INVESTIGATING THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF TRAM SYSTEMS IN CITIES MANCHESTER & SHEFFIELD
1
CHRISTOPHER SAMUEL BINNS 190219855
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE DEGREE OF MSC URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2020 DEPARTMENT OF URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
WORD COUNT: 14,998 2
ABSTRACT The Manchester Metrolink opened in 1992 and the Sheffield Supertram in 1994. The Metrolink has continued to see expansion, with the opening of six further phases. However, Supertram has remained relatively small, with only one route expansion. Both networks have seen different levels of success with Sheffield seeing a much lower annual ridership and level of investment. This study aims to investigate the economic impacts of building tram networks in these cities, draw comparisons and differences and discuss the potential benefits for building a similar network in a hypothetical case study - Leeds. Research shows the importance of rail and connectivity for economic growth, proving they provide easier access to employment and higher paid jobs, increase house prices and economic activity in retail areas. However, this form of investigation has never researched the economic impacts of the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram, and then compared the two for positive and negative outcomes. Primary and secondary data have been used to investigate the economic variables discussed in literature to come to conclusions on the impacts of these two networks. Findings indicate that positive economic impacts have been felt in both cities, however the extent to which, and in what way, varies.  
3
CONTENTS Abstract
3
List of figures
6
List of tables
8
Acknowledgements
9
Declaration
9
1.0 Introduction
10
1.1 Research Objectives
12
1.2 Research Questions
13
1.3 Background
14
2.0 Literature Review
18
2.1 Introduction
19
2.2 Decline of trams in the UK
19
2.3 Connectivity and the economy
21
2.4 Connectivity and house prices
23
2.5 Rail and the economy
25
2.6 Trams and the economy
26
2.7 Conclusion
29
3.0 Research Methodology
30
3.1 Quantitative and Qualitative Data
31
3.2 Primary and Secondary Data
34
4.0 Proposed Research Methods
36
4
4.1 Online Surveys
38
4.2 Secondary Research
40
4.3 Pros and Cons of Selected Methodologies
42
4.4 Data Analysis
42
5.0 Limitations and Potential Ethical Issues
44
6.0 Contingency Plan
47
7.0 Results
50
7.1
51
Manchester and Sheffield
7.1.1 Primary Data Results
52
7.1.2 Secondary Data Results
66
7.2
Leeds Results
76
7.2.1 Primary Data Results
77
7.2.2 Secondary Data Results
84
8.0 Analysis
88
9.0 Limitations and Recommendations
101
10.0 Conclusion
103
11.0 References
108
12.0 Appendix
116 
5
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map showing the distribution of respondent’s postcodes (Manchester and Sheffield) Figure 2: What gender do you identify as? (Manchester) Figure 3: What gender do you identify as? (Sheffield) Figure 4: How old are you? (Manchester) Figure 5: How old are you? (Sheffield) Figure 6: Where do you live? Figure 7: How often do you use the tram? (Manchester) Figure 8: How often do you use the tram? (Sheffield) Figure 9: Primary purpose for using the tram (Manchester) Figure 10: Primary purpose for using the tram (Sheffield) Figure 11: Secondary purpose for using the tram (Manchester) Figure 12: Secondary purpose for using the tram (Sheffield) Figure 13: How far do you live from a tram station? (Manchester) Figure 14: How far do you live from a tram station? (Sheffield) Figure 15: When buying a property, is the proximity to a tram stop important? (Manchester) Figure 16: When buying a property, is the proximity to a tram stop important? (Sheffield) Figure 17: When applying for a job, is the proximity of the employer to a tram stop important? (Manchester) Figure 18: When applying for a job, is the proximity of the employer to a tram stop important? (Sheffield) Figure 19: If you don’t use the tram, what other form of transport do you use? Figure 20: What would make you choose to travel by tram over another form of transport?
6
Figure 21: Are you happy with the tram service in your city? (Manchester) Figure 22: Are you happy with the tram service in your city? (Sheffield) Figure 23: Do you believe trams have a positive economic impact on your city? (Manchester) Figure 24: Do you believe trams have a positive economic impact on your city? (Sheffield) Figure 25: House price increase in Manchester locations with tram stops (2000-2020) Figure 26: House price increase in Manchester locations without tram stops (2000-2020) Figure 27:House price increase in Sheffield locations with tram stops (2000-2020) Figure 28: House price increase in Sheffield locations without tram stops (2000-2020) Figure 29: Change in unemployment rates across Manchester (1996-2019) Figure 30: Change in unemployment rates across Sheffield (1996-2019) Figure 31: Percentage of retail units vacant in Trafford towns (1997-2008) Figure 32: Average percentage of vacant retail units (1997-2008) Figure 33: Increase from lowest to highest year of vacant retail units (1997-2008) Figure 34: Map showing the distribution of respondent’s postcodes (Leeds) Figure 35: What gender do you identify as? (Leeds) Figure 36: How old are you? (Leeds) Figure 37: Primary purpose for using public transport (Leeds) Figure 38: Secondary purpose for using public transport (Leeds) Figure 39: How often do you use public transport? (Leeds) Figure 40: Would you like to see a tram service built in Leeds? Figure 41: Are you happy with the current public transport provision in Leeds?
7
Figure 42: What form of transport do you use to travel around Leeds? Figure 43: Do you believe building trams would have a positive economic impact in Leeds? Figure 44: House price increase in Leeds locations (2000-2020) Figure 45: Change in unemployment rates across Leeds (1996-2019) Figure 46: Change in unemployment rates across Manchester, Sheffield and the UK (1996-2019)
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Pros and cons of selected methodologies Table 2: How do you believe trams could help to improve the economy of your city? Table 3: Average monthly earnings after tax (Manchester and Sheffield) Table 4: Traffic level statistics (Sheffield and Manchester) Table 5: Average monthly earnings after tax (Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield) Table 6: Traffic level statistics (Leeds and Manchester) Table 7: Traffic level statistics (Leeds and Sheffield)
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank the staff from the ‘Department of Urban Studies and Planning’ at The University of Sheffield for their continuous support throughout this year and my masters degree. Secondly, I would like to thank every individual who took the time to respond to online and email surveys. The number of responses received was phenomenal, and the information received from industry professionals was invaluable. Without this data, it would not have been possible to conduct this investigation and draw the conclusions which have been discussed. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support throughout both my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees, as the past four years have accumulated towards this final project.
DECLARATION I declare that the work presented within this dissertation is my own ideas and writing and that no part has been plagiarised from another source. Where a concept has been adapted from another author, it has been correctly quoted or referenced. Signed: Print name: Chris S Binns Date: 01/09/2020
9
1.0
 INTRODUCTION
10
1.0 INTRODUCTION This research investigates the impact that building tram networks in UK cities has on local economy, focussing on the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram. These two networks were established within two years of one another but have both seen different levels of investment, expansion and ridership. Therefore, this investigation will look at the initial aims of the two networks during their conception periods and how these may differ. Then it proceeds to investigate the economic impacts that the two networks have had on their cities, through a wide range of both primary and secondary data. Additionally, research will be undertaken to study the public desire for a similar network to be established in Leeds - currently the largest European city without a tram system (Forth, 2018). The economic impact which trams have on cities can be considered from several standpoints. It is also difficult to ascertain whether trams are solely responsible for the economic changes in question. The data used in this investigation spans over 28 years (1992 - 2020). It should be acknowledged that during this period further events may have occurred which could have caused a change in economic activity. For example, the 2007-2009 ‘Great Recession’ or the MediaCityUK development at Salford Quays. This investigation researches external factors which signify a change in economic activity. Data, along with insights from industry professionals, will allow for conclusions to be drawn regarding the economic impacts seen as a result of constructing the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram, as well as discussing the need for such a facility to be developed in Leeds.  
11
1.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES In order to focus the investigation and form research questions which will provide conclusive findings, five objectives have been set out. These objectives will be followed and referred back to throughout the investigation in order to ensure that the aim of the research is met. The objectives are set out below:
O1
To investigate the economic benefits of building tram systems in cities. This investigation will study the impact on unemployment
rates, house prices, empty retail unit statistics, average annual earnings and change in footfall statistics.
O2
To investigate the extent of which the building of tram systems have both positively and negatively impacted the economy of
Manchester and Sheffield.
O3
To study the public perception of the Manchester and Sheffield tram service and discuss both the positive and negative opinions of
the tram services available.
O4
To investigate any failings experienced by Manchester and Sheffield's tram services and how these could potentially be
corrected in the future.
O5
To discuss the potential benefits of the implementation of tram services in other UK cities - such as Leeds. 
12
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS From the research objectives set out in sub-section 1.1, the following research questions have been outlined which will be answered in this investigation:
Q1
To what extent, and how, has the building of tram systems impacted impacted the economy of UK cities, focussing on: - Manchester - Sheffield
Q2
What is the public perception of both the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram? Public opinion, areas of fault, suggested
resolutions and areas for future growth will be discussed.
Q3
What economic benefits does the study suppose that constructing a tram system in Leeds, England would have?
13
1.3 BACKGROUND Phase one of the Manchester Metrolink opened in 1992 and is owned by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) (Manchester Evening News, 2020). Metrolink has been developed in seven phases, the first being the Altrincham, Bury and City Centre lines in 1992, followed by six large expansions which have resulted in the current network operating 120 vehicles covering 101km of track and operating 99 stations along eight lines (RailwayTechnology, nd). Metrolink has a current annual ridership of 44 million passengers (Statista, 2019). Stagecoach operated the network between 2007 and 2017, and oversaw rebranding and expansion during this period. Current operator KeoliAmey continue to expand the network, with the Trafford Park line opening in March 2020 and have a further 27 vehicles on order (RailwayTechnology, ND). The Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, is known for publicising his ambitions to expand the network further, with future lines and orbital routes, as well as plans to create a ‘London Style’ integrated public transport system (Granada News, 2019). The Sheffield Supertram was opened in 1994 by South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (SYPTE), now Travel South Yorkshire. The tram system was delivered in two phases, with the opening of the first routes between 1994 and 1995, and another to Rotherham in 2018 (Vincent, 2014). The network now operates 32 vehicles over 34km of track and 50 stations (Stagecoach, 2020). Supertram carried 11.9 million passengers in 2019 (Statista, 2019). This is the same figure as the second year of operation for the Manchester Metrolink and down from a peak of 15 million in 2011 (Statista, 2019). During its early years, Supertram struggled to attract passenger numbers and there was concern regarding who would pay for the £240million construction fees (Vincent, 2014).
14
As a result, SYPTE contracted the operations to Stagecoach, aiming to make the network profitable (Vincent, 2014). Several expansions have been proposed, but only one materialised. Leeds is the largest European city without a mass-transport system (Forth, 2018). The first proposals were released in 1991, however the new Labour government of 1997 stopped the development. The Leeds tram was then completely abandoned in 2005 and a new proposal was scrapped in 2016 (Forth, 2018). The most recent tram system proposal was released in early 2020 to allow Leeds to compete internationally in a post-Brexit market (Beecham, 2020). This investigation will study the economic impacts of the comparative case studies, Manchester and Sheffield, due to the contrasting success, level of investment, different levels of expansion, and proximity of the two northern cities, despite holding a similar operating timescale. Having lived in both Manchester and Sheffield and noticed their operational differences, I have developed a deep routed interest in light rail tram networks and the impact they have on the areas they serve. Furthermore, the absence of a tram system in Leeds has been noted and the question has been risen as to whether the city would benefit from such investment. Therefore, the findings of this investigation could be used by local authorities to help determine the current/potential impact of building/ expanding tram networks in their cities.  
15


MANCHESTER METROLINK ROUTE MAP
2020 Manchester Metrolink Route Map (TfGM, 2020)
16
SHEFFIELD SUPERTRAM ROUTE MAP
2020 Sheffield Supertram Route Map (Stagecoach, 2020b)
17
2.0
 LITERATURE REVIEW
18
2.1 INTRODUCTION Trams have been present in Britain for over 150 years. The use of trams in Britain started under horse and steam power during the Victorian era, saw rapid growth during early 1900s and then peaked in both usage and development during the 1920s. By the 1960s, due to the introduction of buses, tramways became obsolete. However, between the 1980s and 2000, ‘light rail’ was starting to re-emerge (Green, 2016). Networks were introduced in Newcastle, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and South and East London. Further construction of networks has occurred since (Orr,gov.uk, 2020). However, there are currently only ten tram networks in the UK, considerably less than 100 years ago, or the twenty networks France have built since 2000 (Green, 2016).
Mosley Street, Manchester c1904 (Green, 2016)
Mosley Street, Manchester, 2006 (Green, 2016)
2.2 DECLINE OF TRAMS IN THE UK The early 1900s saw an upsurge in the usage of tram systems in the UK. However, the tram routes which were built before WWII were all beginning to
19
fall into disrepair. Unfortunately, this coincided with the rise in construction and maintenance costs within the UK. “Before 1914 a single line of paved tramway had cost about £4500 a mile, but by 1919 it was up to £12,500-15,000; even after the general prices had fallen almost to 1914 levels during the inter-war period, the price of a mile of track was still almost twice it had been, at £8092” (Buckley, 1987). Any tracks which were repaired during and after the war eventually needed to be completely rebuilt. In order for the tramways in Britain to stay competitive with the new buses, it was not economically viable to reconstruct the tram system - especially larger networks. Furthermore, whilst the capital costs of maintaining and repairing tramways continued to increase, the costs of private vehicles fell sharply, hence a large increase in people travelling by car (Buckley, 1987). Many tramways were closed due to the financial systems in place. Tramways were constructed using loans with a repayment time of forty years. However, the tracks required for tramways only lasted twenty years (Buckley, 1987). As the tram tracks across the UK needed to be replaced, half the capital costs from original construction would still have needed to be repaid by the time replacement would be needed. Whilst the cost of replacing such large networks played a significant role in the demise of the UK’s tram networks, the technological improvements of buses meant they could directly compete with, and often surpass, the ability of trams. New buses were faster meaning frequency could be increased, they were modern and allowed for easy access for the elderly, disabled and children (Buckley, 1987). In London, one year after the creation of London Transport in 1933, the closure of tram routes was announced. This was as a result of economic and political pressures and strict road width regulations causing area
20
restrictions, meaning that tram operators returned decreased profits. During the 1930s, trams in London were replaced with trolleybuses, a modern hybrid of trams and buses (BBC News, 2002). During the 1930s urban congestion was rife, and many blamed inner city tramways. Anti-tram movements, as well as lack of investment, contributed to the demise of trams in London and across the country (Brunton, 1992). By 1952, the last tram was operated in London and was replaced by bus services (BBC News, 2002). However, by 1954, trolleybuses were replaced in favour of larger diesel buses. London had spurred the change from tram to trolleybus beginning in the 1930s, and the same effect was taking place across the country with the transition of trolleybuses to diesel buses. The last tram system in the country closed in March 1972 in Bradford (Brunton, 1992). “Britain made a huge mistake abandoning tramway systems, and is now lagging far behind other countries who modernised and improved theirs�, Peter Watson (Swann & Reith-Banks, 2018). With tram networks starting to reemerge in the United Kingdom between the 1980s and the present day, what are the positive economic impacts they bring?
