Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS in Greater DELIVERABLE D.T1.2.1

2020-07-24 Luke Bramwell (Transport for )

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Summary sheet

Project Name eHUBS

Title of the Method / procedure for selection / implementation document of eHUBS in Greater Manchester

Deliverable D.T1.2.1

Work Package WP.T1

Programme Interreg North-West Europe

Coordinator City of Amsterdam

http://www.nweurope.eu/projects/project-search/ehubs-smart- Website shared-green-mobility-hubs/

Author Luke Bramwell

Status FINAL DRAFT

Confidential, only for members of the consortium Dissemination level (including the Commission Services)

Reviewed by Sarah Kumeta

Submission date July 2020

Starting date January 2019

Number of months 36

2

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Project partners

Organisation Abbreviation Country

Gemeente Amsterdam AMS The Netherlands

Promotion of Operation Links with Integrated Services POLIS Europe aisbl (POLIS)

Taxistop asbl Taxi Belgium

Autodelen.net Auton Belgium

Bayern Innovativ GMbH BI Germany

Cargoroo CA The Netherlands

URBEE (E-bike network Amsterdam BV) URBEE The Netherlands

Gemeente Nijmegen NIJ The Netherlands

Transport for the Greater Manchester TfGM Great Britain

Stad Leuven LEU Belgium

TU Delft TUD The Netherlands

University of Newcastle upon Tyne UN Great Britain

Ville de Dreux DR France

Stadt Kempten (Allgäu) Kemp Germany

Universiteit Antwerpen UAntwerp Belgium

3

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Document history

Version Date Organisation Main area of Comments changes

0.1 2020-01-24 TfGM draft

0.2 2020-07-24 TfGM final draft

4

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Table of Contents

Summary sheet ...... 2 Project partners ...... 3 Document history ...... 4 List of figures ...... 7 List of tables ...... 8 1. Implementation approach ...... 9 2. Location selection – GM level ...... 11 2.1 Factors used to select eHUBS districts ...... 11 2.1.1 Possible future participation in the Department for Transport’s Future Mobility Zone? .. 11 2.1.2 Upcoming Metrolink works? ...... 11 2.1.3 Propensity to cycle to work? ...... 11 2.1.4 Clusters of GMEV parking spaces? ...... 13 2.2 Selection of eHUBS districts ...... 14 2.3 Request for expression of interest ...... 14 3. Location selection – district level ...... 15 3.1 Location selection for the larger trial in MCC ...... 15 3.1.1 Metrolink stop (East line) ...... 18 3.1.2 Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line) ...... 19 3.1.3 St. Werburgh’s Road Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line) ...... 19 3.1.4 Metrolink stop + future & ride (East Didsbury line) ...... 20 3.1.5 Burton Road Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line) ...... 20 3.1.6 West Didsbury Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line) ...... 21 3.1.7 Didsbury Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line) ...... 21 3.1.8 East Didsbury Metrolink terminus + existing park & ride (East Didsbury line) ...... 22 3.1.9 Road Metrolink stop (Airport line) ...... 22 3.1.10 Metrolink stop and Park & Ride (Airport line)...... 23 3.1.11 Metrolink stop and Park & Ride ( line) ...... 23 3.1.12 Summary and conclusion for the larger trial in MCC ...... 24 3.2 Location selection for the smaller trial in Bury ...... 25 3.2.1 Metrolink stop + existing park & ride ...... 27 3.2.2 Metrolink stop + existing park & ride ...... 27

5

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.2.3 Besses o’th’ Barn Metrolink stop + existing park & ride ...... 28 3.2.4 Whitefield Metrolink stop + existing park & ride (to be upgraded) ...... 28 3.2.5 Radcliffe Metrolink stop + existing park & ride (to be upgraded) ...... 29 3.2.6 Metrolink terminus + existing park & ride (to be redeveloped) ...... 29 3.2.7 Summary and conclusion for the smaller trial in Bury ...... 32 4. Planning at the location ...... 35 4.1 Type determination ...... 35 4.2 Shared mobility offer for an eHUB ...... 35 4.3 Number of vehicles ...... 36 4.4 Infrastructure ...... 36 4.5 Summary ...... 37 5. Getting started ...... 38 5.1 Making decisions and installation of infrastructure ...... 38 5.2 Start-up of the eHUB ...... 39 Appendix A – Cargoroo use cases / personas / B2C proposition ...... 40 Appendix B – relevant cycleways ...... 42 Loop – St. Werburgh’s Road Level 2 eHUB ...... 42 Oxford Road and cycleway (Didsbury Village Level 2 eHUB) ...... 43 Mersey Valley and cycleway (Didsbury Village and East Didsbury Level 2 eHUBS) ...... 44 Bridgewater Way Cycleway (possible Stretford Level 2 eHUB) ...... 45 The eHUBS Consortium ...... 46

6

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

List of figures

Figure 1: ...... 9 Figure 2: % of 2011 census respondents whose method of travel to work is bicycle by ward (upper) and by output area (lower) ...... 12 Figure 3: map of current Greater Manchester Electric Vehicle (GMEV) parking spaces ...... 13 Figure 4: heatmap of families with dependent children from 2011 census showing that the city centre is not ‘family-focussed’ ...... 16 Figure 5: % of 2011 census respondents in professional occupations ...... 16 Figure 6: % of 2011 census respondents with a degree or higher degree qualifications ...... 17 Figure 7: % of 2011 census respondents whose method of travel to work is bicycle ...... 17 Figure 8: overlay of public transport networks (rail, Metrolink and bus), cycling routes and charging infrastructure (needs key)...... 18 Figure 9: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of Firswood Metrolink stop ...... 18 Figure 10: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of Chorlton Metrolink stop ...... 19 Figure 11: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of St. Werburgh’s Road Metrolink stop (augmented with e-cargobikes!) ...... 19 Figure 12: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of Withington Metrolink stop ...... 20 Figure 13: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of Burton Road Metrolink stop ...... 20 Figure 14: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of West Didsbury Metrolink stop ...... 21 Figure 15: site visit photographs of Didsbury Village Metrolink stop ...... 21 Figure 16: site visit photographs of East Didsbury Metrolink terminus + existing park & ride ...... 22 Figure 17: Google StreetView of Barlow Moor Road Metrolink stop ...... 22 Figure 18: Google StreetViews of Barlow Moor Road Metrolink stop ...... 23 Figure 19: Google StreetView and Google Earth view of Stretford Metrolink stop + park & ride ...... 23 Figure 20: summary of location selection for eHUBS in MCC, with desired Level 2 eHUBS in amber, and gridlines at 500m c/c showing the notional Level 3 locations in orange. Possible additional Level 2 eHUBS are shown in pink...... 25 Figure 21: overlay of public transport networks (rail, Metrolink and bus), cycling routes and charging infrastructure ...... 26 Figure 22: Google StreetViews of Heaton Park Metrolink stop ...... 27 Figure 23: site visit photographs of Prestwich Metrolink stop + 2x GMEV spaces at Fairfax Road Car Park, 100m away ...... 27 Figure 24: Google StreetViews of Besses o’t’h’ Barn Metrolink stop + park & ride ...... 28 Figure 25: Google StreetView of Whitefield Metrolink park & ride and a computer generated image of the expanded park & ride ...... 28 Figure 26: Google StreetView of Radcliffe park & ride, plus computer generated image of expanded park & ride ...... 29 Figure 27: site visit photographs of Bury Interchange ...... 29 Figure 28: Market Car Park, c.300m from Bury Interchange – 2x GMEV spaces ...... 30 Figure 29: Trinity Street Car Park, c.300m from Bury Interchange – 2x GMEV spaces ...... 30 Figure 30: The Castle Car Park, c.500m from Bury Interchange – 2x GMEV spaces ...... 30 Figure 31: Foundry Street Car Park, c.600m from Bury Interchange – 2x GMEV spaces ...... 31

