
Current status - TfGM Safer Roads and Marketing are currently working on a 6 month campaign and will seek approval through the TfGM Campaigns, Partnership and Activations (CPA) ‘Front Door’ process requesting consideration for recommencement from December 2020 on.
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 15 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 71
3. GMP Operation Considerate
GMP Operation Considerate– continuing GMP operations focusing activity on vehicle offences i.e. No seatbelt, using mobile phone, no insurance, window tints, drink/drug driving and Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) defect prohibitions; or taxi licensing issues. Activities seek to increase the perception of detection and, where appropriate, aligns with the national or SRGM publicity calendars. Prioritisation of GMP deployment makes use of a TfGM Safer Roads developed intelligence dashboards.
Current status – Recent activity included ‘One Road One Week’ campaign between 14-18 September 2020. The aim of the campaign is to identify the highest road harm route in GM as the focus for a week of activity. From analysis based on fatal statistics this was identified as the A56 in its entirety within GM. Enforcement activity was also coordinated in conjunction with the national level Project EDWARD (Every Day Without A Road Death).
4. Research into the Root Cause of Fatal Collisions
Fatal Road Traffic Collisions in Greater Manchester – An In-Depth Study into the Root Cause of Fatal Road Traffic Collisions is a study that has been commissioned by Safer Roads Greater Manchester (SRGM) and delivered by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) with the support and endorsement of Greater Manchester Police (GMP). The principle aims of the project are to determine the root cause and factors of Fatal Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs) on the roads of Greater Manchester and possible countermeasures to help reduce or prevent the number of fatalities and collisions in the future.
Current status: Data collection at GMP premises was suspended due to COVID-19. Case file data collection resumed at the end of August 2020. The next steps are for GMP to retrieve and anonymise driver conviction information. TfGM Surveys Research Analysis and Data (SRAD) are currently reviewing timescales and logistics for completion of the draft report and Partner stakeholder events.
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 16 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 72
5. GMP BikeSafe
BikeSafe (part funded by SRGM and GMP) - 'BikeSafe' is a National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) led, motorcyclist advisory, assessment and referral scheme contributing to reduced risk of motorcycling injuries. BikeSafe workshops involve classroom sessions to identify areas of attitudinal and road risk; and teach coping strategies used by emergency service motorcyclists to reduce those risks. A client's riding is observed, resulting in development advice; an industry recognised development form; and referral, wherever possible, to accredited training providers. BikeSafe has been developed and implemented to improve motorcyclists’ riding behaviour, awareness of safer motorcycling and the benefits of accredited training.
Current status: The GMFRS community rooms used for BikeSafe are to remain closed until the end of the year. Other training rooms have been sourced but are not suitable for use within current COVID-19 guidelines. This is periodically reviewed by GMP.
6. Safer Driving for Longer (SDfL), TfGM DriveSafe
Safer Driving for Longer (SDfL) courses delivered by TfGM DriveSafe focus on an ageing population and the potential for increased injury severity due to age related frailty. The scheme will help improve road safety for all road users through education and awareness with an assessment; and promotion of sustainable travel alternatives to driving.
Following on from SDfL courses, the Safe Driving Seminar was developed. The seminar, for drivers aged 60+, will be in the format of guest speakers; topics; and discussion points etc. from a variety of the SRGM Partners including GMFRS, Highways England, GMP, TfGM etc. Speakers will offer advice on driving – including Smart Motorways, health and wellbeing; alternatives to driving; and more. Following visits to other partnership areas to share experience, a revised format Safer Driving Seminar was due to launch in April 2020
Current status: On-road training courses are intended to resume after NDORS classroom based courses have resumed. This is due to the current COVID-19 situation. Safe Driving Seminar delivery is reviewed periodically in conjunction with the current COVID-19 situation due to the number of people attending aged 60+.
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 17 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 73
7. 2 Wheels Greater Manchester
2 Wheels Greater Manchester or ‘2 Wheels’ is a motorcycle safety programme that engages with commuter and gig economy riders via their employers. The initiative will also give access to a wide assortment of online educational resources via the 2 Wheels toolkit, with online blogs and direct communications written specifically to engage riders and employers. There is a greater emphasis on riders of lower capacity engine bikes who don’t necessarily see themselves as ‘bikers’ or members of a ‘biking community’ but use their bike as a means of commuting or earning a living; e.g. part of the gig economy. Reaching this elusive target audience through their employers helps with engagement. The initiative also engages with all riders with key safety messages.
Current status: Launch has been delayed due to COVID-19 but work on this has resumed and this new initiative is due to launch during Autumn 2020.
GMTC 20201009 Impact of Road Safety Schemes v0.12 18 01/10/2020 13:49
Page 74 Agenda Item 10
ITEM NO
GREATER MANCHESTER TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Date: 9 October 2020
Subject: Cycling and walking update and forward look report
Report of: Richard Nickson – Programme Director (Cycling and Walking)
PURPOSE OF REPORT
To provide an update on GM cycling and walking activities over the last 12 months and to set out key actions up to December 2021.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The GMTC is requested to:
1. Note the progress that has taken place over the last 12 months against the 15 Made to Move steps 2. Note the priorities that have been identified to take forward over the next 12 months 3. Note the infrastructure, by Local Authorities that will be delivered by December 2021.
CONTACT OFFICERS:
Richard Nickson – Programme Director (Cycling and Walking) – [email protected]
Equalities Implications:
All temporary and permanent infrastructure will be fully inclusive in its design and development, with the proactive involvement of organisations such as the Disability Design Reference Group (DDRG).
Climate Change Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures –
All of the updates and actions in this report relate to reducing carbon emissions and improving air quality as they focus on enabling more people to travel on foot or by bike for everyday journeys.