2.3 CONNECTIVITY AND THE ECONOMY The accessibility and connectivity of neighbouring towns and cities is proven to positively impact the economy of these areas. Connectivity can be described as linkages of communities, economies, and nations through transport, communications, energy and water across a number of areas (Worldbank, 2017). “Ultimately, connectivity is largely about increasing interactions, productivity, competition, and market opportunities between cities, and
21
consequently interdependence of multiple economies” (World Bank Group, 2019).
Connectivity acts as a stimulant for development and investment. Stronger connectivity between towns, cities and countries aid higher levels of productivity, efficiency, wider benefits of investment, and a resulting growth in trade. As a result, governments and organisations have acknowledged the importance of infrastructure connectivity in helping to achieve sustainable development and economic prosperity, so much so that the Global Infrastructure Connectivity Alliance (GICA) was established by the G20 to promote world-wide connectivity (WorldBank, 2017).
The ‘Research and Development Corporation’ found that multimodal transport infrastructure and connectivity aids trade expansion, attracts investment, accelerates industrialisation, integrates areas and communities, and stimulates economic growth. RAND state that in the Chinese ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, rail connections between trading areas has had the largest economic impact (World Economic Forum, 2018). Additionally, the report states there is a significant relationship between transport infrastructure, connectivity and bilateral trade, positively impacting associated areas (Lu, Rohr, Hafner & Knack, 2018).
Finally, increased levels of connectivity impacts employment. The Economic and Social Research Council state that a 10% increase in connectivity equates to a 3% increase in employment due to an increase in the productivity of existing businesses, whilst new businesses establish themselves in the area. As a result of increased productivity, wage increases are also apparent (UKRI, 2013). Furthermore, a Department for Transport report published in 2014
22
agrees that investment in transport connectivity has wider impacts than just user benefits, especially on business productivity, investment and employment levels (London First, 2015).
2.4 CONNECTIVITY AND HOUSE PRICES Rail transit in proximity of property brings benefits to residents, by improving accessibility to employment, retail and leisure activities. As a result of these benefits, numerous studies show an increase in property prices within the connected towns.
An analysis of the residential property located near San Francisco’s tram system - the Bay Area Rapit Transit System - saw that, on average, rental value was 10% higher than a property which was not near the network. However the same pattern was not seen across the whole network, with some areas showing no difference, showing that different communities experience the benefits of connectivity differently. However, the entire network saw an average increase in rental prices of $34 each month. This was also the case in Philadelphia where the median house price for areas served by the rail network was 10% higher than areas which were not (Diaz, 1999). The same benefits have been felt in the UK. Nationwide have showed that in London, a property 500m from the nearest station is worth £42,900 more than a property 1.5km from a station.
A similar pattern has been witnessed in Greater Manchester. Within the metropolitan county, a property can hold an average £12,600 premium due to its close proximity to a Metrolink station (Nationwide, 2019). This is an increase from £8300 in 2014, prior to further expansion of the tram network which has been witnessed since.
23
House price premium dependent on distance from a Tube station (Nationwide, 2019)


House price premium dependent on distance from a Metrolink station (Nationwide, 2019)
Finally, an investigation by CBRE in to the impact of the new line on the tube Crossrail - on house prices shows that there has been a 31% increase in house prices close to stations since Crossrail was announced - leading to an average uplift of ÂŁ133,000 per property. The investigation also found that a 10% reduction in commuting time causes a 6% house price increase (CBRE, 2016). This is confirmed by Nationwide who state that in Slough and Reading, house prices have increased by 39% and 33% respectively compared to a regional average of 22% (Nationwide, 2016).
24
2.5 RAIL AND THE ECONOMY There is much evidence to show that the rail industry in the UK has a positive impact on the economy. These include: • The employment of roughly 216,000 people; • Enhancement of the productive potential by £11.3billion per year; • £1.7billion of benefits from businesses clustering near rail links and sharing skills; • £400million in increase output due to reduced transport costs; • Reduced CO2 emissions by 7.7million tonnes per year; • Reduced road congestion leading to £12.9billion in travel time savings per year (Oxera, 2015).
In 2016, the total of all rail related economic impacts in the UK was £76.1billion. After deducting supply chain transactions, the contribution to UK GVA (gross value added) equaled £36.4billion. The industry supported 597,100 jobs (rail and supply chain) and produced £11billion in tax revenues (Oxford Economics, 2018). In the north of England, approximately 200,000 people use rail to commute every day, contributing £9billion to UK GDP per year.
This means that people who commute through rail would have to take a less productive and lesser paid job or face unemployment. If, for example, 10% of commuters in the north were to lose their job as a result of no rail network, GDP would fall by £900million annually (Abrantes & Allerton, 2014).
As well as the monetary and employment benefits of rail, there are other advantages which impact the economy. Rail provides a practical, quick and safe
25
way for people to commute to, and between, places of work, as well as delivering freight (Cambridge Economics, 2018). The Oxera study claims that the benefits of these could equate to ÂŁ16.7billion per year (Oxera, 2015). Furthermore, the rail industry provides an alternative to the car which results in a positive environmental impact, whilst reducing congestion for those who still travel by car (Oxford Economics, 2018). Oxera claim that rail helps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 8.4million tonnes each year and produces time savings which equates to ÂŁ11.8billion (Oxera, 2015).
2.6 TRAMS AND THE ECONOMY It is clear from literature that trams and light rail have a positive impact on local economies. Those living further from the urban centre are more likely to suffer health consequences as a result of relying on the car. The increase in air pollution is proven to have a negative impact on the economy. Controlling levels of car use through mass transit orientated development can improve local economies due to the movement of people to the core of cities as well as increasing employment, regeneration around transport interchanges, along rail routes and in residential and commercial areas close to connected areas. Whilst improving access to employment, quality of lifestyle is also increased which in turn increases economic activity as people have better access to facilities such as leisure activities and retail. These components result in higher land values which result in increasing amount of taxes being paid (Topalovic, Tobey & Lotimer, 2008).
A report by the Texas Department of Transportation’s highlights that the main benefits are an increase in property value and taxes close to rail stations and the regeneration which takes place as a result of rail stations acting as a catalyst
26
for urban renewal due to an increase in footfall and accessibility (Arndt et al, 2009).
Furthermore, a 2012 case study of the Baltimore Central light rail network states that the city has experienced an increase in commercial activity in areas surrounding stations, an increase in commuter traffic to and from the city, economic development impacts as a result of reduced levels of congestion and more attractive residential areas due to increased travel options. It also states that the network is designed to encourage further investment in former industrial areas which have been in decline and produce economic activity (Barry, 2012).
Finally, in an economic impact report published for the Minister for Economy, Science and Transport for the proposed Cardiff Region Metro service, several economic benefits were outlined which are in line with those experienced in the above reports. These were: • Improving business efficiency due to reduced cost of travelling and more reliable, shorter journey times. Therefore, increasing business productivity; • Encouraging urban agglomeration to increase productivity benefits and GVA; • Labour supply impacts due to direct access to employment from a wider radius and a change towards more productive jobs; • Housing delivery through opening previously inaccessible areas; • Property market impacts due to the increase in land value surrounding transport hubs as well as increasing value for future development projects (Steer Davies Gleave, 2013).
27
Economic impact of trams (Topalovic, Tobey & Lotimer, 2008)
28
Urban agglomeration impacts of trams (Steer Davies Gleave, 2013)
2.7 CONCLUSION Literature was readily available to discuss the economic impacts of light rail networks, trams and connectivity at both macro and micro scales, with case studies available for networks worldwide. However, minimal literature was found investigating the impacts of the Manchester and Sheffield tram networks, and none was found comparing the two. Furthermore, no literature was found discussing what lessons could be learnt from networks for the implementation of future services. Therefore, this investigation will use variables discussed in this literature review, and others, to compare the economic impacts of the Metrolink and Supertram and discuss any lessons which could be learnt and used in the implementation of a tram network in Leeds. 
29
3.0
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
30
Research can be described as studying a subject in detail to discover new information, provide answers to unanswered questions, come to conclusions or provide recommendations (Cambridge Dictionary, 2019). Basic research can provide abstract answers, whereas in-depth research can produce specific answers which are then interpreted to produce generalisations and conclusions. Basic research does not provide large sets of information which will have a large impact, rather helping to produce a theory to investigate further. In-depth research, however, tests a theory through a “systematic evaluation” in order to produce the specific findings wanted by the researcher (Tuckman & Harper, 2012).
3.1 QUANTITATIVE & QUALITATIVE DATA Data can be categorised as quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative data is empirical and is associated with scientific, economical or statistical investigations. Qualitative data is interpretative in nature, and provides detailed explanations behind people’s beliefs, habits and reasonings, focussing on the meaning behind how people “make sense of their lives, experiences, and their structures of the world”, whereas quantitative data focusses on concrete statistics by using closed questions (Atieno, 2009). Both forms of data have advantages and disadvantages which can be developed upon or mitigated to ensure a high quality data collection. Quantitative data comes in three contexts; descriptive, experimental and casual comparative (UKEssays, 2018a). For this research, casual comparative will be used to examine the relationship between economic variables and building of tram networks. An advantage of quantitative data is that it is objective and can be easily measured. The data is reduced to numerical
31
statistics meaning they can be easily compared (UKEssays, 2018a). Secondly, the ‘holistic fallacy’ theory can be avoided; “the perception that all aspects of a situation are congruent, when in fact only those persons interviewed by the researcher may have held that view” (UKEssays, 2018a). Therefore, this allows the researcher to gain data on a wide set of individuals and not a small group who hold the same opinion. Furthermore, information surrounding individuals who would not normally be interviewed can be provided (UKEssays, 2018a). However, there are disadvantages of quantitative data. Respondents can be influenced by the use of vocabulary used to explain questions or topics (UKEssays, 2018a). Therefore, researchers must ensure that any text used is neutral and not to converse with respondents, to avert any influences on the data. Quantitative data only provides a snapshot at that time (UKEssays, 2018a). Therefore, both quantitative data and secondary data must be used in order to explain the history behind it. Qualitative data also has advantages. Structured interviews or email surveys can be quick to conduct once prepared, as each individual will answer the same set of questions. Furthermore, qualitative data allows for fewer participants to take place, whilst still collecting useful, detailed and relevant data (Almeida, Queiros & Faria, 2017). However, qualitative data has disadvantages. Preparing and planning interviews can be time consuming and requires more time to interpret, before any conclusions can be formed. Furthermore, interviews can be costly due to travel costs, incentives and hiring of space and equipment (Almeida, Queiros & Faria, 2017). For this research, due to Covid-19, individuals who would have been interviewed will be sent an email survey, mitigating any costs. Another
32
disadvantage is that the respondents are chosen by the researcher which could cause bias. To ensure this doesn’t occur in this investigation, a representative of equal professional status from Manchester and Sheffield will be chosen. Finally, qualitative data is not representative of the wider population due to the small amount of respondents (Almeida, Queiros & Faria, 2017). Both forms of data can be used to compliment each other, with qualitative data explaining the quantitative results. However, using both forms of data can be “messy and untidy” (Brannen, 2003). This can result in the collection of unorganised data. Furthermore, qualitative data may not explain the findings of the quantitative as the research is conducted at different times (Brannen, 2003). For this investigation, qualitative and quantitative data will be collected simultaneously through online surveys. This will help to mitigate issues when using numerous types of data collection.
33
3.2 PRIMARY & SECONDARY DATA Primary data is generated by the researcher through surveys, interviews and experiments in order to understand, answer or solve the research question (Wagh, 2020). Secondary data is existing and has been collected by the government or large organisations as part of their record keeping, and is easily accessible by the public (Wagh, 2020). All data falls in to these two categories, with both having advantages and disadvantages. Primary data incorporates the main advantage that the researcher is collecting data for the purpose of their investigation. The questions have been designed to specifically answer the aims, objectives and research questions, allowing for all areas of the investigation to be covered (Institute for Work & Health, 2017). This means that the data will be accurate as it is collected from the target population, up to date and unbiased as it is not being processed by another individual (UKEssays, 2018b). Primary data is also owned by the researcher collecting it, meaning that it is not shared with other researchers, helping to ensure the originality of the investigation (Intellspot, 2017). There are also disadvantages with primary data. When using qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups, there is often a large cost involved (Hox & Boeije, 2005). Furthermore, primary data collection is time consuming due to needing to plan and prepare, carry out the investigation and then analyse (Lefever, Dal & Matthiasdottir, 2007). The collection of primary data through the required means can not always be possible. For example, the topic being investigated may be too large for one researcher, meaning it would be too time consuming (Intellspot, 2017). Secondary research can be used to mitigate this as it is often data provided by large organisations. For this
34
investigation, the primary data can not be collected in the ideal way due to Covid-19. Therefore, online surveys will be used instead. When used alongside primary data, secondary data helps to ensure there are no ‘gaps’ in the investigation (Hox & Boeije, 2005). Secondary data allows for ease of access to a large sample and period of time (Goodwin, 2012). Secondary data also allows for minimal or no charges involved, whilst also saving time (Intellspot, 2017). However, secondary data is not specific to the investigation meaning that it may be unreliable and not answer the research questions. Furthermore, it is not always up to date. Additionally, the data was collected with the aims of other research, meaning it will be biased towards that investigation. (Goodwin, 2012). The quality of the data also can’t be controlled. Therefore, care must be taken when selecting secondary data, to ensure it is valid, reliable and not bias, in order to ensure the new investigation will not suffer (Intellspot, 2017). Secondary research will be discussed in further detail in chapter 4.0 of this investigation.
35
4.0
 PROPOSED RESEARCH METHODS
36
PROPOSED RESEARCH METHODS This research will use primary and secondary data to investigate the economic impact of building tram networks in Manchester and Sheffield. It was intended that primary data would be collected by conducting face to face surveys on board trams. However, due to Covid-19, this was not possible and the research methods must be changed to ensure a suitable data set is collected. As a result, the methodology has adapted to instead utilise online surveys (see appendices 1-2). However, the questions that would have been asked in questionnaires remain, just via a different medium. They will be shared across a range of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Linkedin, and shared to group pages for residents in all ten boroughs of Greater Manchester, Sheffield, Rotherham and Leeds. This will ensure a wide audience will be reached and the data collected will be representative of the three cities. These surveys will provide a large amount of quantitative data which will develop an understanding of how and why people do/do not use trams in Manchester and Sheffield, public perception of the current networks, the impacts they have on their cities and highlight areas for improvement. Whilst the data collected will primarily be quantitative, some qualitative questions will be asked to understand why respondents chose their answers. A number of individuals who either work/ have worked for or have researched the tram networks in Manchester/Sheffield and proposals in Leeds will be contacted (see appendices 3-5), asking them to complete an email survey to provide detailed reasonings which can be used to analyse the economic impact of trams in these cities.
37
Finally, secondary research will investigate unemployment rates, house prices, empty retail unit statistics, average annual earnings and change in footfall. This will be collected through property website ‘Zoopla’ and by contacting local councils (see appendices 6). The aim is to collect data between the period of 1992 (for Manchester) and 1994 (for Sheffield) and the present day, to analyse the changes seen over time. If not possible, data will be collected from the dates closest to these milestones.
