GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on

GMPTE 2 Piccadilly Place Manchester M1 3BG

GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

October 2008

Mott MacDonald Spring Bank House 33 Stamford Street Altrincham Cheshire WA14 1ES Tel : +44(0)161 926 4000 Fax : +44(0)161 926 4100

243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ abc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

Issue and Revision Record Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description

A Barnes T Young A Parke Draft - First Issue for A 23/10/08 Comment

This document has been prepared for the titled project or named part thereof and should not be relied upon or used for any other project without an independent check being carried out as to its suitability and prior written authority of Mott MacDonald Limited being obtained. Mott MacDonald Limited accepts no responsibility or liability for the consequence of this document being used for a purpose other than the purposes for which it was commissioned. Any person using or relying on the document for such other purpose agrees, and will by such use or reliance be taken to confirm his agreement to indemnify Mott MacDonald Limited for all loss or damage resulting therefrom. Mott MacDonald Limited accepts no responsibility or liability for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned. To the extent that this report is based on information supplied by other parties, Mott MacDonald Limited accepts no liability for any loss or damage suffered by the client, whether contractual or tortious, stemming from any conclusions based on data supplied by parties other than Mott MacDonald Limited and used by Mott MacDonald Limited in preparing this report.

243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ abc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

List of Contents Page

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Study Objectives 1 1.2 Methodology 1 1.3 PTE/PTA Policy 1

2 Operations, Loadings and Safety 2 2.1 Current Operations and Loadings 2 2.2 Methods of Operation with Reference to Cycles on Trams 2 2.3 Demand Issues 4 2.4 Safety 4 2.4.1 Risks from Cycle Carriage 4 2.4.2 Method of Cycle Storage 5 2.4.3 HMRI Policy 7 2.4.4 Impact on Safety During Any Emergency Stops 7 2.4.5 Methods of Reducing Risk 7 2.4.6 Modifications to Infrastructure and Signing 9

3 Other LRT Systems in UK and Europe 10 3.1 UK LRT Systems 10 3.1.1 Sheffield Supertram 10 3.1.2 Nottingham Express Transit (NET) 10 3.1.3 Docklands (DLR) 10 3.1.4 Other UK Systems 11 3.2 European LRT Systems 11

4 Comparison of Metrolink with Other LRT Systems 12 4.1 UK LRT Systems 12 4.2 European LRT Systems 15 4.2.1 Strasbourg 15 4.2.2 Stuttgart 16 4.2.3 Cologne (Köln) 18 4.2.4 19

5 Impact on Capacity 21 5.1 Existing Capacities 21 5.1.1 Ansaldo T68 Trams 21 5.1.2 Bombardier M5000 Trams 21 5.2 Effect of Bicycles on Capacity 21 5.2.1 Capacity 21 5.2.2 Line Capacities 22 5.2.3 Capacity Issues 23

6 Impact on Dwell Times 24 6.1 Existing Dwell Times 24 i 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/i of ii P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

6.2 Possible Impact on Dwell Time at Stops 24 6.3 Evidence of Effect of Cycle Usage on Dwell Times 25 6.4 Possible Impact on Overall Journey Times 25

7 Cost of Repairs to Trams and Claims 26 7.1 Types of Damage and Repairs 26 7.2 Costs of Repairs 26 7.3 Costs of Claims 26

8 Conclusions 27 8.1 Operational Issues 27 8.2 Safety of Bicycles on Trams 27 8.3 Evidence from Other Systems 27 8.4 Risk Assessment 27 8.5 Capacity Impacts 28 8.6 Dwell Times 28 8.7 Costs of Repairs and Claims 28 8.8 Trial Period 29

Appendix A Risk Assessment A-1

Appendix B References B-1

Tables Table 1: Metrolink ticket sales by day of week for September 2008...... 2 Table 2: Comparative data for UK Light Rail Systems ...... 13 Table 3: Capacities for each tram type for wheelchair and cycle occupancy...... 22

Figures Figure 1: Bicycle storage options for T68A trams (Nottingham University Study)...... 6 Figure 2: Bicycle storage location for M5000 trams ...... 6 Figure 3: Strasbourg Outlook vehicle ...... 16 Figure 4: Stuttgart DT8 Class 10 vehicle ...... 17 Figure 5: Cologne Bombardier K4500 (left) and Bombardier K5000 (right)...... 18 Figure 6: Basel Schindler vehicle in BLT livery (left) and Siemens Combino vehicle in BVB livery (right) ...... 19

ii 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/ii of ii P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

Executive Summary

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) is reconsidering whether it is safe to permit the carriage of bicycles on trams. Mott MacDonald has been appointed to undertake a research study to collate and assess available sources of information in relation to this issue. Previous research has been undertaken by GMPTE and others and this has provided a valuable input to this report.

It is understood that currently no UK light rail systems permit bicycles to be carried on their vehicles at any time. Cycles have been carried by special arrangement on Sheffield Supertram and DLR but these are by exception. The majority of light rail systems in Europe do not permit cycles to be carried but a number do at weekends, during off peak periods or in a few cases at any time.

Prior to approval of this policy a number of operational issues would need to be considered including driver supervision of the correct stowage of cycles and priority regulations for wheelchair users. Consideration must also be given to the policy of whether bikes can be carried on both types of operating vehicle i.e. T68 and M5000, and how to manage any confusion arising for the cyclists due to different vehicle internal layouts or the restriction of carriage to one type of vehicle.

The HMRI, now part of the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), have raised no fundamental objection to carriage of cycles on trams on safety grounds. However, there remain a number of concerns that would need to be carefully monitored; such as the correct stowage of cycles. ORR would look to the relevant duty holders, GMPTE and Stagecoach Metrolink, to manage risks so far as reasonably practicable. Under the recently introduced Railways and Other Guided Systems (Safety) regulations (ROGS), the Operator (Stagecoach Metrolink Ltd) is required to self certify the safe operation of the system.

An initial risk assessment has indicated that the main risk of this policy is the incorrect stowage of bicycles, which would hinder egress from the vehicles during operation and more importantly in an emergency situation. Clearly identified stowage locations and restraining equipment is required, and a procedure for enforcing this stowage is a preference but may be difficult to provide without the addition of conductors or presence of more inspectors on the network.

The combined seating and standing capacity of an M5000 tram is 206 passengers and would reduce to 200 with the carriage of two wheelchairs, or 195 with the carriage of one wheelchair and one cycle. With only one cycle the capacity would be 201 passengers. Line capacities would be reduced by 2.5% if each tram carried one cycle. A typical 6 minute service (10 trams per hour) would reduce from 2,060 passengers/hour to 2,010 passengers/hour.

S-1 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/S-1 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

It is considered that the carriage of cycles should not be permitted during the peak periods as it is anticipated that this would create increased dwell times at stops and reduce the capacity of the already full trams during this period. From the evidence available there should be no significant increase in dwell times during the off-peak period if cycles are permitted. However there could be an increase if several cyclists wished to board at one time, or if a cyclist attempted to board a tram with a high number of standing passengers. There should be no significant increase to off-peak journey times.

There is little evidence on which to base any estimates of costs of repairs or the costs of claims resulting from damage or injury caused by bicycles on trams. The risks are likely to be small and repair or claims costs low. Examples of the anticipated costs are dry cleaning charges for passengers’ clothes which are soiled by oily bike chains or wet bike tyres, or the repair, painting or replacement of interior panels of the vehicles which are damaged by the bikes.

In addition to provision for cycles on the trams modifications would be required to infrastructure and signing over the whole network. Some of the existing parts of the network, particularly in the city centre, may be difficult to adapt as they are already congested and space for expansion is not easily available.

