Sheffield's population is linked to Rotherham, it's right next to Sheff, there is no gap!there are even areas in Sheff like Tinsley where people are not sure whether it is Sheff or Rotherham.

Same is true of Leeds. Birstall which is officially in Kirkless and where IKEA and the massive retail park is, has always been known as Leeds in all the marketing for IKEA, Showcase Cinema's etc. Even Krispy Kreme's new outlet is called Leeds.

There are many area's linking Leeds with Baradford/Kirklees and Wakefield, but my point was, even without these area's, the Leeds pop shown was over 120,000 short of the official city pop of 715,000

The primary urban area measure compares, using the same criteria, just how urban each area is.

If you want to lower the level of urbanness to start to make Leeds bigger (as you see to be doing) then all other cities which are measured by the PUA also get larger.

I would never say that the PUA figures in themselves mean anything, rather they order the largest urban areas in England and give you an idea of the relative sizes of those urban areas.

From memory Leeds is either the 8th or 9th largest urban area - and that, as you would say is fact.

The primary urban area measure compares, using the same criteria, just how urban each area is.

If you want to lower the level of urbanness to start to make Leeds bigger (as you see to be doing) then all other cities which are measured by the PUA also get larger.

Except it isnt based solely on urbanity with the same criteria. The urban link between bradford and leeds for example is just as urban as the link between bury and manchester. Bury is included with manchester as it is under the size threshold to be listed seperately, but bradford can be. Yet in other instances it is included, gatehead linked with south sheilds. It is acknowledged that different criteria have been used in different instances.

I would never say that the PUA figures in themselves mean anything, rather they order the largest urban areas in England and give you an idea of the relative sizes of those urban areas.

Except they dont. The government's list of Urban Areas do that, of which, outside london, leeds is within the 3rd urban area, after london, west midlands, and greater manchester.The West Yorks urban area, of which Leeds is within, is also the densest urban area of those 3.

The urban link between bradford and leeds for example is just as urban as the link between bury and manchester. Bury is included with manchester as it is under the size threshold to be listed seperately, but bradford can be.

Except the two are completely different.

West Yorkshire UA is a metropolitan county encompassing a few different towns, which don't really have anything to do with each other (except in commuter patterns or whatever else).

Greater Manchester, on the other hand, is a metropolitan county centered on Manchester, and the towns which make up its' suburbs & commuter towns. A simple map shows this:

This is, of course, Manchester's urban area:

http://i55.************/2i97bs8.jpg

(Guess where Manchester is). The towns around it are conveniently built up around Manchester's urban core, and are all roughly the same distance away from the urban core as each other. All of the railways and major roads in each of the towns lead to Manchester city centre.

Compare this to West Yorkshire:

http://www.thegreatnortherntrail.co.uk/images/maps/WYmap1.gif

and we see a different story. Yeah, Bradford and Leeds appear to be linked by a thread of urbanity, maybe a main road with houses on either side or something. But Bradford looks a completely different town to Leeds. Certainly not the same link as the link between Bolton and Manchester, or Stockport and Manchester. As an outsider, that map suggests to me that the suburbs of Leeds are Morley, Horsforth, Pudsey, and maybe Yeadon and Garforth. Wakefield and Huddersfield? Give me a break. Yeah, people may commute from those towns to Leeds, but my dad commutes from Boston in Lincs to Manchester every day, doesn't mean it's a suburb.


Anyway, Leeds forumers will disagree and start re-developing their border fetish so Idk why I'm bothering.

Except the two are completely different.

West Yorkshire UA is a metropolitan county encompassing a few different towns, which don't really have anything to do with each other (except in commuter patterns or whatever else).

except the relationship between bradford, wakefield, and dewsbury with Leeds is no different to the relationship between bolton, rochdale, wigan, and bury with manchester be it commuter patterns or how people use the primary hub (leeds / manchester) for commerce and leisure.


This is, of course, Manchester's urban area, Compare this to West Yorkshire:

http://i55.************/2i97bs8.jpg

You're looking at two differently drawn maps where the threshold of what constitutes continuous shaded-in urbanity is different. The government urban area map (which uses a consistent threshold) shows it differently

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/urban-areas-uk.jpg


All of the railways and major roads in each of the towns lead to Manchester city centre.

there are an equal number of arterial roads running between each seperate town as there is with manchester. Bury has 1 A road to manchester, 1 to rochdale, and 1 to bolton. Similarly, bradford has 3 A roads to Leeds, 1 to wakefield, 1 to dewsbury, 1 to huddersfield etc.

Both have a similar rail network both focussing on the hub, altho in greater manchester some of these important lines have been replaced with a tram line instead.

http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/75CEBEEB-9450-4127-B535-24D92FCEAEBE/0/rail15plus7.jpg

and we see a different story. Yeah, Bradford and Leeds appear to be linked by a thread of urbanity, maybe a main road with houses on either side or something.

the level of urban continuity between bradford and leeds is the same as that as between manchester and rochdale, or manchester and bury.

But Bradford looks a completely different town to Leeds.

and rochdale is a compltely different town to manchester.

The only differenece is that a greater proportion of people from bradford commute to leeds, and a greater proportion of people from bradford use leeds as their shopping, retail, and commercial centre [due to bradford having no virtually no retail centre, unlike say Bury]

As an outsider, that map suggests to me that the suburbs of Leeds are Morley, Horsforth, Pudsey, and maybe Yeadon and Garforth. Wakefield and Huddersfield? Give me a break.

no one has suggested wakefield and huddersfield are suburbs of leeds. It is you who is laughably suggesting rochdale is a suburb of manchester ;)

Listen mate, I think you'll find that Bury has about 37 roads to Manchester. Bolton is so connected that it was nearing 50 roads, connecting it to Manchester.

What the hell are you guys on about? :nuts: :lol:

wiggles you are talking about commuting etc again.

In your odd world cities comprise of countryside with rolling hills, sheep in fields and crops growing. If that is YOUR view of a city then fair enough, but I disagree.

All I point out is that if you look at the urban centre based on Manchester - using the figures the government use - you find that Manchester is about three times the size of Leeds.

Anyone driving into Manchester city centre from the countryside and comparing their experiences of driving from the countryside to Leeds city centre would recognise this very simple and true fact.

In one direction, through a very narrow ribbon of development you can just about get to Bradford from Leeds - just the same as Liverpool from Manchester - in every other direction you get to fields in no time.

You chose to ignore the PUA figures wiggles as you dislike what they say about Leeds more than any logical reason.

Using wiggles logic, of posting train maps we can presume the whole of the north, up to Edinburgh and Glasgow are in Manchester :lol:

Check out the TransPenine Express network maps.

The idea that the Bradford - Leeds connection is as urban as the Bury - Manchester one is funny (Look up metrolink.)

But I think this is funnier "(Guess where Manchester is). The towns around it are conveniently built up around Manchester's urban core, and are all roughly the same distance away from the urban core as each other. All of the railways and major roads in each of the towns lead to Manchester city centre." People just love to forget about geography don't they? Of course the major roads go into Manchester! Where else would they go? The moon???

there are an equal number of arterial roads running between each seperate town as there is with manchester. Bury has 1 A road to manchester, 1 to rochdale, and 1 to bolton. Similarly, bradford has 3 A roads to Leeds, 1 to wakefield, 1 to dewsbury, 1 to huddersfield etc.



Erm, yeah except Bury actually has 3 A-roads connecting it to Manchester. Bury New Road, Bury Old Road and Manchester Road. Added to that all the smaller roads which make up the suburbs of North Manchester, and the Manchester Metrolink which runs every 3 minutes in both directions. To suggest the relationship with Bradford and Leeds is the same as the relationship with Bury and Manchester is bizarre.

Oh and also, Bury also has about 16 different bus routes running between it and Manchester, each running (roughly) every 10 minutes and virtually all of them are bendy-buses (i.e. really long buses, with extra-seats to cope with the demand of passengers).

So what's that then? Manchester Metrolink every 3 minutes, virtually every one with people standing, a bus service every minute or so from Shudehill to Bury, each a bendy bus (albeit not standing most of the time, but still), and 3 A-roads.

Comparison with Bradford && Leeds please?

Yeah FU wiggley. We have all the roads mate.

3 roads, yeah, what have you got?

In your odd world cities comprise of countryside with rolling hills, sheep in fields and crops growing. If that is YOUR view of a city then fair enough, but I disagree.

Except I have never said that I was refuting your claims about PUAs, which I have done.


All I point out is that if you look at the urban centre based on Manchester - using the figures the government use - you find that Manchester is about three times the size of Leeds.

if your opinion is based on PUA, then it's important to point out that PUA data is not consistent. Bradford has no less urban continuity with Leeds than Bury does with Manchester. It's named a different PUA because it is over a size threshold. The urban area with the name Leeds at its centre stretches out to adjoin bradford in no less complete way than Manchester does to Bury.

Trams are every 6mins Volde - not every 3mins.

Using wiggles logic, of posting train maps we can presume the whole of the north, up to Edinburgh and Glasgow are in Manchester :lol:

Check out the TransPenine Express network maps.

Yes, its so terribey illogical to rebut the sentence "All of the railways and major roads in each of the towns lead to Manchester city centre by pointing out that this is no different to Leeds, where the rail network centres on leeds.

Except that the PUA marries up with what people experience.

I notice you are not contending that someone driving into Manc will experience significantly more urbanness on the way to the city centre than into Leeds.

In your world PUA don't matter, unfortunatley for you they do signify something. As I've said before, draw up a list of infrastructre in a city, be it conference, arena, airport, light rail, motorways etc and then list UK cities in order with most to least - the list mirrors the PUA - to you this is a surprise. To the rest of us it makes perfect sense - Manchester really is three times the size of Leeds.

Bradford is as linked to Leeds as Manchester is to Liverpool so forget including Bradford as being part of Leeds - it clearly isn't.

The idea that the Bradford - Leeds connection is as urban as the Bury - Manchester one is funny (Look up metrolink.)

A tram line doesnt make two places that are seperated by fields and green any more urban. Instead of looking up metrolink, try looking at a map :lol: Both have almost identical urban continuity.

Yes, its so terribey illogical to rebut the sentence "All of the railways and major roads in each of the towns lead to Manchester city centre by pointing out that this is no different to Leeds, where the rail network centres on leeds.

I didn't think many services terminated in Leeds rather WYPTE drew a map that centred on Leeds.

Piccadilly on the other hand...

Except I have never said that I was refuting your claims about PUAs, which I have done.




if your opinion is based on PUA, then it's important to point out that PUA data is not consistent. Bradford has no less urban continuity with Leeds than Bury does with Manchester. It's named a different PUA because it is over a size threshold. The urban area with the name Leeds at its centre stretches out to adjoin bradford in no less complete way than Manchester does to Bury.

What the fuck are you on about! Leeds is no where near as contiguous with Bradford as Bury is with Manchester. :lol:

[QUOTE=kids;79092558]The idea that the Bradford - Leeds connection is as urban as the Bury - Manchester one is funny (Look up metrolink.)

A tram line doesnt make two places that are seperated by fields and green any more urban. Instead of looking up metrolink, try looking at a map :lol:

Hence PUA give the RELATIVE urbanness of a city :lol:

Increase the level of urbanity to remove Bury and you equally remove a load of places from other cities.

It is a measure of relative urbanness of a city - clearly showing Leeds to be one third the size of Manchester. It is VERY simple.

Pudsey in 'Leeds' is no where near as connected to the centre of Leeds as Bury is to Manchester :lol:

But then again, I think it's fair enough to say Wiggles has never driven down the A56 from Bury to Manc or he would not be saying what he is.

Trams are every 6mins Volde - not every 3mins.

Every three minutes in both directions :)

I don't think wiggles quite gets that every area is treated in the same way - exactly the same level of urbanity is required.

Just like Liverpool is not included in the Manchester figures (desite there being ribbon developments right across) Leeds and Bradford are also not counted as one.

It's when both Leeds and Manchester are compared using identical criteria - showing Manchester to be three times the size - that upsets wiggles. He needs some wiggles (il)logic to try to twist reality :lol:

Every three minutes in both directions :)

Very misleading. :ohno:

I've just been on Google Maps to confirm my experiences of driving from Leeds to Bradford - the main road is indeed the A647 and it is indeed rural for a short period.

Wiggles - you really need to take off your Leeds-tinted glasses, they do you no favours when it is so easy to check up on you.


FWIW - I dunno if I consider Bury to be in Manc, but drive along the A56 from one to the other and along the eastern side of the road throughout is urban (and well beyond Bury actually), to the east there is quite some rural areas.

But as I say, remove Bury from the Manchester figures and you have to take equally as connected places off the Leeds figures.

P.S. I wonder how many non-Mancs can tell when the A56 turns from Trafford to Manc and when it turns from Manc to Bury?

I bet most would be useless.

Erm, yeah except Bury actually has 3 A-roads connecting it to Manchester. Bury New Road, Bury Old Road and Manchester Road.

manchester road IS (becomes) bury new road, whilst Bury Old Road doesnt spawn from anywhere near bury town centre and moreover it adjoins bury new road which then becomes manchester road, giving just one actual A road to get to bury town centre or Burys ring road.


Added to that all the smaller roads which make up the suburbs of North Manchester,

yes, there are many smaller roads linking bradford and leeds too.

and the Manchester Metrolink which runs every 3 minutes in both directions.

a metrolink tram runs every 6 minutes from bury to manchester. You can pick up one of the many buses between leeds and bradford within 6 minutes too.

None of these things make Bury geograpically have any more urban continuity with manchester then Bradford does to leeds.


To suggest the relationship with Bradford and Leeds is the same as the relationship with Bury and Manchester is bizarre.

to suggest the relationship between Bury and Manchester is any different to the relationship between Bradford and Leeds despite is bizzare - particularly when you've given no actual reasons where-as i have given a list of why they are similar.

Oh and also, Bury also has about 16 different bus routes running between it and Manchester

there is a collosal range of bus routes between leeds and bradford from a range of operators and independent companies, as well as a national express shuttle bus.

Wiggles - how is the Manchester - Liverpool relationship not akin to Leeds - Bradford?

I don't regard Bury as a part of Manchester but it doesn't take someone with much intelligence to see that the relationship between Bury - Manchester is a lot more focused on Manchester, than Leeds/Bradford is on Leeds. I.E. it's A LOT more reasonable to say that Bury is a part of Manchester's city region than Bradford is a part of Leeds'.

For example F.C. United of Manchester play at Gigg Lane in Bury. Can you imagine a Leeds team playing in Bradford? No, cos that would be nuts.

I agree, I too do not consider Bury (town centre) to be part of Manchester.

But can you ever imagine a light rail line being built from Leeds to Bradford? No, neither can I.

Except that the PUA marries up with what people experience.

I notice you are not contending that someone driving into Manc will experience significantly more urbanness on the way to the city centre than into Leeds.

In your world PUA don't matter, unfortunatley for you they do signify something. As I've said before, draw up a list of infrastructre in a city, be it conference, arena, airport, light rail, motorways etc and then list UK cities in order with most to least - the list mirrors the PUA - to you this is a surprise. To the rest of us it makes perfect sense - Manchester really is three times the size of Leeds.

