Headline Grabbing with 'the big red C'...

Big Red C's mark advise drivers that they are entering the Congestion Charging Zone in Central London (Manchester Evening News).

Theres just something about 'the big red 'C' and its incredible ability to grab controversial headlines for newspapers. The Manchester Evening News (MEN) makes no exception to this ability as demonstrated at the start of this week with its front page piece. The symbol of course represents congestion charging, and the MEN revealed on Monday the proposed question for the coming referendum within Greater Manchester on the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) investment package. The ballot papers to be circulated amongst all those on the electoral register within the ten Greater Manchester Authorities will simply ask the question "Do you agree with the proposals or not?" (1). Shock horror - no direct mention of 'the big red C' and no direct mention of the near 3 billion of transport infrastructure improvements that the TIF package will bring. However delivered with the voting papers will be a booklet outlining how the funding package will work and outline in detail the plans for road user charging and the public transport improvements. 

Personally this seems like perfect wording for the ballot and emphasises the fact (as argued in my previous post 'People of Manchester, a referendum of opportunity awaits') that this referendum is certainly not (as some seem to believe) a simple 'yes' or 'no' to road user charging - moreover it is a vote for the opportunity to create a sustainable transport system for Greater Manchester.

It was disappointing that the MEN, on the same day as the ballot wording announcement, provided us only with a rather negative approach to the TIF proposals within a column by Ray King (2). King suggested that the referendum is only taking place "because the congestion charge element is so controversial", which is certainly true - in this country we certainly regard paying more to use our favourite commodity - the motorcar as controversial, but unfortunately, whether we like it or not, higher motoring costs will be forced upon us with or without road user charing. Road user charging will help prepare us for these rising costs, by encouraging us to think about the alternatives to our the luxury item!

Columnist King goes further to criticise the TIF package in terms of the public transport improvements. Citing firstly that the fund does not address the Piccadilly-Oxford Road railway capacity constraint, which he argues is the biggest public transport issue confronting Greater Manchester. Granted, this bottleneck is restricting rail traffic growth (with the Piccadilly-Oxford Road section at saturation point), however a solution to this would be highly expensive and is not really in the spirit of the TIF - which is a public transport investment package, looking across all modes and providing better access to public transport for all members of the community (lets not forget that 80% of Greater Manchester public transport journeys are made on the bus). This does not mean that the rail bottleneck is of lower priority, just that it is an issue to be addressed by Network Rail through the Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) system and would be met by network enhancement funding.

Talking buses - the commentator claims that the bus enhancements will not provide what he calls the 'regulated' and low cost system enjoyed by Londoners. This raises the question as to whether the commentator has had a good read of the TIF enhancement proposals? We must of course be careful with our use of the word 'regulated' with regard to buses in Britain as of course bus deregulation took place under the Transport Act 1985 (3). Thus those fine red buses of London are indeed largely operated by our favourite private operators (Stagecoach, First, Arriva, GoAhead, Transdev etc...), however TfL has very tight control over service provision and the fare system - hence giving a unified image (this is greatly facilitated by the Oyster smartcard system). Indeed the grip of the GMPTE on Manchester's buses is currently far looser - with tight competition between operators and a complicated fare system. One of the major aims of the TIF proposals would be to address this deterrent, with service enhancements and an overhauled fare system through introduction of a Greater Manchester Travelcard (smart ticketing), bringing an end to one operator only fare products.

The final pinnacle of Ray King's negativity towards the TIF, involves the Metrolink system improvements. Here again a comparison is made with London and the awesome Underground. Here he claims that the Metrolink will never provide a comparable system. Lets just get things straight, Manchester is not London, and thus neither has current demand nor is it likely that there will be similar demand in the foreseeable future for a 'World Capital' style transit system. The Metrolink enhancements aim to provide Greater Manchester with just the right type of light rail system, efficient and fully integrated to other modes along with the right level of capacity to meet passenger demand and encourage a modal shift from less sustainable modes. The TIF package is the only funding pot out there to make the phase 3b extensions and capacity enhancements reality.

The Transport Innovation Fund represents an opportunity for Greater Manchester, not least because of the transport infrastructure improvements but equally in economic terms. Without the TIF, growth in Manchester's economy will be ever restricted by congested roads and potential employment will go elsewhere - put off by poor workforce and resource access. A peak time and peak direction only congestion charging scheme, as proposed, would only affect 20% of the vehicles on Manchester's roads, and those choosing to pay the charge would benefit from a more productive car journey, with less wasted time and less wasted fuel from engine idling in heavy traffic - thus the charge could even reduce the cost of a private vehicle journey. Once again I finish with a summary of my approach to the TIF; lets embrace and seize this opportunity, get positive and passionate about proposals to improve public transport and vote in confidence for a sustainable economic and environmental future for Greater Manchester.