7

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Figure 32: Parson Lane North Car Park, c.800m from Bury Interchange – 2x GMEV spaces ...... 31 Figure 33: Prestwich and Heaton Park cluster – location selection for eHUBS in the south of Bury, with potential Level 2 eHUBS in amber, gridlines at 500m c/c and a notional Level 3 eHUBS distribution in orange. Likely to progress...... 33 Figure 34: Northern Network – potential Level 2 eHUBS in amber, gridlines at 1km c/c and a notional Level 3 eHUBS distribution in orange. Not likely to progress in this form. Consider e-car-club at Bury Interchange, and Fairfield Hospital...... 34 Figure 35: examples from Cargoroo of fixed infrastructure and line-and-sign ...... 36

List of tables

Table 1: ...... 14 Table 2: summary of the possible Level 2 eHUB locations assessed for the larger trial in MCC ...... 24 Table 3: summary of the possible Level 2 eHUB locations assessed for the smaller trial in Bury ...... 32

8

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

1. Implementation approach

Greater Manchester (GM) is a conurbation of over 2.8 million people. It is highly polycentric – being comprised of ten metropolitan districts, with each of these having at least one major centre. Given the number of eHUBS and shared electric vehicles projected for this trial and the need to cluster these to target communications and nudges to drive uptake, it is inevitable that the selection of areas in which to initially trial eHUBS will exclude many areas of GM which have high potential for eHUBS.

This is illustrated by Figure 1 below, extracted from TU Delft’s deliverable “Maps with the indicator of potential locations for eHUBS”. Whilst it is immediately apparent that (MCC) has the greatest density of potential, it shows that all ten districts have areas of high potential for eHUBS.

Bury

Oldham

Wigan

Salford

Trafford Stockport Manchester

City Council Figure 1: (MCC)

To spread the benefits of eHUBS across GM, and to ensure that different contexts within GM are explored, it has been decided to conduct one larger trial and one smaller trial as follows:

• larger trial with around 3 to 4 larger shared electric vehicles (e-cars) and around 15 to 20 smaller shared electric vehicles (e-bikes/e-cargobikes);

• smaller trial with around 1 to 2 larger shared electric vehicles (e-cars) and around 5 to 10 smaller shared electric vehicles (e-bikes/e-cargobikes).

9

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

These numbers are derived from TfGM’s bid to participate in the eHUBS project. They are relatively low, which takes into account the lack of existing sharing services in GM – whilst other participating cities are looking to eHUBS to bring together and systemise their existing shared vehicles, GM has only the following shared services operating at a reasonable scale:

• Enterprise car club operates within MCC; • Cowheels car club operates within ; • Manchester Bike Hire – one location within Salford, plus delivery; • Brompton Dock – two locations within MCC; • Velo Times – one location within .

GM is therefore starting from a low base of shared services, and is proceeding cautiously in its approach to eHUBS. We have set ourselves a target aligned with the eHUBS bid document and a stretch target:

target stretch target

eHUBS 10 >10

larger shared electric vehicles 5x 10x (e-cars)

smaller 25x Cargoroo >25x Cargoroo shared electric vehicles e-cargobikes e-cargobikes (e-bikes/e-cargobikes)

A primary selection process is needed to window down from the whole of GM individual districts, in order to allow site selection within the district (and at a more local level) to proceed. It follows from the above that this primary selection process cannot focus on the overall potential for eHUBS, as this would not discriminate between the ten districts adequately.

Instead the primary selection process focusses on more pragmatic factors such as the short-to-medium term opportunities for embedding the eHUBS concept into ‘business-as-usual’ for TfGM and the availability of existing charging infrastructure to host shared electric cars. The primary selection process itself is top-down – but it considers mostly practical, bottom-up type issues. It is described in Section 2.

A secondary selection process is then needed within the selected districts. At the strategic level of this deliverable 2.1, the secondary selection process is also top-down (although it does consider practical, bottom-up type issues). It is described in Section 3. It is expected that the initial selection by this method will be modified by further bottom-up considerations in the more detailed deliverable 4.1, following detailed discussions with officers of the districts and other stakeholders.

With reference to deliverables D.T1.1.1 and D.T1.2.2 (functional requirements and joint methodology), the eHUBS system proposed in Manchester is ‘back-to-one’ and Type 2 (Regional) plus Type 3 (Local). These choices have been influenced by practical factors such as the operators and number of vehicles available to Manchester through the partnership agreement, and strategic factors as explained in this report. With reference to deliverables D.LT.1.1 & D.LT.1.2, the network is Business Model 2 (clustered).

10

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

2. Location selection – GM level

2.1 Factors used to select eHUBS districts

2.1.1 Possible future participation in the Department for Transport’s Future Mobility Zone?

Participation in the DfT’s proposed Future Mobility Zone (or successor schemes agreed as an alternative) could allow expansion of the eHUBS trial within the district and a transition to ‘business-as-usual’, taking advantage of the local experience gained during the eHUBS trial. The GM districts that would participate in FMZ should the DfT proceed with it in GM or a successor scheme be agreed as an alternative (for example as part of the Greater Manchester Investment Programme) are as follows:

Bolton; Bury; MCC; Salford; Stockport; Trafford.