Bradford is as linked to Leeds as Manchester is to Liverpool so forget including Bradford as being part of Leeds - it clearly isn't.

That's not my experience Metro. I can drive from within the Liverpool boundary to Ellesmere Port through continuous urbanity, yet EP is not in Liverpool's PUA, neither is it in the same county. I can also drive through built up areas to St Helens, but that is also excluded. from the PUA.

So there do appear to be many inconsistencies in these PUAs.

manchester road IS (becomes) bury new road, whilst Bury Old Road doesnt spawn from anywhere near bury town centre and moreover it adjoins bury new road which then becomes manchester road, giving just one actual A road to get to bury town centre or Burys ring road.




yes, there are many smaller roads linking bradford and leeds too.



a metrolink tram runs every 6 minutes from bury to manchester. You can pick up one of the many buses between leeds and bradford within 6 minutes too.

None of these things make Bury geograpically have any more urban continuity with manchester then Bradford does to leeds.




to suggest the relationship between Bury and Manchester is any different to the relationship between Bradford and Leeds despite is bizzare - particularly when you've given no actual reasons where-as i have given a list of why they are similar.



there is a collosal range of bus routes between leeds and bradford from a range of operators and independent companies, as well as a national express shuttle bus.


Right, lets get this straight.

This is the incredibely urban gap betweeen Bradford and Leeds:

http://i54.************/300w1ux.jpg

That small housing estate there is what Leeds forumers claim makes Bradford a vast suburb of Leeds.

This here, is the gap between Manchester (borough) and Bury (borough) in an area called Broughton:

http://i54.************/2rnzww3.jpg

and just so you don't start saying "yeah well that's not Bury proper", this is the gap between Bury town centre and the area of Fishpool, which is continuously urban all the way into the city centre from there:

http://i52.************/11t1ls4.jpg

(and by the way the "countryside" on the left is my school's playing fields, before you go into all that)


Also, I said Metrolink trams every 3 minutes in both directions, which isn't misleading, if you can read.

AND just to top it off, Bradford is about the same size (in urban quantity) as Leeds. It takes up about the same surface area. This also makes it seem like a completely different city to Leeds. Difference to Manchester here is that the surrounding towns, Bury, Rochdale, Stockport, Oldham etc, are tiny compared to the urban giant that is Manchester. It all adds to the "gravitational pull" that Leeds simply doesn't have.

Yes, there are inconsistencies, some routes in will appear shorter than others. average them out though and since you are using the exact same criteria for the different places you are comparing them in the same way.

Increase the level of urbanity the same for all places and the populations will drop by the same proportion for all cities.

Anyway...

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/regeneration/primaryurbanareas042010

is the latest figures...

spefically this...

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1542180.xls

Dislike them as much as you like - but this really is comparing like with like and it really does show how urban each centre is in the country.

P.S. using the latest PUA figures, even if you add Leeds and Bradford together ( :lol: ) would still need to grow 50% to be as large as Manchester :lol: an no sane person would consider Leeds to be any better linked to Bradford than Manchester is to Warrington and then Liverpool.

Except that the PUA marries up with what people experience.

except it doesnt. you wont find anyone suggesting nottingham is a bigger city than leeds.

I notice you are not contending that someone driving into Manc will experience significantly more urbanness on the way to the city centre than into Leeds.

why would I contend the obvious. I piped up to point out your errors, and misleading statements which I have done succesfully.

As I've said before, draw up a list of infrastructre in a city, be it conference, arena, airport, light rail, motorways etc and then list UK cities in order with most to least - the list mirrors the PUA - to you this is a surprise

except it doesnt. moreover, all those things you mentioned are more dependent on the wider urban area which those facilities serve.

Bradford is as linked to Leeds as Manchester is to Liverpool so forget including Bradford as being part of Leeds - it clearly isn't.

no one has said bradford is part of leeds. What has been said is that bradford is as linked to Leeds in urban continuity as bury is with manchester, which is why including bury into manchester's size is bizzare.

I didn't think many services terminated in Leeds rather WYPTE drew a map that centred on Leeds.

Piccadilly on the other hand...

except the lines and destinations all centre on leeds and lead to leeds too, in the same way lines and routes centre on manchester too. Whether trains terminate there or not doesnt change that.

except it doesnt. you wont find anyone suggesting nottingham is a bigger city than leeds.



Yep, urban-wise, driving in it feels like it. Sure Leeds has a larger city centre but the city itself of Nottingham feels larger to me.

Driving into Nottingham from J25 of the M1 feels much more urban than into Leeds from the M62 along the rural M621 until I get to the city centre.



why would I contend the obvious. I piped up to point out your errors, and misleading statements which I have done succesfully.


Only in Wiggles-world.


except it doesnt. moreover, all those things you mentioned are more dependent on the wider urban area which those facilities serve.




Correct, for almost all things it doesn't matter.

But for the odd thing it does.

Transport being the prime example, you tend to need high population densities to justify many forms of transport - it is for this reason that Leeds - quite a small city in reality - will always have so little in the way of transport provision.


no one has said bradford is part of leeds. What has been said is that bradford is as linked to Leeds in urban continuity as bury is with manchester, which is why including bury into manchester's size is bizzare.

But it clearly is not. Bury is far better linked to Manchester. If you had ever driven between the two you would know this. If you take a look on Google Maps you can see this.

Leeds is as connected to Bradford as Manchester is to Liverpool.

But you are right, overall it does not really matter that Manchester is three times the size of Leeds. it does not make it better in any way. It does not make it richer in any way.

If simply helps explain why there is so much more infrastrure of all sorts in Manchester than there is in Leeds.




P.S. http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/regeneration/primaryurbanareas042010 is very good. Some of the links really do dis-spell much of the anti-Manc crap that many come out with on here.

except the lines and destinations all centre on leeds and lead to leeds too, in the same way lines and routes centre on manchester too. Whether trains terminate there or not doesnt change that.

Except all those lines ALSO centre on Manchester since they are all ran by Northern. :lol:

What the fuck are you on about! Leeds is no where near as contiguous with Bradford as Bury is with Manchester. :lol:

maybe you need to look at a map. the locality of bury peters out to just a single road seperated by green.

maybe you need to look at a map. the locality of bury peters out to just a single road seperated by green.

I don't regard Bury as a part of Manchester but it doesn't take someone with much intelligence to see that the relationship between Bury - Manchester is a lot more focused on Manchester, than Leeds/Bradford is on Leeds. I.E. it's A LOT more reasonable to say that Bury is a part of Manchester's city region than Bradford is a part of Leeds'.

For example F.C. United of Manchester play at Gigg Lane in Bury. Can you imagine a Leeds team playing in Bradford? No, cos that would be nuts.

^^ Can you imagine a Leeds side playing in Bradford?

^^ Can you imagine a Leeds side playing in Bradford?

I bet he won't answer that one :lol:



We have loads of that actually.

FC in Bury.

Sale in Stockport.

Manchester Phoenix in Trafford.


Cannot imagine that anywhere else.

Hence PUA give the RELATIVE urbanness of a city :lol:

i see you're having to make things up now as you clutch at straws lol

It is a measure of relative urbanness of a city.

except it's not. the level of urban continuity between bradford and leeds is no less then that of bury and manchester, however bradford is not included in the same urban area because its over the size threshold.

No, Bury is far more connected to Manchester than Leeds is to Bradford.

Admit it, you have never driven that route have you.

Manchester is to Liverpool what Leeds is to Bradford.

As you said before. The fact that Manchester is three times the size of Leeds is not important. Why are you getting so wound up by it :lol: ?

Pudsey in 'Leeds' is no where near as connected to the centre of Leeds as Bury is to Manchester


There is no point bothering with refuting that as its quite clearly untrue.

wiggles - not able to answer kids point about FC playing in Bury.

Also not able to explain why there is such a strong link between amount of infrastucture in a city with the PUA order. :lol:

As you said wiggles - why are you so bothered?

It does not mean anything other than to provide a background to why we are where we are.

There is no point bothering with refuting that as its quite clearly untrue.

only in wiggles-world.

I don't think wiggles quite gets that every area is treated in the same way - exactly the same level of urbanity is required.

the same level of urbanity is required yes. (bradford-leeds meets that criteria just like bury-manchester does). However urbanity is not the only factor that comes into play when PUAs were formulated. Another is size threshold, of which bradford is over that threshold.

Seeing as Bury begins less than three miles north of Manchester city centre, there is no rural land between the two, unless you count Clowes Park, but that's in Salford.

There may be rural land within the borough of Bury, but that is Bury's problem.

If indeed it is a problem.

In fact, before I go to bed a simple question I would like to get an answer for from wiggles but doubt very much I will because it gets to the heart of all of this...

The Dept for Communities and Centre for Cities - two agencies interested in urban development both chose to use PUA as their measure for a city. Why do you think that is?

Me personally, I think it is because although it is not perfect it by far represents the size of cities in England.

So you do you think both those agencies use it wiggles?

the same level of urbanity is required yes. (bradford-leeds meets that criteria just like bury-manchester does). However urbanity is not the only factor that comes into play when PUAs were formulated. Another is size threshold, of which bradford is over that threshold.

But it clearly isn't.

You are just making stuff up now because you have been caught out.

If you only answer to the statistic that Manchester is three times the size of Bury is to make the false claim that Bradford is equally as connected to Leeds you have clearly lost the arguement.

That is of course unless you can provide the actual population densities for the areas in question? Which I presume you cannot because you are simply making it up.

Seeing as Bury begins less than three miles north of Manchester city centre, there is no rural land between the two, unless you count Clowes Park, but that's in Salford.

There may be rural land within the borough of Bury, but that is Bury's problem.

If indeed it is a problem.

There is indeed rural land west of the A56 (not a problem).

Between the A56 and M66 thought is almost all urban from the M60 right passed Bury to the north. I am guessing wiggles has never visited the place from his comments and is simply making stuff up when even he has acknowledged it doesn't matter that Manchester is three times the size of Leeds.

I've just been on Google Maps to confirm my experiences of driving from Leeds to Bradford - the main road is indeed the A647 and it is indeed rural for a short period.

really? you must be looking at a different map. post the link ? ;)

the road peaters down to a single A-Road, flanked by buildings. Exactly the same as Bury-Manchester

Wiggles - you really need to take off your Leeds-tinted glasses, they do you no favours when it is so easy to check up on you.

metrolink you really need to take of your manchester rose-tinted glasses. Its so easy to check up on your countless falshoods that spout hoping no one will notice lol

Now, who should I take note of wiggles - with his distorted Leeds view of the world of Centre for Cities - a well respected regeneration organistation that provide mutiple very well respected reports each year?

http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/files/11-01-10%20Primary%20Urban%20Areas.pdf

Unless otherwise stated, Centre for Cities uses data for Primary Urban Areas (PUA) in its analysis – a measure of the ‘built-up’ area of a city, rather than individual local authority districts.


Wiggles - you are failing to convience me that you are more impartial on this than Centre for Cities.

really? you must be looking at a different map. post the link ? ;)

the road peaters down to a single A-Road, flanked by buildings. Exactly the same as Bury-Manchester



metrolink you really need to take of your manchester rose-tinted glasses. Its so easy to check up on your countless falshoods that spout hoping no one will notice lol

So, those population densities you were going to produce :lol:

Check out the map again. You have no idea what you are talking about, rather you are just making it up.

Until you provide the evidence to the contary I think I will stick with the authoritive Centre for Cities and Dept for Communities over your blinkered view of the world wiggles.

:lol:

Wiggles - how is the Manchester - Liverpool relationship not akin to Leeds - Bradford?

how is the bury-manchester relationship not akin to bradford-leeds?

same level of urban continuity
same commuter levels and flows
same arterial road type connections
same frequency of public transport / rail
same level of using manchester/leeds as the primary hub for shopping, retail, commerce


But of course to you they are an entirely different relationship, yet no one has been able to give a credible reason why still

if anything, bradford has to over rely on leeds more so due to its city centre being virtually void.There is not even a topman shop. Bury has a large retail centre

how is the bury-manchester relationship not akin to bradford-leeds?

same level of urban continuity
same commuter levels and flows
same arterial road type connections
same frequency of public transport / rail
same level of using manchester/leeds as the primary hub for shopping, retail, commerce

if anything, bradford has to over rely on leeds more so due to its city centre being virtually void.There is not even a topman shop. Bury has a large retail centre

No.

Now when are you going to provide the population densities to prove you right and Centre for Cities and the Dept for Communities wrong?

Isn't it funny how I predicted you were not able to answer the simple question about why those two agencies use the PUA statistic? :lol:

You are very funny. Arguemtn based on nothing other than blinkers, arguemtn going against all prevailing logic and evidence.

Still, you convience no one and I will continue to take serious organisations ideas as to what makes a city far more important than your strange views.

Why are you so angry that Leeds is only a third the size of Manchester? Why does it bother you so much?

how is the bury-manchester relationship not akin to bradford-leeds?

same level of urban continuity
same commuter levels and flows
same arterial road type connections
same frequency of public transport / rail
same level of using manchester/leeds as the primary hub for shopping, retail, commerce


But of course to you they are an entirely different relationship, yet no one has been able to give a credible reason why still

if anything, bradford has to over rely on leeds more so due to its city centre being virtually void.There is not even a topman shop. Bury has a large retail centre

Your innane fractal logic trap does not detract away from you not being able to answer the question - can you imagine a Leeds football team playing all their home matches in Bradford?

P.S. The narrowest part of urbanity between Leeds and Bradford is about 5m (the road) on the A647.

It is about 50m between Manchester and Bury (just north of Stand Golf Club) but hey, why let a fact of 10 get in the way of a wiggles blinkered view of the world?

Edit - the urbanity actually goes down to about 300m just north of Stand Golf club - not 50m - but still. it makes no difference to wiggles.

Your innane fractal logic trap does not detract away from you not being able to answer the question - can you imagine a Leeds football team playing all their home matches in Bradford?

He cannot answer any question.

He simply repeats the same (lies) expecting others to counter them.

Says a lot :lol:

I don't regard Bury as a part of Manchester but it doesn't take someone with much intelligence to see that the relationship between Bury - Manchester is a lot more focused on Manchester, than Leeds/Bradford is on Leeds. I.E. it's A LOT more reasonable to say that Bury is a part of Manchester's city region than Bradford is a part of Leeds'.

really? no one has given a single credible reason why yet

and btw bradford FC has played/shared elland road in the past

wiggle - why do the Dept and Communities and Centre for Cities -two organisations interested in cities development - both use PUA?

Also, why is the urban link between Manchester and Bury 300m wide compared to about 5m wide between Leeds and Bradford?

Right then wiggles, show me where Centre for Cities, Dept for Communities and Google are going wrong...

Bury
http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/5237/bury.png

Leeds
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1852/leeds1.png

To me it appears there is a very distinct pinch point in the gap between Leeds and Bradford.

Maybe you could show the equivilent in the Bury - Manchester one? It is this lack of gap - lack of gap in population density that means Bury is in the Manchester figures and Bradford is NOT in the Leeds ones.

It is VERY simple. :lol:

Stop getting so het up about it. Being a third the size of another city really means nothing. Nothing at all.