Risk Management:
Page 75
The actions detailed in this report will directly support delivery of Made to Move’s 15 steps. In relation to infrastructure, a programme risk register is maintained and updated by the TfGM MCF programme team. Legal Considerations: Legal Delivery Agreements and legal side-letters will be produced and implemented for full scheme and development cost approvals as appropriate. Financial Consequences – Revenue: Not applicable Financial Consequences – Capital: Not applicable
Number of attachments to the report:
There are two attachments.
Appendix A lists the metrics used to monitor the programme. Appendix B lists an overview, by district, of schemes delivered in the last 12 months and schemes that will be completed by December 2021
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
December 2017 - Made to Move – December 2017 June 2018 - Beelines (renamed Bee Network) 29 March 2018 – Transforming Cities Fund report to GMCA 25 May 2018 – Cycling & Walking Update 29 June 2018 – Transforming Cities Fund report to GMCA 27 July 2018 – Transforming Cities Fund report to GMCA 8 September 2018 – Mayor’s Cycling & Walking Challenge Fund 29 March 2019 – Mayor’s Cycling & Walking Challenge Fund 28 June 2019 – Mayor’s Cycling & Walking Challenge Fund November 2019 – Change a Region to Change a Nation 29 November 2019 - Mayor’s Cycling & Walking Challenge Fund 5 May 2020 – Mayor’s Challenge Fund Update and Prioritisation 26 June 2020 – Mayor’s Challenge Fund Cycling and Walking Financial Approvals 31 July 2020 – Mayor’s Challenge Fund Cycling and Walking Financial Approvals 2 September 2020 – Mayor’s Challenge Fund Cycling and Walking Financial Approvals TRACKING/PROCESS [All sections to be completed] Does this report relate to a major strategic decision, as set out in the No GMCA Constitution
EXEMPTION FROM CALL IN
Page 76
Are there any aspects in this report which No means it should be considered to be exempt from call in by the relevant Scrutiny Committee on the grounds of urgency? GM Transport Committee Overview & Scrutiny Committee [Date considered at GM [Date considered by the Transport Cttee if appropriate] relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee]
1. COMMISSIONER’S FOREWORD
1.1. It is now three years since the recommendations in Made to Move were approved by the GMCA. I am immensely proud of what has been achieved working alongside Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and Greater Manchester’s 10 local authorities.
1.2. Our plans to deliver the UK’s largest ever walking and cycling network - the Bee Network - are now coming to fruition. The groundwork has now been laid for building programme throughout 2021 with 26 new routes or junction upgrades, creating 55 miles of world class ‘Beeways’ – our name for walking and cycling routes that give people the protected space they need to get from A to B on foot or by bike. Early 2021 will also see the launch of Phase One of our GM bike hire scheme with a 1,500 strong initial fleet, including e-bikes.
1.3. This is an immensely exciting time to be involved in active travel. One silver lining to the Coronavirus pandemic is that it has made thousands of people fall back in love with the idea of leaving their cars at home, making every-day trips healthier, more pleasant and safer for everyone. The government’s recent Gear Change announcement is unprecedented and should pave the way for Greater Manchester to realise its ambition to become a true cycling and walking city region.
1.4. Progress has accelerated following the appointment in January 2020 by TfGM of Dr. Richard Nickson as Programme Director for cycling and walking. His role is to direct the largest single investment in transport in GM and to ensure the successful integration of active travel into the wider Our Network vision.
Chris Boardman Greater Manchester’s Cycling and Walking Commissioner
Page 77
2. THE FIVE PILLARS
2.1. January 2020 saw the start of a new approach to take forward the action plan that will result in the successful delivery of GM’s ambition. To enable progress on cycling and walking to be better understood and effectively tracked, Made to Move’s 15 actions have been split into five ‘pillars’.
2.2. The pillars are:
1. Strategy 2. Infrastructure 3. Access to active travel 4. Safety and technical policy 5. Activation
This update report has been structured in this way to provide a broad look at the key achievements of the last 12 months and what the priority actions are planned up to December 2021.
3. STRATEGY
3.1. Since the publication of Bee Network infrastructure proposal in June 2018, the 10 GM local authorities and TfGM have made significant progress in developing an infrastructure network plan and a pipeline of schemes to deliver the Bee Network. In total the 1,800 mile Bee Network, which would connect every neighbourhood of GM, will cost £1.5 billion and needs to be delivered by 2028 to meet the 10-year timescale in Made to Move.
3.2. Change a Region to Change a Nation, Greater Manchester’s walking and cycling investment plan, published in January 2020, sets out the programme’s priorities to the government and how it helps to deliver the Our Network vision. This included the £500m of infrastructure schemes which would deliver 420 miles of the network is currently being delivered or developed, of which a further £215m funding is required.
3.3. In July 2020 the Prime Minister launched ‘Gear Change: a bold vision for a travel revolution in England’s streets, towns and communities,’ backed by a £2 billion funding commitment, a revision of the Highway Code and a new cycling infrastructure design guide. Details of how this funding will be distributed is expected to be announced after the next fiscal event.
3.4. TfGM is also now working on an update of its five-year plan in relation to the 2040 strategy, of which active travel forms an integral part. Early next year, a Streets for All strategy will also be published by TfGM, including the outcome of the orbital corridor studies that were commissioned.
3.5. The response to Covid-19 has accelerated interest in and investment available, for active travel to help the work on ensuring we Build Back Better and to support Safely Reopening Page 78
GM. GM residents have told us in surveys that they want to walk and cycle more as a result of the lockdown and GM has been able to secure further investment to rapidly install pop- up protected space on roads, while also supporting public transport, to assist people get about without cars.
