 |
| home |
| terms of reference |
| contact us |
| core group |
| perspectives |
| consultations |
| documents |
| photo gallery |
| links |
 |
|
| latest transport news |
|
|
| FixMyTransport |
|
Keith Buchan, June 2011
Keith Buchan, the Director of the Metropolitan Transport Research Unit (MTRU) and colleagues were asked by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) to examine proposals for an Airport City and an Enterprise Zone at Manchester Airport. MTRU's executive summary (below) was submitted as CPRE's response to the consultation on the Airport City which closed on June 3.
MTRU has been commissioned by CPRE North West to undertake an analysis of the outline proposals for an Enterprise Zone (EZ) at Manchester Airport, often referred to as "Airport City". Although out for consultation, many of the details, including much of the land area, the mix of uses, and proposed conditions (if any), such as parking, are not available. To inform CPRE's response, MTRU has reviewed the proposal under three main headings: economic impact, transport impact, and carbon impact. To understand the first two, an analysis of the true picture of aviation use at the airport over the last decade has also been set out. Finally, an initial assessment of the potential impact of HS2 Phase 2 has been included.
Using the consultation document, the experience of previous EZs, and parallel case studies, it is possible to review the likely economic impact of such a proposal. There is a strong likelihood, on the evidence so far, that development which would have gone elsewhere in the region, or already exists, may be attracted by the EZ. This effect, known "abstraction" means that jobs are not created but relocated.
The idea of attracting internationally mobile companies into the EZ which would otherwise locate elsewhere in Europe is not supported by any specific evidence in the consultation document.
The MAC-DIF and Manchester LDF do not target such uses, but rather propose a wide range of B1 uses (offices and light industry) such as are found on any Business Park. Even if they were to seek to narrow the range, the evidence is that they would not be able to prevail against commercial pressures.
The LDF and the City Council's proposals for an EZ both involve much larger areas of land than the 'Airport City'. However, the criteria for EZs require additionality, which means that the businesses catered for must be of kinds which would not be attracted by other existing locations.
Airport city developments elsewhere are mostly non-subsidised (apart from Bremen) and open market competition for land has tended to encourage airport-related uses.
Some other airports (Notably Zurich and Frankfurt) have created higher density airport-city development by minimising the land take of parking. This does not appear to be the intention in this case, and, even if it were, may not be possible if land use planning controls are removed.
The EZ location is within current Green Belt, which means there has to be some over-riding need which cannot be met in other ways. This has not been demonstrated.
The benefits to urban regeneration of Wythenshawe do not depend in any major way on the proximity of the Airport and associated developments, but rather on the efficacy of a wide range of other measures, particularly social mobility and training.
It is interesting to note that, while the aviation and traffic forecasts were out of date almost as soon as they were completed, the SEMMMS strategic framework, which in turn has underpinned the Local Transport Plan, is still of value. In particular, the clear links it makes between levels of demand, land use planning, and parking limits, continue to be highly relevant.
In fact, quite a number of initiatives have proceeded without the road schemes, and the core justification for them, that congestion would grow if they were not built, has faded as traffic has stabilised and fallen (not only as a result of the recession).
The am peak journey time surveys, undertaken as part of LTP monitoring, show a 5% improvement over the last five years. This covers all modes on a sample of 15 target routes. This suggests that the deterioration in journey time in the SEMMMS analysis, itself predicated on rising levels of traffic, has not and will not occur. This in turn means that the economic benefits, based on saving time, will not occur either.
Overall the SEMMMS highways schemes analysis has been overtaken by events including the success of many of the LTP actions in increasing the attractiveness and use of sustainable modes.
Resurrecting the scheme as part of a car intensive Enterprise Zone would undermine this success rather than supporting it. Such an approach would be against what is set out as the overall SEMMMS transport and land use strategy.
Passenger use at the airport has fallen over the decade, to 17.6 million in 2010, while other regional airports, despite the recession, are carrying more people than ten years ago. Use grew more slowly and has fallen more quickly than its regional neighbours.
Forecasts for Manchester based on the 2003 Air Transport White Paper are so high compared to current levels that they are no longer credible - a more than doubling of passengers in four years would be needed to achieve the 2015 forecast of 38 million.