P.S. Those are the same scales - if you zone into them on Google Maps you can clearly see a difference - clearly the difference is enough for one to be included together and the other not.

Still, if you increase the level of ruralness allowed to include Bradford in Leeds we'll soon have Liverpool in Manchester.

Likewise if you make the level of ruralness decline to lose Bury from the Manchester figures you'll also have to drop a load of other places from Leeds.

It really is that simple - treat everywhere exactly the same.

really? no one has given a single credible reason why yet

and btw bradford FC has played/shared elland road in the past

What do you mean why? That doesn't make any sense. Why?

Because it's on the same river? Because it's been a part of the same subdivision of Lancashire based around Manchester for centuries? Because Bury's cotton and wool trade for hundreds of years relied on the exchanges in Manchester? Also as far as I'm aware Bury has never been as large or as important as Manchester. That's why. ;)

Bradford have played three games in elland road when they had a fire. They also played in that season in the ironically names Leeds Road stadium Huddersfield. So go on, answer the question, can you imagine a Leeds team playing all there home games in Bradford, and that being completely OK with the loiners who support them?

If you think about it wiggles is either saying the population density between Bury and Manchester is IDENTICAL to that between Bradford and Leeds (unlikely) or he is claiming it to be HIGHER between Bradford and Leeds than between Bury and Manchester :lol:

anyway, night night. Wiggles - don't worry. Leeds is a perfectly fine medium sized city. The city centre is fine for a city of it's size, there is no reason to desire loads of urban sprawl just to spruce up thepopulation figures - as you said earlier - being a third the size of Manchester means nothing - nothing at all.

this is the gap between Bury town centre and the area of Fishpool, which is continuously urban all the way into the city centre from there

you missed of where it trickles down to a single flanked road

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/bury.gif

yes, some of that land cant be made residential due to being park. That's no different to the land between leeds/bradford which is part golf course there, along with private land. If land was made available in both places for residential building both would be built on. Either way and regardless, PUA measures the distance between urban structures, and in both instances, bury-manchester, aswell as leeds-bradford meet that criteria (leeds-bradford more so as the map shows)



AND just to top it off, Bradford is about the same size (in urban quantity) as Leeds. It takes up about the same surface area. This also makes it seem like a completely different city to Leeds. Difference to Manchester here is that the surrounding towns, Bury, Rochdale, Stockport, Oldham etc, are tiny compared to the urban giant that is Manchester. It all adds to the "gravitational pull" that Leeds simply doesn't have.

you're forgetting that bradford as an employment centre is very poor, whilst its retail core is significantly smaller than bury, rochdale, and oldham. It has very few restaurants, nightlife, shops, and disproportionately low employment offerings. You're ultimately left with a huge residential area with virtually no city centre to support it, which is why its connection/relationship/reliance with leeds is strong.

:lol:

Got to reply to that.

Wiggles - go west - there is a much better connected part of Bury that links up to Manchester - you've never been there have you :lol:

Follow the A6053 west and south off you map - the urbanity along that is FAR greater than along the A647.


You've shown yourself up to not even knowing the most urban link between Bury and Manchester - something you've been bleating on about for the last hour or so.

:lol: hillarious :lol:

Yes, there are inconsistencies, some routes in will appear shorter than others. average them out though and since you are using the exact same criteria for the different places you are comparing them in the same way.

Increase the level of urbanity the same for all places and the populations will drop by the same proportion for all cities.

Anyway...

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/regeneration/primaryurbanareas042010

is the latest figures...

spefically this...

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/xls/1542180.xls

Dislike them as much as you like - but this really is comparing like with like and it really does show how urban each centre is in the country.

Except it isnt comparing like for like. Its not based solely on urbanity with the same criteria. The urban link between bradford and leeds for example is just as urban as the link between bury and manchester. Bury is included with manchester as it is under the size threshold to be listed seperately, but bradford can be.

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/bury.gif

That's flood-plain you nob-head.

Source > http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=380500.0&y=410500.0&topic=floodmap&ep=map&scale=8&location=Bury,%20Bury&lang=_e&layerGroups=default&textonly=off#x=380765&y=407859&lg=1,&scale=9

Oh yes.

Another thing. Compare the fields either side of the A647 from Leeds to Bradford - rural fields from a farm.

Compare the fields around the A665 to Bury.

A golf course is behind a row of houses on one side and a river valley is on the other. These -one a man made development and the other a natrual break are not exactly the same as a farm now are they wiggles?

So, unless you are claiming to be able to prove the population density to be higher along the A647 than along the A665 then I am afraid I have not dea where you are getting your fiticious lies from other than from wiggles-world where only you understand the logic being applied.

no sane person would consider Leeds to be any better linked to Bradford than Manchester is to Warrington and then Liverpool.

no sane person would suggest that bury-manchester is a much closer connction than bradford-leeds when no one has yet given any credible reasons as to why. Yet ive given a whole string of reasons as to why theyre identical in relationship and indeed urban continuity.

Except it isnt comparing like for like.

Yes it is. Both maps are identical in their scale.

Its not based solely on urbanity with the same criteria.

Yes it is. When the population drops below x number of people / m sq then the urban area ends.

The urban link between bradford and leeds for example is just as urban as the link between bury and manchester.


No it is not. You have NOTHING to back this up. If you did you would have posted the figures by now - you have not showing you are just making things up. If you have the figures to prove this to be the case then post them. If not then you are either really blinkered or just plain out right bull shitting.

Bury is included with manchester as it is under the size threshold to be listed seperately, but bradford can be.

But before you were saying that the link from Bradford to Leeds was MORE densley populated than Bury to Manchester (otherwise why argue that it is possible that Bury could meet the density criteria but Bradford may not - unless you really are stupid???).

Yet you are totally incapable of showing this evidence. You have nothing whatsoever to show that Bradford is not included in the Leeds figures for any other reason than the population density drops too low have you? Nothing, nothing at all.

As the maps I showed prove - the link from Manchester to Bury is far greater than that from Bradford to Leeds.

You are wrong. Dept for Communites and Centre for Cities are correct.

Out of interest - don't you find my prediction powers about how you are not able to answer easy questions to be great? My ability to predict why you won't say why CfC and DfC use PUA is great is it not - shows how easy it is to predict how weak your arguement is though when I know there are certain questions you just cannot possible answer.

no sane person would suggest that bury-manchester is a much closer connction than bradford-leeds when no one has yet given any credible reasons as to why. Yet ive given a whole string of reasons as to why theyre identical in relationship and indeed urban continuity.

PUA show that Bury is more linked to Manchester than Bradford is to Leeds.

The criteria are the same for all cities.

It really is that simple - you just chose to ignore it.

anyway wiggles.

I've had enough of embarressing you again tonight.

I will leave you to it, you do a grand job all on your own.

Don't worry about Leeds only being a third of the size of Manchester thought (according to the government and a well respected lobby group) it means nothing.

P.S. one (really) last post.

Manchester PUA (minus Bury town centre) is about 1.7m. Bury town centre about 80,000.

Leeds PUA is about 700k. Bradford PUA is about 600k.


If you really think the relationship between Manchester and Bury (a size ratio of about 20:1) is in anyway shape or form comparable to that between Leeds and Bradford which are almost the same in size then you sir are a mentalist.

Goodnight all.

Yep, urban-wise, driving in it feels like it. Sure Leeds has a larger city centre but the city itself of Nottingham feels larger to me.

Driving into Nottingham from J25 of the M1 feels much more urban than into Leeds from the M62 along the rural M621 until I get to the city centre.

thats good for you. But, as I said already, you were and still are incorrect. No one (except you) would argue that nottingham is a bigger city than leeds. You said people's perceptions of the rankings of the largest cities exactly tie in with PUA. You were incorrect.

Only in Wiggles-world.

only metrolink-world are things so distorted from reality

Transport being the prime example, you tend to need high population densities to justify many forms of transport - it is for this reason that Leeds - quite a small city in reality - will always have so little in the way of transport provision.

Except, the motorway network around the leeds area, and surrounding the city centre is in place due to large wider urban area

But it clearly is not. Bury is far better linked to Manchester. If you had ever driven between the two you would know this. If you take a look on Google Maps you can see this.

you can keep saying this with no supported evidence. it doesnt make it true lol. driving between the two is via an A-road that links the two (or 3 A road between bradford-leeds). I wasnt aware that A-Roads in bury are different to anywhere else? :lol:

Leeds is as connected to Bradford as Manchester is to Liverpool.

Bury is as connected to Manchester as Bradford is to Leeds.

In a literal way it might be (it isn't). But the relationship between Leeds/Bradford is nowhere near as close as Manchester/Bury.

Basically you're chatting shit again.

But it clearly isn't.

You are just making stuff up now because you have been caught out.

It is you who has been caught out trying to pass of PUA as purely being based on urban extent. Other factors such as size threshold come in to play too.

"Urban Areas are defined as being based on areas of continuous built-up land containing urban structures that are within 50 metres of each other. In addition, to qualify as a Primary Urban Area in its own right, a built-up area must have a population in excess of 125,000"

Until you provide the evidence to the contary I think I will stick with the authoritive Centre for Cities and Dept for Communities over your blinkered view of the world wiggles.

:lol:

Until you provide evidence to the contrary I will stick with the knowledge of a MAP that both bradford-leeds and bury-manchester both meet the PUA criteria of "urban structures must be no less than 50m apart to be continuous" and that its the other factor of "urban localities over 125,000 people" having seperate PUAs that is the altering factor. Put simply, Bradford is large enough to be classed a PUA in itself, despite being continuous with leeds no different to bury being continuous to manchester.

Your innane fractal logic trap does not detract away from you not being able to answer the question - can you imagine a Leeds football team playing all their home matches in Bradford?

As i already said, if that is the only explanation one can think of why bury-manchester is a different relationship to leeds-bradford, its an extremely weak argument. And as already said, Bradford FC has used elland road for home games before.

I gave you loads of reasons you toe-rag.

Because it's on the same river? Because it's been a part of the same subdivision of Lancashire based around Manchester for centuries? Because Bury's cotton and wool trade for hundreds of years relied on the exchanges in Manchester? Also as far as I'm aware Bury has never been as large or as important as Manchester. That's why

Bradford City played three times at elland road, in a season where they also played in Huddersfield. My question was VERY specific. Can you imagine a Leeds football team playing ALL their home games in Bradford? Obviously you can't. Obviously there is a very different relationship. Fucking deal with it it's not the end of the world you muppet. YOU believe that Leeds and YOURSELF are inferior because of this fact. It is YOUR issue.

That's flood-plain you nob-head

areas prone to flooding doesnt prevent housing being there as is the case all over the UK ****-face

moreover there is plenty of areas to the right that isnt prone to flooding that *hasnt* been built on

and finally, regardless of any of the *reasons*, it doesnt change the fact that the level of continous urbanity is just a single road flanked with buildings. Yes metrolink pointed out it is more urban to the west, but follow that up towards bury, and it again is seperated by just a single road with buildings on it.

we're not talking about the level of urban continuity, we're talking about the relationships. And inbetween you flipping between the two and using bizarre fractal logic to justify you living in Leeds which obviously you feel some insecurity about, you keep ignoring the fundamental fact that the relationship between bury and manchester is NOTHING like the relationship between bradford and leeds. Nothing. Move on legohead you are going NOWHERE with this one.

Oh yes.

Another thing. Compare the fields either side of the A647 from Leeds to Bradford - rural fields from a farm.

Compare the fields around the A665 to Bury..

the spot directy north of the A647 is a golf course too, preventing development. the rest is private land (be it blocks of fields) owned by people preventing development in exactly the same way as the golf course or park.

But before you were saying that the link from Bradford to Leeds was MORE densley populated than Bury to Manchester (otherwise why argue that it is possible that Bury could meet the density criteria but Bradford may not - unless you really are stupid???)

try reading up the methodolgy behind PUAs. Its not based on population density (of which i have never asserted anything anyway). Urban Areas are continuous if structures are within 50m from each other. The only time this changes is if a threshold can be reached in terms of size, allowing for the the seperation of two named PUAs - based on 125,000 in size. It is also in the case of the 2010 figurees you posted rounded to local authority level. So, whilst bury the town is very detatched from the rest of manchester in terms of urbanity (come on, you only have to look at a map), it will still be included as part of the same Primary Urban Area because continous urbanity from manchester overspills into Bury Borough. Yet Bury itself cant be its own PUA because the Bury urban-subdivision (the town) is less than 125,000.

Out of interest - don't you find my prediction powers about how you are not able to answer easy questions to be great? My ability to predict why you won't say why CfC and DfC use PUA is great is it not - shows how easy it is to predict how weak your arguement is though when I know there are certain questions you just cannot possible answer.

CfC and Dfc use PUA because its more accurate than local authorities although its conceeded there is anomailies and that its not perfect.

P.S. one (really) last post.

Manchester PUA (minus Bury town centre) is about 1.7m. Bury town centre about 80,000.

Leeds PUA is about 700k. Bradford PUA is about 600k.


If you really think the relationship between Manchester and Bury (a size ratio of about 20:1) is in anyway shape or form comparable to that between Leeds and Bradford which are almost the same in size then you sir are a mentalist.

Goodnight all.

Bradford PUA is 417,000, Leeds is 780,000 if going by the 2010 doc you cited.

moreover, the braford urban subdivision that is attatched to leeds through urbanity is 293,000 in population.

Bury town centre as a commercial hub is larger than bradford. You cant actually shop in bradford, there is virtually nothing, whilst the biggest concentration of evening activity in bradford is actually all the restauarants on the a647 corridor to leeds *not* bradford city centre. If you were to understand these things, you'd understand that the reliance on leeds is particularly strong.

not that i wanna be dragged into this or anything - but bury is way over 130k ppl..according to their own website (http://www.bury.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5007) from the 2001 census bury: Total population = 180608....how can it not have its own PUA? if following that criteria?....



Except, the motorway network around the leeds area, and surrounding the city centre is in place due to large wider urban area

yes leeds may have the pop to reflect this, but so does manchester..mancunian way? and then theres the m60... granted the mancunian way isnt a full orbital motorway inside the city centre like the m60 is through greater manchester(which is centred on manchester)...but if you take into account unfinished ring roads, then theres the a6010 which joins with the a576 and a5063 - part of the inner ring road which was not completed...looks like my degree in geog is paying off!

anywho, just wanted to add my little tidbit...

I gave you loads of reasons you toe-rag.

i meant they're similar through tangible real reasons in terms of actually functionaity, not historical notions. Bury-Manchster functions in the same way as Leeds-Bradford.

same commuting patterns, same proprtions of people who travel into the primary hub (leeds/manchester) for retail, nightlife, shopping, leisure, restaurants etc. same arterial road linkages, same rail route linkages, same public transport frequcey of buses etc, same levels of urban-continuity (both becoming just a single road).

Fucking deal with it it's not the end of the world you muppet. YOU believe that Leeds and YOURSELF are inferior because of this fact. It is YOUR issue.