Links and Sources:

1. Manchester Evening News, 20 October 2008, 'C-Charge: The Question' <www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk>

2. Manchester Evening News, 20 October 2008, 'C-Charge question is avoiding the real issue',

3. Wikipedia, 'Bus deregulation in Great Britain', <en.wikipedia.org>

GM Future Transport, for information on the TIF proposals including full details of the congestion charging system and public transport enhancements, <www.gmfuturetransport.co.uk>

Climate Targets missing the point on Aviation!

Whilst new and tougher climate change targets were announced last week by Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary of the newly formed government department that goes by the same name, they are still managing to sideline the most pressing need - to curb air transport emissions. The target is now an 80% cut on 1990 CO2 emission levels up from the previous target of 60%, there are also promised incentives for micro-generators that feed excess electricity into the national grid by means of a guaranteed price arrangement (1&2). However the targets still sideline our still fastest growing contributor to climate changing emissions - aviation! The government still maintains that calculating 'our contribution' to international air transport emissions is problematic, in other words it would involve complicated international agreements with the country that the airliner is going to/ coming from.

Unless I'm mistaken, surely 'our contribution' (the UK's) to international aviation emissions is the sum of CO2 emitted by airplanes for the duration of their journey within British Airspace? Surely it would not take a mathematical genius to calculate this contribution to our Carbon Dioxide emissions? Would it be farfetched to suggest that it could be our governments commitment to vast airport capacity expansion that is the driver behind this confusion surrounding aviation emissions?

At the same time, the newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) (3) can only be welcomed, as a common sense move - rather than the previous arrangement of BERR (Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) dealing with Energy and Defra (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs) dealing with Climate Change, with often contrasting opinions and policy recommendations being dished out, creating a rather muddled approach to these two pressing topics in government. Lets hope now that the DECC can grasp and push for a rather more realistic approach to fossil fuel depletion in government. However it seems Gordon Brown remains to be convinced that cheap petrol won't last (4)! Although it will sure keep people happy if it remains relatively low through the financial crisis and in the lead up to the election!

Links and References:

1. BBC, 16 October 2008, 'Tougher Climate Targets Unveiled' <news.bbc.co.uk>

2. The Guardian, 16 October 2008, 'Government pledges to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050', <www.guardian.co.uk>

3. Department of Energy and Climate Change, <www.decc.gov.uk>

4. BBC, 16 October 2008, 'Brown warning over petrol prices' <news.bbc.co.uk>.

Hoon Slips in Stansted Expansion Plan!

In one of his first moves as Secretary of State for Transport, Geoff Hoon has given the green light to expansion at Britain's third busiest airport, Stansted. The news passed by rather under the carpet, what with the Financial Crisis grabbing most of the news these days. The announcement was made as a written statement to parliament and allows Stansted to prepare itself to deal with 35 million passengers a year up from the current 25 million and increase air transport movements from 241 000 to 264 000 per year (1&2). The plans do not however give the go ahead for the controversial second runway at Stansted, and last nights protests outside the Houses of Parliament really show that the Stop Stansted Expansion lobby group are certainly not disheartened in their efforts to ensure any further expansion does not take place (3).

So a rather un-promising start from the guys at the top of the re-shuffled DfT, as they continue Labour's irrational quest to get more planes up there increasing our CO2 emissions and locking us further into our addiction to fossil fueled aviation. And it seems that the successors to the likes of Ruth Kelly and Tom Harris may be even more 'modally agnostic' with this quite literally modally barmy announcement! Interestingly just before the reshuffle, both Harris and Kelly were showing positive signs and it seemed a change of heart approach from within the DfT was emerging. With Wolmar reporting that Tom Harris had admitted to him that he was wrong to say that he was modally agnostic back in July in the Rail 594 interview, indeed Tom was perhaps as good as you can get for rail minister and its a shame that he was not tipped for Secretary of State - having someone with sound transport knowledge is an absolute must, we do not train teachers and say "you know what I think you'd make a good deep sea fisherman". Tom has a real passion for rail transport, and I still believe his passion at the DfT was largely constrained by his party's lack thereof. And indeed even Kelly's departure speech at the Labour party conference showed a glimmer of hope for her new found friend, railway electrification, and she announced that decisions will be made in the spring on a rolling programme, and that we could be seeing the largest scale electrification programme in the history of Britain's Railway, unfortunately these announcements were overshadowed by political gossip about her departure (4). So it seems that in her year in the transport seat, she came a long way from the days after the 2007 Rail White Paper, when Dartmouth apparently had a National Rail station, and rail electrification was not a priority, we do live and learn!

