SELNEC Transportation Study, 1972 This report has been digitised by Martin Dodge from the Department of Geography, University of Manchester. The digitisation was supported by the Manchester Statistical Society’s Campion Fund. The help of George Turnbull at the Greater Manchester Transport Museum is gratefully acknowledged. Permission to digitise and release the report under Creative Commons license was kindly granted by Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives, Manchester City Council. (Email: archiveslocalstudies@manchester.gov.uk) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. 7 October 2014.
•
South East Lancashire and North East Cheshire Transportation Study
A Broad Transportation Plan for 1984
Report of the
Technical Control Team to the
Steering Committee (Report presented 23rd March, 1971)
First Published March 1972 Town Hall, M anchester, M60 2JT
SELNEC TRANSPO RTATION
STUDY
Foreword by the Chairman of the Steering Committee, Alderman Harry Sharp
The Steering Committee of the SELN EC Transportation Study approved the accompanying report of the Technical Control Team on the 23rd M arch, 1971. The Steering Committee, which is responsible for determi ning the scope and cost of the Study and for the appointment of the Technical Control Team, consists of representatives of the constituent authorities of the Study. These authorities are the Councils of Cheshire, Lancashire, Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford and Stockport, together with the Department of the Environment, British Rai l, the SELN EC Passenger Transport Authority and Executive, the North Western Road Car Co. Ltd., Ribble M otor Services Ltd., and Lancashire United Transport Ltd. The Steering Committee have maintained continuous surveillance of the Study since its inception at a conference of the constituent authorities in Manchester Town Hall in November 1963. The Steering Committee wish to express appreciation of the work of the Control Team who have mai ntained a consistently high level of effort and diligence to the task before them and of the explicit and comprehensive way in which the progress of the Study, notwithstanding its complexities, has been reported to them at their meetings by the Chairman of the Technical Control Team, Mr. John Hayes. In presenting the Control Team's report, the Steeri ng Committee wish also to acknowledge the part played in the Study by the officers of the Department of the Environment, w ho undertook the development of most of the computer programs used in the Study. They are also mindful of the service rendered by very many officers in the participating authorities who provided data and examined the detailed proposals of the Study as they were developed. Finally, they also wish to express appreciation of the devotion, enthusiasm and skill of the very gifted team-mainly of young people-who formed t he w orking group serving the Control Team, and w ho were responsible for all the detailed analytica l w ork in the Report. The Steering Committee are confident that the work undertaken on the Study has been of the hig hest professional standard and that the Report puts forw~rd t he best strategy for transportation in the SELN EC area in the years ahead so far as can be foreseen at t he present time. The Steering Committee endorse the view of the Technical Control Tea m t hat the forecastin g of circumsta nces many yea rs ahead is a very tentative and uncertain business, and therefore it is in t he interests of al l who live and work in the area that the Study should continue in order to take into accou nt changes in trends and in technology as the years pass. In this way it will also be possible to compare performance with prediction and to adjust the proposals accordingly. The Steering Committee commend the Report to t he constituent authorities and to all who wish to inform themselves about transportation problems in the SELN EC area.
Chairman of the Steeri ng Committee.
23rd March, 1971
iii
SELNEC TRANSPORTATION STUDY MEMBERSHIP OF THE TECHNICAL CONTROL TEAM SINCE 1968 RE P ORT OF THE TECHNICAL CONTROL TEAMChairman:
J. Hayes
R. F. Bennett
R. Brook
City Engineer and Surveyor, Manchester.
A
B ROAD
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
FOR
1984
General Manager, Manchester Corporation Transport Dept. (to Sept. 1968). General Manager, North Western Road Car Co. Ltd. (from Nov. 1968).
U. A. Coates, C.B.E. J. F. N. Collins
K. J. Davies
J. H. Dean
County Planning Officer, Lancashire. Director of Planning, Cheshire (from June 1970) 路 Divisional Manager, British Railways, Manchester (from Jan. 1971). Acting County Surveyor and Bridgemaster, Lancashire (to Feb. 1969).
J. Drake, C.B.E.
County Surveyor and Bridgemaster, Lancashire (from March 1969) .
G. A. Harrison
Director General, SELNEC Passenger Transport Executive (from Sept. 1969) .
W. Leese
General Manager, North Western Road Car Co. Ltd.
PREFACE This report of the Technical Control Team of the SELNEC Transportation Study summarises the principal activities which have been undertaken during the course of the Study and describes the selection of the recommended Broad Transportation Plan for 1984. However, bearing in mind the volume of technical analysis wh ich has been undertaken in the course of the Study, and recognising the necessarily esoteric nature of much of this work, it was considered neither desirable nor possible for the Control Team's report to include detailed technical descriptions of all aspects of the work undertaken in connection with the Study.
(to Sept. 1968). D. B. Mcintyre, M.B .E.
G. A. McWilliam K. 0. Male J. S. Millar C. P. Millard
County Surveyor and Bridgemaster, Cheshire. City Engineer, Surveyor and Planning Officer, Salford. County Planning Officer, Cheshire (to June 1970) 路 City Planning Officer, Manchester.
The approach adopted in compiling this report has therefore been to attempt to produce a document which is intelligible to the interested layman. Readers requiring a deeper technical treatment of any particular aspect of the Study are referred to the more comprehensive documentation which is provided in the series of Technical Working Papers which has been issued during the course of the Study. The appendix lists the Technical Working Papers which had been published, or were in the course of preparation, up to the time of publication of this report.
Divisional Manager, British Railways, Manchester (to Dec. 1970) .
P. W. Peck
R. Spence H. Taylor
Honorary Secretary:
Department of the Environment Headquarters, London . General Manager, Oldham Corporation Transport Dept. (to Oct. 1969).
J. Thompson
General Manager, Manchester Corporation Transport Dept. (from Sept. 68-Sept. 69) .
J. D. Wallace
Divisional Road Engineer (North Western), Department of the Environment, Manchester.
G. C. Ogden, C.B.E.
Honorary Treasurer:
Principal Planning Officer, North West Regional Housing and Planning Office, Department of the Environment, Manchester.
Sir Harry Page
Town Clerk, Manchester. City Treasurer, Manchester.
v iv
CONTENTS
C HAPTER ONE-INTRODUCTION AND S UMMARY Paragraph Page Establishment of the Study 1 7 5
7
Outline of the Study
10
8
The Broad Transportation Plan-Summary of Proposals
14
10
Investment Constraints
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
Fig ures 1 The Location of the Study Area
The Study Area
2 3 4
5
The Study Method The Specification of Alternative Transportation Systems The Evaluation of Alternative Transportation Systems
5 13 31
41
75
The Selection of the Broad Transportation Plan
111
7
The Broad Transportation Plan
119
8
The Ongoing Task
143
6
Appendix Other Publications Describing Transport Planning in the SELNEC 149 Area. Maps and diagrams are reproduced from, or based upon, the Ordnance Survey Map with t~e sanction of the Controller of H.M . Stationery Office. Crown copyright reserved.
26
Forecast Population Changes 1965/66 to 1981
28
13
Forecast Total Employment Changes 1965/66 to 1981
29
14
Forecast Manufacturing Employment Changes 1965/66 to 1981
29
9
Page Introduction and Summary
1
12
Page
9
2 The Local Authorities in the Study Area Chapter
Figures 11 Journey Times to central Manchester by public transport in the morning peak period, 1965/66
CHAPTER THREE-THE STUDY METHOD CH APTER TWO-THE STUDY AREA Paragraph 23
Introduction
Page 15
Population
26
15
Employment
31
21
Income
35
21
Transportation System
36
21
Forecasts for the 1980s
39
27
Tables 1 Population and Employment Distribution by Local Planning Authority, 1965/ 66 2 Household Income, 1965/66 3 Composition of 1965/66 Network by Type of Route
5 Car Ownership by Household, 1965/66, 1981 and 1984 6 Study Area Characteristics, 1965/66, 1981 and 1984
4
33 33
Trip Generation
50
Trip Distribution
51
33
Modal Split
54
35
Assignment
55
35
Goods Movement
35
61
36
17
Computing
66
36
22
Cost Sensitivity
68
39
22 22
Figures 15 The Main Stages of the Mathematical Model
34
27
16 The Base Highway Network Economic Evaluation (H5)
37 38
28
CHAPTER FOUR-THE SPECIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Paragraph 70
Page 43
17
Introduction
18
The Rail Planning Study (Stage I)
74
43
19
T he First Series of Model Runs
79
43
20
The Rail Planning Study 路 (Stage 2)
91
53
Railway Network R10
92
53
Railway Tunnels in Central Manchester
93
53
Employment,
8 The Study Area Highway Network in 1966
for
17 Transport Demand Curve
and
6 Population Density, 1965/66 Total
49
58
16
5 Distribution of Car Ownership Annua l Income, 1965/66 of
The Mathematical Model of Travel Behaviour
Page 33
Evaluation of Transportation Systems
Manufacturing
Population Growth: Gt. Britain and the SELNEC Study Area
7 Distribution 1965/66
Paragraph 45
Highway
4 Composition of 1965/66 Highway Network by Width of Carriageway
Figures 3 Distribution of Employment, 1965/66
Field Surveys
23
9 Journey Times to central Manchester by car in the morning peak period, 1965/ 66
24
Other Distributor Systems
98
57
10 The Study Area Railway Network in 1966
25
The T rafford Park Busway
113
61
1 vi
Paragraph Summary of Public Transport Networks
119
The Specification of Highway Networks
121
Total Highway Network Capital Costs Costs Associated with Parking Provision
62 63
44 The SELNEC Highway Plan Network (H1)
139
72
141
72
9 Estimated Highway Network Capital Costs (拢M)
73
1 O Estimated Capital Costs for the Provision of Parking Accommodation in 1981 (拢M)
Benefits- Model
67
102
47 The 'Intermediate' Highway Network (H3/3)
68
32 Summary of Operating Benefits-Model Run 23
102
48 The 'Minimum' (H4/1)
69
Highway
Network
Network
33
CHAPTER FIVE-THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Paragraph Page 143 77 Introduction
73
Model Run 20
144
77
Model Runs 21 and 25
148
77
Model Run 22
154
91
Model Run 22T
159
97
Model Run 23
162
100
Model Run 24
164
100
19 Public Transport Network R1
45
20 Public Transport Network R2
46
Tables
21
46
11
Public Transport Network R3
Network Capital Cost Summary-Model Run 20
22 Public Transport Network R4
46
23
Public Transport Network R5
46
24 Public Transport Network R6
47
25
Public Transport Network R7
47
13 Summary Run 20
26
Public Transport Network R8
47
14 Evaluation Summary-Model Run 20
Public Transport Network R9
47
Busway System in Ringway/Langley Travel Corridor (Model Run 14) Ringway/Langley Rapid Transit System (Model Run 15)
48 49
of
Summary Run 23
of
User
Benefits- Model 103
12 Summary of Operating Benefits-Model Run 20
15
of
User
78
Benefits-Model 79
Network Capital Cost Summary-Model Run 21
16 Summary of Operating Benefits-Model Run 21 17 Summary Run 21
78
of
User
79 84 84
Benefits- Model
55
33
Central Area Rail Link L2
55
34 Central Area Rail Link L3
55
20 Summary of Operating Benefits- Model Run 25
35
Central Area Rail Link L4
55
21
36
Central Area Rail Link L5
56
37
Central Area Rail Link L6
56
38
Central Area Rail Link L7
56
39
Central Area Rail Links L8-L16
56
40
Route Selected for Evaluation of Minirail System Passenger Conveyor Routes Selected in the Se~ond Stage of the Rail Planning Study
58
60
22 23
Summary Run 25
of
User
Benefits- Model 87
Evaluation Summary- Model Run 25 Network Capital Cost Summary- Model Run 22
24 Summary of Operating Benefits- Model Run 22 25 26
Summary Run 22
of
User
87 92 92
Benefits- Model
Evaluation Summary- Model Run 22
User
Evaluation Summary- Model Run 24
93 93
Upgraded Railway System
172
113
Rapid Transit
177
114 114
104
184
115
Passenger Conveyor System
187
116
104
Highway Network
190
117
105
The Selection of the Broad Transportation Plan
195
117
Bus
Priority
105
81
53 1981 Total Daily Passenger Volumes Assigned to Rapid Transit System (Model Run 21)
CHAPTER SIX-THE SELECTION OF THE BROAD TRANSPORTATION PLAN Paragraph Page The Alternatives Considered 169 113
179
50 Off-peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3/2, 1981 (Model Run 20)
Northenden to Higher Biackley Rapid Transit System (Model Run 21)
110
Busways and Schemes
80
52
109
New Railway Links through Central Manchester
Figures 49 Peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3/2, 1981 (Model Run 20)
51 1981 Total Daily Passenger Volumes Assigned to Network R1 O (Model Run 20)
1981 Total Daily Passenger Trips assigned to Busway System (Model Run 24)
Page
103
Benefits-Model
82 83
88
54 Peak Overloading Diagram, Network H4/1, 1981 (Model Run 21)
89
Off- peak Overloading Diagram, Network H4/ 1, 1981 (Model Run 21)
90
1981 Total Daily Passenger Volumes Assig ned to Network R20 (Model Run 22)
86
Central Area Rail Link L1
of
85 86
32
Summary Run 24
Public Transport Network R20
19 Network Capital Cost Summary- Model Run 25
54
37
85
18 Evaluation Summary-Model Run 21
Public Transport Network R10
Network Capital Cost Summary-Model Run 24
36 Summary of Operating Benefits- Model Run 24
38
50
31
41
User
99
44
30 Possible Ultimate Configuration Princess Parkway, Manchester
99
of
Figures 63 Busway/Bus Street System in Central Manchester (Model Run 24) 64
31 Network Capital Cost Summary-Model Run 23
Figures 18 Railway Track Diagram, 1968
29
29 Summary Run 22T
35
64
28
98
30 . Evaluation Summary- Model Run 22T
Highway
57
8 Highway Capacity Standards Adopted for Operational Evaluation
98
28 Summary of Operating Benefits- Model Run 22T
34 Evaluation Summary- Model Run 23
Tables 7 Feasible Central Area Rail Links
27
65
Page
66
46 The ' Maximum' (H3/2)
71
63
Peak Overloading Diagram, Network H1, 1981 (Model Run 18)
70
135
Tables 27 Network Capital Cost Summary- Model Run 22T
Page 62
43 The SELNEC Highway Plan Area
45
Traffic Management and Minor Improvement Schemes 130 Bus Priority Schemes
Figures 42 Proposed Trafford Park Busway
Page
95
96
Tables 39 Summary of Systems Evaluated in the Second Model Run Series
112
40 Summary of Model Output (Model Runs 20- 25)
112
CHAPTER SEVEN- THE BROAD TRANSPORTATION PLAN Paragraph Highway Network H3/2 (84) 201
Page 121
Highway Schemes not Charged to the Study Budget
202
121
Announced Highway Schemes
205
124
New Highway Schemes
207
126
Total Infrastructure Cost of Network H3/ 2 (84)
209
128
PublicTransportNetworkR30
210
128
New Railway Lines
211
128
Disused Railway Lines Re- 1 established in Network R30
212
128
Existing Railway Lines Selected for the Provision of Improved Services
213
132
Other Passenger Railway Lines
215
133
Busways
216
133
198.1 A M Peak (7 路0- 9路0) Work Trips Assigned to Piccadilly /Victoria Tunnel (Model Run 23) 1981 .24- Hour Passenger Trips Assigned to Piccadilly/Victoria Tunnel (Model Run 23)
Passenger Conveyor System
217
133
101
Peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3 /3, 1981 (Model Run 23)
Total Infrastructure Cost of Network R30
218
133
106
Off-peak Overloading Diagram, Network H 3/ 3, 1981 (Model Run 23)
107
Total Infrastructure Cost of Recommended Broad T ransportation Plan
219
133
T he Final Model Runs
220
133
Conclusions
228
141
Busway System Evaluated in Model Run 24
101
108
3 2
Tables 41
路 Page
Composition of 1984 Highway Network (H3/2 (84)) by Type of Route
128
42 Upgraded Railway 路 Services Coded in Network R30
132
43
Network Capital Cost Summary-Model Run 26
134
44 Summary of Operating Benefits-Model Run 26
134
45 46
Summary of User Benefits-Model Run 26
135
Evaluation Summary-Model Run 26
135
Figures 65 The Recommended Highway Network (H3/2(84)) 66
122
Relationship of the SELNEC Study Area to the National Motorway System
123
67 The Recommended Public Transport Network (R30)
129
68 The Recommended Passenger Distributor System in Central Manchester
130
69
Possible Train Routes feeding the proposed Piccadilly/Victoria Tunnel
70 Total Daily Passenger Flows Forecast for 1984 on the Recommended Railway Network (R30) in Model Run 26 71
Morning Peak Period (7.0-9.0 a.m.) Work Trips Forecast for 1984 on the Recommended Railway Network (R30) in Model Run 26
72
131
CHAPTER EIGHT- THE ONGOING TASK Paragraph Page 230 145 Introduction Implementation of the Plan (A) Preparation of a Phased Programme of Implement235 145 ation of Schemes (B) Refinement of the Broad Plan for 1984
236
146
Continuing Work (A) Monitoring of the Broad Plan for 1984
238
146
(B) Preliminary Work Plans Beyond 1984
240
147
(C) Proposed Data Analysis Service Bureau
241
147
{D) The Development and Maintenance of the SELNEC Transportation Model
242
147
Conclusions
244
148
APPENDIX-OTHER PUBLICATIONS DESCRIBING TRANSPORT PLANNING IN THE SELNEC AREA Paragraph Page Introduction 246 151 (A) The SELNEC Plan of 1962
137
138
Peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3/2 (84) (Model Run 26)
139
73 Off-peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3/2 (84) (Model Run 26)
140
for
Highway 247
151
250
151
Outline of the Highway Plan
253
152
(B) The Manchester Area Rapid Transit Study
254
152
(C) SELNEC Transportation Study, Technical Working Papers
259
152
Basis of the Plan Analysis
Highway
C HAPTER
ONE
Introduction and Summary
MAP OF PRINCIPAL PROPOSALS A folded map showing the principal proposals of the Broad Transportation Plan is contained in the pocket at the end of this report.
5
4
CHAPTER ON E-IN T RODUCTION AND SUMMARY ESTABLISHM ENT OF THE STUDY 1. In October 1963 the then Minister of Transport invited Manchester Corporation to convene a conference with other major local authorities in the SELNEC area to consider the establishment of a Transportation Study. The Minister said that "an essential basis for the right decisions about the future road pattern in towns and the best balance between public and private transport would be a sound and comprehensive Transportation Study in each of the main conurbations. This would enable an objective assessment to be made of the adequacy of existing road and public transport systems and planned improvements to them in relation to the growth of traffic, the likely changes in land use, the distribution of population and employment within t he area of the conurbation and similar factors. Such a Study should clarify the nature of the decisions to be taken in both general and transport planning and enable the implications of them to be better understood".
2. The conference took place in November 1963 and the following resolutions were adopted: (i) that this conference recognises the need for a comprehensive Transportation Study to be carried out in
the government departments, local authorities and other appro priate bodies; (e)
to appoint a Technical Control Team, consisting of representative chief officers of the local authority departments responsible for highway engineering and town planning, and representatives from national and municipal transport undertakings, British Railways, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
3. In Autumn 1969 the assets of the municipal bus undertakings in the area were vested in the SELNEC Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) and the municipal bus representatives on the Steering Committee were replaced by representatives of the SELNEC Passenger Transport Authority (PTA) and of the PTE. The municipal bus representatives on the Technical Control Team were replaced by a representative of the PTE. In November 1970 the Ministries of Transport and of Housing and Local Government were amalgamated with the Ministry of Public Build ing and Works to form the Department of the Environment (DOE).
this conurbation; (ii) that a Steering Committee for the Study should be appointed consisting of two representatives each from the county councils of Lancashire and Cheshire, the county boroughs of Manchester, Salford, Stockport, Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale and Bury, the British Railways, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and one representative each from the borough of Ashton-under- Lyne, the Ribble Motor Services Limited, the North Western Road Car Company Limited, the Lancashire United Transport Company Limited and the Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield Trans port Board ; (iii) that the Steering Committee should be authorised : (a)
to decide the scope of the Study;
(b)
to select and engage the con sultants who would be required to carry out certain stages of the work;
(c)
to determine the cost of the Study;
(d) to agree upon how the cost should be apportioned amongst
4. The terms of reference of the Technical Control Team were to produce a Broad Transportation Plan for 1981 in the form of recommendations for capital investment in fixed transport facilities (infrastructure) for the study area which is shown in Figure 2. However, during the course of the Study it was established that 1984 would be a more appropriate design year than 1981, and the Control Team's final recommendations are for 1984. The technical analyses which were required by the Control Team in the preparation of their recommendations were carried out by a group of officersthe SALTS Group-who were either seconded from organisations taking part in the Study or specially appointed.
INVESTM ENT CONSTRAINTS 5. The Study's main aim was to produce a recom mended highway and public transport system for the study area with the view to implementation by 1981-this date being subsequently revised to 1984. It might have been relatively easy to meet this objective by specifying an 'ideal' system which would solve all of the region's transport problems. However, such an approach would have led to the selection of a plan too costly to have any real chance of completion by the 1980s. In order to avoid this, the Study took as its starting point an estimate, provided by the former Ministry of Transport, of the rate of financial investment in
7
probably be transport infrastructure whic h wou ld realised up to the mid- 1980 s. the Ministry, 6. It was assumed, on the advice of to £20 0MM £175 of that a capital sum in the range available made be ht at 1968 money va lues -mig in the ture struc infra for investment in transport /69 1968 d perio year stud y area durin g the thirteen was this that d asise to 1980 /81. The Mini stry emph and should only a projection of possible trends intentions. of ast forec not be regarded as in any way a d on the base was The estimation of this budg et dly on a broa s, breakdown of national projection possible, as far as , popu latio n basis, with allowance . for particular local circumstances the budget, 7. In addi tion to schemes financed from com pleti on the the Stud y was allow ed to assume h form a whic s of the follo wing trunk moto rway ork: part of the national moto rway netw (i) M62 from the western stud y area boundary to the eastern stud y area boun dary ; (ii) M61 from the western stud y area boundary to its junc tion with M62 ; and (iii) M63 between the Eccles (M62 ) ges; chan inter ) (M56 sway King area (iv) M56 between the western stud y ) (M63 sway King the and boundary ge. interchan ip of the These moto rway s and the relationsh area are y stud the to m syste national moto rway illustrated in Figure 66. s the exception of the moto rway 8. With of et budg al capit cted proje the listed in paragraph 7, investment, £175 /200 M was assumed to cover all /69 to 1968 from nt, rnme gove by central and local ent of ovem impr and ion truct 1980 /81, in the cons port trans ic publ and s road trunk and principal of costs The area. y stud infrastructure for the ic publ and way high the ng operating and maintaini ties, facili ing park of ision prov transport systems, the of publ ic and the provision and replacement excluded ly ifical spec were transport rolling stock taken were costs these ugh from the budget, altho omic econ of oses purp the into consideration for evaluation . ted in the 9. As a result of the approach adop thou ght to is Plan n tatio spor Study, the Broad Tran sum of the ting inves of represent the best way r than rathe able, avail be to money whic h is likely if ted adop be t migh h an ideal solut ion whic . able avail unlim ited money were
OUT LIN E OF THE STU DY utilit y of 10. In order to evaluate the potential it was ms, syste tion porta alternative future trans
8
ber and first necessary to forecast the num y area stud the characteristics of the popu latio n of ted selec the in the 198 0s-t he people who wou ld use ld wou it h system and enjoy the benefits whic acter char produce. This forecast was based on the know area, istics of the existing popu latio n of the of s serie a ledge of whic h had been obtained from surveys field surveys. The infor mati on whic h these istics acter yielded, and the predicted stud y area char , them from for the 1980 s whic h were developed are described in Chapter 2.
ABERD EE N
the future 11. Having produced a description of stage was to popu latio n of the stud y area, the next ld seek to find the way in whic h this popu latio n wou the way in use alternative transportation systems, ld perform whic h these transportation systems wou and the in catering for this forecast demand, as a result. benefits whic h travellers wou ld enjoy a series of To do this it was necessary to develop lation of simu the for s ssion mathematical expre ssions expre of s serie a Such ms. transportation syste trave l of el mod l atica hem 'mat is know n as a associated behaviour '. The SELNEC model and its ribed in system evaluation procedures are desc Chapter 3. the benefits 12. The model can be used to predict portation trans cular parti any from lt whic h migh t resu ssary nece first is it so, do to r systems, but, in orde to are h whic ms syste tion porta to describe the trans trans inary prelim of ion ificat be evaluated . The spec the on done be fore there must portation systems rt problems basis of prior know ledg e of the transpo ion for ificat spec ork netw l Initia of the study area. work on d base was y Stud the Transportation neer Engi way High EC SELN the by previously done of Plan ing Committee (The SELNEC High way Stud y sit Tran d Rapi Area ter ches 1962 ) and the Man also carried (MAR TS). A rail planning study was The matheout as part of the Transportation Stud y. preliminary uce prod to used matical model was port net evaluations of high way and publ ic trans above three work s specified on the basis of the orks was netw of s serie nd seco studies and a evaluation produced . This systems specification and SELN EC The 4. ter Chap in ribed exercise is desc reviewed High way Plan and the MAR TS stud y are in the appendix. used to 13. The mathematical model was next alternative evaluate each of the second series of produced in transportation systems whic h had been referred to the systems specification exercise to factors above. Consideration was then given with in the whic h could not be ta ken into acco unt of each mod el; such as the operational feasibility th e and use system and its likely effect on land nstra e environment. This evaluation of alternativ 5. portation systems is described in Chapter
•
SHR EW SBURY
•
BIRMIN GHA M
0 10 20 JO AO .SO
miles
Fig. 1. The Location of the Stud y Area .
LAN CASHIRE COUNTY COUN CIL
llICJ G
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCI L
[:J
COUN TY BOROUGH COUN CIL Not to scale
Stud y Area. Fig. 2 . . The Local Auth oriti es in the
9
NTHE BROAD TRANSPORTATION PLA Sum mar y of Prop osal s systems had 14. After the evaluation of alternative n Plan, tatio spor been completed, a Broad Tran publ ic and comprising complementary high way . This ted selec transport netw orks for 1984 , was map d folde the recommended Plan is show n on is It rt. repo in the pock et at the back of this the of ents elem estimated that the cost of those h wou ld be recommended high way netw ork whic is abou t et chargeable against the Stud y budg high way r majo £211 M. The total cost of all the costing each sche mes -tha t is to say schemes Plan , the in ded more than £0·2 5M- whic h are inclu to unts amo et, and whic h are chargeable to the budg way high ated £186 M. The balance of the estim ances of netw ork cost is made up of lump sum allow oveimpr r mino £20M for traffic management and ity prior bus local ment schemes, and of £5M for schemes on the high way netw ork. includes a 15. The recommended railw ay netw ork ons in Stati ria tunn el between Piccadilly and Victo inter osed prop central Manchester, with three t, Stree cess Prin mediate underground stati onsrethe nd et-a Stre Albe rt Square and Mark et link betw een establishment and electrification of a The netw ork Fold. Bolto n and Radcliffe via Bradley ovem ent impr and wou ld also invol ve the upgrading oveImpr . lines of thirteen existing suburban railw ay ision prov the de ments proposed for these lines inclu rated feeder of more frequ ent train services and integ build ings, n tatio s · bus routes, the modernisation of parking car of te, the provision, wher e appropria access bus r feede t acco mmo datio n at stations, direc works. l signa and to stations and all necessary track services are 16. The Plan's main proposals for bus railw ay aded upgr for their integ ratio n with the for the ved reser s system. Two busw ays- high way are these ded; inclu exclusive use of buse s-ar e also to ter ches Man the the Trafford Park Busw ay to link Park ord Traff the Altrin cham railw ay line with line busw ay industrial estate, and the Buxt on the eastern with n linkin g . Hazel Grove statio mmended reco also is It boun dary of the stud y area. busw ay a ing uard that the · poss ibility of safeg corri dor l trave ley Lang align men t in the Ring way/ tion. shou ld receive furth er considera a passenger 17. The Stud y evaluated the benefits of chester. Man al centr in conv eyor (travelator) system such a t abou ed reach No final conc lusio n was enger pass that d idere system, altho ugh it was cons and er furth that and fits conveyors had potential ben.e the on d ante warr were more detailed studies of them nal notio A far. so uced basis of the results prod r enge pass ible poss a for allow ance of £5M was made conveyor system . 10
the reco m18. The total infrastructure cost of estimated at mended publ ic transport netw ork is ed for bus abou t £41 M, exclusive of the £5M allow ork. The netprior ity measures in the high way netw expenditure work wou ld also invol ve a substantial on new publ ic transport rollin g stock. porta tion 19. The estimated cost of all the trans is: Plan d Broa the in nded mme infrastructure reco £M 211 High way Netw ork 41 ork Netw t spor Public Tran
grow th, it is social values and uncertain econ omic m whic h syste tion porta trans inevitable that the not be could 1984 in area the wou ld best serve ugh altho , then re befo much posit ively iden tified its rds towa s ation oxim appr increasingly accurate g venin inter the g durin . made defin ition coul d be those for ance guid ides prov yea rs. Thus the Plan whic h must decisions abou t transport investment it will not but efutur diate be made in the imme
of infor ma necessarily form the best possible basis be taken in tion for other decisions whic h must problem the later years. In order to overcome this g basis so Plan shou ld be updated on a cont inuin for decision as to provide the best possible guid ance ions of the making in the futur e. The recommendat g trans Technical Control Team for a cont inuin ained in porta tion plan ning process are cont Chapter 8.
£252 M coul d all be This total cost implies that the proposals nditure expe of rate the at 1984 t comp leted by abou y. Stud assumed by the Plan's major 20. The folde d map show s that the ipal sub princ the link to high way proposals serve to the and r othe each to centres of the region, both that s show also It m. national moto rway syste t mos in for ed cater are potential high way trips l radia in certa than r othe major travel corridors core of the corridors of move men t to the central to provide c alisti unre be ld regio n-wh ere it wou The rail trips. car ntial pote high way capacity for all r hand, othe the on m, syste based publ ic transport the rds towa ted orien is show n to be stron gly llent exce ide prov ld wou central Manchester area. It and wou ld accessibility to and with in this centre for whic h ts men move l radia cater primarily for those in the osed prop not is extensive high way provision Plan proposed in 21. It is thou ght that the netw orks integrated fully the Plan wou ld provide a in the area y stud transportation system for the ance guid uate adeq 1980 s and that the Plan provides also is It ions. decis for transportation investment be ld wou m syste considered that the recommended t ifican sign uce prod ld operationally feasible and wou car asing incre ly benefits in a climate of rapid ly underowne rship . It should, however, be clear sign ifice redu to ely stood that the system is unlik ral gene the on n estio cantly the level of traffi c cong er Furth s. 1980 the by purpose high way system any ify spec to ible more, it wou ld not be poss with in th e transport system whic h coul d do this et. The budg t tmen constraint of a realistic inves Plan is n tatio spor Tran selection of the Broad n of riptio desc iled deta a described in Chapter 6 and 7. ter the Plan is contained in Chap solut ion to 22. The Plan is thou ght to be the best in 1984 exist t the transport problems whic h migh lems or prob these as far as it is possible to forecast te of clima a in , their solut ions in 1971 . However ging chan n, vatio expanding tech nolo gical inno 11
CHAPTER TWO
The Study Area
13
CHAPTER TWO- THE STUDY AREA INTRODUCTION 23. Figure 1 shows the SELN EC study area in a national context. The area contains the county boroughs of Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford and Stockport, together with all or parts of 55 other local authorities in the admini strative counties of Cheshire and Lancashire, as shown in Figure 2. 24. The SELN EC conurbation and the Merseyside conurbation together form the major urban settlements of north west England . Bounded by the Pennines to the north and east and by the Lancashire and Cheshire green belts to the west and south, the SELNEC conurbation houses some 2! million people. The study area corresponds broadly to that of the conurbation and covers an area of 413 square miles. Within this area live the large majority of people who travel daily to work in central Manchester. However, because the present settlement pattern has emerged from the growth of a number of separate industrial towns, rather than simply from the expansion of Manchester, there are many important centres of employment dispersed throughout the conurbation . 25. While the urban form of the study area has been to some extent moulded by natural features and topographical constraints such as the height of the undeveloped land to the east of the area, and the attractiveness and ease of development of the north Cheshire plain, there is no unifying element dictating the shape of the area's development. Far more important in determining the form of the region's growth has been its industrial history, itself influenced by such physical features as the availability of water and coal as well as by the mechanical innovations developed in the area in the early days of the industria l revolution. With the development of the ra ilways and the Manchester Ship Canal came the industrial development east and west of the regional centre, in Gorton, Openshaw and Trafford Park, which still have the greatest concentrations of manufacturing employment (see Figure 3).