You seem to be getting enranged. I can sense your acne exploding again lol. The only issue i have is pointing out falsehoods, made by people like metrolink, I couldnt care less with anything else. You're not able to give a single reason in how the functionality between leeds-bradford and manchester-bury for people on the ground is stronger. If that upsets you that youre struggling here its your issue.

we're not talking about the level of urban continuity, we're talking about the relationships. And inbetween you flipping between the two and using bizarre fractal logic to justify you living in Leeds which obviously you feel some insecurity about, you keep ignoring the fundamental fact that the relationship between bury and manchester is NOTHING like the relationship between bradford and leeds. Nothing. Move on legohead you are going NOWHERE with this one.

you keep going on about this, almost shocked that someone draw comparisons ("how dare they"), so the difference in actual fuctionality between the two bradford-leeds and bury-manchester must be SO different, yet you still havent given a single credible reason. Simply shouting it repeatedly and calling people legohead (that's rich coming from mr acneface himself) wont change that lol.

not that i wanna be dragged into this or anything - but bury is way over 130k ppl..according to their own website (http://www.bury.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5007) from the 2001 census bury: Total population = 180608....how can it not have its own PUA? if following that criteria?....

thats correct but thats for Bury MDC, not for any actual blotch of urbanity within the borough. The largest blot of urban or primary urban area within Bury Borough is that of bury town itself along with its immediate urban area, and that is only 80,000.




yes leeds may have the pop to reflect this, but so does manchester..mancunian way? and then theres the m60... granted the mancunian way isnt a full orbital motorway inside the city centre like the m60 is through greater manchester(which is centred on manchester)...but if you take into account unfinished ring roads, then theres the a6010 which joins with the a576 and a5063 - part of the inner ring road which was not completed...looks like my degree in geog is paying off!

anywho, just wanted to add my little tidbit...

I think you the argument metrolink was trying to say, that infrastructure is directly linked to PUA, not Urban Area. Nottingham and sheffield should have a better motorway network surrounding it and one that encircles the city centre itself, given that nottingham is larger than leeds by PUA. They dont. Leeds has the extra motorway infrastructure because its within a larger urban area (west yorkshire) than both sheffield and nottingham. Manchester has even more infrastructure because its part of an even larger urban area (greater manchester).

You seem to be getting enranged. I can sense your acne exploding again lol. The only issue i have is pointing out falsehoods, made by people like metrolink, I couldnt care less with anything else. You're not able to give a single reason in how the functionality between leeds-bradford and manchester-bury for people on the ground is stronger. If that upsets you that youre struggling here its your issue.

:lol: So this has nothing to do with the fact that you live in Leeds? As if! Stop lying you muppet. It's an incredibly bizarre comparison in your logic is based in an incredible bias. I don't know why you chose Bury but it's backfired for you as it is truly one of the towns in Greater Manchester which has closer ties to Manchester. Functionally (yes, functionally - credible reasons: suburbs tied to one another, metrolink.) and abstractly (part of what became greater manchester, salfordshire for centuries, part of greater manchester, owns a part of manchester airport, comes under gmpte juristiction)

Bury has always served manchester eonomically as a part of the cottonopolis, and like I say it has never been more important and larger than Manchester - it isn't arguably as interesting and beautiful as Manchester. I.E. NOTHING like Bradford is to Leeds. ;)

Oh and you STILL haven't answered my question. ;)

Can you imagine a football team with Leeds in their name playing ALL their home games in Bradford for about 6 years? ;)

I don't know why you chose Bury but it's backfired for you as it is truly one of the towns in Greater Manchester which has closer ties to Manchester.

nothing has backfired. Its funny how after so many pages, no one has yet to give a single credible reason why in terms of functionality on the ground, bury-manchester isnt exactly like bradford-leeds.

If bury is one of the towns with the closest ties to manchester, that's saying a lot about the others.

Functionally: suburbs tied to one another, metrolink.

i was on about bury the town and its immediate residential areas, which are detatched and seperated through lack of urbanity with the manchester residential overspill into bury borough.

so, you're left with a tram line - that replaced the train line. in terms of functionality it's meaningless. a tram every 6 minutes, or over in bradford, a multitude of bus routes every few minutes. Both have similar proportions of people working in manchester/leeds

it isn't arguably as interesting and beautiful as Manchester. I.E. NOTHING like Bradford is to Leeds. ;)

bradford has some lovely architectural gems and i love the character. That's why its such a shame to see bradford on its feet, with a completely obliterated city centre with no retail core, not even basic shops like topman. ..... such as...

Bradford really upsets me these days. I was in the city centre yesterday, and although it was a monday afternoon going on evening - there were no people around at all. On Market street I'd estimate over a third of the units were either boarded up or to-let, with the same on the highstreets as well that set of bussinesses in Centenery Squ, and the Odeon is just a state now - sat there...decaying... It's my hometown and I would love it to prosper, but I really can't see it happening anymore, I think Bradford has reached a turning point of which I doubt it will ever come back from. Sad really.

I get exasperated when people tell me to "support" Bradford, what are they asking me to do? Wander aimlessly amongst the litter and pound shops, why would I do that?

Half a million people and only one fishmongers (which is half empty), it's the little things that speak the loudest.

This picture below isnt the outskirts of the city centre, it is actually the very centre and the heart of the city centre

http://www.meanwhile.org.uk/showcase/bradford-urban-garden/++atfield++heroImage-hero


if bradford had some sort of retail core with some shops, and an employment economy that isnt on its knees, people wouldnt make use of leeds so much. The rock at bury (a retail core larger than any of the retail cores in west yorkshire bar-leeds) is lovely by the way.

I prefer a day out in Bradford to Leeds - partly because it isn't full of people who shop at Topman.

Three things I realised last night.

1) Wiggles has no idea what he is talking about, he really does just make stuff up as he goes along - hence no evidence to back up his claims about population density.

2) Wiggles really cannot answer the most obvious of questions. Not once did he answer Kids question about FC and he is not able to answer why the Dept for Communities and Centre for Cities - two authorities / agences interested in city development - use PUA to define a city. Very predictable but just shows his arguement is based on he lives in Leeds and for some reason wants others to believe it really is bigger than he imagines.

3) He focuses on Bury NOT being included in Manchester yet I bet he sees NOTHING wrong with considering Otley - much more remote from Leeds being included in that city. It just goes to show that he really cannot cope with a logical arguement that compares like with like. In his world he needs Leeds to be somehow seen differently than the rest of the English cities - he needs it to have special treatment since he doesn't like the idea that Leeds really is only the 8th largest urban area in the country - he doesn't like it that this is the reason why Leeds has not got any conference facilities, why Leeds how very little public transport, why Leeds is only now getting an arena - a decade after all the larger urban areas aquired theirs.

Still, none of us are going to change his weird little mind, but we can (and do) show wiggles world up to be just what it is, built on sand, in a vane hope of pretending Leeds is something it is not. :lol:


Wiggles will never really understand they this...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2486/5800696724_ab4dcc44bf_b.jpg
(stolen from Manc forum).

can happen in Manchester and yet this...





is the equivilent in Leeds, yet if he was willing to open his mind, take off the blinkers then he too would start to see this light.

nothing has backfired. Its funny how after so many pages, no one has yet to give a single credible reason why in terms of functionality on the ground, bury-manchester isnt exactly like bradford-leeds.

.

Right, I am not going through all the crap you posted last night because frankly is it just that.

However, this line sums it up perfectly.

In wiggles world the Bury : Manchester functionality - a town that is about one twentith the size of Manchester has the same functional arrangements as Leeds and Bradford do - cities that are almost identical in size.

Only in wiggles world are people blinkered enough to consider that to be the case :lol:



EDIT - Bury (town) has a population of 60,000 (the rest of the MBC is primarily around the M60 area) - so the ratio of sizes ia actually nearly 1:28 as opposed to 1:20.

So, in wiggles world, the relationship between the Manchester urban area (minus Bury town) is identical to that between Leeds and Bradford.

I'm guessing he doesn't even see how funny that is.

P.S. Do we actualy know Bury (town of 60,000) is actually included in the Manc PUA? Or is it just the parts of Bury up to that area?

Again, I am guessing Wiggles doesn't actually know and has picked on this as it most suits his cause whilst ignoring Otley. :lol:

Removed.

No point.

Interesting that Nottingham should crop up again. People here have been observing that the link between Leeds and Bradford (along with certain other places) isn't urban enough for the PUA to cross it, just one road flanked by houses.

Yet look at the links between Nottingham and Hucknall, Ilkeston, Stapleford, Nuthall/Kimberley and beyond to Heanor, then beyond there to Ripley. All of these places are allegedly within Nottingham's primary urban area!

As for Nottingham feeling larger than Leeds, you have to be a tad selective. Yes the motorways approach Leeds via the easiest routes, at which the distance from the city centre to countryside is shortest, whereas the old roads into Nottingham from the M1 don't, the south western side of the urban area spreading somewhat farther than the others. But drive into Nottingham from the A52 from the east, along the A6011, before you know it you go from fields to city centre (less than three miles, even shorter than the M621 to Leeds). The A453 from the M1 isn't much different, a council estate then back into fields, a couple of industrial estates then you're in. The A612; couple of industrial estates, into some woods, another industrial estate then the city. None of these approaches feel very urban, most other approaches to Nottingham are no more built up than those into Leeds.

If we can't imagine a light rail line being built between Leeds and Bradford because it's not urban enough, how on earth can Nottingham have one to Hucknall? Or along the somewhat low-density former GCR corridor to Clifton, as is about to happen?
Just goes to show it's not always consistent.

I said driving around Nottingham certainly (as I used to do a lot when I used to go there a lot with the ice hockey) does not feel a whole lot different to driving into Leeds (as I used to do occassionally when my mother used to live in Morley).

As the PUA figures suggest - they really do not feel that different driving into them.

Sure, the M621 / M1 example may be the extreme, but there really does not feel that much difference between them.

Even if the population density between Leeds and Bradford was akin to that between Nottingham and Hucknell there is clearly still a massive disparity there. Nottingham is clearly the PRIMARY Urban area and Hucknell is swamped into that.

I would suggest that the 'PRIME-NESS' of Leeds over any urban area surrounding Bradford is simply not anywhere near the same level. There is no way you would claim that the very near 1:1 relationship of those cities is in anyway comparable to Nottingham / Hucknell or Manchester / Bury.


With regards the light rail thing - it was not just the Leeds Bradford corridor that is not served, it is just as a whole (light rail) a typical example of an infrastructure that you find (along with arena, conference facilities, larger airports etc) that you find more and more of as you go up the PUA table.

I get the impressioin that wiggles thinks that link is a pure fluke and a coincedence, it clearly isn't though - the larger the population density centreed around a specific centre (which is what PUA effectively is) the higher the possibility of finding rarer and rarer infrastructure. Not in a million years will Leeds have a light rail network with 100+ stations centred on it's city centre. If you think that to be possible you are barking, there just is not the population to sustain such a thing - as light rail requires people living close together and not huge amounts of fields.

Wiggles has no idea what he is talking about, he really does just make stuff up as he goes along - hence no evidence to back up his claims about population density.

I've not made any claims about population density. I have only pointed out that your statement below is incorrect and misleading. I have given the reasons why, and you have been unable to rebut this.

.... The primary urban area measure compares, using the same criteria, just how urban each area is..

^^ Except it isnt based solely on urbanity with the same criteria. The urban link between bradford and leeds for example is just as urban as the link between bury town and manchester. Bury is included with manchester as it is under the size threshold to be listed seperately, but bradford isnt.

You have tried to pass of PUA as purely being based on urban extent. Other factors such as size threshold come in to play too.

"Urban Areas are defined as being based on areas of continuous built-up land containing urban structures that are within 50 metres of each other. In addition, to qualify as a Primary Urban Area in its own right, a built-up area must have a population in excess of 125,000"

Bradford meets this urban continuity criteria just as well as bury town, or hucknall, it is listed seperately due to size. It's size doesnt actually affect how Bradford interacts functionality-wise with Leeds when compared to Bury-Mancester. Bury people on the ground use Manchester in exactly the same way as people in Bradford use Leeds - both for employment hubs, retail, leisure, shopping.

Wiggles really cannot answer the most obvious of questions. Not once did he answer Kids question about FC

I replied twice, that bradford football team has played home games at elland road before (when bradford's own grounds was unavailable). But to be honest if the only thing that can be brought up is this, it shows just how weak the argument that bury-manchester being different functionality-wise is, its like desperately clutches at straws lol. Im sure bury-manchester has a closer historical relationship particularly so as Bradford was always been notion-wise its own proud city. But that doesnt stop how people from Bradford use and interact with Leeds in exactly the same way as those bury do with manchester, and no one has been unable to counter this. It is argued that Bury is small therefore has a greater reliance on Manchester in retail, employment, and as a commercial hub. But that ignores the fact that Bury's commercial centre is larger then Bradford's, as is its retail offering, whilst bradford as an employment centre is on its knees. Metrolink conveniently ignores the facts and tries to brush them of.

and he is not able to answer why the Dept for Communities and Centre for Cities - two authorities / agences interested in city development - use PUA to define a city.

I already answered this, they use PUAs as its a damn site better then using local authority areas. However it's not perfect, and there are clearly discrepencies and anomolies, but it's certainly a closer indication. And either way, even if it was entirely perfect, it doesnt detract in anyway from my rebuttal of your falsehood where you asserted that PUA just measures urbanity, other factors such as size threshold come into play.

He focuses on Bury NOT being included in Manchester yet I bet he sees NOTHING wrong with considering Otley - much more remote from Leeds being included in that city.

Otley isnt within Leeds' PUA.


It just goes to show that he really cannot cope with a logical arguement that compares like with like. In his world he needs Leeds to be somehow seen differently than the rest of the English cities - he needs it to have special treatment since he doesn't like the idea that Leeds really is only the 8th largest urban area in the country - he doesn't like it that this is the reason why Leeds has not got any conference facilities, why Leeds how very little public transport, why Leeds is only now getting an arena - a decade after all the larger urban areas aquired theirs.

Still, none of us are going to change his weird little mind, but we can (and do) show wiggles world up to be just what it is, built on sand, in a vane hope of pretending Leeds is something it is not. :lol:

If you want to pretend that the reason I pointed out your incorrect statement and falsehood regarding PUAs is because somehow I'm angst ridden, that's fine. Using divertary tacticts and creating straw arguments doesnt hide that you didnt manage to rebut my correcting of your incorrect statements.

In wiggles world the Bury : Manchester functionality - a town that is about one twentith the size of Manchester has the same functional arrangements as Leeds and Bradford do - cities that are almost identical in size.

Only in wiggles world are people blinkered enough to consider that to be the case :lol:

Except it is the case. Commuter patters and proportions show this for employment. Whilst the fact that bradford doesnt even have a retail centre means people are forced to use leeds to shop. Whilst in terms of nightlife as in restaurants and pubs, you will find bury has more than bradford in its commercial heart. (many many pubs have been burnt down in bradford, whilst restaurants dont open in bradford city centre as it's almost void of people).

In what ways functionality-wise then is bury-manchester different, if its not different for shopping, employment, leisure, retail, restauants, and the use of leeds/manchester centres as the primary hub for everything. You have failed to give any answer.