So not great news on the Stansted front as the capacity expansion slips in through the back door, the campaigners are quite rightly furious and have quite rightly doubled their efforts to stop the crazy second runway going the same way (5). As for Heathrow runway three, we await the announcement later this year, hopefully there may be something positive on aviation policy to report, lets remember Heathrow needs to get better, not bigger and if anything we should be cutting the number of short haul domestic and international services at the worlds 'busiest international airport'. See my post 'What of a Future for Aviation' for a full explanation...

Links and References:

1. BBC, 9 October 2008, 'Airport Expansion Gets Go Ahead', <www.bbc.co.uk>

2. BAA, 9 October 2008, 'Green light for next phase of growth at Stansted', <www.baa.com>

3. BBC, 13 October 2008, 'Parliament hit by green protest', <www.bbc.co.uk>

4. RailNews, 1st October 2008, 'Policy boost for rail future as Kelly quits', <www.railnews.co.uk>

5. Stop Stansted Expansion, 2008, <www.stopstanstedexpansion.com>

What of a future for Aviation?

Is the sun setting on aviation? Evening light on a 'carbon' fueled turbofan jet engine, powering an Air New Zealand 747-400 high above California shortly after take off from LAX on NZ2 bound for LHR. (Darren Axe collection)

OK, it may seem fairly evident thus far - I am not an avid supporter of expansion in the aviation sector, and indeed in many posts I have given aviation a beating in comparison to other modes. However, when I gaze up at a airliner gliding off into the sunset to some far flung destination, my thoughts are not so much of a 'doom and gloom future', but of optimism and hope for the potential of aviation in a post carbon world. However it cannot be stressed enough that the future of commercial aviation is hanging by a thread and only carefully thought through policy will allow this mode to provide any sort of long term, long haul mobility for our future generations to enjoy just as we did in the great 'aviation era'.

The commercial airplane is often depicted as the climate change menace, burning up precious oil reserves and depositing the fossil carbon reserves into the precious film that surrounds our planet, the upper troposphere causing several time the climate changing impact in comparison to ground level emissions due to the radiative forcing principle. And whilst the efficiency of the turbofan jet engine has greatly improved through the last decade, the emissions of harmful air pollutants has fallen. However such has been the extent of growth in the aviation sector, that any emissions savings have been rapidly offset and far exceeded by our ever increasing lust for the taming of the skies. The exemption of jet fuel from any form of duty payment due to lack of cooperation of where such funds would end up has given the aviation industry a unique 'tax break' allowing the development of the budget airline business model - which has made aviation accessible to all, pushing demand sky high! Its valid to appraise aviation as one of the greatest achievements of the 'Oil Age', with no pair of major airport cities on the face of the globe being separated by more than 24 hours of 'air time'. But the celebration of flight is on the brink of crisis as our our old friend crude oil finds his multi-million year preparation for the industrial revolution could only provide for a couple of centuries of homo-sapien consumption!

My most respected Peak Oil educator, Richard Heinberg has produced a very gloomy article entitled 'Saying Goodbye to Air Travel' (1), which depicts a future of escalating aviation costs leading ultimately to the post carbon days where lack of suitable alternative technology will mean the days of cruising at 36000 feet will be all but a distant memory. Such a projection, may include a certain element of unavoidable truth, with the alternatives to kerosine at present amounting to little more than hopeful discussions amongst aviation supporters that human innovation will develop electric (perhaps solar powered) planes capable of whisking us around with zero emissions. I prefer to retain a certain level of precautionary optimism for aviation, not least in support my admiration and interest in aviation as a transport mode, but in addition from the perspective of how very different our lives would be if air travel became only a mere great achievement within the human history books - on par with the Great Pyramids, or the structures of the great Roman Empire! Imagine a future where a letter from America took a fortnight to arrive having spent days at sea, where natural disaster aid relief became impossible as all the worlds helicopters were gleaming in museums having long since seen their last airborne days, or a world where leaving for Autralia involved setting out on a month long ocean voyage aboard an ocean liner! It renders black and white images from the 1800's but this would be the real consequence of not preparing for the end of the 'fossil era', and we would be left looking back in awe at our wonderful past achievements.

