I hope this sort of cynicism doesn't hurt the case though Zim. Which is why I tweaked my previous post, see above.

normally I am not a fan of cynicism, it's easy to criticise and harder to do etc. However in the case of Alistair Darling and his decisions of the last 16 months, I would say your approach is more realist then cynic.

As long as realism doesn't turn into defeatism and we keep the anger levels up and the pressure on the government, so that they will get sick of hearing about Manchester moaning about it's lack of Light Rail development that in order to shut everyone up, they will give the go ahead to build, then that is fine.

:)

The expansion of Picc is talked about as key to the northern way. I would like to see these lines opened even if they just run through to Oxford Rd. We need the capacity but no one is willing to pay for it. Bit pointless having the northern way strategy if no one will put in the money to make the changes it recommends.

Manchester's 6th city centre railway station :D

does that include Salford Central accy?

Yep, its adjacent to Spinningfields so I'd say thats central enough :)

Thanks andy.

But don't the faster trains run slower anyhow?

I just get the same old same old impression that London gets its stuff, but everywhere else just gets empty fob-off promises that never materialise.
Its not the trains, its the track.

The Eurostar trains are design to run flat staight track. If you have ever been on the Eurostar from London to the English terminal your see that it doesnt go very fast untill it reaches the new line. Without building a new straight line to Manchester, its pointless to run the trains. The new Pendolino's are designed to run on curved track so they can run faster.

But don't the faster trains run slower anyhow?




Not sure what you mean there Farsight, but the Pendolinos have a "top speed" of 140 miles per hour. However they can only run on West Coast Mainline (WCML) at a maximum of 125. The reasons for this are a bit complicated, but in essence this is because the railway and safety authorities between them have decided that you can't run a train over 125 mph without in-cab signalling. This is because it is thought that drivers cannot reliably assess lighted trackside signals at speeds greater than this.

So, for the Pendolinos to run at 140 mph (only on fairly straight bits of track!)they'd have to install a completely different signalling system on WCML (like the one used in France, and on the CTRL with Eurostar trains). This was estimated to cost a few £billion (all the trains using WCML, including freight, would also have to be modified) and so for the extra 15 mph was judged not to be worth it.

The Eurostar trains in principle could run at 125 mph on WCML (with in-cab signalling, like on CTRL, they can run at 186 mph) but as they can't tilt they could only do this on the straight bits (as they do now on the ECML which is straighter). Overall on a given WCML route they'd therefore be slower than a Pendolino, as the Pendolino could take the curves faster, so they'd slow the Pendolino behind them down.

I think the French TGV's only have signals in the cab and signs on the trackside like roadsigns indicating speedlimits and approaching stations/junctions.
The cab signals just tell the driver the speed he needs to go and nothing else.

I think the French TGV's only have signals in the cab and signs on the trackside like roadsigns indicating speedlimits and approaching stations/junctions.
The cab signals just tell the driver the speed he needs to go and nothing else.

Spot on there Isaac.

Thanks for the info guys.

Do I understand it correctly? What I'm picking up here is that it's "not worth" having trains from eg Manchester to Paris because they won't spend money on the track. And Eurotunnel rail ends up being for the convenience of Londoners only.

When St Pancras is open trains from Manchester will connect with Eurostar Trains with a cross platform interchange. Just like Trains from Germany and Holland do at Bruxelles.

Londoners don't really benefit from the Eurostar because our families and friends live in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland not in Paris.

I last used it in 2002 so it doesn't feature greatly in my travel plans.

I was just reading up on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Billions of government-backed investment to shave 20 minutes off journey times for Londoners and give them more access points. And as far as I can see CTRL isn't connected to the rest of the railway network. You'd have to get off at Euston or Kings Cross and lug your luggage to St Pancras.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/chunnel/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,2763,1493487,00.html

You know, I just don't understand why upgrading the West Coast Main Line is as expensive as they say. Or do they just inflate the figures then say it's too expensive as an excuse to spend the money on London?

The more I find out about transport the more cynical I feel.

Here's another snippet. Hmm. Sorry, it's a bit off topic I guess.

http://www.ctrl.co.uk/introduction/benefits.asp?L=2&SL=6

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link is not just for London and the south east. A connection to the West Coast Main Line will be built near St Pancras so that it will be possible to run Regional Eurostar trains directly to and from the West Midlands and the North West*. From St Pancras, Regional Eurostars can reach the East Coast Main Line to serve Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland*. Not just for London? Hurrah! Ah. Wait a minute. Here comes the but.

*As part of the revised arrangements for constructing the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. London & Continental Railways is reviewing the operation of Regional Eurostar services over the West and East Coast Main Lines, and no date has been set for the introduction of these services. Is that how it works? A never never promise of jam tomorrow to keep people sweet while all the money gets spent on London?

Londoners don't really benefit from the Eurostar.

Oh Isaac. The people who don't benefit are the ones who don't live in London. You know. The jam tomorrow never-never mugs.

Nobody would use it.

I was reading that the bit about the freight trains. I can remember something and I am sure there there is still the plan for a new freight line up Bimingham, Manchester ,Liverpool etc. It was going to be designed to take trucks off the motorways and was going to take them to Europe. I was thinking if the Channel tunnel can run freight trains and Eurostar, why cant the freight line do the same(if they ever build it).

I think they run freight at night on the Shinkansen lines in Japan. (or they don't, it may have been an idea the newly privatised JR were floating a few years back)

You know, I just don't understand why upgrading the West Coast Main Line is as expensive as they say. Or do they just inflate the figures then say it's too expensive as an excuse to spend the money on London?

The more I find out about transport the more cynical I feel.

It does provoke cynicism I agree.

Some reasons why WCML Upgrade is more expensive (£7.6bn compared with CTRL new-build (£5.2bn).....

Far more track km on WCML. A good chunk of it is 4-track compared with 2-track on CTRL. CTRL is around 110 km long, WCML is around 650 km (London Glasgow) plus offshoots to Liverpool, Manchester etc.

Limited access. A lot of money is wasted setting up works before, and removing them after, weekend possessions.

New technology. Pendolinos had to be tested on existing infrastructure. CTRL uses "conventional" trains and signalling and effectively copies what's done in France.

Complexity. WCML interacts with other parts of the railway system, necessitating junction remodelling and/or resignalling (e.g. Rugby, Nuneaton, Crewe, Birmingham NS, Stockport). CTRL is basically isolated from the rest of the railways until it crosses the ECML.

On the other hand a good chunk of CTRL is in tunnels which IS more expensive, plus land costs.

I was reading that the bit about the freight trains. I can remember something and I am sure there there is still the plan for a new freight line up Bimingham, Manchester ,Liverpool etc. It was going to be designed to take trucks off the motorways and was going to take them to Europe. I was thinking if the Channel tunnel can run freight trains and Eurostar, why cant the freight line do the same(if they ever build it).


You might be thinking of the "Great Central Railway" proposed a couple of years back. In principle a great idea, but the planning implications would be horrendous (all those nimbies objecting to freight trains running all night at the bottom of their gardens), the costs high, and the people behind the project are, I think it's safe to say, amateurish and unconvincing. Don't think it'll happen.

I was reading that the bit about the freight trains. I can remember something and I am sure there there is still the plan for a new freight line up Bimingham, Manchester ,Liverpool etc. It was going to be designed to take trucks off the motorways and was going to take them to Europe. I was thinking if the Channel tunnel can run freight trains and Eurostar, why cant the freight line do the same(if they ever build it).

Although the tunnel takes freight trains, Eurostar and shuttle trains, they all go through at about 60 mph. Only the Eurostars use the high speed rail links.

Although the tunnel takes freight trains, Eurostar and shuttle trains, they all go through at about 60 mph. Only the Eurostars use the high speed rail links.
What I ment was a new the highspeed rail link up from Manchester down to the tunnel could run Eurostars during morning and after noon and all other time could be freight trains.

Also that Great Central Railway has always been on the drawing board heres a news article from last month.
Central Railway resurrects 10 bln stg freight rail plan
10.24.2005, 03:33 AM

LONDON (AFX) - Central Railway PLC plans to resurrect a 10 bln stg scheme to build a freight railway between northern England and France, a report said.

Directors of the company are seeking corporate and financial supporters for the rail route between Liverpool and Lille, which the Government rejected last year due to financial concerns, according to the Financial Times.

Construction and logistics companies and shipping lines are believed to be among the potential backers being approached by Central.

Much of the new railway would use the trackbed of the former Great Central Railway from London to the English Midlands.

It would have tunnels and bridges high and wide enough to carry far larger loads than are possible on the rest of the British rail network.

The government said it was not convinced by Central's pledge that it would fund the scheme entirely from private sector finance, although today's report said documents seen recently show some ministers supported it.
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/10/24/afx2293263.html

The CTRL is IMO the best high speed rail link that could have been built.
It is fairly short and links are biggest city to the high speed lines of Europe. When high speed commuter trains run into Kent along it, it will allow people in the country to see the investment is worth while and path the way for similiar lines elsewhere. If it hadn't been built it would be 20/30 years before we see any other high speed line buit in the country, it would proabably take 10 years to decide the first city out of London it would go to, then another 10 years of a public equirey, then another 6 or 7 years to build. It would span 4 -5 govenments and proably go completely over budget. The CTRL will create the knowledge needed in this country to build further lines. If it had not of connected with France I doubt the French would be so willing to share there expertise.

Do you think projects in the north of england suffeer at the expense of high infrastructure spending in the south? 55% of those polled said yes

Regional Transport Spending Per head 2004/5

London - close to £700
NorthWest - £300
(Treasury Figures)

Taken from NCE 10-11-05

What I ment was a new the highspeed rail link up from Manchester down to the tunnel could run Eurostars during morning and after noon and all other time could be freight trains.

Also that Great Central Railway has always been on the drawing board heres a news article from last month.

Who would use it though, who is a regular traveller between Manchester and Paris. There are no real economic links between the two cities. Get on a London Paris Eurostar and see for yourself, they run half empty.

Who says you have to go to Paris on it. If it stops at London, every train down to london would be full as it would be quicker route down to London.

I shall refer you to my original statement in this thread.

nobody would use it, quicker and cheaper to fly. However that line should be connecting London with the rest of the country not London and north west Europe

Fair doos

I shall refer you to my original statement in this thread.

without wishing to sound pompous

Who would use it though, who is a regular traveller between Manchester and Paris. There are no real economic links between the two cities. Get on a London Paris Eurostar and see for yourself, they run half empty. It's not just Manchester and it's not just Paris. It's Bristol and Cardiff and Birmingham and Leeds and Liverpool and Newcastle and Glasgow and Edinburgh and all the various places around. And it's Lille and Bruxelles and... the rest of Europe beyond. The fact that London alone gets trains to Europe from Waterloo, and then gets CTRL, which isn't even linked to anywhere else in the UK, makes me very cynical indeed. And it's just not fair.

Like the shilly shallying ducking and diving on MetroLink while London gets £15b. It's just not fair.

What 15bn ?, my local tube line stopped running for a week because the brakes didn't work.

the £10- £15bn London is getting for the Cross Rail link East to West...1 line.

the £10- £15bn London is getting for the Cross Rail link East to West...1 line.

From where and when. I have seen nothing written that says this money will be forethcoming.

No, but the feeling is that a big chunk wil be forthcoming because Darling is cutting back spending in other places.

http://www.urbantools.net/london.htm

Because crossrail is a "national" project, not just for London. Jeez.

http://www.buildingtalk.com/news/tch/tch250.html

No money yet = no crossrail.

Yeah but for other places it's no money never, because the projected costs have increased since 2002. Not so with crossrail. No, it's twenty times as big so it becomes a "national" scheme instead. Despite the fact that Londoners themselves don't even want to chip in for it... because they reckon it's just for West London rich boys who don't want to sit on some smelly Jubilee Line Extension to Docklands.

Yeah but for other places it's no money never, because the projected costs have increased since 2002. Not so with crossrail. No, it's twenty times as big so it becomes a "national" scheme instead. Despite the fact that Londoners themselves don't even want to chip in for it... because they reckon it's just for West London rich boys who don't want to sit on some smelly Jubilee Line Extension to Docklands.

I still haven't seen any money promised for it yet.

Major problems on the Alty / Eccles line this evening.

Buses seemed to have reached gridlock in Piccadilly Gardens, which in turn meant buses all down Mosely Street backed up, I counted 8 trams in the jam - not moving.

Announcements on all platforms, apologising for the situation, making it quite clear the problem was caused by the buses.

A bus on portland st was in the middle of a junction and the police were managing the traffic. It caused buses to block back down portland into the terminus at picc and in turn back down mosley st.
Shows the limited spare capacity at picc.
Its time inbound buses used portland and mosley was pedestrianised shared with trams with the roads just going across it.

Just to re-iterate the points about the buses.

Had a shitty time at Piccadilly on Friday. 5.30pm. Trying to get a bus home. There were maybe 35 buses in total gridlock around the bus station. Many of these filthy, outdated, polluting beasts, all with their engines going. Every time the lights changed every few minutes about 4 buses managed to get out, and 4 into the bus station. There were huge crowds of people waiting for buses.

Now, 8/10 of these buses will end up going down Portland Street, turn left down Princess Street, down Whitworth Street and onto Oxford Road. This jam usually consumes all of Portland Street, and Oxford/Wilmslow Road down past the MRI. It's the same every rush hour.

Now of course every city has it's jams, but this is just stupid. We have 100s of cramped, smelly, expensive buses pumping out shite while moving incredibly slowing around town at that time. We could try some new traffic management scheme but that would require a much bigger bus station at the Gardens which probably won't happen, why not just build *something* down Oxford Road, with additional stops on Portland Street and at the Gardens. We need it. It'd be so much faster, efficient, cleaner. One big tram/train could carry as many people as 10 buses.

Underground, overground, on the street, whatever it is, sort that fucking mess out.

To re-re-iterate, piccadilly is way over capacity for buses. Either there needs to be a huge new bus terminus(no space for that) or the Metrolink needs to be extended down Oxford Road!

I'm sick of having to get shitty buses that date from 1982. They leak, they stink, they're filthy, they have legroom a midget would complain about and in the rush hour you might as well walk because the traffic they help create is so thick.

At Piccadilly I've had to wait 10 minutes to get out because a bus started letting people on even though it was in the middle of the road. The queue snaked around to the other side of the station and buses couldn't get in off Portland St, causing huge jams down there. Mess.

I think it's only a matter of time before there's a serious bus accident. There are some harrowing corners that large numbers of buses have to take, Portland Street onto Princess St, Princess St onto Whitworth St, and Oxford St into St Peters Square being my most stomach churning, considering how maniacal some of the drivers are. On these corners there is a couple of feet of clearance from arrays of lamposts and other poles, they pratically scrape over the pavement! Imagine a bus turning around a corner a second late, wiping out 5 people waiting at the lights, and coming to a halt with the help of a post/wall. A bus completely packed full. I've been on ones where the driver is so away in his own world he keeps letting people on even though the stairs are the only avalible place to stand. In a nutshell, Manchester city centre is massively overrun with buses. Piccadilly being the centre of this. They aren't viable anymore. They're shit.

Get the metrolink line down Oxford Road/Upper Brook Street all the way down to Withy. Give students discount tickets. Donate the buses back to Kenya.

I've noticed that the bus drivers at Piccadilly often get impatient with each other too which doesnt help the situation... never mind completely ignoring the pedestrian crossings.

Portland St onto Princess st is mad and to think, someone actually put that in as some sort of impovement. I think its designed to slow the buses down but frrankly its dangerous.
The buses from south manchester need to have some changes to their route and infrastructure.
They need:

Into town turn right onto Portland st and then down to the bus terminus.
Close Mosley to all but peds and trams where possible
Install another tram stop on the current one way one on mosley st
Remove the access point to the bus terminus from mosley st making it easy for buses to circulate the terminus, safer for pedestrains and an increased area of paving making the area feel bigger.

Out of town:
Make the nearside lane on witworth st a bus/taxi lane and continue this until the first traffic lights past the hotel thus making buses more effiicient.

From metrolink.co.uk - the problems experienced on Thursday morning...

10/11/2005 - Statement

A spokesperson for Serco Metrolink said, “At approximately 8.00am this morning a tram travelling towards Altrincham was subject to an act of vandalism shortly after leaving G-Mex Metrolink stop. The damage that the tram sustained brought it to a halt just after leaving the stop. This resulted in significant disruption to services between Altrincham and City Centre and Eccles and City Centre. A replacement bus service was put into place, however there were still significant delays to passengers during the morning peak.

At around 9.15am recovery of the service began and the seriously damaged tram was moved to Cornbrook sidings to carryout a full inspection of the tram before moving it safely back to Queens Road depot.

This is a very serious criminal act of vandalism that could have put the safety of passengers and staff at risk. This incident has been reported to the Police and we will be working closely with them to assist in their investigations.”

For further press information please contact:

Email: chubbard@metrolink.co.uk

The word on the commuter grapevine this morning is that a group of Buses RAMMED a tram. Seriously I think this actually happened.

I'm with Caw, and It's been said so many times before.

REPLACE THE OXFORD ROAD BUSES WITH A TRAM LINE!! It will solved sooo many problems. It makes more sense to me than ripping out the trainline to Rochdale/Oldham and putting Metrolink in it's place.

The word on the commuter grapevine this morning is that a group of Buses RAMMED a tram. Seriously I think this actually happened.

I'm with Caw, and It's been said so many times before.

REPLACE THE OXFORD ROAD BUSES WITH A TRAM LINE!! It will solved sooo many problems. It makes more sense to me than ripping out the trainline to Rochdale/Oldham and putting Metrolink in it's place.

Do you live in South Manchester per chance.

As a matter of fact I don't.

I've lived all over the citry, including Oldham. Anyone who's ever witnessed the sheer number of Buses along Oxford Road at anytime of the day or night could see the cause for getting them off the road and putting trams in their place, the other argument is that the buses causing all the problems for trams on Mosely Street are mostly those same buses on the 'student corridor'.

Why don't they just send the buses down other streets. Must they all use Oxford Road/Moseley Street.

There isn't any other way into Piccadilly Gardens from Oxford Road without going a long way around, and the sheer number of buses wouldn't make much difference as there are just so so many of them, it's the busiest bus route in Europe apparently.

Stick a bus lane on Portland Street against the one way system. These buses show how small the city centre is as the more I think about it there aren't many streets to send the buses down.

There is a real issue, I think perhaps 3 or maybe 4 bus stations should be built on the outskirts of the centre, so the majority of buses don't need to enter the heart of the city centre. These bus stations could be linked by a number of free buses (new, low pollution) then maybe even a tram loop in the future. At that point when there is a viable alterantive a possible congestion charge can be inposed thus funding the free buses or tram loop.

this is for kurt / trammy etc, figures in 82' had these tunnel options at £110 million as opposed to £85million for the surface route. They should have bitten the bullet. Whats £20 million??
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y88/jcg/lrt.jpg

Metrolink Knackered Again. Something happens at least once week, they only let you know just after you've bought a ticket. Then theres a rush to the paper shop to get some change for the bus.

17/11/2005 - Service Disruption

Due to an power supply fault at Exchange Quay the Eccles line has been suspended from Piccadilly to Salford Quays. A replacement bus service is now in operation between Broadway & Trafford Bar to provide through services on the Eccles line.

Engineering staff are on site and we are currently conducting repairs. Metrolink would like to apologise for any delay caused to your journey and would like reassure all customers we are doing everything we can to ensure a timely resumption of services on the Eccles line.

Had route B been chosen I wonder what damage the 96 bomb would have caused to the metrolink. Could have been far worse then it was.

New trams but Metrolink delays until 2008

STILL PACKING THEM IN: New trams will not relieve the overscrowded system until 2008

EIGHT new trams will help alleviate overcrowding problems - but squashed passengers will have to wait until 2008 for them all to be in service.

The network has been overwhelmed in recent weeks after four incidents on the lines, including one in which a tram was derailed by a lorry and had to be taken out of service.

Morning commuters have endured half-hour waits before they can get on the crowded trams.

The new trams, which will add 25 per cent more capacity to the current 32-strong fleet, are part of a £102m package that also includes track renewal and improvements to stops and ticket machines.

A shortlist of bidders to supply the new trams will be announced shortly.

Commuter Martin Mosley, who uses the Brooklands stop, said: "The frequency of the trams is a major source of anger for all Metrolink users.

"The real problem is the inability of the service to cope with the number of passengers wishing to use it. Brooklands is only the third stop on the Altrincham-Manchester line, yet each tram that arrives between 8am-9am is already dangerously overcrowded.

"It is usual for two or three trams to pass by with only a couple of people getting on before I can fight my way onto a carriage, and this all happens before hundreds more try in vain to board at Sale, Dane Road, Stretford, Old Trafford and Trafford Bar.

"Some passengers at Brooklands who want to go into Manchester now catch the tram towards Altrincham and change at Timperley so they can get on."

Similar problems have been experienced on the Eccles and Bury lines.

Cheryl Hubbard, spokeswoman for Serco Metrolink, said: "There were a series of road traffic accidents within a short space of time and they have caused the delays customers were experiencing.

"They were quite serious. There was an attempted suicide at Crumpsall and a tram was completely derailed by a lorry in the city centre. This tram was damaged by the impact and will be out of action for three to four weeks. We don't have the extra capacity to cope with four accidents like this and that explains the delays.

"The system is a victim of its own success really, everybody wants to use it. You look at Chester Road, Bury New Road and even Bury Old Road and it's bumper to bumper. It takes about 50 minutes to get into Manchester but it's a 20-minute journey on the Metrolink system."

Keith Howcroft, GMPTE's strategy director, said: "Earlier this year, the government agreed a £102m funding package for new trams, ticket machine, stop improvements and track renewal.

"£44m of the £102m investment will come from the Greater Manchester Transport Authority with the rest being funded from the £520m announced by the Secretary of State for Transport in December 2004.

"The bidding process to appoint contractors to carry out the work is well underway and a shortlist of bidders to supply the eight new trams will be announced shortly.

"We hope to appoint a successful bidder by spring 2006 and it is anticipated that all of the improvements, including the new trams, will be in place by autumn 2008."Paul R Taylor

thats what you get for building a system on the cheap, if there is a problem there is no extra capacity. most london underground lines have arround 10 spare trains that are just sat there or under maintenance even at peak times (altho one reason for this being the signaling can only deal with a certain number of trains at a time)

Hardly cause for celebration (this should be a standard service not a special service), but late trams over the festive period...

Late-night trams for party season
Clarissa Satchell


A WELCOME present has been handed to late night revellers - Metrolink trams will run late on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve for the first time in over a decade.

A barrage of complaints greeted last year's decision by tram operator Serco Metrolink to stop running trams at 10pm on the two popular party nights.

Now the company has agreed to run until 12.30am on Christmas Day and New Year's Day and put on extra trams on Boxing Day to cater for sales shoppers and football fans.




Pleased

Coun Roger Jones,chairman of Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, welcomed the decision and said it could pave the way for later running times throughout the year.

He said: "This is good news for the travelling public.

"The authority is always keen to hear passengers' views and I am pleased we have been able to respond."

The latest trams have ever run on New Year's Eve was 2am in 1993, in a one-off sponsorship deal with Bass.

Since then, the latest service has been at 11.30pm on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.

On Boxing Day, trams will run from 9am-9pm on all three lines, with extra and double trams on the Bury and Altrincham line from 12 noon to 6pm for the Manchester United match.

For the two Bank Holidays, the same service as last year will apply, from 7am until 10.30pm.

Graham Stringer, MP for Blackley, has been campaigning for later trams and said he would now like to see the services running later throughout the year.

jcg - disagree wholeheartedly, think an underground would have been much less popular than the tram due to security worries (not terrorism but general crime) and much longer door to door time.

Think the only thing wrong with the city centre routing is the lack of priority at lights, sort that out and the service would be greatly improved - having said that, putting it underground, in my opinion, would have made it less attractive.

Also, you say 'only' £20m, well only £20m extra spent on phase 1 would have bought us about 46 trams instead of the 26 we have, that way, prices would be miles lower, and we'd be carrying between 30m and 40m passengers a year instead of the 20m we are now.

As far as I'm concerned, the extra £20m would have made a worse system, that fewer people would have used, that £20m (if it were ever to have existed) would have been MUCH better spent buying extra trams.

Metrolink, I didn't want to ask you on the Liverpool forum, I think it might be too painful for them, but re the Liverpool rails, is that for an upgrade of the existing system or for the Rochdale line.

By the way, any news when the Rochdale line will happen?

Upgrade of the Bury line, GMPTE seem very confident that the £102m will be forthcoming (we've heard that before elsewhere), and that the trams, eltricals, and track upgrade will be starting quite soon.

There is a mention of this up this page somewhere.

Last I heard (although quite some time ago now), we'll get info on the Rochdale line around xmas time.

Don't worry about not hearing anything - the DfT are scarred, they will stay very quite, and expect the GMPTE to stay very quiet, until it is virtually a done deal.

If we haven't heard anything come the end of Feb next year on the Rochdale line, it'll be time to start getting worried, but not before.

http://www.aidan.co.uk/lg/SalTraTramBrg5Y13.jpg

Metrolink, I didn't want to ask you on the Liverpool forum, I think it might be too painful for them, but re the Liverpool rails, is that for an upgrade of the existing system or for the Rochdale line.

By the way, any news when the Rochdale line will happen?
Oi you bastard...I heard that...those rails are ours, your'e not avin'em :)


Ps. went on the MetroLink in about 1994, my first visit to Manchester, loved it, that's why i want one for Liverpool.

Oi you bastard...I heard that...those rails are ours, your'e not avin'em :)


Ps. went on the MetroLink in about 1994, my first visit to Manchester, loved it, that's why i want one for Liverpool.

I'm sorry mate, I wish Liverpool was having them I really do. Alistair Darling has put this country back years and I'm convinced future generations will look back at him and think what a prick, what a missed oppertunity.

And just how much are we all shelling out for Crossrail again?

And just how much are we all shelling out for Crossrail again?

Billions... :bash:

A couple of very interesting excepts from the latest available council executive minutes.