More-over, the size different highlights just WHY bradford-leeds has a strong connection functionality-wise. Bury, a population of 80,000 has a larger commercial centre and retail heart than bradford that is supposed to serve half a million people.

P.S. Do we actualy know Bury (town of 60,000) is actually included in the Manc PUA? Or is it just the parts of Bury up to that area?

Again, I am guessing Wiggles doesn't actually know and has picked on this as it most suits his cause whilst ignoring Otley. :lol:

The town is included in the 2010 figures you posted as PUA is expanded to local authority level (try reading the link your provided),

It does hurt you doesn't it wiggles.

Still, in your world the link between Leeds being only the 8th largest city in the UK and the lack of infastructure is a total fluke isn't it :lol:

Funny how you never are able to answer any points.

Raised last night - Why do the Dept for Communities and Centre for Cities use PUA - two groups that are interested in city development (i.e. very similar to this forum).

Like always - NOT able to answer the question as you've tricked yourself up with your own illogical wiggle-world.

No answer, no answer coming, because you cannot answer it.




P.S. I have totally lost what strange, no doubt pendantic, almost certainly wrong, position you are holding in this now.

From memory, to stop you going off down Bury / Manchester discussions yet again, all that was being said last night is that PUA - whilst not perfect - are in my opinion, and the opinion of Centre for Cities and Dept for Communities - the best way to represnt a city in England as the alternatives have much bigger flaws. Not surprisingly when you order the cities by PUA you find that the amount of 'stuff' you find in those cities rises in a very similar way. Funnily enough - if this method showed Leeds to be the largest city in the UK you'd love it and consider it to be the most acurate measure of how big a city is. You only dislike it because it shows Leeds exactly to be what it is, i.e. the 8th largest urban area in the country, probably with about the 8th most 'stuff' of the cities in the country.

Even for this thread this 'debate' is tedious.

I agree.

I will leave wiggles to him opinion. I think you have all heard enough of my opinion now.

I think you have all heard enough of my opinion now.True, very true.

At least I don't invent things to back up my opinions though eh Sloyne?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granada_Studios_Tour

:lol:

It does hurt you doesn't it wiggles.

Still, in your world the link between Leeds being only the 8th largest city in the UK and the lack of infastructure is a total fluke isn't it :lol:

Only in metrolinkworld is nottingham a larger city than leeds.

if you look at most infrastructure it generally matches the wider urban area that that infrastructure supports. Infrastructure covers a huge range of things, from motorway networks, bus networks, train networks, power plants, employment base, financial quarter within a city, hospitals, schools & universities, cultural attractions such as museums, opera, ballet, festivals, nightlife, restaurants, headquarter infrastucture such as TV, radio, govenment offices, etc, in all these instances Leeds doesnt rank 8th behind nottingham, it much more closely matches the Urban Area.

Of course, if you want to beleive that nottingham is a larger city than leeds, thats up to you. Only in metrolinkworld.


Funny how you never are able to answer any points.

Raised last night - Why do the Dept for Communities and Centre for Cities use PUA - two groups that are interested in city development (i.e. very similar to this forum).

Already answered twice. This will be the third time. The DfC and CfC will use PUA as its a much better aproximation for cities than local authorities. Its the best we have. It doesnt mean there are not anomolies and inconsistencies, and PUAs are not regarded as perfect either. Even if they were perfect, it doesnt detract in anyway from the only thing I've come on to point out here.. that your assertion about PUAs strictly and purely showing urban extent was incorrect - other variables come in to play such as size threshold. Bradford would be within the same PUA as it has just the same urban continuity as bury-bradford does, however it's size means designates it a different PUA. You have been unable to counter this, so have gone on to create a string of strawmen.

Except it is the case. Commuter patters and proportions show this for employment. Whilst the fact that bradford doesnt even have a retail centre means people are forced to use leeds to shop. Whilst in terms of nightlife as in restaurants and pubs, you will find bury has more than bradford in its commercial heart. (many many pubs have been burnt down in bradford, whilst restaurants dont open in bradford city centre as it's almost void of people).

In what ways functionality-wise then is bury-manchester different, if its not different for shopping, employment, leisure, retail, restauants, and the use of leeds/manchester centres as the primary hub for everything. You have failed to give any answer.

More-over, the size different highlights just WHY bradford-leeds has a strong connection functionality-wise. Bury, a population of 80,000 has a larger commercial centre and retail heart than bradford that is supposed to serve half a million people.

Have any facts to prove that? I know alot of people who live in Bradford who rarely, if ever travel to Leeds.

Have any facts to prove that? I know alot of people who live in Bradford who rarely, if ever travel to Leeds.

Im sure hunge numbers of people in bradford dont go anywhere into leeds, just the same as people in bury town never venturing into manchester unless for one offs for occasional nights out in the year. Its about the proportions. Not sure if you have been to bradford recently... but it has no retail core at all, for a city of 500 million people. Bury's retail core is larger, yet its population is 80,000. The city centre is pretty much void, with scarecely any restaurants.. the largest collection of restaurants and nighttime activity in bradford is out in the suburbs on leeds road A647 next to leeds. The majority of pubs in bradford have been borded up over the last 20 years. The employment base in bradford is on its knees and is getting worse, as more commercial enterprise moves out of bradford city centre. The reliance on having to go OUT of bradford to do anythig has never been so big.

Im sure hunge numbers of people in bradford dont go anywhere into leeds, just the same as people in bury town never venturing into manchester unless for one offs for occasional nights out in the year. Its about the proportions. Not sure if you have been to bradford recently... but it has no retail core at all, for a city of 500 million people. Bury's retail core is larger, yet its population is 80,000. The city centre is pretty much void, with scarecely any restaurants.. the largest collection of restaurants and nighttime activity in bradford is out in the suburbs on leeds road A647 next to leeds. The majority of pubs in bradford have been borded up over the last 20 years. The employment base in bradford is on its knees and is getting worse, as more commercial enterprise moves out of bradford city centre. The reliance on having to go OUT of bradford to do anythig has never been so big.

Wiggley, all my friends who live in Bury and Ramsbottom go to Manchester every weekend (and the Trafford Centre weeknights). Bury isn't a "completely different town" like you'd like it to be, GM isn't like WY. WY is a collection of different towns and villages. GM is an urban mass of towns centered around one urban core; Manchester.

You don't know jack shit about the demographics of GM. If people from Bury only "ventured" into the city centre "a few days a year", why do you think there's a bus every minute and a tram every six, and each one I've ever been on or seen has been full with people standing?

And I'm pretty sure Bradford doesn't have 500 million people, either.

Have any facts to prove that? I know alot of people who live in Bradford who rarely, if ever travel to Leeds.

I don't have any evidence and certainly don't want to re-start what went on last night.

http://www.theworkfoundation.com/Assets/Docs/Leeds%20City%20Region.pdf

and
http://www.theworkfoundation.com/Assets/Docs/Manchester%20City%20Region.pdf

are very good.

They are from the same agency and have some interesting commets - if you don't want to read the whole document do a search on Bradford and Bury in the respective documents.

See how they talk about them differently.

A couple of quotes I will leave you with...

From page 6 of the Leeds one...

In 2004, 9.9 percent of Bradford residents
commuted to Leeds, while 6.1 percent of Leeds residents commuted to Bradford.
Bradford also has links with Kirklees and Calderdale and to a lesser extent with
North Yorkshire

From page 4 of the Manchester report...

Over 20% of Bury’s residents travel to
Manchester, whilst a fraction commute from Manchester to Bury. Residents
within Bury benefit from the labour market relationship with Manchester, as
indicated by the high average resident based earnings in the district.

So, make your own mind up, is a net 3% drift from Bradford to Leeds the same as the net 20% drift from Bury to Manchester. Some people no doubt think it is. You make up your own mind.

Also from that report...

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/5775/21831288.png

I consider there to be a difference between 'dependant' and 'interdependant'. But that is just me.

Do you pair not have jobs to do?!

^^ Wiggley works in Bradford and Kurt works in Bury.

I live in Trafford and work in Manc. Normally.

I think LNGCats wins handsdown.

Bury is Manchester
Bradford is not Leeds.

End of.

jrb comes in with a right hook.

Bury is 1 of the 10 boroughs of (Gtr) Manchester.

Bradford is a city in it's own right and has no connection to Leeds.

jrb dances round the ring, bobbing and weaving.

jrb comes in with a right hook.

Bury is 1 of the 10 boroughs of (Gtr) Manchester.

Bradford is a city in it's own right and has no connection to Leeds.

jrb dances round the ring, bobbing and weaving.

JRB makes a grammatical error and trips up on his own shoelaces! :lol:

JRB makes a grammatical error and trips up on his own shoelaces! :lol:

Seen it. :lol:

jrb is once again on his back, dazed and confused. :nuts: This time it has nothing to do with his sciatica.

jrb comes in with a right hook.

Bury is 1 of the 10 boroughs of (Gtr) Manchester.

Bradford is a city in it's own right and has no connection to Leeds.

jrb dances round the ring, bobbing and weaving.

Bradford is 1 of the boroughs of the COUNTY of West Yorks.

Salford is a city in its own right and is a borough of the COUNTY (not city) of Greater Manchester. Bury is also part of that county.

Left hook delivered. Count to 10.

Bradford is 1 of the boroughs of the COUNTY of West Yorks.

Salford is a city in its own right and is a borough of the COUNTY (not city) of Greater Manchester. Bury is also part of that county.

Left hook delivered. Count to 10.

Salford and Bury are boroughs of Greater Manchester

Bradford being massively independent of Leeds is a borough of West Yorkshire as indeed is Leeds because it is not that important compared with Manchester.

Two swift uppercuts to the ribs and one on the chin.

Salford and Bury are boroughs of Greater Manchester

Bradford being massively independent of Leeds is a borough of West Yorkshire as indeed is Leeds because it is not that important compared with Manchester.

Two swift uppercuts to the ribs and one on the chin.

You're nuts, a county is a county not a city. Greater Manchester is no more a city than any of the other Met Counties.

The inclusion of Manchester in the county's name seems to have given licence to block-heads to convince tmemselves that a county is a city

You and your fellow county deniers are obviously punch drunk.

Bradford is 1 of the boroughs of the COUNTY of West Yorks.

Salford is a city in its own right and is a borough of the COUNTY (not city) of Greater Manchester. Bury is also part of that county.

Left hook delivered. Count to 10.

Go away Flyweight.

Why are you so obsessed with everything Manchester? (to be fair you to you always have been)

There's so much to discuss about the Pool ATM.(Peel have just made an announcement)

Seeing as you're so obsessed with Manchester, this should make you happy.

I was going to post it on the Economic/Office news thread. But what the hell.

Bang! Down in one.

Businessdesk.com

Siemens to create 340 Manchester jobs

GERMAN Engineering giant Siemens has announced that it will create around 340 new jobs at its Manchester campus following construction of its new Renewable Energy Engineering Centre - twice the amount it had previously envisaged.

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/assets/_files/cached/img/310x177/jun_11/businessdesk__1307445002_Siemens_new_green_technology_p.jpg?access=604T208T840

The jobs will largely be within the Projects part of its Transmission & Distribution arm and will largely be focused on its plans for a centre of excellence for High Voltage Grid Connections (HVDC).

The company said that it expects the centre to build HVDC transmission systems for the UK and North West Europe - including for the major offshore windfarms planned for areas around the coast.

It added that the government's commitment to carbon reduction targets would mean a major investment in offshore wind farms, which often need to be built more than 80km from land and that HVDC Systems were needed to transport that power.

John Willcock, director of major projects for Siemens Transmission and Distribution said: “The UK's Round 3 offshore wind farms will be sited much further out to sea than previous developments and so will need HVDC technology to overcome the power losses that occur when bringing electricity ashore over longer distances.

"Strengthening our UK expertise in HVDC is therefore central to Siemens' strategy and will help us maintain our leading market position in the UK."

The company said that it would recruit a mix of both experienced engineers and graduates to do the work, targeting those universities which have a recognised expertise in electrical and power engineering.

It also said that engineers from other sectors such as oil & gas, industrial automation and the armed forces would be considered for posts.

Siemens plan to build a major renewable energy centre at its Manchester campus on Princess Parkway was first revealed by TheBusinessDesk.com in October. It is expected to be operational by the end of the year.

You're nuts, a county is a county not a city. Greater Manchester is no more a city than any of the other Met Counties.

The inclusion of Manchester in the county's name seems to have given licence to block-heads to convince tmemselves that a county is a city

You and your fellow county deniers are obviously punch drunk.

No you outsiders don't get it?

Airport
Metrolink
Congestion Charge (arf!)
M60 orbital

All, massive, massive projects agreed upon and benefits shared by the county of G.Manchester. Manchester has an identity and mass that is far in away more significant than Leeds.

I bless the day that Loiners and their leaders continue their denial because that means we soak up yet more investment, prestige and fame as we continue to gallop away and become a truly dominant city.

Why do you think the Arabs bought city? BBC chose Salford?

You ain't seen anything yet and the new East Manchester project is of a mind boggling size.

Football has given up the ghost, the title will not leave Manchester for some years to come. City finished level with Chelsea on points with the joint best defence and they are only going to get better, whilst United's decline consists of 3 Euro Finals and 4 Titles in the last 5 seasons.

BBC, Metrolink, East Manchester, Football.

Seeya!

Siemens to create 340 Manchester jobs
Huh? I thought Glasgow, Hull and Liverpool were the world centre of renewables?

Surely shome mishtake?

Huh? I thought Glasgow, Hull and Liverpool were the world centre of renewables?

Surely shome mishtake?

Looks like McDonalds and Burger King will have to look elsewhere for graduates to flip their burgers. Hmmm.

The company said that it would recruit a mix of both experienced engineers and graduates to do the work, targeting those universities which have a recognised expertise in electrical and power engineering.

It also said that engineers from other sectors such as oil & gas, industrial automation and the armed forces would be considered for posts.

Two swift uppercuts to the ribs and one on the chin.Obviously not an aficionado of the pugilistic arts.:)

Obviously not an aficionado of the pugilistic arts.:)

Hmm, since the fighter in question is staggering round the ring with his defences down, uppercuts to the ribs is achievable.

Obviously not had your caffiene shot this morning Sloney.

Hmm, since the fighter in question is staggering round the ring with his defences down, uppercuts to the ribs is achievable.Only if you are on your knees yourself, and/or a midget boxer.:)


Obviously not had your caffiene shot this morning Sloney.Just which is it; sloney, sloiny, slone, sloyn, sloine, sloine etc?:)

PS: I think it's called a "caffeine HIT!"

Birmingham and Wolverhampton are both cities and part of West Midlands (Greater Birmingham) and are linked by the Metro and other extensive public transport.

Huh? I thought Glasgow, Hull and Liverpool were the world centre of renewables?

Surely shome mishtake?

Everyone can get on the Siemens renewables bandwagon! :cheers:

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/yorkshire/news/129770-siemens-invests-to-support-wind-plant.html?news_section=54010

Siemens invests to support wind plant
17th February 2011

By James Reed - Deputy Editor, Yorkshire

Simon Nadin and Coun Richard Lewis outside the new Siemens site in Stourton, Leeds.
SIEMENS has invested £1.2m in moving to new premises in Leeds as it gears up to support its major new wind turbine manufacturing plant in Hull.