POPULATION 26. While the total population of the study area has not changed significantly since 1931, the geographical extent of residential development has increased and the movement of population within the area has been considerable. Using the freedom that car ownership gives to establish journey patterns away from the traditional radial public transport ro utes, people have moved progressively further from the centres of employment in order to live in the low density suburbs developed since the 1930s. This suburban development has been most extensive to the south of Manchester. In general it has taken place around long-established towns or villages, so that the open space pattern is largely a
function of the residual land. The chief exception is the flood plain of the River Mersey which has inhibited residential development in an east/west band south of Manchester. 27. The main period of population growth in the study area was in the second half of the nineteenth century. Between 1841 and 1901 the population more than doubled, to a total of about 2路1 million (see Figure 4). After this the rate of growth decreased and in 1931 the population had stabilised at a total of about 2! million. The momentum of economic growth had been lost as the area's traditional activities, textiles and engineering in particular, faced unfavourable economic changes. A high level of outward migration coupled with a low level of natural increase prevented a significant population growth in the period after 1931. The resulting stable condition has been maintained throughout recent decades with no radical changes in the population level of the study area as a whole. Since 1961 signs of a slight upward movement in the population have been evident; largely the result of a reduced net outward migration rate. 28. While the high rate of population growth fell off in the 1920s, physical expansion continued at a ,' high rate, particularly in the south of the area. The 路 demand for higher space standards in housing, the redevelopment of congested urban areas, and the ' increased use of the motor vehicle combined to encourage this population movement. That this movement to the suburbs is associated with car ownership may be seen by comparing the diagram of car ownership per 1,000 people (Figure 5) with 路 the population density diagram (Figure 6) in the southern suburban section of the study area, where most of the low density residential develop ment has occurred. Figure 5 also shows the . relationship between car ownership per 1,000 people and the high household income in this part of the area. 29. The present population is some 2路6 million and the distribution of this total between the major authorities is shown in Table 1 : 52% is accom modated in the seven county boroughs; the remaining 55 authorities account for 48%. The largest of the county boroughs, Manchester, which houses nearly a quarter of the area's population, is the focal point of an arc of large towns extending from Leigh through Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham and Ashton - under-Lyne to Stockport. Contiguous with Manchester is the county borough of Salford; these two authorities, with Stretford, form the central core of the conurbation . Of the other local authorities the following have populations of between 40,000 and 60,000: Altrincham , Cheadle and Gatley, Eccles, Middleton, Sale, Swinton and Pendlebury, Urmston and Worsley. 15
4·o------
70
60
50
3·0
Great Britian Po pu l a l i o n
/
":"M i I li ons
SELNEC
40
Popu lotion
/
v. .......
-M i l l ions
VP
30
2·0
20
v
vv
.. .. .·· . ... ··
.. .. .. . . 1·0 - - - - - - 0 .... 1841 51 61
71
/
.. ..
81
.·· .....
...
~
,.,,.,-
v
~
/ Ii"
... .. .......
..... .. .. ,•
_.
~.
91
19 01
11
21
31
41
51
61 66
Great Britain ••••• • •••••• SELNEC Study Area Fig. 4.
Population Growth: Gt. Britain and the SELNEC Study Area.
TABLE 1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION BY LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY, 1965/66
AUTHOR ITY
Bolton C.B.
5,000-10,000 1,000-5,000
81,755
63,843
31.485
Manchester C.B .
403,845
Oldham C.B.
111,370
38.486
86,953
42.483
Salford C.B.
148,261
62,096
Stockport C.B.
140,165
68,094
Rochda le C.B.
More than 10,000
157,682
EMPLOYMENT
631,140
Bury C.B .
Employees per sq. mile
POPULATION
Lancashire C.C.
865,987 *
411,529 *
Cheshire C.C.
390.400*
125,507 *
Less than 1,000 Total
Fig. 3.
2,595,801
1,265,280
Distribution of Manufacturin g Employment, 1965/66. * County figures relate only to those parts of the counties which are in the SELNEC study area.
17
Mean income by household ÂŁ p.a.
Fig. 5.
Cars per thousand population
1500 1200
250 200
900 600
150
Persons/sq. mile More than 12,800 9,600- 12,800 6,400- 9,600
300
100 50
3,200- 6,400
0
0
Less than 3,200
Distribution of Car Ownership and Annual Income, 1965/66. Fig. 6.
18
Population Density, 1965/66.
19
dustries. Between 1959 and 1965 textiles lost 43,000 jobs and mining nearly 10,000.
30. While there have been only marginal changes in population in the area as a whole in the last few decades, significant changes have occurred within \ it in the form of population shifts between con - \ ~ stituent authorities. The movement from the inner ¡. areas of the large towns to the outer fringes has , continued, and on a greater scale there has been a ¡ significant movement to the south of the region , in particular to the areas in an arc from Altrincham to '.: / M arple. For example, the increase in population 1 between 1951 and 1966 in the area between •1 Altrincham and Stockport was over 20%. The population of Bury and adjacent areas increased by nea rly 10% over the same period, largely because of planned migration into the Heywood area. Else wh ere local authorities have experienced population losses or only small changes. Manchester has shown the largest decline since 1951, with a nett loss of over 60,000 as a result of high levels of voluntary an d planned migration, the latter because of extensive redevelopment. Virtually all the other older urban Leigh, Bolton, centres- Ashton - under-Lyne, Stretford-have and Salford Rochdale, Oldham, shown marked decreases in population . Of the larger centres only Bury has had a significant increase, while the population of Stockport has remained nearly stable. In general, population loss in recent years is a characteristic of the western, northern, and eastern parts of the area, except where planned migration or consolidation of development has ta ke:i place to distort this trend.
j I
EM PLOYM ENT
31. The study area contains one of the oldest industrial regions in the world. Based on textiles, coal and engineering, a complex of basic industry w as established during the industrial revolution. The characteristics of this industrial history continue to exert an important influence on the area, which still has a relatively high proportion of its employment engaged in manufacturing industry. Of the total labour force, over 50% work in manufacturing com pared with a national figure of 38%. Conversely the area has a lower proportion of its labour force in service industry; about 47% against 57% nationally. The present industrial and employment patterns in the study area are dominated by two factors: f irst, the decline of the industries which initially formed the economic base of the region- textiles and coalmining- second, t he diversification of traditional manufact uring industries due to modern economic conditions and government policies. These factors have an important bearing on the main trends which are current in the employment patterns of the area :
Employees per sq. mile More than 25,000
5.000-25,000 3,000- 5,000
(i) a decline in the manufacturing sector of employment in favour of a corres ponding rise in service employment;
1,000-3,000 Less than 1,000
Fig. 7.
20
Distribution of Total Employment, 1965/66.
(ii) within the manufacturing sector, a sustained and inordinate loss of employm ent in the 'traditional' in -
SELNEC differs from many other conurbations in having strong centres of employment- Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport and Trafford Park- dispersed well away from the conurbation centre. (See Table 1 and Figure 7). Traditionally, Manchester was the commercial centre of an encircling ring of other manufacturing towns, each possessing its own specialist trades. To a large extent this condition has persisted and still dictates the general distribution of employment types. The result is that Manchester has become a commercial and administrative centre of international importance, but the outlying towns remain greatly dependent on manufacturing industry.
32.
33. Manchester is a dominant source of employ ment in the service sector. Over 60% of jobs in the city are in services, accounting for 40% of service employment in the study area as a whole. The distribution of retail employment, unlike that of manufacturing employment, has a marked concentration in central Manchester, although the other county boroughs are important shopping centres. 34. The encircling towns, while acting as impor tant local service centres, are basically industrial. All except Salford and Stretford are heavily committed to traditional industry, particularly textiles in Rochdale, Oldham, Ashton-under- Lyne and Leigh. Leigh and neighbouring districts are also strongly associated with coalmining, while Bolton, Bury and Stockport have a more diverse economic base. Salford and Stretford are greatly dependent on the Trafford Park industrial estate and the adjacent Manchester Docks complex, while the smaller authorities tend to share the characteristics of the nearest major urban centre.
INCOME
35. The diagram of household income distribution (Figu re 5) shows how the higher income groups have moved furthest from the regional core, mainly to the southern part of the study area, between Altrincham and Marple, and also to the TottingtonTurton area north of Bury and Bolton. This diagram indicates clearly how the higher income groups have moved away from the heavily built - up and congested areas which, paradoxically, require the greatest local investment to solve their housing and traffic problems. The number of households within various income ranges in 1965/66 over the whole study area is shown in Table 2.
T RANSPORTA TION SYSTEM
36. The network of roads of traffic significance which existed in the base year of the Study (1965/ 21
taken as the total width of highwa y available for vehicular moveme nt in both directions exclusive of footway s, medians and verges. Figure 9 shows approximate journey times by car to central Manchester during the morning peak in 1966.
66) 1s shown in Figure 8. This network consists of nearly one thousand miles of roads, many of which date from or before the time of the industrial revolutio n ; relatively few links have been added to the network since then. The section of the M62/ M63 between Stretford and Worsley was the only motorw ay in the area during the base year of the Study althoug h a number of lengths of motorw ay and motorw ay type roads have been opened since 1966.
38. The SELN EC area is served by extensive public transport facilities and almost all the roads shown in Figure 8 carry one or more bus routes . Bus services are also operated on some minor routes not shown in the figure. The base year (1966) railway network is shown in Figure 10. Estimated morning peak journey times to central Manchester in 1966 by public transport- fastest route by bus or by train or by both- are shown in Figure 11 .
37 . Table 3 shows the compos ition of the base year highwa y network by route type, and Table 4 shows its percentage compos ition by mean carriage way width. In Table 4 the carriageway width is
TABLE 2 HOUSEH OLD INCOME , 1965/ 66 NUMBER OF HOUSEH OLDS
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL HOUSEH OLDS
£1,000 £1,000-£ 1,499 £1 ,500-£ 1,999 £2,000- £2,499 £2,500 or more
5 33,532 230,588 93,255 35,621 22,776
58·2 25 ·2 10·2 3 ·9 2 ·5
Total
915,772
100·0
RANGE OF ANNUAL INCOME Less th an
TABLE 3 OF ROUTE COMPO SITION OF 1965/ 66 HIGHWA Y NETWO RK BY TYPE ROUTE MILEAGE
HIGHWA Y TYPE
% OF TOTAL NETWORK
MILEAG E
904
94·6
Dual Carri ageway Ro ad with Unrestric ted Access
29
3 ·0
On e-W ay Street (Includin g Motorwa y Access Ramp)
17
1 ·8
6
0·6
956
100·0
Sin gle Carriag ew ay Two -Way Ro ad
Motorwa y or Restricted Acc ess Road Total
TABLE 4 OF CARRIA GEWAY COMPO SITION OF 1965/ 66 HIGHWA Y NETWO RK BY WIDTH CARRIAG EWAY WIDTH RANGE Less th an 11 '
11 '- 15' 16'- 20' 21'- 25' 26'- 30' 31 '- 3 5' 36'-40' 41'- 45' 4 6'- 50' 51 '-55' 56'- 60' More th an 60'
% OF TOTA L NETWORK MILEAGE 0 ·2 0 ·2 7 ·8 27-4 27 ·3
Fig. 8.
The Study Area Highw ay Netwo rk in 1966.
16·0 11 ·8 5 ·2 3 ·0 0 ·7 0 ·2 0 ·2
23
22
~-
-
-
-
..--. /
..;- , / STU&&I N S
I
fU,MS&OT TOM
I
I
.;:
'I
I
I
I
.
\. ,
/
I
. ......
.....
\
)
llTTLE&O~UGtl /
,,,-·-...... ../ I
i
·. . .
\ \
' -·I
/
.....
.
_
.,.,,,.,,,,,,,,·
_, .,,,,,,·
( )
{
'"
/ ./
\
I I
i
1.
I
, ...... ., .. '-::;...+-------~..
\
TYl..OESLfY
I
\
\
LEIGH
' ·-·- ,_..-,_...,. ..-- · -·,
N
I .'"\ ·-·-
Cl)
j •.J
......
·'
H A. LE
..... ..... _ ,,,....
'· '.
Passenger Lines
Journey Time in Minutes
Fig. 9.
'·
I
'·
-- - - -
Freight Lines
--- - -
Lines Closed or Schedulf!d for Closure
-·-·-·
Study Area Boundary
/
/
-·"'
. _/
Journey Time in Minutes
0
10
m!!!llll!lillllllD
31
35
11
15
!j:.'.lf°7·~)\}51
36
40
IIIIJ
16
20
W////114
41
45
1111111111111
21
26
@l!ll\1!111!111 1
46
50
m1111111111111
26
30
51
55
11
'· ...... .....
Fig. 10.
The Study Area Railway Network in 1966.
Journey Times to central Manchester by car in the morning peak period, 1965/66.
25 24
,' I
,·-.-·
."!
/
I ,
,/
I R.4MS80TTO M
/ '
I \
SUMMERSEAT
\
'·
-·
-·-·.,,,,,,.
I
,,,-·-..... _,, I
i
I
...... .....
I
I
I
/
i ,_..
SH AW i
/
]'.
'
\
) .......
........~------~'.-
';'
'
i
./
' ...
I
\
.,,,.,,
( ......
CRO MPTON
.
.
..,,,,,.· ..,,'-·-
~ )
&ROAOFIELD
,.i
)
LITTt..E&OROUGti /
TYLO E SLEV
I
i
L EIGH
'-
' ·-·-·-·-1., _.dl'*·-·,
N
I ·-·-."'\
.i
CD
,J
..... ·'
....
~:- . -
...,,,.-·,
'<:-,:--
.......
'· '· '· ...... ..... '·
Passe nger Li nes
Journey Time in Minutes
Freig h t Li nes
--- - -
Lines Closed or Schedu l j!d fo r Cl ;,sure
10
m1111111111111111a
31
35
IJ [I I I I I J
11
15
l!>:;;~.)\'tSI
36
40
16
20
W/////14
41
45
Dlllllllllll
21
26
0111111111111111
46
50
m1111111111111
26
30
!f
51
55
[
Fig. 9.
I
Study Area Boundary
~·
......I
Sca lt
. _,.,,
--==----==~--~==
Mi ln
,...·
Journey Time in Minutes
0
[
'·
-- - - -
-·-·-·
'·
Fig . 10. The Study Area Ra il way Network in 1966.
Journey Times to central Manchester by car in the morning peak period, 1965/66.
25 24
FOR ECASTS FOR THE 1980s 39. The mathematical model of travel behaviour sim ulates the performance of alternative trans portation systems in terms of the service which they would offer to future residents of the study area. Thus, in order to use the model to investigate ] alternative solutions to the transport problems of the \ 1980s, it was first necessary to forecast some of the .! chara cteristics of the population which might i inhabit the area by then. The principal information requ ired to use the model consists of forecasts of 1 popu lation, car ownership, employment, and school) I attendance for each of 322 sub-divisions of the area known as analysis zones. 40. Forecasts of this information were made first for the whole study area and the figures were then broken down into the analysis zones. This approach ensured that any inaccuracies appearing in the more detailed forecasts would not distort the overa ll figures. Population and employment were not forecast independently; population forecasts were derived from the employment forecasts on the assu mption that, in the long run, population follows econ omic opportunity. In this connection the difficulties of forecasting at a sub -regional levelformi dable enough even at a national level-should be borne in mind. 41.
The total number of jobs in the study area is
mining and manufacturing industries, while employment in service industries is predicted to increase marginally. This shift in the emphasis of the employment structure is repeated in trends found in most advanced industrial countries. 42. The changes in employment reflect to some extent the dispersal of population from the inner suburbs to the outer development areas (see Figures 12 and 13), and the decline of long established industries in areas such as Leigh, Farnworth and Ashton (see Figures 13 and 14). The very large decrease in employment in south and east inner Manchester, totalling 23,000 jobs, has also been influenced by redevelopment and the re-location of the older industries. 43. The population of the study area is forecast to increase by about 112,000 between 1965 and 1981, although in the context of a 2t million total this represents only a very small change-about 4%. Figure 12 shows that the forecast changes of population are far from uniform. Increases occur towards the edges of the study area where there is still land available for development, while quite substantial decreases occur close to the regional core. These decreases are generally attributable to the redevelopment of inner residential areas at much lower density. 44.
Car ownership estimates for 1981 and 1984
expected to fall slightly between 1965 and 1981-
were derived by the mathematical model. This
from 1.26M to 1 路24M. As a smaller proportion of people are likely to be going to work, however, the population is expected to rise slightly. The resultant effect of a larger population being supported by a smaller work force arises mainly from the fact that a larger proportion of the population will be receiving advanced education and also because of earlier retireme nt and longer life expectancy. The bulk of the forecast decrease in employment occurs in the
was tjone by forecasting the likely growth in income throughout the area, by zone, and then predicting car ownership levels using known income/car ownership relationships. Table 5 shows the estimated number of households in each of three car ownership categories-no car, one car and more than one car-for 1965/66, 1981 and 1984. Table 6 summarises other main characteristics of the study area for the same years.
TABLE 5 CAR OWNERSHIP BY HOUSEHOLD, 1965/ 66, 1981 AND 1984
Journey Time in Minutes
Journey Time in Minutes
0
10
ti.,- . ' .~ ..I
36
40
I I I1 [I I I I 11
11
15
~
41
45
16
20
i ll I1111111 , 11111
46
50
a1111 111 1111
21
25
iJ:::
51
55
Ellllllllllllll
26
30
1111111111111111111
31 - 35
11
1965/6 6
1981
1984
Households with no car
582,463
280,600
231,200
Households with one car
300,788
447, 300
448,100
32,521
199,900
248,500
Households with more than one car
56 and over
Fig . 11. Journey Times to central Manchester by public transport in the morning peak period, 1965/66. 27
26
Fig. 13. Foreca st Total Change s Employ ment 1965/6 6 to 1981.
Fig. 12.
Foreca st Popula tion Change s 1965/6 6 to 1981. TABLE 6
STUDY AREA CHARAC TERISTI CS, 1965/ 66, 1981 AND 1984 1965/66 (RECORDED DATA)
1981 (FORECAST DATA)
1984 (FORECAST DATA)
412·7
Area (square miles) 2,595,801
2,708,00 0
6,287
6,500
£1,071
£1,900
£2,100 *
369,417
847,000
945,000 *
895
2,000
2,300 *
142·3
315
350 *
36-4
70
75 *
1,265,28 0
1,238,00 0
3,066
3,000
Total Retail Employment
131,191
125,300
Total Manufact uring Employment
634,715
596,000
Total Population Population per square mile Mean Annual Household Income at 1966 level of money value Total Cars Cars per square mile Cars per 1,000 Population
% of Households Owning Cars Total Employed Persons Total jobs per square mile
NOT FORECAST
Fig. 14. Foreca st ManuEmploy ment facturi ng Changes 1965/6 6 to 1981.
NOT FORECAST
*Assumin g 1981 Population .
29 28
CHAPTER THREE
Th e Study Method
31
CHAPTER THREE-THE STUDY METHOD FIELD SURVEYS 45. A home interview survey was undertaken in t he spring of 1966 to establish the trip -making characteristics of a sample of the households in the study area . This survey, and all other basic data collection and field surveys, was carried out by consulting engineers-Messrs. W. S. Atkins and Pa rtners . The home interview survey produced information about 25,000 individual households in the study area: a sample rate of approximately 3%. Members of each sampled household were asked to provide information such as the number of members, how many were employed, the total household income and the number of cars owned by the household or available for their use. Information was also obtained about the particular trips which had been made on a designated 'travel day'. This info rmation included details of the mode- car, tra in, bus, etc., purpose- work, school, shopping, etc., and the times and places at which the trips had started and finished. 46. The numbers of daily and peak trips were related to the household characteristics; for this purpose all sampled households were allocated to one of 108 categories consisting of six household structure ranges-number of members and number of employed members-six annual household income ranges and three car ownership (or availability) ranges- no car, one car and more than one car. 47. The 1966 data collection phase of the Study included a commercial vehicle survey in which a samp le of the commercial vehicle operators in the area were asked for details of the trips made by their vehicles on a designated 'travel day'. Information was also obtained about trips made into and within the area by non-residents; this was collected in an external cordon survey which involved operating roadside interview stations on all roads crossi ng the study area boundary. At these stations a sample of vehicle drivers were stopped and asked to provide information about their trips, and bus passeng ers were issued with questionnaire forms. Railway passengers too were issued with question naires on all lines running into the SELNEC area. 48. These field surveys provided information which, when factored up and corrected for sampling errors, described the existing travel patterns of the study area.
THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF TRAVEL BEHAVIO UR 49. From the information gained in the field surveys it was possible to develop a mathematical model of the trip-making patterns of the area. Following the example of other transportation
studies this process was broken down into the four main stages (or sub-models) illustrated in Figure 15: (i) generation ; (ii) distribution; (iii) modal split; (iv) assignment. The structure of the SELN EC model is very similar to that used in other studies, although several innovations were introduced into the sub-models. Each of the sub-models had first to be adjusted (or calibrated) to reproduce the existing patterns of trip-making by comparing its outputs with the field surveys. Having demonstrated this capability, it was then possible to run the complete sequence of sub-models in a forecasting mode by adjusting the inputs (basically the land use patterns) to test alternative transportation plans.
TRIP GENERATION 50. The first requirement was to estimate the number of trips generated by each zone in the study area . This was done by estimating the number of households which existed in the base year in each of the 1 08 categories described previously, and determining the number of trips that they generated. Information about future household structure was obtained from the planning forecasts described in Chapter 2. The forecasts of the growth in income level~ to the 1980s were obtained from government sources, and car ownership estimates were inferred by reference to income/car ownership relationships derived from the surveys. Having collected this information it was then possible, by assuming a constancy of trip-making characteristics in each household category, to calculate the number of trips that may be generated in the 1980s. The second requirement was to estimate the number of trips attracted to each zone in the study area. This was done in a similar way using employment and educational attendance forecasts. Thus it was possible to estimate the total number of trips that would originate and terminate in each analysis zone in 1981 and 1984.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION 51. The number of trips between any two zones may be estimated for each journey purpose from a series of mathematical expressions which relate total interzonal trips to: (i) the trips generated in the origin zone (see paragraph 50); (ii) the trips attracted to the destination zone (see paragraph 50) ; (iii) the cost of travelling from origin to destination. 33
Ii
MODAL SPLIT Trip Generation
Trip Oistribut ion
Modal Split
Network
of Trips
De sc riptions '
Assignment of Trips to Network s
Capacity Restraint of Networks
54. Having estimated the number of person trips between each pair of zones the next stage of a model run is modal split-the determination of how many trip -makers would use private cars and how many would use public transport. Trip -makers from the 36 non -car owning household categories are assumed to have no choice of mode and thus to be ca ptive public transport users. For other trip -makers - that is to say those from car owning householdsthe modal split sub-model operates separately for ea ch journey purpose and separate runs are made for the peak and off-peak time periods. It estimates the ratio of car to public transport users for the journey from one zone to another on the basis of the difference in perceived cost between the two modes of travel, and on the recorded behaviour of travellers fac ed with a comparable choice during the base yea r of the Study. The number of people from car own ing households that is forecast by the distribution sub-model to make each possible journey is divided by the modal split sub-model into those w ho would travel by car and those who would use pu blic transport.
System Evaluation
The Main Stages of the Mathematica l Model.
If, for example, we consider work trips from house holds in any particular zone to places of employment in any other zone, the number of such trips will be dependent on the number and the characteristics of households in the origin zone, the number and the characteristics of jobs in the destination zone, and the cost of travel between the two zones. It is important to note that the cost of travel has two components in the model : direct costs such as petrol and parking charges or public transport fares, plus an indirect cost equal to the value which the trip-maker places on the time required to make the journey. For example, it can be shown that people travelling to work generally behave as though they value their time at about one -third of their income rate; although time spent in ce rtain activities, such as waiting at a bus stop, appears to be valued at about two-thirds of income rate . 52. It is also important to note that it is the traveller's own perception of travel costs which condition his behaviour. For instance, direct costs fo r trips by car are perceived by car owners to be the costs of petrol and wear and tea r only, and it is these costs which are used in the behavioural model. Other motoring costs, such as fixed overheads and depreciation, are apparently not considered by most motorists when deciding whether to make any particular journey and are not therefore considered in the model. They are, however, introduced at a later stage of the analysis when the ben efits of t he
34
57. Having completed the highway capacity restraint procedure the final calculated link speeds will probably differ from the original estimates used in the determination of travel costs at the distribution and modal split stages of the model run. It is therefore necessary to repeat the whole procedure of distribution, modal split, assignment, and capacity restraint until overall stability is achieved . One important result of th is is that it enables the effect of public transport improvements to be allowed for in decreased congestion costs to road users. The resultant cyclic nature of the modelling process is shown in Figure 15.
GOODS MOVEMENT ASS IGNMENT
Fig. 15.
traffic volume for all types of road . From these curves the initial assumed speed on each link in the network, and hence the perceived cost of using it, is adjusted to correspond with its forecast traffic flow. The assignment and speed adjustment processes can then be repeated until stable results are achieved . The procedure of adjusting highway speeds until they are consistent with assigned traffic volumes is known as capacity restraint.
transportation system are considered . Similarly th e trip-maker's own evaluation of his travel tim e, although used in the behavioural model, is not th e same as the accepted value of his time to th e community and correction must be made for thi s at the evaluation stage. 53 . The distribution sub -model determines the number of people travelling between each possible pair of zones, for each of four 'purposes'-to and from work, to and from education, from and to home for any purpose other than work or education, and non-home based trips (i.e. trips which neither begin nor end at the trip maker's home) - in each of two time periods-peak and off-peak. The distribution model distinguishes between trips made by persons from car owning and non -car owning households. It is assumed for the purpose of the model that the total number of trips made will depend only on the forecast characteristics of the study area- population, employment, etc.- bu t that the distribution of these trips within the area depends also on the cost of travel between each possJ ble pair of zones, wh ich, in turn , is conditiona l on t l1e characteristics of the transportation system. Consequently it is necessary to perform the distribution exercise and all subsequent stages of the model for each alternative transportation system tested . The complete evaluation of a transpo rtatio n system involving all stages of the model (i.e. each sub -model) is called a 'model run '.
55. The modal split sub -model provides estimates of t he number of person trips made by car and by public transport between each pair of zones for each jou rney purpose and t ime period. The assignment sub- model uses these to forecast vehicular flows on the roads constituting the highway network and passenger flows on the bus and train routes of the public transport network. Coded descriptions of the high way and public transport networks are used in the model to determine minimum cost routes between each possible pair of zones, and traffic flows on individual roads are then determined by the accumulation of the trip volumes assigned to each route. The highway and public transport networks are cod~d separately. Car, goods vehicle, and bus trips are assigned to the highway network after the conversion of trips by heavy vehicles into passenger car units (p.c.u.)-a measure of their impedance to general traffic flow in terms of an equivalent number of cars. Person trips by bus and tra in are assigned to the public transport network. Thus ca r and goods vehicle trips are modelled to occur only on the highway network, and railway trips occ ur only on the public transport network, but bus trips occur both as person trips on the public transport network and as p.c.u. trips on the highway network. 56. Having produced forecasts of traffic flows on the high w ay network it is necessary to ensure that, on each link of the network, these flows are consistent w ith t he speeds assumed for the purpose of producing initial travel cost estimates for the distribution model. This is done by reference to speed/flow curves which relate mean speed to
58. The procedures described above provide estimates of the use to which a transportation system might be put in carrying people by both public and private modes of travel. However, any transportation system must provide for the movemen_t of goods. The simulation of goods movement must therefore be .included in the modelling process so as to measure the benefits to goods movement of improved transportation systems, and to take account of the effect of goods movement on the system capacity available for person movements. 59 . It was not possible to undertake a complete study of goods movement in the area during the data collection phase of the Study as field surveys in this connection were confined to the commercial vehicle survey and the external cordon su rvey. No attempt was made, therefore, to develop a complete freight model and the following simplifying assump tions were made: (i) that railway freight movements on lines used by passenger trains in the 1980s will not exceed 1966 levels. In other words, all the railway passenger networks evaluated by the Study for the 1980s could be operated with the level of railway goods movements which existed in the base year; (ii) that total commercial vehicle use will continue to increase at the same rate as at present ; (iii) that goods movements other than those by road and rail can be ignored for the purposes of the Study. 35
11
I!
II
II
I
,I
60. An analysis of existing commercial vehicle growth trends indicated possible increases of 43% in goods vehicle movements by 1981, and 53% by 1984. Base year commercial vehicle trips were factored accordi ngly to produce estimates for the 1980s. These estimates we re converted to p.c.u. and included in the total trips assigned to the highwa y network in each model run .
EVALU ATION OF TRANS PORTA TION SYSTE MS 61. Having achieved overall stability between the distribu tion, modal split and assignment stages of the model, the final output, in the form of forecast loads on the highwa y and public transpo rt network s, was used as the basis of operational evaluation for each system. Operational evaluation involves the examination- by highwa y engineers and public transport operato rs-of proposed network s and the traffic volumes assigned to them in order to assess operational feasibility. 62. Howeve r, althoug h a system which is not operatio nally feasible would plainly not benefit future inhabitants of the area, the benefits which might arise from a feasible system cannot be estimated from operational evaluation alone. It is therefore necessary to compa re systems on some other basis. The last stage of a model run is the calculation of the benefits which would result from any particular transportation system. The calculation of these benefits must relate to a fixed base situation , and for this purpose a 'base transportation system for econom ic evaluation' was specified . The high way compon ent of this base transportation system consisted of all highway s which existed in 1966 (see Figure 8) plus all committ ed highway s- Le. proposed highwa y schemes which, because they are already under constru ction or about to be, w ill inevitab ly be built irrespective of the outcom e of the Study. The base highwa y network for econom ic evaluation (networ k code number H5) is illustrated in Figure 16. In the case of public transport, no major facilities were committ ed before or during the Study and the base public transport network for econom ic evaluation (networ k code number RO) was identical with the network which actually existed in 1966 (see paragraph 38 and Figure 10) . 63. The econom ic evaluation procedure employed in the Study used the first year rate of return as a measure of the comparative benefits of alternative transportation systems for the 1980s. This method predicts the rate of return- net annual benefit expressed as a percentage of capital cost- which a system might produce in its first yea r of full operation. This enables a ranking order to be established for the alternatives considered. It is importa nt to note that the benefits and rates of return produced are annual figures for the 1980s and are relative to the situation which would exist at that time if no improvements, other than those
36
which are already committ ed , were made to the present day transportation system. 64. One model run in each series of tests was devoted to the determination of the travel patterns which might occur in the 1980s on the base transportation system for econom ic evaluation. The comparison of these travel patterns , and the costs associated with them, with the forecast travel patterns and costs associated with proposed new transpo rtation systems enabled the benefits which might result from the new systems to be estimated . In the case of commu nity benefits this was achieved by subtracting each element of highwa y transport, costs-p ubl ic commu nity acci road maintenance, policing , and the cost of same the dents-f rom the corresponding cost, for year, on the base system . User benefits , howeve r, cannot be measured by simple difference between travel costs, as this would not take account of any increased travel opportu nities which the new system might offer. For example , a new road or railway between any two areas would tend to result in an increased number of trips between them . Trip -makers who made this journey before the provision of the new fac ility would each benefit by the reduction in their travel costs which resulted ; but new trip -makers , attracted by the existence of the fa.cility, would receive a smaller benefitapproxi mately half of that enjoyed by the 'origina l' travellers- see Figure 17. 65. A complic ation arises in that the perceive d costs on which people base their trip -makin g behaviour do not accu rately reflect the real resources consumed in making their trips. In Figure 17 pa rt of the benefit does not reflect consum ption of resources but is a transfer of fun ds within the commu nity as a whole- taxatio n and bus fares for instanc e-and this non-res ource element is corrected for at the evaluation stage of a model
..-. I
I
·-
i
-. ....
/
'\.,
I
-· .-.,
I._ .....
I
........ ""' ../. I
.... ,,
•
,1'
N
Cl) / ,,...
i I
'
run.
COMP UTING 66. The develop ment and operation of the type of transport modellin g and evaluation procedu res which are outlined above can be undertaken on ly by using a powerfu l. comput er. The com puter programs which constitu te the model and its associated evaluation procedures link togethe r in a modula r form to produce a continu ous system from the ori ~ ~al listing in the comput er of descript i ons of the .~ ighway and public transport netw orks (networ k coding) to the evaluation stage of th e model run. This modula r form of constru ctio n permits the achievement of maximu m flexibil ity in program running.
- - --
' Major New Roads and Major Improvem ents ( i.e. motorway s, dual carriagew ays, etc .) 1966 Highway Network
-·-·-·-
Sc ale '""-==--
-===- -===-' Milesi
Study Area Boundary
Fig. 16.
The Base Highw ay Netwo rk for Econom ic Evalua tion (H5).
67. The mathematical model of travel behavio ur used in the SELNEC Study and its associat ed suite of compute r programs were developed by th e Mathem atical Advisory Unit (MAU) of th e Depart 37
ment of the Environment. The MAU began their technical involvement in the Study in the spring of 1967 when it was agreed that they would be responsible for the development, calibration and testing of a mathematical model of traffic flows in t he SELNEC area, along with the development of procedures for the economic evaluation of alternative plans.
CO ST SENSITIVITY
68. The behavioural transportation model predicts TRAVEL COST
i
T ::~~~~~~~~~~----~-~~ - - - _.J I I I t 1 1 _J _ _J11 - _ -- -_ -_-_ -_ _ _ -_ -_-_-_- _- _ _ 1
- - - - - - - - - - -
l
____ - - - - - - - - - - -J I I I I I I -
-- -- -
-
- - _ _ _ _ _Ll...J LL.J.J.J..
I I
I I I I
1 I I
I I
I I ~
TRIP VOLU ME
This curve relates the trip volume between any two zones to the cost of travel between them. Suppose that this cost on the base transportation system for economic eva lu ation is 8 1 with trip vo lum e T, and that on the proposed system the cost is B2 and the trip vo lume T2. Users of the proposed system would obtain a benefit- an in crease in consumers' surplu s in economic terms- represented by t he comp lete shaded area in the figure . The value of this benefit is approx im ately (T, T2) ( B, - B2) . The area shaded horizontally represents benefits on the proposed system to trips whic h are common to both the base and proposed systems- these benefits are direct cost sav in gs. The area shaded vertica lly represents the benefits to 'new' trips that previously
t
the way in which people would use any transportation system which might be provided . The model cannot, however, describe the way in which it might be thought that people should use a particular system. For example, the Study has shown that some people prefer driving their own cars, even in congested conditions, to riding on the pu blic transport system, even though the traffic co ngestion might well not exist if these drivers co uld be induced to use public transport. The terms of reference of the Study were restricted to the production of recommendations for investment in new tra nsportation infrastructure (see paragraph 4) and it was assumed throughout that all other factors wh ich condition public use of a transportation system would remain constant. In practice, usage of a system could also be varied by changes in such factors as new legislation or disproportionate cha nges in the cost of travel by any particular mode. A lthough the possible effects of any changes in the lega l, administrative, and pricing procedures which con dition travel behaviour were outside the terms of reference of the Study, it was necessary to examine these factors to the extent of determining their possible influence on infrastructure investment policy.