First is the mention of the TiF as "a critical component of resources needed to deliver the [integrated transport] strategy and Metolink phase 3" and leading on from that is the following ominous sounding passage...

"This makes it clear that the key issue for Greater Manchester is to manage the demand for car travel and consequent congestion whilst facilitating economic growth.

The intention is to adopt an incremental approach to developing and implementing an appropriate demand management strategy, based on a tool kit of both hard and soft measures responding to different conditions within the conurbation"

... which sounds like an admission that some sort of congenstion charge will have to be considerd as part of the overall package perhaps or am I reading too much into things.



Exe/05/164 Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Strategy

In April 2005, AGMA and the GMPTA submitted to Government the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Strategy. Since then considerable progress has been made in driving forward the overall strategy and in particular the 5 year program put forward. Detailed segment and corridor plans are now being developed in partnership with key stakeholders and proactive demand and management measures are being investigated to bring about further modal shift.

A package of Greater Manchester wide integrating elements has been developed including better ticketing, smarter travel choices, strategic park and ride interchanges, intelligent transport systems and measures to promote walking and cycling and road safety. Constructive dialogue has been developed with DfT officials and proposals for a funding and procurement strategy for Metrolink Phase 3, linking to the corridor transport plans and local area agreement style outcomes based contracts, are well advanced. A detailed report on these issues will be brought back to the Executive later in the year.

The Transport Innovation Fund will be a critical component of the resources needed to deliver the strategy and Metrolink Phase 3 . This comes on stream from 2008/9 and is set to increase over time, reaching some 2.5 billion by 2014/15. A strategy for the full Greater Manchester TIF bid will be set out in a further report to the Executive later in the year but all local authorities have been invited to bid for development funding ,which is to be made available over the next 3 years to support planning for local demand management schemes. In order to meet the required deadlines a bid was submitted on 7th Oct 2005. This makes it clear that the key issue for Greater Manchester is to manage the demand for car travel and consequent congestion whilst facilitating economic growth.

The intention is to adopt an incremental approach to developing and implementing an appropriate demand management strategy, based on a tool kit of both hard and soft measures responding to different conditions within the conurbation. It focuses on a number of work streams, which are designed to support the corridor partnership process, to explore and evaluate the relationships between congestion and productivity within Greater Manchester and to identify the range of measures that could be used to respond to different conditions within the conurbation.

A key part of this approach will involve debate with the private sector on incentives to change behaviour and achieve significant modal shift on journeys to work.

Decision
1. To note progress on the major components of the GMITS and, in particular, that proposals for a funding and procurement strategy for Metrolink Phase 3, linking to corridor transport plans and Local Area Agreement style outcomes based contracts, are well advanced.

2. To note Greater Manchester's TIF Pump Priming bid.

3. To request that a further progress report be submitted after the DfT announcement on TIF Pump Priming bids, expected in November, and on current discussions with the DfT on transport issues generally.

(Councillor Judge declared a personal and prejudicial interest which was employment related and withdrew during consideration of this item)

Don't think so Sleepy. It definitely sounds like they're having their arms twisted to introduce congestion charging in return for MetroLink money. Talk about baby and bathwater. It's one thing for London to have congestion charging, they've got tubes all over the place, and billions coming though for the Olympics. For Manchester to suffer the same for the sake of a couple of tramlines is so wrong. This could kill the city.

Well, looks like congestion charging is on it's way to pay for Metrolink expansion, good news in my opinion...

Congestion charging is on it's way - good news in my opinion...

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/m...o_hit_city.html

ongestion charge trial to hit city
Ian Craig, Clarissa Satchell and David Ottewell.

JAMS: Morning hell on the M60.
JAMS: Morning hell on the M60.
DRIVERS could be forced to fork out £1 per mile as part of a congestion charging trial scheme in Greater Manchester which was announced.

Manchester will get £1.2m to draw up a plan to make motorists pay to drive along the most congested roads in the area, in a scheme which could cost some drivers up to £16,000 a year.

No timetable for the introduction of charging has been revealed, but transport bosses say the pilot will come within four years and it will be 2010 at the earliest before a full scheme is introduced.

Fonetastic

The scheme could include charges for traffic travelling on the M60 ring road.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling announced that Manchester was among seven areas to have successfully bid for funding to start the work into congestion charging schemes.

He made the announcement at the Confederation of British Industries annual conference where its director general Sir Digby Jones slammed the "decrepit" transport system.

Mr Darling said: "We need to pilot things like road pricing and seven councils - including those in Greater Manchester - will get extra cash to start the work. I want these councils to work up plans. Before we embark on such an alternative you need to pilot it in a fairly large area.

PROTEST: Not all welcomed the London charge.
PROTEST: Not all welcomed the London charge.
Gridlock

"Unless you look at that you would have huge problems - absolute gridlock in 20 or 30 years' time."

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities submitted the bid for the funding, which will come from the government's Transport Innovation Fund.

They are planning to submit a bid for more money to plug the funding gap for the Metrolink expansion, later in the year.

Mr Darling said he wanted the studies to explore the technical problems involved and whether charging motorists would influence their behaviour.

He said: "I am convinced that without more radical measures, including more effective demand management and actively managing traffic flows, road congestion will get worse.

"That is why I've been very clear about the need to look at road pricing and local and regional pilot schemes are essential if we are to explore and understand the possibilities of road pricing at national level."

The schemes will not only look at London-style zoning but also consider using satellite technology to bring in pay-as-you-go charging.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive has already commissioned a survey to map out the worst congestion hotspots in Greater Manchester, which could pave the way for future charging.

Workforces

Roger Jones, chairman of the passenger transport authority, said today: "We are not talking about congestion charging in the next five years, definitely not. But unless we can offset the amount congestion is predicted to rise by people switching to public transport, then I think it is the way we are going although I think it would be from 2010 at the earliest.

"We have to look ahead and many businesses are now saying that congestion is adversely affecting their workforces. This study will give us a chance to look at how congestion charging would work here. I would like to see us including the M60 ring road if we do go ahead with this."

However, the idea has already sparked opposition from Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which says congestion charging would unfairly target business.

The CBI says it has surveyed 1,000 firms which revealed `widespread dissatisfaction' with Britain's transport system.

Sarah Johnson, policy executive for transport at Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, welcomed the funding but added: "The devil will be in the detail.

"Our members recognise that congestion is becoming a growing problem.

"Our plea would be that any scheme does not just focus on commuters and business users because, while they are part of the problem, they are not the whole problem."

Press release from DfT...

alerts@gnn-nds.co.uk <alerts@gnn-nds.co.uk> 28 November 2005 11:55
To: kurtlstephens@gmail.com

Click here to view the page and associated media
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?ReleaseID=179352&NewsAreaID=2&HUserID=878,779,885,855,782,871,881,845,765,674,677,767,684,762,718,674,708,683,706,718,674
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



28/11/2005 11:19

Department for Transport (National)


TACKLING CONGESTION - NEXT STEPS




Local authorities in seven areas across the country will share over £7 million to explore innovative ways to tackle local congestion as a further step towards longer term national decisions on road pricing, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said today.




Local authorities in seven areas across the country will share over £7 million to explore innovative ways to tackle local congestion as a further step towards longer term national decisions on road pricing, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said today.

The authorities successfully bid for money from an £18m fund set up to support the development of transport schemes that feature demand management as part of efforts to tackle local congestion and public transport.

Last year, the Government's road pricing feasibility study recommended that local or regional schemes should be piloted to test approaches as road pricing is further developed. This investment is part of the Government's work to take forward local and regional schemes that explore the potential for a national road pricing scheme.

The seven areas are:

* Bristol City Council, Bath and North East Council, North Somerset Council and South Gloucestershire Council

* Cambridgeshire

* Durham County Council (for Durham City)

* Greater Manchester

* Shropshire County Council (for Shrewsbury)

* Tyne and Wear

* West Midlands conurbation

The authorities will now assess the feasibility of schemes combining demand management, such as road pricing, with better public transport, in order to tackle congestion and improve local travelling conditions. All the successful bids include some work on assessing road pricing options. Speaking at the CBI Conference today Alistair Darling, Transport Secretary said:

"One of the biggest threats to economic expansion we face in the next 10 - 15 years is congestion on the roads in our towns and cities. Congestion is bad for business, frustrates motorists and hurts local economies.

"Continued investment is essential - and by 2007 transport spending after inflation will be 60% higher than in 1997.

"But I'm convinced that without more radical measures, including more effective demand management, and actively managing traffic flows, road congestion will get worse. That is why I've been very clear about the need to look at road pricing.

"Local and regional pilots are essential if we are to explore and understand the possibilities of road pricing at national level. "It's good to see local authorities across the country recognising that congestion is an urgent problem and that planning to avoid future problems needs to start now.

"We are looking forward to working with these authorities to develop practical solutions to congestion problems, and support the development of a national road pricing scheme."

The Government will be working closely with these authorities on this developmental work. Also today, the Government has invited the seven successful authorities, along with TfL and Cardiff, to join a new Road Pricing Local Liaison Group. This group will be responsible for developing a consistent approach to road pricing - looking at technical standards, design and scheme appraisal.

Notes To Editors

1. In July 2005 Alistair Darling announced £18m was available to support preliminary scheme development by transport authorities between 2005/6 and 2007/8. The funding will be made available over the next three years, to support planning for local demand management schemes where pricing is a major element.

2. TIF Pump Priming Funding

Authority/Funding Total (£K)
West Midlands 2600
Greater Manchester 1250
Tyne & Wear 950
Cambridgeshire 385
Bristol 1495
Durham 300
Shropshire 480
Total 7460





3. The Department will have another bidding round for the remianing pump-priming funding in 2006.

4. The schemes could then be funded from the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF), subject to a further bidding process. Within the Fund up to £200m a year is ultimately available to support such local pilots. If more good schemes emerge, more can be made available.

5. The Transport Innovation Fund, makes £290m available in 2008 - 09 and is set to increase over time reaching some £2.5bn by 2014/15. The Fund offers substantial, long term investment and will support smarter and better management of the capacity we have.

6. The pump priming money is no guarantee that an authority will be successful in bidding for the main Transport Innovation Fund. The Government is committed to working closely with the successful authorities to deliver the work programmes set out in their pump priming bids, to support future decisions both on the main TIF fund and on road pricing more broadly.

Public Enquiries: 020 7944 8300
Department for Transport Website: http://www.dft.gov.uk

Client ref 125

GNN ref 125151P

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other information
Alistair Darling
TACKLING CONGESTION - NEXT STEPS




© Crown Copyright 2005

I don’t feel there should be a congestion charge before there is integration between train, trams and buses. If a congestion charge frees up the streets, private sector buses can compete and undercut trams on shorter routes. I get the tram currently from Eccles, but if Regent Road wasn’t so busy I would get the bus into Manchester over the tram. In recent times the bus is much quicker anyway. If you have buses and trams competing on the same routes, the benefits of the congestion charge is working itself into private bus firms.

Not many buses go down ENR now anyway. Totally different to when I was a kid, you could almost get a bus to anywhere from the Old Weaste Bus Depot, which madly enough was built as a tram depot in the first place.

a scheme which could cost some drivers up to £16,000 a year... The scheme could include charges for traffic travelling on the M60 ring road... Economic suicide. This will kill Manchester's revival stone dead. Which, I expect, is the plan.

No way will it cost anyone near to £16k a year - sensationalised jounralism at it's worse - the most London can cost you is £2k a year, and we'll be much less than that.

Everyone will be getting this eventually, we are just the pilot, surely this will give us the oppurtunity to get ahead of the rest by getting those public transport improvements that we desperately needs.

Farsight - you are far to paranoid - I take it you don't know many people that take decisions like this - I do, I know several people who will have been involved in this decision, and I can tell you, they will have thought very long and very hard about what is best of Manchester.

The only way that national road picing could cost £16,000 is if you had a large lorry that you drove hundreds of miles up and down the country's motorway network all day every day. There's no way that a simple Manchester wide scheme would cost anything like this.

Taken from...

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1652639,00.html

Congestion scheme may be extended

Hilary Osborne and agencies
Monday November 28, 2005

Motorists in more areas in the UK could face congestion charges under a pilot scheme announced today.

Speaking at a conference of business leaders, the secretary of state for transport, Alistair Darling said "radical measures" were needed to tackle congestion and he added that he supported the development of a national road pricing scheme.

"One of the biggest threats to economic expansion we face in the next 10 to 15 years is congestion on the roads in our towns and cities," Mr Darling told delegates. "Congestion is bad for business, frustrates motorists and hurts local economies."

Article continues
"I'm convinced that without more radical measures, including more effective demand management, and actively managing traffic flows, road congestion will get worse," he said, adding that this was why he had been very clear about the need to look at road pricing.

Local authorities in seven areas are to share £7m to explore new ways to tackle road congestion, which could include the introduction of a congestion charge similar to that in operation in London.

The authorities, which include those in Greater Manchester, Bristol and the West Midlands, will assess the feasibility of combining better public transport with new systems to charge drivers for road use.

Mr Darling also responded to calls for a massive increase in spending on transport.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) called on the government to commit an extra £1bn over the next two years on road and rail projects, after its research showed that delays and other problems were hitting productivity and causing stress among workers.

And it said total spending by private firms and the government should be lifted by £60bn over the next 10 years to £300bn.

A survey of more 1,000 firms and individual workers for the CBI showed "widespread dissatisfaction" with the nation's infrastructure.

Half of those polled believed the UK's reputation as a place to do business was being significantly harmed by transport problems.

Two-thirds of firms expected the transport system to get worse in the next five years, and half said transport problems were having a substantial impact on their profits.

Two out of five said staff were often late for work and arrived stressed because of delays.

And the overall cost to business of transport-created problems was put at 5% of turnover.

"Although transport spending has risen in recent years, there are decades of under-investment to deal with and it is clear that business still finds it far too difficult to get its goods to market and its people to work," said Sir Digby Jones, the CBI's director general.

"The government must ensure more is done now to improve the transport network if its business-friendly credentials are to have any credibility.

"The government must not bury its head in the sand. We have to do something about it, and quickly."

Mr Darling acknowledged that good transport was vital to business and essential to underpinning a successful economy, and that "continuous investment is therefore essential".

He said spending on transport was set to increase from £10.4bn this year to £12.8bn in 2007, when transport spending after inflation will be over 60% higher than in 1997.

As Darling said, combining better public transport , I read this as Darling saying that he'll ensure we get our proposed improved tram / bus lanes (Leigh) that we have been in discussions with the DfT for ages.

I honestly think being in the pilot stage will ensure we get better treatment than any of the other later stage cities.

DRIVERS could be forced to fork out £1 per mile as part of a congestion charging trial scheme in Greater Manchester. Call me paranoid, but discarding the bits you don't like as sensational journalism is rose-tinted optimism. This is throwing the baby out with the bath-water. The Manchester economy has been doing well for a while, so the tax-raising wheeze is to unfairly saddle Manchester (which doesn't have an extensive Underground) with London-style congestion charging. This would be the kiss of death to the Manchester economy. Companies will go to places like Warrington. Wake up. It'll cure the congestion problems all right, but the patient will be dead. If you're lucky it will turn out to be a Darling delaying tactic that turns into a reason why Manchester won't get its Metrolink money, because that extra public spending is going to London.

I'd like to see how much it would raise, what does London raise about 150m GBP a year? How much would Manchester get 15m GBP? Then take into account the knock on effect to shops, hotels etc, I would imagine growth would decline.
This type of charge will deter small companies setting up in Manchester.
Also, I think the govenment think people drive into cities everyday for fun, if there was a decent public transport system there wouldn't be so much gridlock.

Locks - it isn't the money raised from the charge that would fund public transport improvments, but the Transport Initiative Fund, going down this route enables us to bid for literally hundreds of millions of pounds worth of investment in public transport.

Remember, this is for the pilot - we will get lots of investment in our public transport in the lead up to this - more so than other cities.

Come 2015 everywhere will be getting this charge - but everywhere else will not have had the large sums of money spent on their public transport through being in the pilot.

From thetimes.co.uk

More British cities consider congestion charging
By Sam Knight and Christine Buckley of The Times

Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester were among cities today awarded a total of more than £7 million to study the possibility of introducing congestion charging.

Seven local authorities - Somerset, Cambridgeshire, Durham, Manchester, Shropshire, Tyne & Wear and the West Midlands - won the funding from the Department of Transport to study innovative approaches to relieving traffic jams "where pricing is a major element".

"Congestion is bad for business, frustrates motorists and hurts local economies," said Alastair Darling, the Transport Secretary, who announced the grants today at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) annual conference in London.

"I am convinced that without more radical measures, including more effective demand management and actively managing traffic flows, road congestion will get worse. That is why I’ve been very clear about the need to look at road pricing," he said.

Michael Roberts, the drector of business environment for the CBI, reacted by saying: "In implementing schemes local authorities have to understand the needs of business - and ensure they make a positive contribution to the region's economy - while the Government must make sure there is consistency between schemes and minimise administrative costs for users.

"Significant investment in public transport is vital to ensure that there are genuine alternatives for road users.

"Road pricing has a role to play but must be integrated with other policies including public transport and planning."

Mr Darling said that the awards, from a total fund of £18 million, could be a first, local step towards a national road pricing scheme. "Local and regional pilots are essential if we are to explore and understand the possibilities of road pricing at national level," he said.

London already has a controversial congestion charging scheme, recently extended, in the City and parts of Westminster and south London. The schemes principle advocate, London Mayor Ken Livingstone, was on the platform at the CBI today for the debate that followed Mr Darling's speech.

Of the new grants, the West Midlands won the largest slice - £2.6 million. The M42 Expressway is a toll motorway and is the test bed of Mr Darling's road-charging policies. Earlier this month, annual traffic statistics showed that motorways and local roads around Birmingham were the busiest in the country. Local businesses say traffic jams costs the region £2.5 billion every year.

But a spokesman for the West Midlands Metropolitan Authorities, which submitted the region's bid, said congestion charging was only one of several options that will be examined by the feasibility study. "All we're saying is that we are prepared to look at road pricing as one of the potential solutions," he said.

The funding, which will be paid over three years, was announced as the CBI asked the Government to invest an immediate £1 billion in Britain’s transport network, with an extra £60 billion added to the long-term investment programme.

The business organisation is pressing for the extra cash ahead of next week’s Pre-Budget Report after a survey of members found widespread dissatisfaction with transport and fears it was harming business.

Some 52 per cent of employers questioned said that their supply chains had suffered because of transport problems and 48 per cent said that their reputation had suffered because of transport difficulties. Just over half, 51 per cent, said that problems with transport had damaged the reputation of Britain as a place to do business.

Carrot and stick!

we have a choice! Agree to this scheme, make the Goverment/Ministers happy and get our funding/Metrolink built fatser! Disagree, and the Metrolink saga drags on!

This charge along with a completed Metrolink system will cut many unecessary car journeys and it might lead to even more car sharing?

I would rather pay a charge and get our Metrolink built faster! :)

jrb - wholeheartedly agree - especially since the whole country will most likely end up with the charges, but only those pilot cities will have had the additional funding through being pilot sites.

jrb - wholeheartedly agree - especially since the whole country will most likely end up with the charges, but only those pilot cities will have had the additional funding through being pilot sites.

Exactly Metrolink!

It will come to every city sooner or later! At least we will have a complete Metrolink system to show for it! :)

Don't kid yourselves. See what the people of Manchester think. And listen.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/comments/view.html?story_id=189227

I know, I've contributed myself.

However, what are they basing those comments on?

Does it state that everywhere will eventually get the charge? Does it give a fair representation of how much people will pay? Does it say what we'll get in return?

The MEN article is typical for them in sensationalising the story - £16k a year and £1m / mile are simply scaring people.

There are people on there who think they are going to pay £40 to travel from north Manc to the airport in the morning - they won't - as soon as more information is made available, and people realise they won't be paying those kind of sums, and people realise that the whole country is going to get the scheme, and they realise we'll get an advantage of being a pilot area, attitudes will change.

Farsight - you seem quite negative about this - if you were in charge would you say no to this - effectively killing off the tram expansion, in the knowledge that 5 years later you'd have the charges forced on you anyway, and you'd not have the trams?

Around the world businesses have look up to London on the charge. Other cities have taken it as a way forward. This could actually help businesses. 'No traffic No delay'.

I would like to say i'm for it but i have no idea exactly where this pilot scheeme would take place and how it would work. However if we had a london style charging scheeme i'd be very concerned about the economy of the city centre. We get a lot of people from all over the country come to MAnc to go shopping but if they have to pay a charge they may well go else where instead (because of the charge and also not knowing how to pay).
I also wonder if our lack of charging has incouraged some of the recent London to Manc moves by buisness's.

exactly, and hopefully we can have a much more tailored system as well that isn't as blunt as the London scheme.

Was thinking about this last night, and how I'd work it - in the pilot.

I think either go down the route of satalittes in space tracking where you drive, and charge according to time, distance and congestion at the time of driving.

Or potentially, set up a map - similar to the London underground - where we have zones, as you cross from one zone to another, you get billed - Trafford Cenre and city Centre could be premium zones, less busy zones could be bigger meaning that it takes longer to cross a zone boarder. Could have say 10 zones around the M60 - everytime you cross a zone you're charged say 10p.

Obviously would take a lot of effort to draw up the zones, but it would be relatively simple to understand and know how much you'll be charged - could also adjust each zones charge at different time of the day.

Each zone would have a different price that it'd cost to enter - I'd also have a limit on the total price someone could pay a day - say £5.

Think I'd try to encourage 'season tickets' basically discount for buying in bulk in advance - that way out of towners could be charged more - similar to the London underground.

Skit - as my previous post - it won't be anything like the London scheme, much less blunt, there is no way they'd let the city centre suffer at the hands of say the Trafford Centre.

Metrolink: Yes, if I were in charge I'd say NO. I'd say NO because too much is at stake: the entire city economy at risk. Instead I would demand that more of the current car/petrol tax take is spent equitably on public transport, and not just in London. I take the view that congestion has been artificially promoted to pave the way for congestion charging, and that this is a stealth tax that is going in the exact opposite direction to the promised Metrolink funding.

If I can put it another way: the bottom line is it ain't worth it for a couple of tram lines. It will put Manchester back into the backwater doldrums that resulted in no new highrise for for thirty years. This is serious stuff. Take more soundings before you firm your opinion.

This is being done the wrong way round and could harm the economy.

The government should cough up the money they promised us and give us a public transport system before we try and force thousands of more commuters onto the network, sheer fuckwittery in my opinion, and short sighted.

Not only will this harm the City's economy by burdening us with a tax that rival cities dont have, but you will also harm satalite areas where the public transport is zilch and the car is the only option.

Im a firm backer of The metrolink and Congestion charges, but the metrolink extension should not be funded by this until it is built.

I knew when we were promised this metrolink by Tony Blair it was mearly electioneering, typical, now basically we're paying for it ourselves and some people are going along with it, quoting documents from Alistair Darling (and friends) of all people as Gospel. GREAT

I have to agree with Grandy on this one. They have got this all arse over bollocks. Get the transport system in first, then nail the fat-cats who will (most definitely) continue to use their cars and willingly---nay happily cough up the 'congestion' charges.

Posted by Metrolink
''Congestion charging is on it's way - good news in my opinion...''


Are you mad ?- this would be economic suicide.
London congestion works, but only kind of, there are quite a few small businesses that have gone bump as a result. The only reason that it 'kind of' works in London is that they have one of the best public transport systems in the World. To think that this could work in ANY other UK city is complete madness.
How the fuck are you supposed to get to work if you don't live along the 2 and a bit Metrolink lines?
Who would want to work in Manchester?
Who would want to shop in Manchester when they have other choices? (including the congestion charge free internet).
This would halt the regeneration of Manchester dead in its tracks.

More fucking state control bollocks.
Wake up and smell the coffee - it's just (yet another) stealth tax. They'll con everyone into saying it will pay for Metrolink - it won't - government funding doesn't work like that. Don't be conned.

Congestion charging will kill Manchester if it happens. Basicly all the small business will just move out of Manchester. Trafford Park could turn into a right shit hole because I recon alot of haulage companies will just move out to somewhere else. Also people wont want to move here because its ethier get the shitty bus or spend a bomb on a car and the extra costs. Without a full tram system it would never work. Also the tram prices have gone up today. Its now something like £4+ just to get into town in the morning.

I think at lot of you are missing the point here - this is not a tax raising scheme, but a tax neutral scheme.

For example, it may be decided to scrap road tax for all cars based in Greater Manchester (about £160 a year???) this would then be re-couped through road charging - this would AVERAGE about 50p per day (this will be a much more realistic figure than the £16k a year being banded about by the MEN).

There would obviously be some who pay more, and some who pay less - but why shouldn't those who use the raods more, and during busy periods pay more for the use of the roads than other people - it is exactly what we do with all other transport, be it trrams, trains, planes etc.

Hopefully it will make the person making that journey during an 'expensive' part of the day whether they can make that journey at a different time - in doing so, this can free up the roads - a 20% reduction in traffic during the rush hour would have a huge effect - would less people drive their kids to school, and more walk???

This could easily - if done properly - could make getting into the city centre much easier - Darling has promised improvments in public transport prior to any charges - GMPTE have said this would be a requirement, this could increase the capacity for getting into the city centre greatly, increase tram capacity, and even reduce the price of the public transport - as happened in London.

Going down this route, enables us to bid for the vast sums of money available though the transport initiative fund.


Finally - those saying it will kill Manchester - the whole country is getting charging - we'll get this 5 years ahead of most other places, but no company is going to make the decision to move due to having a 'neutral' tax that will be nationwide within 5 years - especially given by the time the charges come in, there should be a much improved transport system.

Some BBC articles in the proposals - note not all cities plan to introduce a charge...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4479550.stm


Cash boost for transport schemes
Bus Passengers
The research should lead to improved transport infrastructure
Four councils have been awarded nearly £1.5m over three years to investigate ways of beating traffic congestion.

In October Bristol City, along with North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset councils made a bid for the cash.

The authorities submitted a joint bid for a share of the government's Transport's Innovation Fund.