3.6. March 2020 onwards saw a significant rise in the numbers of people cycling for short journeys in response to the nationwide lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic (see graph 1). Greater Manchester residents took to their bikes in large numbers almost double pre-lockdown levels, with up to 250,000 trips in a single day. At the same time, all other modes reduced the number of trips between 80% and 95%. During August there was a return to typical levels of cycling trips at this time of year although there are signs of strong growth again in recent weeks
3.7. TfGM’s Covid Recovery Survey, revealed that three in ten respondents said they found walking and cycling a good way to get around during lockdown; a fifth said they feel safer walking and cycling, due to less traffic in their area; nearly half claimed that the experience of walking and cycling during lockdown will prompt them to do so more often as restrictions ease; and one in ten also said they’ve either recently bought or are considering buying a bike.
3.8. The week ending Sunday 20 September 2020 (table 1) saw an additional estimated 1.5 million trips on the GM transport network. This increase in trips was driven by an increase in active travel with the largest contribution in terms of trip number coming from walking, followed by cycling. Cycle activity was an estimated 15% up and walking activity was an estimated 11% up.
Page 79
Main Mode Typical Week Week ending Sun Change 20 Sep Estimated Trips % Estimated Trips % Highway 34,841,000 67% 30,725,000 67% -12% Walk 10,438,000 20% 11,365,000 25% 9% Bus 3,581,000 7% 2,312,000 5% -35% Bicycle 857,000 2% 982,000 2% 15% Train 1,121,000 2% 431,000 1% -62% Metrolink 849,000 2% 339,000 1% -60% Total 51,687,000 46,153,000 -11% Table 1: Main mode estimated trips
3.9. Localised data shows that where investment has been made in safer infrastructure it is showing strong growth. On the Bridgewater Canal, workday cycle volumes during September are 13% above the average for August. During the period 07:00 to 09:00 they are 56% above the same period in August. There has been week on week growth in cycling activity on the Oxford Road corridor with average work day volumes for September to date 28% above average work day volumes during August.
Graph 2
3.10. Based on three-year rolling average data from the Greater Manchester Travel Diary Survey, in the past four years, cycling trips made by Greater Manchester residents have increased by 46% whilst walking trips have increased by 8%. This compares with an increase in trips by all modes of around 1% (graph 2). Page 80
3.12. To help ensure our approach remains insight-led, Transport for Greater Manchester has developed a monitoring and evaluation plan for Greater Manchester’s investment in walking and cycling. This will track progress across the whole city region on key metrics including infrastructure delivery, cycling and walking levels, attitudes and perceptions, and key safety metrics. APPENDIX A lists the key metrics that will be tracked. Scheme-level evaluation will also be used to measure the success of specific interventions at a local level.
4. INFRASTRUCTURE
Building the Bee Network
4.1. The creation of the UK’s largest cycling and walking network – the Bee Network – will address the principle barrier to active travel which is a lack of safe space on the road, enabling millions more daily journeys to be made on foot or by bike.
4.2. Key projects completed in the last 12 months include the Bridgewater Canal Improvement scheme in Wigan, and the GM designed Cycle Optimised Protected Signals (CYCLOPS) junction which maximises the opportunities for safe cycling and walking whilst optimising the overall junction performance for all transport modes at Royce Road, part of Manchester’s Chorlton beeway. The new cycling and walking routes across the Princess Road / Mancunian Way roundabout in Hulme are nearing completion.
4.3. Delivery of Bee Network walking and cycling routes is set to rapidly increase in 2021 with local authorities entering a very busy time. See Fig 1.
The infrastructure that will be delivered by December 2021 (both permanent and pop-up)
Page 81
4.4. Over 2021, a further 26 cycling and walking routes or junction upgrades will be delivered across Greater Manchester, delivering 55 miles of new, high-quality routes.
4.5. Over £20m of scheme approvals have been granted to date with a further £95 million expected to be approved over the next six months. This follows useful feedback and lessons learned from the programme to date which are intended to speed up the approvals process.
4.6. Planned Bee Network scheme delivery by financial year (to 2023):
By April 2021: 4 miles By April 2022: 88 miles By April 2023: 126 miles
4.7. APPENDIX B includes a district-by-district breakdown of scheme progress.
4.8. Several schemes are GM-wide and are managed by TfGM in collaboration with GM councils. This includes the GM wide Active Neighbourhoods scheme – the delivery of low- traffic neighbourhoods - is being progressed by commissioning a specialist resource to develop one active neighbourhood in each district by trialling innovative, community-led approaches to scheme design. Engagement work will start in Autumn 2020. This will complement the other 12 district-led Active Neighbourhoods that have programme entry - including Salford, who over the summer started the first Active Neighbourhood trials in Greater Manchester in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
4.9. The GM Bee Network Crossings Programme will deliver safe crossings for people walking and cycling to connect quieter roads as part of the Bee Network. The first phase of the programme will deliver 18 crossings in Bury and the Harpurhey area of Manchester. Consultation has been completed for the crossings in Bury and construction is due to start in the Autumn. The public consultation will commence in October with construction planned for early in the new year. Discussions have been had with all other eight districts and the proposed crossings locations have been put forward. This project will have a rolling programme of works with the design phase for the next tranche of crossings to commence in the coming weeks and delivery to follow after the work in Manchester has been completed. This is a TfGM led scheme with our internal team undertaking the design work.
4.10. Pop up walking and cycling facilities
4.11. In April 2020, as part of GM’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, £5m was made available for local authorities from the Mayor’s Cycling and Walking Challenge Fund to make it easier and safer to walk and cycle to aid social distancing and to give people an alternative to driving while public transport is limited. This was delivered as part of the Safe Streets Save Lives Campaign.