69. The following conclusions resulted from this examination :
(i) no evidence was found that the recommended infrastructure investment policy would be affected significantly by the variation within any likely range of the costs imposed on travellers; (ii) although it was assumed that inflation would have a uniform effect on all prices and costs used in the Study, there is some evidence that bus operating costs are increasing at a greater rate than other costs, and some analysis was carried out to determine the possible effects of this trend. In the event it was established that bus operating costs up to 20% greater than those used in the Study would have had no effect on the selection of infrastructure for the Broad Transportation Plan ; (iii) the public transport fare revenue figures produced in the Study are extremely tentative and it is not therefore possible to make any reliable forecast about the future commercial viability of the public transport system. However, as the tentative figures produced in the Study indicate some improvement in the viability of public transport, it is at least possible to say that there is no evidence to suggest that the system recommended in the Plan would result in any worsening of the commercial aspects of public transport operation as a whole. Within the public transport sector some commercial the improvement in position of railway operation, at the expense of a reduction in the profitability of bus operation, is forecast.
+
were made to a different destination zone.
Fig. 17.
Transport Demand Curve.
39
38
C HAPTE R
FOUR
Th e Spec ificat ion of Alter nativ e Tran sport ation Syste ms \
41
CHAPTER FOUR- THE SPECIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTAT ION SYSTEMS INTRODUCTION 70. The mathematical model of travel behaviour provides a method of forecasting the performance and benefits of alternative transportation systems. It does not, however, directly specify what the co mponents of these systems should be, and initial network specification must therefore be based on prior knowledge of the study area and its characteristics. 71 . A comprehensive transportation study involves the testing of possible highway and public transport networks against forecast demand . Prior to the Study a great deal of work had been done by the SE LNEC Highway Engineering Committee in establishing a possible future highway network for the study area (see appendix) , but little or no wo rk had been done in connection with specification of possible future public transport networks for the area. It was clearly insufficient to test future public tra nsport networks wh ich had been developed on the assumption that present passenger flows and levels of capital expenditure on public transport, both bus and railway, would continue unchanged; and it was therefore necessary to undertake the specification of possible future public transport networks as a part of the Study.
72. In developing these networks for evaluation it was considered essential to examine the role whi ch an improved public transport system might play in meeting the forecast transport requirements of the area, and it was thus necessary to give some thoug ht to specifying networks which transport operators could not have contemplated within their terms of reference before the formation of the PTE. 73. Because of this need for specialist knowledge of rai l and rapid transit systems, a firm of consultant enginee rs, Messrs. De Leuw, Chadwick, 0 hEocha was appointed to undertake a rail planning study for the area .
THE RAIL PLANNING STUDY (STAGE 1)
I
74. The railway lines which existed in the study area in March, 1968, are shown in Figure 18. The maximum likely passenger demand fo r services on these li nes during the morning peak hour in 1981 was estimated on the basis of the preliminary resu lts of the home interview survey- the mathe matica l model was not available at this stage of the Study. The lines shown in Figure 19 were then selected as a provisional suburban railway network for the 1980s. 75. The selected lines were found to have adequate capacity to handle the calculated maximum likely
passenger demand and, except at a few congested junctions, only relatively minor track improvements would be required. It was assumed that bus services in the area would be re -shaped to act as 'feeders' to the railway system, to eliminate competitive services and to continue to provide services not covered by the railway system. 76. The preliminary basic railway network for the 1980s which was developed on the above basis, was allocated the network code number R1 and consisted of 18 routes operated over 160 miles of line. It was estimated that the capital cost of improved fixed facilities to handle this traffic would be about 拢11 路5M . This included the modernisation of most stations and the provision of facilities for parking and feeder bus services where appropriate. 77 . Additionally, a total of 17 new railway links or routes were investigated during the first stage of the rail planning study. These potential new links included the Ringway to Langley rapid transit line, and the link C route connecting the Altrincham and Bury lines, both of which had been described in the Manchester Area Rapid Transit Study (see appendix). Ten of these new links were found to be physically practicable and had an adequate estimated demand potential to warrant their inclusion in the Study's network evaluation programme. 78. The selected services on existing lines and on new links or routes were assembled into nine alternative networks for further evaluation . These networks (network code numbers R1 to R9) are illustrated and described in Figures 19 to 27.
THE FIRST SERIES OF MODEL RUNS 79. At the time of completion of the first stage of the rail planning study the mathematical model had been developed to a stage where the simulation of peak period work trips and commercial vehicle trips was possible and the evaluation procedures had been developed to a stage which enabled perceived user benefits and commercial vehicle benefits to be determined. This preliminary peak period version of the model was used, in the first model run series, to investigate the alternative public transpo rt networks which had been produced in the first stage of the rail planning study, to test alternative transpo rt systems in the Ringway/ Langley travel corridorthe only major radial corridor of movement to central Manchester which is not served by the existing railway system- and to re-examine the recom mendations of the SELNEC Highway Plan of 1962. 80. Seven runs of the peak period model w ere made in the first model run series- model runs 12 to 18. (Runs 1 to 11 had been undertaken in the 43
&R IO (. ~
f_, [
U TTll llo ll Ou C.H
,.
.'I I'
.... ,,.. . '·
I
I
~ STU IBll'IS ;
CAST L ETot-1
i.
( .,,
/
,... , .f
~ l:t.:>:::r.:,--_-_- ., MIGi4'"iWAw:"-..J"" .,
,1
".
Ao 'l' To~ JW.
,/
'
I
! \
I
'· -· ,. ,.
,,_,·
'
5 UMM[RS£ t T
\
'"-·-.
'. \
/
;
,,..-"·
I
.:J:f':J ·
,·I '· ,,."
_;...:
F
CLllrTOM .lN .
.
\
·,
,..,!
·f.
'· I
)
" "' ·-.,
J··
ICl"'ll" L l Y
'·
I
IA O M LCY C A055
,.. ,:
..... , ·.... .,. -·'
/
t"""~"°"
,' ·-.I
•
....
!
I
:'7
/ , ') / )'
)"\L
lCJ .....
'· .....,, ...
•TA.Ll.Y L. MLLL•to a lo(.
~.\
MOS Sl cl
,-•------------,'
\
T YL D CS L[ Y
'·
.
,, " ,,,,,, ,,,,
'
/ ,;
"
~ ·-·
'·~
{ -~
WO RSL EY
.
'
L C IGlt
/
0
-·-• -•
4 -
. -
-·,,
PA Tlt lC FI OF T
CCC I.CS
·-·-· I
(c) ~.. -- ·'>l'.~, .. ~~'
4 -l•) '•4 _._...._ (C)
,,
1,
1\
\•
\~~ (C.)
'·
N
l iiu
I \ \ t.lltL. $DG.6 ,
.,.
!
Cl)
"
,1
'f UltlflC'I(
to\\
:.>,- . . . ( j :)
I
'l
\~::-_~ : ': ::-=---..:-0.
(G) ..........
'•
:!7
(
..... '· ., .
..... _..,. . '·
Upgraded Passenger Railway Lines
zzzz:.
I
•.
'(•
Y'. '/,
Freight only lines
----+- -..;.-
Other Passenger Railway Lines
Lines closed or sch edul ed for closure
)( X )( )( X )(
Busways
...
'· '·
"'
~
' ., \
'· I
\
- ·-·-· -
Disused fac il ity
... I
Other lines GI IEP1BLE
I
\ M O NTO N (i A[CN
I
/
Sca le -~=i.---==='"--"===' Miles
I
· - Study Area Boundary
I
. _ __ •.11
Bus Routes Not Shown
Note. Godley Station renamed Hattersl ey and Knott Mill station renamed Deansgate in this and subsequent net works. Not to sca le
C1\1te 1A. G.l
.sou s
ALOllZLE y
Fig. 19 .
EO G(
Public Transport Network R1.
M ... (c l..t!> Fl l.lO
Fig. 18.
44
Railway Track Diagram, 1968.
45
•
,,.,.-,
,
'
,,-,_,./'
Fig. 20. Public Transport Network R2. Consists of network R1 (as shown in Fig . 19) plus tunnel link from Warwick Road Station (Stretford) to Victoria Station (Manchester) via Manchester University.
Fig. 21. Public Transport Network R3 . Network R1 plus tunnel link between Piccadilly and Victoria stations in central Manchester.
Fig. 24. Public Transport Network R6. Network R1 plu s Ringway to Langley rapid transit line together with Piccadilly /Victoria tunnel.
Fig. 25. Public Transport Network R7. Network R1 plus Ringway/Langley rapid transit line with branch to Stretford together with Piccadilly/Victoria tunnel.
\
'n'<
•
:......:-..-:--·~~-..:n'f
......
Fig . 22. Public Transport Network R4. Network R1 plus Ringway to Langley rapid transit line as defined by the Manchester Area Rapid Transit Study.
46
Fig. 23. Publi c Transport Network R5. Netw ork R1 plus Ringway to Langley rapid transit line w it h branch to Altrinch am line.
~
Fig. 26. Public Transport Network RB. Network R1 plus Victori a- University-Platt Lane, rapid transit line with bra nch to Stretford and rapid transit servic es routed over Styal line vi a Platt Lan e, togeth er with rapid tra nsit branch from Styal line to Wyth enshawe.
Fig. 27 . Public Transport Network R9 . Network R1 plus Pi ccadilly/Victoria tunnel and branch from Styal line to Wythenshawe.
47
Fig. 28.
Busway System in Ringway/Langley Travel Corridor (Model Run 14).
Fig. 29.
Ringway/Langley Rapid Transit System (Model Run 15).
49 48
cou rse of the development, testin g and calibration of the model.) These model runs had the follow ing purposes :
TO MANCUNIAN WAY
Model Run 12- determination of travel patterns on the base transportation system (see for economic evaluation paragraph 62 and Figures 10 and 16);
INNER RING ROAD
Model Run 13- evalu ation of network R1 in con junction with an urban motorway in the Ringway/Langley travel corridor (see Figures 19 and 30);
Coded Widt h
CLAREMONT ROAD
t t t
2 2 6 LAN ES L.-.-f--+-.......r 2
6 LANES
M od el Run 14-evaluation of network R1 in con junction with a busway in the Ringway/ Langey travel corridor (see Figures 19 and 28) ; Model Run 15- evaluation of network Figures 22 and 29) ;
R4
(see
network
R9
(see
WILBRAHAM ROAD
::r:
Model Run 16- evaluation of Figure 27);
!:::w ::;:~
i-
en
MAULDETH ROAD
Z o:
t
WW
~>
3
W LU (.9 0:
ZUJ
<( LU
2
3
8LANES~
8 LANES
o:z
0: <( <( ...J
S LU
00::
...JI-
-1--------
t
LL~
....1 U <(N
~
M od el Run 18- operational evaluation of the full SELNEC Highway Plan network (see Figure 44 and pa ragraphs 122 to 126).
•
2 2 2 6 LAN ES ,__+--4---r
6 LANES
0
i=
BARLOW MOOR ROAD
-1---------
8 LAN ES
-t--------
t t • 3
2
3
8LANES ~
EASTERN BY PASS
6 LANES
+
4
9 LANES
Coded Width
Not to scale Fig . 30.
50
+ 4
8LANES ~ WYTHENSHAWE ROAD
Possible Ultimate Configuration of Princess Parkway, Manchester.
Model Run 17- evaluation of networks R2 and R3 (both evaluated as one com posite network) (see Figures 20 and 21) ;
81. For each model run the particular system under examination was incorporated into a composite (bus and train) public transpo rt network covering the w hole study area and each public transport netw ork was complemented by a suitable highway network (see paragraph 55) . The bus routes coded as pa rt of each public transport network included both feeder and general purpose routes . Networks were specified so as to bring the total estimated cost of the complete transportation system into the £175M- £200M budget range for the thirteen year period to 1981 . The highway networks in this series of tests were each based on the addition of individual schemes to network H5- the base highway network for economic evaluation . 82. Four different methods of providing improve ments in the Ringway/Langley travel corridor were investigated . The transpo rtation systems whi ch incorporated three of these methods- urban motor way system (model run 13, Fi gure 30) , busway system (model run 14, Figure 28) and rapid transit system (model run 15, Figu res 22 and 29) - produced first yea r rates of return so similar to each oth er th at no firm recommendation could be made for or against any of them at this stage of the Study. These three are further discussed below. The fourth method-extended railway system (mod el run 16, Figure 27 )- examined the possibil ity of ext ending
the existing railway network to Wythenshawe, together with the improvement of passenger distribution within central Manchester by a railway tunnel between Piccadi lly and Victoria Stations. This system produced an overall rate of return comparable with those found in the earlier model runs, but in this case most of the travellers benefiting from the tunnel did not have origins in the Ringway/ Langley travel corridor, and use of the link between Wythenshawe and the Styal line was forecast to be very small. It was concluded that a railway tunnel between Piccadilly and Victoria might be a reason able proposition but that it should not be specifically associated with an attempt to provide railway services between Wythenshawe and central Manchester. 83. It was also con cluded that network RS (Figure 26) could not be recommended as this network too was dependent on the link between the Styal line and Wythenshawe which was shown to be under-used in model run 16. Hence con clusion 1 from the first model run series:
That railway networks RB and R9 (Figures 26 and 27 respectively) should receive no further consideration. 84. The Ringway/Langley rapid transit system, which had first been proposed in the MARTS Study, was evaluated in model run 15 and the Victoria to University section of this line was also evalu_ated as a central area distribution system in model run 17. Although the system attracted substantial passenger volumes there was no evidence to suggest that it would form a better central area distribution system than the alternative proposal for interconnection of the main line termini at Piccadilly and Victoria . It was concluded that any justification of the MARTS rapid transit line would depend on its ability to attract passengers from other modes and to distribute them within the city centre, rather than on its usefulness as a general purpose central area distribution system for existing railway passengers. Hence conclusion 2:
That the Ringway/ Langley rapid transit line proposed in the MARTS Study should be re-evaluated when the mathematical model was sufficiently developed to enable transport operating costs, off-peak trips and trip purposes other than 'work' to be taken into account. 85. Model runs 13 and 14 evaluated the potential benefits of providing major highway facilities in the Ringway / Langley corridor as an alternative to rapid transit. In model run 13 these highways were made available to all traffic without special priorities for public transport; in model run 14 buses were assumed to have the exclusive use of selected high ways and traffic lanes. The rates of return from runs 51
13 <1nd 14 were comparable both with each other and with the rate for the system which included rapid transit (run 15). Also, there was very little difference between the rates of return from highway investment in any of the model runs, even though some of the evaluated networks included extensive highway investment in the Ringway/Langl ey corridor whereas others did not. Hence there was no evidence that the Ringway/Langl ey travel corridor necessarily justified any special priority from an investment viewpoint. It was thought that the potential benefits of providing bus priorities on any highways which might be recommended in this corridor would require more detailed examination at a later stage of the Study if rapid transit was not ultimately recommended. Hence conclusion 3:
That the provision of highway facilities in the RingwayI Langley travel corridor should be further considered in the general highway evaluation stage of the Study. And conclusion 4:
That if the Broad Plan contained proposals for major highway construction in the RingwayI Langley travel corridor, but no proposals for rapid transit, detailed consideration should be given at a later stage to evaluating the potential benefits of bus priority facilities in this corridor. 86. The upgraded railway system (network R1) was evaluated in model run 13 and also formed a component of the more extensive publ ic transport networks evaluated in runs 14 to 17. Model run 13 showed that annual user benefits to peak period passengers on the upgraded railway network might be of the order of £4M , representing a first year rate of return of 30% on the capital invested. This preliminary evaluation was based on the simple assumption that any increase in operating cost relative to network RO would be exactly ba'lanced by increased revenue. Also the frequencies simulated for railway and feeder bus routes were specified on the basis of the maximum physically practicable services on each line. However, because of its high potential benefits it was considered that a more refined and operationally feasible variant of network R1 should be developed. Hence conclusion 5:
That network R 1 should be reviewed, and adjusted where necessary, to reflect the latest estimates of travel demand produced from the first series of model runs, and that rolling stock costs and operating costs should be set against fare revenue in any evaluation of the refined network thus produced. 87. Improved public transport access to Trafford Park was simulated in all model runs by assuming a direct link via a highway reserved for the exclusive use of buses (termed a busway) into the industrial estate from Warwick Road station on the Altrincham 52
line. A notional capital cost of £2M was allowed for this link in network costing for the first model run series. Approximately 9,000 morning peak period work trips were assigned to the busway in model run 13, and because of this forecast level of use it was considered that a more detailed appraisal of the feasibility of constructing it was justified. Hence
conclusion 6: That an appraisal be made of the cost and feasibility of providing a busway link between the Altrincham railway line and the Trafford Park industrial estate. 88. The high potential benefits and rate of return for the Piccadilly/Victo ria railway tunnel evaluated in model runs 16 and 17 led to the conclusion that investment in schemes to improve passenger distribution within central Manchester, either by railway extension, or by other means, might be justified . Hence conclusion 7:
That an appraisal be made of the feasibility of improving access between the existing railway lines in the study area and the central area of Manchester. 89. A railway link (link C) between Warwick Road station on the Altrincham line and Manchester University-whe re it joined the MARTS Victoria to University tunnel-was evaluated in model run 17. No evidence was produced to suggest that th is link would be used by large numbers of passeng ers or that it would produce significant user benefits. Hence conclusion 8:
That no further consideration should be given to any proposed rail link between the Altrincham line, at Warwick Road station, and the general area of Manchester University, irrespective of what other railway or rapid transit lines might ultimately be evaluated in the university area. 90. Following the completion of model runs 12 to 17 the nine alternative railway networks which had been developed in the first stage of the rail plan ning study were reviewed in the light of the conclusions reached as a result of this first series of model runs. The following course of action was decided upon : Network R1 (Figure 19) to be further refin ed in accordance with co nclusion 5; Network R2 (Figure 20) to receive no furthe r consideration in accordance with conclusion 8; Network R3 (Figure 21) to be included in t he appraisal suggested in co n- · clusion 7 ; Network R4 (Figure 22) to be re -evaluated in accordance with conclu sion 2 ;
Network R5 (Figure 23) to receive no further con sideration in accordance with conclusion 8;
network R1 and were not included in R10: (i) Bolton-Bury- Castleton- Rochdale ; (ii) Stockport-Gui de Bridge-Stalybr idge;
Network R6 (Figure 24) to be considered for possible evaluation in due course;
(iii) Leigh- Tyldesley-Wor sley; (Rose (iv) Marple Macclesfield.
Hill)-Bollingt on-
Network R7 (Figure 25) to receive no further consideration in accordance with conclusion 8;
Oldham Central station was also excluded.
Network RS (Figure 26) to receive no further consideration in accordance with conclusion 1 ;
RAILWAY TUNNELS IN CENTRAL MANCHESTE R
Network R9 (Figure 27) to receive no further consideration in accordance with conclusion 1.
T HE RAIL PLANNING STUDY (STAGE 2) 91. From the information produced in model runs 13 to 17 it was concluded that further and more detailed appraisal was needed to establish the practical feasibility of upgrading and extending the existing railway network in the study area-see pa rticularly conclusions 5, 6 and 7 above. The Technical Control Team accordingly authorised the consultants to undertake a second stage of the rail planning study which consisted of: (i) the refinement of the alternative railway networks produced in the first stage of the rail planning study on the basis of the results which had become available from the first model run series; (ii) the investigation of the feasibility of alternative methods of improving access between the existing railway lines in the study area and the central area of Manchester; (iii) the development and description of alternative railway networks in terms of service characteristics and cost for further and more detailed evaluation.
RAILWAY NETWORK R10 92. Railway network R1 was adjusted to take account of the traffic forecasts obtained from the first model run series. The adjusted network (network code number R10) was made up of existing lines only, and is shown in Figure 31 . The network comp rised 150 route miles. Its capital cost was estimated to be £11 ·5M for fixed railway equipment including property, but excluding rolling stock and busway infrastructure. Network R10 was similar to network R1, but had revised service frequencies on most lines. The following lines had been found to attract unacceptably low passenger loadings on
93. In considering the improvement of railway access to central Manchester a total of sixteen possible alignments for tunnels to connect existing rail lines across the city centre were investigated. These links are illustrated in Figures 32 to 39. Nine of them, links 8 to 16 (Figure 39), were rejected on grounds such as operational impracticability , inability to serve areas of major demand or structural difficulties due to sharp gradients or curvature. The remaining seven alignments were found to be practicable and it was thought that each of them would improve rail access to and within central Manchester. Details of these links are shown in Table 7. 94. Link 5 (Figure 36), Piccadilly to Victoria via Piccadilly Gardens, was discarded because it had only one central area station. This made it less attr.active than the otherwise similar link 1. At this stage a partial model run was carried out (run 13N) to test demand on a notional cross city centre link system . This test demonstrated a much greater attraction of passengers to routes passing through or close to the Albert Square area, and, in consequence, link 1 (Figure 32) was also eliminated. 95. Link 3 (Figure 34) , Oxford Road to Victoria via Albert Square, had been demonstrated in the first series of model runs to be potentially viable only as part of the MARTS rapid transit line. This link was therefore eliminated from further consideration as a possible extension of the British Railways system. 96. The four remaining links were thought to be worthy of further evaluation as alternative or complementary extensions of the upgraded suburban railway system . These links were: Link 2 (Figure 33) , Picca dilly to Victoria via Albert Square. This alignment was forecast to attract the highest passenger flow of all the alternatives investigated . The scheduling of train services to operate on it did not present major operational problems or result in a reduction of service on other sections of the network. Capital cost for this link was provisionally estimated to be £20·6M. 53
. ·-·1 /
·-·.,.,.
STUH IHS \
'· . /
IW•U I QTTOM
·,
+
IAOMLE.V C"OS$
.I .
.-....,,_/
\
I
SUMMUUIAT
I
•
\
I 1 ''•.,,I .
\.
I I
...
/ .
_..._ '-:I .
.,
\
I......_. ..,..
. . ..,
UTTLESO'tOllGH
! \
\
1
'.
't
\
'·~
·, I
/
\ I
"·I ;
,,.
.... I
l
'· ,.,,_.
Jr.40SSLH
I
' I
I
I
·.............
Fig. 32.
Central Area Rail Link 1.
Fig. 33.
Central Area Rail Link 2.
Fig. 34.
Central Area Rail Link 3.
Fig. 35.
Central Area Rail Link 4.
'·--·-· *""""''-· ..-· -·,
N
\
({)
1... -
....
/
I
\
'·
<~
.,. -·,,
... .....
·,, .....
'\
Upgraded Passenger Ra i lway Lines
·' ___ _., ___
Other Passenger Railway Lines
)( )( )( )( )( )(
Busways
-· -
·-·-·-
'\ /
\, l
Study Area Boundary
,;
Bus Routes Not Shown
Fig. 31.
Public Transport Network R10.
55
54
Link 6 (Figure 37), Deansgate to Victoria via Albert Square. The provisional forecast showed a high passenger flow on this link although not as high as link 2. The diversion onto it of 25 kV. electric trains from the Altrincham line would cause a reduction in service frequency at Deansgate and Oxford Road as these stations would then be served from the south and west only by relatively infrequent diesel trains to and from Liverpool and Chester. It was concluded that a Piccadilly to Victoria tunnel would be preferable to a Deansgate to Victoria link if one tunnel only were provided, though links 2 and 6 could be operated in conjunction with each other. The capital cost of link 6 was estimated to be £14-4M.
Fig. 36.
Central Area Rail Link 5.
97. It was concluded that one model run in the second series should be devoted to the evaluation of a Piccadilly to Victoria railway tunnel via Albert Square (link 2) . This would operate as an extension of the upgraded British Railways suburban network. It was also thought that, if either this tunnel (link 2), or the MARTS rapid transit system were included · in the Broad Plan, consideration might later be given to the evaluation of link 4 as an 'ultimate' (post 1984) addition to the system.
Link 4 (Figure 35), Deansgate to Piccadilly via Market Street and link 7 (Figure 38), Deansgate to Piccadilly via Albert Square: these links were provisionally forecast to attract reasonably high passenger flows. Both would produce the same operational problems at Oxford Road and Deansgate as link 6. The Deansgate to Piccadilly tunnels were not further examined as single links but it was considered that either might be operated in conjunction with the MARTS rapid transit system, or with link 2, if it were possible to justify a two tunnel system. The capital cost of link 7 was estimated to be £13 ·5M and link 4 was estimated at £15·9M. Link 4 was considered to be the better alignment on the grounds that it had three intermediate stations between Deansgate and Piccadilly whereas link 7 had only two.
Fig. 37. Central Area Rail Link 6.
OTHER DISTRIBUTOR SYSTEMS 98. An inventory was made of other systems which might be suitable for central area passenger distribution either as alternatives or supplements to the underground extension of the British Railways network. Only systems which had progressed beyond the concept stage were included in the appraisal. The systems investigated and the conclusions made about them are described below. 99. MINIBUS-As the name implies,minibus esare virtually standard passenger buses in miniature. Their entry and exit doors are generally wide so that access and egress is relatively unrestricted. Their use in a central area distribution system would be for trips of about five minutes duration. They could operate a very frequent service with fast turn-round time. Standard fares of about 2p might be charged. Three ways of operating 10/12 seat minibuses were considered in co-operation with the former Manchester City Transport Department. These involved scheduled and unscheduled operation , and operation with or without conventional buses also operating in the area. It was concluded that large scale minibus operation in central
TABLE 7 FEASIBLE CENTRAL AREA RAIL LINKS
Fig. 38.
56
Central Area Rail Link 7.
Fig. 39.
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST £M
TERMINAL STATIONS
INTERMEDIATE STATIONS
32
Piccadilly and Victoria
Piccadilly Gardens, Market Street
18·5
2
33
Piccadilly and Victoria
Albert Square, Market Street
20·6
3
34
Mauld eth Road and Victoria
Platt Lane, University, Oxford Road, Alb ert Square, Market Street
30·5
4
35
Piccadilly and Dea nsgate
Bridg e Street, Market Street. · Piccadilly Gard ens
15·9
5
36
Piccadilly and Victoria
Piccad illy Gardens
16·8
6
37
Deansgate and Victoria
Albert Square, Market Street
14·4
7
38
Piccadilly and Deansgate
Albert Square, Piccad illy Gardens
13·5
LINK No:
FIGURE No.
Central Area Rail Links 8-16.
57
Manchester under the conditions considered was not fea sible, although the possibility of limited use of a minibus system was not ruled out. concept TAXIS- This 100. SELF - ROUTING involves a quarter to half mile approximately rectangular grid of simple one-way elevated tracks on which individual vehicles, each accommodating up to 4 people, would run. Passengers would board a vehicle at a station and insert a coded ticket into a slot. The central system control would then secure a route to the desired destination and despatch the ve hicle over it. Because each link in the mesh w ould be one - way the route between any two points could be circuitous. However, the relatively high average speed of the system (alternatives of 15 and 30 m.p.h. were considered) could compensate for this. 101. CARVEYOR-ln this system, containers holding 4 to 10 people are mounted on a continuous moving belt. Boarding passengers step into the co ntainers from parallel conveyors moving at station speeds of 1 ·5 m.p.h. Because it can change its direction of travel the system is more flexible t han a passenger conveyor (see paragraph 106) . Its average speed is estimated at about 10 m.p.h . with qu arter mile station spacing. This is quite satisfa ctory for short trips . A similar system is operating as an attraction in a recreation park in Japan . Problems which have to be solved include procedures fo r removing disabled containers and load ing and un loading containers from the belt to accommodate peak demands. 102. HIGH SPEED MOVING PAVEMENT-This system exploits the advantages of the passenger conveyor system (described in paragraph 106) but with a higher speed of 10 to 12 m.p.h. made poss ible by the use of an 'integ rator' at access points . The integrator accelerates passengers entering or leaving the main belt from 2 to 10 m.p.h. The project is still in the research stage.
Fig. 40.
Route Selected for Evaluation of Minirail System.
103. The terms of reference of the rail planning study specified that only systems which are at prese nt operational should be considered for evalu ation. This eliminated the self- routing taxi and high speed moving pavement from further consideration . ' Carveyor' was also rejected because of its relatively high cost, lack of detailed information and unsolved problems in certain aspects of its operation . 104. MINIRAIL- This is a small scale low -speed monorail system running on a twin-channel steel track, generally elevated . The vehicles are 4 to 12 seat cabins joined into trains which are driverless and under automatic control. The system has had wide application at exhibitions, particularly the Montreal Expo 67 . Installation and operating costs are low , but experience with long term all weather
58
operation is limited . The system has a low unit cost and is immediately available. Fo r these reasons a route was developed for possibl e application in central Manchester (see Figure 40) . 105. Notional cost estimates were prepared for an elevated system on the alignment illustrated and were based on quantities measured from the route plan . Costs for track, rolling stock, electrification, signalling, communications and automatic control systems were provided by the firm responsible fo r the development of the system . Station costs could vary considerably depending on the standard adopted, and the costs used in these estimates represented a functional design with simple modern architectural treatment ; it was considered that stations of elaborate design would not be consistent with the general characteristics of the system. A tentative allowance was made for the cost of property acquisition . 106. PASSENGER CONVEYOR- This system is sometimes called a moving pavement or travelator. It is a continuous moving belt with sides and moving handrail similar in appearance to an escalator. It has advantages over the escalator, however, in that prams, wheelchairs, luggage trolleys and the like can be conveyed . It can be used for horizontal or inclined movement. Further advantages are that it entails no waiting , caters fo r people in a hurry-who can walk along the belt-and for those who are content to ride at the speed of the pavement (generally 1 ·5 to 2 ·0 m.p.h.) . 107. Four separate short routes linking Victoria, Piccadilly, Oxford Road, and Deansgate stations respectively with the core of central Manchester were selected as possible passenger conveyor routes in the assumed absence of an underground railway. The routes selected are shown in Figure 41. Separate notional cost estimates were prepared for a 2 m.p.h. conveyor system located in elevated and underground attitudes. The costs for the basic components of the passenger conveyor system were obtained from the developer of a specific system which has been installed in various parts of the world. The supporting structure cost was based on loadings also provided by the developer. Tentative property costs were included . 108. In the case of the minirail and pedestrian conveyor systems further conside ration was given to the environmental effects of elevated stru ctu res in central Manchester, bearin g in mind the con clu sions rea ched in the Manchester Area Rapid Transit Study (see appendix). This led to the decision that these systems should be recommended for furth er testing if it were found practicable to place them underground . This was found to be possible for the pedestrian conveyor system and the estimated cost for the routes shown in Figu re 41 con stru cted in cut and cover t unnels would be about £5·5M. In
59
the case of minirail, however, the cost was estimated to be about ÂŁ1 OM, making the system too costly in relation to the service it would provide. 109. RAPID TRANSIT- Three possibilities were considered. These were: (i) The rapid transit line in the Ringway/ Langley travel corridor recommended by the MARTS Study. This system would offer connections with upgraded B.R. services at Oxford Road and Victoria, and would serve the highest density employment area in the city centre by stations at Albert Square and Market Street; (ii) The central area section of the above rapid transit line, between Oxford Road and Victoria, built and operated as an independent entity, but with passenger interchange facilities with B. R. stations at either end, and with Albert at stations intermediate Square and Market Street. This proposal had the advantage of pro viding central area distribution and acting as a basis of testing for a full rapid transit line. However, the first model run series had demonstrated that this tunnel alone might not pro duce a rate of return as high as that of the Piccadilly/Victo ria tunnel. Thus, it was decided that the construction of a tunnel between Oxford Road and Victoria could only be considered as the first stage of some more extensive rapid transit scheme; (iii) The Piccadilly to Victoria tunnel (link 2) built and operated as an indepen dent entity as in (ii) above, with interchange with the British Railways suburban system at its terminals. Of the above alternatives, only (i), the MARTS rapid transit line, was put forward for further testing .
Fig. 41.
Passenger Conveyor Routes Selected in the Second Stage of the Rail Planning Study.
110. The Oxford Road-Victoria rapid transit line, (ii), involved problems of providing delivery, storage and maintenance facilities. Either a surface link line to some suitable point on the British Railways system or a rolling stock lift to the surface would be required. Although lifts are used for this purpose on the Glasgow Subway and on the Waterloo and City Railway in London, such a practice could not be recommended for a new system. The same objections apply to alternative (iii). 111. Of the central area distributor systems exami ned, it was concluded that two could be recommended for evaluation in the second series of model runs. These were rapid transit and a passenger conveyor system. It was considered that the evaluation of rapid transit as a central area distri -
60
bution system should be undertaken only as a part of a complete rapid transit system in the Ringway/ Langley travel corridor: this was already prescribed on the basis of the conclusions drawn from the first series of model runs. 11 2. In the case of the passenger conveyor system it was considered that, in view of its inherent flexibility-a suitable scheme could readily be specified to complement any railway or rapid transit network which might be recommended for the central area- further evaluation should be postponed until a later stage of the Study. THE TRAFFORD PARK BUSWAY 113. The Trafford Park industrial estate has a work force of about 60,000. Rather more than half of these employees live in nearby communities, the rest being dispersed throughout the conurbation. Travel to and from Trafford Park is at present principally by bus, and at peak times these buses serve a wide variety of areas. The roads within the estate and the approach roads to it become congested at peak travel times with consequent delays to traffic. 114. In the first stage of the rail planning study a number of ways of providing rail links with Trafford Park had been considered . Most of these involved new links with nearby rail lines, and a branch from a proposed rapid transit line linking the University and Moss Side with the Altrincham line (link C) was also considered. However, because of the diffuse dema.nd, and the fact that the service would only be justified at peak periods, no rail service to Trafford Park was selected for further testing. 115. In order to determine the demand for good public transport access to Trafford Park, a busway between the Altrincham line and the estate was included in the networks of the first model run series (see paragraph 87). Analysis of the output of model run 13 indicated a peak period demand on this link of about 9,000 work trips. In view of this demand it was decided to investigate the feasibility and cost of constructing a busway between Warwick Road station and Trafford Park. 116. The alignment offering the most direct and practical route for such a busway is shown in Figure 42. The busway would consist of a two-lane elevated roadway. Access ramps might be provided to allow buses to interchange between Chester Road and the busway. Alternatively, means such as escalators, together with loading bays on the busway, could be provided to . facilitate passenger interchange. 117. It was assumed that the existing railway station at Warwick Road would need to be re positioned further south in order to connect with the busway and the cost of this reconstruction was included in the railway network costs. At both 61
by a passenger conveyo r system should evaluated in the second mod el run series.