2.1.2 Upcoming Metrolink works?

Areas where there are upcoming park & ride works could allow expansion of the eHUBS trial within the district, taking advantage of the local experience gained during the eHUBS trial. These are as follows:

Bury Whitefield & Radcliffe Park & Rides; stop upgrades; Bury Interchange upgrade MCC Withington Metrolink Park & Ride Rochdale Mills Hill Rail Park & Ride Salford Rail Park & Ride Trafford Parkway Metrolink Park & Ride

2.1.3 Propensity to cycle to work?

An existing high proportion of people who cycle to work is considered likely to provide a good audience for uptake of shared electric vehicles. This assumes that these people are already thinking beyond the comfort and convenience of a private car. It is considered advisable to site the larger eHUBS trial in such an area. To provide a counterpoint, the smaller eHUBS trial will then be sited in a contrasting area.

Figure 2 overleaf shows the last available census data (2011) regarding % of respondents who cycle to work. Most GM districts including Bolton, Bury, , Rochdale, Tameside and are shaded in the lightest colour, indicating <1.6% cycle-to-work mode share. Some districts including MCC, Salford, Stockport and Trafford have areas of 1.6% to 3.3% cycle-to-work mode share. There are then some notable hotspots. Stretford in Trafford has a 3.4% cycle-to-work mode share at ward level. In MCC the hotspot wards are Whalley Range (5.7%), Chorlton (7.1%), (4.6%) & (4.0%).

11

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Whalley Range: 5.7% Stretford: 3.4% Chorlton: 7.1% Chorlton Park: 4.6% Didsbury West: 4.0%

Figure 2: % of 2011 census respondents whose method of travel to work is bicycle by ward (upper) and by output area (lower)

12

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

2.1.4 Clusters of GMEV parking spaces?

Within the time-frame of the eHUBS trial, it is unlikely that new charging points can be installed. For that reason, the initial focus of the eHUBS trial shall be on converting existing Greater Manchester Electric Vehicle (GMEV) parking spaces to provide dedicated host spaces for shared e-cars. Data on GMEV parking spaces such as their location, their proximity or otherwise to a Metrolink stop or rail station, and their monthly usage was collected. The dataset as a whole remains confidential to TfGM, but locations of the GMEV parking spaces are visualised in Figure 3.

Most districts have a reasonable number of GMEV parking spaces with at least some in close proximity to a Metrolink stop or rail station. Bolton was notable for only having two publicly accessible GMEV locations in its town centre (and only one of these being in close proximity to the rail station). Oldham and MCC were notable for having a high number of GMEV locations in close proximity to Metrolink stops and rail stations. It should be noted that there are significant plans to expand this network alongside and as part of Manchester’s Clean Air Plan – but we have assumed that we cannot rely on this expansion coming forward in the correct timescales to achieve a continuous year of operation of eHUBS.

Figure 3: map of current Greater Manchester Electric Vehicle (GMEV) parking spaces

13

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

2.2 Selection of eHUBS districts Each of the four factors described above was assessed and a score of red = 1, amber = 2 and green = 3 awarded. The results of the assessment are as follows.

District FMZ Metrolink cycle-to-work GMEV total

Bolton 6

Bury 9

MCC 11

Oldham 6

Rochdale 6

Salford 9

Stockport 8

Tameside 5

Trafford 9

Wigan 5 Table 1:

MCC was selected as the candidate for the larger eHUBS trial, having the highest overall score. Bury was selected as the candidate for the smaller eHUBS trial, having a high score despite a low cycle-to-work % – and therefore providing the ideal contrast / counterpoint.

Salford, Stockport and Trafford also score well. As their score is somewhat driven by their candidature for the Future Mobility Zone or its successors, it is assumed that further trials of eHUBS in these districts would be part of those projects.

2.3 Request for expression of interest

Successful planning and implementation of eHUBS will rely strongly on participation from the Officers of the districts, who bring local expertise and relationships, including with special interest groups and political representatives. For that reason, following the selection of MCC and Bury as candidates for the larger and smaller trials of eHUBS respectively, an Expression of Interest (EoI) pack was prepared and sent to these two districts at the end of 2019. The pack is included as an Appendix to this report. Both districts formally expressed their interest at the end of 2019 and meetings were held with their Officers.

14

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3. Location selection – district level

Having selected MCC for the larger trial and Bury for the smaller trial, a secondary selection process is then needed within these districts. At the strategic level of this deliverable D.T1.2.1, the secondary selection process is also top-down (although it does consider practical, bottom-up type issues). The finalisation of the Level 2 sites, and the selection of the Level 3 sites that provide the fine-grained network required by Cargoroo, needs further detailed work with a more bottom-up approach. This is to be covered in deliverable D.T1.4.1.

3.1 Location selection for the larger trial in MCC

Within MCC, there are several strategic factors to consider in selecting eHUBS locations.

First – TfGM is seeking to introduce a docked bike hire scheme. This is likely to initially cover a core zone focussed on the city centre. It is desirable to avoid geographical overlap with this project, to avoid having to coordinate two developing projects with uncertain interfaces.

Second – TfGM has consulted with Cargoroo in order to understand the core use cases for the Cargoroo e-cargobike that will be a feature of GM eHUBS. The advice received is that Cargoroo have two main use cases: family & leisure, and small businesses. See Cargoroo’s Business-to-Consumer proposition in Appendix A. Examining the 2011 census data for families with dependent children, the core zone focussed on the city centre is clearly not family-oriented (Figure 4). Whilst there are areas of the city centre that have high proportions of small businesses, the lack of a family market means that it has been decided to target outlying areas that have both a family market and high numbers of small businesses.

Third – TfGM’s understanding of Cargoroo’s Business-to-Consumer proposition is that the typical users of the existing Cargoroo service tend to have a relatively high disposable income. The 2011 census did not ask an income question, so instead two other (imperfect) indicators of higher disposable incomes have been examined – % of employed respondents having a ‘professional’ occupation (Figure 5), and % of respondents having a degree or higher degree (Figure 6).

Fourth – as already described in section 2.1.3, an existing high proportion of people who cycle to work is considered likely to provide a good audience for uptake of shared electric vehicles. In MCC the hotspot wards are Whalley Range (5.7%), Chorlton (7.1%), Chorlton Park (4.6%) and Didsbury West (4.0%).