How then do we even contemplate a sustainable future for aviation, and what sort of policy will guide us in the right direction? One thing is for sure - aviation simply cannot be allowed to grow. The government predicts a doubling in the number of passengers using British Airports by 2030 (2). This simply cannot be allowed to happen, and indeed many ask, given the oil dependence of the aviation sector, whether such an expansion would even be possible. The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) (3) question the governments assumptions on projected short term future oil prices that are used to generate such growth forecasts, and indeed 2030 is that rather optimistic projected date for peak oil that the USGS calculated for the US government, most Peak Oil research however places it far earlier. Our only option then is moving those air passenger projections in the opposite direction - downward, and perhaps we should be looking towards a 50% reduction! Without a doubt our passion for cheap air must go, and all short haul routes - internal and international must be transfered to electric rail transport, whether on high speed or conventional infrastructure, indeed we will have to pay the time penalty of longer journey times, as we transfer passengers making journeys such as London-Berlin or Birmingham-Barcelona to rail, however this price would be relatively low in comparison to that of a potential loss of aviation in its entirety. Those journeys that are currently only made due to the attractive low cost of budget aviation would not be made - part of the principle of reducing travel demand. Our airports would become much quieter, more efficient hubs, focussing on long haul operations, thus we would ration our jet fuel supplies for journeys where the alternatives are weeks of overland or ocean travel. In addition we would reserve supplies for emergency air services as well as long haul freight with valid purpose. The public money spared from expensive airport expansion schemes could be diverted to proactive research on preparing for the future of flight in the post carbon world...

A realistic suggestion?

One thing is for sure as far as things stand - the alternatives to a carbon fueled turbofan airliner are at present fairly limited, but I remain passionately optimistic about aviation, all the while accepting massive but realistic reductions in the extent to which we use aviation. Conclusion: aviation has a future, but nonetheless our level of mobility will surely be reduced by the limitations of alternative power sources - lets accept it and get on with life beyond the glamour of our current system!

Sources and Links:

1. Richard Heinberg, May 2008, Saying Goodbye to Air Travel, <www.richardheinberg.com>.

2. Department for Transport (DfT), November 2007, 'UK air passenger demand and carbon dioxide forecasts',  <www.dft.gov.uk>.

3. Aviation Environment Federation, January 2008, 'UK Air Passenger Demand Forecasts', <www.aef.org.uk>.

Feeling the Heat of Heathrow Expansion vs. High Speed Rail debate!

The latest in High-Speed Train technology, the AGV (Automotrice Grande Vitesse) from Alstom. Will similar units one day take the strain of short-haul air for UK and UK-Continent journeys? (Photo: Alstom Transport/ F.Christophorides)

So the conservatives have brought one of the great transport debates of our times into the mainstream media, with the announcement by Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers on Monday that under a conservative government Heathrow Expansion would be shelved and instead a £20 billion high-speed Rail Line would link St Pancras International (and Heathrow Airport) with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. The announcement places increasing pressure on Labour, who rejected the level of benefits of the high-speed rail line in terms of reductions in the number of flights from the crowded Heathrow Airport, and outgoing Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly stated that the Tory proposals were "hugely damaging for national interest". As for Heathrow, a decision is due later this year as to whether the government agrees to proposals for a third runway at the airport. The Heathrow vs. high-speed Rail debate is vastly complex and the battle can be fought from a plethora of perspectives, however the vast majority of arguments centre around the relative environmental/ climate change impacts of the two modes.

Lets face the facts, its hard to argue that aviation can beat rail transport for the short haul market. Indeed there is the classic Eurostar argument that their TGV-TMST/ Class 373 units emit 10 times less CO2 per passenger than similar air routes between London and Paris/ Bruxelles. However the twist comes when you look at the individual case for high-speed rail (HSR) as opposed to conventional inter-city rail (with maximum speeds of 200 km/hr/ 125 mph), such as is standard on the current UK mainlines. Here an argument arises against the development of HSR. High-speed Trains are more energy thirsty and encourage longer commuting distances, which, it could be argued is not very sustainable practice during times when we should be reducing our energy demand and working closer to home - reducing our need to travel, for all purposes. To put this in another context, the argument would suggest that it would have been more sustainable, if rather than investing in HS1 and LGV  Nord and the 300 km/hr Eurostar services we had invested in 200 km/hr conventional lines and Lignes Classiques on the British and French sides of the tunnel respectively, and run Class 91 + Mk IV sets (the 'greenest' of the GB long distance electrics). This is the view supported by much respected transport journalist Christian Wolmar, and indeed I agree in principle - but there is one catch and it is on these grounds that given present political climate, I continue to support HSR development. The above argument would only remain standing if short-haul aviation were totally eradicated and we were to reduce our demand for travel and energy consumption - a policy that is neither advocated by 'Modally Agnostic' Labour nor the 'Green Welly' Conservatives! While short haul air remains out there on the table - it remains a competitor, in terms of journey time, to conventional speed inter-city rail, thus the case for high-speed rail is high as it would remove the competitive edge of aviation. Going back to our example, under present national and European transport policy, if Eurostar was a 200 km/hr service, with a journey time of around 4 hours, air would probably still have the upper hand of the modal share on competing routes. Only Green Party policy with a real focus on the community and 'eco-nomic' sustainability would provide the societal situation where the need to travel, to work, rest and play, is greatly reduced, and thus we may be able to question our need for High-Speed Rail, and short haul air - well there would be no need for a debate, it would be a thing of the past.