Trafford Park
T HE SPECIFICATION WORKS
Terminal
OF
be
HIGHWAY NET-
121. The alternative highway networks evaluated in the Study were based on the recommendations of the SELNEC Highway Plan of 1962 (see appendi x), wh ich was produced by the SELNEC Highway Engineering Committee. Since the in itial selection from the SELNEC Highway Plan of schemes recommended for prio rity implementation, a con t inuous review process has been undertaken, with schemes entering into, or moving between, the following categories: Firm Roads Programme A list of trunk and principal road schemes selected and announced by the DOE with a target year for the start of work, subject to the availability of funds and completion of statutory procedures.
Not to scale
Fig. 42.
118. The cost of the busway, including a pro visional amount tor property and maintaining public utilities, but excluding the cost of rolling stock, was estimated to be £2 ·5M. No attempt was made to isolate the annual cost of bus operation on the busway as some of the buses would also run on the general road system. An annual allowance of £5,000 was made to cover maintenance of the structure of the busway.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
119. On the completion of the first series of model runs a number of public transport networks were recommended for further consideration (see paragraph 90) . These networks were re -examined on the completion of the second stage of the rail planning study with the following results : Network R1 (Figure 19)- this network was refined in the second stage of the rail planning study and re-coded as network R10 (Figure 31) for evaluation in the second model run series. The total capital 62
Principal Road Preparation List A list of principal road schemes selected and announced by the DOE as being of sufficient value for the local highway authorities to do preparatory work with a view to their probable inclusion in the Firm Programme, subject to the availability of funds. SELNEC Principal Road Preparation Pool A list of schemes prepared by the SELNEC Highway Engineering Committee for con sideration in the selection of future Preparation List announcements. 122. The first phase of the highway analysis stage of the Transportation Study consisted of an operational evaluation of the full SELNEC Highway Plan network of 1962, together with a number of proposed schemes in those parts of the study area which are not also in the SELNEC Highway Plan
Proposed Trafford Park Busway.
terminals of the busway a simple loop with bays would enable shuttle buses serving Trafford Park to turn round , and access to the local street network would enable additional through routes to use the link. All or part of the busway might be made available to goods vehicles outside the peak period.
SUMMARY OF NETWORKS
Trunk Road Preparation Pool A list of trunk road schemes selected and
announ ced by the DOE as being of sufficient value for preparatory work to be done with a view to their probable inclusion in the Firm Programme.
cost of network R10 was estimated to be £14 ·0M comprising: railway infrastructu re £11 ·5M , Trafford Park Busway £2·5M . Network R3 (Figure 21 )-the Piccadilly to Victoria tunnel which was specified in t he first stage of the rail planning study w as superseded in the second stage by an alternative tunnel (link 2, Figure 33) , via Albert Square. Evaluation of this latter tunnel in conjunction with the upg raded British Railways system was recommen ded. Network R4 (Figure 22) - a revised rapid transit system in the Ringway/Lan gley travel corridor, operated with railway network R10, was recommended for evalu ation in the second model run series. Network R6 (Figure 24)-this netw ork was superseded by a system comprising the rapid transit system plus a rail way tunnel (link 4, Figure 35) , from Deansgate to Piccadilly via Market Street. It wa s considered that link 4 might be evaluated as a possible (post 1984) extensi on to the Broad Plan if either the MARTS rapid transit system or the Piccadilly to Vi ctoria tunnel (link 2) were selected as part of thePlan. 120. It was also recommended that the potentia l benefits of supplementing the selected rail system
SELN EC T ra n sp o rtation Study A r ea SELN EC Highway Pl a n Are a 1962
Fig. 43.
The SELNEC Highway Plan Area. 63
caution is necessary because the traffic flows assigned to some network links may be influenced by factors such as the precise method used in the model to simulate the connection of analysis zones to the network. The highway capacity standards used in the Study's operational evaluations of highway networks are shown in Table 8. The capacities shown are based on Tables 1- 4 and 1- 5 in the Ministry of Transport publication 'Roads in Urban Areas', adapted where necessary to correspond with the highway categorisation system used in the Study's assignment programs. The capacities given in the table for all purpose streets assume the existence and enforcement of waiting and parking restrictions.
area (see Figure 43). This evaluation was undertaken for the morning peak period using the peak period work trip model. Peak period work trips were factored within the model to represent 'all purpose' trips in a morning peak design hour. The analysis was undertaken in the last run of the first model run series (model run 18) and the highway network (network code number H1) was complemented for the purpose of this run by public transport network R1 (see Figure 19). Network H1 is illus trated in Figure 44. 123. Model run 18 showed that network H 1 would be an operationally satisfactory highway system for the area, although a number of suggestions in respect of relatively minor changes in its configuration were made to the SELNEC Highway Engineering Committee. It was, however, ascertained that some peak period traffic congestion would probably occur on this network even if it could be completed by 1981. Figure 45 shows the forecast relationship between assigned traffic volumes and practical link capacities for network H1 in 1981 and highlights the areas where significant traffic congestion was predicted.
.,-."\ ·-·/
\
i
I
/
I
f
f'
~·-·--..
i.
··-· ...,·
·,, :"'\
I
\,
'·
125. Before starting model run 18 it was estab lished that the Study budget would be insufficient to finance the construction of network H1 during the 1980s. The cost of this network was estimated to be about £500M (at 1968/69 money values) exclusive of the cost of traffic management and minor improvement schemes. This increase in th e estimated capital cost of the Highway Plan system from the original estimate of £300M in 1962 was due to three factors :
124. It is important that this diagram, and all other highway network overloading diagrams con tained in this report, should be considered only in terms of the broad trends which they indicate. This
(i) inflation; (ii) revisions to schemes proposed in th e original plan;
..... "\.
'-·-··-· ..,_.
N
.,,.,,..-.
'
Cl)
,.
TABLE 8 HIGHWAY CAPACITY STANDARDS ADOPTED FOR OPERATIONAL EVALUATION
I
TOTAL CARRIAGEWAY WIDTH AVAILABLE FOR VEHICULAR MOVEMENT IN BOTH DIRECTIONS
PRACTICAL CAPACITY IN PCU / HR . IN ONE DIRECTION
Motorway and Limited Access Road
Dual 2 Lane Du al 3 Lane Dual 4 Lane
3,000 4,500 6,000
Two -way single carriageway
16' to 20' 21 ' to 25' 26' to 30' 31' to 35' 36' to 40' 41' to 45' 46' to 50' 51'to55' 56' to 60' 61' to 65' 66' to 70' more th an 70'
400 600 800 1,000 1,250 1,350 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600
TYPE OF ROUTE
Du al carriageway road with urban chara cteristics
One -way street
64
36' to 40' 41 ' to45 ' 46' to 50' 51' to 55' 56' to 60' Greater widths 21 ' 26' 31' 36' 41 '
to to to to to
25' 30' 35' 40' 45'
1,300 1,450 1,600 1,750 2,000 As for Singl e Carri ageway Roa ds
Major New Roads and Major Improvements (i.e . motorways, dual carriageways, etc.) 1966 Highway Network
-·-·-·-
-=---==---= =-
M iles
Study Area Boundary
Fig. 44. The SELNEC Highway Plan Network (H1 ).
1,450 2,000 2,400 2. 750 3,350
65
/.-·
\:-"'' ....
/
I
.
)
I
J
I
/.-.,,/
.
,·-·- .... , .
I
.
l,
,,,,..
)
\
I
·..,
·- .
J
-·
\
\
N
-·
,.
Cl)
i
I
/
, ,., . .,; ....,,,,..
Link Load as a percentage of Link Capacity Major New Roads and Majo r Improvements ( i.e . motorways, dual carriageways, etc.)
Less than 100% 100% -
150%
More than 150% 1966 Highway Network Sc al e
.
Sule - ' = = ' - - = = = - - - ==='Miles
Fig. 45.
66
Peak Overloading Diagram, Network H1, 1981 (Model run 18).
--==--==---=='
Mii es
- · - · -· - Study Area Boundary
I
·..... Fig. 46.
The 'Maximum' Highway Network (H3/2).
67
,/)-''\1. I
.
I .'
I
.--.
I
\
i............ ...-·
/
, ;' ~~ -· '-...... .....
i-·'......... I
.,
i
/
·'
'.
I
·-·-
'
,;
·,
I
~'
' .... /
'·-
.~,.,·
)
.
I
. .....
N
(l)
Cl) _ I
I
,..
·'·.....
(,.~
N
......
,• _
.'
....... - ·•"1,.
............
·,,
'· Major New Roads and Majo r Improvements (i.e. motorways, dual c arriageways , etc. )
Major New Roads and Major Improvements (i.e . motorways, dual carriageways, etc.) 1966 Highway Network Sca le
- *=- -"'====--""===' Mii es
Study Area Boundary
1966 Highwa y Network
-·-·-·-
Study Are a Boundary
I _, ,.
-· ,;
~
Fig. 47.
The 'Intermediate' Highway Network (H3/3).
Sca le
Fig . 48.
.._"'=--"'====---==='
Mil es
'·'
T he 'Minimum' Highway Network (H4/ 1).
J
68
69
(iii) revised estimates on the designed schemes.
basis of
126. It was concluded that network H 1 should be regarded as a ' library of schemes' from which alternative highway networks, which it might be practicable to finance by the 1980s, could be selected. Because model run 18 had shown that some traffic congestion would occur on network H 1, and remembering that its cost was more than double the Study budget for all transportation infrastructure, it was also concluded that it would be impossible for the Study to specify any highway network for the 1980s, within the constraints of the budget, which would significantly reduce the existing level of traffic congestion on the general purpose street system . 127. Thus the problems of selecting a recom mended highway network for the Broad Plan were principally those of choosing schemes from network H1 which should be implemented by the 1980s, rather than the examination of a series of radically different alternatives. In the specification of highway proposals for the Study it was therefore necessary to produce networks representing alternative levels of investment, in highway schemes selected from H1 in such a way as to be operationally complementary to the evaluated public transport network in each model run. In each case the total infrastructure cost of the complete transportation system had to be in the £175/200M range of the assumed investment budget for 1981. 128. Highway networks corresponding to three levels of investment were evaluated in the second model run series. The 'maximum' highway network (network code number H3/2) (Figure 46) was specified on the assumption that the whole of the budget would be available for highways with the exception of the cost of upgrading the suburban railway network (network R10). Network H3/2 had an estimated capital cost of £180·6M for major schemes. 129. The 'intermediate' highway network (H3/3) (Figure 47) had an estimated capital cost of £146·3M for major schemes and consisted of 'announced' schemes which had been accepted by the Department of the Environment for 'prepara tion list' purposes (see paragraph 121 ). The 'minimum' highway network (H4/1) (Figure 48) consisted of programmed highway schemes and had an estimated capital cost of £89 ·2M for major schemes. The 'minimum' network was designed to be operationally and financially complementary to a public transport network comprising the upgraded railway network R10 plus the MARTS rapid transit system . The 'intermediate' highway network was designed to be operationally and financially complementary to a public transport network comprising the upgraded railway network plus a railway tunnel link across central Manchester. A 70
variation of the 'intermediate ' highway network (network H3/4) was used in one model run (24). This network, which had an estimated capital cost of £159·9M for major schemes, consisted of network H3/3 modified to accommodate a pusway system in the Ringway/Langley travel corridor (see paragraph 164) .
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND MINOR IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES 130. The highway network capital cost estimates given in paragraphs 128 and 129 are for the total cost of major new highway schemes each having a capital cost in excess of £0 ·25M. The Study budget, however, was required to cover minor highway improvement schemes costing less than £0·25M . These generally were traffic management schemes-including intersection improvementsand minor improvements between intersections on the existing street system. Two main problems were found in calculating the amount of money from th e budget which should be allowed for traffic manage ment and minor improvement schemes in each alternative highway network: (i) many minor schemes are insignificant in terms of the network coding pro cedures which are appropriate for a strategic transportation model and it was consequently impossible for th e benefits produced by such schemes to be determined by the model; (ii) it is not usual for highway authorities to plan minor schemes more th an about five years ahead, and in co nsequence of this, and also because t he model is not generally sensitive to the effects of such schemes, it w as impossible to develop an accu rate method of determining the locations or total numbers of these schemes whi ch might be required by 1981 . 131. For these reasons it was concluded th at a lump sum allowance for traffic management and minor improvement schemes should be mad e in estimating the capital cost of each alternative hi ghway network, and that no attempt should be made to model the performance of each indivi dua l scheme; although a small number of kn ow n impr-0vement schemes which were suitable for simulation by the model- mostly proposed one -way street systems- were coded . in each high way network. Thus, as the cost of traffic management and minor improvement schemes was included in the estimated capital cost of each network, and as most of the schemes in this category were not coded, their total cost was effectively regarded as a necessary expense which would be incurred in achieving in practice the flows predicted by the model.
132. Network H3/2, which represents the approximate level of highway investment which might result by the early 1980s if existing levels of highway expenditure were continued pro rata until that time, was estimated by the SELNEC Highway Engineering Committee to involve a requirement for traffic management and minor improvement schemes to a total value of about £20M . This estimate, which was accepted by the Study, had been derived on the basis of the ratio of actual expenditure between major and minor schemes from 1962 to 1970. Networks H3/3 and H4/1, however, represented lower levels of total highway expenditure on major schemes so that in this case it was not thought reasonable to estimate a lump sum allowance for minor schemes on the basis of the same ratio. 133. It was, however, established that the forecast degree of overload at intersections on all highway networks was inversely related to the level of investment on major schemes in the network. It was therefore decided that the level of investment in traffic management and minor improvement schemes in each network should also be inversely related to the value of the major highway schemes in that network. A technique was developed for comparing the theoretical overloading at each intersection on t he general purpose street system on each alternative network with the estimated traffic management cost of reducing this congestion and summing these costs over the whole network. The following lump sum allowances were produced on this basis for the cost of traffic management and minor improvement schemes on each network: Maximum highway network
H3/2-£20 ·00M;
Intermediate highway network
H3/3- £27·60M;
Modified intermediate highway network
H3 / 4-£26 ·50M;
Minimum highway network
H4/1-£51 ·70M.
134. It must be emphasised that the above esti mated lump sum allowances for traffic management and minor improvement costs should be regarded as extremely tentative. The existing type of strateg ic investment model operates on a scale which is inappropriate for the detailed analysis of local traffic problems. The development of a 'tactical' or 'action area' sub-model for detailed lo ca l analyses is suggested in paragraph 236, but no such model was available for use in the prepara tion of the Broad Transportation Plan.
BUS PRIORITY SCHEMES 135. As the model does not simulate the effects of high way capacity restraint on the operating speeds of buses, it was necessary to ensure, after each
model run , that the coded (1966) bus journey times were consistent with the forecast traffic on the highway network. It was considered that bus journey speeds which were slower than those scheduled-but not necessarily achieved-in 1966 were not acceptable in the Broad Plan, and it was concluded that these journey speeds should be safeguarded by a lump sum allowance in the capital cost of each highway network for the provision of local bus priority schemes. The type of scheme covered by this cost allowance might include short lengths of bus lane or bus street, open ended lay-byes, priority phasing of traffic signals, exemption from right turning and other prohibitions, etc. This allowance was intended to cover the attainment of reasonable running speeds on all bus routes-including proposed new feeder services to railway stations-operating on the general highway system without major reserved right-of-way facilities . . It was, however, accepted that bus services which operate on the general highway system must inevitably suffer some interference to their schedules from other traffic, even in circumstances where local priority schemes are implemented at difficult points on their routes. This potential lack of reliability of bus services was modelled by the assumption of longer waiting times for bus services in comparison with railway services of similar frequency. 136. As in the case of traffic management and minor improvement schemes, the bus priority allowance represented a cost which might be associated with the achievement in practice of the situation forecast by the model and no additional benefits were assumed to arise from the bus priority schemes. The allowance was also considered to compensate for any general reduction in bus operating speeds which might result from the adoption of one-man bus operation . It was also assumed that any delay to general traffic which might result from the increased boarding times implicit in one - man operation could be avoided by providing bus lay - byes financed from the allowance. 137. The procedure adopted for estimating the cost of bus priority schemes in each model run was based on an extension of the method used for the determination of traffic management and minor improvement costs. Total estimated costs for bus priorities are listed below for each alternative highway network: Maximum highway network
H3 / 2-£4·60M;
Intermediate highway network
H3/3- £6'40M;
Modified intermediate highway network
H3/ 4- £6 ·1OM;
Minimum highway network
H4/ 1-£ 11 ·90M . 71
The above allowances cover schemes not specifi cally associated with general road improvements as well as the provision of bus priority fac ilities as part of more general improvements. Here again it must be emphasised that these estimates should be regarded as extremely tentative for the reasons outlined in paragraph 134. The proposed tactical sub-model (see paragraph 236) will be developed in such a way as to facilitate the evaluation of local bus priority schemes. 138. It is emphasised that the above description of bus priorities relates only to local schemes of the type which, like most traffic management schemes, cannot be directly simulated by the model. Thus the estimates reflect the order of costs which might be involved in the achievement, in the 1980s, of the sort of bus journey times which were scheduled in 1966 and which were assumed for most bus routes simulated by the model. Proposals for major bus improvement schemes, such as significant lengths of busway, bus street or bus lane, were simulated directly in some model runs and were individually costed for evaluation purposes ; the function of this type of major scheme was, in any case, to improve upon scheduled 1966 running speeds.
TOTAL HIGHWAY NETWORK CAPITAL COSTS 139. Table 9 summarises total estimated capital costs for the 'maximum ', 'intermediate' and 'mini mum' highway networks based on the estimates given in paragraphs 128 and 129 fo r major schemes, paragraph 133 for traffic management and minor improvement schemes and in paragraph 137 for bus priority schemes. 140. The total highway network capital cost estimates given in Table 9 are in excess of those which would have been appropriate for the Study budget for 1981. This anomaly arose because the estimates which had formed the basis of network specification were superseded when a more refined highway costing exercise was undertaken by the SELN EC highway authorities. The highway network costing exercise was further complicated by the fact that it was not possible to produce estimates for the costs of bus priority schemes or traffic management and minor improvement schemes until after the model run in which any particular highway network was evaluated, as these costs were in fact deter min ed on th e basis of model output -see paragraph 133.
72
CO STS AS SOCIATE D WITH PROVISION
PA RKIN G
141 . It was assumed t hat th e total area-wide cost of operating car pa rks would be exactly matched by the revenue received from parking, and that, con sequently, the cost of operating parking facilities could be excluded from the costing exercise of the Study. Some evidence was obtained that this assumption was reasonable for central Manchester although it was not possible to obtain any relevant information about the remainder of the study area. The capital cost of providing parking accommoda tion was specifically excluded from the Study budget and was not therefore taken into account in the specification of transportation systems. How ever, as different transportation systems were demonstrated to generate different numbers of trips by car, and as most car trips require parking accom modation, it was necessary to find the capital cost of providing parking accommodation for the car trips forecast in each model run . The cost of providing this parking accommodation was included in the total capital cost of each system for evaluatio n pu rposes. As parking costs were excluded from t he budget for 1981 , it was necessary to take into account only those elements of total pa rking cost which were specifically associated with ea ch alternative transportation system, and the total estimated cost of providing parking accommodati on on the base transportation system for econo mic evaluation was therefore subtracted from t he cost for each other system. Total parking accommodat ion capital cost estimates for each alternative highway network are given in Table 10; note that these costs vary for some highway networks, depending on the complementary public transport network in any model run . The model runs (19 to 25) listed in the tabl e are described in Chapter 5. 142. In central Manchester it was necessa ry to ensure that the number of car trips fo recast di d not ex ceed the physical capacity of the city cent re to accommodate them . This was done by adju sting parking costs in the model until the number of car trips approximated to the level of parking provision which Manchester Corporation thought to be the maximum which could reasonably be provid ed . In the event, it was forecast that parking costs of 25p (peak) and 7tp (off-peak) per person trip by car would result in a volume of vehicular traffi c to the city centre which was compatible with both the capacity of the highway system and the avail ability of space for park ing accommodation.
TABLE 9 ESTIMATED HIGHWAY NETWORK CAPITAL COSTS (£M ) MAXIMUM HIGHWAY NETWORK Network Code No. Estimated Cost of M ajor Schemes Estimated Cost of Traffi c M anagement and Minor Improvement Schemes Estimated Cost of Bus Pri ority Schemes Total Cost
MODIFIED INTERMEDIATE NETWORK
INTERMEDIATE HIGHWAY NETWORK
MINIMUM HIGHWAY NETWORK
H3/2
H3/3
H3/ 4
H4/1
180·62
146·32
159 ·90
89·16
20 ·00
27·60
26 ·50
51 ·70
4· 60
6 -40
6·10
11 ·90
205 ·22
180·32
192· 50
152 ·76
TABLE 10 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE PROVISION OF PARKING ACCOMMODATION IN 1981 (£M)
HIGHWAY NETWORK
NETWORK CODE No.
MODEL RUN
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST OF PARKING ACCOMMODATION
Base Network for Eco nomic Evaluati on
H5
19
64 ·8
Mini mum
H4/ 1
21
63 ·4
23
62 ·6
25
63 ·3
24
63 ·7
20
66 ·3
22
66 ·0
22T
63·8
Intermediate
Modifi ed Inte rm ediate
Max imum
H3/3
H3/4
H3/2
73
C H APTER
FIVE
Th e Evaluation of Alternative Transportation Systems
75
----
CHAPTER FIVE-THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTAT ION SYSTEMS INTRODUCTION 143. The progress of the Study so far had enabled the assembly of alternative composite transportation systems to be commenced. The mathematical model had been developed in parallel with the network specification exercise described in Chapter 4, and a fu lly operational model, capable of simulating trips for all purposes at all times of day, was available at about the same time as the systems specification exercise was completed . The next stage of the Study was a second series of model runs to eva luate alternative transportation systems for possible implementation by 1981. Seven model runs were undertaken in this series of tests. Run 19 was used to forecast 1981 travel patterns on the RO-H5 base system for economic evaluation . The systems evaluated in model runs 20 to 25, and the res ults of these evaluations are described below.
MO DEL RUN 20-Upgraded railway network and 'maximum' highway network {R1 0) {H3/2) 144. Model Run 20 evaluated the upgraded public transport network R10, which was developed in the second stage of the rail planning study, in con junction with the 'maximum' highway network H3/2. Network R1 O is illustrated in Figure 31 and H3/2 is illustrated in Figure 46. Table 11 summarises the capita l cosfs of the R1 O-H3/2 transportation system for budget and evaluation purposes. Line B of th e table shows that the highway network had a capita l cost for budget purposes of about £205M (see also Table 9) and that the estimated infrastructure cost of network R10 was £14M giving a total system cost of £219M. However, for evaluation purposes it was necessary to adjust this cost by subtracting the costs of the committed schemes included in the base system for economic evaluation and by adding costs for public transport rolling stock and parking accommodation. The first correction is required because all benefits calculated by the model are relative to the base system for economic evaluation (see paragraph 62) and hence th e benefits from any schemes included in this base system can not be measured . The second correction is needed because rolling stock and parking are real costs to the community which are not included in the Study budget. Line J of Table 11 shows the total capital cost of the R1 O- H3/2 system to be £179M for evaluation purposes. 145. The output produced in the evaluation stage of model run 20 is summarised in Tables 12 and 13. Table 12 shows the operating benefits of the evaluated system and indicates that increased annual highway maintenance and policing costs of f0 ·20M and £0·07M would be more than offset by
an annual saving in highway accident costs of £1 ·19M, to produce a total annual highway operating benefit of £0 ·92M. The table also shows an annual increase in the net cost of bus operation (after correction for fare revenue) of £2·51 M, offset by a decrease in the net railway operating cost of £8 ·05M, to produce a total annual public transport operating benefit of £5·54M . Table 13 summarises the user benefits which would result from the evaluated system. Lines A to F of this table show person benefits, in terms of the value of reduced travel times and increased travel opportunities (see paragraph 64 and Figure 17) of highway and public transport users. Line K of the table shows highway users would the benefits which enjoy in reduced vehicle operating costs. Note that all benefits shown in Tables 12 and 13 exclude all forms of taxation (see paragraph 65). 146. Table 14 summarises the benefits from Tables 12 and 13 and shows a total annual system benefit of about £21 M. This benefit is related to the evaluated system capital cost of £179M to produce an 11 ·7% first year rate of return on investment in the R1 O-H3/2 transportation system. 147. Figures 49 and 50 show forecast 1981 overloads on highway network H3/2 during a morning peak hour and a typical off-peak hour. These figures show that the 'maximum' network would be subject to a considerable degree of traffic congestion throughout the day. Figure 51 shows total daily passenger volumes assigned to railway network R10.
MODEL RUNS 21 AND 25-Rapid Transit System with 'minimum' and 'intermediate' highway networks 148. Model run 21 evaluated the Northenden to Higher Blackley section of the MARTS rapid transit line. In the third volume of the report of the MARTS Study this central section had been recommended as the first stage of any rapid transit system . For this model run the rapid transit system was evaluated in conjunction with network R10 and the complete public transport system was given the network code number R14. The R10 component of network R14 was as tested in model run 20 with the following exceptions: (i) Wilmslow/Styal/Pic cadilly railway line closed; (ii) right of way of the above line con verted into a busway between Styal and East Didsbury; (iii) all relevant bus routes in the rapid
77
TABLE 11
TABL E 13
NETWORK CAPITAL COST SUMMARY (£M) - MODEL RUN 20
SUMMARY OF USER BENEFITS (£M P.A .)- MODEL RUN 20
HIGHWAY
PT
A
Network
H3/2
R10
B
Total network infrastructure cost
205 ·22
14·00
c
Network infrastructure cost of base network for economi c evaluation
D
Evaluated network infrastructure cost ( B- C)
51 ·95 153 ·27
14·00
TOTAL
HIGHWAY USER
PT USER
TOTAL
219 ·22
A
Peak Work Trips
1 ·45
1 ·54
2·99
51 ·95
B
Off Peak Work Trips
0 ·37
0 ·58
0 ·95
c
24 hr. Hom e Based Edu cational Trips
0 ·01
0 ·33
0·34
167 ·27 US ER PERSON BE NEFIT
E
Capital cost of bus fl eet, extra over bus fleet required to operate ba se network for economic evaluation
2 ·93
2·93
D
24 hr. Oth er Hom e Based Trips
1 ·67
MO
2 ·77
F
Capital cost of railway rolling stock, additional to th at required for base network for economic evaluation
7 ·18
7 ·18
E
24 hr. Non - Home Based Trips
3·50
0·71
4·21
G
Total additional rolling stock cost (E + F)
10·11
10·11
F
TOTAL (A + B + C + D + E)
7 ·00
4·26
11 ·26
H
Capital cost of providing parking accommod ation, ext ra over cost for base system for economic evaluation
G
Comm ercial Vehicle (24 hr.}
2·02
2·02
H
Car- Peak Work Trips
0-41
0-41
J
Car- All other trips
0 ·75
0 ·75
K
TOTAL (G + H + J)
3·18
3·18
L
TOTAL USER BENEFIT (F + K)
J
Total capital cost of system for evaluation purposes (D + G + H)
1 ·50
1 ·50
154·77
24 ·11
178 ·88
US ER VE HICLE OP ERATING BE NEFIT
10·18
4·26
14·44
TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF OPERATING BENEFITS (£M P.A.) - MODEL RUN 20 A
Highway network
H3/2
B
Increase in annu al highway maintenance cost rel ative to base network for economic evaluation (H5)
0 ·20
c
Increase in annual highway policing cost rel ative to base network for economic evalu ation
0·07
D
Reduction in annu al highway accid ent cost rel ative to base network for economic evalu ation
1'1 9
E
Total annual operat ing benefit of highway network (D -
TABLE 14
(B + C))
EVALUATION SUMMARY- MODEL RUN 20 PT
TOTAL
10·18
4·26
14·44
0 ·92
5·54
6·46
11'10
9·80
20·90
HIGHWAY
0 ·92
F
Publi c tran sport network
R10
G
Increase in net annu al bus operating cost re lative to base netw ork fo r economic evaluation (RO)
2·5 1
H
Reduction in net annual train operating cost re lative t o base network for ec on omic evalu ation
8· 05
J
Total annu al net operatin g ben efit of publi c tra nsport system (H - G)
5·54
A
Total User Benefits (£M p.a.)-see Tabl e 13
B
Total Operatin g Benefits (£M p. a. )- see Table 12
c
Total System Benefits ( £M p.a.) (A + B)
D
Total Evalu ated Capital Co st of System ( £ M) -see Table 11
E
First year rate of return on capita l % ( C
100
xD
)
178 ·88
11 ·7%
Note: A ll figures in th ese, and subsequ ent. ta bl es are at 1968 mon ey values.
78
79
N
CD
N
Cl)
Link Load as a Percentage of Link Capacity
Link Load as a Percentage of Link Capacity
Less than 100%
Less than 100% 100% -
100% -
150%
150%
More than 150%
Morethan150%
Sca l e - - = - - ' " " = = = - - - = ==' Mi les
Fig. 49.
80
Peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3/2, 1981 (Model Run 20) .
Fig. 50.
Off-peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3/2, 1981 (Model Run 20).
81
:=..._ 30,000
10.000
S cale of Trip s
Fig. 51.
路
1981 Total Daily Passenger Volumes Assigned to Network R10 (Model Run 20). Fig. 52.
82
Northenden to Higher Blackley Rapid Transit System (Model Run 21).
83
TABLE 15
TABLE 17
NETWORK CAPITAL COST SUMMARY (£M)-MODEL RUN 21
SUMMARY OF USER BENEFITS (£M P.A.)-MODEL RUN 21
HIGHWAY H4/ 1
A
Network
B
Total network infrastructure cost
c
Network infrastructure cost of base network for eco nomic eva luation
D
Evaluated network infrastructure cost (B - C)
152·76
Capital cost of bus fleet. extra over bus fleet required to operate base network for economic evaluation
F
TOTAL HIGHWAY USER
R14 67-43
51 ·95 100·81
E
PT
67-43
A
Peak Work Trips
0 ·21
2·22
2 ·43
51 ·95
B
Off Peak Work Trips
0 ·07
0·87
0·94
c
24 hr. Home Based Educational Trips
0 ·00
0 ·47
0-47
D
24 hr. Other Home Based Trips
0·31
1 ·96
2·27
E
24 hr. Non-Home Based Trips
0 ·72
1 ·09
1 ·81
F
TOTAL (A + B + C + D + E)
1 ·31
6 ·61
7 ·92
G
Commercial Vehicle (24 hr.)
0·46
0 ·46
H
Car-Peak Work Trips
0·16
0 ·16
J
Car-All other trips
0·25
0 ·25
K
TOTAL (G + H + J)
0 ·87
0 ·87
L
TOTAL USER BENEFIT (F + K)
2·18
168·24
2·73
2·73
Capita l cost of railway rolling stock, additional to that required for base network for economic evaluation
11 ·98
11 ·98
G
Total additional rolling stock cost (E + F)
14·71
14·71
H
Capital cost of providing parking accommodation, extra over cost for base system for economic evaluation
J
Total capital cost of system for evaluation purposes (D + G + H)
99-41
- 1-40 82·14
TOTAL
220·19
USER PERSON BENEFIT
- 1-40
PT USER
181 ·55
USER VEHICLE OPERATING BENEFIT
6·61
8 ·79
TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF OPERATING BENEFITS (£M P.A.)-MODEL RUN 21
A
Highway network
H4/ 1
B
Increase in annual highway maintenance cost relative to base network for economic evaluation (H5)
0·04
c
Increase in annual highway policing cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
0 ·02
D
Reduction in annual highway accident cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
0·76
E
Total annual operating benefit of highway network (D -
(B + C))
EVALUATION SUMMARY-MODEL RUN 21
HIGHWAY
0 ·70
F
Public transport network
R14
G
Increase in net annual bus operating cost relative to base network for economic evaluation (RO)
3 ·49
H
Reduction in net annual train operating cost relative to base network for ec onomic evaluation
9·33
J
Total annual net operating benefit of public transport system (H - G)
5·84
84
TABLE 18
PT
TOTAL
A
Total User Benefits ( £M p.a.)-see Table 17
2·18
6·61
8 ·79
B
Total Operati ng Benefits ( £M p.a .)- see Table 16
0·70
5·84
6·54
c
Total System Benefits (£M p.a.) (A + B)
2·88
12·45
15·33
D
Total Evalu ated Capital Cost of System (£M) - see Table 15
E
. I o/co ( C xD100) . year rate o f return on capita First
181 ·55
8 ·5%
85
TABLE 21 TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF USER BENEFITS (£M P.A.)-MODEL RUN 25
NETWORK CAPITAL COST SUMMARY (£M)-MODEL RUN 25 HIGHWAY
PT
A
Network
H3/3
R14
B
Total network infrastructure cost
180 ·32
67 ·43
c
Network infrastructure cost of base network for econom ic evalu ation
D
Evaluated network infrastructure cost (B -
51 ·95 128·37
C)
E
Capital cost of bus fl eet, extra over bus fleet required to operate base network for economic eva luation
F
67-43
TOTAL
TOTAL
A
Peak Work Trips
1 ·05
2·21
3·26
51 ·95
B
Off Peak Work Trips
0 ·23
0·86
1 ·09
c
24 hr. Home Based Educational Trips
0·00
0-47
0-47
D
24 hr. Other Home Based Trips
1 ·06
1 ·95
3·01
E
24 hr. Non-Home Based Trips
2·20
1 ·09
3·29
F
TOT AL (A + B + C + D
4·54
6·58
11 ·12
G
Commercial Vehicle (24 hr.)
