David Cameron will tomorrow arrive at Ladywell park and ride by helicopter and travel by tram along the Eccles line - it is thought at the time he will pledge his government would complete Metrolink in full!!!!

Well his Tory Government surely couldn't be any worse than this shameful Labour one!

David Cameron will tomorrow arrive at Ladywell park and ride by helicopter


Doing his bit for the environment then!
Hypocritical, cynical, pie faced twat!

Hypocritical, cynical, pie faced twat!

lol!!! You shoot from the hip sometimes Longeastwood!

I voted Conservative at the last election. But I ain't voting for David Cameron. We've got nurses getting kicked out of the NHS and he's swanning around in a private jet to Norway to bang on about the environment. Fucking smug dishonest main chance hypocritical public school twat.

I voted Conservative at the last election. But I ain't voting for David Cameron. We've got nurses getting kicked out of the NHS and he's swanning around in a private jet to Norway to bang on about the environment. Fucking smug dishonest main chance hypocritical public school twat.

Unlike his predecessors who you voted for - who definitely werent fucking smug dishonest main chance hypocritical public school twats. :)

im not gonna vote. again.

im not gonna vote. again.

Can i have yours then?
I'll swap you an Action Man Assault Tower and a pair of roller skates for it?

Unlike his predecessors who you voted for - who definitely werent fucking smug dishonest main chance hypocritical public school twats. :) No. Just smug main chance hyprocritical twats.

But it was either that or some dozy lesbian-ecobabies-against-the-bomb Lib Dem - there's Not a Lot of Labour in these here parts.

Bah. I'm voting UKIP next time.

Have the mines reopened ?

The world changes, there is a lot of hypocrisy here. I'm using a computer made in China, why because they make them cheaper over there, just like they dig coal cheaper in Poland and Columbia. If you want sky high electricity bills and to subsidize jobs that don't exist then fair enough. But don't go and buy cheap foreign goods if you feel bad about the miners, it wasn't just them that lost their jobs. The clothes on your back would have been made in a sweatshop in Morocco or Taiwan from thread spun in India, not Rochdale or Bolton.

If you want expensive computers then make them over here. I get a bit bored with people moaning about the Tories because rightly or wrongly they changed the economy of this country. Make no mistake you would find it very difficult to own a mobile phone if the only supplier was the Post Office which pre Thatcher it was.

There are still 2.4 million people on sickness benefit.

I'm rambling now but you know what I mean. Condemn the tories to your hearts content but don't buy anything foreign if you care so much about British jobs.

As for London, what's changed. Manchesters' heyday was in Edwardian times, when the Liberals were in :)

You're not wrong Isaac, but the problem with the Tories stems from a time when the economy of the South East prospered and grew, while the economy of the rest of the UK at best languished, and at worst collapsed. Up here, the notion still pervades that the Tories represent the south, and Labour represents the north. Naive as that may sound......

The very best thing that happened during the last conservative government was that they stopped using interest rates to control the speed of the economy, by giving control back to the Bank of England, thus ending governmental control of the cost of borrowing. Effectively, the Conservatives ended the 'boom and bust' economic cycle, and we're still seeing the positive results of that.

^^
It was Labour who gave the interest rates back to the Bank of England in 1997.

Can we PLEASE keep non transport politics in a different thread.

PLEASE

Can we PLEASE keep non transport politics in a different thread.

PLEASE

Unfortunately all politics is interlinked.. But I see your point.

P.S. As a member of the Labour party, and as someone who was out last night leafletting in Trafford - I have to admit the transport policy of the last 9 years has been pretty piss poor, in my opinion the worst failing of the current government.

But as you say Isaac - transport does stray into other areas such as regeneration etc.

If you want to have a laugh vote Monster Raving Loony Party, just read some of this, its brilliant.........

"We firstly intend to sack anyone who writes such nonsense as the opening statement, and pledge to fight the general election on an invisible platform so that people cannot see the floors in our policies."

"Our team of experts has decided that Income Tax has not proved popular with the public and will therefore be abolished. It was started in order to finance the Napoleonic war in 1799 and we now believe that the time is right to announce the cessation of hostilities with Napoleon. Some of the money left in the coffers will be used to fill in our part of the Channel Tunnel in case no one has mentioned it to the French. Any remaining money will be strategically placed on a horse at the 3-30 at Haydock Park at odds of at least 12/1 in order to see us through until the next election. Income Tax will be officially replaced by people lending the government a bob or two at the end of the week when we’re a bit skint."

"We will issue a 99p coin to save on change." One of the best things I have heard in ages.

"The Official Monster Raving Loony Party will not join the single European currency. We will invite all Europeans countries to JOIN THE POUND."

"Tax credits will be paid to nice people. There will be a “total bastard” tax for everyone else. "

"Any cabinet minister found telling lies will be shot across the English Channel in a high velocity circus cannon to save time and first class travel expenses. Top British engineers will be employed to plot the correct trajectory. A European funded net will be set up strategically in front of the European parliament so that when the errant MP hits it, he or she will bounce through the second floor window where they will be handed champagne and canapé at a reception hosted by Leon Brittan and Peter Mandelson."

"We pledge to reduce class sizes by making the pupils sit closer to one another and issuing them with smaller desks. Any MP whose constituency sells off a school playing field for development will be required to relinquish their own back garden as a replacement sports facility for the school. All future Deputy Prime Ministers will be required to be fluent in at least one language to encourage the education system."

"Bright pupils will be provided with dimmer switches to prevent them distracting the rest of the class. "

"Any child who is cleverer than their teacher will be allowed to take over the class and the teacher will stand at the back with a dunce’s hat on. He or she will then be on half pay until he or she has learnt enough to regain the upper ground. This is our policy for child empowerment."

"4 wheel drive vehicles will only be allowed to drive off road, therefore stopping mothers picking up their children from school in them when they only live 100 yards down the road. They will also be wrapped in bubble wrap to make them safer."

"Drivers will be allowed to drive over roundabouts when there’s nothing about. This will make driving through Milton Keynes much more fun."

"All speed cameras will be abolished and replaced by a new device fitted to your cars which will automatically slow down to the speed limit when driven though an infra-red beam. This will also apply to police cars; their device will be set to 5 mph though built up areas."


"Traffic wardens will be re-named Dick Turpin because, let’s face it, it’s daylight robbery. " :hahaha:

"Any kerbs that are caught crawling will be arrested and the council will be fined £100.000 pounds. "


"Police helmets will be re introduced and made even sillier. The higher a police rank then the higher their hat becomes. At Christmas they will be able to put flashing lights on them and generally decorate them. Once they have achieved the rank of Chief Constable the height of their hats will not allow them to leave their office, which they don’t anyway."

"The Millennium Bridge will be made wobbly again, by building a pub at either end. "

All fast food will be clearly labelled “May contain traces of real food”.

"Meals will be served on plates not on wheels. "

"The white cliffs of Dover will be painted blue to camouflage our islands. "

*giggle*

Haha some of that is quality!

Oh... erm... yeah... TRAMS!!

Seems some of my info was not quite right...

from conservatives.og.uk

David Cameron has announced a new review of rapid transit systems, aimed at improving the quality of life in Britain's urban centres.

During an election campaign visit to Bury Metro Station, the Conservative Leader declared: "Transport is an issue that affects us all - whether it's getting our children to school, trying to get to work, or simply getting around during the day. I want us to help people who live in our cities get around quickly and easily."

And he has asked the Party's Cities Taskforce to examine ways in which tram, bus and rail systems can be enhanced to improve local transport facilities - while at the same time helping to protect the environment.

Mr Cameron said: "Over the last few weeks we've been showing how voting Conservative in the local elections on May 4th will give people a chance to change their local community for the better. We've shown that we've got new ideas on crime, education and housing. We've also shown that Conservative councils deliver services that are greener and cheaper than Labour or the Lib Dems.

"Transport is an issue that affects us all - whether it's getting our children to school, trying to get to work, or simply getting around during the day. I want us to help people who live in our cities get around quickly and easily. So I'm announcing a new direction for transport in our cities, including a major review of rapid transit systems by the Cities Taskforce. We have a shared responsibility to make our communities better places to live, and that includes making sure that local views are taken into account when transport policy is translated into action."

Mr Cameron has also asked the Party's Quality of Life Policy Group to look at how changes in transport policy can improve quality of life for everyone. "In particular I'm asking the group to look into the Government's Home Zones pilots - to help strike a balance between drivers, other road users and residents. This is already happening in Conservative councils like Lichfield where they have introduced a Community Transport Scheme to help people access social and educational activities," Mr Cameron said.

He added: "In Suffolk, the council's Green Travel Plan is improving facilities for sustainable transport. And in Conservative-led Bradford, a guided busway has reduced peak-time traffic and increased bus use. Conservative councils are leading the way. On May 4th people will have the opportunity to vote for a Conservative council for positive change in their area. Vote blue, Go Green."

I'm new to this forum. Interesting stuff from Metrolink. I'm no supporter of any particular political party, but it was the Tory Thatcher govt. that gave the green light to Metrolink in the late 1980s, and I'm pretty sure the Tory Major govt. gave the go ahead for the Eccles extension before Blair won the '97 election. Thatcher hated rail travel, so it was amazing that her govt. put up the cash. I really do think Labour have cocked up their transport policy. Let's hope they are about to rectify this by making a favourable announcement about Metrolink phase 3 in the near future.

I find myself torn today with the government reshuffle.

In an ideal world Darling would be replaced and he successor would get a Pondelino up to Manchester to announce that phase 3 will proceed.

However, in reality, I suspect any new secratary of state would insist on taking ages reading through all the details, delaying the scheme yet further.

At the moment, I honestly think we are on the verge of getting what we have been fighting for, I'm a little worried that any change will disrupt that, therefore, reluctantly I want Darling to keep his job (for now anyway) :eek:

Well Darling has been shifted to the most pointless department in existance, the Department of Trade and Industry.

No news yet as to who is replacement is.

Should suit him then

Some Brownite has replaced him apparently, didn't catch the name.

Darling was also considered as a Brownite fwiw.

His email address is ...

dalexandermp@talk21.com

Just sent him this...



Douglas,

I understand congratulations are due with your promotion to being Transport Secretary.

May I be first to voice my view that in your new role I hope you have better luck in fulfilling the wishes of many of the countries core cities.

Recently Leeds, Portsmouth and Liverpool have had their hopes of light rail systems being built in their city dashed – the reason being given rising costs.

I hope in you new role you manage the department in such a way that the wishes of the people in places like Manchester, where as I’m sure you will find out there has been a huge long campaign to have our tram system extended, what they want.

From recent press reports in the area, Darling was very close to announcing that Phase 3 was to proceed, I urge you to complete this, and allow the most important project for the north of England to start, before costs rise even further, making the project less viable.

Regards

....
....
....

darling was correct when he said in Nottingham it would be the last tram system he was ever going to open :(

nice one, I just fired one off to him as well.

heehee, I sent one too - let's try and get this bloke onside :cheers:

anyone have any decent background info on him?

Any ideas whats gonna happen to the £45 mil pa we stop paying to the US this year. A metro hand out would be nice. Its not enough to explore transprter technology but we might get a mile or two of track for it....

Is that £45m a year a hang over from the war?

How Douglas Alexander voted on key issues since 2001 (From Public Whip) :

Moderately for introducing a smoking ban. votes, speeches
Very strongly for the reduction of parliamentary scrutiny. votes, speeches
Quite strongly for introducing ID cards. votes, speeches
Very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals. votes, speeches
Very strongly for introducing student top-up fees. votes, speeches
Quite strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws. votes, speeches
Very strongly for the Iraq war. votes, speeches
Very strongly for the fox hunting ban. votes, speeches
Quite strongly for equal gay rights. votes, speeches

Is that £45m a year a hang over from the war?

Yep

Minister of State (Europe), Foreign & Commonwealth Office (16 May 2005 to 19 Dec 2005)
Minister of State (Trade), Department of Trade and Industry (4 Nov 2004 to 11 May 2005)
Minister of State (Trade), Foreign & Commonwealth Office (4 Nov 2004 to 11 May 2005)
Minister of State (Trade (joint with DTI)), Department of Trade and Industry (10 Sep 2004 to 4 Nov 2004)
Minister of State (Trade (joint with DTI)), Foreign & Commonwealth Office (10 Sep 2004 to 4 Nov 2004)
Minister of State, Cabinet Office (9 Sep 2004 to 10 Sep 2004)
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Cabinet Office (13 Jun 2003 to 9 Sep 2004)
Minister of State, Cabinet Office (29 May 2002 to 13 Jun 2003)
Minister of State (E-Commerce and Competitiveness), Department of Trade and Industry (11 Jun 2001 to 29 May 2002)

Godd one Metro, Roly.

You'll be posting up a picture of his girlfriend next.

Bloody 'ell fella's - give him chance for IT to fix up his Dell!
Keen though - that's how you get things done.
I'll construct one as well then - let's get Doug back on our tracks.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/213/213051_payasyoudrive_pledge.html?

Pay-as-you-drive pledge
Alan Salter
DRIVERS in Greater Manchester are not on a fast track to pay-as-you-go motoring, it has been pledged.

New Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander had raised fears among motorists that they could soon be paying up to £1.30 a mile to drive as they are tracked by satellite.
He said he "will shortly be issuing an invitation to participate in a series of demonstration projects".

Advertisement your story continues below
Speculation that some of the first could be in this area was fuelled by the fact that members of Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority are at a conference on congestion charging in Stockholm.

Experts
But PTA chairman Coun Roger Jones promised from the Swedish capital: "We have not put our hat in the ring, and even if this kind of thing was introduced, it would take six or seven years."

Although councils in Greater Manchester are not taking part in trials, experts are using government grants to find the worst congestion black spots.