Demand for cycle use is currently unknown and will be dependent on a number of factors, including nature of the area served by individual routes, comparative length of journey and the fare. Cycles are currently allowed by the train operator on the Oldham-Rochdale route. It is recommended that GMPTE undertake a survey of cycle use on the Oldham-Rochdale route to estimate current demand levels prior to closure of the route for conversion to tram operation in Autumn 2009.

There are a number of factors including impacts on dwell times, impacts on overall journey times and practical operational issues where it is not possible to obtain precise data. If carriage of bikes on Metrolink is to be considered a prior means to analyse these unknown factors is required. This would require GMPTE to conduct a trial. This could be restricted to a limited route, for limited time periods to monitor any arising issues.

S-2 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/S-2 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

1 Introduction

1.1 Study Objectives

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) is reconsidering whether it is safe to permit the carriage of bicycles on trams. To support this process they have appointed Mott MacDonald to undertake a research study to collate and assess available sources of information in relation to this issue.

1.2 Methodology

Publicly available reports as detailed in Appendix B have been reviewed and relevant information extracted to help provide answers to the questions which have been posed by GMPTE’s task brief. These are discussed in the following sections.

1.3 PTE/PTA Policy

At the Development Working Group of 15th October 2002, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (GMPTA) members agreed to support in principle the carriage of cycles on trams in off-peak hours, subject to the satisfactory resolution of a number of issues. These included: • The practical constraints of carrying bicycles on trams; • The impact on other users, in particular disabled people, passengers with prams and other passengers whose mobility is impaired.

A consultation exercise with surveys and focus groups in 20031 indicated a significant majority in favour of permitting cycles on trams but also raised safety issues that would need to be resolved. As a result it is understood that the proposed Concession Agreement for the Phase 3 “Big Bang” and the associated tram specification were amended to include provision of cycle carriage on trams on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays and on weekdays before 07:00 hrs, between 10:00 hrs and 16:00 hrs and after 19:00 hrs.

Currently the specification for procurement of additional trams under the Phase 1 & 2 Capacity Enhancement proposal i.e. the M5000 vehicles being supplied by Bombardier Transportation, includes the provision of strap restraints which will allow cycles to be positioned in the wheelchair spaces.

1 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/1 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

2 Operations, Loadings and Safety

2.1 Current Operations and Loadings

Metrolink services currently operate between Bury and Altrincham every 12 minutes, Bury and Piccadilly every 12 minutes and Altrincham and Piccadilly every 12 minutes, giving a combined 6 minute service over these sections during the working day. The Eccles service operates between Eccles and Piccadilly every 12 minutes giving a combined service of 15 trams per hour between Cornbrook and the city centre.

Trams on the Altrincham and Bury lines are operating near capacity in the morning and evening peak periods, particularly between 08.00 and 09.00 and 17.00 and 18.00. It has been agreed by GMPTE that if cycles were to be permitted they would not be accepted during the peak periods when demand levels are high and trams heavily loaded in the inbound direction. The levels of demand by day of the week are indicated in Table 1 which shows the average total daily ticket sales for September 2008 by day of the week. It can be seen that the highest level is on Fridays and Saturdays which are higher than most weekdays. Sunday use is only about half that of the other days. If a trial period was to be considered then there would be merit in considering it on Sundays only initially as the impact on other passengers would be lower than on other days of the week.

Table 1: Metrolink ticket sales by day of week for September 20081

Day Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Total daily ticket sales 17,862 18,266 19,161 18,615 20,728 19,878 8,978 Percentage of weekly total 14.50% 14.80% 15.5% 15.1% 16.8% 16.1% 7.2% Trams also operate at capacity for special events including football and cricket matches at Old Trafford, major events at the Arena at Victoria station and other major attractions in the city. If cycles were permitted it would probably be necessary to prohibit their use during these major events and an appropriate method of regulation and information would need to be devised.

2.2 Methods of Operation with Reference to Cycles on Trams

Cycles are not permitted at any time on any part of the Metrolink network unless they are folding and fully encased. The drivers currently enforce this regulation by the use of the vehicle external rear view mirrors whilst waiting at a platform. Wheelchairs, prams and buggies are permitted and space is allocated for them adjacent to the two centre doors. On double unit trams only the spaces in the first car are fully accessible at all stops.

1 Note that the figures in Table 1 exclude those travelling using a season ticket or under a concession. 2 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/2 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

All trams are one person operated (the driver) and there is not normally any other staff presence on the vehicle except when on-vehicle ticket inspections are being undertaken. Communication with the driver is available using the passenger information call points. If cycles were permitted, supervision by the driver would be by use of the internal and external rear view mirrors, as is the case for supervision of wheelchairs. M5000 trams will be fitted with CCTV cameras in place of external rear view mirrors but will retain internal rear view mirrors.

Wheelchair users have priority use of the space designated for them. If prams or buggies are already occupying the space they would normally be expected to move to allow access for a wheelchair. At most times there is adequate space to accommodate a wheelchair and a pram or buggy. If cycles were permitted, it would be necessary to formalise the priority rules and to display them on the tram. Wheelchair users should clearly have first priority and pram or buggy users second priority. Cycles should then have third priority. Difficulties could arise if the space is already occupied by a cycle and a wheelchair user then wishes to board. Cyclists would not be allowed to board crowded trams but this would tend to be ‘self regulating’.

A policy decision would be needed to decide whether the cyclist should be requested to leave the tram and wait for the next one or the wheelchair user asked to wait for the next tram. In the event of any dispute the driver may have to attempt to resolve it using the Public Announcement (PA) system. In extreme cases it may be necessary for the driver to leave the cab which is highly undesirable and would result in significant service delays. Clear publicity and information in addition to signing should assist in resolving most situations. Appropriate regulations may need to be included in the Metrolink bye-laws.

All services are currently operated by T68 type trams (including T68A and T68M). Internal layouts are similar although there are some detailed differences in the seating layout and wheelchair spaces. At present there is no space suitable for storage of bicycles. The layout of M5000 trams is different with the wheelchair space on the opposite side of the gangway. The wheelchair space is designed to be capable of use for cycle storage. While it would be feasible to modify T68 type trams to provide for cycle storage (see Section 2.4.2) it is understood that there are currently no plans to do so.

This means that from autumn 2009 there will be two significantly different types of tram in service, one which does not have cycle provision and one which does. The allocation of trams to services has not yet been finalised but it is likely that at least for the first two or three years (before the commencement of services on Phase 3A), trams of both types will be used on most parts of the network. If cycles were only permitted on one type of tram it would be difficult for a cyclist to know when a tram of that type would arrive. This could mean restricting cycle use to routes which would be exclusively served by new trams.

It is difficult to accurately predict the extent of problems arising from priority for different users, different tram types or other operational aspects. If bikes were to be allowed on trams we would recommend these issues be fully investigated during an advance trial period, possibly on one route at limited times such as Sundays only, and the results carefully monitored.

3 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/3 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

2.3 Demand Issues

The demand for carriage of cycles on trams will be dependent on a number of factors including the level of cycling in the area served, the location and length of tram route, comparative journey times and fares, the topography and hilliness of the area and the potential for accessing leisure destinations including national cycle network routes. It is claimed that demand on the Oldham and Rochdale line will be high because the existing trains that will be replaced by trams do currently carry cycles. However, no data has been found on actual cycle use but it is believed to be low.

This report is based upon the data currently made available. In addition, initial inquiries with Northern Rail, the current train operator, have indicated that they don’t have records of cycle use on the Oldham Line.. In the event that no data is available it may be suitable to conduct a survey on the current demand levels, running from now to the closure of the train route in autumn 2009.