1 ·25
1 ·25
H
Car- Peak Work Trips
0 ·33
0·33
J
Car-All other trips
0·57
0 ·57
K
TOTAL (G + H + J)
2·15
2·15
L
TOTAL USER BENEFIT (F + K)
6·69
195·80 USER PERSON BENEFIT 2·73
Capital cost of railway rolling stock, addition al to that required for base network for economic evaluation
11 ·98
11 ·98
G
Total additional rolling stock cost (E + F)
14·71
14·71
H
Capital cost of providing parking accommodation, extra over cost for base system for eco nomic eva luation
J
Total capital cost of system for evaluation purposes (D
+ E)
- 1 ·50
- 1 ·50 126 ·87
PT USER
247·75
2·73
+ G + H)
HIGHWAY USER
82·14
209·01
USER VEHICLE OPERATING BENEFIT
6·58
13 ·27
TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF OPERATING BENEFITS (£M P.A.)-MODEL RUN 25 A
Highway network
H3/3
TABLE 22
B
Increase in annual highway maintenance cost relative to base network for economic evaluation (H5)
0 ·16
EVALUATION SUMMARY-MODEL RUN 25
c
Increase in annual highway policing cost relative to base network for economic eva luation
0 ·05
D
Reduction in annual highway accident cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
0·97
E
Total annual operating benefit of highway network (D -
(B
+ C))
HIGHWAY
TOTAL
A
Total User Benefits ( £M p.a. )-see Table 21
6 ·69
6·58
13 ·27
B
Total Operating Benefits (£M p.a .)-see Tabl e 20
0·76
5 ·84
6·60
7·45
12-42
19 ·87
0·76
F
Public transport network
R14
c
Total System Benefits (£Mp.a .) (A + B)
G
Increase in net annual bus operating cost re lative to base network for econom ic evaluation (RO)
3-49
D
Total Evaluated Capital Cost of System (£M)-see Table 19
H
Reduction in net annual train operating cost relative to base network for economic eva luation
9·33 E
. I o/co ( C xD100) . year rate o f return on capita First
J
Total annual net operating benefit of public transport system (H - G)
5 ·84
86
PT
209·01
9·5%
87
Higher Blackley
19,2 00 Charlestown Road
2 5.0 0 0 Maston Lane
2 8,0 0 0 Queen's Park Collyh.urst
45,100 Victoria
81 ,3 00 Market Street
St.. Peter's Square
71 ,000 Oxford Road
52,000 University
46,3 0 0 Whitworth Park
4 3,3 0 0 Platt Lane
N
3 8,40 0
Ci)
Fallowfield
35,900 Withington
21 ,600
9,000 Didsbury
Barlow Moor Ro ad
Link Load as a Percentage of Link Capac ity
18,10 0
~200
Less th an 100%
East Didsburv
North enden
100% -
150%
M ore than 150%
8,500 Gatley Sc ale-'='-"""""'~=---====' Milos
6,400 Hea ld Green
1,800 Styal
Fig . 53.
Fig . 54.
Peak Overloading Diagram, Network H4/1 , 1981 (Model Run 21).
1981 Total Daily Passenger Volumes Assigned to Rapid Transit System (Model Run 21) .
JOHN RYLAND!f UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY OF MANC H ESTE~
88
89
transit corridor modified to provide feeder services to stations. Network R14 was evaluated in conjunction with the 'minimum' highway network H4/1 (see Figure 48). 149. Table 15 summarises the capital cost estimates made in run 21 . The following points should be noted: (i) The £67-43M capital infrastructure cost of network R14 is made up as follows: Network R10 Conversion of Styal line to busway Rapid transit system
£M 14·00 1 ·23 52·20 £67-43M
(ii) the negative parking accommodation cost shown in line H of the table indicates that there would be fewer car trips on the R14-H4/1 system than on the RO-H5 base system and hence the cost of providing parking accommodation for these trips would be less. 150. Tables 16, 17 and 18 summarise the benefits calculated il1 the evaluation stage of model run 21. The final rate of return of 8 ·5% (Table 18) is significantly less than the 11 ·7% achieved in model run 20 and comparison of Tables 13 and 17 shows that this is largely due to reduced highway benefits not being fully compensated for by increased public transport user benefits.
N
Cl) Link Load as a Percentage of Link Capacity Less th an 1 00% 100% -
150%
More than150%
Sca le -'="---"'=='---==~ Mil es
Fig. 55.
Off-peak Overloading Diagram, Network H4/1, 1981 (Model Run 21).
151. The Northenden to Higher Blackley rapid transit line is illustrated in Figure 52, and total daily (24 hour) passenger volumes assigned to this line are shown in Figure 53. The latter figure suggests t hat the use of a rapid transit line between Northenden and Higher Blackley would probably be sufficient to make it commercially viable. Figures 54 and 55 show hourly peak and off-peak overloads on highway network H4/1. The figures indicate that considerable highway congestion would occur at all times of the day, although the extent of this congestion in the peak period would be no greater than in network H3/2. 152. From the results of model run 21 it was concluded that public transport network R14 had produced reasonable benefits and might be com mercially viable. Highway network H4/1, on the other hand, had produced low benefits and was considered to be operationally unsatisfactory, especially in its forecast level of off -peak congestion.
90
It was therefore considered that a rapid transit system could not be justified within the constraint of the Study budget. It was, however, thought to be desirable to evaluate a rapid transit system financed from an increased budget and for this purpose an additional model run (25) was undertaken. The objective of this model run was to determine the post-1981 potential of rapid transit in order to preclude its rejection on the grounds of possible short term disbenefits. 153. Model run 25 evaluated public transport network R14 in conjunction with the 'intermediate' highway network H3/3 (Figure 47) . The results of this evaluation are given in Tables 19 to 22. Table 22 shows that the first year rate of return produced was 9·5%. Table 21 shows that the public transport user benefits (£6 ·58M) produced by network R14 in this run were marginally less than those found in run 21 (£6 ·61 M), indicating that the public transport benefits calculated in run 21 had not been depressed by the low level of highway investment involved in network H4/1.
upgraded 22- Alternative RUN MODEL railway network and 'maximum' highway network 154. After completing model run 20 the performance of network R10 was discussed with members of the SELNEC PTE and particular attention was paid to the feasibility of the network from an operator's viewpoint. From this discussion an alternative upgraded railway network (network code number R20) was specified in order to evaluate proposals which the PTE thought might offer certain operating advantages. Network R20 is illustrated in Figure 56. This network differs from network R10 in the following respects : (i) Bury line. Upgraded service retained as in R10 between Bury and Victoria but with the line closed to the north of Bury together with the closure of Stubbins, Ramsbottom and Summerseat stations. The Bury Easterly By-pass- which is shown in Figures 49 and 50 to be operating at below maximum capacity - would enable adequate alternative bus services to be operated; (ii) Rochdale line. Retained as in R10 but with the disused station at Middleton Junction re -opened and served by feeder bus from Langley and Middle ton . This station was re -opened because of the severe highway con gestion on network H3/ 2 in the Middleton area (see Figures 49 and 50); (iii) Oldham line. As in network R1 O; 91
TABLE 24 SUMMARY OF OPERATING BENEFITS (£M P.A.)-MODEL RUN 22 A
Highway network
H3/2
B
Increase in annual highway maintenance cost relative to base network for economic evaluation (H5)
0·20
c
Increase in annual highway policing cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
0·07
D
Reduction in annual highway accident cost relative to base netwo.rk for economic evaluation
1-1 9
E
Total annua l operating benefit of highway network (D -
TABLE 26 EVALUATION SUMMARY-MODEL RUN 22 PT
TOTAL
10·19
3·84
14·03
0·92
5·29
6·21
11-11
9 ·13
20 ·24
HIGHWAY
(B
+ C))
0· 92
F
Public transport network
R20
G
In crease in net annual bus operating cost relative to base network for economic evaluation (RO)
2·87
H
Reduction in net annua l train operating cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
8·16
J
Total annua l net operating benefit of public transport system (H -
5·29
92
G)
A
Total User Benefits (£M ·p.a.)-see Table 25
B
Total Operating Benefits (£M p.a .)-see Table 24
c
Total System Benefits (£M p.a.) (A
D
Total Evaluated Capital Cost of System £(M)-see Table 23
E
First year rate of return on capital %
+ B)
(C x0 100)
174·80
11 ·6%
93
railway (iv) Mossley line. Upgraaed service, as in R10, retained between Ashton and Victoria . Stations closed to the .East of Ashton and feeder buses operated from Mossley and Stalybridge to Ashton bus station. Railway and bus stations in Ashton connected by passenger conveyor. Trans - Pennine via re-routed services railway Rochdale ; (v) Glossop line. As in network R10; (vi) Marple via Woodley line. This line closed between Hyde North and Romiley Junction together with the closure of Hyde North, Hyde Central and Woodley stations. Additional feeder buses provided between Hyde Central and Newton and between Woodley and Bredbury. Spur line to Rose Hill and Rose Hill station closed and feeder bus service provided from Rose Hill to Marple station; (vii) Marple/New Mills via Reddish North line. As in network R10 with new station at Brinnington; (viii) Buxton line. Upgraded services as in network R10 provided between Hazel Grove and Piccadilly. Railway right of way converted to busway operation between Hazel Grove and Disley; (ix) Crewe via Stockport line. Upgraded service with R10 frequency provided between Piccadilly and Wilmslow. Express services only operated south of Wilmslow. Alderley Edge station closed and feeder bus service pro vided to Wilmslow. Stockport railway station connected to proposed Daw Bank bus station by passenger conveyor ; (x) Styal line. Line and all stations closed . Parallel bus routes reverted to 1 966 frequency ; (xi) Altrincham line. As in network R10, with busway link retained between Warwick Road station and Trafford Park ; (xii) Glazebrook line. Upgraded services as in R10 retained between lrlam and Oxford Road. Express service only operated west of lrlam. Glazebrook station closed and feeder bus service provided to lrlam; (xiii) Atherton line. Line converted for bus way operation between Daisy Hill and Victoria with access for buses per94
mitted at Daisy Hill, Atherton, Wal kden, Swinton and at Sou th Lancashire Motorway. Line closed to · west of Daisy Hill; (xiv) Patricroft line. Line assumed to be used exclusively by express and freigh t trains. Eccles and Patricroft station s closed. Express bus service provid ed from Eccles and Ordsall to Victoria via South Lancashire Motorway and Atherton line busway;
... _.
155. The capital infrastructure cost of network R20 was estimated at £14 ·97M , this being made up of the following components : Railway fi xed facilities Trafford Park busway Hazel Grove busway Atherton busway Stockport passenger conveyor Ashton passenger conveyo r
,,.,I; ' ' .,. ~
.... ,...·
;
.
/' ,"
• -., )
\
I
·""' ... ._
........
I I
__,,,,,,-- ... ----
--. ,.
• .,,,.
, ""'
.
'· ..../
,.
I
~'·
I
I
I
,,
I
,
LITT LE&OIQ OV,..4-\
•
I
\
I
'.
/
I
I
,'·.J I
·.----
J
"~
,... ·,, .•.
OLD HAM. •
\
.
/
'
''1 ..
I
I I
'.i ,,' , '., .. ,"' I
:.........
~-
,
~
I
.. < :
~·
·"'\
,-''
........ ,J
I. -
I
i
I
/
'· ·~
!
......
\
'·_....
--~.~
·- ."'
N
't---
--- -- -------
... "·<.:...-.,.·-·,.
....
'
'
·-·-·-
Upgraded Passenger Railway Lines
- ·-·-· -
1( )(
·-
;
' ·........ '·
----+----
I
I
'·!
Cl)
)( )( )( JC
156. Total daily (24 - hour) two-way pa ssen ger volumes assigned to network R20 in model run 22 are shown in Figure 57 and the output produced in the evaluation stage of this model run is su mm arised in Tables 23 to 26 . The first year rate of return for the R20- H3/2 system is shown in Table 26 as 11 ·6%: virtually the same as the rate- 11 ·7%-produ ced by the R1 O- H3/2 system evaluated in model ru n 20.
/ . . ·. . . . . .,
.,.. - ..
I
I
£M 9 -482 2· 500 0·576 2·242 0·132 0·040 £14 ·972 M
.... ,,..
\
,·
(xv) Bolton line. Upgraded railway servi ce with R10 frequency provided between Bolton and Victoria via Salford. Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley stati ons closed and alternative bus servi ces provided using Atherton busway vi a and Junction Clifton Walkden . Pendleton stations closed . Express ra ilway services only assumed to operate north and west of Bolto n on Westhoughton, Preston and Blackburn lines. Bromley Cross and Lostock Junction stations closed and feeder bus services provided to Bolton. Westhoughton station closed an d replaced by direct bus servi ce t o Victoria using Atherton line busway via Daisy Hill.
I
Oth er Passeng er Railway Lines
·-.... , .,
·....
'•
'·..
W ll M SLO~
!
Busways
'· "•
Study Are a Bound ary
,
• I
I I
.. " . '• '"·-·,
I '•_.•""
.'
I
I
,
,·
.'
Stale -=='"---===
- -=
='M il es
I
'I
.,
Bus Routes Not Sh o wn
Fig . 56.
Public Transport Net work R20.
157. From the results of model runs 20 an d 22 it was concluded that, as the lower capita l and operating costs of network R20 were almost exactly balanced by the smaller benefit to its users, compared with network R10, significant advantages could not be attributed to either network relative to 95
the other. It was, however, realised that some inter mediate network, less extensive than R10 but more extensive than R20, might possibly be the optimum upgraded railway network. 158. A separate analysis was made of the potential benefits of converting the Atherton railway line to operate as a busway and it was concluded that the conversion would have neither significant net benefits nor disbenefits relative to continued railway operation. A busway might, however, present operational problems which would not occur in the continued operation of the railway. On these grounds it was concluded that a capital investment of over £2M for conversion to busway operation could not be justified .
MODEL RUN 22T-Passenger system in central Manchester
159. It was recommended in the second stage of the rail planning study that an evaluation be made of the benefits of a passenger conveyor system in central Manchester (see paragraph 120). Figure 41 shows the provisional system which was recommended for initial evaluation . It was considered by the Control Team that passenger conveyors could be specified to operate in conjunction with any of the alternative transportation systems evaluated in the second model run series and, in order to obtain some measure of the potential benefits which might be produced by such a system, it was decided to repeat a typical model run with the networks modified to permit the simulation of the passenger conveyors shown in Figure 41.
N
Cl)
.._. 30,000.
•nnnn ~
Sca le o f Tri ps
Fig. 57.
conveyor
1981 Total Daily Passenger Volumes Assigned to Network R20 (Model Run 22).
160. Model Run 22T evaluated the R20-H3/2 system (originally tested in model run 22) with the passenger conveyors added. The results of this model run are shown in Tables 27 to 30. These show that the complete transportation system produced a first year rate of return of 12·6% and a total annual system benefit of £22-4M compared with 11 ·6% and £20·2M in run 22. The difference between the overall benefits produced in runs 22 and 22T represents an apparent marginal rate of return of almost 40% on the estimated cost of the passenger conveyor system. 161 . This high rate of return was taken to be indicative of potentially high benefits from passenger conveyors. However, the following points were noted by the Control Team in connection with this forecast rate of return : (i) passenger conveyor systems could be designed to operate in conjunction with any of the alternative transporta tion systems evaluated in the second model run series and might be expected to produce an increase in the forecast
96
rates of return of these systems comparable to the difference between the rates established in model runs 22 and 22T (about 1%) ; (ii) although passenger conveyor systems are entirely feasible from an engineer ing viewpoint, and are well established for use in special conditions, their wider use for central area passenger distribution is largely unexplored. It is also difficult to make any judgment concerning their likely public accept ability; (iii) certain problems were encountered in the simulation of passenger conveyor systems by the model. These problems arose principally because: (a)
it was necessary to estimate the mean speed of all passengers using or declining to use the conveyor, given that some would stand on the conveyor and hence travel at the system speed, some would walk along the moving belt and hence travel at system speed plus walking speed, and some might decline to use the system at all;
(b)
a passenger conveyor system would in all probability benefit highway as well as public transport users in that it would tend to reduce walking time between car park and final destination for travellers entering the central area by car. This benefit was simulated in the model by the reduction of highway access times for appropriate zones, but it should be noted that the revised access times produced were necessarily based on insufficiently detailed knowledge of future car park locations;
(c)
it was assumed that users would perceive time spent travelling on a passenger conveyor system as travelling time rather than as more highly valued waiting time-see paragraph 51. It was not, how ever, possible to verify this assumption;
(iv) it was assumed for the purpose of model run 22T that no charge would be made for use of the system. Thus the annual operating cost of £0 ·5M shown in line K of Table 28 represents total operating cost assuming no income from fare revenue. 97
TABLE 27
TABLE 29
NETWORK CAPITAL COST SUMMARY (£M)-MODEL RUN 22T
SUMMARY OF USER BENEFITS (£M P.A.)-MODEL RUN 22T
HIGHWAY
PT
A
Network
H3/2
R20/2
B
Total network infrastructure cost
205 ·22
20 ·47
c
Network infrastructure cost of base network for economic evaluation
D
Evaluated network infrastructure cost (B - C)
225 ·69
20·47
173 ·74
Capital cost of bus fl eet, extra over bus fleet required to operate base network for economic evaluation
3·26
Capital cost of railway rolling stock, additional to that required for base network for economic evaluation
2·10
2·10
G
Total additional rolling stock cost (E + F)
5·36
5·36
H
Capital cost of providing parking accommodation, extra over cost for base system for economic evaluation
E
F
Total capital cost of system for evalu ation purposes (D + G
j
152·27
3·26
PT USER
TOTAL
A
Peak Work Trips
1 ·63
1 ·92
3 ·55
B
Off Peak Work Trips
0 ·44
0·74
1 ·18
c
24 hr. Home Based Educational Trips
0 ·01
0 ·37
0 ·38
D
24 hr. Other Home Based Trips
1 ·96
1 ·48
3·44
E
24 hr. Non-Home Based Trips
4 ·40
0·80
5·20
F
TOTAL (A+ B + C + D
8·44
5·31
13·75
G
Commercial Vehicle (24 hr.)
2·02
2·02
H
Car-Peak Work Trips
0·43
0'43
j
Car-All other trips
0·76
0·76
K
TOTAL (G
+ H + J)
3·21
3·21
L
TOTAL USER BENEFIT (F + K)
11 ·65
USER PERSON BENEFIT
+ E)
-1 ·00
- 1 ·00
+ H)
HIGHWAY USER
51 ·95
51 ·95 153·27
TOTAL
25 ·83
178·10 USER VEHICLE OPERATING BENEFIT
TABLE 28
5·31
16·96
SUMMARY OF OPERATING BENEFITS (£M P.A.)-MODEL RUN 22T A
Highway network
H3 /2
B
Increase in annual highway maintenance cost rel ative to base network for economic evaluation (H5)
0 ·20
c
Increase in annual highway policing cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
0·07
D
Reduction in an nual highway accident cost re lative to base network for economic evaluation
1-1 8
E
Total annual operating ben efit of highway network (D -
(B
+ C))
TABLE 30 EVALUATION SUMMARY-MO DEL RUN 22T
0 ·91
A
Total User Benefits (£M p.a .)-see Table 29
B
Total Operating Benefits (£M p.a.)-see Table 28
F
Public transport network
R20/2
G
Increase in net annual bus operating cost rel ative to base network for economic evaluation (RO)
3·74
H
Reduction in net annual train op erating cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
8·74
c
Total System Benefits (£M p.a.) (A
j
Total annual net op erating benefit of bus and rail systems (H -
5·00
D
Total Evaluated Capital Cost of System (£M)-see Table 27
K
Annua l Operating Cost of Passeng er Conveyor System
0· 50
E
1 First year rate of return on capital % (C xD OO)
Annu al net op erating benefit of complete public transport system (J -
4·50
L
98
G)
K)
+ B)
HIGHWAY
PT
TOTAL
11 ·65
5·31
16·96
0·91
4 ·50
5·41
12·56
9·81
22 ·37
178·10
12·6%
99
MODEL RUN 23-Upgraded railway network with new underground link across central Manchester in conjunction with 'intermediate' highway network 162. It was concluded during the second stage of the rail planning study that the evaluation of an underground railway link connecting two of the main line termini in central Manchester should be undertaken during the second model run series. Link 2, Piccadilly to Victoria via Albert Square, was recommended for 路 the purpose and the alignment of this link is shown in Figure 33. For evaluation purposes the link was coded to operate in conjunction with railway network R20 and the resulting composite network was allocated network code number R21. Model run 23 evaluated the performance of this public transport network in conjunction with the 'intermediate' highway network H3/3 (Figure 47). 163. Figures 58 and 59 show morning peak period (7.0-9 .0 a.m .) work trips, and total daily trips assigned to use the Piccadilly/Victoria tunnel in run 23. The figures show that the tunnel would be well used. Figures 60 and 61 show peak and off-peak overloads on highway network H3/3 and indicate that the degree of off-peak congestion on this network might be greater than on network H3/2 in model run 20 but less than for network H4/1 in run 21. The degree of peak period congestion which is shown in Figure 60 is similar to that found for the 'maximum' highway network (Figure 49) and the 'minimum' highway network (Figure 54). This constancy of the forecast level of highway overloading would seem to indicate that peak hour traffic volumes may tend to adjust so as to induce a constant level of traffic congestion irrespective of the transportation system provided, within the budget constraint of the Study. The output produced from model run 23 is summarised in Tables 31 to 34. The last of these tables indicates a first year rate of return of 10路3% for the R21 - H3/3 system.
Ringway/Langley travel corridor- one of the major corridors of radial access to central Manchesterwould not be provided with any form of public transport operating on an exclusive right-of-way. For this reason it was thought appropriate to evaluate the performance of an alternative lower cost form of public transport in this corridor and a busway system on an exclusive right of way was specified for the purpose. 165. Existing proposals for the 'ultimate' improve ment of the Princess Road/Parkway (A5103) route between central Manchester and Wythenshawe provide for a three carriageway highway with th e central 2-lane carriageway operated tidally; towards the city during the morning and away from the city during the afternoon and evening. The proposed layout of this road is shown diagrammatically in Figure 30. It was assumed for the purposes of mod el run 24 that the central carriageway of this road coul d be used as a private right -of-way for bus operation, with one lane for movement in each direction . Th e busway system was extended south eastwards from Princess Parkway by the simulated conversion of the right -of-way of the disused Midland Railway li ne between Princess Parkway and East Didsbury, and the conversion of the Styal line to busway operation between East Didsbury and Styal; with ramped connections between the Styal line and the Midland line and between the Midland line and the centra l carriageway of Princess Parkway. From Princess Parkway buses were routed through the Manchester city centre over a two way bus street system alo ng Denmark Road, Oxford Road, Oxford Street, St. Peter's Square, Mosley Street, Piccadilly and Oldh am Street to Rochdale Road. Buses using Rochdale Road were provided (in the network coded for the mode l run) with a two - lane bus carriageway sited on the east side of Rochdale Road, which was itself si mu lated as being improved to dual two-lane standard. The route of the busway /bus street system is sh own in outline in Figure 62 and the bus street system in central Manchester is shown in Figure 63.
Victoria
164. The results of model runs 21 and 25 show that, although a rapid transit system in the Ringway/ Langley travel corridor would produce significant benefits to its users and might be commercially viable, its capital cost would preclude the simultane ous provision of extensive highway improvements by the 1980s and that the consequent loss of benefit to highway users would exceed the benefit to transit users. In these circumstances it was considered unlikely that a recommendation in favour of the rapid transit system could be included in the Broad Plan. The exclusion of the rapid transit system from the Plan would, however, mean that the 100
166. This busway/bus street system would requi re the exclusive use of several important central area streets by buses, and, in consequence, it was necessary to simulate and cost the accommodation of other traffic which would be displaced from t hese streets. It was thought that a one -way system, with Princess Street operating southbound an d Lloyd Street/Cambridge Street operating northbou nd, would be operationally feasible; provided that a new one-way (northbound) link could be constructed between the north end of Cambridg e Street and the intersection of Windmill Street and Lower Mosley Street. This system would involve the diversion of northbound traffic from Upper Brook Street to Cambridge Street via Grosvenor and Cavendish Streets. The 'minimum' (H4/1) and 'intermediate' (H3/3) highway networks provide for the construction of the section of the M anchester
Albert Square
Piccadilly
I I
6,300 - -
I I
Fig. 58.
1981 A.M. Peak (7.0-9.0) Work Trips Assigned to Piccadilly/Victoria Tunnel (Model Run 23).
Victoria
Piccadilly
r
I I I
I
I
I I I I
I
MODEL RUN 24-Busway system in the Ringway/Langley corridor in conjunction with upgraded railway network and 'intermediate' highway network
Market Street
Fig. 59.
I I
I I
1981 24- Hour Passenger Trips Assigned to Piccadilly/Victoria Tunnel (Model Run 23).
101
TABLE 31
TABLE 33
NETWORK CAPITAL COST SUMMARY (£M)-MODEL RUN 23
SUMMARY OF USER BENEFITS (£M P.A.) - MODEL RUN 23
HIGHWAY
PT
A
Network
H3/3
R21
B
Tota l network infrastructure cost
180·32
36·08
c
Network infrastructure cost of base network for eco nomic evalu atio n
D
Evaluated network infrastructure cost (B - C)
E
Capita l cost of bus fleet, extra over bus fleet required to operate base network for eco nomic eva luation
F
128·37
Total additional rolling stock cost (E + F)
H
Capital cost of providing parking accommodation, extra over cost for base system for economic evaluation Total capita l cost of system for eva lu ation purposes (D + G + H)
36·08
216-40
164-45
3·35
6·61
6·61
- 2·20 42·69
PT USER
TOTAL
A
Peak Work Trips
1 ·01
1 ·67
2·68
B
Off Peak Work Trips
0·20
0 ·65
0 ·85
c
24 hr. Home Based Educational Trips
0·00
0 ·34
0 ·34
D
24 hr. Other Home Based Trips
1 ·06
1 ·30
2·36
E
24 hr. Non - Home Based Trips
2·26
0 ·72
"2·98
F
TOTAL (A + B + C + D + E)
4·53
4·68
9 ·21
G
Commerc ial Vehicle (24 hr.)
1 ·25
1 ·25
H
Car-Peak Work Trips
0·31
0·31
J
Car-All other tr ips
0·53
0 ·53
K
TOTAL (G + H + J)
2·09
2·09
L
TOTAL USER BENEFIT (F + K)
6·62
USER PERSON BENEFIT
3 ·26
3·35
- 2·20 126·17
HIGHWAY USER
51 ·95
3·26
Capital cost of railway rolling stock, additional to that required for base network for economic evaluation
G
J
51 ·95
TOTAL
168·86 USER VEHICLE OPERATING BENEFIT
4·68
11 ·30
TABLE 32 SUMMARY OF OPERATING BENEFITS (£ M P.A.) - MODEL RUN 23 A
Highway network
H3/3
B
Increase in annual highway maintenance cost relative to base network for economic eva luation (H5)
0·16
c
Increase in ann ual highway policing cost re lative to base network for econom ic evaluation
0 ·05
D
Reduction in annual highway accident cost relative to base network for econom ic eva lu ation
0 ·97
E
Total annual operating benefit of highway network (D -
0·76
TABLE 34 EVALUAT ION SUMMARY- MODEL RUN 23
HIGHWAY
(B + C))
TOTAL
A
Total User Benefits (£M p.a.)-see Table 33
6·62
4·68
11 ·30
B
Tota l Operating Benefits (£M p.a.) - see Table 32
0·76
5·27
6·03
7 ·38
9·95
17 ·33
F
Public transport network
R21
c
Total System Benefits (£M p. a.) (A + B)
G
Increase in net annual bus operating cost relat ive to base network for econ omic evalu ation (RO)
3 ·40
D
Total Eva luated Capital Cost of System (£M) - see Table 31
H
Reduction in net annual train operating cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
8·67 E
First year rate of return on cap ital % ( C xD 1 OO)
J
Tota l annual net operating benefit of public transport system (H - G)
5·27
102
PT
168 ·86
10·3%
103
TABLE 35
TABLE 37
NETWORK CAPITAL COST SUMMARY (£M)-MODEL RUN 24 HIGHWAY
SUMMARY OF USER BENEFITS (£M P.A.)-MODEL RUN 24 PT
A
Network
H3/4
R20/1
B
Total network infrastructure cost
192·50
19·37
c
Network infrastructure cost of base network for economic evaluation
D
Evaluated network infrastructure cost (B -
HIGHWAY USER
211 ·87 51 ·95
51 ·95 140·55
C)
TOTAL
19·37
159·92
PT USER
TOTAL
A
Peak Work Trips
1 ·03
1 ·77
2·80
B
Off Peak Work Trips
0 ·27
0·66
0·93
c
24 hr. Home Based Education al Trips
0 ·00
0 ·39
0·39
D
24 hr. Other Home Based Trips
H2
1 ·35
2·47
E
24 hr. Non - Home Based Trips
2·47
0 ·74
3 ·21
F
TOTAL (A + B + C + D + E)
4·89
4·91
9·80
G
Commercial Vehicle (24 hr.)
1 -41
1-41
H
Car- Peak Work Trips
0·32
0·32
J
Car-All other Trips
0·65
0·65
K
TOTAL (G + H + J)
2·38
2·38
L
TOTAL USER BENEFIT (F
USER PERSON BENEFIT
E
Capital cost of bus fleet, extra over bus fleet required to operate base network for economic evaluation
2·77
2 ·77
F
Capital cost of railway rolling stock, additional to that required for base network for economic evaluation
2 ·10
2·10
G
Total additional rolling stock cost (E + F)
4·87
4·87
H
Capital cost of providing parking accommodation, extra over cost for base system for economic evaluation
- HO
J
Total capital cost of system for evaluation purposes (D + G + H)
139 ·45
- HO 24·24
163 ·69
USER VEHICLE OPERATING BENEFIT
+ K)
7·27
4·91
12·18
TABLE 36 SUMMARY OF OPERATING BENEFITS (£M P.A.) - MODEL RUN 24
A
Highway network
H3/ 4
B
Increase in annual highway maintenance cost relative to base network for economic evaluation (H5)
0 ·20
c
Increase in annual highway policing cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
0 ·06
D
Reduction in annual highway accident cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
H 1
E
Total annual operating benefit of highway network (D -
(B
+ C))
0 ·85
F
Public tran sport network
R20/ 1
G
In crease in net annu al bus op erating cost relative to base network for economic evaluation (RO)
3·1 1
H
Reduction in net annual train operating cost relative to base network for economic evalu ation
8 ·01
J
Total annual net operating ben efit of public transport system (H - G)
4·90
104
TABLE 38 EVALUATION SUMMARY-MODEL RUN 24 HIGHWAY
PT
TOTAL
A
Total User Benefits ( £M p.a .)- see Tabl e 37
7·27
4·91
12 ·18
B
Total Operating Benefits (£M p. a.)- see Table 36
0·85
4·90
5 ·75
c
Total System Benefits (£M p.a.) (A + B)
8 ·12
9·81
17 ·93
D
Tot al Evalu ated Capital Cost of System (£M) -see Tabl e 35
E
First yea r ra te of return on capital % (C x 1OO) 0
163 ·69
11 ·0%
105
N
N
Cl)
Cl) Link Load as a percentag e of Link Capacity
Link Load as Percentage of Link Capacity
Less than 100%
Less than 100 %
100% -
100 % -
150%
150 %
More th an 150 %
More than 150%
Sea le - " = = ' - - -'====='- - ===' Mi les
Scale -"=='---'====='---"===' Mil es
Fig. 60.
106
Peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3/3, 1981 (Model Run 23).
Fig. 61.
Off-peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3/3, 1981 (Model Run 23).
107
- -
Fig. 62.
Busway System Evaluated in Model Run 24.
Fig. 63. 108
BusStrcet
Busway/ Bus Street System in Central Manchester (Model Run 24). 109
City Centre Road between Albion Street and Princess Street. Portland Street could be widened east of Princess Street to provide for three traffic lanes in each direction within the space available between existing building lines. Such an improvement to Portland Street, together with the committed section of the City Centre Road, would probably provide more capacity than is presently available on Mosley Street and Portland Street combined. This traffic scheme is illustrated in Figure 63. 167. Model run 24 evaluated the busway system described above in conjunction with upgraded railway network R20 and the intermediate highway network. The busway was added to network R20, and the resulting composite network was designated
by network code number R20/1. Network H3/3 was modified to include the necessary improvements to Princess Parkway and Rochdale Road and the central area traffic management system described in the previous pa ragraph. The modified network was given the network code number H3/4. The estimated capital costs of networks R20/1 and H3/4 are shown in Table 35. 168. Total daily (24 hour) passenger volumes assigned to the busway system in run 24 are shown in Figure 64, and the output from this model run is summarised in Tables 35 to 38. The last of these tables indicates that the R20/1 -H3/4 transportation system produced an estimated first year rate of return of 11 路0%.
Hig her Blackley
20,2 0 0 Harpurhey
2 3,00 0
Queen 's Road
C HAPTER
3 3,6 00 Thompson Street
SIX
CITY CENTRE
Denmark Road
The Selection of th e Broad
I
Transpo rtation Plan
45,5 00
27,500
18,0 00
Barlow Moor Road
Didsbury
27,000
17,800
Nortlienden
East Didsbury
12,5 00 Gatley
7,500
-
Hea ld Green
2,1 00 Sty al
Fig. 64. 1981 Total Daily Passenger Trips Assigned to Busway System (Model Run 24) .
111
TABLE 39
CHAPTER SIX-THE SELECTION O F TH E B ROAD T RANSPORTATION PLAN
SUMMARY OF SYSTEMS EVALUATED IN THE SECOND MODEL RUN SERIES
THE ALT ERNATIVES CONSIDERED MODEL RUN No .