The local authorities were waiting for Mr Alexander's predecessor, Alistair Darling, to announce the go-ahead for three stalled extensions to Metrolink, taking trams to Oldham, Rochdale, Tameside and the airport. Coun Jones still believes the £520m go-ahead will be given next month.

"I don't think our current deal is dependent on us agreeing to congestion charging," he said. "But you have to think that is the way things are going.

"I am not an enthusiast of congestion charging and we have always said we need to improve public transport first. But we are here to find out more about it, because we do need to work with the government in future.

"We want to see Metrolink expanding even further - and if the government play ball on that, we may have to look at congestion charging."

http://www.nw-enquirer.co.uk/news/transport/the_north-south_chasm_20060511243.html

The North-South chasm
Published on May 11 2006 by Jason Teasdale
THE region’s universities, ports and air links are under-used and failing to bridge the North-South divide, a new report reveals.

A cross-party commission has found that England’s economic chasm still exists, despite decades of investment, and concluded the North West is not reaching its full potential.

It also says wealth created through the regeneration of cities like Liverpool and Manchester is not finding its way into surrounding towns or other parts of the region.
Development chiefs have welcomed the Connecting England report, commissioned by the Town and Country Planning Association.

It says the lack of investment outside the South East is now denying millions the opportunity of good jobs and a decent home, and calls for:

A national ports strategy that encourages growth at docks in Liverpool which have spare capacity;
A new or radically improved North-South rail line with faster services and a new Trans-Pennine route;
The expansion of Manchester Airport in preference to the South East, and for high-speed rail links between airports to reduce polluting short-haul flights;
Better funding for universities with regional economic roles;
Larger local authorities to be given similar transport and regional development powers to the Greater London Authority;
And an increase in the 20,000 civil service jobs expected to move outside London – with many heading north.
The report’s authors believe that, if the divide can be overcome, the entire nation will reap the economic benefit.

The commission’s chairman, Peter Hetherington, said: “England is not working to its full potential. Many in our workforce are denied the chance to either contribute to our economic prosperity or to benefit from it.”

He said a joined-up approach is needed to address the worsening divide and tackle the environmental impacts of the nation’s present unbalanced growth.

One example of investment in the North West drying up was the government’s decision to freeze funding for Manchester’s Metrolink, which left much work, including the new station at Newton Heath, unfinished.

The report’s authors say government must now take a leading role in encouraging the regional investment necessary.

Recommendations


Ministerial advisor, Sir Michael Lyons, is among those now calling for it to go even further than his own 2003 recommendations that more departments be moved outside Whitehall.

He said: “There is no unbreakable chain that demands a minister’s office, right down to all his 4,000 officials, must all be confined to central London.”

Peter White, executive director for infrastructure at the North West Regional Development Agency, said the commission’s conclusions, particularly regarding transportation, were spot on.

He said: “This report is a welcome addition to the debate on the economic development of the regions. The call for a new high-speed rail link to London is critical for the North West. In fact the NWDA has already highlighted the need for improvements to our rail infrastructure and it is one of the key features of the recently-launched North West Regional Economic Strategy, crucial to the success of our region.”

The commission’s study also says one of the main challenges over the coming years will be making sure benefits from the 2012 Olympics are felt nationwide.

It would be interesting to see if the new transport secretary delays or (god forbid), cancels the next phase of Metrolink. No clues so far. I think I will contact my MP (Stockport MP, Anne Coffey) who was Darling's private parliamentary secretary, and was firmly stuck on the fence 2 years ago when Darling ditched Metrolink. She remained totally non-committed, and was virtually silent on the issue whilst other Greater Manchester MPs were organising the very successful campaign to re-instate the project. I wonder if the 'branch' to Stockport town centre, effectively the continuation of the Didsbury spur, is still going to be featured in the plans should it get the go-ahead? Does anyone know? The local Labour/Tory/L-D party candidates never mentioned Metrolink in the recent council elections here in Stockport.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/213/213215_i_back_metrolink_says_new_transport_chief.html ?

I back Metrolink, says new transport chief
Ian Craig
NEW Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has pledged his backing to the proposed expansion of the Metrolink.

Mr Alexander, who is expected to launch a new fleet of TransPennine trains in Ardwick today, told the Manchester Evening News the government remained committed to the Metrolink.

Mr Alexander succeeded fellow Scot Alistair Darling in the job and he has taken on board his predecessor's support for the supertram system.
Key

"I stand by the £520m that my predecessor Alistair Darling committed to Manchester and it is clear that trams will play a major part in improving the city's transport system," he said.

He accepted there had been lot of work developing proposals to extend the system to Oldham and Rochdale and he said a decision would be made in due course.

"Manchester's growth is of key importance to the region and the country as a whole," he said. "We want to support it. I am looking forward to finding out more and taking part in discussions to develop a plan to meet Manchester's future transport needs."

Fleet

Today he was set to launch a new fleet of 51 TransPennine trains - costing £250m - which are due to be in service by early next year.

He was also due to open the depot in Ardwick that will help maintain them.

The express franchise links Manchester with Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle, Liverpool, Preston and the Lake District. In the last financial year, 15m people used the services.

The new trains should mean more comfort for passengers through improved seating and air conditioning and better facilities for disabled passengers.

Promising. Lets hope his words are justified this time round.

We need a Bob Geldoff of Trams, when the minister comes out with:

"Manchester's growth is of key importance to the region and the country as a whole," he said. "We want to support it. I am looking forward to finding out more and taking part in discussions to develop a plan to meet Manchester's future transport needs."

To say, listen mate, enough of your platitudes, just give us the fucking money.

We need a Bob Geldoff of Trams, when the minister comes out with:

"Manchester's growth is of key importance to the region and the country as a whole," he said. "We want to support it. I am looking forward to finding out more and taking part in discussions to develop a plan to meet Manchester's future transport needs."

To say, listen mate, enough of your platitudes, just give us the fucking money.

Ja Rhodie Flyer, absolutely spot on. At least Douglas Alexander didn't say the the £520m was "taxpayers' money, for the people of Manchester", like the PM did a few weeks ago.

No trams scheme has been backed with government money outside of these ridiculous PFI schemes. Eg Croydon trams who apparantly have refused to allow the police to ride for free because it is in breach of the terms of their contract!

Metrolink will go ahead when we pimp it to a construction company who will be paid to build it and then we pay through the nose for 20 years before WE have to buy it back off them.

oops meant under our wonderfulness Toni

The reply to my questions about Metrolink from Ann Coffey, Stockport's Labour MP:

"As you know the proposals for the 3 extensions were estimated to be nearly £900,000,000 which was a huge increase on the budget of £530,000,000 . The government agreed that GMPTA could still have the £530,000,000 .There has been continuing discussion since 2004 between the department and the GMPTA about a way forward including biding for an allocation from the Transport Innovation Fund. This is being made available to transport authorities who come up with innovative transport schemes for their area including demand management(road pricing). As I understand it an announcement will be made shortly .

There are plans for further extensions including to Stockport town centre and I support the expansion of the tram network to Stockport."

Nothing new there then from Mr. Darling's parliamentary private secretary. Isn't it impressive to write £900m out in full. Makes it look so expensive! A couple of hundred million has already been spent on preparations for phase 3 anyway. Politicians! They could procrastinate for England.........

Unfortunatley the 'Bob Geldof's of the North West are pretty much all rich, selfish car-users who don't give a damn about public transport.

See here: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/comments/view.html?story_id=213215

I think Peter Apostolou is starting to have had enough of me by now.

Anyway, having had enough of non-replies, I have made use to the Freedom of Information act.

I'm asking for all DfT internal and external communications relating to Metrolink starting from Jan 1st this year.

I'll let you know how I get on...


Kurt Stephens

Peter Apostolou
Regional and Local Major Projects Division
Department for Transport
Zone 3/18
Great Minister House
76 Marsham Street
LONDON
SW1P 4DR

Email : peter.apostolou@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk

Our Ref: FOI/2239/Stephens


25 May 2006



By e-mail



Mr. Stephens

Thank you for your recent email to the department in which you made a request under the Freedom of Information Act in relation to the Manchester Metrolink scheme.

Your request has been allocated the FOI reference number 2239. Please quote this reference number in any future communications.

Your request was received on 24 May and I am dealing with it under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which allows me 20 working days to respond to your request, meaning the deadline expires on 23rd of June.

Yours sincerely



Peter Apostolou
Regional and Local Major Projects Division

P.S. Don't start emailing him directly, go through the proper channels.

I've think I've annoyed him previously by mailing him directly.

On a tram tonight from Trafford Bar to G-Mex, whats that 5 minute journey, nope 25 minutes more like, brilliant.

The driver informed us it was due to congestion around Mosley Street, assuming this is true, hows the metro gonna run properley when it has more lines running down Mosley Street?

Having travelled on the Supertram last weekend in Sheffield, It left me realising what Metrolink could be with a cash injection. 10 minute frequency, longer trams and onboard ticket purchases (no more troublesome Metrolink ticket machines)- the service was pretty impressive from what I could tell.

I wondered if the fact that the Supertram is operated by Stagecoach (who are the major bus operator in Sheffield) could be followed here. Both were well integrated at Park and Ride and in the centre and the Day Rider was cheaper than the GMPTE equivalent.

Bring on Phase 3 and crucially the much needed new stock!

Grand - that's a common problem at the moment, caused by buses stuck trying to get into the bus station, someone needs to get it sorted asap, it's causing real problems very regulalry.

M13 - indeed, many people from Manc have a negative perception of trams (loud tracks / expensive / overcrowded / crappy ticket machines) due to the massive underinvestment the system has always suffered from - hopefully with the £102m and phase 3 this will be sorted out.

The Answer

http://urbanrail.net/as/burs/bursa1.jpg

If it can be done in provincial Turkey, why not in provincial England.

Isn't it possible to make more buses come up Portland Street to the bus station rather than Mosley Street? There never seems to be that much traffic on Mosley Street anyway, but if what there is causes such problems, then an increase in tram traffic will only make things worse.

I agree Emma - even terminating the buses in St Peter Sq and putting a turning circle in for the buses so they head straight back ot of town would be appropriate for some services I suspect (given that a large percentage of buses seem to empty there).

Isaac, you are getting very boring and very repetative.

I agree Emma - even terminating the buses in St Peter Sq and putting a turning circle in for the buses so they head straight back ot of town would be appropriate for some services I suspect (given that a large percentage of buses seem to empty there).


That will look lovely.

It's practically already there - the buses approach the northbound tram platform on the western side, instead of making them go straight ahead, have them turn around (I suspect the road is wide enough here for U-turns of the buses), these would obvioulsy have to be timed with the traffic lights on John Dalton Street.

All that would need to happen would be the 'kerbs' be removed from the eastern side of the tram tracks as they approach the station.

If it cannot be achieved then fair enough - but it will be a solution like this that resolves the problems caused by the buses, there will nto be a hugely expensive redesign of the city centre - or a new bus station built somewhere - that's simply not how this country works.

A more feasable solution would be to move the tramtracks to the back streets behind Mosely Street, away from the bus station. Or remove the bus station and stop terminating buses in central Manchester. Hardly any buses terminate in central London, they carry on through from one suburb to the next.

There is something wrong at the PTE.

There is something wrong at the PTE.

Yes, they don't have unlimited funding.

Moving the tram tracks is a non starter (bugger all benifit / cost) - I agree about getting the buses to keep going through the centre.

However, since the GMPTE don't have very much clout with the bus companies then forcing them not to terminate in the city centre would be practically impossible.

Isaac - you seem to have a total non-understanding of how impotent GMPTE is with transport in the area.

They cannot do ANYTHING without the DfT agreeing that the scheme is value for money - moving tram tracks, or putting them underground is simply never ever going to happen with the current setup.

As a GMPTE official stated the other week, all they have the chance to do is develop schemes, such as Metrolink, try and get the government to approve the scheme (even if 100% of the funds are raised locally), and then hand the project over to a private company to build, develop and run (and make a profit from).

After the inital conception, and getting it passed the DfT, the GMPTE lose all control over the transport in GM - whether that be trams, trains or buses.

This is not because they want it like this, more that during the 80's local authorities were stripped of the powers, we are left with this.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2006-05-23a.72653.h&s=Metrolink#g72653.q0



Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Minister of State), Home Office, Denton & Reddish, Labour) Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement concerning the funding for the Manchester Metrolink extension to Ashton-Under-Lyne.

Derek Twigg (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport) Hansard source

An announcement will be made in due course, once we have completed our consideration of Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive's business case.

The above is a perfect example of how powerless GMPTE are - they have £520m to spend on Phase 3, yet they cannot spend it cos the DfT will not give them the go ahead - as we wait for the DfT to make their decision the price continues to go up.

Yes, they don't have unlimited funding.

Moving the tram tracks is a non starter (bugger all benifit / cost) - I agree about getting the buses to keep going through the centre.

However, since the GMPTE don't have very much clout with the bus companies then forcing them not to terminate in the city centre would be practically impossible.

Isaac - you seem to have a total non-understanding of how impotent GMPTE is with transport in the area.

They cannot do ANYTHING without the DfT agreeing that the scheme is value for money - moving tram tracks, or putting them underground is simply never ever going to happen with the current setup.

As a GMPTE official stated the other week, all they have the chance to do is develop schemes, such as Metrolink, try and get the government to approve the scheme (even if 100% of the funds are raised locally), and then hand the project over to a private company to build, develop and run (and make a profit from).

After the inital conception, and getting it passed the DfT, the GMPTE lose all control over the transport in GM - whether that be trams, trains or buses.

This is not because they want it like this, more that during the 80's local authorities were stripped of the powers, we are left with this.

Get rid of them then, seems a waste of public money to me.

Get rid of them then, seems a waste of public money to me.

It would make far more sense to me to actually give GMPTE some power. Removing GMPTE and doing it all at a national level would only make things worse.

Get rid of them then, seems a waste of public money to me.