Putting these factors together suggests that the areas of Whalley Range, Chorlton and Didsbury should be the key target areas for the larger MCC trial of eHUBS, as they are the best fit for the use cases put forward by Cargoroo. These areas are circled in white on Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Within these areas, target sites for Level 2 eHUBS have been identified by overlaying the public transport network, cycling routes and charging infrastructure (Figure 8) and assessing each Metrolink stop in turn (Metrolink is the intra-regional metro system and so each Metrolink stop is a potential candidate for a Level 2 eHUB. Each stop is profiled in turn in sections 3.1.1 – 3.1.11. A summary and a conclusion for MCC is given in section 3.1.12.

15

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Figure 4: heatmap of families with dependent children from 2011 census showing that the city centre is not ‘family-focussed’

Figure 5: % of 2011 census respondents in professional occupations

16

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Figure 6: % of 2011 census respondents with a degree or higher degree qualifications

Figure 7: % of 2011 census respondents whose method of travel to work is bicycle

17

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Firswood

Stretford Oswald Road 2x GMEV parking spaces Lacy Street 2x GMEV parking spaces Chorlton Corkland Road 2x GMEV parking spaces St. Werburgh’s Road

Barlow Moor Road Withington

Burton Road Sale Water Park

West Didsbury

Mersey Valley Didsbury Village

East Didsbury

6x GMEV parking spaces Figure 8: overlay of public transport networks (rail, Metrolink and bus), cycling routes and charging infrastructure (needs key)

3.1.1 Firswood Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line)

This is the closest Metrolink stop to Whalley Range, one of the key target areas – although it would need supporting with Level 3 eHUBS to give good coverage in Whalley Range. Plenty of space at the Metrolink stop itself but no GMEV parking spaces in close proximity (nearest is Oswald Road at c.800m walking distance). Whilst a cycling route passes by, it is not a segregated, leisure-focussed route. Primarily a residential area with the usual small shops etc. It may be better to have Chorlton as the main Level 2 eHUB in the area with Level 3 eHUBS extending northeast into Whalley Range.

Figure 9: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of Firswood Metrolink stop

18

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.1.2 Chorlton Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line)

Metrolink stop at the heart of Chorlton, one of the key target areas – and an area with a significant cluster of small businesses. The area outside the Metrolink stop on the northbound side is a privately- owned supermarket car park, but there is an unused area between parked cars that could host e- cargobikes subject to negotiation with the supermarket. There are Amazon and InPost lockers at the supermarket along with a toilet inside it. There is a GMEV parking space at c.300m (Corkland Road). Taken together, this could be packaged into a good overall eHUB offering.

Figure 10: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of Chorlton Metrolink stop

3.1.3 St. Werburgh’s Road Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line)

Notable for its direct connection with the Fallowfield Loop, a former railway line which provides an almost totally segregated cycle route “ideal for families and new cyclists who need to build up their confidence away from road traffic” (Sustrans) all the way to east Manchester. Plenty of space at the Metrolink stop itself. There are 2x GMEV parking spaces at c.500m walking distance (Corkland Road). Primarily residential area with the usual small shops etc. Considered a good candidate for a Level 2 eHUB due to the Fallowfield Loop.

Figure 11: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of St. Werburgh’s Road Metrolink stop (augmented with e-cargobikes!)

19

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.1.4 Withington Metrolink stop + future park & ride (East Didsbury line)

Hough End Leisure centre is at c.400m, and the stop is adjacent to playing fields, allotments, a cemetery and housing estates. On a busy major road, the A5103 Princess Road – this has a Sustrans cycling route 85 with some off-road portions, but not the same degree of segregation as the Fallowfield Loop at St. Werburgh’s Road. Just over 1km to the valley and trails. Plenty of space at the Metrolink stop itself for e-cargobikes, but no GMEV parking spaces nearby (over 2km to nearest). Hard to envisage either the family/leisure or small business usage for the e-cargobikes at this location currently. This Metrolink stop is due to receive a park-and-ride and it is likely to be more efficient to implement eHUB type facilities such as shared e-cars as part of that project (i.e. not part of the eHUBS trial).

Figure 12: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of Withington Metrolink stop

3.1.5 Burton Road Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line)

Hospital at c.500m, Withington Baths at c.600m. Burton Road has several small businesses (particularly focussed on food and drink), so it is possible to envisage small business usage of the e-cargobikes, although the scale is smaller than Chorlton. Otherwise, the area is leafy and residential – it is possible to envisage some family/leisure use, and it is just over 1km to the River Mersey valley and trails. There are no GMEV parking spaces nearby. There is some limited room at the stop for e-cargobikes.

Figure 13: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of Burton Road Metrolink stop

20

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.1.6 West Didsbury Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line)

Only c.500m from Burton Road Metrolink stop (the stops being very closely spaced in this area). Surrounded by sports clubs (tennis, bowling etc.) and adjacent to a terrace of small businesses, mostly food and drink focussed. On a busy major road, the B1567 Palatine Road. There are no GMEV parking spaces nearby and room at the stop itself for e-cargobikes is extremely limited. Hard to envisage either the family/leisure or small business usage for the e-cargobikes at this location currently.

Figure 14: Google StreetView and site visit photograph of West Didsbury Metrolink stop

3.1.7 Didsbury Village Metrolink stop (East Didsbury line)

c.1km south from West Didsbury Metrolink stop, Didsbury Village is another focal point at the centre of the Didsbury target area. The number of small businesses is on a similar scale to Chorlton. Didsbury Park is immediately adjacent, and Sustrans National Cycle Network Route 62 (the Transpennine Trail) runs on street c.1km to the Mersey Valley and off-street c.2km again to the Mersey Valley. It is easy to envisage both family/leisure and small business usage of the e-cargobikes and there is a reasonable amount of room at the stop for e-cargobikes. The nearest GMEV parking space is nearly 1km away at the East Didsbury Metrolink terminus and park-and-ride. Considered to be a strong candidate for a Level 2 eHUB.

Figure 15: site visit photographs of Didsbury Village Metrolink stop

21

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.1.8 East Didsbury Metrolink terminus + existing park & ride (East Didsbury line)

This is the current terminus of the Metrolink line and is a major park-and-ride with 302 parking spaces. There are six GMEV parking spaces, racks of bike stands, and a Cycle Hub. Sustrans National Cycle Network Route 62 (the Transpennine Trail) runs mostly traffic-free c.750m to the Mersey Valley, and Route 55 runs mostly traffic-free c.2km to the Mersey Valley. There are fewer small businesses than, say, Chorlton or Didsbury Village – so it is envisaged that this Level 2 eHUB would be primarily focussed on shared e-cars and some e-cargobikes for family/leisure use on the cycle routes.