4.12. GM was also successful in receiving £3.1 million funding (tranche 1) from the Government’s Emergency Active Travel Fund. The Fund made £250m available to local
Page 82
authorities in England to reallocate road space to walking and cycling quickly using pop-up measures such as point closure, cycle lanes and filtered neighbourhoods.
4.13. Dependent on a final funding settlement announcement (tranche 2) from national government, which is expected imminently, GM intends to deliver a total of 49 miles of pop-up walking and cycling routes.
4.14. Pop-up walking and cycling routes to be delivered
Tranche 1: 25 miles Tranche 2 (Town Centres): 18 miles Tranche 2 (Regional Centre): 6 miles
4.15. Key pop up lanes already in place or underway include the A56 in Trafford and the A635 in Tameside as well as Liverpool Street in Salford. Pop-up low traffic neighbourhoods are also being put in in Trafford Manchester, Bolton and Salford.
Photo: Pop-up measures in Manchester, Trafford, Bolton and Salford
Page 83
4.16. The pop-up facilities have already delivered significant increases in use. Traffic counts on Trafford Council’s scheme on the A56 recorded increases of 200% in levels of cycling. Data from the AI sensor adjacent to the pop-up lanes on Deansgate show that, from 1 August 2020, cycling has been 63% above the same period in 2019.
5. ACCESS TO ACTIVE TRAVEL
5.1. Safe space on the road is just one part of providing a comprehensive offer to enable active travel as part of an integrated GM transport system. A lack of the right equipment, skills or confidence can also be a barrier. Access to a good quality bike is another. Only 26% of GM households have access to a bike and this drops to just 16% for those living in flats.
5.2. Therefore, during the height of the pandemic, following unprecedented levels of enquiries, TfGM made 450 loan bikes available to NHS workers so they could continue to do their vital work. Work is underway to understand how we can best improve access to bikes across a range of audiences in GM with further investment.
5.3. The GM Bike Hire project has made good progress and is on track to launch phase 1 the scheme in the Regional Centre in Spring 2021 with an initial fleet of 1,500 bikes, including e-bikes. Docking locations will be within a five-minute walk of around 100,000 households, providing convenient and affordable access to bikes. Subsequent phases will see the scheme expand to the rest of GM. A formal Invitation to Tender has now been issued with four operators in the running.
5.4. GM Walking is an information hub and helps to deliver the walking elements of GM Moving. In collaboration with Greater Manchester Centre for Voluntary Organisations, a total of £225,000 in grants to voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations to support increased walking. It will also deliver the first virtual festival, the Let’s Walk Fest, which will allow people to take part in walking events while Covid restrictions are in place will run from the 12th to the 25th October 2020. Last year’s festival delivered saw 5,864 people taking part across the 429 activities. The Greater Manchester Way also launched in August 2020 and will continue through the autumn our campaign to bring stories, poetry and colour to the streets of Greater Manchester to encourage people to walk (see photo).
Page 84
Photo: Greater Manchester Way poster
5.5. In August 2020, TfGM announced that it had been awarded a £1 million grant from the London Marathon Charity Trust to inspire people across Greater Manchester to walk or cycle more with a particular focus on BAME communities, women and children. The project will work with 10,000 people in schools and community organisations to increase levels of physical activity through active travel by delivering skills sessions, providing new equipment, delivering group rides and running inspirational event in communities across GM.
5.6. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the TfGM cycle training programme was suspended from March to June but since re-starting demand for 1-2-1 and family sessions has been unprecedented with a 400% increase year on year.
6. SAFETY AND TECHNICAL POLICY
6.1. The perception of safety is an important measure for cycling take-up, as seen with an increase in the propensity to cycle during the lockdown. TfGM measures this every two years. The latest data reveals that only 31% of GM residents agree that “Greater Manchester’s transport network encourages you to walk or cycle as part of your trips”. Satisfaction of people who walk with feeling safe from traffic during the day is 75% and this drops to just 51% of people who cycle. These metrics need improving to meet our transport targets.
6.2. People walking and cycling in Greater Manchester are exposed to a greater level of risk of fatal and serious injury than people in cars and vans. The total distance walked and cycled in GM each year is approximately 7% of the total distance travelled on the road yet make up on average 50% of fatal and serious injuries. Reducing the real and perceived risk is vital to meeting targets to increase levels of active travel.
Page 85
6.3. The latest killed and serious injury (KSI) data shows little progress in recent years to reduce the numbers of people killed and seriously injured on GM’s roads (table 2). Early KSI data during the lockdown has shown a concerning increase in serious injury although this data is still to be validated. The intention is to publish a rate-based figure for active travel which takes into account the level of exposure, however before this is done, improvements still need to be made about the reliability of capturing the total distance travelled.
Table 2: Number of people killed and seriously injured on GM roads by mode
6.4. Removing the source of danger is the only way of reducing risk while also increasing levels of active travel. Greater Manchester’s Streets for All design guide – a manual for how streets should be designed - will soon be published in a series of chapters starting early in 2021. The aim of the document is to ensure a more consistent approach to highway design across GM and to ensure that minimum standards are met for all schemes where people walk and cycle.
6.5. The design guide will cater for all modes of transport and will focus on raising the level of service and ensuring critical collision risks are removed. It will also develop place centred design so people have the confidence to be able to relax and rest outside, which can help promote good mental health and is more sensitive for people with dementia.