Isaac - seems as you seem to know so much about GMPTE - tell me what the annual cost of the administration of the PTE is, and how many people are employed by them.

Also, whilst you are at it, tell me about what administration they do for concession fares, OAP travel and subsidised bus routes.

After you've finished giving a comprehensive overview of what they do (since you seem to be making quite strong suggestions I'm sure you know exactly what you are suggesting), you'll tell me which organisations will be able to do this work for less money.

Travel is just about the only policy that is democratically decided in GM - through the PTA - to get rid would only mean less political accountability, and an unelected quango would take over.

Isaac - you are embarassing yourself with your wild, unknowledgable, unfounded remarks.

Go off, find out how transport is organised in the metropolitan areas in the UK, and when you have the slightest bit of knowledge on the subject come back, until then shut up.

I know nothing about the PTE but you wrote this.


However, since the GMPTE don't have very much clout with the bus companies then forcing them not to terminate in the city centre would be practically impossible.

Isaac - you seem to have a total non-understanding of how impotent GMPTE is with transport in the area.


So it begged the question.

However now you're saying this


Also, whilst you are at it, tell me about what administration they do for concession fares, OAP travel and subsidised bus routes

and also


Travel is just about the only policy that is democratically decided in GM - through the PTA - to get rid would only mean less political accountability, and an unelected quango would take over.

You are the expert, I know nothing but your comments seem a little contradictory.

Lay it out for me.

1. What does the PTE do?

2. How many people does it employ?

3. What is it's budget?

4. What bus routes does it subsidize?

5. Who make up the PTE?

Isaac, we've had this conversation a million times before.

1) PTE implement the will of the PTA - the PTA are elected councillors from GM.

Both are statutary orgnisations setup by central government, the PTA provide the stratergy, the PTE deliver it.

2) I dunno, but not many

3) About £200m / year - practically all of which is spent on concession fares

4) Ones that are not seen as profitable by the private companies, but ones that the government allow sibsidies on - for example from poorer housing estates to hospitals.

5) Normal people who apply for jobs, tend to have to have experience of managing projects / transport.



Isaac - I know nothing about construction / architecture, for this reason I don't start crying out for a 400m tower everytime one is proposed in Manchester.

I'd suggest since you are not very familiar with how transport is organised in Manchester, you stop crying out for schemes that are simply not viable.

The PTA / PTE is the ONLY organisation that actually has any saying on how things are ran across Manchester.

For example, through the 80's the developed plans for the Metrolink (Phase 1 and 2), they worked with the DfT to develop what we have today - however, as soon as the contracts were signed for the constructions to start, and the system to be ran by a certain company in the future, GMPTE lost all control over Metrolink.

So yes, they (try to) deliver the will of the public (through the elected PTA who give guidence to the PTE), however, they are very very handicapped by the DfT, and as soon as the trams / buses actaully start running they have no say.

They can only in very rare circumstances (with DfT approval) organise the bus companies in such a way that routes are covered, in reality, the DfT doesn't like this as they see it as regulating the buses.

Isaac - I'd suggest your idea of getting rid of the PTE would simply mean more control from Whitehall, which would lead to less democratic decisions, and more anorcy on the streets on Manchester - along the lines of the 192 route and the Mosley Street mess.

Does the PTE have to exist by law or can it be abolished ?

Has to exist by law (I think).

The DfT could abolish.

Out of interest - how would you manage the transport in Manchester?

Would you have the DfT making all decisions about future transport policy?

Do you honestly think people sat in London (who most likely have never visited Manchester) are best placed to decide the transport stratergy?

Also, given that London wages tend to be higher than Manchester wages - and the jobs need doing by someone - I don't see the justification in what would be an increase in cost.

For what it's worth, in the West Midlands the PTA / PTE are going to come under the same umbrella - it's thought however that they'll work in exactly the same way as at present, simply calling themselves the same thing (Centro I seem to remember).

Concessionary subsidies could be handled by each local authority. As for managing transport in Manchester, from what you are saying, it isn't being managed.

You say

However, since the GMPTE don't have very much clout with the bus companies then forcing them not to terminate in the city centre would be practically impossible.


So what do they actually do ?

www.gmpte.com - have a read.

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?category_id=102788

Throughout Great Britain, with the exception of Greater London, public transport is operated by commercial companies who decide what services to run and what fares to charge. However, these services do not always meet the social needs of the community as a whole.

Passenger Transport Authorities are responsible for providing the services and facilities which the market does not provide in large conurbations. Elsewhere this responsibility is undertaken by local County Councils.
The County of Greater Manchester has a Passenger Transport Authority. It is located in the North West of England and consists of ten District Councils; Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan.
The District Council in each of these areas contributes finance from local taxes and appoints local councillors to the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority to represent their district. The Authority decides on public transport policy for the county and provides the funds for GMPTE to carry out these policies. GMPTE is the trading name of the county's Passenger Transport Executive whose role is to carry out these policies.

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?category_id=102788

Throughout Great Britain, with the exception of Greater London, public transport is operated by commercial companies who decide what services to run and what fares to charge. However, these services do not always meet the social needs of the community as a whole.

Passenger Transport Authorities are responsible for providing the services and facilities which the market does not provide in large conurbations. Elsewhere this responsibility is undertaken by local County Councils.
The County of Greater Manchester has a Passenger Transport Authority. It is located in the North West of England and consists of ten District Councils; Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan.
The District Council in each of these areas contributes finance from local taxes and appoints local councillors to the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority to represent their district. The Authority decides on public transport policy for the county and provides the funds for GMPTE to carry out these policies. GMPTE is the trading name of the county's Passenger Transport Executive whose role is to carry out these policies.

So it's a branch of the social services ?

Yes - it's crap, but lets not destroy about the only decent thing in public transport outside of London - the idea should be to give the PTE control over the profit making serives, such that it's all ran for the benifit of the public (as happens in London).

Whilst services are operated by commercial companies who decide what services to run and what fares to charge

we've not got much chance - but it ain't the fault of the PTE.

If that's how you want to see it yes.

But outside of London, that's the only public transport provision we have - shit isn't it!!!

So I could buy a bus, stick the number 216 on it and run it from Ashton to Piccadilly ?

Yep, so long as you hold a driving license for the bus.

You'd most likely need to register with a couple of authorities - so you can get money from accepting concession fares etc, but essentially yes, if you wanted to.

This is what's happened on the 192 route - the fucking disater that ends up in fights and roads being blocked so one company can race ahead and collect all the passengers.

Out of interest - do you think this situation is better or worse than the London situation, where effectively the London PTE has been given huge powers to raise money and spend it as they like, as well as managing the public transport over London?

We need the labour movement to set up cooperative bus companies that cross subsidise unprofitable routes with profitable ones. They would still be unregulated but they would be self regulating and not for profit.

In this country we always want the state to intervene

www.coetc.com
www.ucot.net

Given the lack of control the PTE have, have a look at the list of bus operators...

Do you really expect a co-ordinated transport policy in Manchester (you could add Isaac N Plc should you want).

http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=102865

Arriva North West Limited
73 Ormskirk Road
Aintree
Liverpool
L9 5AE
Telephone 08701 20 10 88
www.arriva.co.uk
enquiries@arriva.co.uk

Ashall's Coaches
Unit C
70, Langley Road
Salford
M6 6JP
Telephone 0161 737 9999
Fax 0161 925 0498

Atherton Bus Company
33 Landedmans
Westhoughton
Bolton
BL5 2QJ
Telephone 01942 791535


Bluebird Bus and Coach
Alexander House
Greengate
Middleton
Manchester
M24 1RU
Telephone 0161 653 1900
www.bluebirdbus.co.uk


Border Buses
Bancroft Rd
Burnley
Lancashire
BB10 2AZ
Telephone 01204 668112


Bostock's Coaches
Spragg Street Garage
Congleton
Cheshire
CW12 1QH
Telephone 01282 456351


Bowers Coaches
Aspincroft Garage
Town End
Chapel-en-le-Frith
High Peak
SK23 0NU
Telephone 01298 812204


R. Bullock Buses
Commercial Garage
Stockport Road
Cheadle
Stockport
SK8 2AG
Telephone 0161 491 5525
www.bullockscoaches.co.uk
info@bullockscoaches.co.uk


Burnley & Pendle Travel Ltd
Queensgate Depot
Colne Road
Burnley
BB10 1HH
Telephone 01282 427778
www.burnleyandpendle.co.uk
enquiries@burnleyandpendle.co.uk

Bu-Val
Unit 5
Paragon Industrial Estate
Smithy Bridge Road
Littleborough
OL15 8QF
Telephone 01706 372787


Checkmate Mini Coaches
333 Stockport Road
Mossley
Lancashire
OL5 0RS
Telephone 01457 836110


The Coachmasters
Royle Works
Royle Road
Rochdale
OL11 3ET
Telephone 01706 750570


Cranberry Coachways
2 Cranberry Close
Darwen
BB3 2HR
Telephone 01254 697777


Dennis's Coaches
Unit 4
Charles Street
Dukinfield
SK16 4SD
Telephone 0161 339 8575

Express Coach Services
Adamson Industrial Estate
Raglan Street
Hyde
SK14 2QD
Telephone 0161 367 8989

Finglands 261 Wilmslow Road
Rusholme
Manchester
M14 5LJ
Telephone 0161 224 3341
www.finglands.co.uk
buses@finglands.co.uk


First Calderline
Skircoat Road
Halifax
HX1 2RF
Telephone 01422 365985


First Huddersfield
Old Fieldhouse Lane
Huddersfield
HD2 1AG
Telephone 01484 426313


First Manchester
Including First Rochdale
Wallshaw Street
Oldham
OL1 3TR
Telephone 0161 627 2929
Careline 08457 88 11 55 (open Monday to Friday 9am to 6pm, calls charged at local rates)
www.firstgroup.com

First Pennine
Rothesay Garage
Broadway
Dukinfield
SK16 4UU
Telephone 0161 343 3517


First PMT
Hobson Street
Burslem
Stoke-on-Trent
ST6 2AQ
Telephone 01782 281088


Goodwins
Lyntown Trading Estate
186 Old Wellington Road
Eccles
Manchester
M30 9QG
Telephone 0161 789 4545


Jim Stones Coaches
The Jays
Lightoaks Lane
Glazebury
Cheshire
WA3 5LH
Telephone 01925 766 465
www.jimstonescoaches.com
JP Travel
The Coach House
Joshua Lane
Middleton
Manchester
M24 2AZ
Telephone 0161 643 4182

Lancashire United Ltd
Manner Sutton Street
Blackburn
BB1 5DT
Telephone 01254 260661
www.lancashireunited.co.uk
enquiries@lancashireunited.co.uk

A Mayne & Son Ltd
974 988 Ashton New Road
Clayton
Manchester
M11 4PD
Telephone 0161 223 2035


Midwest (Westbrook Coaches)
12 Normanton Avenue
Salford
M6 8BS
Telephone 0161 787 8298


MR Travel
Unit 8 Scott Industrial Park
Fishwick Street
Rochdale
OL16 5NA
Telephone 01706 759976
www.mrtravel.co.uk
sales@mrtravel.co.uk


National Express
Ensign Court
4 Vicarage Road
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 3ES
Telephone 0121 625 1122
National Enquiries 08705 808080
www.nationalexpress.co.uk


National Trust
Dunham Massey Hall
Altrincham
WA14 4SJ
Telephone 0161 941 1025

Nip On Transport
26 Haywood Gardens
West Park
St Helens
WA10 4JU
Telephone 01744 454188

Northern Blue
Unit F
West End Business Park
Oswaldtwistle
Lancashire
BB5 4WE


North Star Buses
35A Wilson Road
Huton Industrial Estate
Huyton
Liverpool
L36 6AE
Telephone 0151 489 1109

Olympia Travel
44 Argyle Street
Hindley
Wigan
WN2 3PH
Telephone 01942 522322

Red Rose Travel
27 Hillside Avenue
Intack
Blackburn
Lancashire
BB1 2BB
Telephone 0411 778121

Ringwood Luxury Coaches
Speedwell Industrial Estate
Crompton Road
Staveley
Chesterfield
S43 3PG
Telephone 01246 476366


Rossendale Transport
35 Bacup Road
Rawtenstall
Rossendale
BB4 7NG
Telephone 01706 212337
www.rossendalebus.co.uk

Selywn's
Cavendish Farm Road
Weston
Runcorn
Cheshire
WA7 4LU
Telephone 01928 572108


South Lancs Travel
Unit 22/23
Chanters Idustrial Estate
Atherton
M46 9BP
Telephone 01942 888893
www.southlancs.com
slt@martinbott.com

Stagecoach Manchester
Head Office
Hyde Road
Manchester
M12 6JS
Telephone 0161 273 3377
www.stagecoachbus.com/manchester
Email:
manchester.enquiries@stagecoachbus.com

Stagecoach Ribble
Frenchwood Avenue
Preston
Lancashire
PR1 4LU
Telephone 01772 254754


Stott's Tours
144 Lees Road
Oldham
OL4 1HT
Telephone 0161 624 4200


Sureway Travel
46-52 Richmond Hill
Pemberton
Wigan
WN5 8AA
Telephone 01942 519910


David Tanner Travel
10 Cowley Street
St Helens
Merseyside
WA10 2SR
Telephone 01744 605043

Trent Buses
Mansfield Road
Heanor
Derbyshire
DE75 7BG
Telephone 01773 536336
www.trentbuses.co.uk
enquiries@trentbuses.co.uk

UK North
Unit 3
Taw Works
Gorton Lane
Manchester
M18 8DA
Telephone 0161 223 3013


Vale of Manchester
49 Broughton Street
Cheetham
Manchester
M8 8AN
Telephone 0161 832 9445


Warrington Borough Transport
Wilderspool Causeway
Warrington
Cheshire
WA4 6PT
Telephone 01925 634296
www.warringtonboroughtransport.co.uk
feedback@
warringtonboroughtransport.co.uk


Whitegate Travel
15 Beauty Bank
Whitegate
Nr Northwhich
Cheshire
CW8 2BP

Isaac - so which works best - London or Manchester?