The company has moved its mechanical drives business from Bradford t oa purpose-built 50,000 sq ft facility at Navigation Park.

Siemens recently announced plans to open a new wind turbine plant at Alexandra Dock in Hull which port operator ABP is redeveloping at a cost of £100m.

The mechanical drives operation produces gears, motors and couplings for a range of industries including the growing wind and wave energy sector.

General manager Simon Nadin said: “Siemens is committed to investing in Britain’s industrial future, which is crucial in the current economic climate. Mechanical gears are a key element in production of drive train systems and we aim to continue to invest in and develop our capabilities in this area here at our new site in Leeds.

“In addition to enhancing our manufacturing capability, we’re also creating a showcase facility in Leeds with a world class product display and training area for our staff, seminars that will benefit others in the industry and Siemens partners, plus an extension of our consultancy services.”

Siemens has transferred staff from its former Bradford base and launched a new apprenticeship scheme at the site

Looks like McDonalds and Burger King will have to look elsewhere for graduates to flip their burgers. Hmmm.


It doesn't say whereabouts the centre of excellence will be, but the actual connection is going to be based near Cottingham.

The jobs will largely be within the Projects part of its Transmission & Distribution arm and will largely be focused on its plans for a centre of excellence for High Voltage Grid Connections (HVDC).

The company said that it expects the centre to build HVDC transmission systems for the UK and North West Europe - including for the major offshore windfarms planned for areas around the coast.

It would appear that this article is reporting news of an extension of the Princes Parkway Siemens site in order to plan the specifics of the Centre of Excellence.

It doesn't say whereabouts the centre of excellence will be, but the actual connection is going to be based near Cottingham.



It would appear that this article is reporting news of an extension of the Princes Parkway Siemens site in order to plan the specifics of the Centre of Excellence.

Perhaps I'm missng something here Leg.

Quotes 340 new jobs and.......

Siemens plan to build a major renewable energy centre at its Manchester campus on Princess Parkway was first revealed by TheBusinessDesk.com in October. It is expected to be operational by the end of the year.

Eitherway, it's good news.

The wording is a bit ambiguous and Googling 'princess parkway siemens centre of excellence' didn't bring anything up.

The jobs are indeed great news for south manchester though. Just shows the reach and impact that the Alexandra Dock Greenport development is already having. Fingers crossed for Able UK's equally massive proposal for the south Humber bank now.

Huh? I thought Glasgow, Hull and Liverpool were the world centre of renewables?

Surely shome mishtake?

Good to see your starting the week like you ended the last - making yourself look like a massive knob :lol:

Huh? I thought Glasgow, Hull and Liverpool were the world centre of renewables?

Surely shome mishtake?



isn't that about 0.002 % of the total forecast jobs?

ooh.

Thanks boys

Actual jobs v forecasts

Hallelujah, finally they see the truth.

More hot air than the press release

It's like a 1970's wrestling tag team v Cage Fighter.

No contest, Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks have both left the building.

What on earth are you on about now? Are you mentally ill?

I'll take that as a yes then?

I regret saying mentally ill. I should have said retarded.

Boards & Yosef Tag Team

The voices of reason in their own world.

Champion of the World Renewable HQ.
Champion of the Peel Towers Development.

I get flames for highlighting buildings and projects under construction, whilst all around are playing fantasy project catch-up.

Ahh, to have been one of the chosen children of Cheshire.

I regret saying retarded. I should have said being himself.

I'll ask you again ; What the fuck are you going on about? I've already highlighted the actual jobs created in Glasgow by a number of multinationals.

A company invests in renewable energy in Manchester and your swooning all over going on about how other cities were meant to be the capitals. Can Aberdeen not be the oil capital of Europe because there are oil companies operating in other cities? Can London not be the financial capital of the world because other cities have financial districts? You seem to have the mental capacity and reasoning skills of a 5-year old.

Why are you so massively threatened by that report?

BTW. For future reference, I don't expect to ever see you take any notice of any report to do with estimates or future forecasts.

http://www.offshorevaluation.org/

No you outsiders don't get it?

M60 orbital



Bug bear of mine that is.

It is not an Orbital motorway, whatever Wikipedia says, as it does not encompass the entire conurbation.

Its official title is 'M60 - Manchester Outer Ring Road', which passes through 8 of the 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester, but not encircling them.

We also have an 'Inner Ring Road' around the City Centre.

The M25 is Orbital, as the motorway orbits the entire London conurbation, the M60 isn't, as it is mainly urban on both sides of the motorway!!!

Ring Road, not Orbital.

I regret saying retarded. I should have said being himself.

I'll ask you again ; What the fuck are you going on about? I've already highlighted the actual jobs created in Glasgow by a number of multinationals.

A company invests in renewable energy in Manchester and your swooning all over going on about how other cities were meant to be the capitals. Can Aberdeen not be the oil capital of Europe because there are oil companies operating in other cities? Can London not be the financial capital of the world because other cities have financial districts? You seem to have the mental capacity and reasoning skills of a 5-year old.

Why are you so massively threatened by that report?

BTW. For future reference, I don't expect to ever see you take any notice of any report to do with estimates or future forecasts.
Ah, there you go sane and balanced.

You are comparing Glasgow and renewables with Aberdeen and Oil and London and Financials.

Need anymore be said?

`Massively threatened' `retarded'..hmm anyone who believes that Glasgow will become such a hub is `massively' threatened by his own grasp of reason.

Do try to think.

Re-forecasts and predictions...they are just that and can only be an opinion.

Difference is bar football, I doubt Manchester will be world leading in anything, anytime soon. Glasgow will be though!?

Bug bear of mine that is.

It is not an Orbital motorway, whatever Wikipedia says, as it does not encompass the entire conurbation.

Its official title is 'M60 - Manchester Outer Ring Road', which passes through 8 of the 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester, but not encircling them.

We also have an 'Inner Ring Road' around the City Centre.

The M25 is Orbital, as the motorway orbits the entire London conurbation, the M60 isn't, as it is mainly urban on both sides of the motorway!!!

Ring Road, not Orbital.

True, which highlights the size of `Manchester', I get caught up in the shite posted from other people saying Manchester is this or that when we have an officially named `Manchester Outer ring road' which cuts through Stockport, Oldham, Ashton, Trafford, Salford yet is nothing to do with Manchester!

It does explain why they are so far behind us, they just cannot allow facts to get in the way of there hysteria.

Champion of the Peel Towers Development.



eh?

Ah, there you go sane and balanced.

You are comparing Glasgow and renewables with Aberdeen and Oil and London and Financials.

Need anymore be said?

`Massively threatened' `retarded'..hmm anyone who believes that Glasgow will become such a hub is `massively' threatened by his own grasp of reason.

Do try to think.

Re-forecasts and predictions...they are just that and can only be an opinion.

Difference is bar football, I doubt Manchester will be world leading in anything, anytime soon. Glasgow will be though!?

OMFG. You're so stupid. I wasn't comparing Glasgow to London or Aberdeen. I was making the point that an area can still be considered a 'capital' of a sector if there are smaller centres also operating. You mug :lol:

eh?

No idea, mate. I'd say he's lost it but he never had it.

No idea, mate. I'd say he's lost it but he never had it.

I think his thought process works a bit like this...

340 !!!!!
Look at the size of that thing.
Wave it around a bit.
oops. Premature ejaculation!
Siemens everywhere.
Looks quite small now....
Time to get angry

:rofl:

He's shown his true colours the last few days. He's a bitter, insecure, dim-witted troll.

He's been pwned more times than he's had hot dinners. The guy just keeps coming back for more. I thought they'd be a limit to how sad and stupid someone would like to make themselves look! But no!

Both getting a bit excited today, your language betrays your fear of the truth.

Your answer: perhaps the most crude and vulgar language yet displayed on this forum.

Do you both feel powerful and important? Happy with your attitude and slating?

What a pair of nasty bastards you look.

Picked on kids in the playground did you?

Massive troll gets pwnt and takes high ground :lol:

Don't like it when it's just you do you? Without your manc mates to hide behind. Fear of the truth lol. Shoo, troll.

Massive troll gets pwnt and takes high ground :lol:

Don't like it when it's just you do you? Without your manc mates to hide behind. Fear of the truth lol. Shoo, troll.

Quiet capable of looking after myself, it is just your really childish /immature language.

Is that how you talk in real life?

Seems to me "you are hiding".

I'm the bully who bullies bullies. Bad smell? That's me.

Both getting a bit excited today, your language betrays your fear of the truth.

Your answer: perhaps the most crude and vulgar language yet displayed on this forum.

Do you both feel powerful and important? Happy with your attitude and slating?

What a pair of nasty bastards you look.

Picked on kids in the playground did you?


:lol: Be fair, it was you who started the silly billy routine


Huh? I thought Glasgow, Hull and Liverpool were the world centre of renewables?

Surely shome mishtake?



http://www.eircooled.com/deforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7065&d=1303245357

:lol:

Don't forget his panic attack/massive trollfest on Friday :lol:

yeah, when he was claiming the huge investment in offshore windfarms was 'folly'. A couple of days later, when it effects somewhere local, he's bragging about it.

I think everyone was confused as to why he talked constantly about Manchester ( in reference to a report he thought made no mention of the city ). Then tried to discredit a multi-billion pound industry and the creation of many high quality jobs.

Still at it, like a couple of muppets in the school playground!

Bragging about Siemens? I did not (could have, nic RSS feed for MEN business news) post it, I merely stated:

Facts

not

guff about potential and `world centres'.

Which is frankly as laughable as you two `voices of reason'.

Jeez, must be really chuffed with your vulgar comments...you must be right then!

Please do post actual jobs in the industry you are `world centered' on and a quick comparison with the other UK `world centres'.

That would be two centres at least and Hull?

LOL

I don't know which is worse. Your constant misrepresentation of what was said. The fact that you fail to grasp that people discussing a futures report may mention potential. Or that you are utterly obsessed and insecure about it.

What's the big deal? Why have you been going on about it for days? Seriously.

I see The Fly has yet to grasp the concept of continuous prose.

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8t5lx7RNb1qdtfdbo1_400.gif

Who's worse thefly or eutex?

ep1ctTpF7rA

So exciting Brum. LOL

I think it's time for another irrelevant list of Manchester's achievements.

Please do post actual jobs in the industry you are `world centered' on and a quick comparison with the other UK `world centres'.

That would be two centres at least and Hull?

LOL

Not just Hull but also the rest of it's city region. The LEP proposal was submitted today. Maybe it's one for the economic news thread but I'll give you a sneaky peak as you seem interested. It includes some statistics about the Humber - which as the fourth biggest ports complex in northern Europe might get away with calling itself a 'world centre'

The Humber is the biggest and busiest port cluster in the UK. In 2008 it handled more than 91 million tonnes – substantially more than its next biggest rival of Port of London, at 53 million tonnes. The Humber ports are also growing faster than other ports in the UK. Since 1988 the Humber ports have 13grown by 88 per cent compared to only 24 per cent for the rest of the UK. The South Humber Gateway alone generates some 26 per cent of UK rail freight

The Humber’s central location, ports facilities and infrastructure capacity has resulted in the ports on the south bank of the River Humber growing at an annual average of 24.5 per cent in the last 10 years compared to a national average of just 4.5 per cent. The Humber ports are ideally placed to serve the Government’s Round 3 £100bn offshore wind turbine zones. The Humber offer includes the South Humber Gateway (SHG) – the UK’s last strategically placed undeveloped deep-water estuary. The Humber estuary is the only location capable of hosting a renewable energy super-cluster of the scale needed for the emerging offshore wind turbine industry

A Pan-Humber Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) presents an ideal
opportunity to ‘rebalance’ the economy on both banks of the Humber – and
led by the private sector. The proposed Pan-Humber LEP would cover the
existing boundaries of the four unitary authorities: North Lincolnshire, North
East Lincolnshire, Hull City and East Riding of Yorkshire councils. The PanHumber LEP would serve a population of in excess of 910,000 people

The chamber makes the obvious point that the City of Hull is the capital of the Humber sub-region, and all parties to this submission for a single PanHumber LEP recognise and support this

Not sure enough has been made of this yet?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1394386/Carlos-Tevez-astonishing-attack-Manchester.html

They chant his name, cheer his goals and pay him a wage said to be as high as £286,000 every week, so you might expect footballer Carlos Tevez to be grateful for everything he gets in Manchester.

But the controversial Manchester City player has launched an astonishing attack on the city – where he was also worshipped by Manchester United fans – by saying it has nothing to offer and that when he leaves he will never go back.

The 27-year-old Argentinian, thought to be the highest-paid player in English football history, added that he would rather be in Marbella.

His comments came during a television interview broadcast in his home country Argentina.

The player said he lived in a rented house in Manchester because there was no point buying there.

Asked if it was the weather that made the city so bad, he told Susana Gimenez, the Argentine Oprah Winfrey: 'The weather, everything. It has nothing.'

When Ms Gimenez, 67, told Tevez that another South American celebrity – model Evangelina Anderson – had bought a house in the Spanish resort of Marbella, he laughed and said: 'Yes but Marbella is different from Manchester.

'You can buy a holiday house in Marbella. But I'm never going back to Manchester, not even on holiday, not for anything. Of course I would buy a house in Marbella.'

He went on: 'For example, in Marbella you can buy a house by the beach, relax there and later you can go there on holiday and everything.

On the other side: Tevez also played for City's rivals Manchester United but it seems he has no love for the city
'But a house in Manchester costs six or seven million pounds. It is better to rent.'

Ms Gimenez said: 'It's very expensive there,' and Tevez replied: 'It's another world.'

Tevez described how lonely he was in Manchester and how happy he was on holiday in Argentina.

He said: 'I don't have any new friends. I am always with my family and lifelong friends. I don't even leave my house. I'm the stay-at-home type.

'When I have my dad and friends over we have a barbecue, we have fun.

But I'm always on my own, especially in the last few months. I've found the past few months very hard.'

The presenter then told Tevez he was making 'a big sacrifice' by living in the UK.

Tevez was in Argentina during his summer break from City. He appeared on the talk show with his young daughters Florencia and Katie and their mother Vanesa Mansilla.

He is separated from Ms Mansilla and has been dating Argentine actress Brenda Asnicar, 19.

The striker left South America in 2006 to join West Ham United. He scored 23 goals for City last season and 34 for United when he played there from 2007 to 2009.

Tevez is no stranger to being at the centre of controversy in Manchester.

When he moved from United to City in 2009, City put up a huge billboard featuring a poster of the striker with the words 'Welcome to Manchester' emblazoned across it.

Tevez has talked about being homesick in previous interviews. Last year he said: 'I have the idea of quitting in my mind.

'I have been playing in England for five years and I have not spent a single Christmas or New Year with my family.

'Let me tell you, I am not enjoying the life of a footballer.'




Admittedly Tevez would probably say the same about most UK cities (although rain is a strong point of the North-West), but it'd be interesting to see what some of the City-supporting crowd make of their 'idol' now?