CODE NAME
19
Base
H5
16
RO
10
Base System for Economic Evalu ation.
20
Highway/ Rail R10
H3/ 2
46
R10
31
Upgraded railway system produced in second stage of rail planning study, in conjunction with ' ma ximum' highway network.
HIGHWAY NETWORK
PT NETWORK
CODE No .
CODE No.
FIGURES
FIGURES
DESCRIPTION
21
Tran sit
H4/ 1
48
22
Highway/ Rail R20
H3/ 2
46
R20
56
'Modified' upgraded railway system (net work R20) in conjunction w ith ' maximum' highway network.
22T
Travelator
H3/ 2
46
R20/ 2
41 56
As for mod el run 22 plus passenger conveyor (travelator) system in central M anchester, as recommend ed in secon d stag e of rail pl anning study.
R14
31 52
Duorail rapid tra nsit system (North end en - Blackley) in conjun ction with R10 plu s ' minimum' highway network.
23
Rail Tunn el
H3/ 3
47
R21
33 56
Central area railway tunn el (Pic cadillyVictoria via Albert Square) in conjun cti on with railway network R20 plus 'intermediate' highway network.
24
Bu sway
H3 / 4
47 63
R20/ 1
62
Busway system in Ringway/Lan gley tra vel corridor in conjunction with ra ilway network R20 and modified ' intermediate' highway network.
25
Highway/ Transit
H3/ 3
47
R14
31 52
Rapid transit system in conjunction w ith R10 plus 'interm edi ate' highway network.
TABLE 40
USER BENEFITS £M P.A. (i) MODEL RUN No.
CODE NAME
PT USERS
HIGHWAY
PT
TOTAL BENEFITS £M P.A. (iii ) equ als (i) + (ii )
10 ·2
4·3
0·9
5 ·5
2·2
6·6
0·7
HIGHWAY USERS
EVALUATED SYSTEM CAPITAL COST £M (iv)
FIRST YEAR RATE OF RETURN (v)
BU DGET COST OF SYSTE M £M (vi)
HGWY.
PT
20 ·9
154·8
24 ·1
11 ·7%
219 ·2
5 ·8
15 ·3
99-4
82 ·1
8·5%
220 ·2
20
Highway/ Rail R10
21
Transit
22
Highway/ Rail R20
10·2
3· 8
0 ·9
5·3
20 ·2
154 ·5
20 ·3
11 ·6%
220·2
22T
Travelator
11. 7
5·3
0 ·9
4 ·5
22 -4
152 ·3
25 ·8
12·6%
225· 7
23
Rail Tunn el
6·6
4· 7
0·8
5 ·3
17 ·4
126·1
42 ·7
10·3%
21 6·3
24
Busway
7 ·3
4·9
0 ·9
4·9
18·0
139·5
24 ·2
11 ·0%
211 ·9
25
Highway/ Transit
6·7
6·6
0 ·8
5·8
19 ·9
126·9
82·1
9·5%
247 ·7
11 2
170. The output produced in model runs 20 to 25 is summarised in Table 40. The following points should be noted about the table : (i) user benefits allow for time and cost savings and increased travel opportunities, relative to the base networks for economic evaluation, for both highway and public transport users and also for changes in vehicle operating cost experienced by operators of private cars and commercial vehicles ; (ii) operator and community benefits allow for changes in the profitability of public transport operation and for changes in the cost of highway maintenance, highway policing and road accidents ; (iii) total benefits equal user benefits plus operator and community benefits ; (iv) evaluated system capital cost is the total system infrastructure cost less the cost of schemes included in the base networks for economic evaluation plus the cost of additional publ ic transport rolling stock above that required to operate the base system . The evaluated system capital costs given in the table for highways include the estimated costs of traffic management, local bus priority schemes and the provision of parking accommoda tion;
SUMMARY OF MODEL OUTPUT (MODEL RUNS 20- 25)
OPERATOR AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS £M P.A. (ii)
169. Table 39 summarises the alternative transport ation systems which were evaluated in the second series of model runs . Descriptions of the highway and public transport networks incorporated in each run are given in Chapters 4 and 5.
(v) t he first year rate of return is the total benefit divided by the evaluated capital cost of the system and is expressed as a percentage ; (vi) the budget cost of the system is the total infrastructure cost chargeable to the Study budget. The budget covers the cost of transportation infrastructure, traffic management and bus priority sc hemes for implementation between 1968 and 1981 . The national motorway system-shown in Figure 66- was not chargeable to the Study budget. Th e capital costs of public transport rolling stock and parking provision w ere al so excluded from the budget. Model runs 22T and 25 w ere special evaluat ion s of systems known to be
outside the range of the budget- (see paragraphs 177 and 187) . 171 . Details of the operational performance of the highway and public transport networks evaluated in the second model run series are given in Chapter 5. These operational characteristics were considered together with the modelled benefits and rates of return of the several systems and attention was also paid to important, but unmodellable, factors such as the operational feasibility, likely impact on land use and the environment, and probable public acceptability of each system . The principal conclusions reached by the Technical Control Team are set out in the following paragraphs.
UPGRADED RAILWAY SYSTEM 172. The upgraded suburban railway network R1 O was evaluated in model run 20. A revised upgraded railway network-R20- developed by the modifica tion of R10 to incorporate various operational refinements suggested by the SELNEC PTE, was evaluated in run 22. These two model runs are shown in Table 40 to have produced the highest overall first year rates of return achieved in the second model run series except for model run 22T (see paragraph 187). The calculation of an approximate rate of return for public transport only in model runs 20 and 22, by the direct relationship of public transport (user and operator) benefits to public transport capital costs, produces a figure of about 40% for both runs. It should be noted that this figure excludes any benefits to highway users in the fo rm of reduced road congestion which might result from the improvement of the railway system. The upgrading of the railway system might have a long term feedback effect on land use patterns in that it would tend to strengthen the regional core. 173. No particular disadvantages were thought to be associated with the upgrading of the suburban railway system although the acceptance of such a system by the travelling public will have to be considered . It was realised that a fully integrated railway and feeder bus system must inevitably increase the proportion of multi -vehicle public transport journeys. For example, many existing medium and long distance bus passengers would become feeder bus/train passengers- with conse quent requirement to transfer- if an integrated system were to be implemented. The disbenefits of a multi -mode journey are taken into account in the model, although further work will be necessary to gauge the public acceptability and operational implications of an integrated system in SELNEC. However, fully integrated public transport systems are operating successfully in many oth er cities th roughout th e wo rld including Chicago, Hamburg, Stockholm and Toronto. 113
174. Because of the consistently high benefits produced by the upgraded railway networks in all model runs, and also because such evidence as is available indicates that a fully integrated public transport system would probably be acceptable to the travelling public, the Control Team concluded that the upgrading of the suburban rail network and the provision of an integrated railway and feeder bus system should be included in the Broad Plan. The PTE have proposed, and the Department of the Environment have accepted, a demonstration project to test the benefits of upgrading a railway line coupled with the development of a feeder bus network and the rationalisation of existing bus services. The Manchester to Altrincham line, which was included in both networks R10 and R20 and has recently been converted to a 25 kV. AC electric traction system, has been selected for this project. 175. The lack of significant difference between the rates of return produced in model runs 20 and 22 prevented the Control Team from making a firm recommendatio n in favour of either network R10 or R20 on the basis of the results of the second model run series. Either of the networks and many possible combinations and variations of their component lines could satisfy the criterion that an upgraded railway network be included in the recommended system. The following points were noted concerning the final detailed specification of an upgraded railway system: (i) the final proposals should take into account the other recommendatio ns of the Broad Plan. The inclusion of an underground railway in central Manchester (see paragraph 183) could particularly influence the choice of railway lines selected for retention and upgrading; (ii) the lines included in the final network will inevitably be influenced by British Railway's policy on inter-urban passenger and freight services; (iii) the final selection of a railway system depends on the detailed specification of the series of alternative services which would be operated over a given track system . Such an analysis is outside the scope of a Broad Plan and is more appropriate to the refinement stage of the Study as a complementary exercise to the detailed public transport plan which the PTE are required to produce under the terms of the Transport Act of 1968. 176. After careful consideration of all the factors which could be taken into account, a public transport network (network code number R30) was specified by the Control Team as a provisional component of the recommended Broad Plan. This network is described in detail in Chapter 7. 114
RAPID TRANSIT 177. The MARTS rapid transit line was evaluated in model run 21 and, as shown in Table 40, a first year rate of return of 8·5% was produced by the transportation system tested-R10, rapid transit, and the 'minimum' highway network. The £52 ·2M infrastructure cost of rapid transit accounted for about one -quarter of the total budget cost of the complete transportation system. This model run produced the lowest rate of return of any system evaluated in the second model run series. The low rate might have been due to the 'minimum' highway network H4/1 containing relatively few new major schemes additional to those included in the committed base network H5 (see Figures 16 and 48). Consequently a rapid transit system, operated in conjunction with a more extensive highway net work, might have given a better rate of return. This hypothesis was tested in model run 25 when public transport network R14 (R10 plus transit) was evaluated with the 'intermediate' highway network (H3/3} which had originally been coded for evaluation in model run 23. This system-whic h had a capital budget cost of £247 ·7M-produced a rate of return of 9 ·5%-almost exactly the figure whi ch might have been expected if the highway costs an d benefits from model run 23 had been considered in association with the public transport costs and benefits from run 21. It was therefore concluded that the rate of return produced in run 21 had not been significantly distorted by the low level of investm ent in the 'minimum' highway network. 178. It was thought that the environmental and land use implications of a rapid transit system w ould be similar to those of a central area railway tu nnel (see paragraph 182) and that such a system coul d prove to be commercially viable (see parag rap h 151). However, after consideration of the comparatively low rates of return produced in runs 21 and 25, and remembering that the self- contained natu re of a rapid transit system would concentrate its be nefits in a single travel corridor and would preclud e any increase in system benefits being achieved by re - routing other trains over the rapid transit rig ht -ofway, it was decided that the MARTS rapid t ransit system should not be included in the Broad Pla n.
180. After considering these results, it was con cluded that the rate of return achieved by the tunnel system might have been as high as any other rate produced in the second model run series if a greater number of trains had been coded to pass through the tunnel, and if the suburban railway network had been specifically designed for the retention and upgrading of all lines which might contribute services through the tunnel (see paragraph 175 (i)) . 181. The inclusion in the recommended Broad Plan of an upgraded suburban rail system (see pa ragraph 174) implied that the public transport network of the conurbation would be very largely rail based and would also be directed towards central Manchester. Under these circumstances the linking of the northern and southern railway systems might be an essential requirement for successful public transport operation in the 1980s. The Control Team thought that public acceptance of the upgraded railway system, which forms an essential component of the Broad Plan, would be more readily achieved by a network which provided for the extension of this system through central Manchester.
182. A railway tunnel under central Manchester would be environmentall y advantageous in that it would tend to reduce the number of car trips made to the central area; it would also reduce the number of buses required for passenger distribution within the city centre. No insuperable problems are likely to be encountered in the engineering task of excavating the tunnel and connecting it to the surface railway system. 183. The factors outlined in paragraphs 179 to 182 led the Control Team to include an underground railway across central Manchester in their recommendations for the Broad Plan. This link would most probably be a tunnel connecting Piccadilly and Victoria stations and such a tunnel was coded as part of network R30.
BUSWAYS AND BUS PRIORITY SCHEMES NEW RAILWAY LINKS THROUGH CEN TRA L MANCHESTE R 179. A railway tunnel connecting Piccadilly and Victoria stations, in central Manchester, via proposed new underground stations at Albert Squ are and Market Street, was evaluated in model run 23. This link (link 2, Figure 33) was evalu ated in conjunction with railway network R20 and the composite system was allocated network code number R21 . Table 40 shows that run 23 prod uced an overall first year rate of return of 10·3% and t hat this rate was somewhat lower than the rates achieved in runs 20, 22 and 24.
184. A major busway in the Ringway/Langl ey travel corridor was tested (model run 24) as a possible alternative to the provision of rapid transit in this corridor. The composite system of · busway, upgraded railway and 'intermediate' highway network evaluated in run 24 produced a first year rate of return of 11 ·0% (see Table 40) . This rate showed the potential of busways in the provision of public transport facilities in a major travel corridor. However, no positive recommendation was made for the inclusion of the busway in the Broad Plan . The rate achieved in run 24 was less than that for the 'maximum ' highway network plus upgraded rail systems evaluated in runs 20 and 22,
and no greater than the rate which might be expected from a system including a railway tunnel across central Manchester- given some re-routing ot trains to maximise tunnel utilisation (see paragraph 180) . Also the operational feasibility and public acceptability of a busway/bus street system are unknown, and objections could be raised on environmental grounds to a bus street system and the traffic management schemes which would be associated with it. Further consideration might be given to this system later, possibly after some experience has been gained in smaller busway proposals which are receiving consideration in the refinement of the public transport network (see paragraph 185) , and in the light of the experimental bus oriented systems which are at present being evaluated in other towns and cities throughout the world. The possibility of safeguarding the alignment of the Rochdale Road and Princess Road/Parkway sections of the busway system is to be investigated. 185. Various other possible busways were evaluated during the Study and the Control Team 's conclusions about them are: (i) Trafford Park busway-this busway (which is described in paragraphs 113 to 118 and illustrated in Figure 42) was included in all networks evaluated in the first and second model run series and in each it was found to attract very substantial numbers of passengers. It was recommended that this scheme be included in public transport network R30; (ii) Atherton line busway-this busway, which was included in networks R20 and R21 , was also found to attract substantial passenger volumes, but had no significant advantage relative to continued railway operation (see paragraph 158). The Atherton line was therefore recoded as a railway in network R30, although the refinement stage of the Study does not necessarily preclude the ultimate reintroduction of proposals for a busway on this line; (iii) Styal line busway-the Styal line was coded as a busway to the south of East Didsbury in model runs 21, 24 and 25. In runs 21 and 25 the busway acted as a feeder service to the MARTS rapid transit line and in run 24 it acted as a branch from the Princess Parkway busway connected via the right of way of the disused Midland line through Withington (see Figure 62). As neither the rapid transit line nor the Princess Parkway busway is included in the Broad Plan, no recommendatio n was made 115
I~
for a busway on the right -of-way of the Styal line. It was, however, thought that it would be desirable to investigate the possibility of safeguarding the Styal line right -of-way (to the south of East Didsbury) and the Midland line right-of-w ay(betwee n East Didsbury and Princess Parkway) in the event of the Styal line not being recommended for operation as a railway on the completion of the detailed design of the railway network; (iv) Buxton line busway-r ailway services on the Buxton line were terminated at Hazel Grove in networks R20 and R21 and the line was coded as a feeder busway to the south east of Hazel Grove station. It was thought that this proposed busway system should be further examined and a busway was coded from Hazel Grove to the study area boundary in public transport network R30; (v) Salford/Ec cles Motorway -the use of this proposed motorway by an express bus service from Eccles to Mancheste r was coded in networks R20 and R21. This service was designed to replace all local train services on the Man chester to Liverpool via Newton-le Willows railway line. This line was retained in these networks for express working only, with trains operating non -stop between Victoria and the study area boundary. The express buses, which were assumed to use the motorway without reserved lanes or any other form of special priority, were simulated to operate to Mancheste r Victoria via a connection with the Atherton line busway at the Inner Ring Road . The continued use of the Salford/ Eccles Motorway by express bus services was assumed in the specification of network R30, but in this case, in the absence of the Atherton line busway, the buses from Eccles were assigned to follow the normal street system, without reserved lanes or other modelled priority, from the eastern end of the motorway to Piccadilly bus station.
.
186. An allowance to cover the costs of local bus priority schemes, which could not be simulated by the model, was made in estimating the capital cost of each of the transporta tion systems evaluated in the second model run series (see paragraph 137) . The bus priority schemes covered by this lump sum allowance were regarded as necessary in order to achieve the bus schedules which had been used as model input.
PASSENG ER CONVEY OR SYSTEM
the precise alignment of the central area railway tunnel , before making a firm commitme nt. A pro visional sum of £5 ·0M for a possible passenger conveyor system was included in the Plan.
187. A passenger conveyor system, which had been specified in the second stage of the rail planning study (see paragraphs 106 to 108 and Figure 41 ) , was evaluated in model run 22T. The system was superimposed on the networks (R20 and H3/2) which had previously been prepared for model run 22. Table 40 shows that the transport ation system evaluated in run 22T produced a first year rate of return of 12·6% and a total annual system benefit of £22-4M compared with £20 ·2M in run 22. The difference between the system benefits produced in model runs 22 and 22T indicated an apparent marginal rate of return of almost 40% on the estimated £5 ·5M capital cost of the passenger conveyor system.
HIGHWA Y NETWOR K 190. Three alternative levels of highway investmen t were examined. in the second model run series. The 'maximum ' network H3/2 (see Figure 46) assumed the availability for highway purposes of the whole Study budget with the exception of the cost of upgrading the suburban railway system. This network had an estimated cost of £205M. The 'intermedia te' highway network H3/3 (see Figure 47) had an estimated capital cost of £180M and comprised schemes which have been announced by the Departmen t of the Environme nt for the Firm Roads Programme, Principal Road Preparation List and Trunk Road Preparation Pool (see para graph 121).
188. The following points were noted in connectio n with the high rate of return produced in run 22T : (i) passenger conveyor systems could be designed to operate in conjunctio n with any of the alternative transport ation systems evaluated in the secon d model run series and might be expected to produce an increase in the forecast rates of return of these systems comparable with the difference be tween the rates of return established in model runs 22 and 22T (about 1%) ; (ii) although passenger conveyor systems are entirely feasible from an engin eer ing viewpoint, the problems of their use as a central area distributio n system remain largely unexplored and it is difficult to make any judgment concerning their likely public acceptabil ity. No comparable systems are known to be installed in any other central area, although short systems to cater fo r movement s within shopping centres and transport termini are not uncommon and a more extensive system- 2 Km long-was operated successfully at the Expo 70 exhibition in Osaka, Japan;
1
'.
192. Table 40 shows that the model runs which evaluated the 'maximum ' highway network H3/2 (20, 22 and 22T) produced higher overall rates of return than the runs which evaluated the 'intermediate' highway networks H3/3 and H3/4 (23, 24 and 25) and that these latter runs each produced a higher rate than the one model run (21) which evaluated a system containing the 'minimum ' highway network H4/1.
(iii) certain problems were encou ntered in the simulation of passenger co nveyor systems by the model. These problems are described in paragra ph 161 (iii). 189. In view of the high benefits fou nd for passenger conveyors in run 22T, and despite the theoretical problems connected with their si mulation and the practical problems of their implem entation, it was thought that there was sufficient evi dence to indicate that a passenger conveyor system might usefully be included in the Broad Plan . However, a detailed feasibility study should be undertaken, probably in conjunctio n with the investi gation of
191. A variation of the 'intermedia te' highway network was used in model run 24 (network H3/4); this comprised network H3/3 with modificatio ns to accommod ate the busway system evaluated in that model run. The 'minimum ' highway network H4/1 comprised only highway schemes from the Firm Roads Programme and had an estimated capital cost of £153M. All these highway capital costs include lump sum allowance s for traffic manageme nt and minor improvem ent schemes and for bus priority schemes (see Table 9).
11
193. The evaluation of alternative highway net works is described in Chapter 5 and it is shown that very considerable highway congestion will inevitably occur, both in and between the daily peak periods, in 1981 whatever highway network is adopted . The extent of forecast peak hour traffic congestion was found to be similar for all highway networks, but the extent of off - peak overloadin g was found to be inversely related to the capital cost of the network evaluated, and it was therefore concluded that the 'maximum ' highway network (H3/2) was the most satisfactory from an operational viewpoint. Although it is possible that tolerable traffic conditions could be achieved on the 'intermedia te' and 'minimum' highway networks by extensive traffic management, the increased expenditur e needed for this would be partly abortive because many of the
manageme nt schemes would ultimately be super seded by major schemes constructe d in the period following the implement ation of the Broad Plan.
1
II
194. It was therefore thought desirable that the Broad Plan should include the 'maximum ' highway network H3/2, because of the relatively high rates of return produced by systems which included it and the unsatisfactory operational performances of the 'intermedia te' and 'minimum ' highway networks. It was further borne in mind that many proposed highway schemes are essential for town centre and other re-develop ment proposals.
II
I
THE SELECTIO N OF THE BROAD TRANSPO RTATION PLAN 195. Having considered the model output which is summarised in Table 40 and the individual componen ts of the transporta tion systems evaluated in the second model run series, and recognisin g the constraint of the assumed £175/200 M infra structure budget and the practical problems of design and constructio n, the Control Team considered that their recommen dation for a transporta tion system should not continue to be tied to the year 1981. The Plan should instead be related to a later design year with overall expenditur e increased pro rata, provided that this later year was not so far beyond 1981 as to imply significant changes in the land use and activity data used in the model. The Control Team considered that the following would be desirable componen ts of the recommended Plan:
I
II
I
I
I
The 'maximum ' corporatin g :
highway
network
Major highway schemes
H3/2
in -
r
Approx. £M 181
I'
Allowance for traffic management and minor improveme nt schemes
20
Allowance for bus priority schemes
5
Total cost of highway network
I
206
plus a public transport network, incorporat ing: Approx. £M
Central Mancheste r railway tunnel link
20
Upgraded suburban railway network
15
Passenger conveyor system Total cost of public transport network
I
5 40 I; I;
Provisional total cost of Broad Plan system £246M I
116 117
The provisional total cost of £246M implied a design year of about 1984 if the rate of expenditure involved in the budget to 1981 was continued pro rata until the system was completed . This system was therefore selected as a preliminary outline of the Broad Transportation Plan for the early 1980s. 196. Following this preliminary recommendation for the Plan, highway network H3/2 was refined to incorporate a number of variations which had arisen from earlier model output and detailed design work undertaken by the local highway authorities since the original coding of the network. The revised version of the network (network code number H3/2 (84)) was estimated to have a capital cost of £211 ·33M including £25·0M for traffic management, minor improvement and bus priority schemes. 197. Public transport network R30 was specified to comply with the outline description given in paragraph 195. This network had a capital cost for infrastructure budget purposes of £40 ·51 M. It must, however, be emphasised that, as stated in paragraph 175, further evaluation of the individual components included in this network may be required before it is possible to make final detailed recommendations for a public transport network.
198. Highway network H3/2 (84) and public trans port network R30 are described in detail in Chapter 7. 199. The major components of the recommended Broad Transportation Plan are illustrated in the folded map in the pocket at the back of this report. The total estimated cost of the infrastructure in this Plan amounts to £252M indicating that the Plan could be completed by about 1984 at the rate of expenditure implicit in the Study budget. 200. The folded map shows that potential highway trips are catered for by adequate road capacity in most major travel corridors other than certain radial corridors of movement to the central core of th e region. The map also shows that the highway network proposed in the Plan serves to link th e principal sub-centres of the region both to each oth er and to the national motorway system. In the case of central Manchester, where it would be unreal isti c to provide capacity for all potential car trips, th e map shows that excellent access would be provid ed by the rail based . public transport system. Th is system is shown to be strongly oriented towards the central core of the region and would cater for those radial movements for which extensive highway provision is not proposed.
CHAPTER
SEVEN
The Broad Transportation Plan
118 119
CHAPT ER SEVEN -THE BROAD TRANS PORTA TION PLAN HIGHW AY NETWO RK H3/2 (84) 201. The recomme nded highway network H3/2 (84) consists of the highway network which existed in the base year of the Study together with the major highway schemes listed in paragraphs 202 to 207, and unspecifi 6d minor improvem ent, traffic managem ent and bus priority schemes for which a lump sum allowanc e of ÂŁ25M has been made. The estimated budget cost of the highway network, at 1968/69 money values, amounts to about ÂŁ211 M. This figure excludes a number of proposed new highway schemes which were not chargeable to the budget (see paragraphs 202 to 204) . The major new schemes which are included in highway network H3/2 (84) are shown in Figure 65. HIGHW AY SCHEM ES NOT CHARG ED TO THE STUDY BUDGE T 202. The following highway schemes which form part of the national trunk motorwa y system were included in network H3/2 (84) but were not charged against the SELNEC budget (see paragraph 7 and Figure 66). Scheme reference (see Figure 65)
SELNEC Highway Plan Scheme No.
1
132
2
109 125 108 204 106, 108 605, 611 (part)
3 4
M62, the Lancashire / Yorkshire Motorway , from western study area boundary to eastern study area boundary. M61, the Mancheste r/ Preston Motorway , from western study area boundary to its junction with M62, including access links between A6 and M61. M63, the Stretford, Sale Eastern and Northende n, and Sharston By- passes between the Eccles (M62) and Kingsway (M56) interchanges. M56, the North Cheshire Motorway , between the western study area boundary and the Kingsway (M63) interchang e, including connection s to A560 and A5103 .
203. The following proposed new inter-urb an roads which may terminate within, but close to, the study area boundary were included in network H3/2 (84) for highway assignme nt purposes but were not charged against the SELNEC budget. These proposed new roads are being examined in the context of inter-urb an highway planning . No recomme ndations are made, therefore, in respect of these schemes by the SELN EC Study. Scheme reference (see Figure 65)
SELNEC Highway Plan Scheme No.
5 6 7
Skelmersdale link (A58 diversion) from western study area boundary to M61. Alderley Edge By-pass (A34 diversion) from western study area boundary to A34. Poynton By-pass (A523 diversion) from southern study area boundary to A6 .
204. The .followin g highway schemes were financed from the SELNEC highway allocation s up to and including the 1967 /68 financial year and hence are not chargeable to the Study budget, which starts from the 1968/69 financial year. Scheme reference (see Figure 65)
8 9
SELNEC Highway Plan Scheme No. 303 (part) 301
Principal Roads in Bolton Inner relief road (south) , from Derby Street to M ayor Street. Trinity Street Bridge improveme nt. Principal Roads in Bury None.
10
203 (part)
11
206
12 13
507 511 512 503 513 502 212 112 (part)
14 15 16 17 18
Principal Roads in Cheshire Mancheste r Airport link road.
Principal Roads in Lancashir e M602, Salford / Eccles Motorway, from east of M62 interchang e to Salford /Ecc les boundary including principal road element of M62/ M63 / M602 interchange. White City gyratory and Trafford Park improveme nt, Stretford . Edge Lane and King Street improveme nts, Stretford. Town Centre Link Road, Middleton . A663 diversion, Crompton. Link from Trafford Park to M63 (Route 232). The Farnworth and Kearsley By- pass Stage I (Partly in Bolton). A57 improveme nt, M anchest er boundary to Outer Ring Road.
121
• ·~ ·7'--'""*3r~-...:: • ..... ,
'·'l
.
~~
M6 2
.\ (
'
i I
N
Cl) i (
/'
.,.....\ , . .,,,..
M56
Seel•
--=---===---==='
Mun
,/ Highway schemes not chargeable to Transportation Study budget. Announced schemes comprising the balance of the November 1969 rolling programme plus schemes from the principal road preparation list and the trunk road preparat;on pool. New schemes recommended for inclusion in the Broad Transportation Plan .
Fig. 65. 122
Fig. 66.
Relationship of the SELNEC Study Area t o the National Motorway System.
Numbered sc hemes are li sted in paragraphs 202 to 207
•
The Recommended Highway Network (H3/2(84)). 123
Scheme reference (see Figure 65)
SELNEC Highway Plan Scheme No.
I
19 20 21 22 23
603 614 623 601 602
Principal Roads in Manchester Mancunian Way. Styal Road diversion (Class B route, partly in Cheshire). Chorlton Road extension. Altrincham Road improvement, Brooklands roundabout to Moor Road. Upper Brook Street tidal flow scheme.
24
701
Principal Roads in Oldham Southern Internal By-pass.
Scheme reference (see Figure 65) 46 * 47* 48* 49* 50* 51 52 53 54
805 (part)
~:
Principal Roads in Salford A6 improvement, the Crescent.
26
Principal Roads in Stockport A560 diversion, Stage I.
27
Trunk Roads A56, Edenfield diversion.
55
58*
60* 61
205. The following highway schemes which were announced by the former Ministry of Transport, made up of the balance of the November 1969 Firm Roads Programme, plus schemes from the Principal Road Preparation List and the Trunk Road Preparation Pool, are recommended for inclusion in the Broad Transportation Plan. Schemes in this category which were under construction or had been completed at 23rd March 1971 are marked with an asterisk.
62 63 64 65
30 31
SELNEC Highway Plan Scheme No. 332x 303 (part) 333x (part) 333x (part)
Estimated Cost Principal Roads in Bolton A666 diversion, Farnworth By-pass to Kay Street. Inner Relief Road, Southern Limb, Newport Street to Moor Lane. A666, Blackburn Road By-pass, Inner Relief Road, Eastern Limb, to Crompton Way. Astley Bridge By-pass, Crompton Way to Belmont Road.
EM
34* 35
352 353, 356 (part) (part) 351 (part) 354
1.
36 37* 38 39* 40 41* 42* 43 44 45
402, 403 401 209 (part) 411 405 (part) 427 404 (part) 404 (part) 202 (part) 113 (part)
67 68
505 576 (part) 201 (part) 506 509 201 (part) 202 (part) 113 (part)
1 ·301 0 ·806
Inner Relief Road, Rochdale Road to Market Street/Frederick Street.
0 ·395
Principal Roads in Lancashire Principal road element of M62 extension and provision of add itional traffic lanes between M602 and Worsley. Broadway extension and Slattocks link (including sections in Oldham and Rochdale) . Extension of Farnworth and Kearsley By-pass to M61. Phase I of A640 Milnrow diversion and link to M62.
6·198 0·366 0·832
Outer Ring Road (North) from M62 to A576.
1 ·395
Stamford Street diversion, Ashton-u-Lyne. Middleton Link Road from Long Street to Oldham Road and A669 improvement. Bower Lane, Station Bridge improvement, Chadderton (partly in Oldham).
1 ·840 1·010 0·300
Outer Ring Road, Eastern Section, from Oldham boundary to Cheshire boundary (including Northern link to Ashton-u-Lyne). Carrington Spur Road (Lancashire section) .
7·700 1 ·000
A577 diversion, Tyldesley and Atherton. A579 diversion, Leigh.
1 ·750 1-100
It
2 ·237
1: ii 1
,,11 Ii
207 (part) 615 (part) 618 (part) 649x 641 (part) 622 (part) 206 (part)
69* 70 71
0·263
Improvements to Princess Road/Parkway between Altrincham Road and Barlow Moor Road. Princess Road extension, from Denmark Road to Medlock Street.
2·995 1·710
Hardy Lane extension (Manchester section) and improvement of Hardy Lane to Barlow Moor Road . Inner Ring Road, from Stockport Road to Palmerston Street.
0·765 2·200
City Centre Road, from Medlock Street to Portland Street/ Princess Street.
4·250
Rochdale Road / Queens Road junction improvement.
0·450
A6 diversion, Longsight, Plymouth Grove/ Slade Lane to Hyde Road. Extra over cost to provide 3 lanes on development road. Middleton Road improvement, from Outer Ring Road to Victoria Avenue.
0·370 0·250
Hyde Road/Reddish Lane junction improvement.
0·400
M602, Salford/Eccles Motorway (Manchester section).
1.290
ll I
I
702 707 202 (part)
Principal Roads in Oldham A62, Bottom o'th ' Moor improvement. Extension of southern internal by-pass from Manchester Road to Broadway and Rochdale Road. Outer Ring Road / A62 / Manchester Road junction.
I
I
0·330
I
3·222 1 ·350 4·902
0·460
72 *
2 ·962
73 74
6·1 87 0·584 0 ·512
Improvement of Marsland Road and Old Hall Road, Sale. Station Road diversion, Wilmslow.
0 ·558 0·426
Station Road/Ravensoak Road improvements, Cheadle A538 diversion for runway tunnel at Manchester Airport.
0 ·376 0 ·484
77
A538 improvement, Bourne Street, Wilmslow to A538 tunnel diversion.
0·330
78
Outer Ring Road, from north of Bredbury By- pass to Lancashire boundary.
1 ·800
79
Carrington Spur Road (Cheshire section).
0·500
80
11 ·757
Principal Roads in Manchester Temporary overpass at Mancunian Way/Ches~er Road roundabout.
14·943
Principal Roads in Cheshire A34 diversion, Schools Hill to Alderley Edge By-pass. Bridging of Altrincham level crossing . Hardy Lane extension (Cheshire section), Sale.
Hulme.
612 (part) 606, 605 (part) (part) 604, 643 (part) 209
1 ·300 0· 700
Principal Roads in Bury Inner Relief Road (North) , Bolton Road/Tenters Street to Walmersley Road. Inner Relief Road, Manchester Road/Tenters Street to Bury Bridge.
New route, Walmersley Road/Moorgate junction to Rochdale Road/ Heywood Street junction.
66*
4·325 0 ·530
6·855
32* 33
EM
25 ·728
ANNOUNCED HIGHWAY SCHEMES (Scheme Numbers 28 to 98)
28* 29
504 524 205
56 57
59 *
Scheme reference (see Figure 65)
Estimated Cost
I
P.r incipal Roads in Rochdale None.
25
SELNEC Highway Plan Scheme No.
761 (part) 762 (part) 764 (part)
Principal Roads in Rochdale Manchester Road dualling, Town Meadows to Sudden.
1-149
Halifax Road dualling, from Albert Royds Street to borough boundary.
0·302
A672, Edenfield Road diversion .
0·410
-.~
1 ·861 j
I
75 * 76
804 803 (part) 206 (part) 805 (part) 806 (part) 206 (part)
Principal Roads in Salford A6, Broad Street improvement (Phases 1, 2 and 3). A6, Bolton Road improvement, from Summerville Road to Maurice Street.
2·482 1 ·933
M602, Salford / Eccles Motorway from Eccles boundary to Cross Lane.
9·940
A6 improvement, Cross Lane to the Crescent.