Photos: Example of recent highway schemes in Bolton and Manchester that have incorporated Bee Network standards from non-active travel funding
Page 86
6.6. A priority for the programme is to improve safety for pedestrians. The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) were commissioned by Transport for Greater Manchester to do a trial of its side-road Zebras proposal in November 2019. The proposal is a to use cost effective treatment for side roads giving pedestrians greater priority using road markings only, an approach that is already used in most European cities. Due to the impact of coronavirus, the study has been delayed but it is hoped that TRL will report in December 2020. Early results from the study show a good level of public understanding of the use of zebra markings at side roads.
6.7. Reducing the risk of collision near new cycling and walking schemes is vital to persuade more trips so safety cameras will be prioritised on assets that are linked to the Bee Network to enhance safety and support growth in cycling and walking. Work to draft the outline business case for the upgrade GM of safety camera housings has begun. Subject to approval and procurement, this project will upgrade older local authority safety camera technology with the latest digital cameras; and provide an opportunity to future proof equipment using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) based platforms where appropriate.
6.8. TfGM is working on joint responses with GM local authorities to the government’s pavement parking and Highway Code consultations. Both consultation focussing on bringing benefits to pedestrians by keeping pavements clear of parked vehicles and enhancing priority at junctions. Both consultations appear to support approaches already being taken by GM, but further work will be required to review the impact these proposals have prior to making a response.
7. ACTIVATION
7.1. Work is underway to create a GM-wide one stop shop for cycling and walking activity. Possibly hosted on TfGM’s website in partnership with GM’s 10 districts and GM Moving, the web platform will inspire people to travel on foot and by bike, inform them about what is happening where they live and work and will also be a practical tool to book activities like cycle training or respond to a local consultation. The new web platform will be launched this winter.
7.2. In September 2020, TfGM partnered with Love to Ride - an online intervention aimed at inspiring people to cycle more.
7.3. Love to Ride uses registration information to deliver bespoke messages of encouragement to individuals and businesses, amplified by incentives and prizes for participation and personal/organisational achievement.
7.4. To date, more than 160 GM organisations and businesses have logged cycle rides, with more than 2,000 individuals registering to take part, including occasional and new/returning cyclists. One of the local businesses Cycle Champions, Andy Wilson, Carbon Literacy Consultant, Great Places Housing Group has fed back: “I can't get enough of Love to ride - it's such a powerful engagement tool for organisations to get more people in the
Page 87
saddle. For better or worse, internal and external competition is a proven way to motivate people to getting involved.”
7.5. Safe Streets Save Lives campaign is a marketing and communications approach to support all GM local authorities to communicate why emergency active measures are needed in helping to support those with no access to a car and easing the pressure on the public transport system at a time of social distancing. The campaign is also enabling local authorities to talk about promoting active modes more broadly and the wider benefits this delivers and enables.
7.6 The campaign is being delivered under the umbrella of one shared identity across GM but tailored locally to the specific locality using a flexible, adaptable suite of resources to be used on social media and printed, ‘on site’ messaging to sit alongside the temporary measures.
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A: Monitoring and evaluation plan
APPENDIX B: A tabular breakdown of district progress on business case/scheme development / scheme delivery against the approved (prioritised) investment plan, including TfGM led elements
Page 88
Appendix A
Proposed metrics to track the progress of the delivery of Greater Manchester's walking and cycling ambitions - draft
Outputs Bee Network Delivery
Km of route delivered [potential to split by Beeway and Busy Beeway - TBC] Number of crossings delivered Areas unlocked [to be measured by quantity of areas, km2 or residential population living within each area - TBC what is feasible] Green infrastructure delivered through MCF [TBC whether this is feasible]
Bike Hire
Number of bikes available Number of docking stations Availability of bikes GM population with access to public bike hire [total number of residents, or proportion of the population - TBC, and feasibility TBC]
Outcomes and Impacts Travel behaviour - trip volumes, kilometres walked and cycled, and mode share by trip distance and overall
Total annual cycle trips Total annual walk trips
Total annual multi-modal trips which include a walk or cycle stage
Total annual car trips (driver and passenger) - for context Total annual public transport trips (bus, tram, train) - for context
Total annual cycle km Total annual walking km
Total annual car km (driver and passenger) - for context Total annual public transport km (bus, tram, train) - for context
Number of cycle trips per person per year Number of walk trips per person per year
Number of car trips (driver or passenger) per person per year - for context Number of public transport trips (bus, tram, train) per person per year - for context
Page 89
Cycling as a proportion of all trips up to 1km Cycling as a proportion of all trips up to 2km Cycling as a proportion of all trips up to 5km Cycling as a proportion of all trips up to 10km Cycling as a proportion of all trips (all lengths)
Walking as a proportion of all trips up to 1km Walking as a proportion of all trips up to 2km Walking as a proportion of all trips up to 5km Walking as a proportion of all trips (all lengths)
Multi-modal trips which include a walk or cycle leg as a proportion of all trips
Car use (driver and passenger) as a proportion of all trips up to 1km - for context Car use (driver and passenger) as a proportion of all trips up to 2km - for context Car use (driver and passenger) as a proportion of all trips up to 5km - for context Car use (driver and passenger) as a proportion of all trips up to 10km - for context Car use (driver and passenger) as a proportion of all trips - for context
Public transport use (bus, tram, train) as a proportion of all trips up to 1km - for context Public transport use (bus, tram, train) as a proportion of all trips up to 2km - for context Public transport use (bus, tram, train) as a proportion of all trips up to 5km - for context Public transport use (bus, tram, train) as a proportion of all trips up to 10km - for context Public transport use (bus, tram, train) as a proportion of all trips for context
Proportion of people who walk to places in their neighbourhood Proportion of people who cycle to places in their neighbourhood
Travel behaviour - travel to work and education
Proportion of residents who cycle as their main mode of transport to work Proportion of residents who walk as their main mode of transport to work
Proportion of residents who cycle as their main mode of transport to education Proportion of residents who walk as their main mode of transport to education