London's buses are better, although they too are operated by private companies. The tube though is a PFI operation and looking at what's happening in our hospitals I am worried.

Isaac, no co-operative would work in the deregulated market, it simply would go bust.

They'd have to run the profitable routes to be able to afford to run the less profitable ones, however, as can be seen on the 192 route, Stagecoach, and the other large operators are very ruthless, and will do anything to stop new comers onto their patch.

Once again, you are living in fantasy land, by leaving us with the status quo, we certain to have a second rate transport policy.

Which other part of the world - including the USA where the free market rules - has the local population got such little say in the local public transport?

Ask yourself this - if the model that Manchester (and other UK cities) have for public transport, when people stand to be mayor in London, why don't they suggest implementing the Manchester model of public transport onto the capital?

For one very simple reason - it doesn't work.

The ironic thing is, your wild dreams about undergrounds etc could become a reality in Manchester, if we had the kind of independence etc that French/German/practically every other city in Europe / US / Australia has then we may be able to get in a position where the politicians and public can get behind a proposal to develop such a system.

However, given where we are, we beg for the crumbs at the table in Whitehall.

The London buses although operated by private compnaies are regulated though.

They all accept the same tickets, and Red Ken sets the fares.

In Manchester you often have a different company operating each direction on a route so no return fare is available.

With regards PFI - I agree it's crap.

But lets have a look at the DLR - Ken is borrowing loads of money, to be repaid by fare paying passengers to expand the network - no one outside of London is allowed to do this, we have to beg for the money from Whitehall, so we can pay a private company to build a system we want, who will then operate it for 30 years and do as they please with it.

Even the underground is managed and the rules are set down by the mayor.


Isaac - please answer these two simple questions....

Would Manchester get a better or worse public transport system if we had the political structure managing it that they have in London?

If London isn't something we should be aiming at (with regards running public transport), how do you think we should have our transport organised? Total free for all???

Right off home now.

Isaac - keep living in your dream world, making use of the excellent public transport down in London, dreaming that somehow our shitty system up here will somehow improve with the current setup - it won't.

Right off home now.

Isaac - keep living in your dream world, making use of the excellent public transport down in London, dreaming that somehow our shitty system up here will somehow improve with the current setup - it won't.

You'd better get used to it then because it isn't going to change. The Labour Government have done nothing and they are going to lose the next election. My fantasies are based around the present political system yours are based around something that isn't going to happen.

Anyway fantasies are good, both mine and yours :)

As for London, well Greater Manchester had it's own council for a few years and public transport was no better then than it is now. All the buses were the same colour and that's about it.

Why would a cooperative fail, what would the other bus companies do apart from lower the fares. If they speed or drive dangerously to beat each other to the stops then the police should intervene. The powers are there. The local council should think about installing cameras and threatening prosecution.

Charities and trade unions, religious and ethic groups should be actively lobbied in creating mutualist public transport. It's happening in football why not buses. (Perhaps people would rather spend their money subsidising 130,000 pound a week wages)

Are buses allowed to stop anywhere they want?

You'd better get used to it then because it isn't going to change. The Labour Government have done nothing and they are going to lose the next election. My fantasies are based around the present political system yours are based around something that isn't going to happen.

Not heard about the White Paper Ruth Kelly is currently putting together that is rumours to be creating a Manchester and Birmingham City region before the end of the decade then?

As for London, well Greater Manchester had it's own council for a few years and public transport was no better then than it is now. All the buses were the same colour and that's about it.

Are you sure?

Since the end of the 80's bus passenger numbers have halfed in Manchester (and all urban areas in the UK outside London), during the same period, in London, where buses are still regulated passenger numbers have risen.

Ticketing is now a farce, as are fares and the times the buses run.

Why would a cooperative fail, what would the other bus companies do apart from lower the fares. If they speed or drive dangerously to beat each other to the stops then the police should intervene. The powers are there. The local council should think about installing cameras and threatening prosecution.

It's not the local councils job to install traffic cameras - they do not have the powers to do this.

Maybe the police should do something, but so far they haven't stopped Sagecoach from blocking Stockport Road during the rush hour.

hy do you suspect that there are no bus co-operatives in the country?

It's happening in football why not buses.

You cannot see the difference between people being tribal and following a football team and people setting up a bus company.

I'll ask again - why do you think no bus co-operatives have been set up (the councils are strictly forbidden from doing anything like this).

Are buses allowed to stop anywhere they want?

Within reason - I think they need to get permission of the local council / highways agency, but effectively they can stop in 'sections' of road - I remember the Busy Bee Buses - they used to stop anywhere along certain streches of road - they didn't use bus stops.

Isaac - don't get me wrong, I'd love a co-operative bus company to come along, but it ain't happening, ask yourself why, and should our entire future transport policy be dependent upon this?

Also, you haven't asked the two questions I posed earlier...

Would Manchester get a better or worse public transport system if we had the political structure managing it that they have in London?

If London isn't something we should be aiming at (with regards running public transport), how do you think we should have our transport organised? Total free for all???

Also, with regards local decision making, why are you so opposed to it?

Previously in France, they had a very centralised decision making structure for transport, local towns and cities went begging to Paris for money for transport infrastructure.

This has slowly been changing over the previous 10 years, now all cities and towns plan and develop transport themsleves, independently of Paris, this has seen an explosion in the number of tram lines built (in some years 10 new lines will open across the country).

Towns and cities much smaller than Manchester have had the freedom to spend money as they want, and since they no longer have to spend millions of pounds putting a case together to the Paris officials they can do it much cheaper (in the UK 25% of the cost of a tram project is consultancy, compared to less than 5% in France - they don't need to waste as much money as we do proving to someone that the case is a good one - do you think that the £200m added to Phase 3's costs, simply to prove to the DfT it's value for money is money well spent?).

Have a look at Grenoble - a small Alpine city with 6 brand new tram lines, all devloped and funded locally - this is the type of model of local decision making that is being hinted at will happen when the white paper is published.

third consecutive post (I'm talking to myself here) Isaac - how exactly do you want transport to be managed in areas like Manchester - as it is, or do you support the idea of a city region with powers over certain things like transport?

If not, what do you suggest, and why is the decision about our transport provision better made by someone miles away, probably with very little knowledge of the area, getting paid miles more money?

In France there was a trade off. The whole country paid for Paris's transport whilst in return Central government paid for improvements to the big city transport systems. Both Marseille and Lyon got full metros whilst Lille got the VAL system and it's trams sunk underground. Nantes and Grenoble both got tram systems under this arrangement.

Greater Manchester would be no better off with a London style transport authority because it would not get any funding they would not be able to raise the money themselves and It's not going to happen. Labour have 4 years left, they will not be creating any city regions they do not have the parliamentary time.

I welcome local decision making but we need to streamline the public sector first and we need to find people who are actually up to the job. Ken has had to recruit from America.

Labour have had 9 years to change the rules on public spending, don't hold your breath.

My solution would be to reduce the size of Greater Manchester. There is no need for such a large city region. Too many towns i.e. Oldham and Rochdale are looking for the tram to help regenerate their town centres. This is not what Metroloink should be for. The Government know this, the Tories will know this why doesn't anybody else. Metrolink should be built on the busiest transport routes and replace buses. If these are all in inner Manchester so be it.

The MEN should take some blame as well, pushing for an unviable system.

This should not be about regeneration it should be about providing good public transport.

Please don't think you're talking to yourself Mr. Metrolink. Personally I find your entries on this subject a very useful source of information. :)

Greater Manchester would be no better off with a London style transport authority because it would not get any funding they would not be able to raise the money themselves and It's not going to happen.

Not necessarily true for several reasons, at present, with regards transport (not talking about anything else here, just transport) the whole country, outside London, per head of population, the general public get less spent on their public transport than they take back (London gets 3 times per head spent on it's transport compared to elsewhere).

Now if we aren't contributing to the funding of the transport system in London any more (say the DfT only gets involved in funding and managing national schemes) then more money will logically stay in the regions for transport infrastructure.

Second reason, it would be quite possible to cut the costs of these projects by up to 20% (£200m for Phase 3) by simply not having to prove every single minute detail about the project to the DfT with huge numbers of consultants reports, just to satisfy the DfT that the project is the best value for money - we could run these projects cheaper, as they do on the continenet by eliminating the consultants.

Thirdly, we could design a project that is suitable for our city, we could make our own decisions on risk, to allow us to taylor the scheme to how we want it.

For example, in Edinburgh (where they don't have to go cap in hand to the DfT) they have made the decision to leave the utilities under the tram tracks that they will be laying in Edinburgh - they made this choice to cut costs by between 10% - 15% of the total project costs. They have decided to use the same stratergy seen in Europe of digging under the track should anyone need to get at them - you can dig a surprising amount of dirt out from under a track, and allow trams to continue to run.

Fourthly, we'd be allowed to borrow money against future fares - over a 30 year loan, at commercial rates, we'd easily be able to afford a tram network, we could cut the £200m consultancy costs since we'd not have to prove to ourselves the validity of the scheme (don't get me wrong, there will be some consultants, simply many less - UK 25% of cost of a tram project is consultants, 5% in France 3% in Spain).

Finally, given we're all going to be paying per mile driven within the next decade, I'd imagine there will be the oppurtunity for local authorities to put levvies on the charges that will be kept locally - since people are already paying I can honestly see this being implemented widely across the country as the general public will not really see much difference.

I welcome local decision making but we need to streamline the public sector first and we need to find people who are actually up to the job. Ken has had to recruit from America.

You welcome local decision making, so why not take the role of deciding if Manchester needs Phase3 out of Peter Apostolou's hands, save a small fortune, and have the decision made locally.

Why not make the public sector more streamline by getting rid of the DfT that looks after the regions? Letting the regions make there own decsions surely makes the DfT (hence the public sector) more streamline???

Peter Apostolou has not exactly been head hunted across the world for his knowledge on light rail you know - I'd go as far as saying the guy has probably never even ridden a Metrolink tram. Surely if we want to employ the best people to manage the public transport in Manchester it'd help if they knew the system under discussion?

Why do you imagine having the decsion made by civil servants is any more streamline than having the decison made much faster in Manchester?

My solution would be to reduce the size of Greater Manchester. There is no need for such a large city region. Too many towns i.e. Oldham and Rochdale are looking for the tram to help regenerate their town centres. This is not what Metroloink should be for. The Government know this, the Tories will know this why doesn't anybody else.

Think you have the wrong idea of what a modern tram network in Europe is compared to those that were built 50 years ago.

All over Europe (and the US) new light rail networks are being built across rural areas, linking satallite towns with their main urban centre (especially in Germany).

You make out that the local authorities don't know what they are doing with regards the planning of the route to Oldham / Rochdale.

I have used the Freedom of Information Act to ask GMPTE to provide details of the cost benifit ratio of the Oldham / Rochdale line, as well as the same figures for the other considered alternatives - I should have this information in the next month or so.

Basically though, that line needs a huge amount of money spending on it to keep it as heavy rail - the DfT seem to have two options for it, tarmac over the tracks and turn it into a guided busway, or convert it into a tram line - the tram line is slightly more expensive, however, it will deliver significantly more benifits.

Remember, this line eats several million punds of subsidy a year at the moment, the choices are to continue to pay that money, to convert (at a surprisingly high cost) to run as a guided busway, which would also require long term subsidy, or to convert to tram line which would cost more still (initially) however, would not require long term subsidy.

You seem to suggest that if we'd suggested converting to guided busway then we'd have the money as a dead cert - that is very very far from the case, in Leeds when there tram line was cancelled (even though now it transpires it was the best value for money option on the table) they were practically told that as an alternative they'd get guided buses.

In reality, they are now starting again, paying all the consultants huge sums to work out every tiny detail, to put a case together for a guided busway - the suggestion now is the money may not be forthcoming for that.

It's not that we particularly have a government adverse to trams any more, they are simply adverse to investing in public transport (outside of London).

With regards the Tories and the lines, you don't know that, there have been serious hints from the Tories that they would committ to Phase 3 - they are still developing policy on the subject, but as I say, a decision has to be made, continue to subsidies the line to several million a year (which is only going to increase as the line deteriates more and more), go for subsidised buses, or go for trams.

The MEN should take some blame as well, pushing for an unviable system.

Well the MEN only took a lead of Prescott, Byers, Darling (until June 2004 and after December 2004) and Alexander, all of whom have at some point or another encouraged GMPTE to develop the plans.

This should not be about regeneration it should be about providing good public transport.

It should be both, have a look at the DLR - built with huge public subsidy to re-generate a poor part of London, now a huge success and a very popular form of public transport.

The GMLTP II has the main aim of making oppurtunities accessible to all - two ways of doing this, make a transport route (be it private or public) from the location where people live to the oppurtunity, or bring the oppurtunity to where people live.

The proposed Rochdale line shows this very well - it will link the people along the 20 odd stops with the local economies of Rochdale, Oldham and Manchester, it will also give incentive for business to move to these places.

For example, I work for Fujitsu - they have recently relocated many staff from across the NW to Central Business Park due to the proposed Metrolink line, this is a poor part of Manchester. The fact that there is now a major employer in the neighborhood has encourgaed smaller businesses to start - employing more and more local people - all because of the promise of Metrolink.

I've rambled an awful lot, and since I haven't re-read it it may not make sense, however, Isaac, I'd suggest your opinion on how transport should be organised is based on little or no real understanding on what is required from a public transport system, and what is achievable in the UK.

Before you reply to this, please read (at least) the forewaord of the GMLTP II www.gmltp.com (I think), that document is written to let the government know what is planned in Manchester - they need to approve it - therefore, the message in it not only relects the local opinion, but also that of the DfT.