The funds mean the councils will research, plan and design new kinds of transport measures to fight congestion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4480292.stm

Plans to roll out traffic charge
Congestion charge sign
Alternatives to the London model will be tested
Congestion charging may be extended across England under government plans to adopt a "sophisticated" version of the London system to cut road use.

Seven areas have been given £7m to develop schemes, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has announced.

They are Durham, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, Shrewsbury, Cambridgeshire and Bristol.

The scheme will be rolled out over the network over the next 10-15 years, according to the Times newspaper.

Mr Darling told the BBC unless something was done the UK faced "absolute" gridlock.

Speaking at the CBI conference on Monday, Mr Darling said: "Local and regional pilots are essential if we are to explore and understand the possibilities of road pricing at national level."

He also announced the government had invited the seven authorities, along with Transport for London and Cardiff, to join a liaison group examining road pricing.

Satellite tracking

Mr Darling said a national charging scheme would replace either fuel duty or vehicle excise duty but could result in an increase in the overall sum paid by motorists.

Since the introduction of the congestion charge in London in February 2003 there has been a 1.5% decrease in the number of miles travelled by cars in the capital.

Alistair Darling
Some charges should be up and running by 2009, said Mr Darling
But Mr Darling hopes more "sophisticated" systems will be tested under the new study - such as electronic tagging and satellite tracking - that would allow the amount charged to fluctuate, according to the level of traffic.

Not all areas involved in the study would bring in a charge, he added.

But the first scheme would be announced within 18 months with one or two areas bring in charges by 2009.

Toll opposition

Mr Darling told the BBC new ways had to be explored to tackle local congestion.

"Unless we look at that, we will have huge problems - absolute gridlock - in 20 or 30 years' time," he said.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme he acknowledged people wanted to see faster progress in improving transport infrastructure.

He said more was being spent on the roads, railways and other parts of the system.

The first stage will be a major feasibility study to develop a congestion management strategy expected to be published next year.

The government has allocated up to £200m a year from 2008 to help local authorities introduce charging systems.

John McGoldrick, of the National Alliance Against Tolls, said the money would be better spent on solutions to current traffic flow.

"Almost no one wants tolls," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4477438.stm


Road pricing sites are announced
M6 Toll Road toll plaza
Motorists already pay to use the M6 Toll road
Road pricing in the West Midlands and Shrewsbury moved a step closer with the announcement of £7m in funding to look into ways of tackling congestion.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling revealed the seven local authorities receiving extra government cash at the CBI's annual conference on Monday.

He said the aim was to test approaches to road pricing as part of an effort to introduce a national scheme.

Councils will now conduct feasibility studies into traffic cutting options.

The chosen seven have successfully bid for the money from an £18m government fund set up to develop public transport schemes and cut congestion.

"We are looking forward to working with these authorities to develop practical solutions to congestion problems and support the development of a national road pricing scheme," Mr Darling said.

Fee on busy routes

His comments followed calls by the CBI for major improvements to the national transport system.

A survey for the organisation suggests more than half of British businesses believe the network is worse now than it was five years ago.

The CBI's director general, Sir Digby Jones, blamed what he called a decrepit and outdated planning regime which gave top priority to environmental arguments.

He said the government needed to invest much more cash.

Mr Darling acknowledged on BBC Radio 4's Today programme people wanted to see faster progress in improving the transport infrastructure.

He said more was being spent on the roads, railways and other parts of the system.

'Wasting money'

Councils in the West Midlands will get the biggest share of the £7m but have made it clear they will not impose a London-style congestion charge.

Instead it is more likely that drivers would pay to use the busiest routes.

Shropshire County Council said it was getting nearly £500,000 and will investigate various options in Shrewsbury, including better public transport, more pedestrian priority, tackling congestion hotspots, road charging and a north-west relief road.

The first stage will be a feasibility study and public consultation to develop a congestion management strategy, probably by next year.

A spokesman for National Alliance Against Tolls said: "Almost no one wants tolls. Today the CBI, though they are in favour of tolls, released a survey which showed that only one fifth (of respondents) back tolls.

"In the only referendum on the issue, held in Edinburgh in February, the tolls plan was rejected three to one. The Edinburgh plan cost £9m to produce and attempt to sell to the people.

"Instead of wasting more money on unwanted tolls plans, money should be spent on real improvements to traffic flow."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4477750.stm


Cash for congestion charge study
Digby Jones
Digby Jones says the government needs to invest in roads
The government is to fund a study into how to tackle congestion on UK roads.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling is expected to reveal more details of the plan at the CBI conference on Monday.

The organisation has called for major improvements to the national transport system after its research showed delays are causing stress among workers.

Studies are planned for Gtr Manchester, Bristol, Bath, Cambridgeshire, Tyne and Wear, Somerset and Gloucestershire, Durham, West Midlands and Shrewsbury.

A survey showed more than half of UK businesses believe the network is worse now than it was five years ago.

'Absolute gridlock'

The local authorities are expected to share more than £7m to explore new ways to tackle local congestion.

"Unless we look at that, we will have huge problems - absolute gridlock - in 20 or 30 years' time," Mr Darling told the BBC.

The CBI's director general, Sir Digby Jones, blamed what he called a decrepit and outdated planning regime which gave top priority to environmental arguments.

M6 Toll Road toll plaza
Motorists already pay to use the M6 Toll road

He said the government needed to invest much more cash.

Mr Darling acknowledged people wanted to see faster progress in improving the transport infrastructure on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He said more was being spent on the roads, railways and other parts of the system.

The first stage will be a major feasibility study to develop a congestion management strategy which is expected to be published next year.

John McGoldrick, of the National Alliance Against Tolls, said the money would be better spent on solutions to current traffic flow.

"Almost no one wants tolls," he said.

"Today the CBI, though they are in favour of tolls, released a survey which showed that only one fifth back tolls."

For example, it may be decided to scrap road tax for all cars based in Greater Manchester (about £160 a year???) Don't be naive, MetroLink. The way it's done is they offer you a stick and a carrot. But in the end you only get the stick, and the carrot never happens. It's like the Eurostar promise that gradually faded away. Aw, it's just another Yes Minister stalling-tactic diversion anyhow. Don't be taken in by it.

Metrolink
It seems you may be connected with GMPTE or some consulting firm associated with GMPTE. If so, I am truely terrified by the scale of your naivity and your ignorance of the way in which public money is shunted around.
The quote from you that Farsight has highlighted above is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
I'll say it again - it's a stealth tax - tax neutral my ar$e!
'Darling has already promised...' and you believe him?

Well we will see - none of us know the exact proposals, but come next summer we'll all have a better idea.

Councillors / MP's are not on some crusade to implement unpopular policies believe it or not - they are more aware than you'd imagine they have to answer to the public every 4 years - and as such, only make decisions like this when they truely believe them to be in the public's interest.

You talk about them raising taxes as if this in some way benifits them - believe it or not, they don't like being unpopular, raising taxes make them unpopular. The insinuation is that somehow they gain personally by rasing taxes - they don't, the exact opposite is the reality of the situation - it puts more pressure on their political career.

Metrolink news from lrta.org - http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/mlnn2005.html#28nov

28 November 2005: Central Park Gateway Interchange

On the 10th November, The Lord Mayor of Manchester, Councillor Mohammed Afzal Khan, opened the Interchange by being the first person to be driven down The Gateway. This new road runs from from Oldham Road under the railway and future Metrolink lines to Northampton Road in the heart of Central Park phase one.

On the 25th November, the new “twisting fin” bridge was in its final position and construction work was nearing completion. Located on the west side of Thorp Road, it will carry Metrolink over the railway line.

According to the FT this morning, Manchester will not be testing road charging but will be looking at schemes to discourage companies from providing parking in the City Centre for their employees.

Cannot remember where I saw them, but read some interesting figures the other day - if you provide 100 car parking spaces for every 1000 jobs in a city, virtually everyone uses public transport or car shares, if you provide 500 for every 1000 jobs the cars are single ocupancy, and everyone drives.

I have not explained this very well - but basically you can adjust the use of public transport by adjusting the positioning of car parks - the idea is to move the car parks to the outskirts, and use park and rides.

Interestingly, cities that do this do not suffer any adverse economic impact if done correctly.

Having remembered - it was an article in this months 'Tramways and Urban Transit' - I'll dif it out and post the relevant sections - I hope now more is becoming known, people will be less worried about the possible consequences.

i.e. places like the TC should be charged a fortune for all it's spaces, but somewhere like the city centre shops will not have to pay anything - this could lead to people coming back from the Trafford Centre to town since they'll have to pay to park at the TC.

From the FT.com

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c77e1f6e-607c-11da-a3a6-0000779e2340.html

Provinces to develop congestion charge schemes
By Robert Wright, Transport Correspondent
Published: November 29 2005 02:00 | Last updated: November 29 2005 02:00

Seven areas are to be given funding to develop anti-congestion programmes, Alistair Darling said yesterday. The transport secretary also revealed that bus operators could face increased regulation in areas that introduced road-user charging.
ADVERTISEMENT

Mr Darling said it would be impossible to introduce charging for road use by cars without having greater control over buses than under the present rules, which in areas outside London largely allow operators to run any service they think commercially viable.

Mr Darling's comments are likely to anger bus operators, many of whom are concerned over the prospect of greater regulation.

Addressing delegates at the CBI conference, Mr Darling announced that seven areas in England were being granted £7.46m to work on plans for tackling congestion, most of which included road-user charging.

The areas were the winners from among the local authorities that submitted bids for funding from the Department for Transport to develop their ideas. In 2007, the resulting schemes will be assessed by the department and the best will be implemented.

Most of the money will go to the West Midlands, which will receive £2.6m. A consortium of local authorities in the Bristol area will receive £1.49m, while Greater Manchester will get £1.25m and Tyne and Wear £950,000. Smaller sums will go to Cambridgeshire, Durham and Shropshire.

The West Midlands will develop a comprehensive plan for a pilot road-user charging scheme, which could form the basis for the national scheme that the government wants to introduce eventually.

Tyne and Wear will work on a potential road-user charging scheme, although it is likely to be less comprehensive.

Cambridgeshire will look at the possibilities of local congestion charging, similar to the scheme in London, which charges motorists for driving into a designated central area at the busiest times of day. Durham will examine extending the city's small congestion-charging scheme to a wider area, including the main road through the city. Shropshire will consider a local congestion charge for Shrewsbury.

The other bids, including Greater Manchester's, in-clude less charging for car use, and instead concentration on introducing levies on businesses' provision of car parking for their employees, in the hope of reducing the amount of driving to work.

Looks like my last but one post was slightly off beem - looks like business parking only, not including shoppers parking.

Wonder if something will be done to try to introduce charging for the TC, or has it been like this to ensure that Traffrord Council would agree to it.

From

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1653089,00.html

Congestion
Transport secretary pledges £7m for road pricing trials

Mark Milner, industrial editor
Tuesday November 29, 2005
The Guardian

Britain moved a step closer towards the introduction of road pricing yesterday when the government announced it had chosen seven local authorities to run pilot schemes aimed at tackling local traffic congestion in their areas.

The authorities, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Tyne & Wear, Cambridge, Bristol, Durham and Shropshire, will share more than £7m to fund the development of schemes which will form part of the government's study of road pricing feasibility promised last year.

Article continues
Transport secretary Alistair Darling told the CBI conference road congestion was one of the biggest threats to economic expansion over the next 10 to 15 years. The government, he said, was adding new capacity where it was needed and changing the ways roads were managed. But while he acknowledged such measures, alongside better public transport, would make a difference, he warned that without radical measures congestion would get worse. "That's why I've been clear about the need to look at road pricing. Local and regional pilots are essential if we are to explore and understand the possibilities of road pricing at national level." Mr Darling said the government would ensure a coordinated approach to the trials. "Because I want this to be part of a national scheme we will work with these authorities to develop a coherent framework which will ensure a consistent approach across all schemes ... government will be in the lead - we cannot have a fragmented approach."

A CBI survey published yesterday showed business is increasingly concerned about the impact of congested roads and rail hold-ups which it estimated costs British business about £20bn a year.

The employers' organisation wants £300bn, from a mixture of public and private sources, spent on transport over the next decade - 25% above planned levels.

Responding to Mr Darling's plans for road pricing pilots, Michael Roberts, director of business environment for the CBI, said: "Road pricing has a role to play but must be integrated with other policies including public transport and planning."

The authorities, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Tyne & Wear, Cambridge, Bristol, Durham and Shropshire, will share more than £7m to fund the development of schemes which will form part of the government's study of road pricing feasibility promised last year.
Forgive me, but since when has GM been a local authority? If it is a local authority then it should have the power to raise taxes.

GMPTA is a local authority - the Greater Manchester Transport Authority - they raise (some) taxes through a levy on council tax from the 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester.

They (PTA) then set stratergies for how to spend this money, that the GMPTE must follow, the PTE implement the PTA's stratergies.

According to the FT this morning, Manchester will not be testing road charging but will be looking at schemes to discourage companies from providing parking in the City Centre for their employees. Birmingham were strong on this a while back. It knocked them back years and is part of the reason why Manchester is now vying for the second-city slot. The burgers of Warrington etc will be rubbing their hands in glee at this golden nugget. Think about it. You're the boss of some company, and you've got a choice. Set up shop in some Warrington business park and drive to work, and come and go when you please. Or pick a Manchester city centre location and sit on a bus.

http://www.abd.org.uk/parking.htm

"With the government rapidly losing the battle over speed cameras, the latest campaign in their war on drivers in taking place on another battlefield - the parking space.

At Birmingham City Council's Transport Summit in October 1998, Lynn Sloman of the anti-car lobby group Transport 2000 which is funded by bus and rail companies, said that the best means of stopping people using cars was to “take away the parking space at the end of the journey”.

Staggeringly, some politicians have actually listened to this inane ranting and are actively doing just this...

Farsight - I'll dig out the article, plenty of other cities have implemented this kind of thing (especially in Scandinavia) with great success.

To be honest, I'd much rather take note of an organisation interested in our future transport worries, than an organisation that promotes people being able to speed in their cars.

Oh, and how attractive will Warrington become when the national road charging scheme is introduced?

Making people travel further to work, as would be the case if people had to commute from Manchester / Liverpool, would mean their employees having to pay more to get to work - something yesterday you were claiming would be detremental to Manchester's economy if it was implemented here.

These schemes, implemented in Scandinavia (especially Finland) have had the effect of stopping the move to the suburbs, and re-vitalising their city centres. Public transport needs to be of a high standard - but that is something we must work very hard on in the mean time, and if the DfT provide us with help there is no reason we cannot do this, but these kind of policies end up helping city centres, not making them less attractive - people end up wanting to be near transport hubs, and near to work - both of which tend to be in city centres.

I think the first thing the govenment should do to ease congestion is to make schools start at 8.00, that way we remove the school run. I think if schools were offered extra incentives "money" headteacher would be happy.

I understand that congestion charging will come into effect in the future so Manchester may as well get a few trams lines out of it if it can. But I think too much attention is being placed on Metrolink, it's a vote winner for those who don't have it, but those people who already have a line know it has many weaknesses. Overcrowding, Delays, Breakdowns, Slow(street running), Expensive, Machines don't work, No shelter etc.

I would guess the main users of public transport are people that live within a 6 mile radius of the city centre. The M602 is gridlocked in the morning with thousands of people travelling in from further a field, yet the railway line that runs along the side of it see about 3 or 4 trains an hour consisting of two or so coaches. If a park and ride rail scheme was put into place off the M60, people could be in the city centre in 10 minutes. Why would people park and ride at Ladywell to spend 30 minutes weaving through Salford Quays on the tram?

Trams are good, but more focus needs to be placed of trains with more capacity, on lines that are under used.

Locks - the problems you identify with the trams are well know, and are mostly down to the low funding given when first constructed.

Overcrowding - 8 new trams on there way soon.

Delays - down to too few trams, see last point.

Breakdowns - due to trams being in constant use - see last 2 points, we simply don't have enough trams to take them out of service to perform maintenance on them - the 8 extra trams will help this greatly, one of them is specifically for this - 7 extra trams will be running at any one time, and an extra tram will be taken out of service for maintenance.

Slow - street running - I agree, and hope that total priortity at traffic lights can be implemented like in virtually all other countries.

Expensive - due to how the system is financed, having the extra passengers that the new trams bring along should help this (the current system although making an operating profit, makes a loss when you take into account 'mortgage repayments'). Phase 3 re-structuring of the debt / financing should help in this, hopefully, the way the debt is restructured will put less pressure on the fare paying passenger.
Machines not working - machines are all getting replaced - with the money Darling announced during the summer

No shelter - again, with the money announced by Darling, all stations are being bought up to 'Phase 3 standard' which will include shelters, cycle racks and many more things.

P.S. The proposals put foward by the PTE to the DfT include a lot more than just trams, for example the Leigh Guided bus way, there are plenty of other things planned, just the trams get the majority of the media attention.

Few examples of none Metrolink work that will go on alongside Metrolink expansion...

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=1278538

gmpte logo [link to home page]
Search the site

GMPTE - Quality Bus Corridors GMPTE - Quality Bus Corridors

Press Releases | Job Vacancies | Consultation | Library | Integrate Project | Metrolink Developments | Leigh Busway Developments | Quality Bus Corridors | Advertising campaign | Freedom of Information Act

QBC - Barrington Road in Altrincham

QBC - Barrington Road in Altrincham (Consultation)

Click here to download the QBC - Barrington Road in Altrincham document as PDF file (1.1MB)

horizontal line

[QBC Map]
Click here to view the QBC Map.

horizontal line

Why Are We Taking This Approach?
As car ownership continues to grow, both nationally and within Greater Manchester, traffic congestion levels are also rising. Large scale road construction is not a sustainable option. Some new roads will be built and some stretches of road will be widened, but the impact on our communities of the level of road construction needed to cope with increased travel demand by car would be massive in terms of land take, property demolition and severance.

We have to find other solutions that can meet peoples' desire to travel by creating a viable, attractive alternative, which will encourage greater use of buses and other forms of public transport and reduce reliance on the private car.

What Do Quality Bus Corridors mean?
We know from our six-monthly surveys of passenger perceptions of public transport that existing and potential bus passengers want:-

* Service punctuality and reliability;
* Quick journeys at peak times;
* Good quality shelters and safe stops; and
* Accurate information.

Our Quality Bus Corridors take a complete journey approach and aim to address these needs by:-

* Providing more shelters and improving the location, lighting, drainage and ease of access to and from stops.
* Providing better, and more easily understandable, information at bus stops including, at about 25% of stops, real time passenger information which gives up to the minute information about how bus services are running and the expected arrival time of the next bus to the stop.
* Helping to keep buses running to time by providing a series of bus priority measures including separate bus lanes, where there is sufficient road space, priority at traffic signals for late running buses, allowing buses to make turns that are prohibited to other traffic and allowing buses to operate through streets prohibited to other traffic.
* Providing more and better crossing points for pedestrians to get to and from bus stops safely, and
* Where possible, providing enhancements to the general streetscene, such as better paving and street lighting, to improve safety and security and other improvements which will benefit pedestrians and cyclists in the communities along the QBCs

Where Is This Planned?
The map (pdf link) shows the network of routes on which QBC measures are proposed. Specific government funding has been secured for the Red (South East Manchester Multi-Modal Strategy - SEMMMS) routes, the Purple (Northern Orbital) routes and the Blue JETTS (Junction Eighteen to Twelve Multi-Modal strategy) routes. Funding for the Green routes is coming from the 10 Greater Manchester Authorities as part of the annual Local Transport Plan settlement.

When Will These Schemes Be Implemented?
Work has already been taking place on a number of the green corridors over the last three years. The additional government funded schemes mean that over the next four to five years the amount of work on the ground should rapidly increase. Each corridor will be broken down into a number of smaller, site specific, schemes and all proposals will be subject to full consultation and the involvement of local people, residents and businesses before any decisions to implement are made.

Bus stop upgrades and Bus stop access improvement
bus stopTravelling by bus isn't just about the ride on the vehicle - its also about how easy it is to get to and from the stop and what conditions are like when you're waiting for the bus to arrive.

On our busiest roads it's often difficult for pedestrians to find a place to cross safely. One of the objectives of the QBCs is to improve facilities for pedestrians by installing new crossings or upgrading existing ones. In addition, the provision of dropped kerbs at crossings and road junctions can greatly benefit the mobility impaired. The location of the bus stops may not have been reviewed since they were first installed many years ago. During this time, land use changes will have taken place and some stops may not now be as convenient as they once were. As part of a QBC programme, we review the location of all bus stops along the line of route to ensure that they are located in the most appropriate sites. Any proposals to relocate stops will be subject to local consultation prior to a final decision.

Passengers rightly expect decent facilities when waiting for the bus. Many stops currently do not have passenger shelters and seats, lack timetable and route information, or are poorly sited or inadequately lit. We have developed a standard for bus stop upgrades which features the installation of a passenger shelter with seating, a raised boarding platform using contrasting materials, to make getting on and off the bus easier and clear, easier to understand information for passengers.

However, the benefits of these improvements and of modern, low floor buses are lost if the bus is not able to pull up alongside the stop. Therefore, we would normally mark a bus stop clearway at each stop to ensue that the stop remains clear of parking and the bus can draw up close to kerb to minimise the gap between the stop and the bus platform.

Real time passenger information displays
Passengers need accurate, up to date information if they are to have confidence in using public transport services. As well as providing high quality printed information at all bus stops we intend to equip the most well used stops on the QBCs with Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) displays.

With the RTPI system the location of the bus on the route is transmitted via a satellite to a central processor which then calculates the distance and journey time to the next bus stop. This information is then relayed to a display which can be mounted in the bus shelter or even on the bus stop itself. These displays will provide an up to the minute countdown to the actual time the next bus will arrive at the stop and can display special messages to inform passengers of any delays or disruptions to the service.

Bus Lanes
bus laneThe most visible impact of bus priority is the bus lane. Bus lanes are used to create dedicated roadspace allowing buses to bypass congested traffic or to enable the bus to reach the head of a queue of vehicles. Properly designed bus lanes can achieve significant journey time savings for bus passengers with minimal adverse effect on other road users.

Enforcement is the key to the successful operation of bus lanes. To highlight their presence to other road users, our QBC standards, adopted across Greater Manchester, have determined that the start of the bus lanes are marked with a section of solid red carriageway and the continuous lane is marked with a wide red line on the outside of the lane.

Residents parking bays inside bus lane
Often properties fronting the QBC do not have off highway parking facilities. In some cases, where we want to install a bus lane and where space is available within the footway and there are no major difficulties with statutory undertakers equipment, we will seek to construct sheltered parking bays inside the bus lane, to enable residents to park close to their homes without hindering the passage of buses.

Short stay parking bays inside bus lane
One of the objectives in developing the QBCs is to maintain the vitality and viability of local district centres. In many cases, existing parking restrictions already hamper businesses fronting the main roads and the introduction of bus lanes could increase the lack of available parking. Where space is available within the footway and there are no major difficulties with statutory undertakers equipment, we will seek to construct sheltered, short stay parking and loading bays inside the bus lanes, to benefit trade to local businesses, without hindering the passage of buses.

Priority at traffic lights
Most traffic signals are now controlled by computers. However, many systems still use pre-determined fixed cycle timings based on traffic flows derived from historic counts. The development of the QBCs encourages the replacement of these older traffic signal control systems with a new, fully responsive controllers which continuously monitor vehicle flows and can alter "green" times to reflect changes in traffic conditions.

These controllers can build in an inter-active priority for buses by detecting the approach of a bus, upstream of the junction and allow an extension to, or call an early cycle of, the green phase of the signals to enable the bus to pass through the junction. More advanced vehicle detection and signal control systems will be able to monitor the progress of a bus against its schedule and to give priority only to late running vehicles.

Queue relocation
Sometimes the highway layout means that traffic "funnels" into a congested area, for example at the end of a dual carriageway or on the approach to a district centre. This creates a traffic "bottleneck" and particularly unpleasant conditions for pedestrians and shoppers. On some QBCs the principle of "queue relocation" or "traffic metering" may be used.

Here, a set of traffic signals can hold back excess traffic at a more suitable location where it can be "stored" and its release into the congested area downstream can be metered at a level which can be accommodated under free flow traffic conditions

Alternatives if we don't do something:

* traffic growth is estimated to rise by 22% by 2010 (1)
* congestion levels are expected to get significantly worse by 2010 - on one measure, total delay costs would be expected to rise by 65%. (2)
* Existing peak period congestion extended through large parts of the day
* increasing numbers of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents
* worsening air quality and noise pollution

(1) Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan, DETR, July 2000.
(2) National Road Traffic Targets, Commission for Integrated Transport,

MetroLink:

You're being distracted from MetroLink by the Congestion Charging stalling tactic raised by Alastair Darling. It will have the effect of spreading out traffic, and will be severely detrimental to city centres. And then you're being distracted from Congestion Charging by National Road Pricing, which is something opposite and different. Both will take money rather than providing it, and are the exact opposite to what you should be pushing for for MetroLink. We all want good Public Transport, but the notion of central government raising yet more money from private transport when 85% of it is already "stolen", is a deceit. It's yet more stealth tax pickpocketing, and moreover is a dreadful poison-pill threat to the city.

If the debate revolved around travel-to-work-area city-wide local government in Manchester collecting existing Road Fund Licence monies and Petrol Duty, that would be worth talking about. But Central Goverment already gets the money, spends it on London (and bureaucracy) rather than a Manchester kept fragmented and weak, and wants even more from Manchester instead of giving what's due.

IMHO you've swallowed this Darling red herring hook line and sinker, and now you're being played like a fish. Please give this subject more thought and take soundings before deciding whether It's a Good Thing.

And keep your eye on the MetroLink ball.

Farsight -I am fully aware of this, and have given this very deep consideration, and do believe it is the right thing to do.

No matter how good our public transport, congestion is going to get worse and worse, and will continue to become more and more of a drag on both the local and national economy.

We need to do something proactive to stop the local economy losing even more money through worsening congestion. I'm glad we'll be one of the cities that will be given the oppurtunity to benifit from being a pilot city, since the rest of the country will be getting exactly the same several months down the line.