Figure 16: site visit photographs of East Didsbury Metrolink terminus + existing park & ride

3.1.9 Barlow Moor Road Metrolink stop (Airport line)

Just over 1km to the Mersey Valley via Sustrans National Cycle Network 62, with roughly half on-road, half traffic-free. The stop is in the centre of a major road which means that space at the stop for e- cargobikes is limited. The local area is residential, with some small businesses lining the main roads but to a lesser degree than Chorlton or Didsbury Village. This would be a reasonable candidate for a Level 2 eHUB were enough e-cargobikes available, but it is weaker than other Metrolink stops.

Figure 17: Google StreetView of Barlow Moor Road Metrolink stop

22

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.1.10 Sale Water Park Metrolink stop and Park & Ride (Airport line) Sale Water Park is in Trafford rather than MCC. It has been assessed by exception as it is (i) the next stop along from Barlow Moor Road (ii) exceptional due to its family/leisure characteristics, being positioned directly in the Mersey Valley with a visitor centre, toilet and café at the stop itself. Sale Water Park offers water sports and open water swimming and there are numerous trails through the surrounding countryside. Chorlton Water Park is also only 1km away along the Mersey Valley, on a fully segregated route. The only small businesses nearby are a , a restaurant and a cycle hire shop Velo Times (which already hires out electric bicycles). Being just off Junction 6 of the M60 motorway, there is a Park & Ride of c.300 spaces lacks electric charging infrastructure.

Figure 18: Google StreetViews of Barlow Moor Road Metrolink stop

3.1.11 Stretford Metrolink stop and Park & Ride () Stretford Metrolink stop is in Trafford rather than MCC. It has been assessed by exception as it is the next nearest Metrolink stop to the Metrolink stops considered above. It is in a built-up area with very busy roads (the A56 and A5145) – but is also immediately adjacent to the Bridgewater Way cycleway along the (refer to Appendix B) along which it is c.1km to the Mersey Valley. This may lend itself to Cargoroo’s family/leisure use case. However, access from the Metrolink stop to the cycleway is poor and would need further consideration. Next to the Metrolink stop is a Park & Ride with c.33 spaces, so space at the stop is plentiful. The area consists mainly of larger stores and industrial businesses and is considered less of a fit with Cargoroo’s small business use case. Across the road from the Metrolink stop are 2x GMEV parking spaces at Lacy Street.

Figure 19: Google StreetView and Google Earth view of Stretford Metrolink stop + park & ride

23

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.1.12 Summary and conclusion for the larger trial in MCC

Metrolink stop GMEV spaces e-cargobikes e-cargobikes space overall & other facilities? within 1km walk? family/leisure? small businesses? at stop? grade Firswood Oswald Rd. x2 NCN 55 (on-road) primarily plentiful weaker c.800m convenience etc. Chorlton Oswald Rd. x2 NCN 55 (on-road many small limited stronger supermarket c.650m northwards, but businesses – with toilet, Corkland Rd. x2 traffic-free south mix of types Amazon locker, c.300m with connection InPost locker to Fallowfield Loop Cycleway) St. Werburgh’s Corkland Rd. x2 Fallowfield Loop primarily plentiful stronger Rd. c.550m Cycleway convenience etc. Withington n/a just over 1km to primarily plentiful weaker future Mersey Valley by convenience etc. Park & Ride busy route Burton Road n/a just over 1km to some small limited weaker Mersey Valley by businesses, esp. busy route food & drink West Didsbury n/a just over 1km to some small limited weaker Mersey Valley by businesses, esp. busy route food & drink Didsbury Village East Didsbury x6 connection to many small limited stronger c.900m Mersey Valley businesses – and Stockport mix of types Cycleway East Didsbury x6 Mersey Valley primarily plentiful stronger Park & Ride <50m and Stockport larger stores (c.302 spaces) Cycleway & leisure Cycle Hub Barlow Moor Rd. n/a 1km via NCN 62 some small limited medium to Mersey Valley businesses, mix of types Sale Water Park n/a immediate access primarily plentiful stronger Park & Ride to Mersey Valley green space (c.300 spaces), visitor centre & toilets, Velo Times bike shop / hire Stretford Lacy Street x2 Bridgewater Way primarily plentiful stronger Park & Ride c.300m Cycleway: 1km to larger stores (c.33 spaces) Mersey Valley & industrial Table 2: summary of the possible Level 2 eHUB locations assessed for the larger trial in MCC

24

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

From the assessment above, 6 stronger locations for Level 2 eHUBS are identified. Of these, 4 have the potential to form cores of mini-networks of Level 3 eHUBS: Chorlton & St. Werburgh’s Road (‘Chorlton & Whalley Range cluster’) and Didsbury Village and East Didsbury (‘Didsbury cluster’). The remaining two at Sale Water Park and Stretford are outliers which would be good to include if additional e-cargobikes can be provided by Cargoroo. With a notional supporting network of Level 3 eHUBS on a c.500m grid (such that no-one need walk more than c.250m to their nearest eHUB) and on the assumption of a single e-cargobike at each node, the networks illustrated in Figure 20 below would require c.20 to 25 e- cargobikes. To leave enough e-cargobikes for the smaller trial in Bury, the networks below need to be rationalised (or the number of e-cargobikes from Cargoroo needs to increase).

Figure 20: summary of location selection for eHUBS in MCC, with desired Level 2 eHUBS in amber, and gridlines at 500m c/c showing the notional Level 3 locations in orange. Possible additional Level 2 eHUBS are shown in pink. 3.2 Location selection for the smaller trial in Bury

For Bury, it was not necessary to examine the census data in the first instance – there is only one Metrolink line in Bury to anchor the Level 2 eHUBS, so it was possible to assess all stops on this line. As per the approach used for MCC, the public transport network, cycling routes and charging infrastructure were overlaid (Figure 21) and each Metrolink stop assessed in turn. Each stop is profiled in sections 3.2.1 – 3.2.6 and a summary and a conclusion for Bury is given in section 0.