For those who are not aware of what the two main drivers for public transport improvements (anywhere in the capatilist world) they are...

1) To stimulate the economy along the route of the new line - this is because the ability of people to travel along this route is increased, and by improving the connectivity of the route, you tend to improve the economy since economic activity is much easier to stimulate.

2) The reduce congestion - in reality this is EXTREMELY rarly the driving force for improved transport provision since it is very hard to do properly. In this scenario, you put a new transport system in, that generates extra capacity, that on it's own would generate economic activity, however, the policy is to restrict car usage such that the higher public transport usage is cancelled out by a reduction in car usage - very very hard to get right this though - public tend to be shit scared of it since it involves charging to drive, and could (if not done correctly) wreck the local economy.

London is about the only city in the UK to have gone down route 2 - every other transport scheme in the country tends to be following scenario 1.


However, BIG however, it is becoming more and more apparent, the DfT want proposals to start to be a mix of the two scenarios, they want any new schemes to also have something that will mean that it simply doesn't just create additional capacity - this should be done totally through private money - but actually reduce congestion.

That link doesn't open. :cry:

Have Fujitsu moved to a business park because of Metrolink or because they're paying cheaper rents. And what poor people in the area do they employ, toilet cleaners?

Big government is dying a death and when Labour lose the next election will be gone for another few years.

As for local democracy, how can it be democratic when hardly anyone votes.
Unfortunately Greater Manchester is a car city, it looks like Metrolink is dying a slow death.

Why is it that First Bus operate in North Manchester and Stagecoach in South Manchester. Is that a private agreement between two multinationals ?

The shamefull thing about all this is that after 9 years of Labour, large corporations are allowed to call the shots when it comes to public transport. However pre 1979 it would be very diicult to envisage a tram running on an ex British Rail line, those of us who remember the 70's can imagine the union strife caused by trying to take over a British Rail line.

So what am I saying. Yes I am moving towards your position regarding transport provision in the area. Yes there needs to be some kind of organizing force to prevent chaos. However it doesn't require a large authority to do it.

There should be more than 10 local authorities in the area, bring back Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield. Give them control of their streets, if buses are going too fast down the road then give them the power to close the road, narrow the road, stick a toll gate on the road, privatise the road. Private bus companies it seems are taking the piss out of public property and under a Labour government that is shamefull.

If you want people to vote in local elections, a distant Ken type figure won't work for Greater Manchester. There is no democracy if people aren't voting.

Co-ops should be encouraged and again it should be the Labour Party, sponsored by the Co-op in many places doing the encouraging. Small communities can drive out big business, big government runs hand in hand with big business. A reduced size Manchester with it's richer population could fund real improved transport in the city centre, if not it would be eclipsed by other areas.

Competition between localities not huge self serving bureaucracies would improve public transport.

I'm trying to be philosophical to counterbalance your pragmatism.

Move all the Wilmslow Road buses (41,42,43 and 48 for example) away from Piccadilly Gardens and the Mosley Street problem should go. I got stuck in a tram on Mosley St on Thursday and so missed my train, my usual 18 minute journey from Sale to Piccadill took me 50 minutes (the tram nearly broke down too, and the doors wouldnt open). Theres just too many of these buses though, move them to Whitworth Street or something and the students can walk, It would increase footfall in the Southern End of town too.

As for the trams, was just in Sheffield, if only we had trams like theres.

One last thing, what happened to this big announcement that was postponed because of local election rules? Those elections were weeks ago!

Trollybuses and Trams were replaced with Diesel Buses... dirty and expensive!

The easiest answer to all the bus congestion problems is to replace as many bus routes with Metrolink street-running trams as possible. :cheers:

or simply replace all the ageing, polluting buses with street running tram lines!

I agree that would be perfect, especcially down Wilmslow Road, however in the meantime something really needs to be done about Mosley St and Piccadilly Gardens congestion.

Interestingly the (Mis)Guided Busway proposal that the government seemed to be saying was how it wanted transport in the future to look has had the bids in from the consortia that are wanting to build the thing.

The bids are WELL above the original estimates - be interesting to see the DfT response given this has previously been the reason for cancelled tram projects across the country.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/214/214417_local_power_plea_to_boost_metro_trams_.html?

Tuesday, 30th May 2006
Local power plea to boost Metro trams
Paul Britton


THE expansion of the Metrolink tram network across Greater Manchester could be given a boost if local authorities get greater powers over transport issues, a new report claimed today.

The Local Government Association said power should be devolved from Whitehall and put into the hands of local transport bosses to improve services.

Plans to build three new Metrolink lines to Oldham and Rochdale, South Manchester and Ashton have still to become reality, despite years of negotiation and promises of backing from the government.
The LGA's report said the devolution of power was one way of giving passengers the services that they wanted.

Council leaders would head transport authorities and be able to take decisions reflecting the public's needs, it said.

Benefits

The report argued that financial benefits from devolution would help fund schemes like the Metrolink extension. It said better services would mean more passengers and so more revenue from fares.

The extra money could then be used to finance borrowing for each transport authority to plough back into improving services - and underpin long-term growth.

Report authors Tony Travers and Stephen Glaister said the new-style transport bodies would be able to determine bus, rail, tram, taxi and boat routes and fares.

Mr Traver said: "The proposals would give our great cities the power to decide if they want new tramways, Undergrounds, bus services or better roads. This is a rare opportunity to make a substantial reform without an expensive revolution."

Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, chairman of the LGA, added: "Putting the purse strings and the power back in the hands of local people would provide a huge opportunity.

This concerning email is doing the rounds on the council's internal emails, thought it might be of interest.... :shocked:

Fwd: Metrolink is being run by global arms dealers!

>>>
>>
>
I was recently sickened to hear that Serco Metrolink (who are part of the Serco) group of companies parent organisation have been awarded £2.5bn of UK military defence contracts, most notibly the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment, which Serco manages in partnership with U.S arms dealer Lockheed Martin and BNFL (British Nuclear Fuels). Serco described this as their "largest ever business win", in a nutshell now mainly profit from contracts in Iraq and various arms/weapson contracts, whilst our Metrolink (and other public assest they 'run' for the public such as MerseyRail and nearly all of Manchester City Council's 'IsoSpa' gym's) falls apart! For a suposibly 'Green' transportation system serving the world's first 'Nuclear Free City' and 'City of Peace' I think it must be brought to the public attention of all socialy concious mancunians, the City Council and GMPTE the degree to which Serco is such a high profile player in ensuring the future of dangerous nuclear warfare and yet they allowed to be in charge of, and profit from our mainly public funded yet struggling tram system.

IMHO there's a lot of axe-grinding ignorant troublemakers with an agenda, who don't really care about the real issues such as public transport in Manchester, spouting lazy childish agitprop nonsense. You can tell by their spelling. Stuff like "suposibly" and "socialy". They're the sort of people who deliberately try to waste your time with one red herring after another, eg There should be more than 10 local authorities in the area. See them for what they are, and don't let them be a distraction.

Thanks for all your good work Metrolink.

Fucking hell - it's hardly a secret what Serco do - they are a management company, that manage outsourced public services, be it DLR, Metrolink, Nuclear weapons, whatever.

Serco bid for the oppurtunity to run Metrolink (when it was tendered back in the late 90's when phase 2 opened) as part of a consortium - it was well known then what the company did.

To be honest, there are practically no companies that are in this field that don't have some dealings in areas that some part of the population may have misgivings with - we live in a capatilist world, in Manchester we have a very capatalist transport system - the companies are awarded the contract more due to price than their history in making the world a nicer place.

Have a look at http://www.serco.co.uk/ for UK interests, and http://www.serco.com/ for http://www.serco.com/ for international interests.

My email to the Labour Party...

I have today taken the decision to leave the Labour party, a party that I have supported all my adult life.

As an active member of the Labour party I have also helped out at practically ever single election during that time locally in Sale, Manchester.

I still hold the local Labour councillors I know in high regard, and believe they do good work for the local community of Sale, however, over time it has become apparent that the Labour party in Westminster has become more and more detached from the wishes of the people in the country outside of London, specifically in Manchester.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with Tony Blair taking us to war with Iraq - I supported, and continue to support this action, I have no real problems with the current hype surrounding the Home Office or John Prescott as these are simply part of political rough and tumble that any party that has been in power for 9 years would suffer.

My single bone of contention is the total lack of desire from the Labour government to deliver what the people in the regions really want - specifically in the Department for Transport.

For over 6 years the campaign to get Metrolink Phase 3 expanded has been deafening in Manchester, still today we have no word as to whether the lines will even actually ever be built, let alone when trams will be running.

This failure is due to the DfT (who have been managed by the Labour Party for nine years now). The DfT do not seem to have the ability or inclination to manage such a scheme to fruition, the Labour government has done nothing to ensure that what the regions want in regards to transport actually gets delivered, instead, second rate unwanted alternatives are often thrust upon the public.

Quite frankly, if the DfT is incapable of working with local authorities to deliver decent public transport infrastructure in the UK (as happens in the rest of the developed world) then they are failing – worse still, the Labour government seems not to care that the people in it’s heartlands are being failed.

Since decent transport is a vital part in making opportunities available to the poorest in society, and the Manchester proposals would provide great opportunity to many of the less well off people in the area, as far as I am concerned the Labour government is failing those poor people of Wythenshawe, East Manchester, Oldham and Rochdale – plus they don’t even seem to care, I cannot support such a party.

My email to the Labour Party...

I know how you feel mate. The Dept Against Transport strikes again. I doubt our new minister will be able to change anything... he's spent his first few weeks reciting Darling's tired old policies.....

Good for you Metrolink! Standing up for what you believe in is so important.

I sent a similar letter to Darling when the extension was originally cancelled.

I got the usual tripe about not having a bottomless pit of money, completely failing to address the point that the cost increases were due to the ridiculous delays in placing the contract and the fact that the government insists on using the PFI route.

I too have been a Labour voter my whole life but they seem increasingly unfit to govern to me.

But would the Tories be any better?

My email to the Labour Party...

Stand for election yourself at the next General Election I bet you could get a bit of publicity with a tram campaign, I'd vote for you if I lived in Sale.

Chorlton - I don't have a problem with not having a bottomless pit, I have the problem with the fact that they are incapable of managing the situation such that a bottomless pit is required. It is mostly the DfT's doing the rise in costs, and quite frankly I have had enough of it all. If they managed it propoerly cities like Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds would all have between 5 and 10 lines of trams buzzing around the cities - but we haven't and in my opinion that is virtually totally down the this government (with a little help from the previous administration).

Locks - I had thought about it at the last General Election believe it or not - however, I cannot afford to throw £500 down the drain (the deposit I could well lose if I didn't get 5% of the vote).

I am also very aware that I am not elequant, and put on the spot I could do more harm than good to any campaign if put under pressure, also, practically every local Labour MP was pro-expansion at the last election.

Having said all that, come 2009/2010 if the situation is still dragging on, I most likely will stand, probably in Sale East and Wythenshawe, I live here and we are missing a tram line - I suspect (through the work I have done in Wythenshawe to gain publicity for Phase 3) I'd actually get quite a turn out simply by standing.

We'll see, hopefully it won't come to that - I'm going to make some phone calls this evening to let some people know what I've done, I expect to hear from one or two people giving me a positive spin on things, however, until I see that first bit of track being laid, on the all three lines they are not getting my vote.

Metrolink that man.

Question.

Any ideas when we might hear something/a final decision on the phase 3 expansion plans? An announcement is already well overdue. Understand if you can't say to much. :)

Metrolink, I salute you.

:applause:

jrb - I really don't know.

I expect a call from some people tonight, they're all on the Manchester side of things though, they most likely don't know any more than the rest of us.

The latest position is basically we were led to believe an announcement was imminent in Feb - however, due to election law nothing could be said until after the election in May.

Come May Darling lost his job (and as I said at the time) this could delay the announcement, Roger Jones has since made stated he expects an announcment 'next month' (this was said in May, therefore he expects something in June).

I am using the FOI act to get information from GMPTE and the DfT, however, I fuly expect the scheme to be waiting on the DfT.

I hope (and to be honest still expect) good news (eventually) however, this is really pissing me off.

Also, please don't ask me to repeat anything I'm told tonight - you'll be able to tell by how positive my posts are over the next week or so what my feelings are, but I am not about to betray any confidences people have in me.

Email has now also gone to Blair, Alexander (Transport Sec), Twigg (Transport Under Sec in charge of Trams), Goggins (my MP) as well as the Labour Party, wonder if any will reply?

jrb - I really don't know.

I expect a call from some people tonight, they're all on the Manchester side of things though, they most likely don't know any more than the rest of us.

The latest position is basically we were led to believe an announcement was imminent in Feb - however, due to election law nothing could be said until after the election in May.

Come May Darling lost his job (and as I said at the time) this could delay the announcement, Roger Jones has since made stated he expects an announcment 'next month' (this was said in May, therefore he expects something in June).

I am using the FOI act to get information from GMPTE and the DfT, however, I fuly expect the scheme to be waiting on the DfT.

I hope (and to be honest still expect) good news (eventually) however, this is really pissing me off.

Also, please don't ask me to repeat anything I'm told tonight - you'll be able to tell by how positive my posts are over the next week or so what my feelings are, but I am not about to betray any confidences people have in me.

Cheers Metrolink. :)

If and when your ready mate? We've all waited long enough to be a bit more patient.

Keep with it people, it'll all turn out ok in the end.

:gossip:

But don't tell anyone.

Just recieved this from the DfT...


Peter Apostolou
Regional and Local Major Projects Division
Department for Transport
Zone 3/18
Great Minister House
76 Marsham Street
LONDON
SW1P 4DR

Email : peter.apostolou@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk

Our Ref: FOI/2239/Stephens


2 June 2006



By e-mail



Mr. Stephens

I am writing to clarify a specific element of your recent Freedom of Information request to the department, reference number 2239.