4.1 ONLINE SURVEYS An online survey is a questionnaire that the target audience can complete over the internet (Qualtrics, nd). These will be used to collect all primary data for this investigation (see appendices 1-2). Whilst the advantages to online surveys make them the most suitable choice, there are disadvantages which need to be mitigated. Access to a wide population is the main advantage of using online surveys to collect data. “Virtual communities have flourished online, and hundreds of thousands of people regularly participate in discussions about almost every conceivable issue” (Wright, 2006). This makes it easier to access a large sample population who have an opinion on the topic. Online surveys also enable access to groups which would normally be difficult to reach (Wright, 2006). In this case, people who are inaccessible due to Covid-19, can still be questioned. Another advantage of online surveys is that they are more time efficient. A large population can be reached in a much shorter period of time than face-toface questionnaires, whilst also covering a large geographical area (Wright, 2006). Online surveys allow for access to either a larger sample population in the same time, or the same amount of responses through face to face research
38
in a shorter period. Furthermore, many forms of online survey software provide the statistics, graphs and charts needed to analyse the data, which would usually require a considerable amount of time (Evans & Mathur, 2018). They also allow the researcher to filter responses to highlight specific areas of the investigation, again saving time. Finally, online surveys require less financial expenditure than ordinary primary data collection methods (Wright, 2006). Google Forms will be used for collecting the data for this investigation. This software is free, meaning no cost will be incurred. Furthermore, those who would’ve been interviewed for this investigation, will now complete an email survey. This also requires less financial expenditure as there will be no cost to buy recording equipment, pay for travel or pay for transcription software. Whilst there are many advantages to using online surveys, there are also some disadvantages. One disadvantage is sampling issues (Wright, 2006). These can happen when the researcher subconsciously posts the online surveys in groups and to people from a specific society niche, for example those who boast higher education, or have an interest in the topic. This could cause all responses to be inadvertently bias and result in an invalid analysis and conclusions. In this investigation, the survey will be shared to a fair range of groups to ensure an unbiased, representative sample is gained. Furthermore, sampling issues are seen when researchers offer an incentive (Evans & Mathur, 2018). This can lead to individuals completing several responses in order to gain more, which results in unrepresentative data being collected as responses contain false information. No incentive will be offered for this investigation to eliminate this issue. Another disadvantage to online surveys is issues with access (Wright, 2006). Online surveys are often posted in discussion groups. Many people believe this to be spam and will not take part, or the group
39
moderator may remove it as it is not directly linked to the community. In order to avoid this, any group moderators will be contacted to ensure the content is approved and advertised correctly. This may take time so must be done in advance. Furthermore, the researcher can explain the importance of the research and any benefits which may come as a result of it, including how the results can be accessed. Using solely online surveys may pose access issues when it comes to gaining responses from the elderly who are less likely to have access to the internet. This means a potentially large category of responses will be missed by using online surveys. If this was the case after analysing the data, face to face questionnaires could be completed. However, due to Covid-19, this would not be possible.
4.2 SECONDARY RESEARCH Secondary research can be defined as using information which has already been compiled and formatted by a third party. Information can be derived from other researchers, organisations, scholar books/articles and government statistics (Oxford Reference, nd). When complimenting primary research, secondary boasts several advantages, however, the disadvantages must be mitigated. One advantage is that it is often free and easily accessible. Government data has to be available to the public and normally contains large samples because it is collected routinely. Therefore, secondary data can provide large, easily accessible data samples from within a large time frame, allowing change over time to be analysed. This saves time as collecting data for a long period of time would be time consuming. Furthermore, alongside primary data, secondary data enables the researcher to ‘fill in’ gaps in their research (Institute for Work
40
& Health, 2017). For example, if the researcher is not able to reach a certain group of people, then secondary data could be used to ensure there are no gaps in the investigation. However, the disadvantages of secondary data must be taken into consideration. Firstly, the data will not be specific to the needs of the researcher. Whilst the data may be of use, it may not provide the exact information required so gaps may still be apparent. Furthermore, the data is not unique. Many people have access to the data and may use it, meaning that if secondary data is used without primary data, your research project may not be original (Intellspot, 2017). When using secondary data, there is no control over data quality. It is unknown who collected the data so it must be examined thoroughly to make sure there are no mistakes, to determine reliability and to ensure no bias has occurred. Finally, secondary data is usually not up to date unless it is updated frequently. This would therefore make an investigation invalid, if the topic is based on the present day (Intellspot, 2017).
41
4.3 PROS AND CONS OF SELECTED METHODOLOGIES In summary, the advantages and disadvantages of the methodologies for this investigation are as follows:
Table 1: (Authors own)
4.4 DATA ANALYSIS The qualitative data collected will be analysed through two processes. A ‘framework analysis’ will be conducted following a framework which answers the research objectives and questions of this investigation. Then, a ‘thematic network analysis’ will take place. This approach allows for exploration in the research, highlighting information which may not directly answer the research objectives and questions, but proves useful in the investigation (The Open University, n.d). A mixture of these two approaches allows for the research objectives and questions to be answered whilst providing extra information which may be useful to the researcher.
42
The quantitative data will be analysed through descriptive analysis and central tendency. Descriptive analysis shows the basic occurrences in the data and describes findings using statistics such as mode, mean, median, minimum, maximum and frequency. These statistics are also measures of central tendency, which shows a snapshot of responses and is a single value which describes a dataset (University of Minnesota, 2019). For example, the mean of responses in relation to frequency of public transport use.  
43
5.0
 LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIAL ETHICAL ISSUES
44
POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS AND ETHICAL ISSUES During any investigation, limitations or ethical issues may be encountered during data collection. Limitations include: • Not receiving enough responses to surveys which will impact analysis; • Respondents to surveys may be bias; • Collecting primary data may be time consuming so enough time must be planned for this; • Some forms of secondary data require payment to gain access, meaning they will not be used for this investigation and may hinder results. The following ethical issues should be considered whilst carrying out research for this investigation: • Honesty and integrity - This research should be reported honestly. This includes the methods of research, data, results, analysis and recommendations. Under no circumstances should data be made up as this would implicate the validity of results; • Objectivity and openness - Bias should be avoided to ensure the findings are valid. The researcher should also be open to any findings which occur and the analysis which comes from this; • Protection of human subjects - People hold the right to refuse to participate in this research. Participants must not be deceived in to thinking they are taking part in something which they are not. The privacy of respondents should be
45
respected, all responses should be anonymous and should not be accessible to anyone other than the researcher; - No vulnerable groups are required to take part in this investigation so no measures are needed to protect them. However, no content which would cause harm to a vulnerable person is included in the research as a precaution; • Acknowledgements - Any secondary data used for this investigation must be referenced correctly at all times and any analysis formed using this data must be my own; • Risk assessments - If an insufficient amount of responses are received from posting the surveys online, and if government guidelines permit, face to face surveys in Manchester and Sheffield may be required. For this, a risk assessment must be completed, which also takes in to consideration the current Covid-19 guidelines. A family member or friend must know where the researcher will be at what times, planned journeys and when the they leave/return home. A fully charged phone must be carried at all times so that the researcher is contactable.  
46
6.0
 CONTINGENCY PLAN
47
CONTINGENCY PLAN A contingency plan is a pre-made plan which is designed to deal with an emergency or situation which might happen and cause issues in the future. A contingency plan is needed in research to ensure that an investigation can be completed successfully, as it is highly likely that issues will occur. The following issues have been noted as potential problems which could arise: • Not receiving enough responses to the surveys published to collect primary data; • Not having enough suitable primary data to analyse or the data received does not answer the research questions; • Secondary data not available for the dates required. Responses to these issues have been outlined which will help to solve the problems if they do present themselves.
48
Not receiving enough responses to the surveys
• Share the surveys on more social media platforms to reach a wider audience. • Carry out surveys in city centres if government Covid-19 guidelines permit.
Not having enough primary data to analyse or the data does not answer the research questions
• Conduct more surveys to gather more suitable primary data. • Use a wider range of secondary data which will compliment the existing data.
Secondary data not available for the dates required
• Contact the Office for National Statistics directly enquiring about the data needed. • Pay for a unique set of data from ONS. • Look for another set of variables.
49
7.0
 RESULTS
50
7.1
 MANCHESTER & SHEFFIELD RESULTS
51
7.1.1 PRIMARY DATA RESULTS The data gathered from these surveys is to be used to answer the following research objectives:
O3
To study the public perception of the Manchester and Sheffield tram service and discuss both the positive and negative opinions of
the tram services available.
O4
To investigate any failings experienced by Manchester and Sheffield's tram services and how these could potentially be
corrected in the future.
And the following research question:

Q2
What is the public perception of both the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram? Public opinion, areas of fault, suggested
resolutions and areas for future growth will be discussed.

Individuals who either are currently or previously employed by or researched the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram were contacted for questioning through an email survey. The data collected is to be used to answer the following research objectives:

O1
To investigate the economic benefits of building tram systems in cities. This investigation will study the impact on unemployment
rates, house prices, empty retail unit statistics, average annual earnings and change in footfall statistics.
52
O2
To investigate the extent of which the building of tram systems have both positively and negatively impacted the economy of
Manchester and Sheffield. And the following research question:
Q1
To what extent, and how, has the building of tram systems impacted impacted the economy of UK cities, focussing on: - Manchester - Sheffield
Primary data for this investigation was collected using online surveys. These surveys were aimed at people who live in Manchester and Sheffield. The aims of these surveys was to: • Gain an understanding of the public perception of the tram network in Manchester & Sheffield; • Understand how and why people use the trams; • Understand why people don’t use the trams; • Understand how well the tram systems service their cities; • Understand the impact which trams have on the public; • Find areas of success and improvement for both tram systems.
53
ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS The survey aimed at residents of Manchester and Sheffield received 370 responses within two weeks. Given the inability to conduct research face to face, this number of responses is welcomed. Figure 1 shows a wide distribution of responses was received from both cities. A wider distribution is seen in Manchester, covering the majority of the city, however the distribution of responses in Sheffield is sufficient for the data to be representative. Both cities have areas with varying numbers of responses. This could potentially be due to the social media platforms on which the surveys were shared. The data collected for Manchester and Sheffield is representative and therefore will provide reliable findings.
MAP SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENT'S POSTCODES
MAP SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS POSTCODES
Sheffield City Centre
Manchester City Centre
High number of responses
Low number of responses
Powered by Bing Š TomTom
Figure 1: (Author’s own)
54
Female Prefer not to say
Male
2% 37%
33%
WHAT GENDER DO YOU IDENTIFY AS? (MANCHESTER)
63% Figure 2
WHAT GENDER DO YOU IDENTIFY AS? (SHEFFIELD)
65% Figure 3
The purpose of figures 2 to 3 was to understand the demographic of respondents. On average, 64% of respondents from the Manchester/Sheffield survey were female, 35% male and 1% chose not to disclose this information. For the data to be representative of the population, the ratio of male to female respondents should follow the UK average of 51% female, 49% male (gov.uk, 2019).
16-24 55-64
25-34 65+
35-44
6%
7%
12%
9%
17%
33% HOW OLD ARE YOU? (MANCHESTER)
Figure 4
37% 14%
12%
45-54
21%
17%
HOW OLD ARE YOU? (SHEFFIELD)
17%
Figure 5
55
Figures 4 and 5 show that, on average, the most populous age range of respondents was aged 16-24 with 34%, followed by 25-34 and 45-54. It was expected that the age of respondents would be in the lower categories due to the surveys being shared on social media platforms where, typically, users are of a younger demographic. Manchester
44%
Sheffield
WHERE DO YOU LIVE?
56%
Figure 6
A larger proportion of respondents live in Manchester, as seen in figure 6, with 56% being from Manchester and 44% from Sheffield. This was expected as Manchester has a much larger population than Sheffield. Therefore, this data is representative of the population divide between the two cities. Rarely Once a week Every day
Once a month 2-3 times a week
4% 5%
11% 13%
13%
5% HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE THE TRAM? (MANCHESTER)
37%
12%
HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE THE TRAM? (SHEFFIELD)
74% 26%
Figure 7
Figure 8
56
The aim of figures 7 and 8 is to determine how people use the tram systems and how this differs between the cities. These figures show that residents in Manchester use the Metrolink significantly more than people in Sheffield. 37% of Manchester residents rarely use the tram whereas 74% rarely use it in Sheffield. For the remaining options the data demonstrates that Manchester residents use the trams twice as often as Sheffield residents. For example, 13% use the tram 2-3 times a week whereas 5% of Sheffield respondents chose this option. Furthermore, 13% chose once a week compared to 5% in Sheffield and 11% in Manchester use the tram daily compared to 4% in Sheffield. Commuting to work Visiting friends/family Running errands Other
Leisure Traveling to a place of education I dont use the tram
2% 14% 3% 5%
21% PRIMARY PURPOSE FOR USING THE TRAM
 (MANCHESTER)
4%
32%
12% PRIMARY PURPOSE FOR USING THE TRAM
 (SHEFFIELD)
3% Figure 9
55%
43%
3% 3% Figure 10
Figures 9 and 10 show that people in Manchester and Sheffield use the tram for similar purposes. Whilst the percentages differ, it is evident that the same theme is followed in regards to distribution between the options available for respondents to choose from.
57
Manchester and Sheffield residents mainly use the tram for leisure purposes, described as an activity chosen for pleasure, relaxation, or other satisfaction, typically after work and outside of daily routine (Medical Dictionary, 2020). This is followed by commuting to work.
There is a significant difference between the two cities for the percentage of people stating that they do not use the tram. 14% of respondents from Manchester chose this option whereas more than double (32%) chose it in Sheffield. This coincides with the data shown in figure 10 in which 74% of Sheffield residents stated that they rarely use the tram. Both cities see very small percentages for the remaining categories. Commuting to work Visiting friends/family Running errands Other
8%
12%
17%
SECONDARY PURPOSE FOR USING THE TRAM
 (MANCHESTER)
Leisure Traveling to a place of education I dont use the tram
27% 40%
9% 4% Figure 11
6%
6%
SECONDARY PURPOSE FOR USING THE TRAM
 (SHEFFIELD)
25%
10% 23%
3% Figure 12
10%
When asked what their secondary purpose for using the tram is, leisure received the largest percentage of responses. However, visiting friends/family and running errands were the next most popular choices, which received relatively few responses to comparison to the percentages of other options, as
58
demonstrated in figures 11 and 12. Therefore, conclusions can be drawn in order to assume that both Manchester and Sheffield trams are primarily used for travelling to leisure activities, whilst a large proportion of Manchester residents use the service to commute to work.
8%
Under a mile 2-3 miles I do not live near a tram
1-2 miles 3+ miles
10%
9% 13%
HOW FAR DO YOU LIVE FROM A TRAM STATION?
 (MANCHESTER)
16% 43%
HOW FAR DO YOU LIVE FROM A TRAM STATION?
 (SHEFFIELD)
30%
17% 28% Figure 13
27% Figure 14
Figures 13 and 14 show how many people in Manchester and Sheffield live within walking distance of a tram stop. These show that a higher percentage of people in Manchester live closer to a station. Whilst 30% of Sheffield respondents live under a mile from their nearest station, 43% chose the same option in Manchester. Using these percentages to show a true representation of population size, a larger number of people live under a mile from a tram station in Manchester. Where the total population of Greater Manchester is 2.813 million and the metropolitan population of Sheffield is 1.569 million, these percentages equates to 1,209,590 compared to 470,700 in Sheffield (ONS, 2018).