And now back to Heathrow expansion. From an environmental perspective, aviation growth is a disaster. It is simply impossible to argue that aviation expansion will bring any benefits in terms of environmental sustainability, whether its air quality, noise, habitat impact or climate changing gas emissions - and the evidence against the proposals at Heathrow are well reported and have been thrashed out in many a campaign. Discussed less frequently however are the counter-arguments to the highly acclaimed economic benefits of aviation growth. The Labour government cannot get enough of the so-called unquestionable positive economic impact growth in capacity at Heathrow would bring to the United Kingdom. This raises a significant question - have they even considered the prospect of the impact of fossil fuel depletion on the aviation industry? Peak Oil is a certainty, it is simply an inconvenient common sense principle of natural resource depletion. As we are constantly reminded by those who devote themselves to research on this topic, it is not a question of if, but when Peak Oil will hit us? Even the most optimistic of forecasts put this at 2030 but many are pointing towards any time between now and 2015. And aviation is by no means immune to the effects of Peak Oil, moreover it will probably suffer to a greater extent than other transport modes. Post Peak Oil, the date beyond which global demand outstrips global supply, the cost of air travel will rocket to meet the kerosine bill, and it will become a convenience only available to those willing to pay the Earth for it! Budget airlines will become yet another of those historic achievements of the 'Oil Age'. So the suggested doubling in UK air traffic by 2030 may seem a bit unrealistic unless a £1 + £1000 'baggage' (fuel surcharge) 'budget' deal to the (rising) Sea and (melting) Snow suddenly becomes attractive to the masses! Yet the pro-aviation expansion gang have yet another trick up their sleeves - even after Peak Oil we have the emerging alternative fuel technologies, the 'wonder fuels' of tomorrow that will allow us to jet around to an even greater extent than we did during the 'Oil Age'. But unfortunately this argument amounts to little more than a little bit of hydrogen, a bit more biofuel and if you're feeling really optimistic electric aviation... and the discussion is moved swiftly to hailing the successes of the ever increasing efficiency of modern commercial airplanes. If these wonder fuels could realistically provide us with the same level of mobility at the same cost as fossil carbon ever did - we would be focussing our efforts on creating 'super green fleets'. Just take a look at the airliners on the drawing boards of the big players in commercial airplane manufacture for the next decade. From Airbus the A350 XWB and from Boeing we look toward the 'Project Yellowstone' series of airplanes to replace the 707-787 series that we have known for so long. These products however are not miraculously solar powered, nor do they float along in the jet stream, they are powered by 'super-efficient' turbofan engines, fed by our old friend, the fossil carbon product kerosine (aviation fuel). So it looks unlikely that a 'wonder plane' will arrive before peak oil. Do the economic benefits of Heathrow expansion still add up or does it look more like a drain of public money that could be spent preparing for the looming monumental change to our mobility system once we pass the day of Peak Oil!

So the fires of the Heathrow vs. HSR debate are well and truly raging, will there be a winner, or will this springboard us to more proactive discussion of our mobility systems? What seems like a brave move from the Conservatives, in support for HSR taking short haul planes from the sky, brings them closer to accepting the reality of the end of the Oil Age. Meanwhile the Labour support for the third runway and a vast increase in aviation sector capacity seems like policy from another planet... Maybe they have discovered vast cheap oil reserves on Mars, and the Martians will pump it all and bring it all to us for free, so its business as normal, hurrah!

Links:

BBC News, Reaction to Tories' Heathrow Plan, <news.bbc.co.uk>

Christian Wolmar on Tory High-Speed Rail proposals, <www.guardian.co.uk>

Post Carbon Institute, Peak Oil info, blogs and articles, <www.postcarbon.org>

People of Manchester, a referendum of opportunity awaits...