Maybe I'm optomistic - but I'd much rather have optomistic people running the city, people who have a vision, than people, like yourslef, who are negative about all the options, and not willing to take people by their word - it is worth noting that not once has Darling, or the DfT ever broken their word when it comes to Metrolink, or any other transport issue in Manchester.

P.S. The 'stolen' tax on petrol goes no where near covering the true cost of petrol, when you add health, environment, policing etc to the cost - cars are ridiculously cheap - and getting cheaper (in real terms) every year.

MetroLink: IMHO bus lanes are generally a good idea, especially if they reclaim erstwhile dead road space filled with parked cars. But sometimes they claim utilised roadspace to create "malicious" congestion in the balance. Read this, and keep an open mind:

http://www.abd.org.uk/buslanes.htm

The ABD calls for the adoption of a set of criteria for bus lanes, and for all existing bus lanes that do not meet these criteria to be scrapped immediately, with severe financial penalties for local authorities that conspire to deliberately obstruct the public highway.

Bus lanes should only be used if the road has three or more lanes in the direction of the bus lane. The use of bus lanes on two lane dual carriageways turns the road into a single track road with no passing places, and thus constitutes deliberate obstruction of the public highway.

Bus lanes should only be used on roads where most traffic is travelling along the road for some distance. The use of bus lanes on uni-directional ring roads is unacceptable due to the serious problem of frequent conflicting traffic joining and leaving the road on both sides. Such roads are effectively large roundabouts, and bus lanes on roundabouts are clearly dangerous.

Bus lanes may only be imposed where there is regular congestion in order to allow buses to jump the queue. Imposing bus lanes on free flowing roads in order to maliciously create congestion is totally unacceptable.

Bus lanes may only be imposed to allow buses to avoid congestion after all possible remedial measures have been taken to eliminate the cause of the congestion, such as junction improvements.

Bus lanes should only operate during times when there is an average of at least one bus every five minutes. Many bus lanes are enforced during the whole day, when service frequency is low outside rush hours.

et cetera

Ah, from that open minded organisaiton the Association of British drivers.

Seriously, what are their / our suggestions on what to do about the ever growing congestion - given that improved public transport will not be the only solution - do you suggest just leaving it to grow, the congestion getting for ever worse, and the economy suffering more and more?

have read that page, how come when I was in Madrid last weekend the whole city was covered in bus lanes, working a treat, buses flying past the queuing traffic on every road.

Challenge for you, on the ADB web site, find me an article that promotes public transport use, or provides a sensible long term solution to our transport problems.

It's all well and good pointing out the negatives in things, anyone can do that, but failing to come up with an alternative is even worse.

P.S. I notice the day after Liverpool is not on the list of pilot areas their trams have been cancelled.

Since the Liverpool scheme has been cancelled, looks like there will be a load of cheap track up the road for sale - most likely end up being used on the Bury line.

I don't know about the ABD, Metrolink. Maybe they've got it somewhere on their website.

For myself I think our population isn't increasing much, so you have to look at where the congestion is coming from. In part it's to do with a growing economy, but it's also to do with planning and social failure. Inner city areas go downhill, crime goes unpunished, schools go to pot, so people move further out and travel more. Especially if they've got motorways, and have an eye on country living. They think nothing of travelling long distances every day, with no thought for the waste and the emissions. The current apartment-building boom is reversing this somewhat, and is a good thing. But it's all rather uncontrolled and random, with no real provision for communities. A city government covering the travel to work area could make a real difference here. We're talking about masterplanning and policing, and increasing density to make public transport more viable whilst also making cities beautiful, desirable, places to live.

If you think about it, National Road Pricing for motorways would push us in this direction, while Congestion Charging would push us in the opposite direction.

Search google on "cities desirable" and maybe "beautiful" and "crime" and there's lots of stuff.

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/0100126.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1884498.stm

I haven't read the first article - I haven't got time since I am at work.

But how does the second (BBC) article relate to a scheme that will most liekly increase the attractivness of living near transport hubs / city centres?

Surely the deprived areas close to our city centres will be improved by more people wanting to travel less distance to work, hence paying less???

The BBC article is important because cities like Manchester are divided and disempowered by London-based national government and institutions, who are worse than ineffectual and have contributed greatly to the rundown of northern inner-city areas.

For example some unelected judge recently said underage muggers should never be jailed. This will tend to encourage mugging, which will tend to make inner city living less attractive, which will tend to make people travel more, in their safe locked cars. New York has a Mayor, tax-raising powers, a NYPD, and zero tolerance. That's what Manchester needs. Or the money that was promised for Metrolink. Not some hole-in-the-head tax on cities called Congestion Charging.

Farsight - £520m has been promised to Metrolink, it still is, the government has kept it's promise - they are working together as we speak trying to get the scheme built for that amount of money, or develop ways to do it as efficiently as possible.

Manchester having more automony is a totally different subject that congestion charging - in fact, congestion charging is probably best managed nationally, so long term no area can reap the benifits of lower congestion, but not contribute to the lower congestion - imagine Trafford refusing to take part, allow the TC to take all the business from the city centre.

The BBC article is important because cities like Manchester are divided and disempowered by London-based national government and institutions, who are worse than ineffectual and have contributed greatly to the rundown of northern inner-city areas.

For example some unelected judge recently said underage muggers should never be jailed. This will tend to encourage mugging, which will tend to make inner city living less attractive, which will tend to make people travel more, in their safe locked cars. New York has a Mayor, tax-raising powers, a NYPD, and zero tolerance. That's what Manchester needs. Or the money that was promised for Metrolink. Not some hole-in-the-head tax on cities called Congestion Charging.

The trouble with you my friend is that you want autonomous tax raising powers but you don't want to pay the taxes.

Yes, congestion charging is a different subject to autonomous city government. And it's a very different subject to Metrolink funding. It's the exact opposite sold to you as the flip side. It isn't funding, it's a damaging tax on cities that encourages economic dispersal. It isn't city-wide masterplanning. It won't make cities desirable places to live. It isn't tackling safety on the inner-city streets. It isn't making suburban councils pay their fair share of conurbation needs. It isn't even National Road Pricing, which would discourage travel, promote cities, and preserve our countryside. So ask yourself this: why has Darling introduced it to the debate?

Exactly, appart from putting taxes on congestion, or possibly a local business tax - what other tax raising powers would you expect Greater Manchester to use if they had the option of raising taxes locally.

The only area that have risen taxes when the oppurtunity arose was London, with the congestion charge.

Darling has introduced it into the national debate as for some time now he has been getting pissed of with spending a fortune on public transport - be it tram, trains etc. but congestion continues to grow.

He wants to stop the congestion growth, and start to reverse it, thus increasing the nations productivity.

You still haven't come up with any alternative I notice.

Isaac: I already pay local taxes, nearly two grand a year in council tax. Sadly it isn't related to ability to pay, and there's no local accountability for it. I'd be perfectly happy to see this scrapped and replaced by a local government precept on income tax. But the local government would have to cover the "travel to work area", not just some slice of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/380939.stm

I want to know where exactly this money will go though. Londoners pay £8 a day, right? So in a year, that's just short of £3000 pp. Just for driving the streets of London. So let's assume there are 3 million people driving through London every day. Over the year, that's a massive figure of £8,760,000,000

Now when CC came about, the big slick line was the money would be pumped straight back into transport for London. Right, so they've got Crossrail going and a couple of tram extensions. Fair enough.

So if they were being paid for by the London CC, how come every Northern city and his dog effectively had tram funds relocated to London transport schemes?

CC is fuck all about making roads better for the common man, it's about squeezing yet more fucking money out of us at a time we're slightly skint due to the many billions we wasted on a stupid fucking war.

It's not that much dgnr8. The numbers will be around somewhere. But yeah, it's all about squeezing more dosh out of us. PS: IMHO the money gets wasted on bureacracy and stuff rather than the Iraq war.

Look up "local income tax" on Google. I'd be happy to pay it, so long as I could vote on it too. But the local government has to cover the travel to work area, not just a piece of it. That's really important, otherwise all the pressure is on the poorer inner city councils and not the richer suburban councils.

http://www.axethetax.org.uk/pages/taxcalculator.html

No - it is about £2k a year - no congestion charge on weekend is there?

Our scheme will not be like the London scheme - it is intended to be tax neutral - the idea is that people think about when they travel.

Still no alternative Farsight - would you still oppose if it turned out to be tax neutral?

Just because nobody can come up with a viable alternative does not mean we should push through with the first half-baked idea that comes to mind.

Isaac: I already pay local taxes, nearly two grand a year in council tax. Sadly it isn't related to ability to pay, and there's no local accountability for it. I'd be perfectly happy to see this scrapped and replaced by a local government precept on income tax. But the local government would have to cover the "travel to work area", not just some slice of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/380939.stm

In most places travel to work area is far bigger than the city itself. In London for instance people commute from as far as Rugby, Bournmouth and Ipswich. This area covers more than one region. Do you propose regional government or seperate transport regions ?

No - but your arguement would be helped greatly if you had an alternative.

What is the problem with a tax neutral scheme, that discourages people from driving in the rush hour down busy roads?

P.S. I'm off home now, so expect no more response from me today.

I gave you an alternative, Metrolink. Local income tax and accountable local government with transport and masterplanning responsibility. And by the way, National Government can jolly well top up this local income tax with money from cars and petrol.

I would still be opposed to Congestion Charging if it turned out to be tax neutral. When it comes to tax neutrality you have to take care. The cost might accrue to the city centre, and the benefit might accrue to Altrincham et cetera. The bottom line is that it's a tax on the congested areas, that will deter people from those congested areas. And those congested areas are called cities. It's taking us in the wrong direction. Cities need more investment from the tax already taken, more attention, more representation, more voice, more masterplanning, more responsibility. Not more tax.

Wouldm't a local income tax do more to drive away business than any parking levy (presumably you intend to raise taxes???)

Alternatives to congestion charging?
How about encouraging businesses to let their employees work from home. Even 1 day a week would result in up to 20% less traffic.
How about encouraging businesses to allow more employees to work on flexitime, or to work hours other than 9 til 5 so to rid away the traditional morning and evening rush hours.
How about investigating ways of reducing the school run. Anyone notice how road congestion is greatly reduced in the school holidays.
How about encouraging companies to operate more at weekends so that people work 5 different days out of 7 instead of all working the same 5 days and having the same 2 days off.
Sure you can think of more too.

You can try and discourage people all you like. It won't work. We're an overworked nation and when we get a bit of leisure time, we do it properly with lots of drink drugs and sex. With this in mind, people just want to get the fuck home after work. Now if they've got a chance of their own spacious car with heating, a radio and hey, they can have a fag in their car, why on Earth would they give that up for a delapidated bus? It's a lot more sexy sounding that being sat on a bus with a bunch of schoolkids who abuse the other passengers. And hey, the buses are always freezing too.

I smoke, but I certainly don't like being on a bus with people smoking. This is an every trip occurence in Manc. Scallies on the back seat upstairs smoking and causing trouble and then you've got the fucking bus driver breathing smoke in your face when you go to complain about it.

Then there's the lack of room on buses. Often you'll have 1 bus show up for over a hundred people. So that bus gets full, pisses off leaving 50 behind stood in the pissing rain and cold whilst sweating about getting to work because they're now late.

The best thing about public transport though is how well integrated they are. 42 line down Wilmslow road, buy a day rider on a Ralph Bullock. Want to use it on a stagecoach/finglands/Magic bus/uk north? No fucking way, because they're different companies!

If CC was brought in to alleviate these problems and actually put money IN to a local transport fund, I'd not be making this argument.

But every single one of us here knows this money will not go into any transport scheme in Manc. If we have CC for 3 or 4 years, do you think we'd get more than the £520m promised us for our trams? Would we balls. It'd be used to put a few new bars in down the house of commons.

In most places travel to work area is far bigger than the city itself. In London for instance people commute from as far as Rugby, Bournmouth and Ipswich. This area covers more than one region. Do you propose regional government or separate transport regions ? I propose regional government based in cities. A bit like the counties used to be.

Note that this long-distance travelling from Rugby etc is a waste of time and energy. It's got to be better to discourage it by creating beautiful desirable affordable cities, rather than slapping a tax on cities called congestion charging.

Wouldm't a local income tax do more to drive away business than any parking levy (presumably you intend to raise taxes???) No. My new tax regime would combine council tax, income tax, and national insurance, and give a slice of what national government currently blows directly to local government. Cut out the middleman. Local government would be free to vary the local tax rate between set bounds, and would campaign for election on their spending proposals. It's nothing new.

I would privatise almost all roads and make them all tollways.

Er Metrolink....just a thought....
You mentioned that you were at work but you seem to have done nothing else today other than feed this forum....you wouldn't be part of the big propaganda push yourself would you?
This is a TAX raising scheme dressed up as something else - don't be fooled. There are other things that can be done very sensibly before going in with an ill conceived congestion charge. Where are all the Park 'n' Ride schemes surrounding the city for example? Answer: there aren't any because everyone's too busy playing bus inspectors and dreaming of bigger train sets.

Privatise all motorways, turn them into concessions that have to be rebid for every 20 years. Use the money to build metros or say that any bidder must build and operate a metro in return for owning a motorway franchise.

The Park and Ride scheme in my town was a disaster. It cost millions but was in the wrong place, nobody used it, and now it's shut down. From time to time the guys from the council park their vans in the entrance and sit there all day because there's gypos about. Meanwhile it's tougher and more expensive to park in the town centre and there are fewer parking spaces. The bus station is scroteville yuk, most buses stop at 5pm, and they ain't cheap. There's more traffic lights, bus lanes, and cycle lanes that reduce roads to one general lane, even at junctions where cyclists are tacitly encouraged to go through red lights. Congestion is being made worse, and the town centre is going downhill. Real shops are closing. Charity shops are burgeoning. It's serious stuff. And nobody is accountable because it's all down to the Transport "Advisory" Group. They like our national government are a law unto themselves and hold the public and local councillors in contempt.

Isaac: I'm far more amenable to toll motorways than congestion charging. What does Kurt think?

Congestion Charging on the motorway would bacsicly be a road toll not a Congestion Charge. Why dont they do what they do in France srap road tax and then do toll roads. Its already started over here. The M6 toll road.

City starts on road to C-charge

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/971.$plit/C_17_Articles_189393_BodyWeb_Detail_0_Image.jpg

CHARGE: How signs might look in the city.DRIVERS in Manchester could one day be driving around with an extra electronic device the size of a mobile phone inside their cars.

The device is the `tag' part of a system called 'tag and beacon' which Transport for London is testing as a way to update its congestion charging system for the capital.

Since the charge was introduced in London in 2003, number plate recognition has been used to monitor whether drivers are paying to drive into the capital, with more than a hundred cameras stationed on entry points into the zone.

Transport for London is interested in 'tag and beacon' because it would enable them to charge drivers different rates depending on how congested roads are and whether they drive during peak times. Users then get a monthly bill.

Tollbooths

The system is already used in Singapore where roadside beacons use short-range radio communication to charge drivers' bank accounts via cash cards inserted in `tags' carried in cars.

Similar technology is used on tollbooths on the Autoroute in France.

Another high-tech system under investigation in London is Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, which would track drivers' movements and charge them depending on the exact length and route of their journeys.

A spokesman for Transport for London said: "We have looked at it but we don't think it is accurate enough for a city centre scheme. GPS is only accurate to the nearest 30 metres which means you could make a u-turn to avoid the zone but would still be registered as being within it.

"It may be possible to use it but you would need back-up like cameras. However with a motorway like the M60 it might work because if you're being picked up at junction 1 and then at junction 2 shortly afterwards, it's pretty conclusive you have been on the motorway and people don't tend to move on and off a motorway after a short distance."

It is likely the 'tag and beacon' option will be introduced from 2008. The spokesman said: "We will still look at GPS as it evolves but the tag and beacon method is working very well in Singapore and we like the flexibility, which means that if a road is particularly busy one day there's potential to vary charges.

"For a city centre based scheme in somewhere like Manchester it would probably be the most practical option as things stand."

Costs

He said he did not know how much it would cost to fit a 'tag' in a car. If GPS technology goes ahead, cars will also need to be fitted with a black box to enable the satellite to pick up its position.

The new study will explore what type of scheme would work best for Greater Manchester.

Options include setting up a London-style zone around Manchester city centre, but critics claim this would put the city centre at a disadvantage in terms of jobs and shopping and would not tackle congestion elsewhere.

Another possibility is a wider congestion zone covering the M60 and other main commuter routes. Sheila Ranger, campaign manager for the RAC Foundation, said: "The current system in London works on number plate recognition, but no matter how many times you go in and out of the zone, it only counts the one time.

"That is now quite an old-fashioned system and I think by the time this came in for somewhere like Manchester, they would be looking at something a bit more sophisticated.

"The benefit of GPS is that you can tag the car and a series of beacons record whether you pass them using satellite technology. It's a much more flexible system in terms of things like charging people more for driving at peak hours.

"Many drivers tell us that they would be prepared to accept congestion charging only if the government gives them something back in terms of taking off road tax or fuel tax. This shouldn't be just another way of taking money from the driver."

Richard Bourne, London campaigner for Transport 2000, said he believed people would soon adapt to the new technology.

He said: "A lot of people didn't want congestion charging in London, but they can now see the benefits. I love Manchester and I think the people of Manchester would enjoy benefits like less pollution and more potential to reclaim green areas from traffic."

I want to know where exactly this money will go though. Londoners pay £8 a day, right? So in a year, that's just short of £3000 pp. Just for driving the streets of London. So let's assume there are 3 million people driving through London every day. Over the year, that's a massive figure of £8,760,000,000

Now when CC came about, the big slick line was the money would be pumped straight back into transport for London. Right, so they've got Crossrail going and a couple of tram extensions. Fair enough.

So if they were being paid for by the London CC, how come every Northern city and his dog effectively had tram funds relocated to London transport schemes?

CC is fuck all about making roads better for the common man, it's about squeezing yet more fucking money out of us at a time we're slightly skint due to the many billions we wasted on a stupid fucking war.
It doesnt work like that. It has massive operating costs. Most of the time is been in service its been losing money not making it. Also most people who in London who do own a car pay it monthly or yearly so they get cheaper I think works out about £2 a day instead of £8. Also delivery companies do the same thing and buses dont get charged. The reason that the cost went up from £5 to £8 a day was because it was running so well there werent as many people driving into London. I can see that the system will one day destroy its self because it no longer makes money and the govenment money will just run out.

He said: "A lot of people didn't want congestion charging in London, but they can now see the benefits. Bollocks and lies. Here's why:

http://www.tnn.co.uk/plonearticle.2005-11-24.5511929855

"Transport for London has come out fighting against the growing opposition to its controversial decision to extend the capital's congestion charge by promising to improve bus services.

Bus frequencies on 15 routes are to be improved in time for the start of the extended Congestion Charge to operate from February 2007. TfL is hoping this and other measures will quell some of the opposition to the extension westwards, taking in Kensington and Chelsea, with some 70% of residents said to be against the plan..."

Not got time to read through all that has been posted - so sorry if I cannot reply to any specific questions - I saw one at a question glance - I do agree with motorway tolls, and they will be part of the national scheme come 2015.

Until we have a much better idea of what is planned for the region (next year at some point) it think I'm going to keep quiet on the subject since at present there appears to be a lot of fear of the unknown, which is hard to argue with. I think the PTE have missed a trick here, they should have been all over the MEN explaining the proposals before the MEN carried the stories it did.

Right, since I tend to only be able to post from work, and the amount of posting I did yesterday is going to get me the sack quite soon, I'm only going to post about definative Metrolink news until we get some further details on this scheme.

I will mention one final thing though - the Yorkshire Evening Post carries a story about Leeds bidding to be in this list - but failing with the bid - they will now not be able to bid for billions of pounds worth of local public transport money that will be made available soon (see Leeds transport thread).

I'd suggest - even if you disagree with the approach being taken by Darling - which I can half understand why people are - given the situation, GMPTE had no choice but to do what they are doing.

Signing off the congestion scheme debate, but sticking around for Metrolink discussion, good to hear everyone's views.

P.S. If you really feel strongly about this - write to your MP / councillor / Darling / Blair. You will get a response, it may give you more of an insight into the thought process that those elected representatives of yours are going through - you may be able to so them there is a lot of support / opposition to the proposals - it's democracy, use it.

What do you chaps think about proposals for a toll running parallel to the M6?

It is not being well-received down this end I can tell you!

It strikes us as odd that they are looking at adding more roads on a free-flowing part of the M6, whereas the extra capacity is surely most-needed in the conurbations of Birmingham and Manchester? Incidentally - this is where they WON'T have the tollway (no space to expand).

''Er Metrolink....just a thought....
You mentioned that you were at work but you seem to have done nothing else today other than feed this forum....you wouldn't be part of the big propaganda push yourself would you?''

Here's one question you 'didn't have time to look at'.
I have to say I'm getting a bit suspicious about your motivations.

In theory I have no problem with a Toll Road between Manchester and Brum. You certainly can't travel on the current M6 very often if you think its free flowing!

Obviously the environmental impact would have to be considered and a widening scheme to the existing road may well be preferable.

However the big advantage of a toll road is that it would be largely privately financed, leaving the government free to spend/waste its transport budget elsewhere, like on Crossrail.

Lookin - I am nothing to do with any propaganda scheme, nothing to do with council, PTE, PTA or any MP.

I work for a company that has nothing to do with Metrolink.

They are my own opinions.

I got bollocked yesterday for spending so long on the internet.

My wife is seriously ill at home, so I don't have time to go in the computer after work.

I apologise for not trying to get myself the sack, or ignoring my critically ill wife to respond to a groups of peoples questions about something they clearing have very little idea about what is actually planned.

In theory I have no problem with a Toll Road between Manchester and Brum. You certainly can't travel on the current M6 very often if you think its free flowing!

Obviously the environmental impact would have to be considered and a widening scheme to the existing road may well be preferable.

However the big advantage of a toll road is that it would be largely privately financed, leaving the government free to spend/waste its transport budget elsewhere, like on Crossrail.

Up until very recently I used to use the M6 twice a day.

My point was that it was proposed to put a toll motorway parallel to the M6 through Staffordshire and Cheshire, NOT in the West Midlands and Greater Manchester.

When travelling from the M1 link, it is busy all the way through Warks, W Mids and into South Staffs, then it gets easier (apart from near Stoke) until you get near Mcr. The easier bit is where they are looking at adding the tollway :?

The M6 Toll is underused so why do they think this will work? Traffic using the Midland Expressway (or whatever it will be called) would still have to rejoin the M6 at Birmingham and Manchester - and that will be fun! :)

MEN article...

EducationHealthTechnologyUser CommentsShipman ArchiveNews Archive NewsSportFootballBusinessPersonal FinancePhoto GalleriesCrosswordAudio & VideoKilimanjaro 2005About UsContact Us
Manchester Online
HomeNewsM.E.N. TodaySportFootballEntertainmentShowbizHealth and BeautyBusinessJobsCV-StationHomesFood & DrinkTravelMotorsPersonal FinanceClassifiedsFamily NoticesPublic TransportCompetitionsChristmasHotelsDatingMancunia******* A SiteTourist GuideLocal PressLocal InfoWeatherOnline ShopBusiness DirectoryAdvertise Your JobAdvertising
home > m.e.n. today > news
Email to a Friend | Read Later | Your comments
Tuesday, 29th November 2005
MP calls for tram decision
Ian Craig

THE government was today being urged to make a decision over plans to extend the Metrolink system in Greater Manchester.

In a special Commons debate, the Rochdale Liberal Democrat MP, Paul Rowen, was setting out a five point plan aimed at breathing life back into light rail systems.

The plea for answers follows a decision by the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, to pull the plug on £315m plans for a Mersey tram line in Liverpool city centre.

Fonetastic

Talks are still ongoing about plans to extend the Metrolink system, which will see tramways going to Oldham, Rochdale and east Manchester.

Mr Rowen said: "Everyone wants to see the rise in road traffic halted. Light rail is popular with the public and can deliver if the government has the will to support it."

Mr Rowen's five point plan suggests the Department of Transport speed up approval for light rail, that the cost of public works should be reduced and companies should be allowed to purchase and lease rolling stock, spreading the cost over the life of the tram.

Thanks for all this info MetroLink. Sorry to hear about your wife, I hope she gets better soon.

Found this on my lunch hour... won't pass comment, since I think everyone knows my opinion - thanks for your comments Farsight.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/189/189510_leese_spells_out_terms_for_ccharge_.html

Leese spells out terms for C-charge
Clarissa Satchell

THERE is no question of congestion charging in Greater Manchester until public transport is improved, says city council leader Richard Leese.

Manchester will get £1.2m from the government to investigate how road pricing could work as part of seven pilot schemes announced by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling. He has made it clear he wants to expand congestion charging beyond London.

"This investment is part of the government's work to take forward local and regional schemes that explore the potential for a national road pricing scheme," said Mr Darling.

But Coun Leese told the M.E.N. there was no question of Greater Manchester starting to charge drivers until there was significant investment in public transport - and the study would only investigate the options.

He said: "We have been very consistent on our position with congestion charging. For Greater Manchester, the investment in public transport has got to come first.

"We have said that to Mr Darling and he seems to accept it. We have said all along we are not prepared to do anything that damages local economies.

"This cash will be used to develop a comprehensive methodology to show when we need to bring in management measures for congestion, which may or may not include congestion charging."

Mr Darling has said new technology such as satellite-controlled Global Positioning System (GPS) technology could be used for future charging schemes rather than London-style zoning, enforced by number plate recognition.

Volunteers

Norwich Union is already using GPS and black boxes fitted in cars to trial a scheme that would enable people to pay different rates of car insurance depending on how often they drove.

Coun Leese said the Manchester study would include a trial of this technology in cars, using a number of volunteers, but he emphasised it would not be used to test congestion charging at this stage.

"The data gathered in this way will tell us for the first time how people use their vehicles and we can use that information to monitor the road system better and make decisions about traffic control and road safety.

"We will be looking for volunteers to carry the technology and help us to map out people's vehicle use habits."

The pilot project, the biggest of its kind in the UK to date, will take place early next year. The money for the Manchester study has been awarded from an £18m Transport Innovation Fund set up by the government to help local authorities investigate "smarter, innovative transport packages".