Demographics
Proportion of women who cycle at least once a year Proportion of men who cycle at least once a year Proportion of children who cycle at least once a year Proportion of people with a disability who cycle at least once a year
Proportion of women who cycle at least once a week Proportion of men who cycle at least once a week Proportion of children who cycle at least once a week Proportion of people with a disability who cycle at least once a week
Page 90
Age split of people cycling at least once a year Age split of people cycling at least once a week
Proportion of women who walk at least once a year Proportion of men who walk at least once a year Proportion of children who walk at least once a year Proportion of people with a disability who walk at least once a year
Proportion of women who walk at least once a week Proportion of men who walk at least once a week Proportion of children who walk at least once a week Proportion of people with a disability who walk at least once a week
Age split of people cycling at least once a year Age split of people cycling at least once a week
Proportion of trips made with an under 5 travelling on foot Proportion of trips made with an under 5 travelling by bike
Access to bikes
Proportion of Greater Manchester households with access to a bike
Safety - number of casualties, and risk per km travelled
Number of people killed or seriously injured (KSIs) per annum (all modes) Number of people killed cycling Number of people killed or seriously injured cycling Number of people injured cycling (all severities of injury) Number of people killed walking Number of people killed or seriously injured walking Number of people injured walking (all severities of injury) Number of children (aged 14 or under) killed or seriously injured on the roads in GM
Estimated risk: KSI rate per million km (cycling) Estimated risk: KSI rate per million km (walking)
Health
Proportion of the GM population walking or cycling for transport at least 20 mins a day Proportion of the GM population walking for travel at least twice in the last 28 days Proportion of the GM population walking for leisure at least twice in the last 28 days Proportion of the GM population walking at least twice in the last 28 days (all walking) Proportion of the GM population walking for travel in the last year Proportion of the GM population walking for leisure in the last year Proportion of the GM population walking in the last year (all walking)
Page 91
Proportion of the GM population cycling for travel at least twice in the last 28 days Proportion of the GM population cycling for leisure at least twice in the last 28 days Proportion of the GM population cycling for leisure and sport at least twice in the last 28 days All cycling at least twice in the last 28 days Proportion of the GM population cycling (excluding exercise bike and cycle class) at least twice in the last 28 days Proportion of the GM population cycling for travel in the last year Proportion of the GM population cycling for leisure in the last year Proportion of the GM population cycling for leisure and sport in the last year Proportion of the GM population cycling in the last year (all cycling) Proportion of the GM population cycling in the last year (excluding exercise bike and cycle class)
[Above list to be refined following further discussion]
Perceptions
Proportion of people who agree that “Greater Manchester’s transport network encourages you to walk or cycle as part of your trips” Satisfaction of people who walk with feeling safe from traffic during the day Satisfaction of people who walk with feeling safe from traffic at night Satisfaction of people who cycle with feeling safe from traffic during the day Satisfaction of people who cycle with feeling safe from traffic at night Satisfaction of people who walk with personal safety during the day Satisfaction of people who walk with personal safety at night Satisfaction of people who cycle with personal safety during the day Satisfaction of people who cycle with personal safety at night Satisfaction of people who cycle with the availability of secure cycle parking Proportion of people who are satisfied with the condition of pavements Proportion of people who are satisfied with the condition of cycle routes Proportion of people who think their local area/city is good or very good to cycle overall Proportion of people who think cycling safety in their local area/city is good Proportion of people who think children's cycling safety in their local area/city is good Proportion of people who think the amount of cycling routes in their local area/city is good Proportion of people who think the directness of cycle routes in their local area/city is good Proportion of people who think the condition of cycle routes in their local area/city is good Proportion of people who think the signposting of cycle routes in their local area/city is good Proportion of people who think the security of cycle parking in their local area/city is good
Proportion of people with a car choosing to walk rather than drive to places in their neighbourhood Proportion of people who think it is easy to walk in their neighbourhood Proportion of people who think it is easy to cycle in their neighbourhood [Potential to add further metrics from the Neighbourhoods research also in addition to the above]
Page 92
Appendix B The Mayor's Cycling & Walking Challenge Fund
Programme Director Commentary: Welcome to the first issue of the Mayors Challenge Fund progress checker. The purpose of this look-up chart is to gauge progress on scheme delivery and programme expenditure by district, for TfGM and across GM as a whole.
Overall the picture presented here - a prioritised programme of £216.5m value, a budget of £160m, with approval to spend sitting at £48.2m (the cumulative total of Development cost approval and Scheme Approval values) shows that good progress is being made, financially.
However, the rate of submission to full business case, start on site and completion is challenging. The reasons for this vary by district and programme, and, dealing with the Covid pandemic has clearly presented challenges to all organisations during 2020. However, the forecast business case submission tracker (final page) indicates that we can expect the value of full approvals to rapidly increase in the next six months.
To support that, over the past three months, TfGM has been overhauling its procedures and now submits a monthly approval to the CA for schemes funding that have achieved the appropriate review status. Resources have been assigned to increase the capability to handle the volume of business case planned, and, a critical friend approach has been introduced to major schemes to assist in more "first pass" approvals of schemes and reduce re-working of submissions. Where appropriate, the Programme Team have also been working collaboratively with TfGM’s Portfolio office to develop progressive, proactive approaches to Gateway Approvals. This is starting to take effect. Districts and TfGM continue to support each other in working towards our common goals.
The graphs below detail the status of prioritised schemes (left hand axis) and in a nutshell the more complete the blue bars are the greater progress is being made through the stages to completion. A financial summary illustrates the expenditure planned and reported spend "to date". The metrics in the table are driven by the monthly MCF reports submitted by GM LA partners.