59
The average human can walk 2.1 miles in 30 minutes (Cronkleton, 2019). Therefore, using the data above, 71% of Manchester respondents live within a 30 minute walk of a tram station compared to 57% in Sheffield. This equates to 1,997,230 and 894,330 people respectively. This data substantiates the difference in the two networks annual ridership; which is 44million in Manchester and 11.9million in Sheffield (Statista, 2019). Furthermore, the data shows a much wider tram network in Manchester as apposed to Sheffield. Yes No Not a deciding factor but is important
12%
25%
48%
Figure 15
39%
WHEN BUYING A PROPERTY, IS THE PROXIMITY TO A TRAM STOP IMPORTANT? (MANCHESTER)
27%
WHEN BUYING A PROPERTY, IS THE PROXIMITY TO A TRAM STOP IMPORTANT? (SHEFFIELD)
49% Figure 16
The aim of figures 15 to 16 is to show whether the presence of the tram network impacts people’s major life decisions. When asked if when buying a new property, the proximity to a tram station is important to the buyer, both cities least chosen response was ‘yes’ with 25% of the Manchester respondents choosing this and 12% of Sheffield. 27% of Manchester residents stated that it is not important whilst a much larger 49% in Sheffield chose this option. 48% in Manchester said that whilst it wasn’t a deciding factor, it did play an important role, whilst 39% in Sheffield chose this. Therefore, 73% of the respondents in Manchester believe that the proximity to a tram station has some role to play in deciding whether to buy a house, compared to a smaller 51% in Sheffield.
60
Yes No Not a deciding factor but is important
11%
19%
49%
37%
WHEN APPLYING FOR A JOB, IS THE PROXIMITY OF THE EMPLOYER TO A TRAM STOP IMPORTANT? (MANCHESTER)
WHEN APPLYING FOR A JOB, IS THE PROXIMITY OF THE EMPLOYER TO A TRAM STOP IMPORTANT? (SHEFFIELD)
32% Figure 17
53%
Figure 18
The same pattern as above was observed when respondents were asked if an employers proximity to a station would hinder their decision to apply for a job. Both cities least chosen response was ‘yes’, with Manchester choosing 19% and Sheffield ,11%. 32% in Manchester said it was not important whilst 53% in Sheffield chose this option. Finally, 49% in Manchester stated that whilst it was not a deciding factor, it did play an important role in their decision, whilst 37% in Sheffield chose this. Therefore, 68% of respondents in Manchester showed that this variable would impact their decision, either partially or entirely, compared to 48% in Sheffield. IF YOU DON’T USE THE TRAM, WHAT OTHER FORM OF TRANSPORT DO YOU USE? I do not use the tram
69
Bus Train Cycle Taxi
35
60 34
75 48
6 22 42
Walk
53 61
Private Car
87 106
Manchester
95
Sheffield
Figure 19
61
The aim of figure 19 was to determine what other mode of transport people use if they do not use the tram. Figure 19 shows that the main form of other transport used in both cities is the private car. This is followed by walking and using the bus. A very small amount of people in both cities cycle. It can also be noted that almost double the amount of people in Manchester stated that they do use the tram compared to those in Sheffield.
WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU CHOOSE TO TRAVEL BY TRAM OVER ANOTHER FORM OF TRANSPORT? Cheaper tickets
102
Extensions to the tram network
81
Increase in safety Simpler ticket systems Travel to work schemes Investments to existing network
66 112
28 26 20
34 16
29
Increase in frequency
27 60
28
Manchester
Sheffield
Figure 20
This question was aimed at finding what would make people travel by tram. It is clear from figure 20 that the primary factor which would make people in Manchester travel by tram is if tickets were cheaper. This is followed by extensions to the existing network and an increase in frequency. In Sheffield, the primary factor which would make people choose to travel by tram would be extensions to the network. This is by far the most chosen factor, with the next most frequent being cheaper tickets, receiving half the amount of responses.
62
Yes
13%
19%
No
Unsure
20% ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THE TRAM SERVICE IN YOUR CITY? (SHEFFIELD)
ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THE TRAM SERVICE IN YOUR CITY? (MANCHESTER)
49%
68% 32% Figure 21
Figure 22
Figures 21 and 22 aim to show public perception of the tram services in Manchester and Sheffield. A large difference can be seen in regards to satisfaction levels. In Manchester, 68% of respondents stated they were happy, compared to 49% in Sheffield. 13% in Manchester and 20% in Sheffield said they were unsure. Finally, 19% in Manchester and 32% in Sheffield said they were unhappy. Yes
5%
No
10% DO YOU BELIEVE TRAMS HAVE A POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON YOUR CITY? (MANCHESTER)
Figure 23
DO YOU BELIEVE TRAMS HAVE A POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON YOUR CITY? (SHEFFIELD)
95%
Figure 24
90%
Figures 23 and 24 were asked to understand whether people in Manchester and Sheffield believe the trams positively impact the economy, with both cities believing that they do. 95% in Manchester, and 90% in Sheffield answered yes, with only 5% in Manchester and 10% in Sheffield answering no. Respondents stated they believed trams did positively impact the economy because they
63
connect people to employment opportunities and promotes less car use, increase house prices and levels of investment from private companies if a city is easy to travel around. Respondents stated they believe trams are more “environmentally friendly” and “they reduce congestion in central areas”. Respondents also remarked that the Metrolink provided “better connectivity for visitors to the city allowing them to travel beyond the city centre with ease”.
QUALITATIVE QUESTION RESPONSES Question 14 asked residents where they would like to see the tram networks extended to. This was asked with the aim of determining any areas of future growth for the networks. In Manchester, respondents noted nine areas. These were Bolton, Denton, Fallowfield, Middleton, Stockport, Urmston, Leigh, Glossop and Hyde. Respondents also stated that they would like to see circular routes begin to be formed between ‘spokes’ of the ‘hub and spoke’ model, so that not all journeys need to travel through the city centre. In Sheffield, respondents noted eight areas. These were Abbeydale Road, Chapeltown, Crookes, Dore & Totley, Ecclesall Road, Heeley, North Sheffield and better connections with Sheffield’s hospitals. Question 17 asked residents how they believe that trams could help to improve the economy. This was asked with the aim of determining whether there are any areas where people believe that the trams have not benefited their cities, as well as locating any failings and how they could be corrected. The main points are outlined below.
64
How do you believe trams could help to improve the economy of your city?
Manchester
Sheffield
• Higher frequencies in some areas • Cheaper tickets in peak times • Expansion of network and provision of orbital routes • Links to all tourist areas • Provide incentive to move workers away from private cars in order to reduce emissions and the economic cost of this • Integrate all transport systems in to something similar to London’s oyster card • Promote regeneration and investment in areas surrounding tram stops
• Cheaper tickets • Extensive extensions and better coverage of the city • Connect the north of Sheffield to the city centre • Extensions to deprived areas • Extensions to suburban shopping areas where small businesses will be supported • Frequent services to residential areas • Improve night time safety • Attract investment to surrounding areas
Table 2 (Author’s own)
The main areas of improvement for Manchester are to create orbital routes, integrate all forms of public transport and to move people away from private cars. In Sheffield, the majority of respondents talked about expanding the network to give the city better coverage and to attract investment.
65
7.1.2 SECONDARY DATA RESULTS HOUSE PRICE INCREASE IN MANCHESTER LOCATIONS WITH TRAM STOPS (2000-2020) Median Average Rochdale Milnrow Shaw & Crompton Oldham Chadderton Moston Bury Radcliffe Whitefield Prestwich Crumpsall Market Street Manchester Airport Shadowmoss Martinscroft Baguley Wythenshawer Northern Moor Didsbury Withington Chorlton Eccles Media City Salford Quays Pomona Ashton under Lyne Audenshaw Droylsden New Islington Piccadilly St Peters Square Deansgate Cornbrook Old Trafford Stretford Sale Timperley Altrincham
183.5% 178.71% 151.9% 151.89% 156.68% 156.11% 156.13% 183.54% 168.07% 183.53% 183.5% 182.51% 213.93% 177.53% 183.51% 188.76% 193.98% 183.5% 183.52% 183.53% 183.49% 183.5% 183.49% 183.52% 204.73% 181.93% 222.12% 156.62% 183.52% 183.51% 172.85% 177.57% 182.05% 178.32% 185.62% 183.51% 183.51% 175.23% 151.4% 151.39%
Figure 25: (Author’s own) Data from (Zoopla, 2020)
The aim of figures 25 to 26 was to investigate whether the proximity of a tram route impacts house prices in Manchester and Sheffield, and then compare the
66
results. Property website ‘Zoopla’ was used to collect this data. Data was only available for the past 20 years and could not be accessed from 1992 and 1994 when the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram were first introduced. HOUSE PRICE INCREASE IN MANCHESTER LOCATIONS WITHOUT TRAM STOPS (2000-2020) Median Average Pendleton Oxford Road Heywood Leigh Atherton Tyldesley Stalybridge Hyde Bredbury Wilmslow Handforth Bramall Partington Carrington Cheadle Urmston Bolton Wigan Middleton Stockport Irlam
175.76% 171.89% 161.44% 177.55% 148.54% 166.75% 183.53% 183.52% 175.76% 163.21% 188.66% 159.94% 159.94% 165.85% 183.53% 183.5% 149.32% 183.49% 162.76% 156.62% 183.52% 188.64% 183.52%
Figure 26: (Authors own) Data from (Zoopla, 2020)
Figures 25 and 26 show that areas of Manchester served by a tram station have seen a larger increase in house price between 2000 and 2020. These areas have a range of 151.4% - 222.12% and an average increase of 178.21%. Areas which are not served by the Metrolink have a range of 148.54% - 188.66% and an average increase of 171.89%. This means that house prices in areas of
67
Manchester that are served by a tram stop rose by 6.82% more than those that are not.
HOUSE PRICE INCREASE IN SHEFFIELD LOCATIONS WITH TRAM STOPS (2000-2020)
Median Average Hollinsend Halfway Westfield Waterthrope Crystal Peaks Birley Herdings Gleadless Manor Top Arbourthorne Rotherham Meadowhall Carbrook Attercliffe West Street Shalesmoor Hillsborough Middlewood
173.9% 170.4% 167.43% 167.47% 167.43% 167.41%
161.06%
151.62%
163.79% 167.43%
173.93%
173.89% 173.91% 173.93% 173.93% 177.05% 176.37% 176.37% 176.38%
177.78%
Figure 27: (Authors own) Data from (Zoopla, 2020)
Figures 27 and 28 show that areas of Sheffield which are not serviced by the Supertram, have seen a larger increase in house prices, differing to the results collected for Manchester. Areas which do have tram stations have seen an increase range of 151.62% - 177.78% and an average increase of 170.4%. Areas which do not have tram stations have a higher range of 163.76% 182.49% and an average of 172.73%. This means that areas in Sheffield which are not served by a tram stop saw their house prices increase by 2.33% more than those that are close to the network.  
68
HOUSE PRICE INCREASE IN SHEFFIELD LOCATIONS WITHOUT TRAM STOPS (2000-2020) Median Average
174.43% 172.73%
Shirecliffe Shiregreen Ecclesfield Parsons Cross Neepsend Kelham Island Bramall Lane London Road Pitsmoor Greystones Meersbrook Ranmoor Endcliffe Whirlow Burngreave Heeley Ecclesall Broomhall Broomhill Crookes Meadowhead Woodseats Totley Dore Tinsley Millhouses Sharrow
167.42%
172.07% 172.09% 177.81%
163.79% 163.76%
177.01% 177.01%
163.8%
163.79%
176.85% 174.42% 174.42% 176.83% 177.03% 176.56% 174.44% 171.38% 174.46%
167.4% 167.4% 167.49% 167.41%
182.49%
182.47% 182.48%
176.88%
Figure 28: (Authors own) Data from (Zoopla, 2020)
EMPLOYMENT/EARNINGS STATISTICS CHANGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ACROSS MANCHESTER (1996-2019) 16%
Bolton Salford
Bury Stockport
Manchester Tameside
Oldham Trafford
Rochdale Wigan
12% 8% 4%
19 9 19 6/9 9 7 19 7/9 9 19 8/ 8 99 99 20/20 0 0 20 0/00 0 1 20 1/0 0 2 20 2/0 0 3 20 3/0 0 4 20 4/0 0 5 20 5/0 0 6 20 6/0 0 7 20 7/0 0 8 20 8/0 0 9 20 9/1 1 0 20 0/1 1 1 20 1/1 1 2 20 2/1 1 3 20 3/1 1 4 20 4/1 1 5 20 5/1 1 6 20 6/1 1 7 20 7/1 1 8 20 8/1 19 9 /2 0
0%
Figure 29: (Author’s own) Data from (Nomis, 2020)
69
The aim of collecting unemployment and average earning statistics is to determine whether the tram networks have had an impact on these figures in Manchester and Sheffield, since they were introduced. Figure 29 shows all Manchester boroughs to have followed a similar pattern in levels of unemployment between 1996 and 2019. No clear distinction can be seen between boroughs which do and do not have tram routes passing through them. However, the city of Manchester has seen the largest decrease. This may be due to all routes terminating in the city centre, meaning that the city centre is easily accessible from all areas which are serviced by the tram. Figure 30 shows that between 1996 and 2019 Sheffield and Rotherham have followed similar levels of unemployment rates to Manchester. CHANGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ACROSS SHEFFIELD (1996-2019) Rotherham
12%
Sheffield
9% 6% 3%
19 9 19 6/9 9 7 19 7/9 19 98/ 8 99 99 20/20 0 0 20 0/00 0 1 20 1/0 0 2 20 2/0 0 3 20 3/0 0 4 20 4/0 0 5 20 5/0 0 6 20 6/0 0 7 20 7/0 0 8 20 8/0 0 9 20 9/1 1 0 20 0/1 1 1 20 1/1 1 2 20 2/1 1 3 20 3/1 1 4 20 4/1 1 5 20 5/1 1 6 20 6/1 1 7 20 7/1 1 8 20 8/1 19 9 /2 0
0%
Figure 30: (Author’s own) Data from (Nomis, 2020)
Manchester Average Monthly Earnings (after tax)
Sheffield £2108.12
£1692.08
Table 3: (Author’s own) Data from (Numbeo, 2020b)
70
The intention of collecting average earnings for Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds was to determine the change over time from before the Metrolink and Supertram were implemented to the present day, so that the proportional changes could be compared. However, only present day data was available. Table 3 shows that Manchester’s average earnings is considerably higher than Sheffield’s, +24.59%. The cost of living in Manchester is also higher than Sheffield and Leeds, with an individual requiring £3113.64 to maintain the same standard of life as someone with £2803.00 in Sheffield and £2800.00 in Leeds (Numbeo, 2020b). One factor which could determine this variation in average earnings could be that the Manchester tram enables easy commuting access to higher paid jobs in the city centre. However, without being able to compare the proportional changes over time, it is difficult to determine the economic impact that constructing trams has had on this variable.