Lord Peter Smith, leader of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, said: "Manchester and the wider region has a long-established policy on congestion charging and road pricing, and this has not changed.

"Our public transport-led approach is proving successful in persuading people to leave their cars at home. Securing improvements to public transport infrastructure, particularly Metrolink, remains our priority. The bid we made to the Transport Department reflects this position."

He said: "We have been very consistent on our position with congestion charging. For Greater Manchester, the investment in public transport has got to come first. "We have said that to Mr Darling and he seems to accept it. We have said all along we are not prepared to do anything that damages local economies. I'm pleased to hear this from council leader Richard Leese. I'd be even more pleased if Alastair Darling clearly accepts it rather than "seems" to accept it, but we'll see. Again, thanks for all this info, Metrolink.

Souter is starting to get on my tits! A few weeks a go he publicly attacked the Metrolink plans! Now he comes up with a half-baked idea that will require huge car parks, with retail! Otherwise known as a retail park! Original! :lol:

He should concentrate on his over priced, ageing, dirty, filthy, disgusting buses first!

This cunt would love to see Metrolink scrapped! All he's bothered about is his profits!

Boss told 'go for it' over bus plans

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/918.$plit/C_17_Articles_189532_BodyWeb_Detail_0_Image.jpg

BUS PLAN: Brian Souter.

PLANS to create a network of hi-tech guided busways and park and ride schemes in Manchester have been unveiled.

Brian Souter, the millionaire boss of bus company Stagecoach revealed the proposals in opposition to official plans laid out by transport bosses.

But the head of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority hit back by challenging Mr Souter to back them.

Chairman, Coun Roger Jones, said: "Stagecoach is a huge company making millions of pounds of profits each year and I would challenge Mr Souter to put his money where his mouth is.

"We are not blocking them. I would challenge them to find a site and make this work to a profit rather than following this mindset bus operators seem to have whereby they won't do anything without public money."

Mr Souter wants to create seven park and ride schemes near the M60 and build a link to the city centre using futuristic, bendy `street trains' built along Princess Parkway.

Sites would be set up in Cheadle, East Didsbury, Urmston, Ashton, Denton, Hazel Grove and at Southern Cemetery.

Mr Souter said: "Our experience in other parts of the country shows that park and ride is most successful when it's based near a motorway.

Mobile phone

"We find we get a big shift from car to bus when we do this. Parking is free so all you have to pay for is the bus and we would do special deals for a family to ensure it was cheaper than parking in central Manchester."

The plans also included using mobile phone technology to pay for tickets and ring-and-ride taxibuses for people unable to use public transport.

Mr Souter said: "We want to enter into a constructive dialogue with the PTE. The plan in its current form doesn't reflect all this good stuff we want to do.

"Our suggestion is to have major retailers like B&Q based on the same site as a park and ride so people could also shop at the same place."

The plans were commissioned after he said the official proposal, which will be submitted to the government early next year, put too much emphasis on trams.

But Coun Jones said: "Looking at Brian Souter's so-called new ideas I have to say they seem a bit of a damp squib. I support park and ride but it can be difficult to find sites and is often not very cost-effective."

GMPTE's Strategy Director, Keith Howcroft, said they would look at Stagecoach's suggestions.

He said: "We would welcome additional comments from both bus users and those involved in the industry before the final version of our bus strategy is submitted to the government."

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/534.$plit/C_17_Articles_189532_BodyWeb_Detail_1_Image.jpg

PLANS: Brian Souter has unveiled these plans for the Park and Ride scheme.

MP calls for tram decision

THE government was today being urged to make a decision over plans to extend the Metrolink system in Greater Manchester.

In a special Commons debate, the Rochdale Liberal Democrat MP, Paul Rowen, was setting out a five point plan aimed at breathing life back into light rail systems.

The plea for answers follows a decision by the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, to pull the plug on £315m plans for a Mersey tram line in Liverpool city centre.

Talks are still ongoing about plans to extend the Metrolink system, which will see tramways going to Oldham, Rochdale and east Manchester.

Mr Rowen said: "Everyone wants to see the rise in road traffic halted. Light rail is popular with the public and can deliver if the government has the will to support it."

Mr Rowen's five point plan suggests the Department of Transport speed up approval for light rail, that the cost of public works should be reduced and companies should be allowed to purchase and lease rolling stock, spreading the cost over the life of the tram.

Makes you mad - just how much priority do we give to cars in this country over public transport...

From a debate in Parliament yesterday

The Government used the National Audit Office report selectively in order to

justify retreating from giving approval to new light rail schemes, as
yesterday's announcement demonstrates.
The prime reason cited in all cases is cost. The Secretary of State for
Transport has repeatedly said that tram schemes cannot be funded at any
cost. Why does the Department not apply the same logic to other transport
schemes? The Hampshire and Liverpool light rail schemes are scrapped because

of cost overruns of 26 per cent. and 40 per cent, yet I understand that
trunk road schemes are now averaging a 53 per cent. cost overrun, and local
authority approved schemes have an average 42 per cent. cost overrun. For
example, the Kiln Lane link in Epsom showed a 76 per cent. increase on its
2001 approved cost, and the costs of the Rugby western bypass increased by
32 per cent.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/918.$plit/C_17_Articles_189532_BodyWeb_Detail_0_Image.jpg

Labour Party Donor

From ...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051130/halltext/51130h01.htm#51130h01_spnew0

long, but worth a read...


Portcullis image and link to site home page The United Kingdom Parliament
Search
Advanced Search


Home
Glossary
Index
Contact Us
Parliament Live



30 Nov 2005 : Column 77WH

Westminster Hall
Wednesday 30 November 2005
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]
Light Rail

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Frank Roy.]
9.30 am

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): I thank the House for agreeing to debate light rail. The subject is certainly timely, given yesterday's Government statement, which effectively killed off the Liverpool and the south Hampshire light rail schemes. Although it is not what I originally envisaged, the debate might more appropriately be entitled "What future for light rail in the UK?".

As I am the Member for Rochdale, my constituency has in it the Oldham-Rochdale loop line, which is included in the Manchester Metrolink phase 3 scheme. I seek an assurance from the Minister that that scheme will not be next for the chop. Since the Transport Committee reported earlier this year we have seen several light rail schemes picked off and dropped—those in Leeds, Merseyside and south Hampshire. Outside London, only the Manchester Metrolink and the Edinburgh scheme—the latter is funded differently—remain on the table. No doubt many hon. Members will want to comment on that.

How different that is from the 10-year transport plan of 2000, which envisaged 100 per cent. growth in the number of people using light rail, with Government support for 25 new schemes. Since then, we have seen the abandonment of the Department for Transport's 2002 growth target, the 2004 National Audit Office report on light rail, and the White Papers on rail and transport policy. The Government used the National Audit Office report selectively in order to justify retreating from giving approval to new light rail schemes, as yesterday's announcement demonstrates.

The prime reason cited in all cases is cost. The Secretary of State for Transport has repeatedly said that tram schemes cannot be funded at any cost. Why does the Department not apply the same logic to other transport schemes? The Hampshire and Liverpool light rail schemes are scrapped because of cost overruns of 26 per cent. and 40 per cent, yet I understand that trunk road schemes are now averaging a 53 per cent. cost overrun, and local authority approved schemes have an average 42 per cent. cost overrun. For example, the Kiln Lane link in Epsom showed a 76 per cent. increase on its 2001 approved cost, and the costs of the Rugby western bypass increased by 32 per cent.

Peter Viggers (Gosport) (Con): I want to follow up the point about Government encouragement for light rapid transit system schemes. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities in Hampshire—Gosport and Portsmouth—were encouraged to spend many millions of pounds developing a light rapid transit system? It would have been extremely viable, and was

30 Nov 2005 : Column 78WH

widely regarded as being one of the most cost-effective schemes in the country. Road schemes were delayed while that system was being discussed.

Paul Rowen : Yes, preparation for light rail schemes is often expensive, and local authorities and passenger transport authorities are expected to undertake a great deal of preparatory work. Why are the standards and criteria being applied to light rail not applied to road schemes? The same argument could be applied to many heavy rail schemes, welcome though they are. The Department for Transport does not seem to subject them to the same rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

The Select Committee on Transport concluded in April that

"light rail has the potential to be an important part of the transport mix . . . It needs to be part of an integrated transport system."

I hope that in the light of recent announcements, the Select Committee will have another look at the Department for Transport's support for light rail schemes. Why is the reverse happening on the continent? More light rail schemes are being developed there, yet in the UK we seem to be going backwards. The reason is partly cost, but some bureaucratic obstacles are being placed in the way of developing light rail schemes.

South London Trams has listed some of the advantages of the tram system in Croydon. Unemployment has been reduced; in New Addington, for example, it was reduced by 40 per cent. Congestion has been reduced, with about 20 per cent. of journeys being taken by tram that were previously taken by car; and road traffic has been reduced by 4 per cent. Trams can carry more than 200 passengers, which is the equivalent of three double-decker buses or two bendy buses. Trams use less fuel and do not emit fumes, so air quality is improved. More importantly, all sections of the community like them, unlike buses. Greater Manchester passenger transport authority has produced similar arguments to show the benefits of Metrolink—a subject to which I shall return.

South London Trams has produced a costing annualised over 30 years comparing the cost of conventional buses, bendy buses and trams. A conventional bus works out at £46 million, a bendy bus at £32 million and a tram at £20 million. There are different ways of measuring the cost, but although the initial cost of trams is higher, trams are cheaper over 30 years.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the long-term costs and benefits, but other social, environmental and wider economic costs must be taken into account, and when they are, trams seem to be a very good buy.

Paul Rowen : I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that where trams are used regeneration has occurred and, as in Manchester, areas have been developed and improved.

Before considering what action should be taken to put light rail back on track, I want to look at the Manchester Metrolink scheme. As I said during my maiden speech in the House, the Rochdale-Oldham line was first proposed in 1987 and was expected to be completed and

30 Nov 2005 : Column 79WH

running by 1992, but we are still not there. Since their election in 1997 the Government had given every encouragement to the development of the Manchester Metrolink. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister, and then the Prime Minister, suggested that the passenger transport authority should submit all three schemes at once. However, that changed on 20 July 2004, when the Secretary of State effectively withdrew funding for the Metrolink scheme. Many hon. Members will be aware that that produced what has probably been the most successful all-party, all-community campaign in Greater Manchester, which resulted in the Secretary of State putting the £520 million back on the table in December 2004. I also understand that he has confirmed that the budget could be supplemented with additional local resources and with bidding under the transport innovation scheme.

Since then, Greater Manchester passenger transport executive officers have worked hard with Department for Transport officials to produce a viable scheme. The transport plan was submitted in June 2005 and funding has been agreed for phase 1 and 2 renewals. The original plans have been reworked and a detailed assessment of the non-transport innovation fund and the transport innovation funding implications of phase 3 expansion is reaching a conclusion, which includes a new approach to procurement and risk sharing.

I have no doubt that the plans for the Oldham-Rochdale loop line are sensible, and the costs stack up. For example, the heavy rail line currently has a £5 million annual subsidy which, if costed over 30 years, produces £150 million. The line needs urgent upgrading of track and signalling, some of which would not be needed if it were converted for light rail. That cost has been estimated at up to £60 million. Putting those two costs together would bridge the gap and make the line viable.

I want to ask the Minister three questions. Is the Department for Transport committed to the three Manchester Metrolink lines? Does he accept that the scheme is now an integrated transport solution, which will require additional transport innovation fund resources, and is the Department committed to giving the authority those resources? Finally, when does he expect an announcement to be made on when the third phase can proceed?

What can and should be done to get light rail back on track? Five things could improve the viability of light rail. First, the procurement method should change from design, build, run and maintain to splitting up the contract so that more companies and more people can be involved. Secondly, we should allow ROSCOs—rolling stock leasing companies—or similar operating companies to purchase and lease rolling stock, spreading the cost over the life of the tram rather than treating it, as we do currently, as an up-front cost. Thirdly, we can achieve economies of scale by commissioning two standard tram designs, low-front and high-front, and ordering enough of them to make it worth while. For example, Madrid recently ordered 70

30 Nov 2005 : Column 80WH

Citadel 302 trams and got a 15.7 per cent. reduction, bringing down the cost of each tram to £1.4 million. That was a considerable saving.

Kelvin Hopkins : I am very supportive of the hon. Gentleman, but he talks about ROSCOs buying trams, and on the railways ROSCOs charge extortionate amounts—up to 30 per cent. per year. Surely trams can be bought by the public sector at a reasonable return. It would just take the Government to agree that that borrowing could go on the public account rather than the private account to overcome the problem. The charges that ROSCOs make to the railways are out of all proportion.

Paul Rowen : I agree that the costs are high. However, I am trying to suggest a way forward in case the Government are not prepared to commit any more public money. I would far rather they treated light rail as they treat road schemes, on which it does not seem to matter how much costs overrun, but if they will not do that, we need some alternatives.

The fourth matter to consider is the cost of the public works. At the moment, a promoter has to pay 92.5 per cent. of such costs. For the Manchester Metrolink scheme, that is £45 million. In France the limit is 30 per cent. and in Germany it is zero. Public utilities are expected to bear the cost just as we here expect them to bear the cost of restoring any roads that they dig up.

The final change needed is to reduce the time that the Department for Transport takes to approve a scheme. We need a speedier and simpler process with more support from the Department for Transport so that, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) suggested, some of the expenses that authorities currently incur could be saved and used in other areas where the money might be better spent.

Everybody wants to see the inexorable rise in road traffic halted. Light rail is popular with the public, and can deliver if the Government have the will to support it. I am in no doubt that many hon. Members want that happen, as we can see from the recent formation of the all-party group on light rail. Now I seek a similar commitment from the Government—or has everything that we have heard recently been just warm words?

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. Given the great interest in the debate, I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that the winding-up speeches must start at 10.30.
9.45 am

Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) on having secured the debate. Let me remind the House that in October last year we held a similar debate on the future of light rail after the Secretary of State announced the cancellation and withdrawal of funds from three tram systems.

Since then, two important things have happened. First, during the general election, the Prime Minister announced in the hon. Gentleman's constituency that the big bang solution, as it is known in Greater

30 Nov 2005 : Column 81WH

Manchester—the three and a half extensions to Metrolink—would go ahead. I have no reason to doubt that the Prime Minister will ensure that that happens. Secondly, in April this year the Transport Committee presented its report, "Integrated Transport: the Future of Light Rail and Modern Trams in the United Kingdom". It is worth going over some of its conclusions, because it puts into context many of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Six important conclusions came out of the evidence presented to the Committee. The first, which will surprise hon. Members, is that Metrolink, trams and light rail are a million times safer per billion passenger miles than either buses or heavy rail. That surprised me when I worked through the figures.

Secondly—the hon. Gentleman made this point—if we look properly at the figures, we see that although the up-front capital costs of light rail have been increasing, over the period of use light rail is actually cheaper than buses. There are two ways of working that out. The first is in the Select Committee report. The cost per passenger mile for trams is 2.4p; for buses, it varies from 3.5 to 6.5p, so trams are cheaper. The second way, which hon. Members will not find in the report unless they look very hard, is that if we capitalise all the subsidy that goes into buses annually—the bus service operator grant, the money that subsidises fares for the elderly and children, and other public money going into buses via county councils and passenger transport executives—we find that it is more than all the capital investment that has gone into trams and light rail so far. What do we get at the end? No capital, and not the transport infrastructure that we need, but fat bottom lines for the major bus operating companies.

Thirdly, light rail and trams have been the most important transport facility in getting people out of cars and on to public transport; they have been much more effective at that than buses. Fourthly, all the Committee's evidence showed that cities and major conurbations want trams, and that trams lead to regeneration. Shockingly, the Department for Transport and Ministers admitted that they were considering spending between £10 million and £15 million on a study enabling us to understand how regeneration works with light rail. That work really should have been done beforehand, because any city leader or mayor will tell you that light rail is vital to regeneration and future investment in cities.

Fifthly, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that trams are environmentally better, and that is absolutely true. Sixthly, people sometimes say that buses can do the job of trams more cheaply; however, they cannot provide the same capacity. Ten trams running at six-minute intervals will take between 3,000 and 4,000 passengers to the centre of a city. Buses simply do not have that capacity.

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): On my hon. Friend's point about regeneration, if we take a city or conurbation such as Greater Manchester, it is obvious that the existing Metrolink has had a regenerative effect there, and that it is a vital part of plans for the future. The lack of joined-up government on this issue is always a bit of a paradox; the Government, who are genuinely

30 Nov 2005 : Column 82WH

investing heavily in the regeneration of Greater Manchester, have not seen the logic of making Metrolink an integral part of the regeneration process.

Graham Stringer : My hon. Friend makes a profound and important point, which the Transport Committee has made to Ministers a number of times. Local transport plans have four objectives, and not one of them is regeneration. It clearly should be, because the people who run our great cities say that regeneration is their top priority, and transport should be fitted into that.

My next point is about an interesting connection. The Secretary of State and other Ministers have explained that the costs of tram systems have increased, and that is true. However, during its study the Committee found that the Department was part of the problem. It had persuaded and supported a procurement system that, as the hon. Member for Rochdale says, is expensive. The cheapest system would have been public sector procurement.

The Department had been a problem because of its response times to different tram schemes. There were two delays of more than 18 months in its response to one scheme, and all the time inflation was increasing in the building industry, and the banks and finance houses were getting more and more risk-averse because of the problems with Network Rail and one or two of the tram systems.

When we looked at the Department's evidence to the Select Committee, it was almost impossible to come to any conclusion other than that there was serious bias in the Department in favour of deregulated buses and against trams and light rail. I refer hon. Members to the evidence from FirstGroup, on page Ev 173 of the Select Committee report, and the Department's evidence on page Ev 185: the criticism of light rail is almost identical. However, most of the other evidence across the board presents a much more balanced view of where trams and light rail are appropriate. They are not appropriate in every case, but trams provide solutions that cannot be provided by anything else where there are heavily populated corridors in large urban conurbations.

While the Department was delaying its responses, in Greater Manchester it was encouraging FirstGroup and Stagecoach, in a deregulated bus system, to run in competition with trams. That was unhelpful. When there is such encouragement via quality bus corridors, that often means that feeder bus routes, both to the tram system and into those corridors, get worse.

I am aware of the time, so I want to finish with three quick points. Where has all this left us? As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the £520 million is back on the table and the passenger transport executive in Greater Manchester is now going through a bidding process for the first phase of what would have been the big bang solution, which is refurbishment. However, the tram system in Manchester is not working as it has done and is not attracting so many passengers.

I phoned the deputy director general of the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive yesterday, and he said that the system works better when there are 32 trams, although they can get by with 28. However, because of the delays, often only 25 trams are in service, which means that my constituents—the people whom I

30 Nov 2005 : Column 83WH

represent—often have to wait in the cold weather at rush hour, finding that trams are not turning up. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the process can be speeded up.

I shall suggest how that that could happen. There is a £102 million contract; 10 trams that could move on to the system and improve the situation would cost only £16 million. What sort of centralised country are we living in? Not only can a great city such as Manchester not make such decisions itself, but it has to wait for the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State to make a decision to invest in a relatively small number of trams. We need those trams now. We need the final decision as soon as possible, because the travelling public are getting impatient; they like the system but it is not operating as well as it could, because of the delays.

The hon. Member for Rochdale, in a comprehensive speech, made the point that we must ask ourselves about the centralisation in this country. Not only that, he said that we should consider how things happen in Lyon in France, and why a relatively small place in France—Clermont Ferrand, whose exact population I do not know—can put together a £190 million, 14 km tram system in four years from the decision to finance it, not the 15 years it is taking us to put tram schemes together in this country. That indicates that we have too much centralised decision making, which delays the process and is bad for the cities and regions of this country.

I will finish with a point that will not be controversial in Manchester, but might be here in London. The last time we had this debate, a number of us made the point that this subject illustrated the fact that the north-south divide existed, because at the same time as the money was stopped for the three tram schemes, one third of a billion pounds was announced for London transport—and since then, there has been the decision to hold the Olympics in London. I think that that is a disastrous decision for the cities and regions of England.

The Minister has a terribly difficult job, and is regularly conveying bad news to parts of England. I want assurances that the £3.5 billion now being talked about for a new sewerage system for east London and the Olympics will not—as The Guardian reported last Friday—influence the financing of the Manchester Metrolink. I would also like the assurance that none of the other extra resources going into transport in London that we have heard about on the Transport Committee will come out of the Manchester scheme.
9.58 am

Peter Viggers (Gosport) (Con): My constituency of Gosport is based on a peninsula, and the neighbouring town of Fareham is rapidly developing. The link between Gosport and Portsmouth is across a narrow 4,600 yd channel. The whole area is regarded as being ideally suitable for a light rail transit system, because road access is difficult. For decades some have thought that there could be a tunnel under the harbour at Portsmouth and some form of special transport system.

Such thinking was encouraged in 1997, when the present Government came to power, and there was much talk of integrated transport systems. Hampshire county council, Portsmouth city council, and Gosport

30 Nov 2005 : Column 84WH

and Fareham borough councils were encouraged to spend many millions of pounds of council tax payers' money investigating the possibility of a light rapid transit system.

Eventually the scheme was proposed, and it was indeed expensive. However, it was thought that it would comply with Government requirements, because the Government were talking so much about environmental issues being taken into account in cost analysis. Therefore, the local authorities felt justified in continuing. There was a public inquiry in Portsmouth, at which I made the first speech. I stressed that while there was the short-term disadvantage that roadworks in the area would cause congestion, the longer-term impact would be considerable, and future generations would have the benefit of this long-sighted planning, which the Government were encouraging and which the local authorities were undertaking.

Eventually, the scheme was given approval and was put through to Government. There was a long delay, at the end of which the Government rejected the scheme as too expensive. The local authorities went back to the drawing board and cut the scheme back to make it affordable. It went back to the Government for approval a long time ago. We were hoping for approval at the beginning of this year, and then we were pressing for it in July. I have tabled many parliamentary questions and written many letters to the Minister pleading for an answer, because all the time the local authorities are incurring expense. There have been months of delay. I tabled a question on Monday for priority answer next Wednesday—and now we have the announcement that the Government will not back the south Hampshire scheme. That will be greeted with great disappointment and anger in south Hampshire.

Hampshire county council—all credit to it—understands the problems of south Hampshire. The residents of north Hampshire have supported those in south Hampshire in putting forward this imaginative scheme, and the whole county has put a large number of eggs in the basket of light rapid transit in south Hampshire. As a result, all local road schemes, such as the Stubbington bypass and the improvements to the A32, have effectively been put on hold. Everything has been hanging on the decision on the light rapid transit system, and now we get this slap in the face.

I find it deeply disappointing that the Government have encouraged local authorities to spend so much money on such schemes. I find it equally disappointing that the Government failed to give the answer earlier, for I know not what reason. It would even have helped if they had been brave enough to give a negative decision earlier, rather than allowing the local authorities to continue to waste so much time and energy. Time and money have been lost. It is deeply and profoundly disappointing, and I can only ask the Minister whether he will take account of all those factors, and what special circumstances he will take account of to help south Hampshire come back to a new system of transport now that he has rejected our preferred option.
10.2 am

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): I shall confine my remarks to Merseytram line 1 and lines 2 and 3, which would have followed had

30 Nov 2005 : Column 85WH

it gone ahead. The line has been in the making for the past five or more years, with strong support from Liverpool city council—in principle, at any rate—and huge support from Knowsley metropolitan borough council. A enormous amount of work, most of it imaginative, went in from Merseytravel, the passenger transport authority for Merseyside. After a great deal of work, we were told yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister that the scheme would not get Government approval.

It is important to get the context right. Line 1, which would have had a profound effect on my constituency, was routed in a particular way for particular reasons. Of the 20 most deprived electoral wards in England, 11 are in Merseyside and Merseytram line 1 would have run along six of those. As a result of that deprivation, Merseyside has qualified for European Union objective 1 status since 1994 and 81 per cent. of the people in the catchment area of Merseytram line 1 live within the objective 1 area. It was deliberately sited along that route for that reason.

In figures published in July 2004, unemployment in Liverpool and Knowsley were, respectively, 96 per cent. and 59 per cent. above the average for the north-west. There is a clear need for the tram to make employment and education much more accessible for people in some of the poorest areas on Merseyside. Access to health and shopping facilities would also be a benefit. It is not just me saying that. The inspector at the public inquiry that was held last year recorded in his report:

"Line 1 would have a very significant impact in socio-economic terms, greatly enhancing the prospects, networks and life chances of people living in areas of extremely high social and economic deprivation."

He also said:

"especially for the majority of Line 1 corridor residents who are without a car, the presence of the tram would significantly improve access to jobs, opening access to the additional 12,000 city centre jobs which are an Objective One target and improving access to 55,000 jobs overall."

Line 1 would have had a huge impact on the local economy, especially in some of the poorest areas of Merseyside. The route would have hugely enhanced Kirkby in my constituency. Indeed, line 2, which would have terminated in your constituency, Mr. O'Hara, would have had a similar effect, and line 3 would have had a huge effect on south Liverpool.

Where are we now? I find the whole thing bitterly disappointing and I am perplexed by the way in which the Government have dealt with the main local authorities and Merseytravel. Back in June, when the Government started to get cold feet about the scheme, we had meetings with the Minister. There were also many discussions between the local authorities and Merseytravel. He set certain conditions, which were fair. With the benefit of hindsight, I understand why he did so.

The principal condition was that the local authorities would agree to fund any cost overruns, and a lot of work was done on that. However, I take slight issue with something that the Minister said in an interview on Radio Merseyside yesterday, at which I was also present. He said that no due diligence work had been carried out since June, but that is simply not true. Investec was commissioned by the local authorities to

30 Nov 2005 : Column 86WH

carry out that work and it came up with a figure that it felt reasonably represented the likely quantum of any cost overrun.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Derek Twigg) : May I make it clear that that reflected Liverpool city council's legal advice? It said that it could not rely on assurances from the PTA without further due diligence work. It was in respect of that that I made my comment.