Page 93
Bolton Bury
Total Scheme Summary: Total Scheme Summary:
Prog Entry 4.5 Prog Entry 7 4 6 3.5 5 3 2.5 4 2 3 1.5 2 1 1 0.5 0 0 Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Approved Submitted Approved Submitted
Finance Summary: Finance Summary:
Total (£) Total (£) Prioritised Budget £ 7,600,000 Prioritised Budget £ 13,200,000 Dev Costs Approved £ 514,500 Dev Costs Approved £ - Full Approval Value £ - Full Approval Value £ - Reported Scheme Spend £ 671,500 Reported Scheme Spend £ 243,260
Manchester Oldham
Total Scheme Summary: Total Scheme Summary:
10 Prog Entry 10 Prog Entry 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Approved Submitted Approved Submitted
Finance Summary: Finance Summary:
Total (£) Total (£) Prioritised Budget £ 37,200,000 Prioritised Budget £ 12,600,000 Dev Costs Approved £ 3,927,571 Dev Costs Approved £ 2,120,515 Full Approval Value £ 3,250,000 Full Approval Value £ 769,450 Reported Scheme Spend £ 3,500,524 Reported Scheme Spend £ 548,761
Page 94
Rochdale Salford
Total Scheme Summary: Total Scheme Summary:
Prog Entry 3.5 14 Prog Entry
3 12
2.5 10
2 8
1.5 6
1 4
0.5 2
0 0 Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Approved Submitted Approved Submitted
Finance Summary: Finance Summary:
Total (£) Total (£) Prioritised Budget £ 11,900,000 Prioritised Budget £ 28,300,000 Dev Costs Approved £ - Dev Costs Approved £ 4,288,348 Full Approval Value £ - Full Approval Value £ 5,108,000 Reported Scheme Spend £ 245,136 Reported Scheme Spend £ 2,397,240
Stockport Tameside
Total Scheme Summary: Total Scheme Summary:
Prog Entry 16 7 Prog Entry
14 6 12 5 10 4 8 3 6 4 2 2 1 0 0 Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Approved Submitted Approved Submitted
Finance Summary: Finance Summary:
Total (£) Total (£) Prioritised Budget £ 27,500,000 Prioritised Budget £ 10,300,000 Dev Costs Approved £ 6,234,435 Dev Costs Approved £ 1,745,965 Full Approval Value £ 9,967,725 Full Approval Value £ - Reported Scheme Spend £ 2,505,169 Reported Scheme Spend £ 426,190
Page 95
Trafford Wigan
Total Scheme Summary: Total Scheme Summary:
Prog Entry 8 7 Prog Entry
7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Approved Submitted Approved Submitted
Finance Summary: Finance Summary:
Total (£) Total (£) Prioritised Budget £ 20,000,000 Prioritised Budget £ 19,800,000 Dev Costs Approved £ 1,462,200 Dev Costs Approved £ 5,034,432 Full Approval Value £ - Full Approval Value £ 747,042 Reported Scheme Spend £ 472,000 Reported Scheme Spend £ 514,612
GM Wide Schemes MCF Total
Total Scheme Summary: Total Scheme Summary:
Prog Entry Prog Entry 6 90 5 80 70 4 60 50 3 40 2 30 20 1 10 0 0 Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Prioritised Dev Costs FBC In Delivery Complete Approved Submitted Approved Submitted
Finance Summary: Finance Summary: Total (£) Total (£) Prioritised Budget £ 216,500,000 Prioritised Budget £ 28,100,000 Dev Costs Approved £ 28,420,516 Dev Costs Approved £ 3,092,550 Full Approval Value £ 19,842,217 Full Approval Value £ - Reported Scheme Spend £ 12,649,170 Reported Scheme Spend £ 946,127 Programme Mngt Spend £ 2,521,736 Total Spend to Date £ 15,170,906
Page 96
Mayor’s Challenge Fund full business case 6 month look ahead
Note: Where the estimated value is blank, this forms part of a phased business case submission approach to the overall scheme The total figure for those schemes have been included in the last phase i.e Manchester Route 86 ( £10.45m).
Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank
Agenda Item 11
GREATER MANCHESTER TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
Date: 9th October 2020
Subject: Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040, Our Five-Year Delivery Plan and Local Implementation Plans
Report of: Simon Warburton, Transport Strategy Director, TfGM
PURPOSE OF REPORT
To set out the 2040 documents that will be endorsed and approved through meetings in September, October and November, along with timescales and key milestones.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The GMTC is requested to:
1. Note the content of the report and comment as appropriate; and
2. Endorse the timescales and key milestones.
CONTACT OFFICERS:
Simon Warburton, Transport Strategy Director, TfGM [email protected]
Nicola Kane, Head of Strategic Planning, Research and Innovation, TfGM [email protected]
Jonathan Marsh, Strategic Planning Manager, TfGM [email protected]
Page 99
Equalities Implications: The GM Transport Strategy 2040 documents aim to contribute to delivering sustainable economic growth, improve quality of life and protect the environment. The original GM Transport Strategy 2040 was the subject of an Integrated Assessment which includes an Equalities Assessment. The Five Year Delivery Plan is going through the Integrated Assessment process.
Climate Change Impact Assessment and Mitigation Measures –
The GM Transport Strategy supports Greater Manchester’s ambition to be carbon neutral by 2038.