25

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Ramsbottom 2x GMEV parking spaces

Fairfield Hospital Kirklees Trail 2x GMEV parking spaces

Bury interchange 10x GMEV parking spaces within 1km

Manchester, Bury & Bolton Canal

Radcliffe

Whitefield Outwood Trail

Besses o’th’ Barn

Prestwich Fairfax Road 2x GMEV parking spaces Heaton Park

Figure 21: overlay of public transport networks (rail, Metrolink and bus), cycling routes and charging infrastructure

26

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.2.1 Heaton Park Metrolink stop + existing park & ride Heaton Park’s chief characteristic is that it gives immediate access to Manchester’s largest municipal park – creating many family/leisure opportunities for the e-cargobikes. The space at the stop is plentiful, and there are currently around 12 parking spaces. There are no GMEV spaces currently, but design development of an upgrade scheme for Heaton Park is currently in progress which allows a replication opportunity in the long term. The area is primarily residential with some small businesses. Considered a stronger eHUBS Level 2 pilot location for the e-cargobikes, and a replication location for the e-car-club.

Figure 22: Google StreetViews of Heaton Park Metrolink stop

3.2.2 Prestwich Metrolink stop + existing park & ride Prestwich is a town located roughly midway between Bury town centre and the Regional Centre. It has a high concentration of small businesses. There are 2x GMEV spaces at c.100m from the Metrolink stop at Fairfax Road car park, and there is a lot of room at the stop itself. Prestwich Forest Park is at c.1km, but access to it needs consideration as accessing it requires crossing the busy A56 Bury New Road. In the other direction though, Heaton Park is also at c.1km with access across the less busy A665 Bury Old Road. It is easy to envisage both family/leisure and small business usage of the e-cargobikes in this area, and the 2x GMEV spaces allow for an e-car-club. Considered to be a strong candidate for a Level 2 eHUB.

Figure 23: site visit photographs of Prestwich Metrolink stop + 2x GMEV spaces at Fairfax Road Car Park, 100m away

27

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.2.3 Besses o’th’ Barn Metrolink stop + existing park & ride Besses o’th’ Barn is in a primarily residential area with some local shops and takeaways nearby; it lacks the clustering of small businesses seen elsewhere (particularly in Bury town centre, Radcliffe and Prestwich). There is plenty of space at the stop, with a small car park of c.9 spaces and Prestwich Forest Park is at c.1km distance – but the access route to it is complex involving subways at the A56 / M60 intersection. Not considered a stronger location for a Level 2 eHUB pilot.

Figure 24: Google StreetViews of Besses o’t’h’ Barn Metrolink stop + park & ride

3.2.4 Whitefield Metrolink stop + existing park & ride (to be upgraded) Whitefield is town located slightly more towards Bury town centre than the Regional Centre; it is the next town north from Prestwich. Whilst there is plentiful space at the stop, the number of small businesses in the area is more limited than at Bury town centre, Radcliffe or Prestwich. The family/leisure cycling opportunities are also not obvious, as high quality cycling infrastructure does not yet connect with the stop (this will change in the future as part of the Bee Network). There are no GMEV spaces currently, but a project is underway to put a second deck on the existing Park & Ride to increase the overall parking capacity from around 210 to around 330. As part of this there is potential for c.6 GMEV spaces to be added. These will not be available during the eHUBS pilot, but represent a medium term ‘replication’ opportunity. Considered to be a weaker location for a Level 2 eHUBS pilot, but a stronger replication location in the medium-term.

Figure 25: Google StreetView of Whitefield Metrolink park & ride and a computer generated image of the expanded park & ride

28

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.2.5 Radcliffe Metrolink stop + existing park & ride (to be upgraded) Radcliffe is the next town south from Bury town centre; it is a town with a market charter and its market hall has been reinvigorated in recent years. There is a cluster of small businesses in Radcliffe, and the Outwood Trail is at c.1km with good connections on cycle routes. There are no GMEV spaces currently, but a project is underway to put a second deck on the existing Park & Ride to increase the overall parking capacity from around 370 to around 485. As part of this there is potential for c.6 GMEV spaces to be added. These will not be available during the eHUBS pilot, but represent a medium term ‘replication’ opportunity. Considered to be a stronger location for a Level 2 eHUBS pilot for the e- cargobikes, and a stronger replication location in the medium-term for the e-car-club.

Figure 26: Google StreetView of Radcliffe park & ride, plus computer generated image of expanded park & ride

3.2.6 Bury Interchange Metrolink terminus + existing park & ride (to be redeveloped) Bury town centre is the largest within the borough of Bury. The Interchange dates from the 1980s and plans are taking shape for a comprehensive redevelopment to – amongst other objectives – significantly improve the sense of arrival into the town centre. Space is plentiful, there are many small businesses in the town centre, and in terms of family and leisure the Kirklees Trail is at c.1km. However, use of the e- cargobikes within the town centre and to access the trail would need careful consideration as there are busy roads to navigate. There is an unusually high number of GMEV parking spaces (10, across 5 sites). A strong candidate for a Level 2 eHUB, and a long-term opportunity for when the redevelopment happens.

Figure 27: site visit photographs of Bury Interchange

29

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Figure 28: Market Car Park, c.300m from Bury Interchange – 2x GMEV spaces

Figure 29: Trinity Street Car Park, c.300m from Bury Interchange – 2x GMEV spaces

Figure 30: The Castle Car Park, c.500m from Bury Interchange – 2x GMEV spaces

30

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Figure 31: Foundry Street Car Park, c.600m from Bury Interchange – 2x GMEV spaces

Figure 32: Parson Lane North Car Park, c.800m from Bury Interchange – 2x GMEV spaces

31

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

3.2.7 Summary and conclusion for the smaller trial in Bury

Metrolink stop GMEV spaces within e-cargobikes e-cargobikes space overall & other facilities? 1km walk? family/leisure? small at stop? grade businesses? Heaton Park n/a immediate limited – plentiful stronger Park & Ride access to mix of types (c.12 spaces) largest Manchester park Prestwich Fairfax Rd. x2 Prestwich many – plentiful stronger (c.36 spaces) c.150m Forest Park mix of types at c.1km, but access to it needs consideration Besses o’th’ Barn n/a Prestwich limited – plentiful weaker Park & Ride Forest Park mix of types (c.9 spaces) at c.1km, but access to it needs consideration Whitefield n/a n/a limited – plentiful weaker Park & Ride larger stores (c.216 spaces) & leisure *to be upgraded Radcliffe n/a Outwood Trail many – plentiful stronger Park & Ride at c.1km; mix of types (c.369 spaces) Manchester inc. market *to be upgraded Bolton & Bury Canal at c.350m Bury Interchange x2 Kirklees Trail at many – plentiful stronger Park & Ride @ c.300m walk c.1km mix of types (c.100 spaces) Trinity Bridge House x2 but access to it inc. market *to be @ c.300m walk needs redeveloped The Castle x2 consideration @ c.500m walk Foundry Street x2 @ c.600m walk Parson Lane North x2 @ c.800m walk Table 3: summary of the possible Level 2 eHUB locations assessed for the smaller trial in Bury

32

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

From the assessment on the previous pages, there are 4x stronger locations for Level 2 eHUBS.

