7.1.2 Secondary Data Results

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 Radclife 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 Traford 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

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

Figure 26: (Authors own) Data from (Zoopla, 2020)

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%

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

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 173.9% Average 170.4%

Hollinsend Halfway Westfield Waterthrope Crystal Peaks Birley Herdings Gleadless Manor Top Arbourthorne Rotherham Meadowhall Carbrook Atterclife West Street Shalesmoor Hillsborough Middlewood

151.62% 167.43% 167.47% 167.43% 167.41%

161.06%

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.

HOUSE PRICE INCREASE IN SHEFFIELD LOCATIONS WITHOUT TRAM STOPS (2000-2020) Median 174.43% Average 172.73%

Shireclife Shiregreen Ecclesfield Parsons Cross Neepsend Kelham Island Bramall Lane London Road Pitsmoor Greystones Meersbrook Ranmoor Endclife Whirlow Burngreave Heeley Ecclesall Broomhall Broomhill Crookes Meadowhead Woodseats Totley Dore Tinsley Millhouses Sharrow

172.07% 172.09% 167.42% 177.81%

163.79% 163.76% 177.01% 177.01%

163.8% 176.85% 182.49%

174.42% 174.42% 176.83% 163.79%

177.03% 176.56% 174.44% 171.38% 174.46% 182.47% 182.48%

167.4% 167.4% 167.49% 167.41% 176.88%

Figure 28: (Authors own) Data from (Zoopla, 2020)

EMPLOYMENT/EARNINGS STATISTICS

16% CHANGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ACROSS MANCHESTER (1996-2019)

Bolton Bury Manchester Oldham Rochdale

Salford Stockport Tameside Traford Wigan

12%

8%

4%

0% 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 29: (Author’s own) Data from (Nomis, 2020)

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.

12%

9% CHANGE IN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ACROSS SHEFFIELD (1996-2019) Rotherham Shefield

6%

3%

0% 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

Figure 30: (Author’s own) Data from (Nomis, 2020)

Average Monthly Earnings (after tax) Manchester

£2108.12

Sheffield

Table 3: (Author’s own) Data from (Numbeo, 2020b) £1692.08

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.

30 Percentage of Retail Units Vacant in Trafford Towns (1997-2008) Altrincham Sale Urmston Stretford

24

18

12

6

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 31: (Author’s own) Data from (Pannell, 2020) 2005 2006 2007 2008

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%.

17 Average percentage of vacant retail units (1997-2008)

20 Increase from lowest to highest year of vacant retail units (1997-2008)

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

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, CO 2 consumption

estimation in traffic and overall inefficiencies in the traffic system”(Numbeo,

2020).

Trafic Index

Trafic Index (Minutes)

CO2 Emission Index

Population

Shefield

90.29

25.20 Manchester

161.81

40.10 Diference

71.52

14.90 % Diference

79.21

59.13

2680.27

1,569,000 4618.09

2,835,690 1937.82

1,266,690 72.30

80.73

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

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.