2.4 Safety

2.4.1 Risks from Cycle Carriage

A high level risk assessment was carried out to analyse the health, safety and operational risks associated with the carriage of bicycles on trams. A table of these identified risks is included in Appendix A along with possible mitigation measures. The main risks are as follows:

• Collision between cycle and pedestrian on approach to stop;

• Collision between cycle and pedestrian on platform;

• Collision between cycle and platform furniture;

• Cyclist falls off platform onto the ;

• Collision between cycle and tram on boarding or alighting;

• Damage caused to tram interior by unsecured cycle;

• Injury to passengers and cyclist by unsecured cycle while tram in motion;

• Damage or injury caused in tram emergency stop;

• Restriction by cycle to emergency egress for other passengers in emergency evacuation.

4 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/4 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

The last identified risk is considered the most significant. The level of this risk can be reduced by providing adequate signage to identify the cycle storage position on the vehicle. On the M5000 cycle stowage would be to the side of the vehicle and should thus have little impact upon the emergency egress time. This is however dependent upon cyclists using the designated spaces, and without any conductors or active monitoring systems within the vehicles it is difficult to enforce the use of these spaces without the driver leaving the cab. This risk remains as a high risk level, and will require consultation with Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate (HMRI), which is now part of the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), to prove that the risk can be suitably managed.

In addition to the above risks the interactions between the cyclist and mobility impaired users including persons with pushchairs, wheelchair passengers and those with luggage would need to be carefully managed.

2.4.2 Method of Cycle Storage

Safety is influenced by the method of cycle storage. There are three basic options:

• Cycle hand held by cyclist;

• Cycle strapped to wall or floor;

• Cycle stored in racks (horizontal, inclined or vertical arrangement).

Any of these are likely to be acceptable to HMRI provided that risks are managed as far as reasonably practicable (see Section 2.4.3). The wheelchair spaces on M5000 trams are intended to be used for prams, buggies or bicycles when not occupied by a wheelchair. Two straps with Velcro are provided attached to the wall between the perch seats adjacent to the wheelchair space for use in restraining a bicycle. No provision for cycles has been made on T68 and T68A trams and the wheelchair spaces would need modification to provide sufficient space for cycles and restraining straps. The options for storage locations on T68A trams were considered in the Nottingham University Study2 and are shown in Figure 1. The location of the cycle position for M5000 trams is shown in Figure 2.

5 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/5 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

Figure 1: Bicycle storage options for T68A trams (Nottingham University Study)

Figure 2: Bicycle storage location for M5000 trams

6 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/6 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

2.4.3 HMRI Policy

The policy of HMRI (now part of ORR) was set out in a letter to GMPTE on 20 May 2003 (see Ref. No. 6 in Appendix B ). In concept they have raised no objection to the carriage of cycles on trams. As with all aspects of tram operation they look to the relevant duty holders to manage risks associated with their undertaking so far as reasonably practicable. Their view is that cycles should be adequately secured during transit but they accept that this could include being held by the user. Other aspects that would need careful consideration include emergency evacuation and escape routes, and design including ramp widths and cycle dismount signs. It is clear that ORR have no fundamental objections to carriage of cycles on trams but they would expect risks to be managed as for any aspect of tram operation.

From 1st October 2008 the Railways and Other Guided Systems (Safety) regulations (ROGS) became effective. These require the Operator to self certify the safe operation of the system in place of ORR. It will therefore be for Stagecoach Metrolink Ltd to determine whether they will be prepared to accept and manage the risks associated with bicycles on the trams.

2.4.4 Impact on Safety During Any Emergency Stops

A particular concern is the risk of damage or injury resulting from emergency stops when high rates of deceleration may cause an unsecured cycle to fall and impact on the vehicle or a passenger. Risks may be reduced by careful design of the tram interior and by appropriate regulations. Design issues include bulkheads and designated cycle storage positions, interactions with wheelchairs, prams or buggies, and restraint measures to meet HMRI requirements. A segregated storage area for cycles, as found on some heavy rail vehicles, ensures that the risk of impact is minimised but it is unlikely that adequate space can be designated on a light rail vehicle, with cyclists having to share space with other users including wheelchairs and buggies. Provision of cycle storage racks can be considered but vertical racks are not favoured by some cyclists because of the time and effort required to lift the cycle into the vertical position. The vertical storage position of bikes results in the handlebars being at head height, which is unfavourable as it may cause injury in shared space areas of trams. This risk of injury also occurs however when the bike is stored on two wheels as the handlebars are at the head height of children. This risk will occur whenever bikes are stored in shared areas of the tram vehicles.

The number of cycles permitted at any one time in a designated location can be controlled by regulation and signing. Regulations can also stipulate the method of storage and restraint, whether cyclists must remain with their cycles at all times and any conditions regarding boarding or alighting.

2.4.5 Methods of Reducing Risk

If the carriage of bicycles on trams was permitted, the risks identified in Section 2.4.1 would need to be mitigated as far as reasonably practicable to ensure that operations are safe for the cyclists, passengers and pedestrians in the vicinity of the station. This would involve mitigation measures in the station environment and on the trams, and also by controlling the time period when carriage is permitted.

7 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/7 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

The main mitigation measure identified by the risk assessment was the provision of signage around the station and within the trams. Around the station signage would be required for the following:

• To identify where cyclists have to dismount before entering the station;

• To enforce that riding of bikes on the platform is prohibited;

• To indicate when the transportation of cycles is permitted, what the charge is if any, which vehicles allow the carriage of cycles if applicable, and where to wait on the platform;

• To indicate the levels of priority that wheelchair users, passengers with prams and cyclists have, and the process by which these priorities are enforced.

Signage would be required on the outside and within the vehicles to:

• Identify which doors on the vehicle are to be used for loading and unloading if applicable;

• Indicate the priority levels of different users;

• Identify the location in which the cycles are to be stowed and;

• Enforce the use of restraining straps or other applied restraining measures.

In order to reduce the likelihood of the identified risks it is thought that restrictions on the time period and stops from which carriage is permitted would be suitable. These could be a combination of the following:

• Confine cycles to Sundays only;

• Confine cycles to weekends only;

• Confine cycles to off-peak and weekends only;

• Confine cycles to specified routes or stops;

• Prohibit cycles from on-street city centre stops;

• Limit cycles to one per tram.

8 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/8 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

2.4.6 Modifications to Infrastructure and Signing

As well as provision for cycles on the trams, provision would be needed to access and egress from trams. Modifications would be required to infrastructure and signing over the whole network including steps, ramps, lifts and platforms. A report prepared by GMPTE3 sets out the changes that would need to be considered to ensure that the system remains safe for all users including cyclists. Some of the existing parts of the network, particularly in the city centre, may be difficult to adapt as they are already congested and space for expansion is not easily available.

The GMPTE Report should be seen as a ‘starting point’ for more detailed investigation of facilities throughout the network or those parts of it where cycles could be permitted. It may then be necessary to prohibit cycles from certain parts of the network, for example city centre on-street stops.

9 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/9 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

3 Other LRT Systems in UK and Europe

3.1 UK LRT Systems None of the existing LRT systems in the UK permit cycles to be carried at any time including off-peak periods. Some very limited experience exists for special events.