The first part of your request stated "I would like any correspondence that there have been between the DfT and the GMPTE (or GMPTA) relating to Metrolink since the start of April this year".

Despite the fact that the period you highlight is relatively short the number of documents within the scope is fairly large. It is also important to point out that as well as correspondence relating to GMPTE's bid to extend the Metrolink system there are also a number of documents relating to grant claims in respect of costs accrued to date on the Phase 3 extensions project. This latter correspondence does not have any input into the Departmental decision whether to approve the extensions project and therefore I am asking if you require this information?

I would be grateful if you could reply stating whether you do, or do not, wish to receive this information.

Yours sincerely



Peter Apostolou
Regional and Local Major Projects Division

I have responded saying I am only interested in the information relating to the expansion of the network.

I don't think I'm giving much away by pointing out that the fact that there are many documents being sent between GMPTE and the DfT at the moment is a positive thing - think why this would be, you won't be far off.

Where's Our Metrolink?
Bridge Banner Campaign

Anyone want to help out with a new campaign a friend of mine in Wythenshawe is starting? She is a well-known local business person and local councillor.

The campaign will involve...

- Placing banners on all the future, promised Metrolink Phase 3 road bridges (mainly former railway lines) in the city which will display 'Where's our Metrolink....' and 'Metrolink here soon... but we have to fight for it!'.

- Agressive sticker campaign of London's public transport system... Londoners - Support Manchester's Metrolink!

- Campaign Website including dedicated forums for all planned extentions and the rumoured 'phase 4' (such as plans for trams in Salford via Chapel Street) and extensions to Wigan and Glossip (first I've heard of this...?).

Idea's welcome... I shall pass details on.

Where's Our Metrolink?
Bridge Banner Campaign

Anyone want to help out with a new campaign a friend of mine in Wythenshawe is starting? She is a well-known local business person and local councillor.

The campaign will involve...

- Placing banners on all the future, promised Metrolink Phase 3 road bridges (mainly former railway lines) in the city which will display 'Where's our Metrolink....' and 'Metrolink here soon... but we have to fight for it!'.

- Agressive sticker campaign of London's public transport system... Londoners - Support Manchester's Metrolink!

- Campaign Website including dedicated forums for all planned extentions and the rumoured 'phase 4' (such as plans for trams in Salford via Chapel Street) and extensions to Wigan and Glossip (first I've heard of this...?).

Idea's welcome... I shall pass details on.

I remember a line to Glossop being in the first proposals for the next line to be built after the Bury Alty line.

There is already a line to both Salford (The Quays) and Eccles, so I can't see a line down Chapel Street ever happening - you sure you're not getting mixed up with the guided bus route that will go from Leigh to town with part of the route being Chapel Street in the city centre?

Metro if you can, could you post a link for emailing Tony Blairs Dept and all the others you have mentioned. I feel I've been too lazy with regards to the Metrolink as I'm not living in an area that will directly benefit from it, but thinking about it, that's no excuse for me not trying to do my bit. I think every single forum member should fly an email or 2 off to these people, no rants, no swearing, just deliberate and sustained pressure.

Thanks in advance.

I remember a line to Glossop being in the first proposals for the next line to be built after the Bury Alty line.

There is already a line to both Salford (The Quays) and Eccles, so I can't see a line down Chapel Street ever happening - you sure you're not getting mixed up with the guided bus route that will go from Leigh to town with part of the route being Chapel Street in the city centre?

This is all the fault of the Central Salford Regeration Wotsit. In their renders of how it might look, there are trams running down Chapel Street and The Crescent.

Email addresses...

douglas.alexander_mp@dft.gsi.gov.uk,

Is Douglas Alexander - Transport Big Cheese


twiggd@parliament.uk - Is Derek Twigg, Minister for light rail


gogginsp@parliament.uk, - is Paul Goggins (my MP - Sale East and Wythenshawe - google your own MP).

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Email_The_PM_Form.asp to email Tony Blair.

Howeve, we are VERY VERY close to good news - consider why lots of documents are currently being sent between Manchester and London for signatures.

Email as much as possible now, keep the pressure on them - don't be a twat though, point out the benifits that areas with decent public transport have benifited from (e.g. Canary Whary / DLR), and point out the areas to be servered by Phase 3 need investment.

We're on the edge of something great for Manchester - email away to make sure your opinion is know, the more the better - even if you've only done a tiny amount, when the Douglas Alexander gives us the money to build all 3 lines in full (I didn't tell you that by the way) you'll feel like you've done your part - it is what has seperated us from the other cities that failed on 19th July 2004, we fought, damn fucking hard, and we've won, the other's gave up.

That would fantastic news Metrolink ,,but after all these years and numerous bullshitting and setbacks we have had , i wont beleive nothing on this subject until i start seeing the lines getting built.

I know what you're saying Metrolink, you are indeed well connected.

A number of councillors have been working really hard on this over the week. I can guess we are due an announcement on Monday, however be prepared from *some* slight disappointment coupled with a surprise as welll.

Pushing further.... and proof it's going to happen eventually.

Let's not stop at Phase 3. Who ever decided that would be the be-all-and-end of Metrolink? After-all it's designed to be a flexible, all-areas, adapatable system that can serve almost anyone, anywhere. I know Salford University and the City Council are working hard on integrating the ambitious Chapel Street Regeneration Plan and have even employed a 'travel plan champion' that will support the 'proposal to extend the Metrolink to the University and beyond'. As well as more street running trams to take the strain of over-crowded, dirty bus routes - Oxford/Wilmslow Road!! I propose a new street-running Metrolink 'City-Line' that will run from Didsbury in the South East, intersecting the City Centre down Oxford Road, through St Peters Square, over the Irwell past Salford Central via Trinity Way and along Chapel Street to Salford University, Pendleton, straight down each side of the East Lancs Road towards Swinton/Walkden etc, even as far as Wigan. Give it 20 years to become more feasible, why not start planning looking at how this could all fit together now?


"The completion of a high standard orbital route close to Manchester City Centre will enable pedestrianisation of shopping streets to be extended; it will facilitate the on-street running of Metrolink and will open up large areas of derelict land for redevelopment."
- From Salford's Unitary Authority Transport Plan.

So it is on the cards...

At least when the powers be say 'no you can't have trams there just yet if at all' rubbish they will scarper back and bury their heads in getting on with Phase 3... which wll do for now :)

Phase 3 has never been the end of the line in terms of the future network. While it is the key focus at the moment it does not mean further plans aren't there or aren't being developed. Phase 3 is an embarrassment and a failure on this scale simply can not be allowed to happen again. If ever there was a clear and tangible reason for more power to be handed to the regions then this is it. (Spoken with my transport hat on)

I don't claim the PTE to be perfect, however their response and efforts in the last 18 months or so have been a credit to Manchester and the region. Let's hope that future NEX and Midland Metro proposals have an easier path.

are we getting swanky new trams? the ones in sheffield are so nice an ours look like eg9 boxes ther disgusting, they looked so retro wen they were introduced an have aged like a square banana (ie quickly!) i heard rummors that there were to be 3 car units runnion through central on the existing lines. but then that would introduce problems for metrlink asin having difrent rolling stock.... hmmmm

The only thing I would expect is a stripped back version of the original plan which would be a good start.

For Phase 3 imagine something similar to Bombardier's Flexity Swift as seen in Koln (K5000) and Croydon. Plenty of pics on their website www.bombardier.com

I agree that the present trams are looking a little dated even when compared to those in Sheffield which are not that much older than the Phase 1 vehicles we have here.

While image is important, particularly in terms of passenger perception of quality I think most would agree at the moment that it's capacity we need the most right now. Those 8 trams can not come soon enough, be they retro or swanky.

The only thing I would expect is a stripped back version of the original plan which would be a good start.

I don't profess to know much about public transport, but surely the town to didsbury (and possibly on to Stockport) line is far nore feasible financially than the line to Wythenshawe and the airport. We already have excellent, frequent and speedy rail links to the airport, so most people going to the airport won't use the Metro. Wythenshawe is not going to have anything like the commuters that Didsbury and Chorlton have. Plus most of the line cuttings and tunnels are already there for the Didsbury line. I can see how the East mcr and Oldham/Rochdale lines are viable, but sticking to the Wythenshawe line instead of Didsbury sounds more like political ideals than sticking to what is financially viable. Do you think the Wythenshawe line will be dropped in favour of the cheaper and more viable Didsbury line??

My personnal view is that we will see the Oldham and Ashton lines before anything else.

Common sense dictates that work should carry on in those areas where the money has already been spent.

However as we all know, the DfT, Metrolink and common sense are unhappy bedfellows.

The new 3 carriage trams were apparently scrapped to bring costs down - anyone confirm this? How can we expect Metrolink to be popular when it can't keep up with capacity? Hmm

Shame the San Francisco Tram they shipped over didn't work out (anyone know the reasons why?). Still it looks great when you see it parked up at the Queens Road Depot!

I'm not sure what the new fleet will be exactly, however I highly suspect they'll be along the lines of the Bombardier Swift or a variation of it (Croydon has these)

http://www.bombardier.com/en/1_0/img/1113b.jpg

The new 3 carriage trams were apparently scrapped to bring costs down - anyone confirm this? How can we expect Metrolink to be popular when it can't keep up with capacity? Hmm

Shame the San Francisco Tram they shipped over didn't work out (anyone know the reasons why?). Still it looks great when you see it parked up at the Queens Road Depot!

Oh, I'll have to stop off at Queens Rd on my next trip to Asda Eastlands and take a look at the SF trams. Didn't know they were still in Mcr.

I don't profess to know much about public transport, but surely the town to didsbury (and possibly on to Stockport) line is far nore feasible financially than the line to Wythenshawe and the airport?
Of all the lines, I have always doubted the airport line the most. As you rightly point out the airport is well served from the city centre via heavy rail. The benefits of linking Wythenshawe to the airport are in my view not that great. There are already frequent buses between them and what form of revenue protection will you get a 5am when many airport workers will be starting/finishing shifts? Will the trams will run frequently at that time anyway? A link from Marple/Stockport to the airport would appear to make much more sense but that will be one for the (distant) future.

Do you think the Wythenshawe line will be dropped in favour of the cheaper and more viable Didsbury line??
The airport are contributing a significant amount of cash towards Phase 3 so for that reason alone I'd expect the Airport line to be included in any agreed package.

It was one just like this...

http://www.trampicturebook.de/tram/california/sf/muni/1999-07-20-22-X400.jpg

It was one just like this...

http://www.trampicturebook.de/tram/california/sf/muni/1999-07-20-22-X400.jpg

Look very similar to ours - I wonder why they couldn't be used on our tracks?

Oh and thanks Uncle Remus for your reply - looks like it's Wythenshawe rather than Didsbury then? Shame.

Look very similar to ours - I wonder why they couldn't be used on our tracks?

Oh and thanks Uncle Remus for your reply - looks like it's Wythenshawe rather than Didsbury then? Shame.

Perhaps they were too long, they look slightly bigger than the Metrolink vehicles and they would have to be converted for high platform use.

I don't profess to know much about public transport, but surely the town to didsbury (and possibly on to Stockport) line is far nore feasible financially than the line to Wythenshawe and the airport. We already have excellent, frequent and speedy rail links to the airport, so most people going to the airport won't use the Metro. Wythenshawe is not going to have anything like the commuters that Didsbury and Chorlton have. Plus most of the line cuttings and tunnels are already there for the Didsbury line. I can see how the East mcr and Oldham/Rochdale lines are viable, but sticking to the Wythenshawe line instead of Didsbury sounds more like political ideals than sticking to what is financially viable. Do you think the Wythenshawe line will be dropped in favour of the cheaper and more viable Didsbury line??

That's true but then half the reason for metrolink is regeneration, Didsbury as far as i can tell doesn't need regenerating quite to much.

Exactly, Didsbury has fantastic transport links - great buses and the train plus loads of mullarrr, plenty of drivers. I work in Wythenshawe and I can tell you, Metrolink will transform the whole city as many people don't know, Wythenshawe makes up nearly a 3rd of the city.

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/hats/images/mcrmap.gif
So you can see why the South Manchester Line is so Important to Manchester at least. The Airport may also have a train station but it's badly connected to the suburbs, 'the station' was bult years ago and is all ready to handle Metrolink, the tram tunnel under the motorway is sat empty waiting for the tracks to be put into place just as places in Ashton and Oldham are. The South Mancs line was proposed way before even the Eccles line was, I'll be really surprised if it doesn't go ahead first.

http://images.nycsubway.org//i16000/img_16468.jpg

This is the one that is in Manchester. The silver coloured ones replaced these in San Fransico which is why they were going to come here. I think the shipping cost was more than what they actually paid for the tram(s)! I rode on these on holiday, the steps inside move so that it can run on high platforms underground and on the streets where the stops are just curbs, genius :D

http://images.nycsubway.org//i16000/img_16468.jpg

This is the one that is in Manchester. The silver coloured ones replaced these in San Fransico which is why they were going to come here. I think the shipping cost was more than what they actually paid for the tram(s)! I rode on these on holiday, the steps inside move so that it can run on high platforms underground and on the streets where the stops are just curbs, genius :D

I'm sure there's one of these trams sitting outside the rail works at Derby covered in Graffiti

Why didnt they work?

In December 2004, DfT confirmed that the £520m budget was still available subject to GMPTE developing a satisfactory plan for the areas included in the original scheme. In February 2006, DfT recieved a draft bid for the first stage of the Phase 3 proposals - Phase 3a. This was followed by a revised bid in May. This comprises work which could be completed within the remainder of the £520m.

DfT have had a number of productive discussions with the GMPTE on their proposals.

An announcement will be made in due course, once the Department has completed it consideration of GMPTE's business case.