Risk Management: N/A
Legal Considerations: N/A
Financial Consequences – Revenue: There are no revenue funding consequences identified. Our Five Year Delivery Plan will include a funding summary statement
Financial Consequences – Capital: There are no capital funding consequences identified. Our Five Year Delivery Plan will include a funding summary statement
Number of attachments to the report? N/A
BACKGROUND PAPERS: https://tfgm.com/2040
TRACKING/PROCESS Does this report relate to a major strategic decision, as set out in the Yes GMCA Constitution
EXEMPTION FROM CALL IN
Page 100
Are there any aspects in this report which No means it should be considered to be exempt from call in by the relevant Scrutiny Committee on the grounds of urgency? GM Transport Committee Overview & Scrutiny Committee 9th October 2020 8th October 2020
Page 101
1 Introduction
1.1 Alongside work to prepare a refreshed Greater Manchester Strategy (GMS) and the next version of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF), Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) has been working with the GMCA, the ten Greater Manchester councils and the Greater Manchester Mayor to prepare new, and updated, transport strategy documents that cover our entire city-region.
1.2 This work includes a refreshed version of our long-term, statutory local transport plan - the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040 - and a final version of Our Five-Year Delivery Plan (2020-2025) which sets out the practical actions planned to deliver the Strategy over the next 5 years. In addition, ten new Local Implementation Plans have also been prepared (one for each Greater Manchester council).
2 The Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040
2.1 First published in February 2017, the Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040 (hereafter referred to as the “2040 Transport Strategy”) is our city-region’s statutory transport plan. Over three years after the Strategy was first published, its 2040 Vision - for Greater Manchester to have ‘World class connections that support long-term, sustainable economic growth and access to opportunity for all’ – remains highly relevant. The steps that need to be taken to achieve this Vision have evolved significantly, however.
2.2 The initial version of the 2040 Transport Strategy made clear that we would ‘review our Strategy on a regular basis to respond to changing trends and new opportunities and priorities’. The Strategy has therefore undergone a ‘light touch’ policy refresh to reflect work undertaken, and the changed context, since 2017.
2.3 In particular, the refreshed 2040 Transport Strategy will include reference to: the “Right- Mix” ambition for at least 50% of all journeys to be made by active travel and public transport by 2040; details of the GM Mayor’s ‘Our Network’ plan to create an integrated, modern and accessible transport network; an increased emphasis on the importance of cycling and walking; the climate emergency declared by GMCA and all ten councils; and the development of the GM Clean Air Plan.
2.4 The document has also been updated to reflect the contemporary devolution agenda, including publication of the Bus Reform business case and GM Rail Prospectus; ongoing work to develop our 2040 sub-strategies including: Streets for All, City Centre Transport Strategy, Local Bus Strategy, Rapid Transit Strategy, Freight Strategy; and further development of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, including the growing emphasis placed on regenerating town centres.
2.5 The refreshed 2040 Transport Strategy will be published in early November, subject to its approval by the GMCA.
Page 102
3 Our Five-Year Delivery Plan
3.1 The long-term approach to planning our transport network, set out in the 2040 Transport Strategy, is underpinned by a series of five-year Delivery Plans. The first Delivery Plan (2016- 2017 to 2021-2022) was published in 2017, alongside the 2040 Transport Strategy.
3.2 An updated, draft Delivery Plan was published for consultation – alongside the first version of the GMSF - in January 2019. A final version of this document has now been prepared.
3.3 Our Five-Year Delivery Plan sets out the practical actions planned, over the next 5 years, to deliver the 2040 Transport Strategy and achieve the transport ambitions of the GMCA and the Mayor, in parallel with the development of the GMSF. Together, these documents offer an integrated approach to transport and land use planning, by identifying the strategic transport interventions required to deliver the scale of growth set out in the GMSF.
3.4 The Delivery Plan also helps to inform the continued development of the Greater Manchester Infrastructure Programme (GMIP). It provides details of GM’s updated transport asks of government when it comes to funding, powers and functions.
3.5 Our Five-Year Delivery Plan supports the implementation of “Our Network”, a ten-year plan to create an integrated, modern and accessible transport network for Greater Manchester. It brings together different modes of public transport - bus, tram, rail, tram- train - and cycling and walking, in an integrated, easy-to-use system with seamless connections, and simplified ticketing and fares. The Delivery Plan document also provides updates on Clean Air Plan proposals; Streets for All scheme delivery; the Bee Network and measures to support bus and rail reform.
3.6 Our Five-Year Delivery Plan will be published in support of the GMSF consultation in early November.
4 Local Implementation Plans
4.1 Our Five-Year Delivery Plan will be supported by ten Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) covering the period 2020 to 2025. Each of the ten councils that make up Greater Manchester will have its own LIP. The LIPs are designed to:
Complement the 2040 Transport Strategy and Our Five-Year Delivery Plan, providing details of how their outcomes will be achieved locally in each council area, focusing particularly on supporting local trips within neighbourhoods and to local centres; Support wider GM and council strategy and policy documents (e.g. Local Plans, town centre masterplans, GM Clean Air Plan, GMSF); Summarise key local transport issues and opportunities in each local authority, providing an added layer of local detail that is not provided in the 2040 Transport Strategy document.
Page 103
4.2 It is also intended that the LIPs will enable us to better articulate the local transport interventions that need to be delivered or developed in the short term, to support Right-Mix and Carbon Reduction targets, against which future local transport and minor works funding is allocated for local delivery.
4.3 The LIPs will be included in an appendix to the final version of Our Five-Year Delivery Plan. They will be ‘live’ documents for a period of time and will be updated as councils develop and publish transport plans and strategies, or as new schemes are developed or delivered.
5 Timescales and key milestones
5.1 Following this meeting, it is intended that final versions of 2040 Strategy, Delivery Plan and LIPs will be reported to the 31 October meeting of GMCA for approval.
Simon Warburton Transport Strategy Director, TfGM
Page 104