3.1.1 Sheffield Supertram

Cycles are not permitted on trams but a special arrangement was made with ‘Pedal Pushers’, the Sheffield Cycle Campaign, to allow cycles on a special tram for a specified journey. These were operated on about four occasions in autumn 2007 with up to around 20 cycles on each tram. Normal fares were charged initially but then the operator required a charge of £150 per tram journey and it is believed that no further events have occurred. One suggestion from the cycling organisations is to have one section of the tram for the public and one as the 'Cyclists' Special' on a service tram. Stagecoach Supertram and the Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) were reported to be considering this option.

There is no suggestion that cycles would be permitted on all normal service trams. However the original specification for the trams did include space for a bicycle in the low floor sections but a policy change before the system started operation meant that they have not been used for this purpose and are only used for wheelchairs or prams and buggies.

3.1.2 Nottingham Express Transit (NET)

The Promoters of NET and the existing operator of NET Line One feel that the carriage of bicycles on the NET system would cause safety and operational concerns. Trams currently operating on NET Line One, which are understood will also run on the NET Phase Two routes, do not include facilities for securing bicycles and it is seen that unsecured bicycles create an unacceptable risk of injury to passengers. Secure facilities would also create a problem, particularly with passenger capacity, comfort and operational efficiency, especially as usage on Line One has demonstrated that the system is well used for most periods in the day.

3.1.3 Docklands Light Rail (DLR)

Cycles are not permitted on normal DLR services but special arrangements are made for specific cycling events. Prior to the London Triathlon, competitors are permitted to use the DLR to take their bicycles to the race venue near the Poplar stop.

10 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/10 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

3.1.4 Other UK Systems

None of the other UK light rail systems have permitted cycles to be carried including the Blackpool Tramway, Tyne and Wear Metro, Greater Manchester Metrolink, Midland Metro and London Tramlink (Croydon). The option has been discussed by a number of authorities including Transport for London (TfL) but no changes to existing policies have been made. The proposed tram schemes for South Hampshire and Liverpool made provision for cycles on trams but neither of these schemes have been progressed, both having been cancelled by the Department for Transport (DfT).

It is understood that the new tram system under construction for Edinburgh and the new trams for the Blackpool tram system will not have any designated spaces for cycles.

3.2 European LRT Systems

The majority of tram systems in European cities do not permit carriage of cycles. In Gothenburg cycles were prohibited because it was considered that pedals and handlebars could cause damage and injury and there would be a risk of cycle chain oil fouling the garments of other passengers4. The Antwerp authorities were opposed to carrying cycles because it would degrade commercial speeds and passenger comfort, both features which passengers sought in survey responses4.

The Nottingham University Report2 states that “there are a number of European systems which allow cycle carriage although they tend to be low floor systems. This reduces the number of ramps and allows adjacent footways to become part of the platform, thus increasing space and reducing potential conflicts.” It concludes that “there are no overseas systems with physical layouts which match those in Manchester. It is therefore difficult to learn any lessons from them in terms of infrastructure changes.” The report includes a brief description of cycle facilities on , Hannover, Strasbourg and Zurich.

A survey in 19984 reported that cycles were permitted on trams in , Basel, Berne, Bonn, , Cologne, Darmstadt, , , , Strasbourg, Stuttgart and Zurich. About half these allowed cycles at any time and half at off-peak times only. In addition, cycles were permitted at weekends only in Bochum-Gelsenkirchen and Essen. A total of 28 cities worldwide permitted cycle carriage.

In some cities the number of cycles that are permitted on a tram is restricted to one, two or occasionally four as in Karlsruhe2.

11 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/11 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

4 Comparison of Metrolink with Other LRT Systems

4.1 UK LRT Systems

A comparison of Metrolink with other UK light rail systems is shown in Table 2 below. Edinburgh tram has been included although it will not open until 2011. In concept Metrolink most closely resembles Tyne and Wear Metro and Croydon Tramlink as both were based on converted suburban rail lines with new central area links. However it differs from Tyne and Wear Metro in having street running cross city links in place of tunnels and differs from Croydon Tramlink in having high floor rather than low floor trams. Metrolink is the only UK light rail system with high floor vehicles and high platforms with street running.

Metrolink is one of three systems, (Tyne and Wear Metro and Croydon Tramlink being the others) which have no staff on board who would be able to supervise cycle users other than the driver. All the other systems have a conductor or in the case of DLR a train captain.

None of the UK systems allow carriage of cycles on service trams. DLR and South Yorkshire Supertram have allowed cycles for specific events on limited occasions.

Table 2 also shows some statistical comparisons. The character of the systems is indicated by the average stop spacing which is over 1 km for Tyne and Wear, DLR and Metrolink as they are predominantly segregated systems on railway alignments. The remaining systems have stop spacing mainly between 600m and 800m indicating their predominantly tramway characteristics.

An indication of passenger density is given by passenger kilometres per route kilometre. It can be seen that DLR has the highest value at 5.93 million passenger km/route km, as may be expected, but Metrolink is a close second with 5.52 million passenger km/route km, ahead of Croydon Tramlink with 5.05 million passenger km/route km.

Another measure is passenger kilometres per vehicle kilometre which gives average vehicle occupancy. Again DLR has the highest value at 74.2 passenger kms per vehicle km, Croydon Tramlink is second with 56.6 and Metrolink close behind with 55.3. Tyne and Wear Metro is slightly lower at 53.9.

These measures indicate that Metrolink has high vehicle loadings, similar to those on DLR, Croydon and Tyne and Wear Metro.

12 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/12 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

Table 2: Comparative data for UK Light Rail Systems

Metro Railway Sheffield Tramway Blackpool (Croydon) Metrolink Supertram Nottingham Manchester Tyne Wear & MidlandMetro Express Transit Docklands Light Edinburgh Tram London Tramlink Year open 1885 1980 1987 1992 1994 1999 2000 2004 2011 Route length (km) 18 78 55 38 29 20 28 14 18 No. stops 61 60 39 37 48 23 39 23 22 No. Trams 78 90 98 32 25 16 24 15 27 No. Staff 106 673 484 329 258 162 216 185 - No. Passengers. 07/08 (m) 2.9 39.8 66.6 20.0 14.8 4.8 27.2 10.2 - Passenger. km 07/08 (m) 8.7 312.8 326.4 210.0 44.4 50.5 141.4 44.0 - Power supply 600v DC 1500v DC 750v 750v DC 750v DC 750v DC 750v DC 750v DC 750v DC OLE OLE DC OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE 3rd rail Rolling stock type mixed 6 axle artic. 6 axle artic. 6 axle artic. 8 axle artic. 6 axle artic. 6 axle artic. 6 axle artic. 6 axle artic. Multiple unit operation Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Floor height High** High High High Low Low Low Low Low Platform height Low/none High High High Low Low Low Low Low Street running Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wheelchair accessible No* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Crew Driver Driver Train captain Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Conductor Conductor Conductor Conductor Conductor Cycles permitted No No No No No No No No No Owner Blackpool TWPTE TfL GMPTE SYPTE WMPTE TfL Nottingham Edinburgh Council City/County City

13 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/13 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

Metro Railway Sheffield Tramway Blackpool (Croydon) Metrolink Supertram Nottingham Manchester Tyne Wear & MidlandMetro Express Transit Docklands Light Edinburgh Tram London Tramlink Operator Blackpool TWMetro Serco Stagecoach Stagecoach National TfL Transdev Transdev Transport Docklands Express Services Ltd Average stop spacing, (m) 295 1,300 1,410 1,130 605 870 720 610 820 No. trams per route km 4.3 1.2 1.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.5 No. staff per tram 1.4 7.5 4.9 10.3 10.3 10.1 9.0 12.3 - Passenger kms per route 0.48 4.01 5.93 5.52 1.53 2.53 5.05 3.14 - km, m. Vehicle km, m. 0.9 5.8 4.4 3.8 2.4 1.6 2.5 1.2 - Passenger kms per vehicle 9.7 53.9 74.2 55.3 18.5 31.6 56.6 36.7 kms

Notes

*Yes from 2012. ** Low from 2012

.