VACANT RETAIL UNIT STATISTICS All ten boroughs in Manchester, alongside Sheffield and Rotherham, were contacted to request empty retail unit statistics, with the aim of investigating whether this has changed since the trams opened, and to compare areas not serviced by the tram with areas which are. Of the twelve local authorities contacted, seven responded. Of these seven, only one borough in Greater Manchester, Trafford, replied with any statistics. Whilst this does not allow for a comparison of economic impacts between Manchester and Sheffield, differences can be seen within the borough of Trafford where towns do, or do not, have the Metrolink passing through.
71
Percentage of Retail Units Vacant in Trafford Towns (1997-2008) Altrincham
30
Sale
Urmston
Stretford
24 18 12 6 0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 31: (Author’s own) Data from (Pannell, 2020)
Unfortunately, the data from Trafford does not cover the the dates that the Manchester Metrolink has been operational (1992-present), however it does provide ten years of statistics which can be analysed. Furthermore, the Metrolink has experienced significant growth since 2010, so this data does not show whether new phases of construction will have impacted these towns. It should be noted that Altrincham, Sale and Stretford are serviced by trams and Urmston is not.
The data demonstrates that all four towns have seen changes in their vacant retail unit percentages. During the period the data was collected the highest vacant retail unit percentage was shown by Urmston at 25.61% and the lowest was Sale at 5.11%. 
72
Average percentage of vacant retail units (1997-2008)
Increase from lowest to highest year of vacant retail units (1997-2008)
17
20
12.75
15
8.5
10
4.25
5
0
Altrincham
Sale
Stretford
Urmston
Figure 32: (Author’s own) Data from (Pannell, 2020)
0
Altrincham
Sale
Stretford
Urmston
Figure 33: (Author’s own) Data from (Pannell, 2020)
Altrincham has the highest average percentage at approximately 16%, whilst Sale has the lowest of the four towns, at 8.7%. Stretford and Urmston both have an average of approximately 13%. However, whilst Altrincham has the highest average percentage, it can be seen in figure 31 that Altrincham is consistently higher throughout the data. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that analysing the averages shows the economic impact that the network has had on these towns.
Looking at the change in the percentages within the ten year set of data is a better indicator of impact. Figure 33 shows that Urmston has seen the biggest increase between the lowest and highest years of vacant retail units, rising by 18.81%. However, Altrincham, Sale and Stretford all have much lower increases at 8.81%, 7.96% and 11.6% respectively. Whilst it is expected that the percentage will increase due to the shift to online shopping, the percentage in Urmston is much higher than the remaining three towns which are serviced by
73
the tram network. Therefore, from this small data set, it can be said that the construction of the Manchester Metrolink does have a positive impact on the economy of areas it serves as the increase in vacant retail units is lower in areas where they are connected by the tram network.
TRAFFIC LEVEL STATISTICS When searching for footfall statistics to illustrate an increase or decrease over time, the figures were not available for both cities for the same period and therefore, no comparison could be made. Therefore, as stated in the contingency plan, another set of variables was researched. The traffic index and CO2 emission index were located for Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds and were compared alongside population sizes to determine whether the tram networks alleviated traffic congestion and therefore lessen economic costs. “Traffic Index is a composite index of time consumed in traffic due to job commute, estimation of time consumption dissatisfaction, CO2 consumption estimation in traffic and overall inefficiencies in the traffic system�(Numbeo, 2020). Sheffield
Manchester
Difference
% Difference
Traffic Index
90.29
161.81
71.52
79.21
Traffic Index (Minutes)
25.20
40.10
14.90
59.13
2680.27
4618.09
1937.82
72.30
1,569,000
2,835,690
1,266,690
80.73
CO2 Emission Index Population
Table 4 (Author’s own) Data from (Numbeo, 2020)
Table 4 shows whilst the population in Manchester is 80.73% higher than Sheffield, there is also a similar percentage increase in traffic index at 79.21% and CO2 emissions at 72.3%. This shows that both cities are relatively in line in
74
terms of population size and traffic/CO2 emissions per individual. The CO2 emission index is slightly lower per individual in Manchester, potentially due to the larger mass transit system. In section 7.2, these variables are compared with Leeds to determine whether a tram network would reduce traffic index or CO2 emission index. It can be seen from table 6 and 7 in section 7.2 that Manchester and Sheffield’s CO2 emissions are significantly lower than Leeds. It can be presumed that this is as a result of people using the mass transport system available, therefore reducing the economic burden of emissions in Manchester and Sheffield. 
75
7.2
 LEEDS RESULTS
76
7.2.1 PRIMARY DATA RESULTS Primary data was collected using online surveys. This survey was aimed at people who live in Leeds. The aim of this survey was to: • Understand the public perception of the current public transport network in Leeds; • Understand how and why people use the existing public transport system in Leeds; • Understand why people don’t use it; • Understand how well the current public transport system services Leeds; • Determine the public desire for the construction of a tram network in Leeds. Individuals who have worked on lobbying for, or researched the proposals for, a tram network in Leeds were contacted for questioning with the aim of answering the following research objectives:
O5
To discuss the potential benefits of the implementation of tram services in other UK cities - such as Leeds.
And research question:
Q3
What economic benefits does the study suppose that constructing a tram system in Leeds, England would have?
77
The online survey designed in order to gain primary research on Leeds gained 106 responses. The survey initially received a very low number of responses. Reacting to this, as set out in the contingency plan, the survey was kept online for a longer period of time and shared across more social media platforms to increase the amount of responses. At the time, government guidelines surrounding Covid-19 did not permit for face to face surveys to take place. The respondents postcodes are mapped out on figure 34. This shows that the data has been collected across a wide distribution across the city. However, it should be noted that there are several areas that are unaccounted for. If the data collection were to be repeated, efforts would be focussed on collecting data from these areas. However, as this research focusses mainly on Manchester and Sheffield, the lower number of responses for this survey is sufficient for this investigation. MAP SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENT'S POSTCODES
MAP SHOWING THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS POSTCODES
Leeds City Centre
High number of responses
Low number of responses
Figure 34: (Author’s own)
78
Powered by Bing Š TomTom
Male Prefer not to say
Female
16-24 55-64
25-34 64+
35-44
45-54
3% 3%
1% 29% WHAT GENDER DO YOU IDENTIFY AS?
70%
Figure 35
7% 14%
9%
HOW OLD ARE YOU? 64%
Figure 36
Figure 35 shows the gender divide of respondents from Leeds to be 70% female, 29% male and 1% choosing not to say. Figure 36 shows that 64% of respondents were aged 16-24. The remaining age ranges all received a much smaller representation. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that the data collected for the Leeds online survey is not representative of the city’s demographic. According to the 2011 census, the gender divide in Leeds was 49% male, 51% female and the age divide was 16% aged 14-24 and 84% for the remaining ages (Leeds Observatory, 2019). 
79
Commuting to work Visiting friends/family Running errands
Leisure Traveling to a place of education I dont use public transport
6% 9%
3% 29%
15% PRIMARY PURPOSE FOR USING PUBLIC TRANSPORT
15%
9%
11% 6%
SECONDARY PURPOSE FOR USING PUBLIC TRANSPORT
44%
21% 32% Figure 37
Figure 38
Figures 37 and 38 aim to show the key reasons for the respondents using public transport in Leeds. This data is evidence that leisure is both the respondents’ primary and secondary reason for using public transport. Second to this was commuting to work, with visiting family and friends being the second most popular secondary reason. The remaining factors all received a low proportion of responses. This follows a similar theme to primary purposes in Manchester and Sheffield. However, the secondary purposes for these two cities received much more sporadic responses and therefore, are dissimilar to Leeds.
80
Rarely Once a week Every day
Once a month 2-3 times a week
18%
20% HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE PUBLIC TRANSPORT?
15%
32%
15%
Figure 39
Figure 39 shows how often people in Leeds use public transport. All categories received a similar number of responses, ranging from 15-20%, besides ‘2 to 3 times a week’ which had 32% of responses. Therefore, approximately one third of the sample population from Leeds use public transport ‘2-3 times a week’. Yes
No
Yes
No
18% WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE A TRAM SERVICE BUILT IN LEEEDS?
67%
ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THE CURRENT PUBLIC TRANSPORT PROVISION IN LEEDS?
33%
82% Figure 40
Figure 41
Figure 40 and 41 aim to determine the public desire for a tram system in Leeds and the public perception of the current transport system. Figure 40 shows that a large proportion of Leeds residents, 82%, would like to see a tram service
81
built in the city. Furthermore, figure 41 shows that a much smaller proportion of the Leeds respondents are happy with the current public transport provision in the city, when compared to responses received from Manchester and Sheffield. 67% of respondents in Leeds stated that they were not happy with the current services.
When asked why they are not happy with the current public transport provision in Leeds, respondents stated the city is “bus-centric and that buses are often sat in congestion meaning that it takes people an extremely long period of time to travel". Many said that they walk, as it is quicker than getting a bus in the congested city centre. Respondents also stated that suburban areas are not easily accessible by bus and that bus services are unreliable, expensive and inadequate. Buses in Leeds are often full due to low capacity and it becomes expensive to travel across the city when routes are operated by different companies. Furthermore, respondents stated the existing public transport system in Leeds is dated compared to other cities and that the building of a tram network in Leeds would provide the city with a much more efficient mass transport system and would better connect the suburbs to the city centre. Yes
WHAT FORM OF TRANSPORT DO YOU USE TO TRAVEL AROUND LEEDS? Train Cycle Taxi
18%
33 9
62
Bus
Figure 42
DO YOU BELIEVE BUILDING TRAMS WOULD HAVE A POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT IN LEEDS?
42
Walk
Private Car
No
54 40
82% Figure 43
82
Figure 42 aims to show how people move around Leeds. It can be seen that people walk as their main form of transport. An educated assumption can be made that this is in the city centre and not between suburbs and the city centre. The main form of public transport used is the bus, followed by taxi, private car and the train. Similarly to Manchester and Sheffield, a very small proportion of respondents cycle. Figure 43 shows whether people in Leeds believe that a tram network in Leeds would positively impact the economy, with 82% believing yes. This is in line with figures 40 and 41 which show a large proportion of respondents want to see a tram network built in Leeds as they are not happy with the current public transport provision.
When asked why they believe establishing a tram network in Leeds would have a positive economic impact, respondents stated it would efficiently connect suburbs to the city centre and that trams would be a more environmentally friendly, sustainable form of public transport. Furthermore, it was stated that levels of congestion would be reduced in the city and that it would enhance people’s productivity at work due to spending less time commuting. Respondents also stated that there would be enhanced connectivity between businesses and that further investment would be generated from revenue. It was also said that the impacts of building the tram network would make Leeds a more attractive city for businesses to base themselves, generating more jobs and further investment. Finally, respondents stated they would be more likely to go shopping in the city centre if a tram system was built, due to quicker journey times and not needing to pay for parking or get stuck in traffic. Therefore, building trams in Leeds would positively impact the retail industry in the city. 
83
7.2.2 SECONDARY DATA RESULTS HOUSE PRICE INCREASE IN LEEDS LOCATIONS (2000-2020) Median Average Yeadon Wetherby Walton Swillington Scholes Scarcroft Rawdon Rothwell Pudsey Pool-in-Wharfedale Oulton Otley New Farnley Morley Middleton Methley Ledston Ledsham Kirkstall Kippax Horsforth Holbeck Headingley Harewood Guisley Garforth Collingham Boston Spa Beeston Bywater Allerton
158.22% 159.16% 158.22% 158.14% 161.15% 158.22% 158.21% 159.19% 158.2% 158.21% 164.73% 161.15% 158.21% 161.15% 158.22% 158.23% 158.24% 158.21% 158.15% 158.19% 158.22% 161.16% 158.2% 159.25% 158.21% 158.19% 161.15% 158.21% 159.39% 159.1% 158.24% 163.37% 158.21%
Figure 44: (Author’s own) Data from (Zoopla, 2020)
This figure aims to show the house price increases in Leeds, and then compare them to those in Manchester and Sheffield. Figure 44 shows that Leeds has seen house prices increase with a range of 158.14% - 164.73% and an average
84
increase of 159.16%, between 2000 and 2020. This is significantly lower than the statistics for all areas in Manchester and Sheffield. The averages for Manchester were 178.71% when located near tram stations and 171.89% when not, and in Sheffield they were 170.4% and 172.73%, respectively. This shows that both cities with a tram network saw significantly higher increase in house prices compared to Leeds.
EMPLOYMENT/EARNINGS STATISTICS CHANGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ACROSS LEEDS (1996-2019) 12%
Bradford
Leeds
Wakefield
9% 6% 3%
19 9 19 6/9 9 7 19 7/9 8 19 98/ 99 99 20/20 0 0 20 0/00 0 1 20 1/0 0 2 20 2/0 0 3 20 3/0 0 4 20 4/0 0 5 20 5/0 0 6 20 6/0 0 7 20 7/0 0 8 20 8/0 0 9 20 9/1 1 0 20 0/1 1 1 20 1/12 1 20 2/1 1 3 20 3/1 1 4 20 4/1 1 5 20 5/16 1 20 6/1 1 7 20 7/18 1 20 8/1 19 9 /2 0
0%
Figure 45: (Author’s own) Data from (Nomis, 2020)


Unemployment levels and average earnings were collected to compare these to Sheffield and Manchester, to see if building a tram network in Leeds would positively impact these variables. Figure 45 shows that Leeds follows a similar pattern in unemployment levels to Manchester and Sheffield, with the same level of unemployment seen for all three cities in 2019/20 at roughly 3-6%. This indicates that the presence of a tram network in Leeds may not significantly impact unemployment figures, and other factors may play a larger role.
85
Leeds Average Monthly Earnings (after tax)
Manchester £1947.93
Sheffield
£2108.12
£1692.08
Table 5 (Author’s own) Data from (Numbeo, 2020b)
Table 5 shows that the average monthly earnings in Leeds is £1947.93, above Sheffield’s average but below Manchester’s. Therefore, this information does not show that building a tram network in Leeds would increase the average earnings as they are already higher than those in Sheffield. If these statistics were available before the introduction of the Manchester and Sheffield tram networks, the proportional increase would be able to be compared and this would give a better insight in to whether building trams in Leeds would impact average earnings.
TRAFFIC LEVEL STATISTICS As stated in section 7.1, footfall statistics were not available for Leeds city centre. Therefore, the traffic index and CO2 emission index for Leeds has been compared with Manchester and Sheffield to determine whether building a tram network in Leeds would impact these variables.
Leeds
Manchester
Difference
% Difference
Traffic Index
131.67
161.81
29.14
21.96
Traffic Index (Minutes)
31.76
40.10
8.34
26.26
5535.67
4618.09
-917.58
-16.58
2,330,000
2,835,690
505,690
21.70
CO2 Emission Index Population
Table 6 (Author’s own) Data from (Numbeo, 2020a)
86
Leeds
Difference
% Difference
Traffic Index
131.67
90.29
-42.38
-31.94
Traffic Index (Minutes)
31.76
25.20
-6.56
-20.65
5535.67
2680.27
-2855.40
-51.58
2,330,000
1,569,000
-761,000
-32.66
CO2 Emission Index Population
Sheffield
Table 7 (Author’s own) Data from (Numbeo, 2020a)
Table 6 demonstrates that the population of Manchester is 21.7% higher than that of Leeds. However, the CO2 emission index is 16.58% lower in Manchester. Furthermore, whilst the population of Sheffield is 32.66% lower than Leeds, the CO2 emission index is 51.58% lower which is not in line with the population difference. Therefore Leeds, the only city of the three without a mass transport system, has a considerably higher level of CO2 emissions. As a result, the higher level of CO2 emissions in Leeds will have have a higher economic cost to the city in order to offset the impacts of these gasses.
