Transport in Greater Manchester  by Joe Dalston

Manchester Corporation's public transport system carried 488 million passenger journeys per year in 1950. By 1965 this had fallen to 327 million (Pooley et al, 2005).

More recently, in the year 2004/5, the entire public transport infrastructure of the Greater Manchester conurbation carried a mere 258.5 million passenger journeys (GMPTE, LTP2, 2006), including passengers on buses, trains and metrolink trams. This means that the public transport system of modern day Greater Manchester is operating at a mere 53% of the capacity achieved at its peak in 1950.

But while the number of bus passenger journeys has been shrinking, the average bus journey is getting longer. This is because a city which is designed so much around the car becomes more decentralised and people have to travel further to access the same types of jobs, services and shops.

So between 1975 and 1991 we see an increase in average bus journey length from 2.28 miles to 2.74 miles per person (source: Knowles, R. et al, 1991: 18). What this means is that it is getting progressively more difficult to get around by public transport, yet as we will see, many do not have the choice.

Yet a further problem with the buses in Manchester is the lack of real competition that the government in the 1980s insisted de-regulation would bring. Knowles recognised in 1991 that competition was mainly limited to a few radial routes and very little seems to have changed in the intervening 15 years.

Today there is evidence of bus competition in some areas (such as Droylsden between Stagecoach and Mayne) but very little evidence of competition between the big two (Stagecoach and First). When the publicly owned bus company, GM buses was broken up the resulting two companies were bought by employees. This was short-lived and GM North ended up belonging to First while GM South went to Stagecoach - handing the two companies virtual monopolies over each particular area (source = www.gmbuses.co.uk).

The whole point of deregulation was that competition would reduce fares and improve services. It has achieved neither. Privatisation's less than glorious start should have acted as a warning, in the first five years the price of an average bus fare increased every single year above the level of inflation (Knowles et al, 1991).

At the same time as the public transport system has been shrinking, the number of cars and the percentage of journeys per car have increased dramatically.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive's own figures show an increase of 184,000 cars between 1981 and 1991, and then another 194,000 cars in the following ten years. This means that of the 1 million cars owned in Greater Manchester in 2001, 37.2% have been added in the last 20 years alone!

The Local Transport Plan says that this is an average of 'almost one per household'. In reality however, 33% of households in greater Manchester do not have cars. So while vehicle ownership on the whole has grown, and the very city has been redesigned and remodelled around the car (through the growth of roads, motorways and car parks) there is a huge number of people who cannot enjoy the luxury of running a car and are ever more poorly served by a public transport system that has been shrinking for over 50 years.

Organising cities around the private automobile is inherently unsustainable in terms of trying to create vibrant, safe and equitable societies. For a city to be more convenient in terms of car-use, more and more space must be given over to roads and car parks, this causes cities to become more spread-out, making it ever more difficult to get around without a car!

As cities become more and more spread out, you will find fewer and fewer pedestrians walking the streets. These areas will consequently become havens for anti-social behaviour because they are unsupervised by the 'eyes on the street' (Jacobs, 1961) that help make an area feel safe and hospitable. As an area becomes more inhospitable, so those with a choice are more likely to use their cars, and the cycle goes on and on . . .

Against this back-drop, GMPTE state that they are working with the Department for Transport to identify the 'tipping-point' at which traffic 'congestion can significantly harm economic growth and the environment' (LTP2, 2006: 8). This is a very lukewarm statement to say the least. Their own data shows that in the year 2004/5 there were 12.9 million kilometres of vehicle journeys on Greater Manchester's roads.

If we look at the government report entitled: 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transport' we can see that 62.8 million tonnes of CO₂ were being produced by private household vehicles per year in 2002. As Greater Manchester accounts for 1 of the UK's 33 million vehicles, this suggests that 1.9 million tonnes of CO₂ is being pumped into the atmosphere around your city, every year.

When we consider the environmental impact and the social impact that hits the disadvantaged the hardest (women, children, the elderly, low wage earners), it seems somewhat incredible that GMPTE is still attempting to 'identify the tipping point'.

Evaluating the benefits of free and subsidised transport

An analysis of the pros and cons of subsidies in public transport by a group of Dutch transport planners and economists helps us to demonstrate the validity of the points we have been making so far. They note that the introduction of free public transport brings the following benefits:

  * Costs associated with the cashing and administration of payments disappears. This also enhances the safety of drivers and conductors who will not be carrying cash. Finally, it means that passengers can get on and off much more quickly - so improving journey times.