14 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/14 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

4.2 European LRT Systems

Four existing European LRT systems have been compared with Manchester Metrolink, all of which run on 1435 mm gauge as the Metrolink system. These four modern tram networks allow the carriage of bicycles on their rolling stock, with variations on the time of day the bicycles can be transported and the charge for doing so.

4.2.1 Strasbourg

The Strasbourg CTS system in France was officially opened in 1994. To date it comprises of 5 lines, operating a length of approximately 55 km. This system uses a combination of Bombardier and Alstom manufactured rolling stock, which are all 100% low floor vehicles, in combination with low level platforms. The operators’ policy with regard to the carriage of bicycles is that they are allowed to travel on the vehicles for free, but only during off-peak periods. The bikes also have to be stowed in the rear-most carriage of the vehicle. It is understood that the reason for this policy on only carrying the bikes in the rear carriage is to reduce the conflict between cyclists and pedestrians during boarding and alighting.

It is difficult to draw any direct comparisons between the Strasbourg and Metrolink systems due to the differences in rolling stock and high/low floor platforms. It should be noted however that the policy of transporting the bikes in the rear carriage only would allow a degree of separation between users whilst waiting on the platform, and also during boarding and alighting. It is anticipated that as a result this would reduce the risk of any delay to the dwell time at the stop. It is also considered that this policy would separate any cyclists and wheelchair users, avoiding any possible conflict with regard to allocated space on the vehicles.

The limitation of the application of this policy on the Metrolink network is the current rolling stock. The existing Ansaldo T68/T68A vehicles and the forthcoming Bombardier M5000 vehicles have similar door positions, in the respect that they have four sets of doors in total down each side of the vehicle, and neither have doors directly behind the drivers cab. The rolling stock of the Strasbourg system has a set of doors on both sides directly behind the drivers cab, as can be seen in Figure 3. It is these sets of doors at the rear which are used by the cyclists on the Strasbourg system. Using the rear most doors on the T68/T68A and M5000 vehicles would create a significant conflict between cyclists and passengers as it is these doors which access the rear quarter section of seats and one of the central quarter section of seats, representing a significant proportion of the seating and standing positions on the vehicle. Amending the policy so the cyclists use the rear most central set of doors would reduce the conflict between pedestrians and cyclists, but by no means eliminate it. This in turn would result in the cyclists and wheelchair users having to share the same space on the vehicles near to the articulation (subject to no internal refitting of the vehicles), which can lead to delays and conflicts at tram stops. This policy would also result in the paths of cyclists and pedestrians having to cross whilst approaching and leaving the platform.

15 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/15 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

Figure 3: Strasbourg Bombardier Flexity Outlook vehicle

4.2.2 Stuttgart

The Stuttgarter Straßenbahnen AG is the operator for the Light Rail network in Stuttgart where trams started in 1868. The narrow gauge tram system (1000 mm) has been gradually replaced by the European gauge (1435 mm) light rail system from 1975, and it is the standard gauge system which will be compared to Metrolink in this report. This system comprises 14 lines with a total length of approximately 213 km. The rolling stock used is 164 No. DT8 vehicles, which are manufactured by the partnership of Adtranz (now Bombardier) and Siemens and are 100% high floor construction. These vehicles are permanently coupled pairs of 4 axle cars rather than 6 axle articulated cars found on other systems including Metrolink.

The last narrow gauge line was replaced in December 2007 and current operations are based entirely on the standard gauge modern system which operates the high floor trams, operating from high level platforms. Narrow gauge vehicles have been retained on two lines which are run as tourist / leisure routes with low platforms. As such there are sections of the network where the infrastructure still caters for both gauges of vehicle and also for low and high level access.

The carriage of bicycles on the Stuttgart network is allowed free of charge, however they are not permitted between 06:00 to 08:30 and 16:00 to 18:30, Monday to Friday on the majority of the network. Within the timeframe of this study we have been unable to obtain information as to any restrictions with regard to the location of storage of the bicycles on the vehicles or the access onto/ off the vehicles.

16 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/16 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

In Stuttgart there has also been a large investment in improving the cycling access, the facilities and storage of cycles at the tram stops. This provides cyclists with an option to store their bicycles for picking up on a return journey in the event that they intend to travel during peak hours or if they are refused entry. It is felt that this is a key factor to providing a system which is practical for use by cyclists, and the presence of the cycling facilities at the stations reinforces to the pedestrians that the network is in support of the carriage of bicycles on their vehicles. This in turn will encourage the use of bicycles, but also help to promote an environmentally friendly image for the operator and owner of the network, which in current climates is significantly beneficial.

It is possible to draw some comparisons between the Stuttgart and Metrolink networks. They both operate high floor, high level access systems, and the length of route and number of stops is comparable to the Metrolink network once Phase 3A extensions are in operation. The layout of the vehicles is also similar, in particular the arrangement of the doors, as can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Stuttgart DT8 Class 10 vehicle

This shows that it is feasible to operate a bicycle carriage system on a high level platform / high floor vehicle network such as Metrolink, however a more detailed study of the Stuttgart system would be required to analyse the patronage, frequency of service and general operator perception of the scheme before it could be said that it is suitable to carry bicycles on Metrolink. Consideration must also be given to the social environment of the catchment area and whether this policy would lead to increased vandalism and abuse of the system. This is a network dependent issue and cannot be resolved or analysed from comparison with other networks.

17 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/17 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

4.2.3 Cologne (Köln)

The Cologne tram network is operated by Cologne Transport Holdings Ltd, and has been operational since 1968. Cologne has a vast network of , and the tram system is seen as a crucial component of travel within the city centre district. The network comprises 11 lines, covering a length of approximately 191km. Through the history of the network there has been a multitude of rolling stock used, but current operations utilise a combination of Bombardier K4000, K4500 and K5000 vehicles. The 11 lines are split between high level platforms/vehicles and low level platforms/vehicles. The K4000 and K4500 vehicles are 70% low floor vehicles (of which there are 193 combined) and the K5000 are a 100% high floor vehicle (of which there are 74 operating on the network).

The policy with regard to the transportation of bicycles on trams is that they are permitted. On the trams there are specific areas which are marked for use by bicycles. The conditions of carriage are that there must be available space for the bike on the vehicle, and priority is given to passengers with prams and wheelchairs. There are restrictions to when bicycles can be transported, and this varies from line to line and access can be withdrawn in the circumstance of special occasions such as sporting events. The vehicle staff can refuse access at any point even if there is space available. Passengers must pay an additional charge to transport a bicycle, however it is free to some season ticket holders and students during particular time periods. A heavily emphasised condition of carriage on the network is that the cyclist is responsible for any damage to the vehicle or injury/damage caused to any other passenger. The operator is protected from any claim arising as a result of the carriage of bicycles. It must be noted that it may not be possible to enforce this disclaimer on a UK network such as Metrolink due to UK law.

Figure 5: Cologne Bombardier K4500 (left) and Bombardier K5000 (right)

The operation of the K5000 vehicles on the Cologne network again demonstrates that it is possible to transport bicycles on a high level platform/high floor tram network similar to Metrolink. (The Metrolink M5000 tram is a slightly modified version of the K5000). The constraints on this system are large however, with heavy restrictions on the time of use, an additional charge for carriage of the bicycles, the responsibility of damage/injury lying with the cyclist and that the cyclist has the lowest level of priority of all users. It is felt that these factors combined together will not actively promote the use of bicycle carriage on the tram network, and as a result the cost and effort invested into providing a cycling system will be greater than the return through cyclist patronage.