From a 5 page letter I have recieved from DfT yesterday.

I am not aware what Phase 3a comprises of?

Presumably some of the lines are not in Pase 3a, and will have to be funded at a later date.

P.S. I don't know when an announcement will be made - but I'm sure it'll be soon, and given the past disappointment with this scheme, there is no way anything will be announced until they are 110% certain it'll be built.

Quick thoughts on what could be chopped to save money, and how likely...

Lowry Spur - very unlikely to happen in 3a in my opinion, may happen at a later date (especialy if the BBC chose Salford)

Rochdale / Oldham line - will definately happen in my opinion - however, I can see the street running sections in Rochdale and Oldham not being included in Phase 3a (I doubt this will be the case though - I guess a fully built lines as per original plan all the way to Rochdale town centre.

Ashton line - I can see terminating at Sport City (or Asda) for Phase 3a - in my opinion this scenario is more likely than not having the street running sections on the Rochdale line.

Airport line - I can really see this put on the back burner - instead the line will go to Didsbury - maybe with the line continuing to Stockport and the original airport line being built at a later date.

Trafford Centre - could well be in any Phase 3b, but certainly won't be in 3a.

FWIW, this is how it's done on the continent, start building some line(s) and whilst they are being built arrange funding for future lines.

I actually suspect that the majority of the cost reduction will be due to re-financing of how it's paid for - i.e. shifting the risk in a manner that reduces the cost.

I actually suspect that the majority of the cost reduction will be due to re-financing of how it's paid for - i.e. shifting the risk in a manner that reduces the cost.

Definately, one of the big costs of the scheme is who owns the risk. If we can get that sorted out we are on a winner.

I was listoning to a radio 4 report this morning on a small city in the Basque region in Spain and the reporter was travelling on a modern tram system which played classical music, he then went on a modern underground system with stations designed by Lord Foster.

This in a city which is smaller than Manchester, we in the UK have got it so wrong when it comes to our Light Rail (I know we have said this a thousand times before but hearing it in action, I was very jealous).

Space - expanind 7 of the current trams to be 3 carrigaes ong was discussed about 5 years ago now - it was discounted as the health and saftey (specifically fire risk) was seen as a huge problem, and the money would be better spent on new trams.

Some people from PTE have been in Stockholm looking at trams recently, presumably they have similar trams to Koln.

Uncle - I agree about the airport funding of Pahse 3 - however, I'd imagine they'd be top of the priority funding for Phase 3b (but I may be wrong).

San Fan trams - we bought two over, the one in Derby and the one at Queens Road - they were practically free.

From memory, they didn't cope well with the stations, i.e. there was not enough of a gap between the station and the tram to safely run the tram along the network. My wife once saw the SF tram in Eccles - it had been pulled there by a Phase 2 unit (very slowly).

Its the same with a lot of Spanish infrastructure, look at the HSR they have their, also the new Madrid Airport, and the amount of skyscrapers currently under contstuction in Madrid, they really do seem to be joining the European big league and to be honest Im not sure how theyre doing it.

Its the same with a lot of Spanish infrastructure, look at the HSR they have their, also the new Madrid Airport, and the amount of skyscrapers currently under contstuction in Madrid, they really do seem to be joining the European big league and to be honest Im not sure how theyre doing it.

I think they have two political parties who have sound infrastructure policies and a longterm view that after Franco Spain must invest to grow. They also know how to use all those Euro's the EU give them :)

Report on how the £102m upgrade is getting along (I've emailed the contacts asking for details on Phase 3a).

http://www.gmpta.gov.uk/uploads/agendas/6/37/Reports/ITEM%2005%20Metrolink%20Phase%201&2%20Capacity%20and%20Renewals%20Update.pdf

In addition GMPTE agreed with the DfT that the
procurement of new vehicles would request options for further vehicles
commensurate with development of the network.

We've bought 8 trams with an option of another 55 I guess - makes it much cheaper.

We've bought 8 trams with an option of another 55 I guess - makes it much cheaper.
Have they been paid for yet? Or is it just talk?
Also if they have been paid for, how long does everyone recon it will be till they are here and running.

For what it's worth - I fully expect to see work at the Old Trafford depot by next summer -this HAS to be the first infrastructure built since all the new trams will need to go somewhere.

GMPTE will be setting routes - not the operating company...

To specify the service characteristics that shall be delivered
including journey times, frequencies and if desired
formation/capacity and the interworking of the services between
routes;

Reading http://www.gmpta.gov.uk/uploads/agendas/6/37/Reports/ITEM%2005%20Metrolink%20Phase%201&2%20Capacity%20and%20Renewals%20Update.pdf it is VERY evident that the new contract splits the risk of maintenence (normally construction companies) from the operating companies (e.g. companies like Virgin, Stagecoach or Serco).

This should GREATLY reduce costs - previously the contracts were a huge single DBOM contract - design build operate and maintain - putting huge risk on one group - this makes the risks MUCH smaller, as the companies bidding for each part of the work only has to concentrate on their specialised area.

The proposed programmes therefore require Trackwork and LRV Contracts to
be awarded in Summer 2006, with Operations and Infrastructure Contracts
early in 2007. A 90 day transition period would follow during which the
incoming Operator and Maintainer would put in place their respective
handover arrangements with the existing operator.

We'll know about the new trams by the end of the summer.

:eek:

For all of the above reasons a blockade is preferable. The indicative proposal
would entail a staged closure of the line increasing in size, starting with Bury
to Whitefield in the first case, then Bury to Crumpsall, then Bury to Woodlands
Road, before finally the whole route from Bury to Victoria closed. In total,
services to Bury could be affected for around 16 weeks, but with progressively
shorter closures of the intermediate sections. It must be emphasised,
however, that the final programme may be different according to the
successful Bidder’s methodology.

Just out of interest, whad happened to the SanFran trams, where are they now, and why didn't they work?

In a similar manner the Altrincham line would be subjected to a blockade of
around six weeks in combination with a limited number of weekend closures.
The existing track is not as badly worn and foundation conditions are not
generally as poor on the Altrincham line as on the Bury line hence the
required works not as extensive. The Altrincham line also benefits from there
being more working space on the system than the Bury line which is very
restricted over much of its length. During the staged closures the Metrolink
Stops would be closed off to the public, and would be substituted by
replacement bus services. Details of the bus services and how they will be
procured, fares levels and ticketing arrangements together with relationship to
existing bus services will form part of the subsequent September 2006
progress report to Members. Following Contract award there will be a period
of about nine months for substitute bus services to be planned and procured....

In the event that the Bid option
prices are deemed economically attractive, and DfT has given approval to the
Phase 3a Business Case, GMPTE may be able to commit to a larger order
than the basic 8 and thereby obtain the advantages of economies of scale
and continuance of production.

More details of the economies of scale (hopefully Phase 3b and 3c will mean even bigger economies of scale.

Interesting...

GMPTE has undertaken consultations with the suppliers with the objective of
improving its understanding of the current market availability of suitable LRV’s
consistent with GMPTA’s aspirations and the Metrolink system characteristics.
There do appear to be designs for high floor LRT systems either in current
production or about to be produced that are compatible with Metrolink. This
should result in some standardisation and a more competitive price for
GMPTE.

andy - page 2 of http://www.gmpta.gov.uk/uploads/agendas/6/37/Reports/ITEM%2005%20Metrolink%20Phase%201&2%20Capacity%20and%20Renewals%20Update.pdf - the order is placed in the summer.

Cheers Metrolink - a fascanating read.

One thing that looks a little worrying. On the last page there is a calendar which suggests that work will not begin on phase three until 2012, with completion around 2016! Is this a worst case scenario type of thing, assuming central goverment don;t come up with the cash?

San Fan trams - we bought two over, the one in Derby and the one at Queens Road - they were practically free.

From memory, they didn't cope well with the stations, i.e. there was not enough of a gap between the station and the tram to safely run the tram along the network. My wife once saw the SF tram in Eccles - it had been pulled there by a Phase 2 unit (very slowly).

andy - page 2 of http://www.gmpta.gov.uk/uploads/agendas/6/37/Reports/ITEM%2005%20Metrolink%20Phase%201&2%20Capacity%20and%20Renewals%20Update.pdf - the order is placed in the summer.
Its summer now so it should be placed soon. I wonder what the new trams will be like? I Hope they are more modern than the ones we have now.

Summer runs from 21st June to 21st September - normally things like this come towards the end of a specified date range - it'll most likely be a few months yet.

Just been re-reading some of the posts from the last few days - Space, doubt any announcement will be this week - most likely another month or so.

Probably been seen? A few months old. Interesting line.

'To resurrect the city's proposed tram extension by using regeneration benefits to justify the extras government spending'.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/xcv.jpg

I think that article sums it up nicely, worth noting 2 months from those comments is end June / early July.

There is so much I want to say but cannot, I don't know what Phase 3a is - I hope to find out this week, however, the more I'm hearing from different people, the more sure I am that all 4 (FOUR) lines will be built - Rochdale/Ashton/Stockport and Airport - however, some may be slightly delayed. Don't write Traffic Centre off in the long term either.

It's a shame we cannot all forget about this until August, since by then I'm sure those doubts we've all had over the previous 2 years will be gone.

Stick with it, I'd even suggest we leave this thread and return to it in a month.

The track on the Bury section is ancient, it's bullhead rail, held in a shoe by a wooden block. I couldn't believe it when I saw the track.

It's a shame they're still going with high platform stations, it would be nice to see the new lines being built as low floor systems with the long term plan to convert the original section to low floor when funds are available.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/portland/images/portland4.jpg

This looks like a low floor version of the trams we already have.

It'd be nice to be able to convert to low floor, but prohibatively expensive I'd imagine.

Given we have 35 high floor platform stations, another 25 on the Rochdale line - it's a hell of a lot of platforms to lower - we also have 32 high floor trams (and another 8 soon to be ordered).
Imagine trying to lower the platform at Piccadilly for instance.

If you are of a certain persuation (geeky like me) http://www.gmpta.gov.uk/uploads/agendas/6/37/Reports/ITEM%2005%20Metrolink%20Phase%201&2%20Capacity%20and%20Renewals%20Update.pdf gives a good few details of costs of the renewal program, describing reasons why the decisions were made.

Sorry to sound like a confused girlie but, what model of tram will the new 8 be? ta in advance.

you don't really have to lower them though, you just put a bit of tarmac down at the end of the existing platform.
Then you get a cheap version of this.

http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~yxie1/Travel/Brussels/metro.jpg

Isaac - rebuilding 1 platform on Dane Road cost £100k, all that was was re-tarmacing the platform and putting a new platform edge on it.

Repeating that on every existing platform but adding huge cost by lowering the platform would be hugely expensive.

Looking at the picture above - I very much doubt that platform complies to DDA regulations...

1) How do people in wheeelchairs get onto the lower part

2) the texture of the platform does not change as you approach the platform edge

3) the platform colour is not different when the doors are

Suggest you have a read of the link I put up - every penny is justified for the new trams etc, ordering lower floor trams would be for asthetic reasons, not for practical ones.

and before you say put a ramp in - there ain't enough room between the hall at the bottom of the escalators and the platform edge - Piccadilly Undercroft would require huge redesign, and given all the walls are re-enforced (so any terrorist bomb down there would not bring the main line station down on it) it would cost a bloody fortune.

Mez - although nothing is comfirmed, the work on the street is we're getting trams very similar to those in koln, 8 by summer 2008, with possibly a further 55 to follow for all the new lines.

dont change the platforms, just raise the height of the track!

You throw up some good points there. Here's Dane Road station, apart from the painted stripe (correct me if I'm wrong about that) what is delineating the platform edge. How do wheelchairs access the platform from the booking hall, is there a lift ?

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?10288

You throw up some good points there. Here's Dane Road station, apart from the painted stripe (correct me if I'm wrong about that) what is delineating the platform edge. How do wheelchairs access the platform from the booking hall, is there a lift ?

http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/mpg1/images/Dane_rd_stn_02.jpg

all stations have lifts / ramps down to platforms.

With regards the lack of lines etc - platforms only have to comply to DDA law when they were built - the ramps and lifts were all that was required in 1992.

Today in 2006 the requirements are much much higher, as such, if you were to adjust a platform the newly rebuilt platform would have to comply with current DDA law.

So you would have to put studs into the edges of a new platform, or a hard shoulder.
http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Nottingham/201-01_OldMarketSq.jpg

or a row knobbly paving stones like above.

So you would have to put studs into the edges of a new platform, or a hard shoulder.
http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Nottingham/201-01_OldMarketSq.jpg

or a row knobbly paving stones like above.

I think that is the gist of it.

Thought that was a picture of Manchester Metrolink for a minute...







...then I opened my eyes.

Isaac - rebuilding 1 platform on Dane Road cost £100k, all that was was re-tarmacing the platform and putting a new platform edge on it.

Repeating that on every existing platform but adding huge cost by lowering the platform would be hugely expensive.

Looking at the picture above - I very much doubt that platform complies to DDA regulations...

1) How do people in wheeelchairs get onto the lower part

2) the texture of the platform does not change as you approach the platform edge

3) the platform colour is not different when the doors are

Suggest you have a read of the link I put up - every penny is justified for the new trams etc, ordering lower floor trams would be for asthetic reasons, not for practical ones.
£100k? What was it spent on because it doesnt look like they have done much.

£100k? What was it spent on because it doesnt look like they have done much.

It does seem a little overpriced.

It does seem a lot, but remember all this work has to be carried out during the 4 or 5 hours at night when the trams are not using the platform.

Also, the health and saftey regulations when working on a railway (which is what Metrolink is effectively) are enormous.

The old platform was removed and a new one built, during the process they had to be very sure that no matter what the weather condittion, the rubble caused during the construction would slip onto the tracks, or cause a blockage that the tram would hit as they approached the station.