87
8.0
 ANALYSIS
88
This investigation aimed to research the economic impacts of building tram networks in cities, focusing on Manchester and Sheffield. This was achieved by collecting primary and secondary data designed to answer the research objectives set out in chapter 1.0. The aim of the email surveys was to gain a professional understanding and opinion in regards to the economic impact of building tram networks in Manchester and Sheffield, as well as any strengths/ failings experienced by the two cities and whether any lessons can be learnt if a similar service was to be implemented in Leeds. As part of this study, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) were contacted in order to request that a member of staff could be surveyed to aid this investigation. As a result, an ‘Operational Development Manager’ from TfGM had agreed to partake in this study. This respondent had been in their current role for fifteen years, and boasts a further thirteen years experience working for Metrolink or TfGM. When asked what the original objective of the Metrolink was, the respondent stated that “the initial aim was to reinvest in existing railway … putting a link through the city centre between major transport stations. It aimed to provide better alternatives to the car but primarily was to refresh old railway networks”. It was also stated that “the aims have changed over time. It is now to regenerate areas such as the old Manchester Docks which had poor city centre connections, and to give people choices and confidence in regeneration and planning, whilst boosting the economy”. An ex-researcher from Sheffield Hallam University was interviewed in relation to the Sheffield Supertram, with the same aims as the Manchester survey. The respondent previously worked at the university, researching the impact of transport investment for the Department of Transport for five years. Their research looked at property, planning and the economic impacts of the
89
Sheffield Supertram. The respondent stated that the aim of building the Supertram “was about improving labour market connectivity and linking up much of the development in the lower don valley” and that this aim was met due to several regeneration benefits over the years such as West Street, which had begun to fall in to disrepair. This chapter will discuss the findings presented in chapter seven and answer the research objectives of this investigation.
O1&2
The TFGM respondent was asked whether they believe the Metrolink has had a positive economic impact on
Manchester and why. It was commented that “it certainly has because research demonstrates connectivity has a positive economic impact but it is difficult to determine this specifically for Metrolink alone when there are so many other factors. You can see the physical impacts of regeneration such as Salford Quays and Media City which have been extremely successful and we are now looking at extra routes in to the area. Nationwide also demonstrated uplift in property prices within the vicinity of light rail services”. This correlates with the secondary data collected for this investigation. The Sheffield email survey respondent was asked whether they believe the Supertram has had a positive economic impact on the economy of the city and why. It was commented, “yes, it’s resulted in indirect and commercial benefits, it has enhanced access to the city centre and provides a strategic link between the upper and lower Don Valley and enhances travel to work and study areas”. It was also stated that the Supertram can facilitate new land-use such as housing development and support urban realm development. Finally, the respondent commented that the trams “have a catalytic effect on regeneration and economic development, but this takes time and in some cases is yet to be
90
realised� and that “they can improve the prospects of poorer communities eg Manor and Attercliffe as economic mobility and prosperity is enhanced�. The below variables were used to try and determine the economic impact of trams on the two cities. Initially, changes in footfall statistics were to be examined, but these were not accessible. These variables were all collected using secondary data online or by contacting the relevant local authorities. House Price Change As stated in chapter 2.0, the secondary research demonstrates that the proximity to a tram station increases house prices. This can be said for Manchester, as seen in figures 25 and 26, however the same effect was not seen in Sheffield, in figures 27 and 28. Properties close to a tram station in Manchester saw a 6.82% higher increase in price compared to those which were not. However, in Sheffield, houses close to a Supertram stop increased 2.33% less than those further away. This directly answers objective two - the extent to which the building of tram systems have impacted the economy of Manchester and Sheffield - showing that the economic impacts of proximity to light rail are not felt to the same extent in Sheffield as they are in Manchester. Employment Rates Figures 29 and 30 shows a similar trend of changes in unemployment rates across all areas of Manchester, Sheffield and Rotherham. The city of Manchester has seen a larger decrease than the rest of Greater Manchester. This demonstrates that the tram network may have impacted unemployment to a greater extent in this area due to all routes beginning/terminating in the city centre - increasing access to jobs. However, a similar pattern was seen in Rotherham and Sheffield. This suggests that either the tram networks in both cities have had a positive impact on changing unemployment rates, as
91
suggested in the literature review. Or, both cities are following the average country change and have been impacted by other variables. To gain a true understanding of this variable, the change in unemployment needs to be compared against country statistics.
CHANGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ACROSS MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD & THE UK (1996-2019) 16%
Manchester
Sheffield
UK
12% 8% 4%
19 9 19 6/9 9 7 19 7/9 19 98/ 8 99 99 20/20 0 0 20 0/00 0 1 20 1/0 0 2 20 2/0 0 3 20 3/0 0 4 20 4/0 0 5 20 5/0 0 6 20 6/0 0 7 20 7/0 0 8 20 8/0 0 9 20 9/1 1 0 20 0/1 1 1 20 1/1 1 2 20 2/1 1 3 20 3/1 1 4 20 4/1 1 5 20 5/1 1 6 20 6/1 1 7 20 7/1 1 8 20 8/1 19 9 /2 0
0%
Figure 46: (Author’s own) Data from (Statista, 2020)
Figure 46 demonstrates that unemployment rates in Manchester and Sheffield follow a similar trend to the rest of the UK. A gradual decrease before the peak of the 2007-2009 recession, and a continued decline post-recession. However, the overall percentile change differs. Unemployment, on average, has decreased by 4.3% across the UK, whilst decreasing by 7.6% in Manchester and 6.6% in Sheffield, considerably higher when converted to a numerical statistic. This suggests that the Metrolink and Supertram have had a positive impact on unemployment, and therefore, the economy. However, it must be remembered that it is incredibly hard to distinguish between the impacts of these networks and other variables such as investment and events. For example, Manchester has recently been named the ‘best city in Europe to
92
conduct businesses and invest’ by Financial Times, whereas Sheffield was ranked sixth (BuyAssociation, 2020). Average Earnings As seen in table 3 (refer to sub-section 7.1), average monthly earnings after tax are 19.7% in Manchester than in Sheffield. This suggests that the larger light rail network in Manchester has had a greater positive impact on the economy of the city than has been seen with Sheffield’s smaller network. However, similar to unemployment rates, it is hard to distinguish between the impacts of light rail and other variables such as investment. Vacant Retail Units This study intended to draw comparisons between the vacant retail units in Manchester and Sheffield. From here, the investigation planned to crossanalyse the data to determine trends between the areas which were, and were not, served by the tram network within these cities. However, this was not possible due to local authorities not holding this data. Instead, the study proceeded to make comparisons between towns within Trafford which are, and are not, served by the Metrolink. Figure 33 (see section 7.1) demonstrates that Urmston, which is not serviced by the Metrolink, has seen an increase by 18.81% in vacant retail units, whilst Altrincham, Sale and Stretford increased by 8.81%, 7.96% and 11.6% respectively - considerably lower than Urmston. This suggests that towns which are serviced by trams or light rail see higher levels of footfall, investment and expenditure, resulting in less vacant retail units. However, for the investigation of this variable to be reliable, much wider comparisons would need to be made across, and within, both cities.
93
Traffic Level Statistics In 2018, The Guardian stated that a new report quantifies the economic cost of each tonne of CO2 produced at $200 (Nuccitelli, 2018). This data can be used to determine the approximate cost incurred per member of the population in order to counteract the damage caused by CO2. In 2020, $200 equates to £151.40 (Google Finance, 2020). The Star, a daily newspaper published in Sheffield, reports that Sheffield releases 2,780,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, of which 23.6% is as a result of transport, equating to 656,080 tonnes (The Star, 2018). In Manchester, 924,148 tonnes are released each year as a result of transport (GMCA & TFGM, 2016). Cost to counteract damage per tonne
CO2 emissions annually
656,080 X £151.40 = £99,330,512 £99,330,512 ÷ 1,569,000 = £63.31 Cost to the city of Sheffield (annually)
CO2 emissions annually
Sheffield Population
Cost incurred per member of the population in Sheffield (annually)
Cost to counteract damage per tonne
924,148 X £151.40 = £139,916,007 £139,916,007 ÷ 2,835,690 = £49.34 Cost to the city of Manchester (annually)
Manchester Population
Cost incurred per member of the population in Manchester (annually)
94
The above figures show that the cost to each resident in Manchester per year is 22% less than that in Sheffield, whilst the population is 80.73% higher. This shows that as residents in Manchester are more reliant on the tram network and public transport, as suggested by the data in chapter 7.1, the economic cost of counteracting CO2 emissions is lower per resident. This suggests that the provision of a high quality, integrated tram network reduces the amount of CO2 omitted annually, and therefore, has less of a negative economic deficit on local government. However, it must be remembered that this is a basic model using an assortment of data and therefore is not ‘official’, nor 100% accurate.
O3
This investigation has highlighted that public perception of the tram networks in Manchester and Sheffield differ significantly.
Figure 7 shows that 37% rarely use the tram in Manchester compared to a much higher 74% in figure 8 for Sheffield. Furthermore, figure 21 shows that 68% of Manchester respondents are happy with the network, compared to 49% in figure 22 for Sheffield. This shows a higher level of passenger satisfaction in Manchester. However, figure 20 shows that Manchester residents are not happy with the cost of using the Metrolink, whilst Sheffield residents wish for expansion of the network to reach more districts of the city. Nonetheless, figure 23 shows that residents in both cities believe that the networks have a positive economic impact, with 95% in Manchester and 90% in Sheffield assured of this. This study has also demonstrated that residents in Manchester are more likely to be influenced by the tram network than residents in Sheffield are when looking for both jobs and property. Figure 19 shows that whilst the percentage of car users is still higher than tram use in both cities, in Manchester trams carry the highest proportion of public transport users. Whereas in Sheffield, more people stated they used the bus or walked than used the tram. Furthermore,
95
figures 15 and 16 show that a higher proportion in Manchester either base their decision on buying a property, or are influenced, by the proximity of a tram station. The same can be said for figures 17 and 18 when applying for jobs. The above information proves that public perception is much higher in Manchester than Sheffield, and that residents in Manchester are much more reliant on the Metrolink - evidenced by proportions of ridership and the likelihood for life decisions to be influenced by proximity to a tram line. However, the 2016 Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) for all networks across England shows that overall satisfaction in Manchester was 90% and 91% in Sheffield (Transport Focus, 2017). Therefore, it is presumed that a high number of respondents from Sheffield in this investigation do not use the service and therefore have expressed a low level of public perception, whilst all responses for the TPS will be Supertram passengers. Nonetheless, the report also shows that this percentage is decreasing year on year in Sheffield, whilst it is increasing in Manchester.
O4
Throughout this investigation several failings of both the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram have been noted,
and can act as lessons for other cities in the design, implementation and management of future networks. In Manchester, 37% of respondents stated that they rarely use the tram, compared to 74% of people in Sheffield. Additionally, 68% of respondents in Manchester were happy with the tram compared to only 49% in Sheffield. This suggests that customer satisfaction in Sheffield is much lower than that in Manchester. Both cities still have a higher percentage of journeys being made by the private car, meaning that the schemes have not been entirely successful in moving
96
people away from this mode of transport. Route expansion, which is desired by residents of both cities, will help to reduce this. However, if the study was to be repeated, an investigation in to the change in car use over time would need to be conducted in order to determine the exact impact. Based on the qualitative primary data collected through online and email surveys, there are evident failings of both networks which can be learnt from. The Manchester Metrolink has been a victim of its own success which often leads to overcrowding and the constant expansion over the past decade has meant issues such as delays and closures have occurred, leading to some public upset. Additionally, a design failing of the Metrolink is that due to the original line being on an underused heavy rail line, all future lines have to use high level entry platforms, making it more difficult to build and integrate these in to the public realm in the city centre. This has been more successful in Sheffield where all trams and platforms are low lying, and therefore would be recommended for future networks in cities such as Leeds. In Sheffield, a major failing is the lack of expansion, meaning many areas remain disconnected. When asked to compare the Metrolink and Supertram, the TFGM email survey respondent stated that “Supertram was unfortunate at the outset whereas Metrolink was based on existing rail routes with a base market, which gave Metrolink an early boost”. Sheffield also saw “deregulation of buses which causes direct competition to the Supertram, serving routes which were more cost effective than time sensitive. Whereas Metrolink initially served more affluent areas where people were more concerned about a quicker commute rather than the cost”. The respondent also stated that the Metrolink has been a victim of its own success which has caused overcrowding and that constant modifying and
97
expansion throughout the last decade has meant that issues were bound to occur. It was also said that to gain government funding, every aspect has to be good value for money. Going forward, TfGM is trying to gain new government funding which will allow Manchester to set their own rules in relation to public transport. The respondent also stated that “it is better and more efficient to have a rolling programme of expansion as Metrolink has since 2008 until the present day as they are now an educated client, delivering routes ahead of time and under budget”. However, it was stated that “in design terms, Sheffield Supertram has the advantage that it is easier to slot a low floor tram system in to an urban area”. When the Sheffield email survey respondent was asked why the Supertram hasn’t seen a lot of expansion since it opened in 1994, it was commented “I think mainly a cost issue but also the complexity of these projects and time they take to come to fruition”.
O5
The secondary data collected, as well as the email survey with a Leeds city Council worker, provide several examples of areas where
building a tram network in Leeds would positively impact the economy. These are as follows: • CO2 emissions are 16.58% higher in Leeds than Manchester despite the population being 21.7% lower. Furthermore, CO2 emissions are 51.58% higher in Leeds than Sheffield when the population is only 32.66% higher in Leeds. • It is evident that the two cities with tram networks have considerably lower levels of CO2 emissions, suggesting that building a network in Leeds would help to lower this. This would then alleviate the
98
economic impacts associated with high levels of congestion and unproductivity as a result of high traffic levels. • House prices in Leeds have increased by an average of 159.16% between 2000 and 2020. • House prices in Manchester and Sheffield have risen by 178.71% and 170.4% within the same period when located close to a tram stop. This suggests that building a tram network in Leeds would positively impact the price of property which would in turn increase taxes and benefit the local economy. • 82% of residents who were surveyed stated they want a tram network in Leeds, whilst 82% stated they believe it would have a positive economic impact. 67% of respondents stated they are not happy with the current public transport provision in Leeds. • It is clear from the primary data collected for this investigation that there is a large public demand for the construction of a tram network in Leeds. The qualitative data collected shows a general consensus of dissatisfaction in regards to levels of congestion and unreliability of the bus service in place. The construction of a tram network will both meet the public demand and reduce these issues. • The current rail service caters well for long distance journeys in to the centre but not for local residents - “a lack of suburban rail stations in Leeds which means there is a greater need for mass transit”. • Constructing a tram network in Leeds will enhance the existing rail network to the city centre, providing the city with high quality long distance and short distance rail connections. It will also provide high
99
quality, quick connections between the main train station and other economic hubs around the area, increasing access and connectivity, thus positively impacting the local economy. When the Leeds email survey respondent was asked what lessons could be learnt from Manchester, it was stated that strong political leadership is needed to ensure central government do not withdraw funding and that the project must be part of a regional integrated system which will benefit all districts, not just the city centre. It was also stated that “Manchester had disused rail lines to implement Phase 1” which allowed for less financial investment in the initial phases. Another lesson is that the Manchester Metrolink is designed to serve, or serve in the future, the whole Greater Manchester area, whereas the Leeds proposals had “a more local feel” as it didn’t connect other districts. Therefore, for Leeds “a more ambitious approach will increase political buy-in and a bigger system with greater connectivity probably has greater prospects”. This was also commented on by the Manchester email survey respondent.