This coming December the people of Manchester will have the unique opportunity to exercise their democratic right to directly influence transport policy for the Greater Manchester region. In June of this year, the GMPTA (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority) was provisionally awarded funding from the Department for Transport (DfT) Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) to considerably enhance the public transport system across the Greater Manchester region. Built into the funding package is a city-zone congestion charging system that would be implemented in 2013. It is now down to the people of Manchester to make their decision on whether they support the funding package. Here we shall look at the fantastic benefits the TIF package would bring to Manchester. The opportunity to vote directly on transport policy is one that does not arise regularly, it is a one off chance to seize, celebrate and vote in confidence of a future of sustainable public transport for the city.

The Transport Innovation Fund is a DfT initiative that resulted from the 2004 White Paper “The Future of Transport”. It is a unique funding scheme aimed at local authorities wishing to develop local and regional public transport in parallel to the introduction of a road charging/ congestion reducing scheme, in order to encourage a modal shift towards public transport. Many local authorities around the country have prepared and have submitted or are in the process of submitting bids for a slice of the funding. The City of Manchester as the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) and the GMPTA/E (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority/ Executive) is the first region to benefit from successful entry into the scheme, with a planned near 3 billion investment package. The breakdown of the funding is 1.5 billion from government grants, 1.2 billion revenues from a peak time/ peak flow direction only congestion charge and 0.1 billion from third party contributions. So how will Greater Manchester as a whole benefit from the TIF and why should everyone get out there on polling day with a unanimous YES... Lets explore what the TIF will bring!

The overarching aim of the TIF investment package is the joining up of Greater Manchester’s transport networks - integrating the modes through a series of interchange points, making public transport an attractive option with a simple smart ticketing system allowing seamless transition between the modes. Firstly then to the flagship Metrolink system. And here lets not forget that 600m of funding, separate to the TIF is already in the bag. These, known as the phase 3a expansions include conversion of the Manchester-Oldham-Rochdale railway line to Metrolink operation, giving better frequencies and higher capacity as well as extensions to mediacity:uk, Droylsden via Sportcity and St Werburgh’s Road Chorlton and to support these extensions, the tram fleet will grow accordingly. The TIF package aims to build on the 3a expansions by incorporating on street running to Oldham and Rochdale town centres, extending from Droylsden to Ashton Under Lyne, a junction in Chorlton will take the system south to Manchester Airport and east to East Didsbury and the Trafford Centre will be served by a spur from the Eccles branch. With the vast array of new lines, significant pressures would be placed on the current city centre infrastructure, thus a second city crossing is planned to accommodate the extra tram traffic! quite an impressive list of extensions, and of course the tram fleet will grow again to provide for the new system. Now to buses, and its important to note that bus maintains the highest modal share of public transport journeys in Greater Manchester, thus improvements here will be well received widely amongst Manchester’s people. A Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) scheme running from Leigh (Wigan) through Salford to Manchester and on to East Didsbury will provide a high quality, high frequency service, with up to 80% segregation from road traffic. Of course this flagship scheme is only the tip of the iceberg for bus improvements and generally there will be more frequent services that run later into the evenings and on weekends. Orbital routes will benefit as well as bus feeders to key transport interchange locations such as Metrolink and rail stations. The big win for bus passengers will be a much needed simplification of the fare structure, and this will largely be facilitated through the introduction of a Greater Manchester Travelcard (public transport smartcard) for use on all public transport modes. This would certainly be ITSO (Integrated Transport Smartcard Organisation) compliant thus enabling interoperability with other smart-ticketing systems as they enter the UK transport scene. Lastly on the public transport front we come to heavy rail and Manchester will gain from a double whammy of improvements to capacity here as the TIF would provide 7000 extra peak seats on trains to and from Manchester. This is in addition to extra rolling stock committed for the region through the Department for Transport Rolling Stock Plan of 2007’s High Level Output Statement (HLOS). As part of the development of transport interchanges, a number of stations across the area would be upgraded with longer platforms to accommodate longer trains and improved accessibility for all as well as safety and security. Cycling and Walking as transport modes are set to benefit with the creation of quality networks with extensive traffic free routes to encourage the use of these ultimate forms of sustainable mobility! In order to bring all the multi-modal improvements together there will be a revolution in information systems, with an emphasis on ‘real time’ information displays network wide, as well as a comprehensive web based personal travel planner.