  * The attractiveness of the city to tourists will massively increase and free public transport could provide a unique pitch not just to tourists but all sorts of investors.

  * Motorists will begin to switch to public transport use. Even if these are few in number to begin with, less road-space will be required and so bus systems will run more efficiently, so further increasing their attractiveness to new users.

Throughout this piece we have tried to stress some of the social benefits of moving towards free public transport.

Perhaps one of the most striking examples can be seen in the Belgian city of Hasselt. Not only did patronage of Hasselt's bus system explode once zero fare were introduced (from 331,551 in the old situation to an astonishing 3.2 million - and this for a city of only 70,000 people), with all the obvious benefits this shift suggests, but also, some rather unexpected advantages were produced as well.

For example, following the introduction of zero fares, the number of visits to patients in the city's hospitals was reported to have "increased enormously" (van Goeverden, 2006: 7). What this suggests is that currently many people are unable to carry out 'caring' visits to friends and family due to transport costs. It also suggests that those who suffer a disability, require some form of care, or are simply lonely and isolated (as many old people are in this country), could be much more effectively cared for if the people in their social networks could more easily travel to visit them.

In the context of recent policy debates by the two major British political parties concerning the breakdown of community, we may suggest that this is 'food for thought'.

Another finding of the Dutch study was that the city of Hasselt improved the degree of coverage of its network to coincide with the introduction of free transport, this greatly improved its overall attractiveness to passengers when they were making their transport decisions. This also prevents 'bottle-necks' from forming once the overall number of passengers begins to increase.

In assessing the case for subsidies in public transport the authors made reference to privatisation and deregulation in the UK, inaugurated by the 1985 Transport Act:

  * First of all they note that the wages of bus drivers fell substantially. 'In 1998 the wage fall amounted to 30% relative to the average wage rate'.

  * Secondly they note that directly following deregulation fares rose by 20-25% and 'in the years after they continued to increase at a higher rate than they did before 1985'.

  * Thirdly, time-table co-ordination between bus companies stopped and bus integration with rail was converted into competition. So instead of different modes of transport working together, they now compete in a wasteful manner, while the cost of that waste is passed onto the passenger.

  * Fourthly, the impact on public transport demand is negative, and this is where the Dutch study is most damming: 'In the metropolitan areas the reduction in bus patronage was 16% three years after deregulation, 25% five years after, 38% ten years after and 45% 16 years after'. (van Goeverden, 2006: 23)

Finally, the authors suggest that the effect of reducing subsidies in public transport (as done in the UK since 1985) may not be as bad as this if private companies focus on service quality rather than singularly pursue profit.

If the Dutch government think that their private enterprises may behave in a more socially responsible way than their British counterparts, they are welcome to try. Meanwhile on this side of the channel, deregulation has had its chance, and has well and truly blown it.

Conclusions:

It is clear from the evidence that the negative impacts of pollution, road-traffic accidents, spread-out cities dominated by busy roads and car-parks, social exclusion caused by inability to access schools, health services and employment opportunities are significant contributors to a poor quality of life experienced by many in the Greater Manchester conurbation.

These problems can be tackled!

No one is suggesting that the one million car users in Greater Manchester suddenly stop travelling, but if we can force our local and national governments to recognise the importance of free, comprehensive and dependable public transport, we can reverse many of the negative effects of urban environments decimated by the private motor vehicle, we can encourage more people onto our streets and by so doing make them safe, we can end the travesty of excluded groups being held as prisoners in their own neighbourhoods, we can improve the air quality of our city and revitalise its social life.

The GMPTE's Local Transport Plan for 2006-2011 includes the following in its aims and objectives:

  * No significant worsening in congestion and area-wide traffic flow growth on local roads of no more than 2%

  * An increase in bus patronage of 4% against the background of a historically declining trend (2006: 10)

These are ineffectual targets which will do little to ameliorate the negative environmental and social impacts of car use. They amount to 'tinkering' with the problems rather than meeting the challenge head-on. The people of Greater Manchester should expect much more.

References

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (2006) Local Transport Plan 2 (2006-2011)

GM Buses A Brief History of Transport in Greater Manchester - available at http://www.gmbuses.co.uk/library/history/history.html (accessed 6/10/08)

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities

Knowles, R. et al (1991) Recent Transport Developments in Greater Manchester

ONS Greenhouse Gas Emission from Transport -available at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_environment/transport_report.pdf (accessed 6/10/08)

Pooley, C. et al (2005) Travelling Around Town: Everyday Mobility in Manchester and Salford Since the 1940s

van Goeverden, C. et al (2006) Subsides in Public Transport