2x at Heaton Park and Prestwich can be paired to form a core for a small and closely-spaced network. This ‘Prestwich and Heaton Park cluster’ could act as a direct comparator to the cluster(s) in MCC.

Figure 33: Prestwich and Heaton Park cluster – location selection for eHUBS in the south of Bury, with potential Level 2 eHUBS in amber, gridlines at 500m c/c and a notional Level 3 eHUBS distribution in orange. Likely to progress.

2x at Radcliffe and Bury Interchange could be included in a widely-spaced ‘northern network’. In addition to these Level 2 locations, the Kirklees Trail could be considered for Level 3 e-cargobike locations. However, this ‘northern network’ breaks from Cargoroo’s recommendation of a closely- spaced network of e-cargobikes. Safety and security could be an issue with widely-spaced and isolated sites. Since this report has already identified many more potential locations than there are e-cargobikes available from Cargoroo, it is considered unlikely that the ‘northern network’ will be progressed.

However, progressing the e-car-club near Bury Interchange is still recommended. Whilst not connected to the rapid transit network and therefore suitable as Level 3 eHUBS only, Ramsbottom (2x GMEV spaces) and Fairfield Hospital (2x GMEV spaces) should also be considered for e-car-club provision.

33

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Figure 34: Northern Network – potential Level 2 eHUBS in amber, gridlines at 1km c/c and a notional Level 3 eHUBS distribution in orange. Not likely to progress in this form. Consider e-car-club at Bury Interchange, Ramsbottom and Fairfield Hospital.

34

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

4. Planning at the location

There follows a brief description of the general considerations for Greater Manchester, followed by a table giving a strategic level view of the plan for the larger trial in MCC and the smaller trial in Bury.

4.1 Type determination

Following the definitions of eHUBS types in deliverables D.T1.1.1 and D.T2.2.2, the types of eHUBS initially trialled in Greater Manchester will be at Level 2 (Regional) and Level 3 (Local/Neighbourhood). The areas selected do not contain any inter-regional stations, which would denote a Level 1 eHUB.

The determination of the eHUB type generally follows straightforwardly from its location. If it is at a Metrolink stop, it has intra-regional connectivity and is Level 2. If it is away from the Metrolink stop, it has only local connectivity and is Level 3.

With reference to deliverables D.LT.1.1 & D.LT.1.2, the network is Business Model 2 (clustered).

4.2 Shared mobility offer for an eHUB

In general, most of our eHUBS will have a Cargoroo e-cargobike. There may be some exceptions – for example in the north of Bury where there may well be e-car-club provision near Bury Interchange or perhaps at Ramsbottom, but no e-cargobikes.

We will seek to provide an e-car wherever GMEV parking spaces are available. It would be desirable for every Level 2 eHUB to have an e-car, and many of them will. However, charging infrastructure is not in place at all of them – for example, Heaton Park. As we begin to make progress on the basic task of getting shared e-cars into existing GMEV parking spaces, we can then examine tactical opportunities to create new GMEV parking spaces to improve the offer at the Level 2 eHUBS – but it is not guaranteed that this can be achieved.

Enterprise has won MCC’s car club provider tender and wherever the e-car locations are on-street or on MCC land then Enterprise must be the commercial provider. Where the locations are off-street (for example East Didsbury park & ride) other providers could be considered. Bury has not yet undertaken such a tendering exercise and other providers could also be considered. Enterprise have advised us that they can readily provide battery electric vehicles (BEVs). The other main car club provider in Greater Manchester, Cowheels, has some existing BEVs.

35

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

4.3 Number of vehicles

In the initial eHUBS trial the number of e-cargobikes per eHUB will be low. This is due to the low number of e-cargobikes available (25), TfGM’s desire to have a larger trial and a smaller trial in contrasting areas, and Cargoroo’s stated need to have the e-cargobikes distributed on a closely-spaced grid of Level 3 locations. These factors combine to mean that under the strategic plan as currently drafted, each eHUB would be likely to have only one e-cargobike.

Regarding e-cars, most GMEV parking spaces come in pairs and so it is likely that there would only be one e-car at any given location – leaving the other parking space for general use. However, at termini locations where onward journeys from the Metrolink network may be of interest (Bury Interchange and East Didsbury) there are multiple GMEV parking spaces available and it would be desirable to have two e-car-club vehicles at these locations.

4.4 Infrastructure

As described elsewhere in this document, we are focussing on putting e-car-club vehicles into existing GMEV spaces so the infrastructure required is limited to line-and-sign to designate the existing space for shared mobility use. The e-cargobikes need an item of fixed infrastructure to lock onto such as a Sheffield stand or a bollard modified with Cargoroo’s rubberised ring fitting; they also require line-and- sign to designate the space for shared mobility use.

Figure 35: examples from Cargoroo of fixed infrastructure and line-and-sign

36

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

4.5 Summary The core strategic plan as it currently stands is as follows. Extension proposals given in brackets. The number of e-cargobikes, and hence the number of L3 eHUBS, are based on rough estimates assuming a 500m c/c grid of Cargoroo bikes for the Level 3 network. It is acknowledged that the sum total is greater than the 25 e-cargobikes Cargoroo are to provide, so some rationalisation is still needed. At this stage, every single e-cargobike has been treated as its own L3 eHUB in line with the definition of Business Model 2 (clustered) given in deliverables D.LT.1.1 & D.LT.1.2. At the D.T1.4.1 Operational Plan stage, grouping will be applied to these where there are e-cargobikes in close proximity in a neighbourhood, both for branding/communication and for Interreg reporting purposes.