100
9.0
 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
101
During this investigation, limitations were encountered which could be avoided or corrected if the investigation were to be repeated. These limitations were as follows: Number of respondents to the Leeds online survey - The Leeds online survey only received 106 responses, making it not representative of the wider population. If this investigation was repeated, providing government guidance surrounding coronavirus allows, questionnaires would be conducted in Leeds city centre to ensure a much higher number of responses are received. Councils not having the required statistics - The majority of the councils who were contacted for secondary data, did not have the data required, or did not respond to the emails. If the investigation was repeated, third party organisations would be contacted requesting data which could show the required variables. Furthermore, if government restrictions allowed, the relevant help desks at council buildings would be visited to collect data. Secondary data not being available - Secondary data was not available for the dates required. This posed issues when analysing the change in variables throughout the lifespan of the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram. If this investigation was repeated, more forms of secondary data could have been used, or primary data collected, in order to fill any gaps. Online sources - A large proportion of secondary data for this topic were sourced online. This is due to the statistics required for this investigation needing to be up to date as possible. This would not have been possible if using journals, articles or academic writings which were not up to date.  
102
10.0
 CONCLUSIONS
103
This investigation has successfully answered the research objectives as described in section 1.1. This chapter will directly answer the research questions derived from the aforementioned research objectives.
Q1
To what extent, and how, has the building of tram systems impacted impacted the economy of UK cities, focussing on
Manchester and Sheffield.
 It is evident from this investigation that the building of tram networks in Manchester and Sheffield has positively impacted the economy. However, the extent to which they do this, differs between cities. It is clear that proximity to the network has increased property prices in Manchester. However, this cannot be said for Sheffield where the opposite is found. Unemployment across both cities follows the UK trend of change but overall has decreased more than the UK average, therefore proving that trams have had a positive impact on contributing to unemployment in both cities. Furthermore, Manchester, with the larger tram network, has a considerably higher average earning per month compared to Sheffield. It can therefore be considered that an increase in connectivity and access to employment and higher paid jobs is a reason behind this. In Manchester, the investigation proved that towns served by the tram network had lower levels of vacant retail units. However, this is not representative of the whole of Greater Manchester and Sheffield. Finally, the proportional level of CO2 emissions produced in Manchester is much lower, equating to a lower cost per resident to counteract the negative impacts of emissions. Therefore, having a larger, more integrated network which residents rely on instead of the private vehicle, leads to less emissions per individual and less expenditure, thus benefiting the city’s economy. However, it needs to be remembered that is is hard to distinguish between the direct impacts of the trams and other variables which could have the same effect.
104
Therefore, it can be concluded that the construction of tram networks have had a positive impact on both Manchester and Sheffield. However, the repercussions have resulted in a greater economic growth in Manchester.
Q2
What is the public perception of both the Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram? Public opinion, areas of fault,
suggested resolutions and areas for future growth will be discussed.
 The public perception of the two networks differ. The respondents to the online survey showed a much higher satisfaction level towards the Metrolink than the Supertram, despite the Tram Passenger Survey giving both networks 90% and 91% respectively. The investigation found that double the amount of people rarely use the Supertram compared to Metrolink, at 74%, signifying a need for investment in the network. Furthermore, residents believe trams positively impact the economy of both their relative cities. It was also discovered that the majority of people in both cities use the networks for leisure purposes, whilst Manchester also uses it for commuting to work. However, whilst both networks have issues and areas of failings and people in Sheffield who do not use the network have a negative feel towards it, both can be considered to be successful in terms of operations and satisfaction for the passengers who do use the service, and this was noted whilst reading the qualitative responses to the online survey. Furthermore, where Metrolink has seen issues with overcrowding and network problems as a result of expansion, TFGM has worked to rectify these by ordering tens of new vehicles as well as providing necessary replacement services during maintenance. Finally, for future growth, Metrolink is planning orbital routes around Greater Manchester as well as tram-trains to create a much larger network. No expansion plans are in place for the Supertram.
105
Therefore, assumptions can be made that public perception of the tram network is higher in Manchester than Sheffield. However, many respondents in Sheffield were not living close to the network.
Q3
What economic benefits does the study suppose that constructing a tram system in Leeds, England would have?

It is clear from the primary research and the literature review that there is significant scope for a tram network in Leeds. The most recent proposal is the third which has been published and public demand has increased significantly. Respondents stated they were in favour of the development, due to satisfaction with the current public transport in Leeds. It can be seen that the construction would increase the property prices across areas which are serviced by the network. A network which connects Bradford to Leeds city centre will help to reduce unemployment levels. The current UK average is 4.3%, whilst Bradford’s is 6%. This connection would improve access to employment & higher paid jobs in the city centre, increasing average earnings. It would also help to connect Bradford and other districts with other cities, travelling to the city centre by tram and then further afield by train. Finally, the amount of CO2 emissions in the city would be reduced, reducing the economic impact of counteracting the negative impacts of emissions. This investigation has demonstrated that the building of a tram network in Leeds will help to promote economic growth for the city, alongside other subsidiary outcomes such as increase in house prices and average earnings.
106
Concluding Statements This topic has the scope for further investigation. If further study were to be conducted, it would be recommended that research would need to be conducted in order to try and separate the specific economic impacts of tram networks from other variables which impact economic growth. Whilst all of the research for this project does show the impact which trams have, and the way the variables have been tested have tried to be tailored towards trams, all of these areas of research can easily be impacted by other occurrences. Therefore, by deciphering between the variables it will give a more precise and reliable conclusion on the economic impacts of tram networks. Finally, this investigation has provided new knowledge in to the comparisons between the two tram networks in Manchester and Sheffield. Whilst both networks have had reports published on their successes, statistics and development, from the reading carried out for initial research, no prior investigation was found directly comparing the two. Additionally, all prior research found was positive and did not discuss areas of failings of the two systems, and further, discussing how those can be used by another city in the development of a new network.  
107
11.0
 REFERENCES
108
Abrantes, P. and Ellerton, T. (2014). The Economic Value of Rail in the North of England. pteg. Almeida, F., Queiros, A. and Faria, D. (2017). Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9). Arndt, J., Morgan, C., Overman, J., Clower, T., Weinstein, B. and Seman, M. (2008). TRANSPORTATION, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LIGHT AND COMMUTER RAIL. Texas Department of Transportation. Atieno, O.P. (2009). An Analysis of the Strengths and Limitation of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Paradigms. Barry, K. (2012). THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT: A CASE STUDY OF THE BALTIMORE CENTRAL LIGHT RAIL. Georgetown University. BBC News (2002). When trams ruled the streets. news.bbc.co.uk. [online] 29 May. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2014303.stm [Accessed 9 Aug. 2020]. Beecham, R. (2020). Leeds leaders preparing plans for state of the art tram system – for the third time. [online] www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk. Available at: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/politics/leeds-leaderspreparing-plans-state-art-tram-system-third-time-1379525. Brannen, J. (2003). Mixing methods : qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate. Brunton, L. (1992). The Trolleybus Story. Merz & McLellan Ltd. Buckley, R. (1987). A Study in the decline of the British street tramway industry in the twentieth century with special reference to South Yorkshire. University of Hull. BuyAssociation (2020). Manchester: officially the best city in Europe for business in 2020/2021. [online] BuyAssociation. Available at: https:// www.buyassociation.co.uk/2020/03/11/manchester-officially-best-city-europebusiness-2020-2021/ [Accessed 27 Aug. 2020].
109109
Cambridge Dictionary (2019). RESEARCH | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. [online] Cambridge.org. Available at: https:// dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/research. Cambridge Economics (2018). Economic impacts of new or improved rail lines. Cambridge Economics. Department for Transport Rail Group. CBRE (2016). CBRE UK | An update on the impact of Crossrail on property. [online] CBRE. Available at: https://www.cbreresidential.com/uk/en-GB/ research/an-update-on-the-impact-of-crossrail-on-property. Cronkleton, E. (2019). What Is the Average Walking Speed of an Adult? [online] Healthline. Available at: https://www.healthline.com/health/exercise-fitness/ average-walking-speed. Diaz, R. (1999). Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values. Allen & Hamilton Inc. Evans, J. and Mathur, A. (2018). The value of online surveys: a look back and a look ahead. Emerald Publishing Limited. Forth, T. (2018). Westminster’s failure to build public transport in Leeds will be a disaster for Londoners | CityMetric. [online] www.citymetric.com. Available at: https://www.citymetric.com/transport/westminster-s-failure-build-publictransport-leeds-will-be-disaster-londoners-3559. GMCA and TFGM (2016). Greater Manchester Low Emission Strategy. [online] Greater Manchester Combined Authority. GMCA. Available at: https:// www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/media/1276/low-emission-strategydec-2016.pdf. Goodwin, J. (2012). SAGE secondary data analysis. 2. Los Angeles: Sage. Google Finance (2020). Google Finance. [online] Google.com. Available at: https://www.google.com/intl/en/googlefinance/disclaimer/. gov.uk (2019). Male and female populations. [online] Service.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-byethnicity/demographics/male-and-female-populations/latest.
110110
Granada News (2019). London-style transport planned for Greater Manchester. [online] ITV News. Available at: https://www.itv.com/news/granada/ 2019-06-24/london-style-transport-planned-for-greater-manchester [Accessed 3 Aug. 2020]. Green, O. (2016). Rails in the road : a history of tramways in Britain and Ireland. Barnsley, South Yorkshire: Pen & Sword Transport. Hox, J. and Boeije, H. (2005). Data Collection, Primary vs. Secondary. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, 1(Unknown). Institute for Work & Health (2017). Primary data and secondary data | Institute for Work & Health. [online] Iwh.on.ca. Available at: https://www.iwh.on.ca/whatresearchers-mean-by/primary-data-and-secondary-data. Intellspot (2017). Primary Data VS Secondary Data: Definition, Sources, Advantages. [online] Blog For Data-Driven Business. Available at: http:// www.intellspot.com/primary-data-vs-secondary-data/. Leeds Observatory (2019). Leeds Observatory – Population. [online] Leeds.gov.uk. Available at: https://observatory.leeds.gov.uk/population/. Lefever, S., Dal, M. and Matthíasdóttir, Á. (2007). Online data collection in academic research: advantages and limitations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(4), pp.574–582. London First (2015). London’s Infrastructure: Investing for Growth. London First. Lu, H., Rohr, C., Hafner, M. and Knack, A. (2018). China Belt and Road Initiative. RAND Europe. Manchester Evening News (2020). Metrolink - Latest news updates, pictures, video, reaction - Manchester Evening News. [online] w w w. m a n c h e s t e r e v e n i n g n e w s . c o . u k . A v a i l a b l e a t : h t t p s : / / www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/all-about/metrolink. Medical Dictionary (2020). leisure activity. [online] TheFreeDictionary.com. Available at: https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/leisure+activity [Accessed 27 Aug. 2020].
111111
Nationwide (2014). Nationwide House Price Index: Tram & rail links in Greater Manchester attract premium amongst homebuyers. [online] Nationwide. Nationwide. Available at: https://www.nationwide.co.uk/about/house-priceindex/headlines. Nationwide (2016). Nationwide Housing Market Research: What impact is Crossrail having on house prices? [online] Nationwide. Available at: https:// www.nationwide.co.uk/about/house-price-index/headlines. Nationwide (2019). Nationwide House Price Index: Londoners pay highest premium to live near a station, but tram/rail links also attractive to homebuyers in Manchester. [online] Nationwide. Nationwide. Available at: https:// www.nationwide.co.uk/about/house-price-index/headlines. Nomis (2020). Nomis - Official Labour Market Statistics. [online] www.nomisweb.co.uk. Available at: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/ construct/components/stdListComponent.asp?menuopt=12&subcomp=100 [Accessed 27 Aug. 2020]. Nuccitelli, D. (2018). New study finds incredibly high carbon pollution costs – especially for the US and India | Dana Nuccitelli. The Guardian. [online] 1 Oct. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97per-cent/2018/oct/01/new-study-finds-incredibly-high-carbon-pollution-costsespecially-for-the-us-and-india [Accessed 12 Mar. 2020]. Numbeo (2020a). About Traffic Indices At This Website. [online] www.numbeo.com. Available at: https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/ indices_explained.jsp [Accessed 5 Aug. 2020]. Numbeo (2020b). Northern Europe: Rankings by City of Average Monthly Net Salary (After Tax) (Salaries And Financing). [online] www.numbeo.com. Available a t : h t t p s : / / w w w. n u m b e o . c o m / c o s t - o f - l i v i n g / c i t y _ p r i c e _ r a n k i n g s ? displayCurrency=USD&itemId=105&region=154 [Accessed 5 Aug. 2020]. Orr.gov.uk (2020). Light rail and tramways | Office of Rail and Road. [online] orr.gov.uk. Available at: https://orr.gov.uk/about-orr/who-we-work-with/railwaynetworks/light-rail-and-tramways [Accessed 8 Aug. 2020]. Oxera (2015). What is the contribution of rail to the UK economy? Opera Compelling Economics. Prepared for the Rail Delivery Group.
112112
Oxera (2017). Investment in Rail: The Economic Benefits. Oxera. Produced for the Rail Delivery Group. Oxford Economics (2018). The Economic Contribution of UK Rail 2018. Oxford Economics. Oxford Reference (n.d.). Secondary Research. [online] Oxford Reference. Available at: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority. 20110803100451291. Pannell, J. (2020). Vacancy all town centres 1997-2008. Email communication between researcher and Trafford Council. Qualtics (n.d.). What Is A Survey (or Questionnaire)? [online] Qualtrics. Available at: https://www.qualtrics.com/uk/experience-management/research/surveys/. Railway Technology (n.d.). Manchester Metrolink, England. [online] Railway Technology. Available at: https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/ manchester-metrolink/. Stagecoach (2020a). Supertram | About Supertram. [online] www.stagecoachbus.com. Available at: https://www.stagecoachbus.com/ supertram/about-supertram. Stagecoach (2020b). Welcome to Supertram. [online] www.stagecoachbus.com. Available at: https://www.stagecoachbus.com/supertram [Accessed 6 Aug. 2020]. Statista (2019a). Passenger journeys on Manchester Metrolink 1992–2020. [online] Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/305643/ passenger-journeys-on-manchester-metrolink-uk/. Statista (2019b). UK: passenger journeys on Sheffield Supertram 1994-2019. [online] Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/305597/ passenger-journeys-on-sheffield-supertram-uk/. Statista (2020). Unemployment rate 2018 | Statista. [online] Statista. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/279898/unemployment-rate-in-theunited-kingdom-uk/. Steer Davies Gleave (2013). A Cardiff Capital Region Metro: Impact Study: Metro Economic Impacts. Welsh Government.