The discrepancy between the forecasts in the ATWP and the actual passenger numbers set out in this report is immense. In 2010, for example, they were 22% lower than forecast in the ATWP (210 million instead of 270 million). The factors underlying growth, such as moderate oil prices, cross subsidy from business travel and the assumed consistent rise in disposable income, no longer apply.
Freight use has held steady over the period, and is regionally significant, although the big winner has been East Midlands airport, also owned by Manchester Airport Group. Between them, they carry the vast majority of freight outside London and the South East.
While some aspects of aviation are business related, passenger growth has been in the leisure market, which has a significantly negative impact on the national and regional economies.
Mode split for passengers is dominated by car and taxi, at 87%. For staff, the modes other than car amount to about 20%, despite active attempts to make travel to work more sustainable. This is expected to improve by between 4 to 8% when the new Metrolink extension is built.
Elsewhere in the city region mode split has been moving towards the sustainable modes of public transport, walking and cycling. In the city centre non-car travel in the AM peak is 69%. However, other centres have also made progress, the nine major centres in the city region averaging non-car travel at 48%.
This reflects the fact that the airport is not a surface transport hub, although it may be an aviation hub and it also has a direct motorway link. However, the key rail link is radial to the city centre. Rail links from other towns and cities from all directions come into the city centre before they are able to travel to the airport. Nearby centres through which they pass, such as Stockport, have no direct rail or rapid transit links to the airport for employees.
To be a hub the airport would have to be connected in a way that is not only multi-modal but multi-directional. This is not currently the case for public transport. For walking and cycling the key is to have people living close enough for these modes to be attractive. Airports by definition have to be some distance from populations and the impact of this is confirmed in the very low walk and cycle share of staff travel to the airport (1% and 2-3% respectively).
No plans are set out for improving this situation, although some mention is made of the SEMMMS road link. The forecasting and modelling for this has been difficult to access except in hard copy. It is clear that it is now out of date and not be relied upon. Work is being undertaken to update this, but results are not expected until later this year.
The overall conclusion is that travel to this site would continue to have far lower share of sustainable modes than other sites throughout the Manchester city region. There appear to be many such sites available.
The lack of up to date traffic generation forecasts and specific plans from the EZ promoters mean that detailed environmental or congestion impacts cannot be made at this stage. However, the promoters have given general forecasts for employment of between 7,000 and 15,000, and these can be used to calculate additional car journeys per job from the airport site compared to other centres in the city region.
In turn these can use Government figures for fuel use and costs to produce a minimum estimate of what additional carbon is produced. This includes an optimistic view that all car use will be zero carbon by 2050. While other pollutants may have local health effects, climate change impacts depend upon total amounts, wherever it is emitted. Thus we did not need to know where on the network it was produced. This would require more detailed knowledge of the airport plans.
This reveals significant increases in terms of passenger transport emissions, even at an extremely low trip rate per employee and assuming that the challenging targets for vehicle efficiency are met.
Any large scale activity which involved retailing or other high generation activities such as freight would rapidly escalate the carbon and other environmental and congestion costs.
Considering the clear possibility of abstracting retailing from other parts of the city region the fact that the low trip rate produces such significant disbenefits is a major concern since it contradicts the Government's key policy on addressing climate change and means the EZ cannot in its current form be described as sustainable.
The airport has been located in the Green Belt and has been allowed to expand in order to cater for airport related activities. Areas around the airport rapidly become rural in character, and there are some environmental issues on sites currently proposed immediately north of the airport which need to be fully investigated.
Given that air pollutants other than carbon are bound to increase, even if their precise impact on numbers of people is not known, it would be wrong to describe the location of large numbers of non-airport related jobs at this site as sustainable.
By delaying or diverting trains services to the city centre, and not integrating with the rest of the region's public transport network, a parkway station would undermine the local objectives for sustainable growth in the region.
It would contradict the stated aims in the HS2 consultation document of providing an alternative to air and car travel
A parkway station is unlikely to be part of the final proposals and would weaken the overall economic case for the EZ.
The Northern Hub improvements will bring significant benefits to the region's rail network, but will not make the airport more accessible by sustainable modes.
All the indications are that the proposed EZ would be a far less sustainable site than other locations for development. Without a clear statement on the extent of the EZ, apart from the part to the north of the airport, a full impact assessment cannot be carried out.