Bury – northern network

type eHUB e-car e-bike e-cargo e-scooter (Ramsbottom) (L3) 0 (1) 0 (1) - - - Bury Interchange L2 1 1 (2) - - - (Fairfield Hospital) (L3) 0 (1) 0 (1) - - - sub-totals 1 (3) 1 (4) - - -

Bury – Prestwich & Heaton Park cluster

type eHUB e-car e-bike e-cargo e-scooter Prestwich L2 1 1 - 1 - Heaton Park L2 1 - - 1 - Level 3 network* L3 4* - - 4* - sub-totals 6 1 - 6 -

MCC – Chorlton & Whalley Range cluster

type eHUB e-car e-bike e-cargo e-scooter Chorlton L2 1 1 - 1 - St. Werburgh’s Rd. L2 1 - - 1 - Level 3 network* L3 11* - - 11* - (Sale Water Park) (L2) 0 (1) - - (1) - (Stretford) (L2) 0 (1) 0 (1) - (1) - sub-totals 13 (15) 1 (2) - 13 (15) -

MCC – Didsbury cluster

type eHUB e-car e-bike e-cargo e-scooter Didsbury Village L2 1 - - 1 - East Didsbury L2 1 1 (2) - 1 - Level 3 network L3 7* - - 7* - sub-totals 9 1 (2) - 9 - 29 to 33 eHUBS in total GRAND TOTAL 4 to 9 nil 28 to 30* nil with 7 to 9 at Level 2*

37

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

5. Getting started

5.1 Making decisions and installation of infrastructure

The final decision-making process on locations needs to be undertaken by involving officers of the relevant local authorities (MCC and Bury).

It is expected that all final decisions will be taken through the relevant TfGM Boards; these include Strategy Functional Board and Metrolink Functional Board.

Because the eHUBS need to be operational between April 2020 and September 2020, it is unlikely (although not impossible) that the eHUBS project will construct new ‘hard’ battery charging infrastructure or structures etc. beyond very simple Sheffield stands / bollards.

Instead, the focus will be on:

• Using ‘soft’ battery charging infrastructure for the e-cargobikes (i.e. battery swap) and pockets of unused space to host the e-cargobikes (which are relatively compact). This requires –

o identification of the best pockets of unused space to host the e-cargobikes, which will be achieved through site visits and engagement with officers of the districts;

o legal and commercial heads of terms signed with the e-cargobike provider (Cargoroo);

o an operations and maintenance contract in place with a local provider;

o agreements with the local authority where the host space is on-street (e.g. Traffic Regulation Orders);

o agreements with private / 3rd party owners where the host space is on their land;

o agreements with Keolis Amey Metrolink where the host space is on operational land (including the formal Keolis Amey Metrolink change process);

o suitable and sufficient risk assessments in place to support the above;

o ‘line-and-sign’ to designate the host space (optional).

38

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

• Using existing ‘hard’ battery charging infrastructure for the e-car-club i.e. converting certain existing GMEV parking spaces to be host spaces for shared e-cars. This requires –

o analysis of usage of the existing GMEV parking spaces, to ensure that we do not unduly affect private EV owners when converting GMEV parking spaces to shared use;

o legal and commercial heads of terms signed with the e-car provider and the charging provider, including how these two parties interact;

o agreements with the local authority where the host space is on-street (e.g. Traffic Regulation Orders);

o agreements with private / 3rd party owners where the host space is on their land;

o agreements with Keolis Amey Metrolink where the host space is on operational land (including the formal Keolis Amey Metrolink change process);

o ‘line-and-sign’ to designate the GMEV parking spaces reserved for shared e-cars.

It is not expected that planning permission will be needed for the limited infrastructure anticipated (primarily line-and-sign) although this will be checked with the officers of the relevant local authorities.

To keep costs down and minimise interfaces, it is envisaged that a single design-and-build contract will be awarded across all locations needing ‘line-and-sign’.

5.2 Start-up of the eHUB

So long as the above items are completed it is envisaged that the eHUBS will be fit for start-up. They will be given a soft start i.e. introduce the vehicles without a significant publicity campaign to allow any teething issues to be identified. Following this, publicity/communications will be introduced to promote them.

39

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Appendix A – Cargoroo use cases / personas / B2C proposition

40

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

41

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Appendix B – relevant cycleways

‘Cycleways’ in Greater Manchester are new routes that give cyclists more space on traffic-free paths, quiet roads, and special lanes separated from the traffic. They can be regarded as some of the highest quality cycling infrastructure in Greater Manchester. The information below is from TfGM’s website.

Fallowfield Loop – St. Werburgh’s Road Level 2 eHUB

“Flat, well-surfaced, disused railway line in urban green space in south and east Manchester.”

42

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Oxford Road and Wilmslow Road cycleway (Didsbury Village Level 2 eHUB)

“For most of this route between Didsbury and , you’ll be in a dedicated cycle lane, separated from the traffic by special new kerbs. Passing through Withington, Fallowfield, , and the university district, there are special lanes to get you round bus stops and parked cars. Traffic signals are timed to give cyclists a head start from junctions too. At the Didsbury end, pick up the Mersey Valley and Stockport cycleway all the way to Stockport.”

43

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Mersey Valley and Stockport cycleway (Didsbury Village and East Didsbury Level 2 eHUBS)

“This mostly traffic-free route links Stockport town centre to East Didsbury and Cheadle. In the middle part you’re on a gravel track alongside the scenic River Mersey. Other sections are on well-maintained cycle paths, quiet streets, or special bike lanes separated from the traffic. At the Didsbury end you go past entertainment centre, and can join the Wilmslow Road cycleway to Rusholme and the universities. There is secure bike parking at the Cycle Hub in Stockport town centre and at East Didsbury.”

44

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

Bridgewater Way Cycleway (possible Stretford Level 2 eHUB)

“This completely traffic-free route links Altrincham to in Manchester city centre and the . Ride on the canal towpath from Broadheath, through Sale, Stretford and , where you can pick up paths to and MediaCity. There are lots of cycling access points, so join the route wherever you want. The path has a cycle-friendly all-weather surface, with solar lighting to guide you in the dark in some sections. There is secure bike parking at the Altrincham rail station, in Sale along the route, and at nearby MediaCityUK.”

45

2.1 Method / procedure for selection / implementation of eHUBS

The eHUBS Consortium

The consortium of eHUBS consists of 15 partners with multidisciplinary and complementary competencies. This includes European cities, leading universities, networks and electric and shared mobility providers.

@eHUBS_NWE #eHUBS https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13711468/

For further information please visit http://www.nweurope.eu/ehubs

The sole responsibility for the content of this document lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither Interreg North-West Europe nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. 46