And what for the motorist? Is the idea for Manchester to become anti-car? To this question, the answer it is a definite NO! Whilst the long term sustainability of the ‘carbon fueled’ car is in question, it is sure to remain a major player in the transport system, particularly if new, alternative technologies arise. However the negative effects of congestion cannot be solved by new automotive fuel technologies (bar the problem of pollutant emission associated with combustion engines, which would be eliminated given developments in electric cars). If nothing is done to tackle city centre congestion, the economic growth of Manchester could be restricted by 30%, starting a negative chain reaction whereby potential new employment will simply go elsewhere. The TIF package, proposes a peak time + peak direction only congestion charging system based upon two circular boundaries. Motorists would be charged if they cross one or both of the two boundaries during the peak, eg. inbound charing applies 07:00-09:30 and outbound charging applies 16:00-18:30. The outer boundary is largely formed by the M60 and would incur a £1 charge for a crossing, the inner boundary encompasses Manchester city centre and crossing it would incur a £2 charge (both at 2007 prices). Counter peak flow movements as well as movements wholly within the rings would incur no charge. It is estimated that the charge will affect 20% of motorists. Park and ride facilities will be greatly enhanced to encourage a modal shift for journeys into the city centre, and there are plans for 7000 additional parking spaces at Metrolink/ rail staions across the area. The result of the charge would be to reduce city centre traffic by 10-15%, bringing it to levels that are currently experienced during the school summer holidays. This would represent a massive economic benefit for business relying on deliveries as it would equate to far less wasted time. The most important component of the congestion charging scheme is that it would not be introduced until 2013 - by which time 80% of the committed public transport improvements would be in place - in order to provide a real alternative to the private car as a means of transport in the Greater Manchester area.

Alas in summary the TIF scheme provides a unique opportunity to enhance the public transport network of Greater Manchester, whilst reducing congestion within the city. The general idea behind the scheme is ‘joining it all up’ providing integrated transport and allowing seamless transition from one mode to another through designated interchanges and smart ticketing. The TIF, is the only source of funds currently available through central government to allow for improvements of the scale discussed, thus it is vital that the opportunity is seized. Rather than this referendum for Manchester’s People being a simple YES/NO to congestion charging, this is a referendum on the future of transport for the city: either take a sustainable route, allowing public transport to provide a real alternative to the energy intensive automobile, or a route towards increasing gridlock, and dependence upon the automobile - whilst public transport remains overcrowded and unattractive... Lets vote in confidence for a sustainable future..?

Links:

Department for Transport (DfT), The Transport Innovation Fund (TIF), <www.dft.gov.uk>

Greater Manchester Future Transport, full details of the proposed TIF scheme, <www.gmfuturetransport.co.uk>

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (Policy Setting), <www.gmpta.gov.uk>

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (Policy Delivery), <www.gmpte.com>

A 'Pennine' problem for First TransPennine Express!

A Siemens Desiro Class 185 'Pennine' DMU, 185108, rests at Newcastle Central before running a southbound First TransPennine Express service to Manchester Airport (Darren Axe Collection).

Onto the topic of rail capacity today and as we continue the 'Tour of the TOC's', this time we look at First TransPennine Express - the inter-urban operator linking larger towns and cities across the North of England. The case for this discussion comes from frequent concerns from friends who have traveled into Manchester from my University city of Lancaster, and found problems finding a seat. This, a journey that I too make regularly, and so will draw from some exemplary journeys to illustrate just where the problems lie. We will also take a look at what has caused the capacity problems and what we may see in the next few years to remediate the situation.

So the background on First Transpennine Express (FTPE) for those new to the Train Operating Company (TOC). The current franchise covers long distance, regional and inter-urban routes across the North and aims to provide an express style service complementing the dense regional and local services operated by Northern. It consists of three service groups radiating out from Manchester with many trains starting/ terminating at Manchester Airport; 1. NW TransPennine - Windermere, Barrow-in-Furness, Lancaster, Blackpool, Preston to Manchester; 2. North Transpennine - Newcastle, Middlesborough, Scarborough, York, Hull, Leeds across the Pennines to Manchester with trains from Scarborough continuing across to Liverpool Lime Street; 3. South Transpennine - Cleethorpes, Grimsby, Doncaster, Sheffield to through the Peak District to Manchester. In addition to the initial above set of services, services between Manchester and Scotland (Edinburgh and Glasgow) via the WCML were transfered in December 2007 from the former cross-country franchise operated by Virgin, these complementing the NW service group and starting/ terminating at Manchester Airport.

Starting out in 2004, the newly formed franchise operated by a joint venture between First and Keolsis, set out with a sparkling future. A full fleet of 51 new trains was put on order to revolutionise travel across the north. Siemens was selected as the train builder and the product was to be the first diesel variant of the Desiro UK multiple unit, the Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) version being in extensive and successful use on various London commuter lines (most extensively with South West Trains), as well as on regional services on the southern section of WCML. The trains would be in 3 car formation and designated 'Pennine' Class 185. By early 2007 the entire fleet was in service and they had been complemented by a handful of Class 170 turbostars to operate on the Manchester to Hull route, to bolster the fleet and allow for double formations during the peak.