Mr. Howarth : I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but if he goes back to the transcript of his interview on Radio Merseyside, he will see that he did not give that qualification and that he incorrectly said that no due diligence had been carried out since June. If I am wrong about that, I shall apologise, but I followed him on the radio and clearly heard what he said. In fact, due diligence work was carried out, and the scale of likely cost overruns was identified as £24 million. A great deal of work went into finding a way to fund that overrun, and the consequence was that Knowsley council and Liverpool city council gave an undertaking to take out loans of up to £24 million to bridge the likely gap.

That still was not enough for the Minister and the Department for Transport, which asked for guarantees over and above the amount identified by Investec. The scheme's promoter, Merseytravel—it had the idea and put in all the work—then gave an assurance that it would meet any costs over and above the likely £24 million overrun. Indeed, it also gave an undertaking to do so within its £250 million annual budget. The likely cost overrun over the £170 million made available by the Government would therefore be covered by a loan guaranteed by Liverpool city council and Knowsley council, and Merseytravel undertook to meet any costs above that £24 million.

That was about as reasonable an offer as one could get. Although I have a slight criticism of Merseyside's attitude in general, which I shall discuss in a moment, I strongly feel that the guarantees offered to the Department should have been acceptable. Indeed, if the scheme had been proposed elsewhere, they would have been. A prejudice against Merseyside, or at least Merseytravel, seems to be at work in the Department, although that is not necessarily true of the Minister. That prejudice has played a part in this outcome, and that is wholly unacceptable. I am concerned that the Department will not allow us a fair crack of the whip in the future.

Criticism can be levelled at Merseyside, as the Minister will no doubt point out, and I share that criticism to some extent. Like you, Mr. O'Hara, I have been an elected politician for part of Merseyside for a very long time—in my case, almost all my adult life. I used to argue that we have always been unfairly compared with Greater Manchester. However, when Greater Manchester's section 151 officers—that is, officers with financial responsibility—were asked to give their assurance that it was within the means of the local authorities to meet any costs involved, they did. When Merseyside was asked the same, two of the local authorities—St. Helens and Wirral—turned their backs on it completely. They were not prepared even to risk

30 Nov 2005 : Column 87WH

any cost falling on the levy, and therefore on the council tax payers in the case of Wirral. They were not prepared to let anything affect tunnel tolls.

Sefton was far more generous, but in the end it did not think that it could go along with what was being asked of it. It was left to Knowsley, the smallest local authority on Merseyside, Merseytravel and Liverpool city council to provide as much guarantee as possible. Liverpool city council undertook to guarantee to meet most of the £24 million, but the officers of the council, as distinct from its members, have done everything possible to sabotage the scheme, even to the extent of commissioning legal advice on the eve of the end of the decision-making process, which in effect blew the whole scheme out of the water. I do not know why those senior officers set out to do that. Nor do I know why they defied the wishes of their elected Labour and Liberal Democrat members.

I am sorry to say that that shows yet again that Merseyside is politically dysfunctional compared with Greater Manchester. I am not blaming any one political party, because no one political party was pitted against another. Without being offensive to Conservative representatives in the Chamber, there are no Conservative representatives on Merseyside, so they did not figure in the decision-making process.

I conclude by making two criticisms. First, the Government should have accepted the case, which was a strong one, and the assurances that they were given. Secondly, Merseyside should have united to back the scheme, as Manchester did in the case of the Metrolink, instead of doing everything that they could in some quarters to undermine it.
10.15 am

Greg Mulholland (Leeds, North-West) (LD): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) on securing this debate, on an occasion that is more timely than he could have possibly known when he requested it. That leads me to offer my condolences to the people of Liverpool and south Hampshire for the very bad news that they received yesterday about their two schemes. We in Leeds can empathise, after the decision to turn down the supertram a few weeks ago. One of the only positive things to have come out of that very disappointing process in the past few months—a process that was probably very similar to the experiences of the people of Liverpool and south Hampshire—is that it led to my first appearance in Private Eye as a result. Unfortunately, however, it was in "Colemanballs".

My parents live in Altrincham, which is at one end of the Metrolink. In 1992 I saw commuters start to take shiny new trams into Manchester, as they never would have taken buses. Since I have been in Leeds, I have been a proponent of the Leeds supertram scheme, first as a member of the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority, Metro, and more recently as an MP. The decision itself has been a bitter blow, as has the way in which the city and its people have been treated. The decision was delayed and delayed, until finally it was made.

One of the top 10 most congested roads in the country, the A660, is in my constituency. In fact, there was much ironic hilarity when speed cameras were put

30 Nov 2005 : Column 88WH

in on a section of the road in Headingley where, even outside the rush hour, people are lucky to do more than 5 mph. There is a pressing and urgent need for a light rail system to deal with the ever worsening congestion problems in Leeds. Such a system has the support of the council, the local business community, the local trade unions, the public sector, the hospitals trust and the general public. More significantly for Government finance, its cost-benefit analysis ratio was 2.5:1. According to Department for Transport guidance, that means that the scheme should probably have been granted approval, as the guidance says that at that level,

"most if not all schemes should be approved".

The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) touched on the divide that we in the north of England perceive. I share his view that there is something of a north-south divide. However, we as northerners must be careful to point out that in fact, the divide is between Greater London and the regions. I tabled a question yesterday to ask the Secretary of State if he could give categorical assurances that the granting of the Olympics to London had not and would not impact on transport and other infrastructure systems in the rest of the country. Perhaps we will get the answer a little earlier than I had expected, but the fact that the Government would not grant £355 million to Leeds, the fastest growing city in this country, but are prepared to invest £11 billion in Crossrail, speaks for itself.

I need to pick up some of the issues surrounding the supertram bid, as the Government's arguments and figures simply do not add up. It was decided in 2001 that the supertram scheme would be a private finance initiative scheme. A public allocation of £355 million was approved but, because of the complexity of the scheme and the length of the contract—in this case, 32 years—and the complex concept of net present value, revised costs of £348 million were presented on the same basis as for the original funding. The Department said, entirely inaccurately, that the costs had risen by nearly 40 per cent. The reality is that the call on central Government funding was not above the original sum approved in 2001, yet the scheme was turned down.

Notably, the promoters, the PTA and the local authority offered to provide £30 million. The idea was that that would delay the call on central Government funding for another few years, but the offer was not even acknowledged in the announcement telling us that we would not get our tram.

The Department for Transport said that the supertram figures were seriously misleading. There was much that was seriously misleading, but it was in the Department's conclusions. I am concerned that the Government are seriously failing on transport.

The 10-year transport plan announced in 2000 boldly proclaimed that we would have 25 new light rail schemes in this country. At the recent CBI conference, the Secretary of State said:

"One of the biggest threats to economic expansion . . . in the next 10 to 15 years is congestion".

That is exactly what we have been saying in Leeds, and I am sure that people have said it in Manchester, Liverpool, south Hampshire and the other areas where congestion is being ignored by the Government. In Leeds, developments are already under threat since the

30 Nov 2005 : Column 89WH

decision to turn down supertram was made. There is a feeling that that decision makes a mockery of regional economic policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale touched on the crucial point: we are talking about how we do things in this country. I have to explain to people in Leeds why we did not get the supertram. They say, "I believe it was too expensive." I ask them, "What do you think was too expensive?" They reply, "The tracks and digging up the road, and the vehicles." I have to explain to them that those things were not too expensive; the expense was the fact that the Government are forcing 30 years of risk into the cost. People find that very hard to understand, and I find it very hard to understand, too.

In Lyon, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, two light rail systems were provided in less than four years. In this country it took 15 and a half years to get one in Sheffield, and in Manchester, after 28 years, we still do not have a line to Oldham and Rochdale—18 years after parliamentary approval was given for it. There is clearly something wrong in the way we do things. Our system does not allow local people and local authorities to borrow or to take risks in their cities. We have split responsibilities: PTAs are asked to come up with money, but if schemes do go ahead, they lose all control over them.

Under this Government, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and George Stephenson would probably have given up and taken jobs in the City. In this country we have lost sight of what public transport is for. It is there to provide the best possible transport for local people to get around their areas as cost-effectively as possible. We need integration, re-regulation and vision.

In conclusion, the transport policy of this Government has been probably the biggest area of failure. We have seen road building but little in the way of integrated, modern, 21st-century public transport systems. Policy has been categorised by short-termism, over-centralisation and timidity; we need long-term vision, local control and accountability, and courage. We need those qualities before our regional cities clog up. I am pleased to be taking part in this debate, and I am sure that the House, including MPs from all parties, will not stand by waiting for transport improvements that will not happen. Otherwise, the economic cost will be too dear for the Government to bear.

Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): With a reminder about the time, I call Mr. Betts.
10.25 am

Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): I shall be brief, Mr. O'Hara. I am a complete enthusiast for light rail, because of the experience of Sheffield. Before the Liberal Democrats get too critical of the Government, I remind them that it was the Lib Dems in Sheffield who petitioned Parliament against the Sheffield Supertram, and they opposed it for a number of years. At least the Labour party in South Yorkshire has been consistent on the matter.

Greg Mulholland : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Betts : No. I am sorry, but I will not give way, in view of the time.

30 Nov 2005 : Column 90WH


On funding, the Supertram in Sheffield covers its costs in terms of revenue, but it will never cover its capital costs. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer): we should see those capital costs as permanent long-term investments in the infrastructure of our cities, facilitating the economic and social life of those cities. Unlike other forms of subsidy, at least that brings a long-term benefit.

If the Department for Transport believes that the costs of some schemes are over the top, perhaps it should take the lead in doing an analysis, with transport authorities, of the comparisons between costs in the United Kingdom and costs on the continent. Some of the transfers of requirements from heavy to light rail may be forcing our costs up, and we should take a look at that.

As for the benefits of the Sheffield Supertram, people regard it as a quality form of transport. Passenger numbers are going up on the tram, as they have dropped by 30 per cent. on buses during the past 10 years. There is regeneration; one can see it happening. There is even a major landowner who wants to pay to reroute the tram and increase regeneration benefits. The tram is environmentally friendly, too.

In South Yorkshire we are considering extensions to Rotherham, the Royal Hallamshire hospital and Broomhill. One benefit of extension is that it opens up the tram not merely to other areas and other potential passengers, but to existing areas and passengers, who have more routes and more areas to access. It is important to bear in mind the fact that capacity and passenger use goes up on those routes.

I understand the Government's concerns about the cost. They have to bear down on costs and be vigilant about them, but one gets a sense that the mood music in the Department for Transport has changed—that it was pro-tram and willing to consider schemes favourably, but it is now resistant to the idea. Given the likelihood that there will always be long lead-in times for the development of tram schemes—although I hope that future lead-in times will be shorter—we need a certainty and consistency in Government policy that has been lacking in recent years.

I have two final points. The Supertram was built for an integrated system with buses linked to it. We ended up with a tram that was built in a deregulated environment in which bus routes changed to compete with the tram. Because First runs the buses and Stagecoach runs the trams, there is not even any proper through-ticketing policy in South Yorkshire, 15 years on. If the Government are saying that there will be no bus regulation and no tram extension, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister the following question: what public transport policy are the Government offering cities such as Sheffield?

Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): There is just time for a cameo from Tony Lloyd.
10.27 am

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): Thank you, Mr. O'Hara, I shall be watchful of the time. May I also congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen)? This is an important debate, as we have

30 Nov 2005 : Column 91WH

heard from today's contributions, and this is an important matter throughout England and the large conurbations.

Manchester has demonstrated that its own Metrolink is a success, and I want to refer to the remarks that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) made about the regeneration impact. I am bound to find this frustrating, representing as I do the inner-city constituency in Manchester, where regeneration, inspired by this Government—frankly, it would not have taken place without the efforts of this Government—has been frustrated by the slowness and delays in bringing forward the Metrolink scheme.

Metrolink is a vital part of that regeneration. It brings to bear part of the infrastructure that is necessary to deliver the high-quality transport links that that regeneration needs. We have seen in Greater Manchester how existing Metrolink schemes have impacted on places that would have traditionally been seen as less than fashionable. Those places are now economically and socially successful, and Metrolink has played an important part.

My question to the Minister is whether we can break through the "departmentalitis" on this matter. I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that the mood seems to have changed—and changed perversely and paradoxically. The benefits of Metrolink, even relative to other transport systems, seem to be fairly obvious—at least to a lay person such as myself. Because of the inability to compare like with like in terms of the total spending, we have come to the illogical conclusion that Metrolink is too expensive.

I am at one with the Minister about wanting to bear down on the costs of the Metrolink scheme. It is in the interests of the taxpayer and the council tax payer. However, when the greater benefits of the Metrolink scheme's wider impact are added, the case for tram schemes in Greater Manchester and elsewhere is proven. I hope that we can grapple with that idea both in Manchester and in general, so that we can force through the rapid development of light trams. I have tried to keep within your time frame, Mr. O'Hara.
10.30 am

Dr. John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) on securing a timely and important debate. I shall begin with a slight declaration of interest, because my grandfather was an inspector when Liverpool had trams, and my great-grandfather played a part in building them.

We are all aware that the period from the 1950s to the 1990s was a bad one for such transport. We seem to be on the cusp of a new dawn, however, because people have realised the benefits in terms of a modal shift: getting the business man out of his car, the reduction in pollution, the regeneration, and the reduction in congestion. But to many of us, that new dawn is turning out to be a false dawn. The Leeds scheme has gone belly up, the Hampshire and Liverpool schemes are not to proceed, and Metrolink is still in some doubt. The supposition is that that is all a response to escalating

30 Nov 2005 : Column 92WH

costs and a new tough Treasury stance, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale pointed out, does not apply to road transport schemes.

On average, the costs of local transport plan schemes are 42 per cent. more than what was predicted. Only one recent Highways Agency scheme has come in under cost. None the less, it must be acknowledged that some newer schemes are more expensive than some of the initial ones. The estimated cost per kilometre was about £10.2 million for completed schemes and it is about £13.2 million for those that are projected. That is a real difference. However, it is not a linear difference—an obvious, continuous escalation. For example, there is a significant difference between the cost per kilometre for Sheffield and Manchester. There is no clear pattern at the moment.

The Minister is on record as saying something to the effect that we must find out why it costs twice as much to build trams—

Kelvin Hopkins : I am interested in the parallel with the railways in this context; Railtrack's cost per mile has risen by four times since privatisation. The costs are not to do with problems inherent to tramways, but are something to do with the way that we build things.

Dr. Pugh : Yes, there is a genuine reason to drill down into the costs and find out why they are as they are. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale wants the Department to go down that route. However, perhaps we should consider simple continental comparisons for capital costs. I mentioned the figure of £13.2 million per kilometre for projected costs in the UK. The Bordeaux tram scheme is coming in at about £18 million per kilometre. The Paris scheme, the T3, is coming in at about £15.4 million per kilometre. Even quite modest schemes in Portugal and Barcelona are coming in at between £8 million and £10 million per kilometre.

Across the board tram schemes are pretty expensive, and the British ones do not necessarily compare as unfavourably as we might think with those on the continent. The Merseytram scheme was to be 19 km in length and the projected Paris scheme is much shorter. Were it to be extended to the same length as the Mersey scheme would have been, it would come in at about £400 million. That will give hon. Members an idea of the comparative costs—even with the high consultancy costs and utility costs for British schemes, and the significant local subsidies that go into continental schemes in addition to Government subsidies.

Some of the schemes that we are developing have, none the less, unique features. I want to dwell briefly on an aspect of the Merseyside scheme that died the death yesterday. It was unique in some ways compared with many of the continental models, because it would have joined a series of wards and constituencies where there are large numbers of people who might be described as socially excluded in many ways. It was advanced primarily as a regeneration scheme. Many of the continental schemes do not do that, but tend to link together areas of high economic activity.

While we are going through the blame-laying exercise for the Merseyside scheme we may ponder what the Department's take on that would be. The right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East

30 Nov 2005 : Column 93WH

(Mr. Howarth) put forward the view that the local authorities in Liverpool were not united. I have been present at some meetings at which they were very united, but had slightly different takes on the matter. Authorities such as Knowsley and Liverpool city council, which stood wholly to benefit, would obviously be, on balance, more enthusiastic than those such as Wirral, which needed to worry about the repercussions such as the cost of tolls and so on.

I reject what the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East said about Merseyside political culture being dysfunctional, because that is not true across the board in relation to all kinds of schemes.

Mr. George Howarth : The hon. Gentleman should be more accurate about what I said. My comparison was specifically with Greater Manchester, where each section 151 officer gave the assurances necessary. That did not happen on Merseyside, although there may be good reasons why it did not.

Dr. Pugh : There were extra expectations of the Merseyside political community that did not exist in Manchester, but I will come to that later.

There is another view of the Merseytram scheme: that the Government are looking for a way out of a scheme that they are not convinced provides value for money. The Northwest Development Agency would have preferred the projected route to Liverpool John Lennon airport to be the first route, because that would have guaranteed obvious regional benefits, but it would also have lost some of the equally obvious social exclusion benefits. Such a scheme might have been more broadly supported across the political community. I simply do not know.

I would like to know what advice the Government offered at the early stage about how to proceed. The Government's tone throughout the scheme has been largely that of a bank manager rather than a partner. They have not taken a proper partnership approach. The supposition that local authorities, which are, after all, capped, can take on board whatever liabilities come their way, and that the Government are just stuck at the figure of £170 million does not reflect, for example, the experience in Edinburgh with the Scottish Executive.

The experience on Merseyside has been traumatic, wearing and deeply discouraging. People on Merseyside want to know where the £170 million is actually going to go, because at the moment Merseyside is a net loser in real terms. Significant amounts of money have already been spent on the scheme, with no result so far.

Many Members, including the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), have said that there is a north-south split in the debate, and there genuinely is. Most Members present are from the north. Looking ahead, do we really think that schemes such as Crossrail, and the billions that will be spent on them, will be subject to same rigour as schemes that are far less expensive in real terms? Why, for example, did the Government change their attitude in the negotiation with the Merseyside passenger transport authority and the Merseyside political community and insist that the local authority, not the PTA, underwrite the scheme? Was that advice given right at the start, and if not, should it have been?

30 Nov 2005 : Column 94WH


That leads us to the big question: are the Government trying to give up on trams, full stop? What will they do to make tram schemes proceed better in the future? What will they do to reduce the costs of such schemes—the cost associated with the utilities and so on? What will they do to respond to the criticism made of them in April 2005 by the Public Accounts Committee? Why are they taking such a non-negotiable stance on tram schemes? That stance is not applied to road schemes, and it is not found in Scotland, where the Scottish Executive consider light rail and other schemes. How will the Government evaluate and weight subsequent schemes? What advice will they offer? Why does it take them so long to give a clear steer to local authorities that are progressing the schemes? That refrain has been repeated many times during the debate. There are appreciable transactional and contractual costs involved.

What do the Government expect of future schemes? How do they think that they will be progressed? Will they all be progressed as part of a regional priority list? I saw a speculative list for regional transport for the north-west quite recently, and £825 million—of an overall figure of about £1.4 billion, I think—was allocated for future transport schemes. Will transport schemes in the future require the assent of the region rather than being progressed through PTAs? For example, what is the future for major projects not in the Minister's in-tray, such as the Blackpool tram scheme? What of future schemes? What about alternatives to our big-scale schemes? Is there any future, for example, for trolleybuses and the like?

With so much confusion and uncertainty around, we need specific answers from the Minister. At the moment, there is collective unhappiness across the north-west region—and the north region in general—which I hope that the Minister can do something to assuage.
10.41 am

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): Trams were once used extensively in the UK, and at the peak there were 300 systems, but by the modern age the number reduced and eventually only the one in Blackpool survived. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) on bringing this matter to the attention of the Chamber, and I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate.

Seven new systems have opened in England since 1980, with an average of 138 million passenger journeys being made each year on approximately 235 km of track. However, there has been a degree of pathos about this debate—frustrated hopes, faded dreams, disillusioned communities and disappointed representatives—because there is doubt about the Government's commitment to light railways, and about their understanding of how such systems can play a vital part in regenerating communities. We heard about that from hon. Members from all parties.

The six new systems outside London are the Tyne and Wear Metro, Manchester Metrolink, Sheffield's Supertram, Midland Metro, Croydon Tramlink and the Nottingham Express Transit. In April 1991, the Select Committee on Transport pointed to six main advantages of light rail: it reduces traffic congestion, has positive environmental impacts, conserves energy, assists urban regeneration, generally provides a high-quality service, is often conducive to better access for disabled people, and has a prestige value for a host city.

30 Nov 2005 : Column 95WH


Light rail schemes should be encouraged where they will be of particular benefit—that is, in busy city centres. The great advantage of light rail is, as the Transport Committee said, that

"it can increase the number of people coming into a"

city

"centre without increasing congestion."

According to the Committee, light rail and tram systems could carry more than 3,000 passengers per hour in vehicles containing up to 350 people. Trams are more environmentally friendly than buses and cars and they are safer, as well.

There are also regeneration benefits. The docklands light railway and Manchester Metrolink have boosted the prestige of their cities and are attractive to visitors. The experience of the Nottingham Express Transit in its first year of operation, with 8.5 million passenger journeys above target and a £23,000 operating profit, shows the potential of good light rail schemes. The Nottingham scheme has applied to the Government to be able to construct an additional line. No doubt the Minister will give us some information on that application when he winds up.

The main barriers to light rail schemes are affordability, and the potential of the system to integrate with the rest of the local transport network. The only reservation that I have about tramways is the question of their beauty. I wonder why, in the modern age, we cannot build more beautiful things. One thinks of the Routemaster bus and trains from ages past. Why can we not make trams look better? We should not strip life of all its elegance and style, should we, Mr. O'Hara? I offer this small caveat in relation to my general support for these schemes.

Cost is the most significant factor discouraging further development of light rail, but as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) said, when cost comparisons are measured in terms of passenger journeys, they are more positive than might generally be suggested. The emphasis is often on the construction cost—the infrastructural up-front capital cost—but when one takes into account costs over time, which the hon. Member for Rochdale mentioned, those considerations can be seen in a different light.

More could be done to overcome that barrier. For example, there are no Government grants available to develop innovative, energy-saving light railway technologies, because that tends to cost less than £5 million, which is the qualifying threshold for a scheme to receive financial support.

There are other issues that the Government must address, and I hope that the Minister will touch on them: the poor financial performance of some existing light railway systems, which is discouraging interest in future schemes, and how the Government can assist in respect of that; local authority funding for schemes; the issue of time, and uncertainty over the granting of powers to local authorities; and insufficient in-house expertise.

Above all, as the Public Accounts Committee recommended in March:

"The Department should develop a strategy for the development of light rail as part of an integrated transport network. The Department has maintained an arm's length


30 Nov 2005 : Column 96WH


approach to the development of light rail, leaving local authorities to decide whether light rail was appropriate for their areas, and not prioritising in value for money terms which schemes should be allocated funds and built. It should take a more active role in the development of light rail by, for example, indicating the types of urban areas where it would be most receptive to local authorities' proposals."

As a Transport Committee report this year stated:

"The Department has failed to give a strategic lead in the development of light rail."

In 2000, Labour pledged to double light rail use in England by 2010, measured by the number of passenger journeys. In 2000–01 there were 124 million journeys, and in 2003–04 there were 147 million journeys—an increase of 18.5 per cent. It seems unlikely that the Government will achieve their target. Since 1997, only one new system has commenced outside London—the Nottingham Express Transit Scheme. I know that scheme well. As the Minister is aware, like the Sunderland extension to the Tyne and Wear Metro and other lines that have opened since 1997, the Nottingham scheme was a proposal whose funding and planning were inherited from the Conservative Government.

Only yesterday we learned from the Government that they have cancelled funding for two light rail schemes—Merseytram and the south Hampshire rapid transit scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers) made a strong and bold case for that scheme; he is a great champion for local people in that respect, as in many others.

The Government have now spent £284 million developing rail projects that have come to nothing. That was revealed by a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). I will mention each of those schemes, because they have been repeatedly defended in this Chamber by the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), the hon. Members for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) and for Manchester, Blackley, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. The following sums were spent on them: £199 million on Manchester Metrolink phase 3; £36 million on Merseytram; £39 million on the Leeds supertram; and £10 million on the south Hampshire rapid transit scheme. All that money was invested in schemes that will not now go ahead; hence the pathos, disappointment and disillusionment that I described earlier.

I have several questions for the Minister. Does the extension to the Nottingham Express Transit have Government approval? If so, when will we know? Will local authorities be entitled to money from the transport innovation fund for light rail schemes if they are not accompanied by road charging proposals? There was something about that in the national press yesterday; the Government's enthusiasm for congestion charging is clear. I make no point about that, except to ask how it would be integrated with applications for light rail schemes. What guarantees can the Government give that light rail remains a priority, and that they will meet their target of passenger numbers doubling by 2010? What proportion of the transport innovation fund does the Minister envisage offering to light rail schemes, given the other priorities that the Government have announced?

30 Nov 2005 : Column 97WH


What is the Government's response to the recent urban task force report? It argued:

"the root of the problem is that decisions on urban transport are taken piecemeal, in apparent isolation from their impact on regeneration; indeed, there appears to be next to no evaluation of the broad regeneration benefits that investments would help bring about."

There are competing public priorities, which often obscure the holistic benefits of this kind of innovation. The Government need to engage in joined-up thinking; the only thing that is joined-up at present is the traffic on congested roads. They have created a debilitating culture of encouraging schemes into the development and planning stage and putting in taxpayers' money, then pulling the plug before construction begins. The Minister needs to make it clear where the Government stand on future projects, and how committed they are to light rail. I described the pathos that has characterised this debate; the Minister now has an opportunity to prove that neither he, his Department nor the Government are pathetic.
10.51 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Derek Twigg) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) on securing this important debate. It is not possible to deal with all the points that have been raised in the short time available, so I will try to deal with as many as possible in my speech. I ask hon. Members to be patient.

From what one or two Members have said, one would think that we had done nothing for transport, but we have seen record investment in public transport after years of neglect, major regeneration of our main cities, and major success stories in transport generally.