1 ·380
Cross Lane improvement, from M602 to A6.
0 ·814
M602, Salford / Eccles Motorway, from Cross Lane to Manchester boundary.
3·300
,· '
19·849
n1 i [!I
Ii li
124
111
125 II
Ii -
Ii
Scheme reference (see Figure 65) 81 82 83 84 85
SELNEC Highway Plan Scheme No. 851 854 855 859x 210
Estimated Cost ~JM
Principal Roads in Stockport A560 East/West diversion Stage II. A560 East/West diversion Stage IV. A560 East/West diversion Stage V. A626 improvement Stages I and II . A6 diversion, principal road section (A560 northwards to A6).
1 ·590 2·000 2 ·750 1 ·300 2·450
Scheme reference (see Figure 65)
SELNEC Highway Plan Scheme No.
105
357
106
Estimated Cost
EM Principal Roads in Bury A58, Rochdale Road, widening from Heywood Street to Bury Easterly By- pass. Connection from A56 to Easterly By-pass.
0·357 0·400 0·757
10·090 101, 102 107 108
86* 87* 88 89 90 91
103, 105 117 110 114 (part) 116 (part) 131 (part) 112 111, 210 (part) 129
92* 93* 94 95 96 97
853
98
121
Trunk Roads A56 improvement, Stretford, from Derbyshire Lane to Barton Road.
The widening of Crostons Road, Bury, which is a non-principal road, was also assumed in the Study. 1·310
M63, Sharston By-pass, extension east of Kingsway to A560 at Cheadle Heath. A57, Hyde By-pass. Improvement of A6/A580 intersection at lrlams o'th'Height. A580 improvement, Worsley/Swinton boundary to lrlams o'th'Height. A56, Stretford, White City overpass.
1 ·000 5·800 2·600 0 ·700 1 ·200
A56 improvement, Besses o'th'Barn.
0 ·285
A560 improvement, from A57 to Hattersley viaduct.
0 ·260
A57, Denton By-pass. A6 diversion, trunk road section from A6 / A523 intersection in Hazel Grove to A560 in Stockport. Bredbury By- pass : Stage I From A6017 to Stage 111 of A560 diversion; Stage II From A6017 to Hyde boundary. A560 Stockport East/West diversion . Stage Ill. From A626 diversion at Portwood to Stage I of Bredbury By-pass. Bury Easterly By-pass, from M62 to south end of Edenfield By-pass.
6·500
107 108 109
409 (part) 404 (part) 405 (part)
Principal Roads in Cheshire Hyde Inner Relief Road Stage I.
0·500
A538 dualling, from M56 to Wilmslow.
0 ·800
Widening of A5102 from A6 diversion to Bridge Lane, Bramhall.
0·300 1 ·600
110 8 ·350 111 112 113 114 115 116 117
2·810 2·460 1 ·700 10·000
211 (part) 519 525 208
508
44 ·97 5
Principal Roads in Lancashire A663, Broadway, improvement from Failsworth to Royton . Guide Lane diversion, Audenshaw. Blackburn Street diversion, Radcliffe. Link between A579 and A58 (section in Lancashire). A572 diversion, Leigh. Southbound link from Ashton-u-Lyne to Outer Ring Road . A57, Eccles town centre scheme. Grade separation at intersection of Ashburton Road with Route 232 in Trafford Park.
2·700 0·275 1 ·090 0·350 0 ·500 0 ·250 0 ·360 0·460 5·985
206. The total cost of the announced schemes numbered 28 to 98 listed in paragraph 205 amounts to about £144M comprising:
Principal Roads Bolton Bury Cheshire Lancashire Manchester Oldham Rochdale Salford Stockport Sub-total
Trunk Roads TOTAL COST OF ANNOUNCED SCHEMES
118
£M
119
6.855 2·962 11 ·757 25 ·728 14·943 4·902 1 ·861 19·849 10·090
120 121 122 123 124 125
210 (part) 613 (part) 207 (part) 625 620, 622 (part) 616 (part) 606 (part) 622 (part)
Principal Roads in Manchester Stage I of overpass at Mancunian Way/Downing Street intersection.
0·750
Princess Road improvement, from Parkside Road to Inner Ring Road.
1 ·530
Inner Ring Road, from Palmerston Street to Salford Boundary.
7 ·890
Oldham Road diversion, from Inner Ring Road to Livesey Street. Intermediate Ring Road from Hyde Road to Stockport Road, and Hyde Road improvement from Intermediate Ring Road to Inner Ring Road . Bury New Road improvement, from Inner Ring Road to Salford boundary.
0·500
Princess Road improvement, from Parkside Road to south of Mauldeth Road. A57, Hyde Road improvement, from Intermediate Ring Road to Denton boundary.
4·200 0 ·500 2 ·100 3·500 20·970
98 ·947 44 ·975
The improvement of Simonsway, Manchester, which is a non - principal road, was also assumed in the Study.
126 127
£143 ·922M
703 710 (part)
Principal Roads in Oldham A62, Manchester Street widening. A62, Manchester Road improvement.
0 ·580 1 ·040 1 ·620
NEW HIGHWAY SCHEMES (Scheme Numbers 99 to 132) 207.
128
The following new schemes are recommended for inclusion in the Broad Transportation Plan :
129 Scheme reference (see Figure 65) 99 100 101 102 103 104
SELNEC Highway Plan Scheme No. 309 (part) 309 (part) 315 (part) 303 (part) 208 309 (part)
Estimated Cost
EM Principal Roads in Bolton Inner Relief Road North, from Chorley New Road to Moor Lane.
0·950
Inner Relief Road North, from Inner Relief Road West to Kay Street.
0·400
Bury Road improvement.
0·950
Inner Relief Road South, from Moor Lane to Deane Road/Mayor Street Link.
0·500
Link between A579 and A58 (section in Bolton) . Inner Relief Road West, from Deane Road to Inner Relief Road North .
0·400 0·750 3·950
126
,
130
763 (part) 761 (part) 762 (part)
Principal Roads in Rochdale A671, Molesworth Street and John Street improvement.
0 ·425
Yorkshire Street and Halifax Road dualling, from Lomas Street to Albert Royds Street. Oldham Road improvement.
0 ·500 0 ·800 1 ·725
131
207 (part)
132
857 (part)
Principal Roads in Salford Inner Ring Road, from M602 northwards to Manchester boundary.
5·500
Principal Roads in Stockport A626 diversion, Stage 111.
0 ·300
Trunk Roads None.
127
208. The total cost of the new schemes numbered 99 to 132 listed in paragraph 207 amounts to about £43M comprising:
£M
Principal Roads Bolton Bury Cheshire Lancashire Manchester Oldham Rochdale Salford Stockport 1'
TOTAL COST OF NEW SCHEMES
paragraphs 211 to 218. Network R30 is illustrated in Figure 67. The total estimated infrastructure cost of this network is £40·51 M. NEW RAILWAY LINES
3 ·950 0·757 1 ·600 5·985 20·970 1 ·620 1 ·725 5·500 0 ·300
£42-407M
TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK H3/2 (84)
COST
OF
209. The total new scheme cost of £42-407M together with the £143·922M cost of the announced schemes listed in paragraph 205 produces a total cost for major highway schemes in network H3/2 (84) of £186·329M and a total estimated budget cost for the network of £211 ·329M including allowances of £20M for traffic management and minor improvement schemes and £5M for bus priority measures. Table 41 summarises the makeup of the recommended 1984 highway network by route type. This table may be compared with Table 3 which gives similar information for the 1965/66 highway network.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK R30 210. It was explained in Chapter 6 that final recommendations for a public transport network for 1984 cannot be made until the completion of further analysis. However, it is necessary to undertake detailed network specification in order to evaluate a transportation system, and a description of the characteristics of public transport network R30, as coded for model run 26, is contained in
211. Network R30 contains one proposed new railway line-a tunnel link connecting Piccadilly and Victoria stations in central Manchester via proposed underground stations at Princess Street/Whitworth Street, Albert Square and Market Street/Cross Street. This tunnel was specified to connect to the Manchester-Stockport railway line to the south of Piccadilly, and to the Manchester -Bury line to the north of Victoria . The estimated capital cost of the tunnel, including stations, electrification at 25 kV. and the re-electrification at 25 kV. of the existing Manchester-Bury line, (but exclusive of the cost of rolling stock) is £21 ·5M . The approximate alignment of the tunnel is shown in Figure 68 and the train routes which were coded to use it are shown in Figure 69.
/.-.
c-·-· /.
·~
,,.... . -... . /
-...../
/
/
~
....
......... .... ..
~
,,.-- ... _-
212. In order to maximise the number of trains using the Piccadilly/Victoria railway tunnel (see paragraphs 175 and 180), local trains between Bolton and Manchester were routed in model run 26 via Bradley Fold, Radcliffe, and the ManchesterBury line. This route would involve the use of the Bolton to Bury line between Bolton and Bradley Fold Junction and the replacement of the disused connecting line between Bradley Fold Junction and Radcliffe South Junction on the ManchesterBury line. It was estimated that the re-establishment of this connection together with the improvement of facilities between Bradley Fold Junction and Bolton, improvements to Bolton station and electrification at 25 kV. between Radcliffe South Ju nction and Bolton would have a total capital cost of £2·03M. No intermediate stations were coded on network R30 between Bolton and Radcliffe and th e disused station at Bradley Fold was assumed to remain closed.
\
,/
.J
: .....
I
·-....
/ ) ~LITTLE&Oll: OUGH I
,/
I.
\
, ,, ,
......../
.....
'- ...... /
,--
(
)
)
(
&OLTON
''I
, ,/
/
I
DISUSED RAILWAY LINES RE-ESTABLISH ED IN NETWORK R30
\
·-. ......
·-·-·
(-·-.)
\
/
( .)
,'
.,,.· . -<......... ... __ !
I
.' I
I
~.-.,
(.
I
/,.-.\
:
/
'
i J
I
, .:('-.,.\.. .:J
'· \
/
\.
ATHERTON
\,/• I •
)
I
\
i I
/
\
\
I
'· .... '· ...... -.-·.......... -·-·".
I ,,.-
, __.,I I '
.. - --_.
I
I I
GUIO[ &AI OG l
I
-·-·-....
i
!
'·'·
<.-· ......... ,
___ ....... __ _
·-.... .....
' '· l "'" ~ .......... _.,.. •..J...
Upgraded Passenger Railway Lines
Other Passenger Railway Lines
'· "·
HAll L
~·
~... ..
D ISLE.Y
... ...
\.j.
!t' -'I. ~ A .,. ltr'\lt.
...-., !
' \. \
'·\
)
·,. -~· .....
I · - ·-·-·--·I
I
Busways
TABLE 41
Study Area Boundary
COMPOSITION OF 1984 HIGHWAY NETWORK (H3/ 2 (84)) BY TYPE OF ROUTE
'
I Sc ale-='--~=--==-
Miies
Bus Routes Not Shown
HIGHWAY TYPE Single Carriageway Two-Way Road
ROUTE MILEAGE
% OF TOTAL NETWOR K MILEAGE
859
71 ·7
61
5·1
One-Way Street (including Motorway Access Ramp)
144
12·0
Motorway and Restricted Access Road
134
11 ·2
1,198
100·0
Dual Carriageway Road with Unrestricted Access
Total
128
Fig. 67.
The Recommended Public Transport Network (R30).
129
Bury
Bolton Radcliffe Whitefield Besses O'th' Barn Prestwich Heaton Park Bowker Vale Crumpsall Woodlands Rd
Frequency in Mins.
Victoria Market St
Peak
Off Peak
Alderley Edge-Bury
10
30
Hazel Grove-Victoria
10
30
Macclesfield-Victoria
10
30
W ilmslow- Bolton
10
30
Albert Square Princess St Piccadilly
Service Interval in Tunnel
2..1..2
7..1..2
Levenshulme Mauldeth Rd Heaton Chapel Burnage Stockport East Didsbury
Gatley
Heald Green
Sty al -
-
-
Underground Railway
Cheadle Hulme
Handforth
• • • • Passenger Conveyor Wilmslow
Fig. 68. The Recommended Passenger Distributor System in Central Manchester.
Alderley Edge
Fig . 69.
130
Possible Train Routes feeding the proposed Piccadilly/Victoria Tunnel.
131
EXISTING RAILWAY LINES SELECTED FOR THE PROVISION .OF IMPROVED SERVICES
(x) Wilmslow, Styal, Heald Green, Gatley, East Didsbury, Burnage, Mauldeth Road, Piccadilly. (Capital Cost £0 ·045 M);
213. The following existing suburban railway lines were selected for upgrading in network R30: (i) Bury, Radcliffe, Whitefield, Besses o'th ' Barn, Prestwich, Heaton Park, Bowker Vale, Crumpsall, Woodlands Road, Victoria. (Capital Cost £1 ·590M, exclusive of re-electrification-see paragraph 211) ;
(xi) Altrincham, Navigation Road, Timperley, Brooklands, Sale, Dane Road, Stretford, Warwick Road, Old Trafford, Deansgate, Oxford Road, Piccadilly. (Capital Cost £0 ·919M) ;
(ii) Rochdale, Castleton, Middleton Junction, Maston, Victoria. (Capital Cost £1 ·160M) ;
(xii) lrlam, Flixton, Chassen Road, Urmston, Trafford Park, Deansgate, Oxford Roa d. (Capital Cost £0-400M);
(iii) Oldham, Werneth, Hollinwood, Failsworth, Dean Lane, Miles Platting, Victoria. (Capital Cost £1 AOOM);
(xiii) Atherton, Walkden, Moorside, Swinton, Pendleton, Salford, Victoria. (Capital Cost £0 ·950M) .
(iv) Ashton, Droylsden, Clayton Bridge, Park, Miles Platting, Victoria . (Capital Cost £0·875M); (v) (Glossop), study area boundary, Broadbottom, Hattersley, Newton, Guide Bridge, Fairfield, Gorton, Ashburys, Piccadilly. (Capital Cost £0·419M) ; (vi) (New M ills), study area boundary, Marple, Romiley, Bredbury, Brinning ton, Reddish North, Belle Vue, Ashburys, Ardwick, Piccadilly. (Capital Cost £0 ·287M); (vii) Hazel Grove, Davenport, Stockport, Heaton Chapel, Levenshulme, Piccadilly. (Capital Cost £0·379M); (vii i) (Macclesfield), study area boundary, Poynton, Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme, Stockport, (Piccadilly). (Capital Cost £0·092M); (ix) Alderley Edge, Wilmslow, Handforth, Cheadle Hulme, (Piccadilly) . (Capital Cost £0 ·328M) ;
The improvements recommended on these lines include the provision of more frequent train servi ces and of integrated feeder bus routes, the moderni sation of station buildings, the provision, w here appropriate, of car parking accommodation or direct feeder bus access or both, and all necessary track and signal works to achieve the improved service frequency. The total cost of upgrading all of the lines listed above amounts to £8·84M, exclu ding rolling stock. The capital costs of upgrading th ese suburban railway lines include for the improvement of fixed facilities up to and including the last station in the study area on the lines to Glossop, New Mi lls and Macclesfield; though it has been assum ed that upgraded services would in practice extend throug h to these towns and no allowance was made fo r th e provision of train reversing facilities on these lines at the study area boundary. 214. Table 42 summarises the train servi ces wh ich were assumed to be operated in both directions on the upgraded railway system . The train rou tes coded to use the Piccadilly/Victoria tunnel in model run 26 are also shown d iagrammatically in Figu re 69.
OTHER PA SSE NG ER RAILWAY LIN ES 215. As well as the new and upgraded railway lines listed in paragraphs 211 to 214 it was assumed that the following existing lines would be retained by British Railways for inter-urban services, and these lines were included in network R30 : Bolton, Darwen, Blackburn (Hourly service assumed, peak and off-peak); Bolton, Chorley, Preston (Hourly service assumed ,peak and off -peak); Bolton, Hindley, Liverpool (Hou rly service assumed, peak and off -peak); Victoria, Newton-le-Willows, Liverpool (Hourly service assumed, peak and off- peak) ; lrlam, Wa rrington, Liverpool (Hourly service assumed, peak and off-peak); Altrincham, Hale, Chester (20 minutes peak, 60 minutes off -peak) ; Alderley Edge, Sandbach, Crewe (30 minutes peak, 60 minutes off -peak); Rochdale, Littleborough, Todmorden (30 minutes peak, 60 minutes off- peak). It was also considered that the existing main lines between Bolton and Victoria via Salford, and between Ashton and Huddersfield might be retained for inter-urban or freight services, although the use of these lines was not coded in network R30.
BU SWAYS 216.
Two busways were included in network R30: (i) Trafford Park busway linking Warwick Road station on the Manchester to Altrincham railway line with the centre of the Trafford Park industrial estate. Estimated capital cost £2 ·5M; (ii) Bu xton line busway linking Hazel Grove station with the study area boundary at Whaley Bridge via intermediate 'stations' at Disley and Dean Lane. Estimated capital cost £0·64M .
TABLE 42 UPGRADED RAILWAY SERVICES CODED IN NETWORK R30 SERVICE (Interm ediate station names are listed in this table only to indicate route-a full list of interm ediat e stations is contain ed in paragraph 213) Bolton, Radcliffe, Victori a, Piccadilly, Styal, Wilmslow Bury, Radcliffe, Victori a, Piccadilly, Stockport, Alderley Edge Hazel Grove, Stockport, Piccadilly, Victoria M acclesfi eld, Poynton, Stockport, Piccadilly, Victori a Ro chd ale, Middleton Junction, Victoria Oldham, Failsworth, Victori a Ath erton, Salford, Victoria Ashton -under- Lyn e, Droylsden, Victoria Glossop, Broadbottom, Piccadilly New Mills, Romiley, Reddish North, Picc adilly Altrin cham, Sale, Oxford Road, Piccadilly lrlam, Urmston, Deansgate, Oxford Road
132
FREQU ENCY ( Minutes) PEAK
OFF-PEA K
10 10 10 10 10 10 15 10 15 15 5 10
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 15 60
An express bus service was also assumed to use the Salford / Eccles Motorway (see paragraph 185 (v) ) .
PAS SE NG ER CONVEYOR SYSTE M 217. Two passenger conveyo r (travelator) routes were coded in central Manchester on network R30. These routes (illustrated in Figure 68) link Piccadilly station with Piccadilly Gardens, and Oxford Road station with Albert Square station via St. Peter's Square. Additionally, two shorter passenger con veyor systems which had been coded in network R20 (see paragraph 154) t o connect the central bus
and railway stations in Stockport and Ashton -underLyne we re retained in network R30. A total of £5 ·0M was allowed for the capital cost of passenger conveyor systems in network R30.
TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK R30
COST
OF
218. The total infrastructure cost of network R30 was estimated to be:
£M Piccadilly to Victoria railway tunnel, including three intermediate stations, and conversion of Bu ry line to 25 kV. AC.
21 ·50
Re -establishment of railway line between Bolton and Radcliffe, electrification at 25 kV. AC and improvements to Bolton station.
2·03
Upgrading of existing suburban railway network.
8·84
Trafford Park busways.
and
Bu xton
line 3·14
Passenger conveyor systems
5·00 £40 ·51 M
TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE COST OF RECOMMENDED BROAD TRANSPORTATION PLAN 219 . The total infrastructure cost of the transportation system recommended in the Broad Plan is estimated to be:
£M Highway Network H3/2(84) Public Transport Network R30 Total
211 ·33 40 ·51 £251 ·84M
THE FINAL MOD EL RUNS 220. The Broad Transportation Plan for the SELN EC area was specified on the basis of the output produced in the second series of model runs, and the selected system contained elements from several of the networks which had been evaluated in that model run series. Because the system had been built up from a series of individual schemes which had not necessarily been evaluated in conjunction with each other it was necessary to undertake fu rther model running to evaluate the selected Plan before its finalisation. Moreover, as the estimat ed capital cost of the system was such as to imply its completion by about 1984 rather th an 1981 , it was necessary to evaluate t his system for a 1984 design year. 133
TABLE 43
TABLE 45
NETWORK CAPITAL COST SUMMARY (£M)-MODEL RUN 26
SUMMARY OF USER BENEFITS (£M P.A.)-MODEL RUN 26
HIGHWAY
PT
A
Network
H3/2 (84)
R30
B
Total network infrastructure cost
211 ·33
40 ·51
c
Network infrastructure cost of base network for economic evaluation
D
Evaluated network infrastructure cost (B -
C)
51 ·95 159 ·38
0 40·51
TOTAL
251 ·84 51 ·95 199·89
Capital cost of bus fleet, extra over bus fleet required to operate base network for economic evaluation
2-47
2 ·47
Capital cost of railway rolling stock, additional to that required for base network for economic evaluation
5·22
5·22
G
Total additional rolling stock cost (E + F)
7·69
7·69
H
Capital cost of providing parking accommodation, extra over cost for base system for economic evaluation
E
F
J
Total capital cost of system for evaluation purposes (D
+G+
- 0·12 H)
159·26
HIGHWAY USER
TOTAL
A
Peak Work Trips
1 ·94
1 ·59
3 ·53
B
Off Peak Work Trips
0 ·58
0·66
1 ·24
c
24 hr. Home Based Educational Trips
0·11
0·25
0 ·36
D
24 hr. Other Home Based Trips
2·61
1 ·56
4·17
E
24 hr. Non-Home Based Trips
5·71
0 ·97
6·68
F
TOTAL (A + B + C + D + E)
10·95
5·03
15 ·98
G
Commercial Vehicle (24 hr.)
2·37
2·37
H
Car-Peak Work Trips
0·35
0·35
j
Car-All other trips
0·80
0·80
K
TOTAL (G + H + J)
3·52
3 ·52
L
TOTAL USER BENEFIT (F + K)
USER PERSON BENEFIT
- 0 ·12 48 ·20
PT USER
207 ·46 USER VEHICLE OPERATING BENEFIT
14·47
5·03
19·50
TABLE 44 SUMMARY OF OPERATING BENEFITS (£M P.A.)-MODEL RUN 26 A
Highway network
B
Increase in annual highway maintenance cost relative to base network for economic evaluation (H5)
0 ·18
c
Increase in annual highway policing cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
0·06
D
Reduction in annual highway accident cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
2·61
E
Total annual operating benefit of highway network (D -
2·37
H3/ 2 (84)
TABLE 46 EVALUATION SUMMARY-MODEL RUN 26
(B + C))
F
Public transport network
R30
G
Increase in net annual bus operating cost relative to base network for economic evaluation (RO)
3·22
H
Reduction in net annual train operating cost relative to base network for economic evaluation
8·88
j
Total annual net operating benefit of public transport system (H - G)
5·66
K
Annual Operating Cost of Passenger Conveyor System
0·25
L
Annual Net Operating Benefit of Public Transport System (J -
134
K)
5·41
A
Total User Benefits (£M p.a.)-see Table 45
B
Total Operating Benefits ( £M p.a .)-see Table 44
c
Total System Benefits (£M p.a.) (A + B)
D
Total Evaluated Capital Cost of System (£M)-see Table 43
E
. year rate of return on capital . % First
(c x
0
100)
HIGHWAY
PT
TOTAL
14-47
5·03
19·50
2·37
5·41
7·78
16 ·84
10-44
27 ·28
207 ·46
13·15
135
221. The Control Team thought that land use and dependent activity variables in the conurbation will probably be relatively stable between 1981 and 1984 and that consequently the cost in time and money to produce detailed planning forecasts for the year 1984 would not have been justified for the purpose of the final model run. It was, however, considered to be important that forecasts of household income and car ownership levels should be updated from 1981 to 1984 for this model run, and the revised estimates of these factors which are shown in the third column of Table 6 were produced. In order to evaluate the recommended transportation system for 1984 it was also necessary to determine the travel costs which might be associated with the base networksforeconomic evluation in that year, and, in consequence, the evaluation of the recommended Broad Plan actually involved two model runs- model run 19(84) was a repeat of model run 19 with car ownership and income levels updated to 1984, and model run 26 was an evaluation of the recommended R30-H3/2(84) transportation system for 1984. 222. The output produced in model run 26 is summarised in Tables 43 to 46, and from Table 46 it can be seen that the calculated first year rate of return of the recommended transportation system is about 13·2%. It must be emphasised, however, that, although this is the highest rate produced in any model run, it is not directly comparable with the rates produced in the second model run series. These latter rates are a measure of the benefits, relative to the base networks for economic evaluation, which might have resulted from the implementation of the evalu~ted transportation systems by 1981, whereas the rate of return of the Broad Plan is a measure of the benefits relative to the same base networks which might result from its implementation by 1984. The Control Team is, however, of the opinion that 13·2% is an entirely satisfactory first year rate of return . . 223. Total annual public transport, user and operator, benefits are shown in line C of Table 46 to amount to £10-44M- higher than the equivalent benefits found in any second series model run other than runs 21 and 25, which evalua ed the MARTS rapid transit system. Total daily passenger trip volumes assigned to the recommended railway network are shown in Figure 70 and morning peak period (7 a.m. to 9 a.m.) work trips assigned to this network are shown in Figu re 71. These diagrams indicate some increase in the number of passengers forecast to use the railway system relative to the generally similar system which was evaluated in model run 23. Particular attention is drawn to the fact that the forecast number of passenger trips through the Piccadilly/Victoria tunnel in model run 26 exceeds the number using this tunnel in model run 23 by 55% in respect of total daily trips, and by 46% in respect of morning peak period work trips136
see Figures 58 and 59. This increased use is almost entirely attributable to the greater frequency of service through the tunnel and the greater number of lines feeding it which were incorporated in network R30. The high usage of the railway system evaluated in model run 26 demonstrates the potential of a comprehensive public transport system to attract large numbers of passengers in an area of rising car ownership and high rate of investment in highway facilities.
224. Total annual highway benefits are shown in line C of Table 46 to be £16 ·84M-an increase of £4 ·28M relative to the highway benefits of virtuall y the same network in model run 22T. The foreca st increase in the benefits arising from the highway network is partly due to the fact that increasing car ownership between 1981 and 1984 would add to congestion and accident costs on the base network for economic evaluation (H5) and hence increase the predicted benefits of any more extensive network, and may also be partly because of th e fact that network R30 would, in any given year, attract more passengers than network R20/2, t hus tending to reduce the number of car trips w ith consequent benefits to residual highway users.
N
Cl)
225. Figures 72 and 73 show forecast 1984 overloads on highway network H3/2(84) during t he morning peak hour and typical off-peak hour respectively. Figure 72 shows that very extensive peak hour overloading would occur on the recommended highway system in 1984 and confi rms the conclusion, which was drawn on the basis of the results of the second model run series, that the volume of vehicular traffic in the 1980s may tend to be such as to induce a constant level of peak hour congestion irrespective of the highway netw ork selected within the budget constraint (see paragraph 163) . Comparison of Figure 72 with Figure 49 (which shows forecast peak 1981 overloads on network H3/2 in model run 20) indicates minor changes in the overloading pattern, but detailed examination of the source data from which both diagrams were prepared shows that the percentage of the total network mileage which might be subject to varying degrees of overload is identica l for networks H3/2 in 1981 and H3/2(84) in 1984. 226. However, the impression given by the diagrams showing forecast highway overl oads may tend to be misleading because the practical capacities used in the Study for operational evaluations were not updated to 1984. In practice, th e capacities of general purpose streets may be increased by t he use of traffic management techniques. Consequently, there is reason to suppose that the level of pea k hour traffic congestion on the general street system in 1984 will be less than that implied by th e overload diagrams provided that the lump su m all owance of £20M , which is included in the Study recommen-
--10.0 0 =-
Sca le ol T rip s
Inse t showing Piccad ill y/ Victo ria tunn el
Fig. 70.
Total Daily Passenger Flows Forecast for 1984 on the Recommended Railway Network (R30) in Model Run 26.
137
Link Load as a Percentage of L!nk Capacity Less than 100%
....
100% -
150%
More than 150%
~ Sca le of Trips
In set show ing Piccadilly/ Victoria tunn el.
Fig. 71.
138
Morning Peak Period (7.0-9.0 a.m.) Work Trips Forecast for 1984 on the Reco mmended Railway Network (R30) in Model Run 26.
Scal e - * = =- -' = = = - - " = = = = Mile s
Fig. 72.
Peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3/2 (84) (Model Run 26).
139
dations for traffic management measures, is invested effectively. It is also worth noting that there is evidence that the capacities of urban streets are, in any case, tending to increase by virtue of the fact that standards of vehicle design and driving skill are improving. 227. Figure 73 shows that off- peak highway overloads will be extensive in 1984, but comparison of this figure with Figures 50, 55 and 61, shows that the extent of this overloading will be less in the case of the recommended system than in the case of any of the alternative transportation systems which were evaluated in the Study, even though all other systems were evaluated at 1981 car ownership level, whereas the recommended system was evaluated at 1984 car ownership level. Comparison of the source data from which these overload diagrams were prepared indicates that the recommended highway network would have 1% fewer links carrying overloads in excess of 50% and 1% more uncongested links than network H3/2 was shown to have in model run 20 (Figure 50). The recommended system would have 3% fewer links with overloads in excess of 50% and 5% more uncongested links than the next best off-peak network- H3/3 in model run 23 (Figure 61 ).
CONCLUSIONS 228. The Technical Control Team is satisfied, on the basis of the results of model run 26 and of the work undertaken during the second series of model runs, that the recommended Broad
N
Transportation Plan would be the most effective strategy for the investment of some ÂŁ250M in transportation infrastructure for the study area by 1984. The Control Team wishes to emphasise, however, that the Plan is primarily intended to provide broad guidance in respect of investment strategy rather than detailed guidance in respect of the requirement for, or the design of, any individual highway or public transport scheme. The Team is also mindful of the fact that the 'best' plan for 1984 which can be produced in 1971 would not necessarily correspond to the 'best' plan which could be produced at a later date, and recommendations in respect of the establishment of an ongoing transportation planning process, to ensure that the Plan is continuously updated during the course of its implementation, are contained in Chapter 8. 229. The Control Team is confident that the Broad Plan would provide a fully integrated and viable transportation system for the SELNEC area in the early 1980s and that it provides broad guidance for transportation investment decisions. The results of the final model runs indicate that the recommended system would be operationally feasible and would produce significant benefits in a climate of rapidly increasing car ownership. It should, however, be made clear that the system is not likely to reduce significantly the level of traffic congestion on the general purpose highway system by the 1980s; furthermore, it would not be possible to specify any transportation system which would achieve this objective within the constraints of a realistic investment budget.
Cl) Lin k Load as a Percen tage of Lin k Capacity Less th an 100% 100% -
150%
More th an 150%
Sc al e
Fig. 73.
140
-"'=='---==""'-""""=="""' MllH
Off- peak Overloading Diagram, Network H3/ 2 (84) (Model Run 26) .
141
CHAPTER
EIGHT
The Ongoing Task I.
143
CHAPTER EIGHT-THE O NGOIN G TASK INTRODUCT ION 230. Th e Broad Transportation Pl an is thou g ht to be th e best solution to th e transport problems which mi g ht exist in 1984 as far as it is possible to forecast these problems or their solutions in 1971 . However, it is in evitable, in a climate of expanding technological innovation , changing social valu es and uncertain economic g rowth , th at the actual transportation system which would best se rve the area in 1984 could not be defined in detail much before that date; it will , however, be possible to make increasingly accurate approximations through the years between 1971 and 1984. Furthermore, it is essential to look as far ahea d as possible in deciding investment policy for transport infrastructure, which has a long or ind efinite life and has many important effects on practically every aspect of urban life. Thu s, the Broad Plan provides guidance for decisions on major transport investment 'now', but decisions based on it will also provide the context in which future deci sions, a decade or more away, will have to be taken. It follows that there are strong grounds for reviewing progress, and rev ising and extending existing forecasts, at regular intervals into the future. 231. The use of a mathematical model to analyse the transportation problems of a complex urban area requires the availability of a large and powerful 'third generation' electronic computer. Computers capable of undertaking this type of analysis have become available only in the last few years, and, in consequence, a large proportion of th e resources of the Study, in terms of staff, time and money, have necessa rily been devoted to the development and testing of the computer programs which constitute the mod el. Thus, the end products of the first stage of the Study consist not only of the Broad Plan, but also-a nd perhaps more importantly- a reliable and tested procedure for th e continuing simulation of transportation systems . This proc edure, and the accumulated data which is req uired for its operation, could be kept up to date and available for further us e at a relatively modest cost: a cost w hich wo uld be mu ch less than wo uld be involved if a fresh start had to be mad e at interv als of five years or so. We are faced w ith the altern atives of either ac hi eving the necessa ry co ntinuity or the more diffi cult and expensive task of re-estab li shing a transportation planning study at intervals. 232 . Th e primary fun ct io n of the Broad Pl an is to be a g uid e to tran sportation and assoc iated investment policy; but t he wo rk invo lved in preparing it has many other potenti al app li cat ions. The Control Tea m regard the Broad Plan as providing a transportation st rategy for the st udy area. To impl ement this strategic plan there mu st be mu ch analysis, foreca sting and design activity at a more ta ctical leve l. Th e system s an d procedures of th e Stud y
provide a tec hnical framework and a source of working material for tactical studies (whi ch are refe rred to in more detail in paragraphs 236 and 237) to provide a basis for the design of road and rail improvements, the operational planning of the public transport system, the location of car parking facilities and a background for the planning of new developm ent or redevelopment in 'action areas'. Many of the problems which will be encountered in the detailed design, evaluation and operation of the transportation system could be resolved by the continued use of behavioural transportation modelling techniques . 233 . The Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in England (cmnd . 4584) were prese nted to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Environment in February 1971 . These proposals included the establishment of a Metropolitan County Council in the SELNEC area, and, bearing in mind the Government's intention to re -organise local government as rapidly as is practicable, it must be regarded as a matter of vital importance that the organisational framework which has been established in the Study should be retained until such time as the is proposed Metropolitan County Council established. 234 . After consideration of the factors outlined in paragraphs 230 to 233, the Control Team recommend that the Transportation Study should be continued on a permanent basis. An outline of the work which might be undertaken by a continuing Study follows; this work programme is subdivided into specific activities which might be associated with the implementation of the Broad Plan, and other more general ongoing work . IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN (A) Preparation of a Phased Programme of Implementation of Schemes 235. It is recommended that the production of a pha sed programme of implementation for the schemes included in the Broad Plan for 1984 should be tor th e later stages of the plan . This recom mend ation is made because a good many sc hemes in the major road programm e have already be en announ ced in firm pro gra mmes and th ere would seem to be no ju st ifi cation for any detail ed consideration of the re - phasing of these schemes w hich are now being desig ned in detail for impl eme ntation by the mid - 1970s. Consequently, work on the preparation of a phas ed programme of implem entation would best be conce ntrated in th e period from the mid 1970s lead in g to th e co mpl etion of the plan by 1984 . In th e public tran spo rt fi eld th e bi ggest sin g le proposal is th e Pi ccad illy to Vi ctori a ra il way tunn el. This sc heme, if it is adopted and impl emented 145
as soon as is practicable, could probably be available for traffic by about 1977. Much detailed work (by the PTE and other agencies) will be needed to develop this scheme and investigate its economic viability. For this purpose the use of a transportation model to provide information for the late 1970s will be essential. The model may also be used to study highway and other public transport proposals for the second half of the Broad Plan period. The basis for a phased investment programme to follow the current major highways programme and the short term plans of the PTE will be available on the completion of these studies.