Not sure enough has been made of this yet?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1394386/Carlos-Tevez-astonishing-attack-Manchester.html



Admittedly Tevez would probably say the same about most UK cities (although rain is a strong point of the North-West), but it'd be interesting to see what some of the City-supporting crowd make of their 'idol' now?

The answer is. The vast majority have told him to get to f***.

Unfortunately for Trev(spelt like that on purpose), unless a club has a spare £100mill(£50mill tranfser and £50mill in wages), he isn't going anywhere.(ask Shiekhy Bossman)

Not only that, but which club is going to pay that and give him a 3 year contract, only to see him walk away and return to Argentina and Boca on a free. I don't think so.

Sorry Trev, you're f***ed. Another 3 years of rain and £250,000 a week awaits. (it's a hard life)

As for the fans once again. I'm sure once he bags the first, all will be forgiven.(n/t)

Cringe. F*** off MUEN. Read the comments. Apparently a 1000 City fans have signed the petition according to the MUEN.

Help to keep Carlos Tevez a Blue - sign our online petition to persuade Manchester City striker to stay

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/sport/football/manchester_city/s/1422778_help-to-keep-carlos-tevez-a-blue---sign-our-online-petition-to-persuade-manchester-city-striker-to-stay

Not sure enough has been made of this yet?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1394386/Carlos-Tevez-astonishing-attack-Manchester.htmlHe may be an ungrateful sod, but let's be honest, he's right about Manchester. I'd choose Marbella over Manchester any day. If I was a rich Argentine, I'd see no reason to include Manchester in my holiday plans.

Does Tevez even live in Manchester?

He may be an ungrateful sod, but let's be honest, he's right about Manchester. I'd choose Marbella over Manchester any day. If I was a rich Argentine, I'd see no reason to include Manchester in my holiday plans.

Does not surprise me, With Manchester being one of the bigger and more vibrant cities with generally more to offer, I think he would not be impressed with other English cities either, Seems to me he wants sun sand etc,
Lets face it Manchester is not a bloody holiday hotspot where the wealthy hang out its a working city, no wonder he wants to galavant to Marbella, I would choose to live there as well, over London?....err yeah!

Slight detour off topic.

Tevez was/is renting a house in Alderly Edge. Apparently his possesions have now been moved out of that house.

As for Trev himself. He's now been in England 5/6 years and still hasn't bothered to learn English properly. Why?

I attended a fans forum a year ago. Trev was one of the players who took questions from the fans. He spoke no English at all and a translator was sat next to him.

As for Trev's remarks about the city. Please. Just like any other major city in the UK there is plenty to see and do. And that includes with his children when they are over.

However, if he can't be bothered to learn the language and get out and about, rather than staying at home after matches, training, etc, then he's only got yourself to blame. Perhaps Alderly Edge is to quiet and boring for him?

As for the rain. Apparently Buenos Aires has 1242mm of annual rain fall. Manchester has 809mm of annual rain fall.(I stand corrected)

Go figure Trev.

Slight detour off topic.

Tevez was/is renting a house in Alderly Edge. Apparently his possesions have now been moved out of that house.

As for Trev himself. He's now been in England 5/6 years and still hasn't bothered to learn English properly. Why?

I attended a fans forum a year ago. Trev was one of the players who took questions from the fans. He spoke no English at all and a translator was sat next to him.

As for Trev's remarks about the city. Please. Just like any other major city in the UK there is plenty to see and do. And that includes with his children when they are over.

However, if he can't be bothered to learn the language and get out and about, rather than staying at home after matches, training, etc, then he's only got yourself to blame. Perhaps Alderly Edge is to quiet and boring for him?

As for the rain. Apparently Buenos Aires has 1242mm of annual rain fall. Manchester has 809mm of annual rain fall.(I stand corrected)

Go figure Trev.

Was it really necessary to look up the rainfall figures to bolster your argument JRB? Are we also going to look forward to a list of Manchester's restaurants to prove definitively that you've got more than two? (even I know that).

Tevez is a footballer and they are not renowned for their great insight. Looks like some blokeish comment after more than enough vodkas.

(By the way, Tevez also said that London smells of old armpits).

Was it really necessary to look up the rainfall figures to bolster your argument JRB? Are we also going to look forward to a list of Manchester's restaurants to prove definitively that you've got more than two? (even I know that).

Tevez is a footballer and they are not renowned for their great insight. Looks like some blokeish comment after more than enough vodkas.

(By the way, Tevez also said that London smells of old armpits).

Now, now Martin. I've just read your comments regarding me on the 2nd city thread. Thank you. However, I'm starting to think you do have a flip side.

Did you have to make a point about me referring to the rainfall figures? That was my choice. There was absolutely no need for you to comment on that. That includes the restaurant remarks as well. There's no need to disect everything I write. Can you see where I'm coming from?

Let's leave it that.

As for the rain. Apparently Buenos Aires has 1242mm of annual rain fall. Manchester has 809mm of annual rain fall.(I stand corrected)However, BA's rainfall occurs within a very short period in the winter and it is usually a deluge. Manchesters rainfall is almost constant, which makes Manchester a very depressing place, year round. BA, between November and April, has a glorious summer. Of course, in the summer months one can expect tropical downpours at anytime, but the norm is for mostly hot and sunny weather.

However, BA's rainfall falls within a very short period in the winter and it is usually a deluge. Manchesters rainfall is almost constant, which makes Manchester a very depressing place, year round. BA, between November and April, has a glorious summer.

Depressing?

In your biased and obsessed opinion.

Does that make other cities(no names) close to Manchester with similar rainfall patterns anymore or any less depressing in your unbiased(as if) opinion? :doh:

BTW. Have you done anymore research on Mediacity and the BBC Departments moving North? Thought not. Why would you? It's only positive and good news. Damn.

However, BA's rainfall occurs within a very short period in the winter and it is usually a deluge. Manchesters rainfall is almost constant, which makes Manchester a very depressing place, year round. BA, between November and April, has a glorious summer. Of course, in the summer months one can expect tropical downpours at anytime, but the norm is for mostly hot and sunny weather.

Funny that, I'm sat outside in the sun at the moment, with a can of coke, suncream and Dubstep blasting through my ears.

How how depressing this city is :ohno:

Can anyone explain to me why Euxtex is such a fucking troll dick wejfbnskjgrbsef a,msf ??

Not the weather again :lol:

Not the weather again :lol:

Blame Trev.

How much does a f***ing umbrella cost?(considering he's on 250K a week)

I've never bought an umbrella. They just seem to appear around the house. I'm sure it's a phenomenon many have experienced.

I've never bought an umbrella. They just seem to appear around the house. I'm sure it's a phenomenon many have experienced.

I wish that phenomenon would occur around my house involving big breasted women.

:lol: I find too large a breast vulgar.

Seriously,my little lad has just brought me an umbrella,where the fuck did that come from? :lol:

Told you ;)

Manchesters rainfall is almost constant


Nonsense, you dont even live anywhere near there, stop making assumptions

There are actually more dry days that wet, ok it rained today, but it was a downpour with thunder and lightning, lasted about 20 minutes and no more today looking at the sky, now its sunny, not uncommon in the spring and summer,there is not that much discernible difference between the weather in UK cities in the North, although Manchester tends to feel warmer than Liverpool in Summer due to the inland location, but that can also generate convection, causing downpours:)

Please no more graphs,we've done this before,if you want to know what the weather's like look out of the window.Better still,if you go to your front door and get your dick out,and then it shrinks,you need a coat.

It can't be more depressing that ejercito de los andes.

Please no more graphs,we've done this before,if you want to know what the weather's like look out of the window.Better still,if you go to your front door and get your dick out,and then it shrinks,you need a coat.

The whole country is a wet joke except where we have forced 18m people to live!!

it was pissing down here last night.

we needed it too.

It can't be more depressing that ejercito de los andes.So, and let me get this straight; Manchester has more sun days than does either Callao, Lima, Valparaiso or Santiago and less rain than any of those cities. Right? As for Ejercito de Los Andes, why don't you ask San Martin? But yes, I guess the indigenous peoples of the Pampas found that particular army very depressing.

General Rocca's army wasn't too nice to the inhabitants of the Pampas that's for sure.

So, and let me get this straight; Manchester has more sun days than does either Callao, Lima, Valparaiso or Santiago and less rain than any of those cities. Right?

Thats the -backwards- Manchester way of thinking.

Apparently one day constitutes a year...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj1xr1TW8e1qzds48.gif

10123 - you were making a big deal about retail rankings not long ago.

Did you ever decide which of the several rankings that are produced are the ones that matter :lol:

Or are you waiting to see which puts Leeds in the best place? :ohno:

We're getting a hose-pipe ban in 2 weeks if there's no significant rainfall apparently!! I think there's gonna be a deluge tomorrow.

We had a hose pipe ban this time last year :D

We're getting a hose-pipe ban in 2 weeks if there's no significant rainfall apparently!! I think there's gonna be a deluge tomorrow.


I hope so because our Natterjack Toads up the coastline are struggling this year,we need it to rain.

Does not surprise me, With Manchester being one of the bigger and more vibrant cities with generally more to offer, I think he would not be impressed with other English cities either, Seems to me he wants sun sand etc, Lets face it Manchester is not a bloody holiday hotspot where the wealthy hang out its a working city, no wonder he wants to galavant to Marbella, I would choose to live there as well, over London?....err yeah!Don't try to tar London with the same brush. London's even more of a magnet for the international rich than Marbella. ;)

Now, now Martin. I've just read your comments regarding me on the 2nd city thread. Thank you. However, I'm starting to think you do have a flip side.

Did you have to make a point about me referring to the rainfall figures? That was my choice. There was absolutely no need for you to comment on that. That includes the restaurant remarks as well. There's no need to disect everything I write. Can you see where I'm coming from?

Let's leave it that.

But JRB, you are doing something that invites ridicule. A footballer makes some locker room type comment about rainfall in your city and, instead of making the considered, mature and ethical response of calling his girlfriend a lesbian we have to get into this statistical argument.

There is some atavistic caveman thinking going on here:

Man Insult My City! -Man Need Statistics! -Me Got Statistics! - Man Will Die!

Actually, I am increasingly convinced that it doesn't rain in Manchester at all, it just seems like it does.

Drat, my flip sides showing.

:lol:

10123 - you were making a big deal about retail rankings not long ago.

Did you ever decide which of the several rankings that are produced are the ones that matter :lol:

Or are you waiting to see which puts Leeds in the best place? :ohno:

Go back an read my post Mr 762.

which post?

Have you actually nailed your colours to the mast or are you still hedging your bets :lol:

You win Martin.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/liverpoolecho/mar2011/0/9/beatles-foliage-sculpture-678779249.jpg

Regards.

jrb.

Back to topic.

I hate heat and sand so Manchester > Marbella.

Manchester's Metrolink extensions are finally beginning to pay off now, with the first phase of the East Didsbury Line, to St Werbeurgh's Road, due to open two weeks today (27th).

Pictures of testing on the Chorlton line:

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/101_2622.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/101_2598.jpg

http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae259/Nymanic/Metrolink%20-%20December%202009%20onwards/IMG_0854.jpg

http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae259/Nymanic/Metrolink%20-%20December%202009%20onwards/IMG_0852.jpg

See http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=79573642#post79573642 for an-every-ten-minute update on construction :)

Junction between Altrincham Line and Chorlton Line. Chorlton's now part of the Metrolink system! :banana:

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2130/20110611091048.jpg

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3884/20110611151046.jpg

Central Park Station (my favourite)

http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae259/Nymanic/Metrolink%20-%20December%202009%20onwards/IMG_0807.jpg

and also the Southern Part of the Rochdale & Oldham Line is ready for opening any week now. Monsall Station:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Geeves8612/P1000776.jpg


And finally, in the East:

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/101_2649-1.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx61/Johnny_de_Rivative/101_2645-1.jpg

:banana:

And to think that the then 'New Labour Government', via Darling, took the initial Big Bang Metrolink extension money back, only to eventually cave in and to return it after a campaign by the city leaders, business leaders, local media and the people of (Gtr) Manchester.

Strange that, Jrb, I thought everyone in Greater Manchester lived in completely different towns which were all far far away from Manchester, and the residents there have no connection with Manchester whatsoever. Why on earth would they be campaigning together? :lol:

Strange that, Jrb, I thought everyone in Greater Manchester lived in completely different towns which were all far far away from Manchester, and the residents there have no connection with Manchester whatsoever. Why on earth would they be campaigning together? :lol:

Indeed.

http://www.britishtramsonline.co.uk/newsbanner.jpg

Looks like Frankfurt

I pity those poor doubters of where Manchester is going. They are either in denial or just do not know.

We have massive infrastructure projects on the go or completed (M60, Airport) and huge inward investment like the BBC bringing in thousands of well paid jobs.

And then we have the big daddy of East Manchester/ADUG/Man City.

Oh Lordy!

Page 7 of http://www.trafford.gov.uk/cme/live/dynamic/Download.asp?c=docman2&f=pdf&id=291F8DDB-C3D9-49EF-964F-A86A80872DF0 shows a large jump in the expediture from the 'Levy on district councils (council tax)'.

This is being used to fund Metrolink expansion an will continue to rise by about 2% above normal for the next 5 years (6 years in total) and them settle for 30 years at the higher rate.

This additional tax, paid right across the whole of Greater Manchester, is what is allowing Metrolink expansion to proceed in the manner it is today.

Page 7 of http://www.trafford.gov.uk/cme/live/dynamic/Download.asp?c=docman2&f=pdf&id=291F8DDB-C3D9-49EF-964F-A86A80872DF0 shows a large jump in the expediture from the 'Levy on district councils (council tax)'.

This is being used to fund Metrolink expansion an will continue to rise by about 2% above normal for the next 5 years (6 years in total) and them settle for 30 years at the higher rate.

This additional tax, paid right across the whole of Greater Manchester, is what is allowing Metrolink expansion to proceed in the manner it is today.

But this cannot be so, surely?

We are told time and time again that Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Ashton, Altrincham, are not part of `Manchester'

Can anyone explain how Rochdale has a Metrolink connection to Oldham and onwards to Manchester when:
A) Rochdale is not part of Manchester
B) Oldham is not part of Manchester

C) Rochdale and Oldham are two separate towns like Leeds and Bradford!

Arf!

For me, I do not consider Rochdale, Wigan and Bolton (town centres) to be in what most would describe as 'Manchester'.

Sure they are in 'Greater Manchester' which does have many differences from other Metropolitan counties, the mono-centric nature of the county (as Centre for Cities pointed out, much more mono-centric than any other non-London met county) along with the cross authority collaboration does mark it out as very differnent - something outsiders really seem to not appreciate.

Still, this cross authority working and the mono-centric nature of the county still, in my mind, do not lead to it all being considered in a city.

A city to me is urban in nature and soley focued on one central area (which can be rather large - London is centred from Docklands to Knightsbridge, but it it heavily urbanised all the way between) and is urban in nature.

To me, Wigan, Bolton and Rochdale (towns - NOT MBC) are far to remote and stand alone to be considered as part of a city centred on Manchester / Salford Quays. Still, that is just my opinion.