18 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/18 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

4.2.4 Basel

The Basel tram network consists of 12 lines running through Basel town centre and the surrounding suburbs. It covers a distance of approximately 86 km, and the network operates on a low level platform configuration.

Basel’s tram network is operated by two companies, who operate on separate lines although sharing tracks in the city centre. AG (BLT) run 3 lines, with their distinctive yellow and orange livery vehicles and Basler Verkehrs-Betriebe (BVB) run 9 lines with their green vehicles. The vehicles of each operator are fully compatible, and in times of vehicle shortages it has been known for vehicles to be mixed along routes. There is a wide range of vehicles used across the network, including the manufacturers Duwag, Schindler and the more recently acquired Siemens Combino as seen in Figure 6. The vehicles are low level access, high level trams i.e. the passenger climbs steps on the vehicles when entering (except in low floor centre sections). The exception to this is the Siemens Combino trams which are 100% low floor. To allow access for wheelchair users, passengers with prams and cyclists, the older rolling stock of the network have been retrofitted with low floor central units as can be seen on the BLT tram in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Basel Schindler vehicle in BLT livery (left) and Siemens Combino vehicle in BVB livery (right)

The policy of the network for the transportation of cycles is that they are permitted, but not within peak hours. There is a charge for carrying the cycles, and as per the Cologne network the cyclists have the lowest priority in the event that wheelchair users and passengers with prams wish to use the vehicle. On the older rolling stock the cycles must be carried in the retrofitted central units, where there is space for 16 bikes. These central units however are shared with all other pedestrians, and are apparently well favoured by elderly passengers. It is unclear where cycles must be carried on the Siemens Combino trams, but it is understood that they are allowed, with the same restrictions and prices as the high floor vehicles.

19 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/19 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

It is difficult to draw comparisons between the Basel network and Metrolink due to it being a low floor network with a mixture of rolling stock, new and old. A large proportion of the vehicles are still not compliant with the equivalent of the UK Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) regulations, and this system demonstrates as an extreme the cost implications associated with retrofitting of vehicles. A point which can be drawn from this network however is that it is possible to run a bicycle carriage system where there is a wide range of rolling stock. Without any cyclist patronage figures it is however difficult to know whether this system is widely used by cyclists or whether the restrictions on time, the additional cost, the low level priority or the fact that the next vehicle to arrive at the platform may not be fitted with the appropriate compartment for them to travel in puts off a lot of people from transporting their bikes on this network.

20 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/20 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

5 Impact on Capacity

5.1 Existing Capacities

5.1.1 Ansaldo T68 Trams

Existing T68 trams have a maximum capacity of 201 passengers comprising 82 seated and 119 standing. There are two wheelchair spaces which if occupied reduce the total capacity by 6 passengers to 195. Existing T68A trams have a maximum capacity of 196 passengers comprising 82 seated and 114 standing. There are two wheelchair spaces which if occupied reduce the total capacity by 6 passengers to 190.

5.1.2 Bombardier M5000 Trams

The new M5000 trams have a maximum capacity of 206 passengers comprising 52 seated, 8 perch seats and 146 standing. 8 seats are designated as priority seats. There are two wheelchair spaces which if occupied reduce the total capacity by 6 passengers to 198. The designated cycle space would occupy one of the wheelchair spaces.

5.2 Effect of Bicycles on Capacity

5.2.1 Tram Capacity

If one wheelchair and one cycle space are occupied the capacity would reduce to 190 on a T68 and 186 on T68A. On M5000 trams, if one wheelchair and one cycle space are occupied the capacity would reduce to 193. A comparison of capacities for each tram type and for wheelchair and combined wheelchair and cycle use is given in Table 3.

.

21 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/21 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

Table 3: Capacities for each tram type for wheelchair and cycle occupancy

T68 T68 T68 with wheelchairs 2 with1 cycle T 68 wheelchair and 1 T68A with T68A wheelchairs 2 1 cycle with T68A wheelchair and 1 M5000 with M5000 wheelchairs 2 cycle 1 with M5000 wheelchair and 1

Seats 82 82 78 82 82 80 52 52 52

Fold down 4 2 2 4 0 0 8 6 4 seat*

Standing 119 111 110 114 106 104 146 140 137

Priority (incl. ------8 8 8 in seats)

Wheelchairs 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1

Cycles 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

Total 201 195 190 196 190 186 206 200 195

* Perch seat on M5000. (Fold down seats not included in capacity totals).

5.2.2 Line Capacities

Existing and proposed Metrolink lines operate at a headway of 6 minutes (10 trams per hour (tph)) or 12 minutes (5 tph). All operate with single unit trains except the direct Altrincham-Bury service where all trams will operate with two unit trains. The M5000 tram capacity is 206 passengers with no wheelchairs or cycles. Maximum line capacities in passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) are therefore:

• 6 minutes (10 tph), single unit: 2,060 pphpd.

• 12 minutes (5 tph), single unit: 1,030 pphpd

• 12 minutes (5 tph), double unit: 2,060 pphpd

• Combined service (10 tph), single and double units: 3,090 pphpd.

The combined service will operate on the Altrincham-Bury lines with a 12 minutes (5 tph), double unit service combined with a 12 minutes (5 tph), single unit service. Currently the capacity on the Altrincham-Bury line is a maximum of 2,600 pphpd if there are three double units in a peak hour. In practice this rarely occurs although two double units may occur in a one hour period in one direction.

22 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/22 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

Each cycle occupies a space approximately 1.75m x 0.75m, equal to 1.31m². This is equivalent to 5.25 standing passengers at 4 passengers/m², which is rounded up to 6 passengers (this assumes the passengers are standing.) For every tram carrying a cycle, the capacity would therefore be reduced from 206 to 201 (-6 passengers + 1 cyclist = 5). If all trams carried one cycle, the line capacities would then become:

• 6 minutes (10 tph), single unit: 2,010 pphpd.

• 12 minutes (5 tph), single unit: 1,005 pphpd

• 12 minutes (5 tph), double unit: 2,010 pphpd

• Combined service (10 tph), single and double units: 3,015 pphpd.

This capacity reduction is equivalent to 2.5% of the total line capacity, assuming one cycle per tram. It should be noted that these figures all relate to the maximum theoretical capacity; practical capacity is normally assumed to be 85% of maximum capacity.

5.2.3 Capacity Issues

A DfT/Countryside Agency Report5 gives potential demand for bicycles as around 4% of seating capacity for heavy rail but it is market specific, notably in tourist areas. Provision should include larger types of bicycle including tandems and bicycles with trailers which are sometimes used by disabled cyclists and families. In order to avoid bicycles falling over and causing an obstruction to passengers or staff, it is important that bicycles are secured in their storage area by wheel clips or restraining straps. Space constraints on light rail vehicles would not allow larger types of bicycle to be accommodated.

Merseyrail heavy rail services allow bicycles on all trains and find that at peak times demands on space are largely self regulating with cyclists avoiding taking their bicycles on trains during the busiest periods.

It is likely that the space designated for cycle storage would be a shared use space which would also be used by wheelchair passengers, prams and buggies and luggage. Clear signing to indicate the priority users would be essential. If already occupied by a higher priority user, a cyclist would have to wait for the next tram. Difficulties could arise if a cycle is in place when a tram arrives at a stop and a higher priority user wishes to board. Clear instructions would need to be given, although it is considered that enforcement would be difficult.