113113
Swann, G. and Reith-Banks, T. (2018). In praise of the tram: Britain’s lost network and the future of transport. The Guardian. [online] 24 Aug. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/aug/24/in-praise-of-the-trambritains-lost-network-and-the-future-of-transport [Accessed 9 Aug. 2020]. TfGM (2020). Greater Manchester tram network map. [online] Transport for Greater Manchester. Available at: https://tfgm.com/public-transport/tram/ network-map. The Open University (n.d.). 6 Methods of data collection and analysis. The Open University. The Star (2018). Carbon emissions fall in Sheffield, but city “has a long way to go.” [online] www.thestar.co.uk. Available at: https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/ carbon-emissions-fall-sheffield-city-has-long-way-go-269501. Topalovic, P., Tobey, D. and Lotimer, L. (2008). Community impact & economic analysis of light rail transit. City of Hamilton Rapid Transit Office. Transport Focus (2017). Tram Passenger Survey (TPS) - All Networks. [online] Transport Focus. Available at: https://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/13160304/TPS-2016-All-networks-Autumn-2016results.pdf. Tuckman, B.W. and Harper, B.E. (2012). Conducting educational research. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. UKEssays (2018a). Advantages And Disadvantages Of Quantitative Research Psychology Essay. [online] UKEssays.com. Available at: https:// www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/advantages-and-disadvantages-ofquantitative-research-psychology-essay.php. UKEssays (2018b). Purpose And Advantages Of Primary Data. [online] www.ukessays.com. Available at: https://www.ukessays.com/essays/marketing/ purpose-and-advantages-of-primary-data-marketing-essay.php. UKRI (2013). Road networks and local employment - Economic and Social Research Council. [online] esrc.ukri.org. Available at: https://esrc.ukri.org/newsevents-and-publications/evidence-briefings/road-networks-and-localemployment/ [Accessed 16 Aug. 2020].
114114
University of Minnesota (2019). Analysis of Quantitative Data | CYFAR. [online] Cyfar.org. Available at: https://cyfar.org/analysis-quantitative-data. Vincent, J. (2014). Sheffield trams’ 20-year bumpy ride. BBC News. [online] 21 Mar. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-southyorkshire-26663137. Wagh, S. (2020). Research Guides: Public Health Research Guide: Primary & Secondary Data Definitions. [online] researchguides.ben.edu. Available at: https://researchguides.ben.edu/c.php?g=282050&p=4036581. World Bank Group (2019). Infrastructure Connectivity. [online] Available at: https://www.oecd.org/g20/summits/osaka/G20-DWG-Background-PaperInfrastructure-Connectivity.pdf Japan G20 Development Working Group. World Economic Forum (2018). The economic impact of improved transport links in Belt and Road countries. [online] World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/measuring-the-economic-impactof-improved-transport-links-in-belt-and-road-countries/ [Accessed 16 Aug. 2020]. WorldBank (2017). Global Infrastructure Connectivity Alliance. [online] World Bank. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/transport/brief/globalinfrastructure-connectivity-alliance. Wright, K.B. (2006). Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).
115115
12.0
 APPENDIX
116
APPENDICES 1 An investigation into the economic impacts of tram systems in cities: Manchester and Sheffield I am a masters student at The University of Sheffield, studying MSc Urban and Regional Planning. My area of research for my dissertation is the economic impacts that tram systems have on cities, looking at a wide range of factors through both primary and secondary data. The aims of this investigation are: •
To investigate the extent to which the building of tram systems has positively impacted the economy of Manchester and Sheffield.
•
To investigate public perception of the Manchester and Sheffield tram services.
•
To investigate any failings experienced by Manchester and Sheffield's tram services.
•
To discuss the potential benefits for the implementation of tram services in other UK cities such as Leeds.
All responses are anonymous and confidential and cannot be accessed by anyone other than myself. Should you wish to withdraw your response from this study, please email me at csbinns1@sheffield.ac.uk before 1st August 2020 and your response will be destroyed. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. 1) What gender do you identify as? a. Male b. Female c. Prefer not to say 2) How old are you? a. 16-24 b. 25-34 c. 35-44
d. 45-54 e. 55-64 f. 65+ 3) Where do you live? a. Manchester b. Sheffield 4) What is the first half of your postcode? E.g. M24 or S11 5) Are you happy with the tram service in your city? a. Yes b. No c. Unsure 6) How often do you use the tram service in your city? a. Everyday b. 2-3 times a week c. Once a week d. Once a month e. Rarely 7) How far do you live from your nearest tram station? a. Under a mile b. 1-2 miles c. 203 miles d. 3+ miles e. I do not live near a tram station
8) What is your main purpose for using the tram service in your city? a. Commuting to work b. Leisure (eg going shopping or for food etc c. Visiting friends/family d. Travelling to a place of education e. Running errands f. I don’t use the tram 9) What is your secondary purpose for using the tram service in your city? a. Commuting to work b. Leisure (eg going shopping or for food etc_ c. Visiting friends/family d. Travelling to a place of education e. Running errands f. I don’t use the tram 10) If you do not use the tram, what other form of transport do you use? a. Private car b. Bus c. Walk d. Taxi e. Cycle f. Train g. I do use the tram 11) What would make you choose to travel by tram over another form of transport? a. Increase in frequency b. Increase in safety c. Investment to the tram network d. Extensions to the tram network e. Travel to work schemes f. Cheaper tickets g. Simple ticket systems h. Other
12) If you were moving house, would the property being within walking distance of a tram stop be a deciding factor for you? a. Yes b. No c. It wouldn’t be a deciding factor but it would be important to me 13) If you were looking for a new job, would the employer’s proximity to a tram stop alter your decision to apply or not? a. Yes b. No c. It wouldn’t be a deciding factor, but it would be important to me 14) Where would you like to see the tram service in your city extended to? 15) Do you believe trams have a positive impact on your city? a. Yes b. No 16) Why? 17) How do you believe trams could improve the economy of your city?
18) Any additional comments relating to trams in your city and their impact to the economy?
APPENDICES 2 An investigation into the economic impacts of tram systems in cities: Leeds I am a masters student at The University of Sheffield, studying MSc Urban and Regional Planning. My area of research for my dissertation is the economic impacts that tram systems have on cities, looking at a wide range of factors through both primary and secondary data. The investigation focuses on the impacts of building tram systems in Manchester and Sheffield. However, research into the potential impact of building trams in Leeds will also be conducted. The aims of the investigation are: •
To investigate the extent to which the building of tram systems has positively impacted the economy of Manchester and Sheffield through a wide range of factors.
•
To investigate public perception of the Manchester and Sheffield tram services.
•
To investigate any failings experienced by Manchester and Sheffield's tram services.
•
To discuss the potential benefits for the implementation of tram services in other UK cities such as Leeds. The aims of this survey are:
•
To investigate the public perception of the current public transport provision in Leeds.
•
To investigate the public desire for tram services in Leeds.
This survey, along with secondary research, will be used to discuss the potential economic impact of building a tram system in Leeds. All responses are anonymous and confidential and cannot be accessed by anyone other than myself. Should you wish to withdraw your response from this study, please email me at csbinns1@sheffield.ac.uk before 1st August 2020 and your response will be destroyed. 1) What gender do you identify as?
a. Male b. Female c. Prefer not to say 2) How old are you? a. 16-24 b. 25-34 c. 35-44 d. 45-54 e. 55-65 f. 65+ 3) What is the first half of your postcode? E.g. LS7 4) Would you like to see a tram service built in Leeds? a. Yes b. No 5) How often do you use public transport? a. Everyday b. 2-3 times a week c. Once a week d. Once a month e. Rarely 6) What is your main purpose for using public transport? a. Commuting to work b. Leisure (eg going shopping or for food etc) c. Visiting friends/family d. Travelling to a place of education
e. Running errands f. I don’t use public transport 7) What is your secondary purpose for using public transport? a. Commuting to work b. Leisure (eg going shopping or for food etc) c. Visiting friends/family d. Travelling to a place of education e. Running errands f. I don’t use public transport 8) What form of transport do you use to travel around Leeds? a. Private car b. Bus c. Walk d. Taxi e. Cycle f. Train 9) Are you happy with the current public transport provision in Leeds? a. Yes b. No 10) Why? 11) Do you believe building trams would have a positive economic impact in Leeds? a. Yes b. No 12) Why? 13)Any other comments relating to building trams in Leeds and their potential to impact the economy?
APPENDICES 3 An investigation into the economic impacts of tram systems in cities: Manchester and Sheffield - TfGM Survey I am a masters student at The University of Sheffield, studying MSc Urban and Regional Planning. My area of research for my dissertation is the economic impacts that tram systems have on cities, looking at a wide range of factors through both primary and secondary data. The aims of this investigation are: •
To investigate the extent to which the building of tram systems has positively impacted the economy of Manchester and Sheffield.
•
To investigate public perception of the Manchester and Sheffield tram services.
•
To investigate any failings experienced by Manchester and Sheffield's tram services.
•
To discuss the potential benefits for the implementation of tram services in other UK cities such as Leeds.
All responses are confidential and cannot be accessed by anyone other than myself. Should you wish to withdraw your response from this study, please email me at csbinns1@sheffield.ac.uk before 15th August 2020 and your response will be destroyed.
1) Please can you tell me a bit about your career with TfGM and Metrolink? 2) What was the aim of building the trams in Manchester in 1992? Do you think this was achieved? 3) What is the current aim of the trams in Manchester? Do you think this is being fulfilled? 4) Why do you think the trams in Manchester saw slow expansion until 2010, and has since gone through rapid expansion until the present day?
5) How do you think the Manchester Metrolink compares to the Sheffield Supertram? Do you think there are there any areas of strengths/weaknesses when comparing them? 6) In your opinion, what do you think could be done in order to improve the tram service currently available in Manchester? 7) Do you believe the Manchester Metrolink serves the city of Manchester well? Why? 8) What further expansion routes are in the pipeline for Metrolink?Will these be done in phases? What dates will these be started/completed by? 9) Do you believe the trams in Manchester have a positive economic impact on the economy of the city? How and why? 10) According to some studies, Leeds is the largest European city without any form of tram system. What impact do you think building trams in Leeds would have on the economy? What lessons could be learnt from Manchester during the development of a tram system in Leeds?
APPENDICES 4 An investigation into the economic impacts of tram systems in cities: Manchester and Sheffield Supertram Researcher I am a masters student at The University of Sheffield, studying MSc Urban and Regional Planning. My area of research for my dissertation is the economic impacts that tram systems have on cities, looking at a wide range of factors through both primary and secondary data. The aims of this investigation are: •
To investigate the extent to which the building of tram systems has positively impacted the economy of Manchester and Sheffield.
•
To investigate public perception of the Manchester and Sheffield tram services.
•
To investigate any failings experienced by Manchester and Sheffield's tram services.
•
To discuss the potential benefits for the implementation of tram services in other UK cities such as Leeds.
All responses are anonymous and confidential and cannot be accessed by anyone other than myself. Should you wish to withdraw your response from this study, please email me at csbinns1@sheffield.ac.uk before 1st August 2020 and your response will be destroyed.
1) Please can you tell me a bit about your career and research which you have completed? 2) Whilst you were at Sheffield Hallam, what was the research you conducted about the Sheffield Supertrams? What were the aims? What were the findings? 3) Based on your research, what do you believe the purpose of building the trams in Sheffield in 1994 was? Do you think this was achieved?
4) Why do you think the trams in Sheffield haven’t seen much expansion since they were introduced in 1994? 5) How do you think the Sheffield Supertram compares to the Manchester Metrolink? Do you think there are there any areas of strengths/weaknesses when comparing them? 6) In your opinion, what do you think could be done in order to improve the tram service currently available in Sheffield? 7) Do you believe the Sheffield Supertram serves the city of Sheffield well? Why? 8) Do you believe the trams in Sheffield have a positive economic impact on the economy of the city? How and why? 9) According to some studies, Leeds is the largest European city without any form of tram system. Why do you think such a service has never been implemented in Leeds? What impact do you think building trams in Leeds would have on the economy? 10) Based on your work, is there anything else you would like to comment on in relation to this investigation?
APPENDICES 5 An investigation into the economic impacts of tram systems in cities: Manchester and Sheffield I am a masters student at The University of Sheffield, studying MSc Urban and Regional Planning. My area of research for my dissertation is the economic impacts that tram systems have on cities, looking at a wide range of factors through both primary and secondary data. The aims of this investigation are: •
To investigate the extent to which the building of tram systems has positively impacted the economy of Manchester and Sheffield.
•
To investigate public perception of the Manchester and Sheffield tram services.
•
To investigate any failings experienced by Manchester and Sheffield's tram services.
•
To discuss the potential benefits for the implementation of tram services in other UK cities such as Leeds. All responses are anonymous and confidential and cannot be accessed by anyone other than myself. Should you wish to withdraw your response from this study, please email me at csbinns1@sheffield.ac.uk before 15th August 2020 and your response will be destroyed.
1) Please can you tell me a bit about your career? 2) There have now been three proposals for a tram system in Leeds, what do you think are the main reasons why these have been scrapped? 3) Why were trolley buses suggested as an alternative option by the government? Why were these never implemented? 4) What is different about the current plan which you believe will allow it to begin construction?
5) If the scheme was to be approved, what part of the city would it serve? Would it be built in phases and where would these phases be? 6) How do you think the current public transport system in Leeds compares to other northern cities such as Manchester and Sheffield? Do you think there are there any areas of strengths/ weaknesses when comparing them? 7) A large proportion of the people questioned for my research claim that they are not happy with the transport system in Leeds. In your opinion, what do you think could be done in order to improve the service currently available in Leeds? 8) Do you believe that the current transport system in Leeds serves the city well? Why? 9) Do you believe the transport system in Leeds has a positive economic impact on the economy of the city? How and why? How do you think building a tram system would impact the local economy? 10) According to some studies, Leeds is the largest European city without any form of tram system. Why do you think such a service has never been implemented in Leeds? What lessons could be learnt from other cities during the development of a tram system in Leeds? 11) What research has been done regarding the public transport system in Leeds and the proposals for a tram network? 12) Based on your work, is there anything else you would like to comment on in relation to this investigation?
APPENDICES 6
 Email To Local Authorities Dear Sir/Madam, My name is Chris Binns and I am a MSc Urban and Regional Planning student at the University of Sheffield. For my dissertation, I am investigating the economic impacts of building tram systems in UK cities, focussing on specifically, and comparing, Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram. As part of my secondary data, I am wanting to analyse the changes in the number of vacant retail units, increase/decrease in footfall and the change to average annual earnings. I am looking for data from when the trams were built in the early 1990s until the present day. I am therefore asking if you have any data in relation to the above topics for areas within your council's boundaries and if so, please would you be able to either point me in the right direction as to where I might find them, or send them directly to me? If not, are you aware of anyone who does have access to these statistics? I appreciate the workload which you are under, especially given the circumstances of coronavirus, but if you are able to help it would be greatly appreciated and would massively help with my investigation. Thank you in advance for your time. Yours faithfully, Chris Binns