So brand new trains, excellent reliability and constantly improving punctuality (FTPE consistently run at above 90% in punctuality scores) were the name of the game with the 185's and indeed they are currently the most reliable DMU's in the country. Of course for all the successes of the franchise, and common with most UK TOC's, the one Achilles heel has becom capacity! And for FTPE, its a case of them being a victim of their own success. Passenger numbers in 2008 are up 50% on 2004 levels, and unfortunately the new trains added only a small level of extra capacity with comparison to their predecessors (in other words there was only a small net growth in fleet size). Growth in demand for TransPennine journeys is such that the 185's are often pushed to their limits, and thus we shall take a look at a recent example:

Earlier this summer I boarded the 13:45 Sunday FTPE service bound for Edinburgh at Manchester Piccadilly. There was quite a crowd of people and luggage on Piccadilly's Platform 14 waiting to board the train (a single 185) which rolled in from the airport with a good number of dreary looking holiday makers (and cases) on board. Many were left to stand clutching their baggage, and the situation was made worse after Oxford Road. Echoing through the train was the familiar question in situations like these, "why can't they put more coaches on?" and the recounting of journeys where "there were only 2 coaches!" For me the solution was to jump out at Bolton hop on a Northern service across to Wigan Walgate, where changing to Wigan's North Western station gave me a relaxing journey back up to Lancaster aboard a surprisingly quiet 5 car Virgin 221 (Super Voyager). However, of course there is no good in expecting Joe Traveller to leap around the rail network in order to avoid crowded trains - and besides if you had an Advance ticket you were restricted to that service (essentially you also have a guaranteed seat reservation, however it can be difficult during times of overcrowding to manage seat reservations).

So now in answer to the open question above and to outline the course of things to come for FTPE. The open question is of course very simple, but the answer as with many rail related questions is very complex and I could write pages on the reasons behind the demand capacity gap, so here lies a brief explanation. Unfortunately, although this may come as a surprise to the Joe Traveller, FTPE does not have unlimited spare carriages lined up in sidings whilst people are left to stand on trains, in fact quite the opposite is true - FTPE makes the best use of its fleet assets, with an intensive maintenance regime carried out by Siemens. Lower service levels on Sundays combined with surging demand particularly during the afternoon/ early evening as passengers return from weekends away often results in passengers being concentrated on a select few services (this is a issue that the TOC's and Network Rail are working on, more on this issue in a future post). Common with all TOC's on Britain's railway the level of rolling stock is tightly specified within the franchise agreement with the Department for Transport, and thus an increase in rolling stock provision requires negotiation with the DfT and procurement through an amendment to the initial agreement. So what then, you may ask is the situation between FTPE and the DfT with regard to fleet expansion to meet the surging demand? As part of the all singing all dancing High Level Output Statement (HLOS) produced by the government in July 2007 in conjunction with the White Paper 'Delivering a Sustainable Railway', promising 1300 extra carriages on the rail network by 2014, FTPE are set to benefit. More detailed breakdown of the HLOS into just where these carriages will go and when we can expect them has followed over the last year, and the most detailed analyses of the DfT plans can be found in Roger Ford's 'Informed Sources' column of Modern Railways. FTPE will receive 42 additional vehicles to bolster 42 of the 51 strong fleet of Class 185's up to 4 coaches, this forms part of phase 1 implementation of the Rolling Stock Plan (RSP). Thus we can expect to see this capacity enhancement sooner rather than later, but as of yet we are awaiting commitment of a date and the go-ahead from the DfT for FTPE to order the vehicles from Siemens. In the mean time, there have been loose proposals from parent company First group in that if it was successful in obtaining a significant number of the spare Class 180 'Adelante' 5 car units (recently released from First Great Western) it may place them in a common pool for use on both it's Hull Trains (open access operator) and First Transpennine Express operations - to help boost capacity at FTPE, but there is no certainty in this, as the 180's are currently highly sought after from a number of operators looking to boost capacity and enhance services!

Just how far the committed 42 extra vehicles will go in helping FTPE overcome capacity problems remains an issue, and to a certain extent the vehicles will compensate for a likely current level of suppressed demand. With demand for rail from both the leisure and commuter markets growing at phenomenal rates across the Pennines, capacity is a problem that FTPE would really like to get its back into!

Links:

First TransPennine Express <www.tpexpress.co.uk>

Siemens Transportation UK,  Class 185 Product Page <www.siemenstransportation.co.uk>