I shall use the short time available to deal with the issues before us, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter and set out the Government's position. As we all know, and as hon. Members have said, we have had a difficult time in the past few weeks in terms of taking decisions. I want to make it clear that light rail has a future in Britain in the right places and as part of the right overall package, but that we will not support schemes at any cost. The success of light rail has been partly due to the Government's contribution of about £700 million to light rail schemes since 1997. Six such schemes have opened across the country.

Light rail journeys have increased by 130 per cent. in the past 10 years. In 2005, journeys increased by 8.4 per cent. compared with the previous year—more than on national rail and London Underground. In all, 155 million journeys were made on light rail systems in England last year. Light rail is a small contributor, given the increasing use in public transport, but its share is increasing.

Obviously, lessons can be learned from past experiences. Too many light rail schemes have seen their costs increase substantially after we have approved them. With the Manchester Metrolink phase 3 extensions, the public sector funding requirement almost tripled between our first approval in 2000 and the end of 2004. For the scheme in south Hampshire there was a 50 per cent. increase, and for the Leeds supertram and Merseytram, the public sector cost increased by 40 per cent. We need to have full confidence in a

30 Nov 2005 : Column 98WH

scheme's cost, viability and cost-effectiveness before giving it the go-ahead, and we must be satisfied that the procurement approach proposed is appropriate and offers the best value for money.

If light rail is to be successful, it needs to be part of an integrated approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) and others have said, last year light rail came under the scrutiny of the National Audit Office. Recent reports by the Select Committee on Public Accounts and the Select Committee on Transport have made several valid suggestions about how the Government's role in light rail might be strengthened.

Under the new approach, we will be more rigorous, and will not give final approval until final prices have been received through a competitive procurement process. That will mean that schemes' promoters will need to develop more robust proposals, and provide evidence of their certainty regarding the risks and estimated costs and of the fact that the scheme is deliverable on time and on budget. They will also have to demonstrate that it is a high priority for the region.

The Department has been considering how success can be built upon and best practice shared. It has been working closely with promoters through a programme of work streams and with the passenger transport executive light rail group. We are working to ensure that better specific guidance about developing a light rail scheme is available to promoters and local authorities, and have recognised the importance of working with industry. We are also working closely with UKTram, which has set up working groups to take forward streams of work, which include the development of technical, operational and safety management standards and best practice guidelines. We will continue to support UKTram in that work.

We also want to improve project delivery. We will make sure that, where necessary, major transport schemes go through the formal gateway process run by the Office of Government Commerce, to ensure that projects at critical stages are in a fit state to move forward.

I reiterate the fact that light rail does have a future in the UK. In areas of heavy traffic it might be the best solution to transport problems, as it can be the most effective way of getting people out of their cars.

Mr. John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): In my constituency, a major benefit would be the resulting modal shift from car to tram. A local developer developing a site in the constituency has been heavily promoting the fact that people will be able to use the tram to get to and from the city centre—but now, given the uncertain future of Metrolink, the same developer is offering people cars as an incentive to buy flats in that development. Surely the fact that Metrolink has been delayed in south Manchester is increasing congestion in the area.

Derek Twigg : I will come on to Metrolink in a bit more detail later, but it is clearly an attractive way to get people out of their cars. That is part of the strong case that Members of Parliament for Manchester have made to me.

Given its high cost, light rail will not be the right solution in every location. We expect scheme promoters to explore all the options for meeting their transport

30 Nov 2005 : Column 99WH

problems, especially the possibility of delivering better bus services, before they approach us for funding for a light rail scheme. For instance, work that we did with Leeds suggested that high-quality buses could deliver most of the benefits, and at a lower cost. We look forward to working with Leeds to develop a showcase high-quality bus system that may well provide a model for other cities.

Where light rail is the best solution, it will need to be developed as part of an integrated approach to tackling an area's problems. Light rail schemes will need to be supported by commitments to complementary measures that will deliver the benefits of increased public transport usage and reduced congestion, and that will support the viability of the light rail system.

Mr. Hayes : Will the Minister give way?

Derek Twigg : I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as time is limited.

Through the transport innovation fund, we have undertaken to provide support for such innovative packages of measure. Those packages should combine demand management and better public transport, which might include light rail in some cases. The funding will be available from 2008–09, and on Monday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced seven areas that have been successful in securing pump-priming funding to help with the development of schemes. They include Greater Manchester, which will assess the potential for demand management measures to complement its tram extension proposals.

The existing Manchester Metrolink has been a success. The first phase opened in 1992, and the second in 2000. Today it carries more than 19 million passengers a year, and there are times when it suffers from overcrowding. I am in no doubt that the system has helped in Manchester's economic success, and that improvements to the system are worth making. The

30 Nov 2005 : Column 100WH

plans for extensions to the system were dogged by cost increases, as I said earlier. Last year, the Department worked closely with the Manchester authorities to understand what the proposals would now cost. In December 2004, the Secretary of State announced that he was committing more than £500 million—the sum previously agreed for funding phase 3—to Manchester's transport network.

Manchester could also bid for additional funds from the new transport innovation fund. In June, I went to Manchester and announced that the Government were committing £58 million to enhancing capacity and refurbishing parts of the existing system. We are continuing to work with the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive to finalise details of the scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, said, we are still discussing those proposals with it. We will be in a position to say something about that when those discussions are completed.

The Department is also in discussion with the PTE about its strategy for extensions to the system as part of an integrated transport package for the area. That includes the extension to Oldham and Rochdale. The GMPTE has given us an integrated transport strategy document as a basis for dialogue on a transport innovation fund bid that would incorporate the extensions and other measures. Discussions are at an early stage, and we are working closely with the PTE to take them forward.

We will continue to support tram schemes if they are the right solution for a particular area, and if their costs can be justified by bringing wider benefits. Certainly, we expect to fund some light rail schemes in future, but only as part of an integrated approach, to maximise the benefits.

Mr. Hayes : Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. There is no time left.

30 Nov 2005 : Column 99WH



30 Nov 2005 : Column 101WH

Next Section Index Home Page

Shame that they ran out of time - some very tricky questions for the DfT, and highlights some double standards.

Will do some searching over the next few weeks and see if I can find anything about these negotiations.

Great debate there, although I get the impression Mr Twigg was doing his best impression of "corporate fuckwit" by not actually answering many of the more important points.

Hmmmm!

stupid fukin cunts. I hate it when people do things to benifit their pocket - and NEVER LISTEN TO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE WANTS.

That guy should come on this website...

Excellent debate. Thanks for posting it up, MetroLink.

There was some heat there. I hope it shifts things.

Blair accused of rebate surrender
Tony Blair
Mr Blair says the rebate and a budget deal are 'inextricably linked'
Tony Blair has been accused of "surrendering" part of Britain's annual £3.8bn EU rebate in an attempt to end Europe's budget crisis.

Mr Blair is expected to offer a reduction in return for cuts to spending on agriculture.

Tory leader Michael Howard said Mr Blair had "squandered" a "tremendous opportunity" to achieve reform.

But former Europe minister Denis MacShane said Britain was "caught between a rock and a hard place".

'Set in stone'

Britain's six-month EU presidency is set to end on 1 January and Mr Blair is keen to secure a budget deal before then.


Tony Blair is a lame duck anxious about his political legacy
Daily Telegraph

UK press reaction

He is said to be offering to reduce the overall European budget, reduce payments to the joining nations, and cut Britain's rebate in return.

The move follows the failure this summer to set an EU budget for 2007-13, with countries such as France and Ireland opposing plans to decrease funding for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

UK Independence Party leader Roger Knapman told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I can't think of anything that's likely to redeem this potential agreement. The rebate is set in stone.

"He doesn't have to reduce it, he doesn't have to amend it, he doesn't have to do anything except keep quiet and keep the money.

"You can have a budget agreement without tapping into our rebate. You don't even have to negotiate it."

Mr Howard said: "We are not going to get fundamental reform of the EU budget in the last days that remain of the British presidency.

"We could have had it, but we squandered a tremendous opportunity."


HAVE YOUR SAY
Tony Blair should not give up part of the rebate without a deal on the CAP
CC Park, London, UK

Send us your comments
He said that after the European constitution had been rejected in referendums earlier this year, there should have been a debate about Europe's future.

He added: "We should have been talking about what we want the EU to do, about what the EU is for, and once you have decided what it should do and what it is for, then what it should cost and how you pay for its costs follow naturally from that decision.

"We never had the slightest attempt from the British government to take part in that debate or lead that debate and that's why we are in the mess that we are."

Conservative Europe spokesman Graham Brady said the suggestion of reducing the rebate was a "surrender", adding: "It is precisely what we were worried was going to happen all along."

Mr Blair is in Budapest to meet leaders of Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia in Budapest ahead of an EU summit in Brussels on 15 and 16 December.

'Worst of all worlds'

Estonian prime minister Andrus Ansip has already described Mr Blair's proposal - which could see funding for accession states cut by up to 10% - as "unacceptable".

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said: "There's a danger of getting the worst of all possible worlds - Britain gives up £1bn a year, the Eastern European countries get less money and there is no agreement to reform agriculture."

Mr MacShane said "agricultural protectionist countries", such as Ireland, France and Luxembourg, were refusing to cut the CAP.

But the "the big paying-in countries like Germany, Sweden, Netherlands" wanted a smaller budget.

Mr Blair said on Wednesday: "We cannot give up the rebate because the rebate and the Common Agricultural Policy are inextricably linked and there cannot be fundamental change in one unless there is fundamental change in the other."

Looking in 'The sun' today...Alistar darling was shown in the rovers return, associating with the actors, to promote sensible drinking throughout the festive season...

His words were i recall...

' Its all well and good going to the pub, just people need to leave the keys at home and use public transport'

maybe worded incorrectly sry, but it entailed the same notation...But! Hey...

Give us our F*cking Metrolink then you cheecky git!

Ghost station where the first tram may never arrive

http://www.metronews.co.uk/ContentResources/C_52_Article_1376_BodyText_TextSection_0_Image.jpg

WAITING GAME: Will trams stop at Newton Heath?

IT has beautiful swirling architecture, cost millions to build and was finished on time. All this Metrolink stop needs now is a tramline.

The new station at the Central Park business site in Newton Heath was built to serve the Oldham/Rochdale line.

But the expansion plans were shelved after the government withdrew a £520m funding package for other parts of the Metrolink system.

It has agreed to reinstate the package, but this money doesn't cover the expansion to Oldham/Rochdale, Manchester Airport and Ashton under Lyne.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive must now submit a bid for additional funding on top of the £520m.The station, with copper canopy and finback bridge, was built as part of a £36.5m project to create transport links to the business park. But it could be years before anyone can actually catch a tram from its platforms.

Michael Renshaw, GMPTE's project director, said: "The new transport gateway will play a key part in the economic success of Central Park by acting as a bus and tram interchange.

"The bus operators are currently reviewing their local services and are expected to start operating through the interchange shortly.

"We are continuing to have positive discussions with the Department of Transport following its decision, in December last year, to reinstate a budget of £520 million for the development of public transport in the areas where Metrolink is proposed. We will shortly be submitting a bid for additional funding from the transport innovation fund for the expansion of Metrolink to Oldham and Rochdale as well as to Manchester Airport and Ashton under Lyne."

It nearly kicked off on the "Metrolink" on the way home. There was this guy from Barrow or from somewhere downsouth and other guy goes "you have werid voice". Then they start arguing and the other guy say somethng about "if your not a northern get the fuck off". Then the northern guy gets off and then guy from Barrow says "fucking prick" and this other guy would had nowt to do with it says "you do sound gay". Everyone on the Met was killing them selfs laughing, best laugh I have had in along time.

Esepcially seeing as Barrow is north of Manchester, up past Lancaster. It used to be in Lancashire.

And the Barrow accent isn't that dissimilar from other parts of Lancs. I can only presume the guy did sound like Julian Clary or something.

And the Barrow accent isn't that dissimilar from other parts of Lancs. I can only presume the guy did sound like Julian Clary or something.
The accent of the Furness area sounds like a blend of Lancs and Geordie.
Not a lot of people know that.... :runaway:

The accent of the Furness area sounds like a blend of Lancs and Geordie. I used to live in Barrow in Furness, then we moved to Newcastle. No kidding. I never thought there was even a trace of Geordie in the Barrow accent. But whatever, accents evolve, and words and phrases leak from one place to another. There's google stuff on this sort of thing. Why Aye Man. Eee Bah Gum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/recordings/group/cumbria-barrow.shtml

Esepcially seeing as Barrow is north of Manchester, up past Lancaster. It used to be in Lancashire.
I dont have a clue where Barrow is, he may not have even said Barrow.

I used to sit behind a bloke from Barrow in K-stand. I never heard a trace of Geordie in his accent. Was pure lancastrian.

It is further north than Barrow you hear a Geordie type accent, Workington Whitehaven Carlise area, it's only about 45 miles across the A69 from Newcastle.

I saw that programme about the coast and when they spoke to women from Whitehaven they did have a geordie style lilt.

I saw that programme about the coast and when they spoke to women from Whitehaven they did have a geordie style lilt.
And Barrow is only a few miles down the road from there. I'm referring to the older guys from Barrow and because it's a (former?) shipyard town it's accent just might have been influenced by migrant Geordie yard workers.
I mean it's only a slight smattering of Geordie after all, not that 'Fake Geordie' accent you hear in Smogsboro on Tees.... :runaway:

Ghost station where the first tram may never arrive

http://www.metronews.co.uk/ContentResources/C_52_Article_1376_BodyText_TextSection_0_Image.jpg



i actually live not far from where this metrolink interchange is going up off lightbowne road in moston.....i drive past it mmost days to work and wondered initially what it was for until i remembered they were supposed to be working on converting the oldham rail line to metrolink.... but when they will get it it finished is anybodys guess.

Buses to rival the Metrolink

http://www.southmanchesterreporter.co.uk/ContentResources/399.$plit/C_58_article_207016_body_articleblock_0_bodyimage.jpg

TOMORROW’S world: The proposed Princess Road bus lane.

THIS is a vision of the future for public transport, a computer-guided bus taking passengers down a £58 million bus lane on Princess Road.

It may sound like science fiction, but Stagecoach, which runs most of the buses in south Manchester’s, says the new service could be in place years before any Metrolink connections are built. The computer-guided buses would be manned by a driver but new ‘optical guidance’ technology means the bus would steer itself along a prescribed route and pull up flush to raised platforms.

The bus using the Princess Road bus lane would whisk commuters into town without stopping en route and be part of a park-and-ride scheme.

On Princess Road, the busiest car route in and out of Manchester, the company proposes a new £58 million busway which would be built in the central reservation of the dual carriageway. The route would be connected to two Park and Ride schemes on Princess Parkway.

On Wilmslow Road, the busiest bus route in Europe, the new buses would run up and down ‘Greenways’ — enhanced versions of the current bus lanes and similar to London’s red routes.

The lanes would be enforced more rigidly than they are now and would offer an even faster route for travellers. Stagecoach, which has commissioned consultants to help with the ideas, has similar proposals for Stockport Road.

The company believes that the latest draft Bus Strategy document for Greater Manchester is a ‘disappointment’ and downgrades the importance of buses below that of the rail and tram network. Brian Souter, chief executive of Stagecoach Group, said: "Manchester is at a crossroads and faces a considerable challenge. However, it is not too late to fix it. There is a cost-effective, deliverable solution and buses are at the heart of our dynamic strategy for public transport in Manchester.

"Experience elsewhere in the UK has shown that investment in bus Park and Ride, new technology, bus priority measures, customer choice, intelligent car use and integration can deliver impressive results.

"We believe we have developed a winning package that will deliver for bus passengers in Manchester and support the economic growth that is essential for the Manchester city region to prosper. To make that vision a reality, we need the support of local people and we are looking to work constructively with all the key stakeholders in the region."

Greater Manchester Transport Executive strategy director, Keith Howcroft, said many of the proposals were already being developed by GMPTE. He added: "We share Stagecoach’s view that busways could help to improve public transport in the county by allowing buses to run along their own dedicated track.

"Our Quality Bus Corridor programme, which covers more than 350 miles, gives priority to buses on key congested routes. The corridors are designed to improve punctuality and journey times of bus services by introducing measures such as traffic signal prioritisation and enhanced bus stop facilities.

"We would welcome additional comments from both bus users and those involved in the industry before the final version of our bus strategy is submitted to the government in March."

If they are going to build a guided busway, they could at least build a decent one like in Rouen, France. This is cheap Bradford style crap!

If they are going to build a guided busway, they could at least build a decent one like in Rouen, France. This is cheap Bradford style crap!


Quite right

This is a dog shit proposal and the sooner stagecoach piss off from Greater Manchester the better................well we can only hope

They dont get it do they, instead of going for these over the top rubbish park and ride schemes, why dont they go and try improving what they've got, after all they already have a near monopoly on South Manchester routes, which they take for granted.

There should be improved Park and Ride outside the city centre, near the airport were people can use high capacity rail and be carried into the city centre in minutes straight from the motorway. Why would anyone drive 20/30 miles by car then decide to get out and travel by bus for the last 2 or 3 miles? Most of these people would sooner sit in traffic for 20 minutes that wait for a bus. When long distance commuters are better removed, road space would be free up for buses anyway.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/191/191021_metrolink_upgrade_shortlist_revealed.html

Metrolink upgrade shortlist revealed
Clarissa Satchell
PLANS to upgrade the Metrolink network have moved forward with the announcement of a shortlist of bidders to do the work and run the system.

Four companies have been asked to submit bids to supply eight new trams to tackle crowding at peak times on the existing system, and five companies to submit bids to replace the track.

The deal to run the system is also up for grabs and has been split into two contracts - one to operate and maintain the trams and the other to maintain the track and carry out improvement work at stops and stations.




Current operator Serco, which runs the system on behalf of Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, has been shortlisted to submit bids for both contracts.

Other firms applying to operate and maintain the trams are First Manchester, Keolis, Stagecoach and Transdev. Competitors for the second contract are Carillion, Edmund Nuttall, First and Mowlem.

Geoff Inskip, GMPTE's deputy director general, said: "The eight new trams and track replacement will massively improve Metrolink so that passengers are able to enjoy the benefits of a smoother, quieter and more reliable service.

Pleased

"The bidding process to appoint contractors, following the government's decision in July to agree a £102m package for Metrolink improvements, is well underway.

"I am pleased that we have now reached the stage where we are able to announce the companies that will be asked to carry out the work and I look forward to being able to appoint the successful bidders in the near future."

Those shortlisted to supply the new trams are Alstom, AnsaldoBreda, Bombadier Transportation, and Siemens. Bidding for the track work are AMEC Spie Rail, Balfour Beatty, Carillion, First Engineering and Mowlem plc.

The original bidding process for the improvements, which also included three new Metrolink lines, had to be scrapped after the government decided the cost of the bids had risen too high.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has said the new bids must come in within an agreed £102m funding package.

The GMPTE press release...

http://www.gmpte.com/news.cfm?news_id=3422626
Metrolink improvements on the way
Published on Friday, 09 December 2005
A major programme to invest millions of pounds in providing new trams and replacing worn-out track on the Metrolink network has moved a step closer with the announcement of a shortlist of bidders to carry out the work.

GMPTE has named the four companies which have been selected to submit a formal bid to provide eight new trams. The additional vehicles will help to tackle overcrowding in peak periods and improve the reliability and performance of services.

Another five companies will submit formal bids to replace track on the Bury - Altrincham line, which is more than fifty years old in some places and was used by trains until Metrolink took over the route in 1992. The new track will provide passengers with a much smoother ride.

It is anticipated that the successful bidders will be appointed by Spring 2006 and that the track will be in place by Autumn 2007. The new trams are expected to begin operating from Autumn 2008.

GMPTE's Deputy Director General, Geoff Inskip, said: "The eight new trams and track replacement will massively improve Metrolink so that passengers are able to enjoy the benefits of a smoother, quieter and more reliable service.

"The bidding process to appoint contractors, following the government's decision in July to agree a £102 million package for Metrolink improvements, is well underway.

"I am pleased that we have now reached the stage where we are able to announce the companies which will be asked to submit formal bids to carry out the work and I look forward to being able to appoint the successful bidders in the near future."

Alstom Transport, AnsaldoBreda SpA - Firema Trasporti SpA, Bombardier Transportation UK and Siemens Transportation Systems will bid for the contract to supply new trams.

AMEC SPIE Rail (UK) Ltd, Balfour Beatty Rail Projects Limited, Carillion Construction Limited, First Engineering Limited and Mowlem plc will bid for the contract to replace worn-out track.

Nine companies have been selected to submit formal bids for two additional contracts to operate and maintain the Metrolink vehicles and to maintain the network and implement station and stop improvements.

Earlier this year, the government agreed a £102 million funding package for new trams, ticket machines, stop improvements and track replacement. £44 million will come from GMPTE with the rest being funded from the £520 million announced by the Secretary of State for Transport last December.

Press contact: David Harris or Becky Marr on 0161-242 6245, or by email at press.office@gmpte.gov.uk

Forgive me Metrolink if I sound a bit ill informed, Ive not followed every up and down with the Metro saga but just reading that article above something puzzles me. I can't understand why it takes so long to find a company to provide new trams, Im not on about the maintanence or track work, just the trams themselves.

You would have thought all parties involved would have everything in place, (short of signing on the dotted line) if they knew they were bidding for funding for it from the Government. Also wouldn't the Government have insisted that things like TRAMS are costed and gauranteed at that price? If so wouldn't Manchester have say right "These are the trams we want, they cost X amount, and we can have them up and running and reducing car journeys in X amount of time"?

If there has been money available for this since July are we simply waiting for the new trams to be delivered or have they yet to find a provider? If it's the latter then whoever's running this saga from our side needs a bit of a kick up the arse too becuase on the face of it, it's not just Government who are dragging this thing out.

Trams are bespoke for every system in the world (virtually).

In the UK we have different health and saftey laws for example to those in France - different fire regulations etc. as such, you cannot just buy a tram off a shelf.

As such, the lead time for buying a tram is rather long - normally a good rule to go by is 1 year before the first tram arrives, then one a month for x number of months.


This is one of the things that the DfT are looking at standardising in the UK - have a standard low floor and a standard high floor tram for the UK, unfortunately, since we are the only high floor system in the UK there is not a pre-determined model to buy.

The T69 and T69a (phase 2 trams) that we use at the moment are no longer produced, as such, we'll get a newer model.

Another point about buying in bulk, Madrid added 50 (ish) vehicles to an order of about 300 trams (from Germany I seem to remember) recently, and got a discount of about 15% in the price - no small figure when the total cost is in the region of €70m to €100m for 50 trams.

Trams are bespoke for every system in the world (virtually).

In the UK we have different health and saftey laws for example to those in France - different fire regulations etc. as such, you cannot just buy a tram off a shelf.

As such, the lead time for buying a tram is rather long - normally a good rule to go by is 1 year before the first tram arrives, then one a month for x number of months.


This is one of the things that the DfT are looking at standardising in the UK - have a standard low floor and a standard high floor tram for the UK, unfortunately, since we are the only high floor system in the UK there is not a pre-determined model to buy.

The T69 and T69a (phase 2 trams) that we use at the moment are no longer produced, as such, we'll get a newer model.

Another point about buying in bulk, Madrid added 50 (ish) vehicles to an order of about 300 trams (from Germany I seem to remember) recently, and got a discount of about 15% in the price - no small figure when the total cost is in the region of €70m to €100m for 50 trams.


How many trams are due for the 3rd Phase?
Will they be the same spec as these ones and will they be bigger than the existing ones?

There are 55 to be ordered for the whole of phase 3.

Although this has not been confirmed as definate - I suspect that the order for the 8 new trams will include the option to buy a further 55 - this should reduce costs, speed up the process, and mean the factory where they are produced (the current phase 1 fleet was built in 4 different factories in Italy, and as such the phase 1 trams come in 4 flavours - much to the dismay of those that maintain them) can get on with building the phase 3 ones as soon as they get the go ahead.

With it being such a large order I suspect the time scales would be somewhat reduced - for example, 22 trams needed for the Rochdale line could probably be delivered in little over a year if needs be - the big delay is getting the first one off the production line.

Nigh on 3 years for 8 new trams sounds a heck of a long time.

Earlier this year, the government agreed a £102 million funding package for new trams, ticket machines, stop improvements and track replacement. £44 million will come from GMPTE with the rest being funded from the £520 million announced by the Secretary of State for Transport last December.


how come over half of the upgrade money is coming from the phase 3 pot?

If GMPTE ,employed more people to staff the station's and check ticket's there bloody profits will double, there are so many fare dodger's on Metrolink it's unbelievable.

These new trams cant come quick enough, every time i use the Metro, it's bloody jam packed , like sardines in a can.

Follow - Phase 3 ALWAYS including upgrading phase 1 and 2 - the upgrade works are the first part of the 'big bang' (phase 3 project) to get the go ahead.

highriser - think how much that would cost - 36 stations, needing to be manned (at least 2 staff to cover breaks etc. about 20hours a day - if it were to be worth while they would do it - but (guessing) it would most likely double the running costs of the system (they currently employ about 300 people) - I suspect this would have to double to staff all stations - anyway, how on earth do you 'man' the city centre, and Eccles line stations?


Metrolink (believe it or not) is actually hailed, both nationally, and internationally, as a system that has exceedingly low numbers of non-payers - using industry standard ways of calculating the numbers of people who don't pay, about 3% of passengers do not have a ticket - miles less than systems like say the tube.

How do they get on the tube without a ticket?

How do they get on the tube without a ticket?
Never jibbed into a football match? Methinks you've got a nasty streak of honesty Mancguy..... ;)

If GMPTE ,employed more people to staff the station's and check ticket's there bloody profits will double, there are so many fare dodger's on Metrolink it's unbelievable.

These new trams cant come quick enough, every time i use the Metro, it's bloody jam packed , like sardines in a can.
I've skipped it afew times in the last two weeks its very easy to do.

I only ever skip the metrolink, when im going from 'Navigation road' to 'Altrincham or Timperley' ... I mean they charge over a quid something to go 2 mintues down the track...When i go into town though, yes always...Too many fridays nights, theyve copped me on the way back at the dreaded gmex stop...