23 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/23 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

6 Impact on Dwell Times

6.1 Existing Dwell Times

Existing dwell times are generally in the region of 15 seconds for lightly used stops, 20 seconds for average stop use and 30 seconds for central area stops. At very busy city centre stops at peak times, dwell times may extend to 40 or 50 seconds.

6.2 Possible Impact on Dwell Time at Stops

It has not been possible to undertake any specific surveys of boarding or alighting times. Evidence from other studies (e.g. Ref. No. 4) suggests that if cycle use is low, no more than one cycle per journey, the impact on dwell time is very small if the tram is not heavily loaded already. However as the number of bikes increases then the impact on dwell time will increase. There will probably be only one cycle space per tram which means that a second cyclist will have to wait for the next tram. This may create difficulties for two cyclists travelling together or for families. They may then be tempted to try to board with more than one cycle. It should however be emphasised that, even in cities with extensive LRT networks, demand in practice for cycle carriage is fairly low most of the time, again making it easier to manage potential conflicts2. Only at weekends with finer weather are substantial numbers of passengers with bicycles more likely.

The possible adverse effect on dwell time can be minimised by clearly marking on the platforms where passengers wishing to take a bicycle should wait, with signs and markings, as in the case of passengers with wheelchairs. The implications for platform layout need to be considered but should not normally be a problem except in the most confined situations. Some city centre platforms would need special assessment, possibly prohibiting cycle use where platform capacity is severely limited and passenger demand very high.

If tram loadings are high, as in peak periods, it would be difficult for a cyclist to board without causing significant delays. At present it is not suggested that cycles would be permitted during peak periods but heavy loadings can often occur outside weekday peak periods, for example for special events or on pre-Christmas weekends. A regulation prohibiting cycles when trams are heavily loaded may be necessary but could be difficult to enforce.

A particular concern which could effect dwell times is the need for the driver to supervise cycle users and ensure that regulations are observed. The driver would use mirrors and/or CCTV cameras to observe cyclists boarding or alighting and would communicate through the PA system if necessary. In extreme cases it may be necessary for the driver to leave the cab to resolve an incident which would result in significantly extended dwell times.

24 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/24 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

6.3 Evidence of Effect of Cycle Usage on Dwell Times

It is often assumed that cyclists will take longer to board and alight and that dwell times at stops will increase. Research undertaken by Nottingham University2 has shown that this is not the case. Experience in Europe and North America has shown that cycle passengers are able to board and alight without causing additional delay. Cycle passengers should normally allow other passengers to board first so that it is then obvious that there is adequate space for a bicycle. Cycle passengers are often quicker to board than some other passengers such as elderly persons or persons with buggies.

The only example of major cycle use on trams in the UK is the DLR experience for the London Triathlon when large numbers of cyclists board trams on a Saturday. Observations showed that “competitors intuitively organised themselves when boarding, alighting and carrying bicycles on stairways, observing the needs of other passengers and therefore caused no obstruction to passengers or additional delay to services”.

In this case it was not required that cycles should be restrained other than by the cyclist holding their cycle. If other methods of restraint were adopted the boarding time may increase while the restraints are fixed or released.

It may be concluded that from the evidence available there is no significant increase in dwell times in off-peak periods if cycles are permitted. However this could change if several cyclists wished to board at one time, or if a cyclist attempted to board a tram with a high number of standing passengers.

6.4 Possible Impact on Overall Journey Times

A key advantage of light rail is the competitive journey times and high reliability. Extended dwell times increase journey times and can adversely impact on reliability. It is therefore important to ensure that any increase due to carriage of cycles is minimised.

In Section 6.3 it is concluded that there would be no significant increase in dwell times at stops in off-peak periods if cycles are permitted. It must follow that there would be no significant increase in overall journey times. This conclusion is conditional on the number of cyclists being small and no more than one cycle per tram. It also assumes that no incidents occur which require the intervention of the driver or other member of operating staff.

25 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/25 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

7 Cost of Repairs to Trams and Claims

7.1 Types of Damage and Repairs

Damage is most likely to occur to interior panels or fitments from impact by pedals or handlebars. This would probably be confined to minor scratches in the majority of cases. More serious damage could occur in the event of an emergency stop or a cycle falling onto the floor.

Injury to passengers could occur from impacts with pedals, handlebars or other parts of the bicycle. Damage to garments could arise from contact with greasy cycle chains or muddy wheels.

7.2 Costs of Repairs

It is difficult to estimate the cost of repairs resulting from damage caused by bicycles on the tram as there is little experience on which to base any estimates. Costs will vary considerably according to the extent and nature of the damage but are likely to be small in most cases, perhaps in the range £100 to £500 per incident. If there were, say, one incident per month then the annual cost would be in the range £1,200 to £6,000. A much higher cost could result if a tram has to be taken out of service for repairs when no other spare vehicle is available.

The risk of damage and consequent repair costs could be reduced if consideration was given to protecting any vulnerable vehicle parts, for example by fitting aluminium sheeting to the side walls where cycles would be stored. Some examples can be found on heavy rail units.

7.3 Costs of Claims

As for repair costs, estimating potential claims costs is difficult without any experience on which to base estimates. It has been suggested that claims would be small, perhaps in the order of £1,000 to £2,000 per incident but these figures could be significantly higher if any serious injury was caused. However the risk of such injuries should be very small. It should be noted that from the information obtained from systems where cycles are permitted on trams, none have reported any safety issues or referred to any claims resulting from cycle carriage.

In Section 4.2.3 it was reported that in Cologne, it is a condition of carriage of cycles that the cyclist is responsible for any damage to the vehicle, or injury or damage caused to any other passenger; the operator is protected from any claim arising from the carriage of bicycles. However this approach may not be applicable in the UK due to differences between UK and European law.

26 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/26 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

8 Conclusions

8.1 Operational Issues • Drivers would need to supervise cycle boarding and alighting, as for wheelchair users. • A priority rule would need to be clearly stated to ensure that wheelchair users and pushchair/buggy users had preference over cyclists. Cyclists would not be allowed to board crowded trams but this would tend to be ‘self regulating’. The conditions of cycle carriage would need to be clearly stated with appropriate publicity and signing. • Difficulties could arise on routes where both types of tram operate if only one type can accept cycles. • If the T68 vehicles were modified internally to allow the carriage of bicycles, there may be some confusion among cyclists if the stowage arrangements of the vehicles were not identical. This may discourage cyclists from correctly stowing their bicycles using the provided space/restraining equipment. • If bikes were to be introduced on trams we would recommend that the above practical operational problems first be assessed and carefully monitored by a pilot scheme.

8.2 Safety of Bicycles on Trams

• ORR (former HMRI) have raised no objection to the carriage of cycles on trams and look to the relevant duty holders to manage risks so far as reasonably practicable. • There does not appear to be any evidence of safety problems from those systems where cycle carriage is permitted.

8.3 Evidence from Other Systems • No UK light rail systems permit cycles to be carried at any time. Cycles have been carried by special arrangement for specific events on Sheffield Supertram and DLR. • The majority of light rail systems in Europe do not permit cycles to be carried but a significant number do permit cycles at weekends, during off peak periods or in a few cases at any time. The most relevant for comparison with Metrolink are Cologne and Stuttgart as both have high floor cars and high platforms and networks similar in scale to Metrolink Phase 3. • For systems which permit cycles on trams there does not appear to be any evidence of adverse impacts on safety or operations.