(B) Refinement of the Broad Plan for 1984 236. The Control Team consider that the Broad Plan provides a sound base for major decisions on the scale, location, and broad specification of major infrastructure schemes, and for broadly based decisions in the land use field where transport is a major factor. However, the type of model which is most suitable for the development of investment policy involves some sacrifice of detail and it is now essential to develop a finer model suitable for the forecasting and analysis of movement and transport implications for selected areas. This finer model would be a tactical sub -model to operate within the strategic model of the whole study area. The sub-model could be developed to the level of detail needed for preparing traffic management, bus priority and similar schemes. This level of detail is needed for the planning of major redevelopment areas-especially in town centres-in terms of traffic, parking and public transport. The tactical sub-model would also provide necessary data, when detailed proposals are recommended, for the negotiation of infrastructure grants and general economic analyses. 237. The production of the tactical sub -model would require the extension and adaptation of the main mathematical model, including the addition of further programs to deal with local detail, and the preparation of much more detailed land use/ activity input data for some of the tactical study areas-typically town centre redevelopment areas, corridors surrounding major road proposals, and the like.
CONTINUING WORK (A) Monitoring of the Broad Plan for 1984 238. The necessity of monitoring the forecast performance of the recommended Plan was referred to in paragraph 230. The establishment of a monitoring process would highlight any changes in existing forecasts and would disclose any requirement to revise the Plan during the period of its implementation. Typical examples of some of the factors which influenced the original production of the Plan and which could require revision during 146
its implementation are given below: (i) land use and dependent activitiesthe land use forecasts for 1981 which have been used in the Study were produced in 1967; since then a number of events have occurred which require the modification of the orlginal forecasts. For example, changes have been made to certain overspill schemes which were being planned in 1967; (ii) public transport operation-it was explained in paragraphs 175 and 197 that the recommended public transport network must be regarded only as a starting point in the specification of the more detailed public transport pla n which the SELNEC PTE are required to produce under the terms of th e Transport Act of 1968. In producin g their plan, the PTE may sugg est modifications to the Broad Pl an network and, in this event, it would be necessary to evaluate such modified networks in the context of the total transportation system; (iii) results of tactical schemes- if the tactical sub-model is applied, for example, to a town centre redevel opment area or to a transport corridor, this would provide an opportunity for a closer look at and revision of forecasts for that sub-area or co rridor. Thus, the use of the sub-model w ould itself generate a process of revision and updating of strategic model input; (iv) design of highway schemes- th e detailed design of some of th e major highway schemes which are included in the Broad Plan will use information produced from the Study. In th e event of the final design of any major highway scheme varying substantia lly from that which has been sim ulated in the Study, a feed-back situation could arise where the effect of a major change in the line or layout of such a highway scheme wo uld have to be re-evaluated in order to determine its effects on other sch emes in the Plan and any consequ ent effect on the phased programme of schemes intended for later implementation; (v) monitoring of the actual performance of the transportation system-it wi ll be necessary to observe an d measure the actual performance of th e transportation system on a continu ous basis as it is built. At present, a counting programme is in existence using automatic road traffic counting machines. This traffic counting programme is
being undertaken by the SALTS Group in association with the SELNEC Highway Engineering Committee and their Traffic Management Unit (SATMU). It is recommended that this programme should continue and, in due course, be extended to form the basis of a more comprehensive total system monitoring process. It is especially important that this process should not be confined to road traffic counts but should be extended, in association with the PTE, to cover public transport usage. In addition, it will probably be desirable to extend the monitoring process to cover parking and some 路 aspects of goods movement; (vi) changes in technology-the recommendations contained in the Broad Plan are confined to systems which are all technically capable of early implementation, that is to say that similar systems are known to be in satisfactory operational use. It must, however, be recognised that considerable research effort, especially in the field of public transport, is being applied throughout the world to the development of totally new transport systems. A number of such developments which might have been employed as central area distribution systems were examined during the second stage of the rail planning study. It was concluded that the recommendations of the Study should be confined to systems which had progressed beyond the concept stage. However, it is almost certain that before 1984 new transport systems will be developed and become operationally available. The Control Team consider that it may be necessary to evaluate such systems as and when they become available with a view to their consideration for possible inclusion in an updated version of the Plan. 239. It is the view of the Control Team that the Broad Plan proposals should be remodelled and evaluated at regular intervals and that the input of information to the model should be updated, as appropriate, on each occasion . At this stage, it is thought that re-modelling, on this basis, might take place at intervals of 12 to 18 months.
(B) Preliminary Work for Plans Beyond 1984 240. The Control Team do not think that the SALTS Group should become involved, at this stage, in the preparation of any further plans for implementation after 1984. It is, however, desirable
that certain preliminary research work should be undertaken by the Group in connection with the development of suitable model and computer techniques which could be used for this purpose at a later date. The Control Team recognise, and this view is reinforced by recent Government proposals for the re-structuring of local government and for a regional study for the North West, that the time for participation in such work may be quite near. They therefore recommend that the Study Gro1,1p be authorised to investigate the requirements of adapting the mathematical model for longer term forecasting into the 1990s. In this way the necessary changes in the model, and in the specification of input material for its use, could be established in order to avoid delay when the need arises.
(C) Proposed Data Analysis Service Bureau 241. The data and the modelling techniques developed in the Study have been used, so far, only in connection with the preparation of information for the Broad Plan. A considerable amount of information is now available, and further information would become available as a result of the continuing activities recommended in the ongoing work programme. All this information could be of unique value to the participating local authorities in the study area and to other organisations concerned with the planning, design and operation of transport and other facilities. It has not been possible, hitherto, to supply data to individual authorities or organisations due to the requirement to give first priority to the production of the Broad Plan. However, it is now possible to do so on a service bureau basis, provided that this would not cause any undue delay to the main ongoing work programme of the Study.
(D)
The Development and Maintenance of the SELNEC Transportation Model
242 . The computer work leading up to the preparation of the Broad Plan involved the production of a complex behavioural transportation model comprising some 100 separate computer programs. It is, however, desirable for further resources to be allocated to the improvement and extension of the model to ensure that the accuracy of its output, and the efficiency of its computation, may take full advantage of new developments in this rapidly changing field. It is also necessary for some continuing effort to be devoted to the amendment of computer programs, bearing in mind that the systems in use at computer bureaux are subject to improvement from time to time. 243 . The cost of maintaining and updating the existing model, given the existence of adequate staff engaged on the range of tasks indicated in this chapter, would be quite modest. The major cost of establishing such a system is in the initial phase which has now been completed. Thus, the cost of 147
---- ,-
1 maintenance would be relatively low, while the cost of a fresh start at some future time- if the current facility were allowed to lapse- would be very heavy.
CONCLUSIONS 244. The Broad Transportation Plan was based on forecasts of possible future travel patterns produced by the extrapolation of past and present trends. While the Study method used complex and highly specialised mathematical and computational techniques, it should be emphasised that it is not possible to predict all of the future occurrences which may well influence transportation and travel patterns. Thus, although it is possible to produce forecasts which indicate what is thought to be most likely to occur, the degree of accuracy of such forecasts is probably related very closely to the time span over which the estimate is made.
11
II 11
fl
Ii
245 . As the expense of establishing a transportation model has now been met, the opportunity arises to monitor the performance of the transportation system as it is built, and to do so at a relatively
modest cost. This would enable the Plan to be continuously revised, as necessa ry, so as to keep it compatible with the ever changing needs of society, and to keep open the possibility of amending it to incorporate any new systems which may become available as a result of technological development. The establishment of a continuin g transportation planning organisation would also have other significant benefits which have been described in this chapter. The most important of these benefits may be summarised as: (i) the provision of information for th e Regional and Sub-Regional Plannin g Studies which are currently bein g established; (ii) the establishment of a Data Analysis Service Bureau for the benefit of t he organisations participating in t he Study; (iii) the development of new mathematical modelling techniques and, in particul ar, the extension of such techni q ues in the fields of more detailed studies of selected areas.
I
"
II
APPENDIX .
Other Publications Describing Transport Planning in the SELNEC Area 11
I
11
I
Ii
I
I
,, I
i
I
r
'
I I
I
148
149
I
I
AP PENDIX-OTHE R PUBLICATIONS DESCRIBING T RANSPORT PLANNING IN T H E SELNEC AR EA INTRODUCTION 246. References are made in this repo rt to the SELNEC Highway Plan of 1962 and to the Man chester Area Rapid Transit Study, and it was stated in the preface that additional documentation concerning the Transportation Study is available in a series of Techn ical Working Papers. This appendix comprises a brief summary of these other publications which describe transport planning activities in the SELNEC area.
(A) THE SELNEC HIGHWAY PLAN OF 1962 247. It was agreed, in 1958, at a meeting attended by the Clerks and Surveyors to the principal SELNEC highway authorities and the Divisional Road Engineer of the former Ministry of Transport, to formulate a long term highway programme for South East Lancashire and North East Cheshire. It was further agreed that the principal problems involved in this task should be examined by a committee comprising the Divisional Road Engineer and the Engineers and Surveyors to the principal SELNEC highway authorities. This committee, known as the SELNEC Highway Engineering Committee, became responsible for advice on highway planning in the area shown in Figure 43.
248. The Highway Engineering Committee, assisted by a Techn ical Sub-Committee and a Working Party of temporarily seconded officers, produced, in December 1962, a 'twenty year' Highway Plan for the SELN EC area. This plan, which covered proposed new roads and improvements to existing roads, had an estimated total capital cost, at 1962 money values, of £300M of which £248M was attributable to classified roads and £52M to trunk roads. The Highway Engineering Committee sub sequently produced a report on a phased programme of road works for implementation in the period up to 1971. In July 1963 a conference of representatives of the highway authorities accepted the SELNEC Highway Plan and the phased programme of road works in principle, and both documents were submitted to the Minister of Transport.
249. In October 1963 the then Minister ofTransport invited Manchester Corporation to convene a conference with other major local authorities and transport ope rators to consider the establishment of a Transportation Study. In suggesting the establish ment of this Study t he Minister said that he appre ciated' what had already been done by the local authorities in the area in co -operating to carry out a road traffic survey and to prepare a comprehensive highway plan . He thought, however, that to provide a sound basis for decisions, on both roads
and transportation as a whole, this survey should be supplemented by a wider Transportation Study. He emphasised that the Transportation Study would build upon, ratherthan replace, the existing Highway Plan, and said that he was prepared to approve the fi rst three years of the SELN EC Highway Engineering Committee's phased programme of road works.
Basis of the Highway Plan Analysis 250. The production of the SELNEC Highway Plan was preceded by a data collection exercise; an origin and destination survey which used pre paid postal questionnaire techniques and was operated at 75 roadside survey stations. The survey was undertaken during May and June 1960 and a response rate of about 44% was achieved. Survey stations were located along an outer cordon line, which approximated to the proposed alignment of the Outer Ring Road, to intercept traffic entering and leaving the area. In the northern pa rt of the area additional stations were established to complete the encirclement of the county boroughs of Bolton, Bury, Rochdale and Oldham, and an inner cordon of census stations was established around the regional core at a radius of approximately one and a half miles from Manchester Town Hall.
J
251. The information contained on the questionnaires returned from the postal survey was transferred to punched cards, tabulated by coded origin and destination zone and expanded . This expanded survey data was then used as a basis of plotting for a comprehensive series of road traffic desire lines which were, in turn, used as a basis of specification fo r alternative highway networks. The operational performance of the proposed highway networks was evaluated by th~ assignment of the trip tables produced in the first stage of the analysis.
I I
252. In the first instance, hand assignment techniques were used for network loading . The procedure involved in this exercise required the intuitive determination of routes from each survey station to all recorded destinations and the accumu lation of link loads as each successive trip volume was assigned along the appropriate route. This assign ment process was found to be reasonably feasible in t he outer sections of the area, but was extremely time consuming in the inner part of the area. Because of the high cost of hand assignment techniques in the central part of the area, a computer program to automate this task was developed in association with Messrs. IBM Ltd . This program, which was run on an IBM 7090 computer, was probably the first traffic assignment model to be used in a major highway planning study in the United Kingdom . 151
I '
Outline of the Highway Plan 253. The 'ultimate' highway network recommended in the SELNEC Highway Plan was similar to the Transportation Study network H1. The network is illustrated in Figure 44, which shows the basically ring and radial configuration of the proposed system. Full details of the individual schemes included in the plan are contained in the report of the SELNEC Highway Engineering Committee-SELNEC, A Highway Plan, 1962-which is available from: John Hayes, M.Sc., C.Eng., Dip.T.P., City Engineer and Surveyor, P.O. Box 488, Town Hall, Manchester, M60 2JT. A charge of £2·25 is made for the full report; a 1" to 1 mile map of the schemes included in the plan is available for 50p {this map is included in the report).
(B) THE MANCHESTER AREA RAPID TRANSIT STU DY 254. The Manchester Area Rapid Transit Study (MARTS) was started in June 1966, during the data collection phase of the Transportation Study, following a decision by Manchester City Council and the former Ministry of Transport to retain consultants-Messrs. De Leuw, Chadwick, 0 hEocha -to undertake a comparative study of various forms of rapid transit for Manchester. Rapid transit was defined for the purpose of this study as any public passenger transport system operating on its own reserved track with close station spacing and frequent services. 255. In the first stage of the study the MARTS Working Party concluded that of all developed rapid transit systems a modern urban electric railway would be most suitable for Manchester on the grounds of cost, proven reliability and compatibility with the existing suburban railway system. This conclusion was reached on the basis of a compre hensive evaluation, by the consultants, of the probable performance, on a test alignment in the Ringway/Langley travel corridor, of several alternative rapid transit systems, including duorail, three types of monorail and two types of busway system. The evaluation was based on assumed alternative unidirectional passenger demands of 10,000 and 30,000 per peak hour.
(ii) undertake the detailed planning of any central section which could be constructed as a first stage of develop ment. 257. A proposal to construct a duorail rapid transit facility in the Ringway/Langley travel corridor-subject to the findings of the Transport ation Study-was subsequently formulated by the Working Party in November 1968, and the appoint ment of the consultants for the initial design of this project was later approved by the City Council in respect of the proposed construction of a rapid transit line from Northenden to Higher Blackleysee Figure 52. The project was not subsequently justified by the Transportation Study-see paragraph 178.
Technical Working Paper 1
Establishment of Study and Basic Data Collection. This paper describes the establishment and organisation of the SELNEC Transportation Study and the field surveys and inventories which constitute the principal source of data for the analytical phases of the Study. Contents of the paper include the history and organisation of the Study, descriptions of the zoning system, the field surveys undertaken by Messrs. W. S. Atkins & Partners, and the data checking, expansion and manipulation exercises which followed the data collection phase.
Technical Working Paper 2 258. Full documentation of the Manchester Rapid Transit Study is contained in the three published volumes of the MARTS Report: Manchester Rapid Transit Study. Volume I. Report of the Working Party. September 1967 (£2·10); Manchester Rapid Transit Study. Volume II. Study of Rapid Transit Systems and Concepts; August1967 (£3·15); Manchester Rapid Transit Study. Volum e 111. The First Priority. November 1968 (£3·1 5). Copies of these reports are available from: J. Thompso.n, C.Eng., M.l.Mech.E., Associate Director/General Manager, SELNEC PTE, Central Division, 2 Devonshire Street North, Manchester, M 12 6JS.
(C) SELNEC TRANSPORTATION STUDY, TECHNICAL WORKING PAPERS
256. The Working Party subsequently recommended that the consultants should be further retained to:
259. The report of the Technical Control Team summarises the principal activities which have been undertaken during the Study and describes the selection of the recommended Bro ad Plan for 1984. In compiling this report an attempt has been made to produce a document which is intell igible to the interested layman . Readers requiri ng deeper technical treatment of any particular aspect of t he Study are referred to the more comprehensive documentation which is provided in th e Technical Working Paper series.
(i) investigate possible realistic rapid transit networks with a view to determining performance character istics, capital and operating costs and quality of service to the public;
260. The Control Team have followed a policy of documenting progress by the issue of Working Papers describing separate aspects of the Study as the work has proceeded; the following papers
152
relating to th e Broad Plan have been issued or are in the process of preparation :
Rail Planning Study (Stage 1) This working paper, which was prepared by Messrs. De Leuw, Chadwick, 0 hEocha, contains a full description of the first stage of the rail planning study which is referred to in Chapter 4 of this report.
Technical Working Paper 3
Planning Data: Existing and Forecast This paper, which was produced by the Planning Sub-Committee of the Technical Control Team, summarises the work carried out in producing information relating to existing and forecast population and employment figures for the study area. The following main tasks were carried out: (i) the assembly of population and employment data for SELNEC as a whole, and for each analysis zone, in the base year of the Study; (ii) the provision of global population and employment yardsticks for 1981 ; (iii) the distribution of 1981 SELNEC yardstick population and employment forecasts to local authority areas and analysis zones.
Technical Working Paper 6
Network Specification and Coding This paper describes the methods used in the preparation of the input data which enables models of existing and proposed transportation systems to be built in a computer (see paragraph 55).
Technical Working Paper 7
Calibration of the Mathematica/ Model-to be published This paper, which is being prepared by the MAU, will describe the calibration of the mathematical model. Calibration is the process of adjusting the model until output is produced for the base year which corresponds with the information for that year which was obtained from the field surveys.
Technical Working Paper 8
Evaluation Methodology-to be published This paper, which is being prepared jointly by the MAU and the SALTS Group, will describe the evaluation procedures which are outlined in paragraphs 61 to 65 of this report.
Technical Working Paper 9
Preliminary Concepts
Evaluation
of
Public
Transport
This paper describes the evaluation of public transport concepts which was undertaken in the first model run series (model runs 13 to 17). This work is briefly summarised in Chapter 4 of this report.
Technical Working Paper 10
Rail Planning Study (Stage 2) This paper, which was prepared by Messrs. De Leuw, Chadwick, 0 hEocha, describes the second stage of the rail planning study which is referred to in Chapter 4 of this report.
Technical Working Paper 11
Computing Procedures-to be published Technical Working Paper 4
Study Area Characteristics
This paper will describe the computer programs which are used in running the model on a CDC 6600 computer.
This paper provides comprehensive documentation of the base year study area characteristics which are briefly summarised in Chapter 2 of this report.
Technical Working Paper 12
Technical Working Paper 5
Evaluation of Alternative Transportation Systems -to be published
The Mathematica/ Model This paper, which was produced by the MAU, describes in detail the behavioural transportation model which is outlined in Chapter 3 of this report.
This paper will provide comprehensive documenta tion of the evaluation of alternative transportation systems, the selection of the Broad Plan, and the performance of the Broad Plan system in model run 26. 153
Technical Working Paper 13
Operation Evaluation of Highway Networks-to be publishecl This paper will review the operational evaluation of highway networks in the first and second model run series and in model run 26.
261. Those Working Papers which have been published do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Technical Control Team or the Steering Committee of the SELNEC Transportation Study. Technical Working Papers are made available as and when they are published at a price of 50p inclusive of post and packing from : John Hayes, M.Sc., C.Eng., Dip.T.P.,
Technical Working Paper 14
Data Analysis Service Bureau-To be published. This paper will consist of a user's guide to the Data Analysis Service Bureau which is referred to in paragraph 241. 路
154
Chairman of Technical Control Team, SELN EC Transportation Study, P.O. Box 488, Town Hall, Manchester, M60 2JT.
THE SELNEC TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR 1984 A56
.,,., , _ .,. I .
,,./i·-1; SCALE
,...._.~
.I.
•
1
5 4 3 ' . i .. .m:==:::::i. . . . . . . . .11111110:::=========i. . . . . . . . . . .1:========:i. . . . . . . . . . . Miles 8 7 5 2 4 3 6 0 Ki lometres 0
\• I •
I
)
.
'<"
•
(.
.__,..
\
....... •
•
")
.--
-1s&
I
I . ...... .-- \.,.._./
•
•
•
"' I
'O
M
•
I
(
!
,.
•
......... ..,, .r ·-· •
•
•
\•
"\
A676
M62
~
\
·-·~•
·-'
.J
•
•
•
\
I I
I
~
I
•
\...
r•
/
I
~.
'\
I
'---1
I
·' ......
.,
• •
ATHE TON
I
r•
"
.-"'
•
A5a .I
•
•
•
JF
./
Di11ersion
•
,_.-'
..... '_5=P:. :-;;;.-""'T-""1
•
•
( \•
LEIGH
I•
N
•
I•
"'"·-·-
•I
•
I
•
'
•
'
M62
/
(
•
•
--· --· ·-· ,.
,.., •
/
•
\.
;•
STOCKPORT
\::.:> -... .--·'-·-·.,
~· .,
.
.,,,,.
• LEGEND
• SU BURBAN RAILWAY LINES TO BE IMPR OVE D & UPGRADED
11 I 11
-----
.......,,,..,.,,..
DISUS ED RAILWAY LIN E ( BOLTO N- RA DCLIF FE) TO BE REINSTATED FOR SUBURBAN PASSENGER SERVIC E
- ---
le
• OTH ER PR OPOSED NEW OR IMPROVED ROADS
OTHE R NEW OR IMP ROVE D ROADS UNDER CONSTRU CTIO N OR COMPLETED IN MARCH 1971
•
$ C ,O l [
"'
\
.,•
,.
I
., '
•
.
Y,OR DS
•
EXISTI NG TRUNK & PRINCIPAL ROADS
I
OTHER ROADS OF TRAF FIC SIGNIFI CANCE
-·-·-
•
PROPOSED MOTORWAYS & MAJOR RESTRICTED ACC ESS ROAD S
MOTO RWAY S & RESTRICTED ACCESS ROADS UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR COMPLETED IN MARCH 1971
xx)( x
I ~~~.,
PRO POS ED UNDER GROUND RAILWAY-SEE INSET
POSSIBLE SUP PLEMENTA RY PASSENGER RAILWAY LINES FOR· INTER-URBAN SERVICES
••••
--·
"-\
I
I
I
•-'·' •w·-· ...,_A523 Di11e r s ion
•
•
•
Radcliffe Whitefield Besses o'th' Barn
I•
PROPO SED PASSENGER CONVEYO RS-SEE INSET
Bury
Bolton
\
PROPOSED BUSWAYS
·-·--
!
•
Prestwich Heaton Park
STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Bowker Vale Crumpsall Woodlands Rd Victoria Market St Albert Sq uare Princess St
-J.-
-r-
-I-
Piccadilly Levenshulme
,• e
t:
0
Heaton Chapel Mauldeth Rd Stockport
Burnage
&,m•
Q
:i:
East Didsbury Gatley Heald Green Styal
ROA O
[ ~l(N SIO N
Inset showing proposals for Central Manchester March 1971 Ba sed upon the Ordnance Survey Map w ith the sanction of the Controller of H.M . Stationery Office . Crown Copyright·1eserved. Printed in England by The William Mortis P1tJss Limited, Longley Lane, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M22 4SL
""' ~
Cheadle Hulme Handforth
E
"'
0 0
0
~
,f
1§ l
«
~
'
~
Q$
Wilmslow
" P~INCISS
•"'
:;i
Not to scale
Alderley Edge
Track diagram of Ii nes serving the Piccadilly 7Victoria tunnel
.."°• ];>
$> 0 0
~
r-
SELNEC
TRANSPORTATION A Broad Plan for 1984
INTRODUCTION The SELNEC conurbation and the Merseyside conurbation together form the major urban settlements of
FIGURE 1- STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS -1966 AND 1984
north west England. Bounded by the Pennines to the north and east, and by the Lancashire and Cheshire green belts to the south and west, the SELNEC conurbation houses some
2t
million people. The 413 square mile area
covered by the Transportation Study corresponds broadly to that of the conurbation- see n1ap overleaf. The study area contains the county boroughs of Bol ton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford and Stockport together with all or parts Of 55 other local authorities in the admin istrative counties of Cheshire and Lancashire.
1 966-2.596.000
Popu l ation
The SELNEC Transportation Study started in 1966 following a suggestion by the then Minister of Transport
1984-2.708,000
t hat the right basis for dec isions· about future roads in towns and the best balance between public and private transport would be a comprehensive transportation study in each of the nation's main conurbations. This would enable an objective assessment to be r;nade of the adequacy of exist ing road and public transport systems and planned improvements to them in relation to the growth of t raffic, the likely changes in land use, the distribution
1984-1.238,000
¢&&¢0& ¢&g¢&& ¢&0¢&0¢&g¢gg;
1966- £1 ,100 p.a .
£££££££££££
1 984- £ 2,100 p .a.
£££££££££££££££££££££
1966-1.265,000
J obs
of population and emp loyment and other simi lar factors. The first stage of the Study was completed in· 1971 at a tota l cost of about £600,000- approximately 0·2% of the estimated cost of the recommended transport system. One problem which faced the Study was an assessment of the amount of money w hich might realistically be expected to be available for investment in transport infrastruct ure in the futu re. Adv ice was given by the then Ministry of Transport that it might be assumed for the purposes of t he Study that over the period up to 1984
Mean h o u seh o ld i ncome (1 966 m o n ey va l ue }
the funds available for highways and public transport infrastructure would be of the order of £250M.
~I
Given this guidance on t he probable level of investment, the Transportation Study developed alterrnative transportation systems, each of which went some way toWards the establishment of appropriate highway and
1966-369,000
Cars
publi c transport networks for the area- although, of course, no 'ideal' system could be devised because of the budget constraint. The networks tested varied in total cost between £212M and £252M, and the alloca ti1on of
1984- 94 5,000
these total costs ranged between 12% and 45% investment in public transport with the balance spent on road construction.
~fi.~fi .~f
The choice between the alternative networks was made on t he basis of a procedure known as cost benefit analysis, in which the benefits which might be produced by each system were divided by _its capital cost to give
1966-7
Person s p er ca r
a rate of return for the invest ment. Network capital costs were not very difficult to estimate, but the determina t ion of potential benefits was far more difficult. In the SELN EC Study, benefits were determi ned by a series of computer
1984-3
programs collectively known as a 'mathematical model of travel behaviour'. Given a description of the characteristics of the study area, this mathematical n1odel is able to calculate the way 'in which any transportation system would be used by the people of the area. Thus, if two transportation systems are tested by t he model-say the existing system and a proposed new system-it is possible to estimat e the benefits which users of the new system would enjoy.
1966-1.000
Mileage o f major ro.a d s
1984- 1 ,200
STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS-1966and1984 m
The relevant characteristics of the existing population of the study area are known from an extensive series of field surveys which was undertaken in 1966 (the starting date of the Study}. In designing transportation .
&AF
1 966-386
C ars per mi le o f maj o r r oad
m
systems for the 1980s, it was decided that they should be devised to maximise benefits to the people who will
&~
1 984-798
inhabit the area at that time. A detailed forecast was therefore made o f principal characteristics which the study area may have in the 1980s. The outcome of this work is summarised in Figure 1.
TRAVEL PATTERNS IN THE STUDY AREA
$LI
1 966
C ar ownersh i p b y h o u seho l d
no c ar
1 ca r m ore th an 1 ca r
63% 33%
4o/o
The travel patterns which exiSted in the study area in 1966 (as revealed by the field surveys) are compared in Figure 2 with those which· were forecast to occur in 1984. This figure, which illustrates all journeys throughout
I! ll
1 984
the study area, demonstrates the growth of travel which will result from increased car .ownership. However, the
25% 50% m ore t ha n 1 c ar 25%
n o car 1 c ar
Broad Plan does not provide· for full access by private car, in the peak period, to the major town and city centres of the region, especially central Manchester. Figure 3 illustrates the comparatively stable position in respect of the relative use of cars and public transport for morning peak work trips to central Manchester. Within the public transport sector the figure shows how the emphasis will be displaced from p1·edominantly bus orientated travel to an equal division of travellers between bus and rail.
THE BROAD TRANSPORTATION PLAN- SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS After the evaluation of alternative systems had been completed, a Broad Transportation Plan, comprising complementary highway and public transport networks for 1984, was· selected. This recommended Plan is shown on the map overleaf. It is estim8ted that the cost of the rec.o mmended highway network is about £2.11 M. The total cost of all major highway schemes-that is to say schemes costing more than £0·25M each-which are included in the Plan amounts to £186M. The balance of the estimated highway network cost is made up of allowances of £20M for traffic management and minor improvement schemes, and of £!3M for local bus .priority schemes on the highway network.
FIGURE 2 - TOTAL DAILY TRIPS IN THE STUDY AREA Of the £186M allowed for major schemes, the following each had a capital cost in excess of £5M:
Plan Reference
A
A560 Bredbury By-Pass
£5·3M
B
A663 Broadway extension
£6·2M
c
A34 diversion, Handforth/Witmslow By - Pass
£6·2M
D
A560 diversion, Stockport
£8·4M
E
Outer Ring Road-Eastern Section ...
£9·5M
F
Bury Easterly By-Pass
£1 O·OM
G
A6 diversion, Stockport and Hazel Grove
£1 O·SM
H
A57 Hyde and Denton By-Passes
£12·3M
M602 Salford/Eccles Motorway
£14·5M
Manchester and Salford Inner Ring Road
£15·6M
J
C AR
PUBLIC TRANS PORT
1966-2· 4 M t r ips
1966-2·0 M trips
The recommended railway network includes an electrified tunnel between Piccadi lly and Victoria Stations 1n central Manchester with three proposed intermediate underground stations-Princess Street, Albert Square and Market Street-and the re-establishment and electrification of a link between Bolton and Radcliff e via Bradley Fold. The network would also i nvolve t he upgrading and improvement of thirteen existing suburban railway lines. Improvements proposed for these lines include the provision of more frequent t rain services and integrated feeder bus routes, the modernisation of station build ings, the provision, where appropriate, of car
Other trips
Other tri ps
parki.ng accommodation at stations, direct feeder bus access to stations and all necessary track and signal works.
63%
49%
The Plan's main proposals for bus services are for their complete rationalisation and co-ordination wit h the upgraded railway system . Two busways- roads reserved for the exclusive use of buses- are also included. These are the Trafford Park Busway linking the Manchester to Altrincham railway line with the Trafford Park industrial area and the Buxton line busway linking Hazel Grove station wit h the eastern boundary of the study area . . It is also recommended that the possibility of safeguarding a busway alignment in the Ri ngway/La1ngley
1 984-1 ·5M t r ips
1 984-5·3 M trips
travel corridor should receive f urther consideration. The .Study evaluated the benef its of a passenger conveyor (travelator) syst em in central Manchester. Although no fina l conclusion was reached about such a system, it vyas considered that passenger co nveyors had great poten ti al benefits and that further and more detailed studies of the~ were warranted on the basis of the riesu lts produced so far. An allowance of £5M was made fbr a possible passenger conveyor system. Ot h e r trips 55%
The total cost of the recommended public transport network is estimated at about £41 M , exclusive of the £5M allowed for bus priority measures in the highway network. The netwOrk would also involve substantial expend iture in new public transport rolling stock.
Other trips 63%
The estimated cost of all of the proposals recommended in the Broad Plan, apart from public transport rolling stock and car parking facilities, is:
£M H'ighway Network.
211
Pu.bl ic Transport Network Total
41
£252M
(at 1968 money value)
FIGURE 3- MORNING PEAK (7.0 -9.0 a.m.) WORK TRIPS TO CENTRAL MANCHESTER ( Approx
This total cost implies that the proposals could all be co m pleted by about 1984 at the rate of expenditure assumed by the Study. The map shows that the Plan's major hig.hway proposals serve to link the pri ncipal sub-centres of the region, both to each other and to the nationa l motorway system. It also shows that potential highway trips are
1 966 121,000 t rips
catered for in most major travel corridors, other than certa in radial corridors of movement to central Manchester, where it would be im practicable on grounds of cost, land· requirement and environment, to provide road. capacity for all potential car trips. The highway network would enable most medium/long distance car trips to take .advantage of the proposed motorway system and hence reduce travel times for iiiany journeys by car. At the same time t he attraction of traffic by the motorways would be such that it is probable that t raffi c congestion on the existingj general purpose street system would not differ to any great extent from the present day. Thus, it is pred icted that traffic congestion may be held at present day levels even though there will be more than twice as many cars per mile of road in the area by 1984. The rail based publi c transport system is shown on the map to be strongly orientated towards the central Manchester area . It wou ld provide exce ll ent access to and w ithin this centre and would cater mainly for those radial movements for which extensive highway provision is not proposed in the Plan . It is thought that the network proposed in the Plan would provide a fully integ rated and viable t ransportation system for the study area in the 1980s, that it would be operationally feasible, and would ·produce significant benefits in a climate ·of rapidly incre·asing car ownership .
r
1984 111 ,000 trips
i
mil e radius from Town Hall )