Also, I really dislike the idea of using an arbituary local autority (which is what GM really is) as meaning something. I fail to accept that Wigan is in a city centred on Manchester yet Wilmslow is not - it simply does not fit with reality other than if you are wedded to local authorities as being incredibly meaningful, whereas in my opinion they are incredibly artibtuary.

But this cannot be so, surely?

We are told time and time again that Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Ashton, Altrincham, are not part of `Manchester'

Can anyone explain how Rochdale has a Metrolink connection to Oldham and onwards to Manchester when:
A) Rochdale is not part of Manchester
B) Oldham is not part of Manchester

C) Rochdale and Oldham are two separate towns like Leeds and Bradford!

Arf!



Chester, Ormskirk, Ellesmere Port, Southport, Hoylake and West Kirby are all on the Merseyrail system, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're all part of Liverpool. Think Metro area.

Chester, Ormskirk, Ellesmere Port, Southport, Hoylake and West Kirby are all on the Merseyrail system, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're all part of Liverpool. Think Metro area.

But it is only on this forum and in the spectacularly aggressive `localism' displayed in the UK that built up areas, linked directly by modern communications are classed as separate.

Compare GM with Munich/Milan and the point is made.

I can handle a dispute about Wigan and Chester being separate from the local cities but not the orbital towns.

Retail, business & transport say they are linked.

SSC say they are not.

Real World vs SSC

Still, strange how a `separate' town called Rochdale has a high density (not a train to Chester-we have one as well you know!) metro system linking it with Oldham and Manchester.

That is not what Chester has.

The only reason the Rochdale line is turning to Metrolink is because the old heavy rail line was life expired and needed huge investment to fix. Metrolink was the cheapest option. If that was not the case then Metrolink would not be going to Rochdale (yet).

Also, north of Shaw the service is only 5tph and not the 10tph suggesting that the demand from north of Shaw heading towards Manchester is weaker than other parts of the area.

But it is only on this forum and in the spectacularly aggressive `localism' displayed in the UK that built up areas, linked directly by modern communications are classed as separate.

Compare GM with Munich/Milan and the point is made.

I can handle a dispute about Wigan and Chester being separate from the local cities but not the orbital towns.

Retail, business & transport say they are linked.

SSC say they are not.

Real World vs SSC

Still, strange how a `separate' town called Rochdale has a high density (not a train to Chester-we have one as well you know!) metro system linking it with Oldham and Manchester.

That is not what Chester has.

Do you ever feel the need to check anything before you write? Chester is on Merseyrail Electrics, with four trains an hour taking passengers into the Merseyrail Underground. You've heard of Merseyrail, right? The metro system that is much better than Manchester's trams?

That and the fact that it must take twice as long as the train from Rochdale to Manchester. From Rochdale the new Metrolink line is only of use for getting to intermediate points like Oldham. You wouldn't have caught the train to Manchester via Oldham in the past, nor will you the Metrolink now with an even longer journey time. (reply to LNGCats).

Yes, but there are stops inbetween and the primary aim of a light rail is NOT end to end journeys.

It is for the many more journeys along the route. I would expect most journeys at the northern end of that line to go no where near Manchester.

I have no idea if it is still true, but the most popular journey on Metrolink used to be between Radcliffe and Bury - two stops at the top of the line. The reason being they are in the same zone (so cheap) and the stations are miles and miles apart.

Some people will travel from places like Shaw all the way into Manchester, however, if you life right near Rochdale you will get the train if your ultimate destination is the city centre.

So the general consensus is that 7 of the 10 boroughs of (Gtr) Manchester are........

The other 3 are still (perceived as) seperate........

City of Manchester.
Oldham.
Stockport.
Tameside.
Trafford.
Salford.
Bury.


Bolton.
Rochdale.
Wigan.

?

TBF, if I was unemployed (thankfully I'm not) I would never get a job because of SSC.

F***ing Groundhog Day Forum. :lol:

Do you ever feel the need to check anything before you write? Chester is on Merseyrail Electrics, with four trains an hour taking passengers into the Merseyrail Underground. You've heard of Merseyrail, right? The metro system that is much better than Manchester's trams?

Awayo strikes again.

Then why was there a need for a Liverpool tram network? (would it have been a waste of public money?)

Perhaps I'm missing something?

It's an education on here....Manchester is definitely leading the world on linking towns with a mass transit system with no usage demand or identifiable need.

Back to planet earth.

It is great to see the British parochial mind at work.

Of all the UK cities, I think only Bradford/Leeds has a more clearly defined separation.
Yet you can give Chester to Liverpool or the Wirral but hell no Manchester is not Bolton or Rochdale.

Great stuff.

Awayo strikes again.

Then why was there a need for a Liverpool tram network? (would it have been a waste of public money?)

Perhaps I'm missing something?

Because he mistakenly thinks that the train running underground makes it a metro system!

No. It is essentially a heavy rail line subject to those restrictions. It is great, no doubt...I have used it under the city and it makes you feel you are in a big place to use it.

But, a mass transit metro system it is not.

Awayo strikes again.

Then why was there a need for a Liverpool tram network? (would it have been a waste of public money?)

Perhaps I'm missing something?

The tram scheme was somewhat jarg tbh. Obviously it was designed however to cover parts of the city not served by the superior Merseyrail. With no money to extend this superior service, inferior trams (good God, I'm turning MK John) were the only option.

If Manchester had been given money for the Picc-Vic line back in the day they'd also not settled for trams. Trams are a bit shit, but they're better than nothing.

So the general consensus is that 7 of the 10 boroughs of (Gtr) Manchester are........

The other 3 are still (perceived as) seperate........

City of Manchester.
Oldham.
Stockport.
Tameside.
Trafford.
Salford.
Bury.


Bolton.
Rochdale.
Wigan.

?

No, not really, still far to wedded to arbituary local authority boundaries.

Dunham Massey in Trafford is not going to be considered as Manchester yet Middleton in Rochdale will be by many.

You need to forget local authorities - they really mean very little.

Awayo strikes again.

Then why was there a need for a Liverpool tram network? (would it have been a waste of public money?)

Perhaps I'm missing something?

Martin S is probably the guy to ask that, but I'd say..


More convenient to get around an expanding city centre.
To connect areas with poor Merseyrail coverage.

The tram scheme was somewhat jarg tbh. Obviously it was designed however to cover parts of the city not served by the superior Merseyrail. With no money to extend this superior service, inferior trams (good God, I'm turning MK John) were the only option.

If Manchester had been given money for the Picc-Vic line back in the day they'd also not settled for trams. Trams are a bit shit, but they're better than nothing.



Ding Ding!

The tram scheme was somewhat jarg tbh. Obviously it was designed however to cover parts of the city not served by the superior Merseyrail. With no money to extend this superior service, inferior trams (good God, I'm turning MK John) were the only option.

If Manchester had been given money for the Picc-Vic line back in the day they'd also not settled for trams. Trams are a bit shit, but they're better than nothing.

I'm not getting into a discussion about which is better from the passengers point of view but Metrolink is always going to be in a position to expand given the operating profit it makes compared to the £100m / year subsidy that Merseyrail requires to operate.

Going forward, Metrolink will continue to carry a higher and high number of people and transport them around the county. Merseyrail really is stuck as no one is willing to make an already loss making system even more of a black hole for finances.

Trams may be a bit shit - but a hell of a lot more people will use them than Merseyrail.

Ding Ding!

Yep. The inner loop I'd have had, plus something like the proposed Line 3 however.

Awayo - you are humerous.

Probably the largest investment scheme in the country outside of London happens to be going on in Manchester.

you really will have convienced yourself it is shit and Liverpool has better.

That is just about how blinkered you are.

Funnily enough, those on the international forums, the ones without the chips on shoulders, don't share your views on the matter :lol: You no doubt think they are all wrong.

Better than nothing, yes. As I said. I'm a fair and reasonable man. They aren't half slow though. Except where they are actually trains, like on the way to Bury. Seem slower their though as well than similar services. Do lighter trainsets have to travel more slowly for safety reasons? Dunno. But yes a bit shit.

The tram scheme was somewhat jarg tbh. Obviously it was designed however to cover parts of the city not served by the superior Merseyrail. With no money to extend this superior service, inferior trams (good God, I'm turning MK John) were the only option.

If Manchester had been given money for the Picc-Vic line back in the day they'd also not settled for trams. Trams are a bit shit, but they're better than nothing.

As Yosh said.

Ding Dong.

http://i44.************/2ebzb02.jpg

Add the Northern Rail hub, the Metrolink extension and an intergrated city wide public transport network(real time, oyster card, etc) and it's obvious how far things have come. It's just that some people don't know about it. Hmmm

When trams are intergrated into a transport network, they're not shit. Not shit.

PS. Tall hotel building on the right? Anyone.

Better than nothing, yes. As I said. I'm a fair and reasonable man. They aren't half slow though. Except where they are actually trains, like on the way to Bury. Seem slower their though as well than similar services. Do lighter trainsets have to travel more slowly for safety reasons? Dunno. But yes a bit shit.


Why do so many people use them then? Compared to the far superior Merseyrail?

add HS2 :lol:

For some reason the consultants are not linking to Liverpool.

Wonder why Awayo thinks that is :lol:

If you're figures are correct, it depends on where they are and where they wish to go to. Including hoppy journeys in Manchester city centre I'd imagine. They'd use a better system for the same journeys if one were there however.

Right, so Metrolink is more flexible, allow more journeys that people want to make - like hjopping around the city centre - and is profitable to allow for expansion.

Yet the far superior Merseyrail that is no good for hopping around te city centre and will never be expanded is better :lol:

The figures post Phase 3 will not even be in the same league. Metrolink will carry orders of magnitude more than Merseyrail will :lol:

I thought trains from Liverpool would link onto the HS2 line? Is that not the case now?

Better than nothing, yes. As I said. I'm a fair and reasonable man. They aren't half slow though. Except where they are actually trains, like on the way to Bury. Seem slower their though as well than similar services. Do lighter trainsets have to travel more slowly for safety reasons? Dunno. But yes a bit shit.

TBF to you Away I don't consider light rail/trams to be shit or slow. Rather be sat/stood on a tram moving continuously instead of being in a car or bus stopping and starting all the time.

If the tram arrives 10 minutes behind a train, that's hardly an inconvenience.

What's the rush?

I thought trains from Liverpool would link onto the HS2 line? Is that not the case now?

They do at Stafford.

HS2 will continue to Manchester airport and city centre - direct - no legacy track.

Wonder why ALL the consultants reports came up with this conclusion?

Because it is replacing bus journeys? Hardly a boast.

And yes, HS2 if built will be done so in a way that gives tax-funded benefits to Manchester. That is what the British state does and has done for decades. Manchester is London's pet city. Its job is to be given just enough favours to justify other places being sidelined while remaining shit enough to never provide any kind of competition to London. Another shit town would do. The very similar Leeds provides a not dissimilar service to London also. HS2 is going there as well.

If you're figures are correct, it depends on where they are and where they wish to go to. Including hoppy journeys in Manchester city centre I'd imagine. They'd use a better system for the same journeys if one were there however.

Train.
Metrolink.
Bus.

All accessible across the city. Hop on, hop off, all on one card. It's not here yet, but it's coming.

How can public transport be any easier?

TBF to you Away I don't consider light rail/trams to be shit or slow. Rather be sat/stood on a tram moving continuously instead of being in a car or bus stopping and starting all the time.

If the tram arrives 10 minutes behind a train, that's hardly an inconvenience.

What's the rush?

it takes a Metrolink tram about 29mins to get from Alty to Picc - they run every 6mins.

It takes a bus 62mins.

Merseyrail runs every 15mins - on average you wait for 4.5mins LONGER for a Merseyrail train. The stops are much further apart - you have to travel further to board the train then further (on average) at the other end to reach your destination.

Far superior :lol:

I'm not getting into a discussion about which is better from the passengers point of view but Metrolink is always going to be in a position to expand given the operating profit it makes compared to the £100m / year subsidy that Merseyrail requires to operate.

Going forward, Metrolink will continue to carry a higher and high number of people and transport them around the county. Merseyrail really is stuck as no one is willing to make an already loss making system even more of a black hole for finances.

Trams may be a bit shit - but a hell of a lot more people will use them than Merseyrail.

Right, so Metrolink is more flexible, allow more journeys that people want to make - like hjopping around the city centre - and is profitable to allow for expansion.

Yet the far superior Merseyrail that is no good for hopping around te city centre and will never be expanded is better :lol:

The figures post Phase 3 will not even be in the same league. Metrolink will carry orders of magnitude more than Merseyrail will :lol:



Metrolink is mostly in noddyland, it doesn't have to bridge a major shipping artery.

Because it is replacing bus journeys? Hardly a boast.

And yes, HS2 if built will be done so in a way that gives tax-funded benefits to Manchester. That is what the British state does and has done for decades. Manchester is London's pet city. Its job is to be given just enough favours to justify other places being sidelined while remaining shit enough to never provide any kind of competition to London. Another shit town would do. The very similar Leeds provides a not dissimilar service to London also. HS2 is going there as well.


How are those tax funded benfites any different to the tax benefits that merseyrail recives? The £100m / year subsidy that it recieves.

So why are Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Birmingham ALSO getting HS2 before Liverpool? Government also favour those locations or maybe, just maybe, all those consultants knew what they were talking about.


:lol:

They do at Stafford.

HS2 will continue to Manchester airport and city centre - direct - no legacy track.

Wonder why ALL the consultants reports came up with this conclusion?



So trains from Liverpool are not excluded from HS2 then.

Because it is replacing bus journeys? Hardly a boast.

And yes, HS2 if built will be done so in a way that gives tax-funded benefits to Manchester. That is what the British state does and has done for decades. Manchester is London's pet city. Its job is to be given just enough favours to justify other places being sidelined while remaining shit enough to never provide any kind of competition to London. Another shit town would do. The very similar Leeds provides a not dissimilar service to London also. HS2 is going there as well.

He's off again. Cue the tirade. Lost it. :lol:

No Awayo, it isn't replacing bus journeys. It's integrating with bus journeys.(no need to boast)

BTW. HS2. Does that include Birmingham and Leeds as well or is that soley aimed at Manchester? Feel free.

Metrolink is mostly in noddyland, it doesn't have to bridge a major shipping artery.


What, you mean it is best suited for it's flat environment and going underground would do nothing other than make it financially unviable to ever expand it?

Over 25% of Metrolink passengers came from car users - very high for any public transport - higher than Merseyrail.

It would be cheaper to close down Merseyrail and get every passenger in a tax funded taxi - that is the level of state subsidy that Merseyside gets above and beyond everywhere else - yet Awayo ignores this.

If Metrolink had never happened Salford Quays would never have happened - it is great for regeneration. I cannot think of anywhere on Merseyrail that has benefited through similar regeneration.

So not only does Metrolink get more people out of their care and stimulate the local economy but it also operates at a profit enabling it's future expansion.

Unlike Merseyrail which is totally dependant upon state funding.

Metrolink is mostly in noddyland, it doesn't have to bridge a major shipping artery.

Yosh, your the last bastion of hope. It's been a bad couple of days for certain Liverpool forum members. Keep it together and don't lose it fella. You know your my fav.