8.4 Risk Assessment • Main risk identified was the correct stowing of bicycles in an identified location to the side of the vehicle using suitable restraints to avoid the bike blocking exits in an emergency situation. Current and proposed monitoring systems on T68 and M5000 vehicles do not allow the driver to check that the bicycle has been correctly stowed, and the driver having to manually check this will cause delays to dwell time. 27 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/27 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

• Risk of injury to cyclist/ passengers and damage to station platform fixtures and fittings if cyclists were allowed to ride into the station and along platforms. A strict dismounting policy would be required around the station.

8.5 Capacity Impacts • The capacity of an M5000 tram is 206 passengers and would reduce to 200 with two wheelchairs or 195 with one wheelchair and one cycle. With only one cycle the capacity would be 201 passengers. • Maximum line capacities would be reduced by 2.5% if each tram carried one cycle. A typical 6 minute service (10 tph) would reduce from 2,060 passengers/hour to 2,010 passengers/hour. • Space would only be available for conventional cycles; tandems or cycles with trailers could not be accommodated.

8.6 Dwell Times • From the evidence available it could be concluded that significant increases in dwell times in off-peak periods are unlikely to occur if cycles are permitted. However this could change if several cyclists wished to board at one time, or if a cyclist attempted to board a tram with a high number of standing passengers. • As there is no expected increase in dwell times there should be no significant increase in journey times in off-peak periods. • It is considered that allowing the carriage of cycles in peak periods or during special events would create significant delays to dwell times, which as a result would extend the journey time which has a negative impact upon the commercial value of the network.

8.7 Costs of Repairs and Claims • There is little evidence on which to base any estimates of costs of repairs resulting from damage caused by bicycles on trams but the risks are likely to be small and repair costs low, perhaps in the region of £1,200 to £6,000 per annum. • There is little evidence on which to base any estimates of costs of claims resulting from injury or damage to clothing resulting from bicycle carriage on trams but the risks are likely to be small and claim costs low, perhaps in the region of £5,000 to £10,000 per annum.

28 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/28 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

8.8 Trial Period

There are a number of factors where it is not possible to obtain precise data or to confirm initial conclusions without undertaking some form of trial period of cycle carriage on trams. They include impacts on dwell times, impacts on overall journey times and practical operational issues. Trial operation could be phased, for example an initial phase on Sundays only, a second phase extended to Saturdays and a third phase extended to weekday off- peak periods. A trial could be restricted to one line and the Oldham-Rochdale line would be appropriate as a first choice as it is the only line where cycles are currently permitted on the trains. Also it is likely that it will be operated exclusively with M5000 trams, thus avoiding problems due to different tram types.

29 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/29 of 29 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

Appendix A Risk Assessment

A-1 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/A-1 of 1 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/ Risk Assessment Project Title The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Project Number 243243/AG01 Trams Project Manager Neil Searle Project Director David Hand

Hazard / Aspect Consequence / Impact Persons at risk Initial risk Possible control measures Residual level risk level

Bike strikes pedestrian whilst Clearly identify the boarding points at the central doors. These points are the entering/ exiting vehicle and during Injury to passenger. Most likely minor injury Passengers L same as wheelchair users, and should be marked with appropriate signage at L transportation stations and on vehicles. Priority levels should also be indicated

Bike not securely held/ fixed down Injury to passenger. Possibly major injury Passengers M Velcro straps are provided in the vehicles for securing of cycles. L during emergency braking Bike not securely held/ fixed down Damage to vehicle fixtures and fittings N/A M Velcro straps are provided in the vehicles for securing of cycles. L during emergency braking Vehicles have systems to ensure tram does not move before doors fully closed. Cyclist becomes trapped in door when Injury to cyclist, damage to bike Cyclist L M5000 vehicles will have "Obstacle Detection" system which will open the door if L entering/ exiting there is in object in the way.

Clearly identify the boarding points at the central doors. These points are the Cyclist becomes trapped in door when Delay to dwell time of vehicle at the stop N/A L same as wheelchair users. Obstacle Detection system has potential to cause L entering/ exiting greater delay than T68 systems, but can be overridden by driver.

Cyclist falls off platform whilst waiting Injury, possible death of cyclist from collision Risk is same as pedestrians. Protection barriers not possible. Prohibition signs Cyclist M M for tram or not with tram to enforce dismount policy and identify risk of riding on platform

Cyclist and pedestrians collide Dismount policy and physical deterrents at entrance/ exit from platform. Injury to passenger. Most likely minor injury Pedestrians / Cyclist M L entering/ leaving the platform Segregated station entrance/ exit for cyclists where feasible Injury to cyclist, damage to station furniture, Dismount policy and physical deterrents at entrance/ exit from platform. Cyclist riding along platform Pedestrians / Cyclist L L injury to passengers Segregated station entrance/ exit for cyclists where feasible Longer period to evacuate tram, with Passengers in Dependant upon fit-out of vehicle. If bikes are held by the cyclist there are Bicycle restricts movement of passengers temporarily trapped. Significant particular wheelchair limited measures that can be taken apart from signs informing cyclists to store H M passengers in emergency evacuation impact on wheelchair users, elderly and those users, elderly and those bikes out of the way. Clearly identify the allocated bike storage areas and with prams with prams restraining systems. Injuries to passengers during transport/ Bikes stored in none bicycle storage Clearly identify the allocated bike storage areas and restraining systems. Driver emergency stops, damage to clothing and Passengers L L areas of the vehicle will not be able to see this. possessions Longer period to evacuate tram, with Passengers in Bikes stored in none bicycle storage passengers temporarily trapped. Significant particular wheelchair Clearly identify the allocated bike storage areas and restraining systems. Driver H H areas of the vehicle impact on wheelchair users, elderly and those users, elderly and those will not be able to see this. with prams with prams

L = Low Risk Level, M= Medium Risk Level, H = High Risk Level. The risk level is based upon the anticipated severity of the risk, and the likelihood of it occuring.

© Mott MacDonald 2008 GMPTE Metrolink The Implications of the Carriage of Bicycles on Trams

Appendix B References

Specific References 1 Metrolink Phase 3 Cycles on Trams Report of Further Consultation. April 2003.

2 Nottingham University research project: Bike Access on Light . February 2003

3 Implications on Metrolink Infrastructure from Allowing Carriage of Cycles On Board Trams. Jan 2003.

4 The Interaction of Cyclists and Rapid Transit Systems. MVA for DETR. June 1998.

5 Bicycle and Rail, A Good Practice Guide. The Countryside Agency and DfT. August 2004.

General References 6 The Interaction of Cyclists and Manchester Metrolink Phase 3 (MMP3).

7 Sheffield Cycle Campaign: Report on Supertram Cyclists Specials. December 2007.

8 Patronage and Monthly Ticket Sales data. GMPTE. Sept 2007 to Sept 2008.

9 Bombardier M5000 specification drawings: “BB57_01_01_2” and “LV-939-0124”.

10 French Metro & Tramway Systems Talk. Graham Jellett, August 2007.

11 Greater Manchester Transportation Unit (GMTU): Transport Statistics 2006 and Draft 2008.

12 Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute: Making Tracks – Light Rail in England and France. March 2002.

13 Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan (GMLTP2) – 2006/7 to 2010/11.

14 Carriage of Cycles on Trams – TTK Report. October 2008.

B-1 243243/AG/DOC/01/A - 23 October 2008/B-1 of 1 P:\Manchester\Northwest\Projects (Odd)\243243 GMPTE Framework\AG Bikes on Trams\AG-03 Outgoing MM Reports\AG-03-01 abc Drafts\243243-AG-DOC-001A- Bicycles on Trams - FINAL.doc/