They make you find other forms of transportation most of the time...Town to altrincham is what 8-9 miles??? Drunk, tired and weekend work in the morning, thanks you guys...

Well the encouragement to buy a ticket has been increased a couple of weeks back - the new escalating fines mean that your fine doubles each time you are caight without a ticket - up to £80.

someone mentioned earlier the long time to get the trams, couple of things worth mentioning - depot will need to be 'upgraded' to cope with the additional trams - I very much doubt depot 2 will be built from this £102m, also, the electrics need to have a serious upgrade, the substations would simply not be able to provide the power for the number of trams on the network if we tried to run all the new trams without upgrading the substations, and finally, although it is a small point - I suspect that the health and saftey exec will insisit on 'empty running' of the new trams for about 2 months before any fare paying passenger is allowed onto them - a normal requirement for such projects (in this country).

Metrolink (believe it or not) is actually hailed, both nationally, and internationally, as a system that has exceedingly low numbers of non-payers - using industry standard ways of calculating the numbers of people who don't pay, about 3% of passengers do not have a ticket - miles less than systems like say the tube.

I recent weeks there have been plenty of meatheads checking for tickets, in the morning and evenings it tends to be Pomona and G-mex. I guess normally one person out of say 100/150 get pulled off. I'm all in favour, clamp down on them I say.

Locks - according to the figures it'd be about 6 people on each tram (at capacity they carry just over 200 people).

Friday / Saturday nights around the Dane Road area is meant to be the highest level of ticketless passengers apparently.

Locks - according to the figures it'd be about 6 people on each tram (at capacity they carry just over 200 people).

Friday / Saturday nights around the Dane Road area is meant to be the highest level of ticketless passengers apparently.

I suppose there are a lot of boozers who chance it. It's different when people are going to work, you don't want to be pulled of the tram at 8.40am.

It should be mandatory prison for fair dodging.

It should be mandatory prison for bad spelling.


;)

to be fare he nearly got it right ;)

Where does the money go from the fares? Anyone know?

It has changed recently.

To the best of my knowledge the fares to to the GMPTE - who effectively own the system.

Serco run the system (at the moment), and are paid for doing so.

The PTE use independent companies to judge the number of fare dodgers - you'll often see people in bright yellow jackets on stations / trams counting people, this company will give the figures for fare dodging.

I suspect, although am not party to the contract - Serco are fined when the number of fare dodgers increases.


Worth noting, previously, when Serco took the fare paying money, the fare dodging percentage was estimated to be at 13%, (now 3%), something has changed that means that fewer people are dodging buying tickets.

Not sure about today - since phase 3 advance spending has blurred the figures, but when Serco used to take the fares, (from memory, and greatly simplified) they'd take about £20m a year in tickets, the operation of the system was costing about £17-18m a year, meaning an operating profit of about £2m a year - excellent figures for any public transport system of it's size anywhere in the world.

HOWEVER, the 'mortgage' re-payments for the Eccles line are about £5m / year, this means that the system was actually losing about £3m a year.

Until we get over this insane idea that public transport has to make money - whilst funding it's construction costs we are always going to be onto a winner.

The ironic thing about the failure of the Liverpool and Leeds schemes is not that the laying of the tracks/buying trams/maintaining the trams etc was going to be too expensive - in fact far from it, the problem was, some company was going to have the risk of trying to re-coupe these costs from fares over time, and as such, they were having to bare a lot of risk (say the passenger figures are only half what was expected - as in Sheffield, you may end up losing £m's a year for 40 years). If this risk was taken off the companies - i.e. the PTE could either guarentee fare revenue for £Xm's or, the operator just gets a flat fare (as now happens in Manchester) and the entire construction of the project is paid for upfront - BY THE PUBLIC SECTOR - then the schemes would be miles cheaper, and would get the go ahead - it is our bloody obsession with transfering as much cost to the private sector that drives up the costs for both private and public sectors.

It has changed recently.

To the best of my knowledge the fares to to the GMPTE - who effectively own the system.

Serco run the system (at the moment), and are paid for doing so.

The PTE use independent companies to judge the number of fare dodgers - you'll often see people in bright yellow jackets on stations / trams counting people, this company will give the figures for fare dodging.

I suspect, although am not party to the contract - Serco are fined when the number of fare dodgers increases.


Worth noting, previously, when Serco took the fare paying money, the fare dodging percentage was estimated to be at 13%, (now 3%), something has changed that means that fewer people are dodging buying tickets.

Not sure about today - since phase 3 advance spending has blurred the figures, but when Serco used to take the fares, (from memory, and greatly simplified) they'd take about £20m a year in tickets, the operation of the system was costing about £17-18m a year, meaning an operating profit of about £2m a year - excellent figures for any public transport system of it's size anywhere in the world.

HOWEVER, the 'mortgage' re-payments for the Eccles line are about £5m / year, this means that the system was actually losing about £3m a year.

Until we get over this insane idea that public transport has to make money - whilst funding it's construction costs we are always going to be onto a winner.

The ironic thing about the failure of the Liverpool and Leeds schemes is not that the laying of the tracks/buying trams/maintaining the trams etc was going to be too expensive - in fact far from it, the problem was, some company was going to have the risk of trying to re-coupe these costs from fares over time, and as such, they were having to bare a lot of risk (say the passenger figures are only half what was expected - as in Sheffield, you may end up losing £m's a year for 40 years). If this risk was taken off the companies - i.e. the PTE could either guarentee fare revenue for £Xm's or, the operator just gets a flat fare (as now happens in Manchester) and the entire construction of the project is paid for upfront - BY THE PUBLIC SECTOR - then the schemes would be miles cheaper, and would get the go ahead - it is our bloody obsession with transfering as much cost to the private sector that drives up the costs for both private and public sectors.

I was reading somewhere the the "T" Mass Transit in Boston only generates 20% in ticket sales of the cost of running the system the rest is subsidised. If they can do that in the USA why not here?

There are places in Europe that have up to 98% of the ticket covered by subsidy - over here we effectively are paying more than 100% of the cost - sicne we have to cover the risk of the private sector - madness, absolute madness.

Just think what you could do if a city was in charge of its own public transport, and kept back a slice of the taxes that go to central government.

See http://www.nlgn.org.uk/pdfs/upload/CRCreportFINAL1.pdf

or the press release that went with the PDF...

The Next Step
Chris Leslie, Director, NLGN and Ian Parker, Head of Strategic Communications, NLGN
Tuesday, December 13th, 2005 - SocietyGuardian.co.uk

The debate about City Regions is gathering momentum. The Minister of Communities and Local Government, David Miliband has spent the Autumn touring England’s ‘Core Cities’. This has raised speculation that a forthcoming report from his department will put reform of city governance at the heart of his grand designs. A consensus meanwhile, has formed across local government that economic disparities between different parts of the UK might be better addressed by empowering conurbations to attract greater inward investment.

Into this mix, NLGN’s City Regions Commission is this week launching its final report. Among various recommendations, the report will call upon government to legislate for a host of powers and responsibilities to be passed to new local authority alliances. The Commission wants enabling legislation to allow City Regions autonomy over transport infrastructure capital spending, and Regional Spatial Strategy duties for housing and planning policy. It also believes economic performance should be enhanced by developing physical and workforce capacity, through adopting a wider version of existing Local Area Agreements.

Five golden rules need to be borne in mind when considering City Regions as a way forward. First, the UK needs a more balanced system of government than at present, recognising London’s importance while not being obsessed with the capital at everywhere else’s expense. Second, nobody can invent a perfect system of government from scratch – political structures will emerge from existing demographics, evolving from local identity and consent, and not imposed from above. Third, local government needs strengthening, even if at varying speeds in different areas. Fourth, public services cannot be co-ordinated from Whitehall alone; they need to settle at other levels, for sound reasons of efficiency and economy. And fifth, decisions should be democratically informed as far as possible, because the public should always know where the buck stops.

Still, even if government is up for the City Regions agenda, radical reform may only be realistic in a few places. The areas within and around Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool are obvious contenders, along perhaps with Sheffield, Bristol and NewcastleGateshead.

But why stop there? City Regions arrangements might also be possible for smaller entities such as Stoke-on-Trent and its neighbouring boroughs. As the only city outside of London with a directly elected mayor, this could also bring alternative solutions to some of the issues driving the agenda. How much more transformational might a City Region be, if straddled by a stronger executive in the way of the Greater London Authority? A ‘senate of leaders’ in a Manchester or Birmingham City Region would be an interesting development. But what about an elected City Region Mayor? Hard to swallow at present, but not impossible in the long term.

With or without a mayor and executive, City Region structures are not appropriate for everywhere. And we are not just talking about Cumbria, Devon or Kent. Some conurbations, such as those within West Yorkshire would find a City Region difficult to apply. Can we really imagine Bradford and Wakefield ceding strategic responsibility to a Greater Leeds authority?

There will undoubtedly be asymmetry in the application of City Regions. The ‘variable geometry’ of local government in the UK is part of its nature and charm. For example, if a loose, voluntary co-ordination is right for an area, as in the case of the East Midlands with its ‘Three Cities’ model – involving Nottingham, Leicester and Derby – then so be it.

Nevertheless, the more natural City Regions of England should be brave, setting aside existing vested interests and demanding a louder voice for their wider communities. By pulling together, the component local authorities can achieve much more than at present. Strengthening local government with a step towards City Regions could be the best way to win the billions of infrastructure investment needed to keep our major cities competitive.

Chris Leslie is Director and Ian Parker, Head of Strategic Communications at the New Local Government Network

Seeing the Light? Next Steps for City Regions – the report of NLGN’s City Regions Commission – is available FREE to download at www.nlgn.org.uk


Back

Just think what you could do if a city was in charge of its own public transport, and kept back a slice of the taxes that go to central government.

Just think how much more tax you'd be paying. Everytime the tram drivers threatened to go on strike the local council would give in. Example, our Ken.

Thanks for that info.

I already pay a pile of tax, Isaac, and most of it is wasted by central government anyhow. All I ask is that money is properly redirected from central government to local government, without central government laying its sticky greedy devious fingers on it.

Doublepost deleted.

Site Map
Wednesday 14 December 2005

Departments and AgenciesHistorical DepartmentsDepartment Ministers
North EastNorth West- News - About the North West
Yorkshire and HumberEast MidlandsWest MidlandsEastLondonSouth EastSouth WestScotlandWalesNorthern Ireland
Make this your home page?
Home|About GNN|Library|In Focus|Contacts|HelpHome >
back


Wednesday 14 December 2005 10:09
Department for Transport (North West)

GOVERNMENT INVESTS TO IMPROVE LOCAL TRANSPORT IN THE NORTH WEST


People in the North West will benefit from £212 million to improve local transport in the region, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling announced today.

The investment is part of the Local Transport Capital Settlement given to local authorities each year to help them deliver transport improvements in local communities.

The money will fund a range of improvements including new road safety measures, better street lighting, road maintenance, park and ride facilities, and cycle lanes.

This year's investment delivers funding for 2006/07. Part of the money is awarded to local authorities according to their performance in delivering better transport and on the quality of their plans to improve transport over the next five years. The 16 authorities with the best plans and the 33 best delivering authorities have received a boost in funding to reward their performance.

Alistair Darling said:

"To put right decades of under investment, the Government has been very clear about the need to provide investment year on year in transport.

"Over the last five years, we allocated more than £8billion to deliver local transport improvements across the country which saw a reduction in road casualties, an improvement in local road maintenance and better public transport in our towns and cities.

"Today's investment will benefit passengers, motorists and local businesses across the country. This money will deliver better infrastructure for buses, improved road safety, more highway maintenance and sustainable transport measures.

"The best achieving councils have again benefited from their good performance with extra money which will enable them to build on their success."

The Department has also issued indicative funding levels to local authorities for the other four years of the second transport plan period, to assist effective and realistic forward planning.

NOTES TO EDITORS

Today's investment is part of £1.6bn nationally which includes - £672m for highways capital maintenance, £547m for smaller transport improvement schemes as well as £209m for major schemes which have previously been approved and announced.

£200m funding for further major schemes, including more funding allocated for 2006/07, will be made after the receipt of regional advice early next year.

The first Local Transport Plans (LTPs) were submitted in 2000 by all English local transport authorities outside London, containing an integrated transport strategy for their area and a costed programme of measures to improve local transport over the period 2001/02-2005/06. Provisional second LTPs (covering the period 2006/07-2010/11) were submitted by local authorities in July 2005. Final versions of these plans will be submitted to DfT by March 2006.

The attached table shows the 2006/07 allocations for each of the local transport authorities. Full details of individual Local Authority LTP allocations throughout England will be available on the Department's website at http://www.dft.gov.uk

Funding allocations for the North West announced today:


Area£000s Integrated Highways Block Committed Major Grand Total
Transport Capital Sub Schemes
Maintenance Total
Blackburn 1754 1634 3388 3757 7145
with
Darwen
Blackpool 1988 694 2682 2682
Cheshire 8111 8781 16892 16892
Cumbria 5283 15486 20769 20769
Greater 39914 28706 68620 10858 79478
Manchester
Halton 2111 2274 4385 4385
Lancashire12879 14332 27211 27211
Merseyside33023 10263 43286 5800 49086
Warrington1920 2649 4569 4569
North 106983 84819 191802 20415 212217
West







Some examples of planned projects that we expect this money to fund include:

Halton

* Runcorn busway. It is planned to spend £60,000 to complete the current phase of work to improve bus stops, create better accessibility and clear overgrown vegetation to reduce fear of crime.

* £200,000 is earmarked to start work on Variable Message Signing on the Silver Jubilee Bridge. This will enable traffic flow to be monitored and incidents and roadworks to be better managed by providing advice on alternative routes.

Warrington

* £100,000 is planned to be spent in order to continue bus stop improvements, including the provision of real time information displays, across the Borough.

* £100,000 is earmarked for continued work on Greenways. A core orbital route of this shared use facility for pedestrians and cyclists is being provided as a basis for further expansion.

Lancashire

* Ormskirk Interchange, as part of a programme of new and replacement interchanges to improve the public transport environment, cost over two years £3m

* Development of the Preston Total Transport Network, a seamless, integrated, co-ordinated and managed local transport system, £3m over five years.

* Development of public transport information and smartcard to make travel simpler and encourage the use of public transport, £6.5m over five years.

* Accrington-Rawtenstall-Bacup-Rochdale Quality Bus Partnership, as part of an extensive programme of QBPs throughout Lancashire, £1m over four years.

Cheshire

* Macclesfield Urban Traffioc Control System to tacklr congested routes in Macclesfield, £2.815m over three years.

* Chester Rail Gateway to improve the transport interchange function within the sub region, particularly for those with mobility impairment, £1.5m over two years.

Greater Manchester

* £6.407m on the iimplementation of the South East Manchester Multi Modal Strategy to provide better infrastructure for buses, cycling and walking.

* £1.600m will be spent in 2006/07 on Salford Crescent rail interchange schemes

* Up to £0.250m will be spent on continuing the programme of bus and rail station improvements to improve passenger facilities (including safety, security, and accessibility measures, and information provision) as well as park and ride arrangements at rail stations.

* £3.5m Transport Infrastructure Fund will be used to address transport issues in Bolton with improvements to the bus corridor, rail station, town centre public transport, route lighting and interchange footpath scheme. Wigan will benefit from similar schemes with additional Real Time Passenger Information scheme and Disability discrimination act improvements.

* Over £2million will be spent on Wigan-Leigh QBC scheme improvements

Merseyside

* Investment to deliver A5136 / A5027 Junction Improvement on Strategic Freight Network. Wirral MBC are currently progressing the design of a junction improvement to benefit traffic on the borough's strategic freight network.

* City Centre Movement Strategy( CCMS) - Package 2. The scheme will implement CCMS in the core central area - improving pedestrian routes and public transport routes and facilities in the city centre. The major focus of Package 2 will be Castle Street, in Liverpool's historic city centre.

* St Helens Central Station. St Helens Central station is being demolished and rebuilt as a new high quality transport interchange for St Helens. It involves additional park and ride facilities and a new access arrangement to bring it more fully into the Town Centre. Scheme is due to start in early 2006

Decisions about these schemes are for the local authority and further details on these and other schemes are available from them.

ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT BY GNN NORTH WEST

Department for Transport Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR

Client ref DFT/NW/110/05

GNN ref 126185P


Privacy policy|Disclaimer|Printer-friendly version|AccessibiltyDepartment news|National news|Regional news|NDSHome|About GNN|Library|Contacts|Help|Site credits
Search

Advanced search

News and information tailored for you

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Forgotten password
Sign up
About Press Pass

Download everything on this page (ZIP file)
Get WinZip

GOVERNMENT INVESTS TO IMPROVE LOCAL TRANSPORT IN THE NORTH WEST
download (158KB)

Just think how much more tax you'd be paying. Everytime the tram drivers threatened to go on strike the local council would give in. Example, our Ken.


No you wouldn't.

The system would be owned by the PTE (as at present) and ran by a seperate private company (as at present), the only difference would be, the GM councils would have much more automony from central government to fund tram expansion etc exact how they liked.

i.e. they could lease trams (at present the DfT forbid this practice outside of London as it is effectively adding to the national debt, whereas in London, the TfL can lease vechicles without adding to the debt), they could agree that any 'risk' the private sector has to carry could be reduced to 10 years, instead of the usual 25 or 30 years we currently have (conversely, if they wanted to increase it to 50 years, if the conditions were right they also could do.

Effectively it would give the PTE to chance to make it's own mind up on things such as risk, which at present as decided by DfT and forced upon us locally.

GM councils would have much more automony from central government to fund tram expansion etc exact how they liked.


What with ?

With the money that they would get to spend instead of the money that the DfT spends on their behalf.

The GMPTE has a budget of something like £150m - £200m a year - at the moment, they must get approval to spend that money from the DfT (recent proposals to fix Alty train station were rejected by the DfT, even though the PTE wanted to proceed).

This would give them the option to spend this £150m as and when they liked.

The two thirds of your petrol money that goes in tax. The 17.5% VAT on every penny you spend. The 12% employers National Insurance, or the 11% employees National Insurance.

I'd rather the decisions about our local area were taken by locally elected politicians (i.e. the PTA) rather than some civil servant sat down in London, which is the case at the moment.

Farsight - I don't exactly think that is how it is going to work.

Also, if you divert the money from petrol tax to trams etc, this will only mean that somewhere else ends up losing out, or some other tax is raised.

As I said, in post 479, the local democracy and accountability would be greatly increased by allowing decisions to be made locally instead of in Whitehall.

The two thirds of your petrol money that goes in tax. The 17.5% VAT on every penny you spend. The 12% employers National Insurance, or the 11% employees National Insurance.

People elected the government, if you want to pay less tax, vote for a tax lowering party. If enough people agree with you then taxes will be lowered. We get a pretty reasonable deal for the 41% of GDP that goes on taxes imo. Most developed countries pay more.

With the money that they would get to spend instead of the money that the DfT spends on their behalf.

The GMPTE has a budget of something like £150m - £200m a year - at the moment, they must get approval to spend that money from the DfT (recent proposals to fix Alty train station were rejected by the DfT, even though the PTE wanted to proceed).

This would give them the option to spend this £150m as and when they liked.

Isn't that the same as now, asking central government for the funding ?

No, at the moment the DfT basically decices how we spend our money, they can say 'No you cannot upgrade Alty railway station, we don't believe you should do that'.

At which point, the upgrade of the Alty station is cancelled.

Or, for years, the PTE has had the money to buy extra trams, and wanted to buy extra trams to relief the overcrowding, however, until very recently the DfT have not allowed these to be purchased. If the price goes up by say £1, then the DfT could well say no,you cannot proceed - even if the PTE are quite happy to cover any over run.

What we have at the moment is most decisions about our future being made in London, not a very helpful position.

We always will get money from central government, income tax, national insurance etc will always be collected centrally and distributed, that is not the issue, the issue is being able to decide how we spend that money locally.

So you honestly think that if there is an elected transport authority in place, Central Government will allow it's money to be spent the way that authority wishes and have absolutely no input on that spend.

Yes, that is the whole idea of this, automony that the report suggests would be a good idea in this country - what I and many others would like to happen - as happens in just about every other country in the world.

To be honest, I don't think the opposition will come from Whitehall for this, but more so from the general public, people in Macclesfield no doubt will not be very keen on their transport being 'ran' from Manchester.

So, do you agree or disagree with the proposals in the report?

Which report.

I agree.

I don't have a computer at home at the moment, will have to print one off at work when I get a quiet moment. No time to read the long stuff.

Totally agree. What is the time table for this to come in place metro?

Neil, no idea whatsoever, and tro be honest, I think it will meet a fair bit off opposition from the countrysiders.

will be most interesting to see the reaction of the likes of Trafford Council and Macclesfield council - 2 Tory councils that will no doubt see themselves as being overwhelmed by Labour councils - and to be honest, they are very rich and doing quite well as it is at the moment - will be much harder to sell to these people - the benifits will not be so obvious for these people.

The more I think about Public transport as an issue the more complex it becomes. It's not like Health or Education that effects everyone, so trying to win over people is very hard.

I come from a town in Lancashire, there you only use the bus before you pass your driving test or when your an OAP. For my friends and family back home public transport doesn't crop up in their minds.

Then when I lived in Birmingham and then now Manchester I have to use public transport and it becomes an issue to me, but say that my girlfriend who doesn't use public transport has no interest in it, except for when I'm an hour late home because of the tram.

I think letting the large city authorities able to manage their own transport planning and finances is the only way to go and if this is unpopular with the countryfolk then so be it, it won't be the first time the govenment has made an unpopular decision.

I think the level of funding should continue from central govenment, then if any city PTE wish to further invest that must be done through, council tax and loans etc.

On this forum there is a tendacy outside of London to proclaim that London gets too much money, but the same could be said if you lived in Darwin or Lancaster, why should Manchester get money for a tram system from central govenment.

It should be self managed and self funded.

There should be a mixture of funding. Manchester doesn't have the same tax base as London so cannot raise the amount of London could if say all taxation was local. Northern council tax rates are partially subsidised by southern ones. As they should be. There are more social services to pay for in the north as old industries have declined etc.

Money should go to local public transport schemes via a national plan as in France rather than the piecemeal fashion that happens here.

This government is anti public transport.

I just wish I lived on Coronation Street, public transport isn't an issue, everyone drinks, works and shops 30 seconds walk from the front door.

I just wish I lived on Coronation Street, public transport isn't an issue, everyone drinks, works and shops 30 seconds walk from the front door.

Thats probably what Mr.Darling see's every time he sits down at 8'oclock...

Responding to the recent decision by the Government to refuse funding for new tram schemes in Leeds, Merseyside and South Hampshire, Cllr Mark Dowd, Chair of the PTA special interest group (which brings together leading councillors from all seven of the UK’s PTAs), said:

‘The Government has said that it is not ‘anti-tram’ and that ‘the benefits of light rail are not in doubt.’ We share that view. Light rail and modern trams remain the right solution on some of our busiest urban corridors. They have a proven record of attracting motorists out of their cars and of shaping and stimulating urban regeneration. That’s why light rail is a key element in the transport strategies of successful cities across Europe and the rest of the World.’

‘However, after recent decisions we need to find a new way of developing and approving tram schemes, and we need the Government to be clearer and more consistent about what quality of public transport provision it wants to see - and is prepared to contribute to. It is a colossal waste of both professional and financial resources to spend upwards of ten years appraising and re-appraising schemes in exactly the way specified by the DfT, only to see them scrapped at the eleventh hour. The damage caused goes much wider than the loss of the scheme itself – wider transport and regeneration strategies have been based on the assumption that earlier Government approval for tram schemes means that those schemes will happen. Scrapping tram schemes at such a late stage leaves a big tear in the canvas of urban renewal. There is no adequate ‘Plan B’.’

‘The recent traumas over light rail schemes in our major cities have been an unhappy experience for everyone involved. Private sector confidence in financing and supplying the light rail sector is also damaged. To prevent a reoccurrence we hope we can now sit down with Government to find a way of ensuring that more UK cities can still benefit from light rail and modern trams through a faster, more affordable and more stable procurement and approval process.’

Spy cameras blitz on bus lanes

Good! :)

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/951.$plit/C_17_Articles_191572_BodyWeb_Detail_0_Image.jpg

TROUBLE ROUTE: A bus lane near Manchester university.

THOUSANDS of motorists illegally using bus lanes in Greater Manchester face £60 fines in a pioneering crackdown.

Councils are preparing to use spy cameras to take action against cheating drivers.

As many as seven in 10 drivers using bus lanes in Manchester are believed to be private vehicle users who are breaking the law. Currently the police are the only authority who can hand out tickets, but they do not use CCTV and a lack of resources means patrols do not give priotity to the issue.

Now the power has been passed to councils - and Manchester plans to get tough with the so-called "bus-lane bandits" from next autumn. Detailed proposals are yet to be drawn up but known hotspots like Wilmslow Road in Rusholme, the A5145 through Chorlton and the A57 Hyde Road will be priority areas.

Greater Manchester Police are also working with all other authorities in the area to bring forward proposals, the Manchester Evening News has learned.

The news comes just days after the M.E.N. revealed the region's 10 councils were set to rake in £10m this year in parking fines.

Fed-up

Council chiefs denied the move was a money-making exercise and said they were simply fed up with cheating motorists who were taking advantage of expensive improvements meant for bus users.

Some £32m is being spent building "quality bus corridors" across Greater Manchester, with new bus lanes, information displays and priority for buses at traffic lights.

Coun Neil Swannick, of Manchester, said all revenues would be ring-fenced for road and environmental improvements.

Councils had the power to police bus lanes from November 1.

Boroughs in London were granted the same powers in the 1990s and began using cameras from 2002. The number of bus-lane bandits dropped by 58 per cent in the next 12 months.

In one unnamed hotspot in Manchester researchers found up to 70 per cent of people using the bus lanes were motorists.

Manchester council is expected to give a crackdown the green light at a meeting later this month. Enforcement would then start in mid to late-September next year after a publicity blitz and a two-week "honeymoon period" in which warnings are issued, not fines.

Michael Renshaw, of Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, said the issue of bus lane fines was now being considered by all 10 councils in Greater Manchester.