It's far more complicated than what you'd do to build one in your garden.

Remember, projects like this go out to tender, and 99% of the time the cheapest bidder wins, if some company could do it for less than £100k then they would have done so.


Correct about the nobbly bits on stations.

You will also notice that all Phase2 trams, and all Phase 1 trams that have been away for refurbs have got blue doors - this is a DDA regulation, it is so people with poor vision can identify the entrance / exit easier.

Well as I have said all along our trams should be ORANGE!! not nasty puke green.

You will also notice that all Phase2 trams, and all Phase 1 trams that have been away for refurbs have got blue doors - this is a DDA regulation, it is so people with poor vision can identify the entrance / exit easier.

Do they have to be blue, my local train has red doors.
http://www.intsi.org/productsfolder/pics/WAVELET%20TECHNOLOGIES/Northern%20Line%20train.jpg

no, just visibly different from the rest of the carrige.

Metrolink needs to sort out it's image big time... I mean, what professional company types up service notices using Comic Sans and has crappy hard to read logo made usig the cheap gradient tool in photoshop. That always annoyed the hell out of me, that and it's 25 years out of date, and Metrolink needs trinny and suzannah to give it a well needed make-over, don't get me started on the pokadot seat covers!

They are planning on a 'service relauch' in the summer of 2008.

This will be when the new track is on the Bury line, the stations have been done up, the new trams are in, and the existing trams will all have been in for an electrical refit (to make them more reliable).

the gmpte website has a funky new purple logo. it would be great if they had as much money to spend on publicity as london undergreound do. there whole image is great but i do think the new trams with green doors look very funky!

This is the colour they should be

http://www.c.cornell.dial.pipex.com/models_files/models4.jpg

This is the colour they should be

http://www.c.cornell.dial.pipex.com/models_files/models4.jpg

God no! That's vile! I'd rather have the Gtr Manchester Bus orange than that. Nice bit of green or blue I think.

God no! That's vile! I'd rather have the Gtr Manchester Bus orange than that. Nice bit of green or blue I think.

And what's wrong with Manchester Corporation colours.

jrb - I urgently need to know the source for the article in http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=8731282&postcount=1122

If possible could you PM me details of where it came from.

http://www.regenerationmagazine.com/
It's an industry targeted magazine by Haymarket.

Corportation colours aren't corporate enough for Serco. :sleepy:

Metrolink, you have 2 PM's.

jrb and uncle remus many many thanks, the campaign doesn't end until we see Douglas Alexander on tele saying we've done it.

A reply to an email I sent a few days ago


Dear Mr Dippnall

Thank you for your e-mails of 5 May to the Secretary of State for Transport, regarding Manchester Metrolink. Your correspondence has been passed to me for response.

The reasons for not proceeding with light rail schemes in Leeds and Merseyside were made in the Secretary of State's written statements of 3 and 29 November 2005. I attach copies of the statements.

In December 2004, DfT confirmed that the £520 million budget was still available subject to Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) developing a satisfactory plan for the areas included in the original scheme. In February 2006, DfT received a draft bid for the first stage of the Phase 3 proposals - Phase 3a. This was followed up by a revised bid in May. This comprises works which could be completed within the remainder of the £520m.

DfT have had a number of productive discussions with GMPTE on their proposals.

An announcement will be made in due course, once the Department has completed its consideration of GMPTE's business case.

In regard to your concerns that Manchester's transport needs are being ignored, it is important to highlight that for the period 2006/7 - 2010/11, Greater Manchester have been given a five-year planning guideline for the integrated transport block of £224.325m. Also the total allocation for the North-West Region for major Local Transport Plan and regional Highway Agency schemes in 2006/7 is £115m. This represents a significant investment within the region.


Yours sincerely





Peter Apostolou

Peter Apostolou.
Who he?
Didnt have you down as a letter writer rolymo.

Thanks for that roly.

I still get the impression that DfT are constantly moving the goalposts to play for time.

MetroLink, any info you can give to counter the impression I've got will be gratefully received.

Peter Apostolou seems to be the public face of the major schemes dept at the DfT, he always replies to my emails regarding Metrolink and puts together the Freedom of Information documents that are requested.

Farsight - the Manchester people are very confident they are on the verge of the positive announcement, they expect news around the end of the month.

Peter Apostolou.
Who he?
Didnt have you down as a letter writer rolymo.
I try to do my bit, albeit quietly, behind the scenes.

I try to do my bit, albeit quietly, behind the scenes.

Citizen Bling
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/images/citizensmith.jpg

Thanks Metro.

this is quote from an article from the guardian that ive just posted in the bomb to boom thread.

"Developments like the BBC are fundamental to the growth path we've established," Bernstein says. "If the BBC does not come, it makes a mockery of government policy."

City's assets

He means that the oft-repeated commitment to disperse significant parts of government departments away from London in an attempt to further stimulate regional economies would be seriously undermined if the BBC has second thoughts. But Manchester is not standing still. By judiciously using the city's assets, and projected income streams from sectors such as car parking, it believes it can spur further development by raising money, under the government's new prudential borrowing regime, to extend the conurbation's Metrolink tram system.

OH YES...

Thanks for your e-mail
We are actively discussing proposals for the delivery of Phase 3 of Metrolink with DfT and believe the Secretary of State will be making an announcement ( a positive one ! ) within the next few weeks.Details will then be fully explained.
regards
Geoff Inskip
Deputy Director General

Thanks again Metro.

P.S. When this positive announcement is made is anyone up for a celebratory drink in town?

This will be huge for the region for years to come.

I'll buy the first round :)

P.S. When this positive announcement is made is anyone up for a celebratory drink in town?

This will be huge for the region for years to come.

I'll buy the first round :)

We should buy you one Metrolink for your sterling work and updates over the years. :)

does (a positive one !) mean a positive one...WINK! or does it mean a positive one !... FINGERS CROSSED.

You have the patience of a saint Metro.

Isaac, I am aware of significant other news - news that I cannot post on here.

I am very sure that we'll have very good news very soon, I am 90% sure it'll be in June, but we'll definately get the good news at some point.

Sorry I cannot give more details, but that's the way it is I'm afraid.

fwiw - 23rd June may be an interesting day ;)

Just heard from my contact in local government (she isn't meant to be telling me anything but her job is admin-related so she's not really too concerned) that there has been lots of goings-on in regards to the Stockport route. I hate to had rumour to the mill but it seems odd they would even be discussing that side of the project unless some decisions about it are being made. I think we might be in for a few surprises.

I suspect we'll get Stockport before to long - government could well have agreed to all 4 lines if the 1st two prove their worth.

Don't be too surprised to see movement on the Trafford Centre line as well - making 5 new lines!!!

Thanks everyone for keeping the spirits up. muchos ta

Don't be too surprised to see movement on the Trafford Centre line as well - making 5 new lines!!!

If the port thing happens, wouldn't it make more sense to carry on the Eccles line and then cross over to the Trafford Centre at Barton, rather that the route on the expansion map? Considering Peel have to stick the money up, would that not make more sense to them?

Then there is the Salford Reds Stadium also on the Salford side.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060613/debtext/60613-0460.htm#06061332000056

Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): My right hon. Friend's predecessor assured the House on many occasions that road charging would not be a condition for future funding of the tram system in Manchester, yet we appear to be entering into a competition for transport innovation funds between Manchester and Birmingham that will almost certainly require road charging. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rather than getting into such a destructive competition, it would be much more sensible to use the TIF money to lever in private sector funds, or as a basis for prudential borrowing, so that Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bristol—all the cities—can have the tram systems that they require?

Mr. Alexander: I pay tribute to the leadership role that my hon. Friend has played in Manchester over a number of years, both in local government and now here in the Commons. Within days of my appointment as Secretary of State, I travelled to Manchester and reiterated the commitment that my predecessor had given on the funds available for the Manchester Metrolink. Discussions continue with the Manchester authorities and I hope that we can bring them to a conclusion relatively quickly. I understand that in addition to those discussions, consideration is being given in Manchester to the applicability of TIF funding in the future. However, in the weeks ahead, I will not in any way resile from the commitment given by my predecessor to Manchester.

I really do hope something happens. Of all the tram schemes Manchesters should have started long ago. As far as announcements go I would not get your hopes up until they actually start laying track.

give it a week, lets see what transpires ;)

Couple of things on the BBC decision.

1) It is now imperative that the Eccles line is sorted out, ideally with the Lowry spur into the proposed media city - running 6mins service from Piccadilly to Lowry, with alternate trams (i.e. 12min service) continuing to Eccles.

2) There is no way that area woul have been anywhere near being able to compete with the city center without Metrolink - Douglas Alexander, take note Metrolink is providing regeneration oppurtunities in an area which would never have them with piss poor alternatives such as buses.

Sounds good metrolink. Thanks for all the info you give. Really appreciated.

No probs, all part of the service.

The more of the public on our side the better.

2) There is no way that area woul have been anywhere near being able to compete with the city center without Metrolink - Douglas Alexander, take note Metrolink is providing regeneration oppurtunities in an area which would never have them with piss poor alternatives such as buses.


Well said Metrolink, these additional / secondary benefits of light rail should be taken into account when government talks about schemes making a profit.

Tram jam as buses queue up
Alan Salter

BUSY: Piccadilly Gardens.
BUSY: Piccadilly Gardens.
THE METROLINK system is being paralysed as trams are forced to queue among buses in Manchester centre.

Congestion in Piccadilly Gardens forces buses into ever-increasing delays along Mosley Street, trapping trams which share the road.
On one evening rush-hour recently, nine trams were trapped between G-Mex and Piccadilly and on another occasion, a tram took 61 minutes to get less than a mile from the exhibition centre to the Gardens.

Many of the buses which use Mosley Street arrive from the popular Oxford Road routes from the south. Because there are only 28 trams during peak times the city centre delays are causing serious problems for Metrolink's six-minute scheduled daytime frequency.
Advertisement your story continues below

David Godley, managing director of tram operators Serco, said: "At worst, a third of my fleet can be at a standstill and the whole network just ceases to function.

"Passengers get frustrated because drivers are forbidden by health and safety laws to open the doors to let them out.

'Re-route'

"We could really do with some of the buses being re-routed but I realise that that is difficult."

Metrolink bosses have had talks with the Passenger Transport Executive, which owns the system and also runs Piccadilly Gardens and the bus operators.

Mark Threapleton, managing director of Stagecoach and chairman of the Greater Manchester Bus Operators Association, said: "It is a question of trying to fit a quart into a pint pot. Piccadilly really is not big enough for the demands placed upon it at certain times of the day. I believe that what we need is a Shudehill-type bus station for the southern services but there just isn't the spare land.

Michael Renshaw, from the PTE, said: "Increased supervision has gone some way to tackling the problem, but in the longer term we are working to deliver a transport routing strategy which will resolve these problems."

DO you think this problem can ever be solved? Have your say.

Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road
Tram lines down Oxford Road

Could I make the obvious answer to this ongoing problem any clearer?

Two ways of dealing with it. Move the buses or move the trams.

... I agree, but that'sa temporary solution, instead of move... Merge them! They serve the SAME purpose. The only downside is to the commercial bus operators (who will recover from the loss of business). But it was done in London so it should be done here.

Definitely move the buses. That bus station has always blighted Piccadilly Plaza and Gardens anyhow.

I agree. Maybe they could redevelop Chorlton Street car park/bus stop to become a bus station like Shudehill. It is roughly in the same area, and already serves the purpose for buses. Also be nice to have rid of the crappy building there now.

Also, it would mean t'gays wouldn't have to walk so far for a bus. Could roll straight out of Coyote's onto the bus home.

Sounds good Emma May.

Maybe she will, and maybe she won't. Oi!

Tram jam as buses queue up

THE METROLINK system is being paralysed as trams are forced to queue among buses in Manchester centre.

Congestion in Piccadilly Gardens forces buses into ever-increasing delays along Mosley Street, trapping trams which share the road.
On one evening rush-hour recently, nine trams were trapped between G-Mex and Piccadilly and on another occasion, a tram took 61 minutes to get less than a mile from the exhibition centre to the Gardens.

Many of the buses which use Mosley Street arrive from the popular Oxford Road routes from the south. Because there are only 28 trams during peak times the city centre delays are causing serious problems for Metrolink's six-minute scheduled daytime frequency.

David Godley, managing director of tram operators Serco, said: "At worst, a third of my fleet can be at a standstill and the whole network just ceases to function.

"Passengers get frustrated because drivers are forbidden by health and safety laws to open the doors to let them out.

'Re-route'

"We could really do with some of the buses being re-routed but I realise that that is difficult."

Metrolink bosses have had talks with the Passenger Transport Executive, which owns the system and also runs Piccadilly Gardens and the bus operators.

Mark Threapleton, managing director of Stagecoach and chairman of the Greater Manchester Bus Operators Association, said: "It is a question of trying to fit a quart into a pint pot. Piccadilly really is not big enough for the demands placed upon it at certain times of the day. I believe that what we need is a Shudehill-type bus station for the southern services but there just isn't the spare land.

Michael Renshaw, from the PTE, said: "Increased supervision has gone some way to tackling the problem, but in the longer term we are working to deliver a transport routing strategy which will resolve these problems."

------

Comments(some good and interesting comments)

In agreeing with AC, the whole thing is a fiasco ! I've seen it getting worse over the months, though the Christmas period was an absolute joke. Busses & trams, queuing end to end down Mosley Street towards the Gardens is NOT the basis of integrated transport. I have chatted with bus & tram drivers alike (whilst stuck in the queue) and both parties seem equally bemused by the inability to get anything resolved. One would have thought the problem is simple - the tram tracks are (literally) set in concrete and cannot easily be moved , so move the busses. It'll probrably not get done, because its too simple for most to figure out ..... ! What Manchester needs is a passanger transport executive, which unlike GMPTE 'actually does something' ! One problem is de-regulation, but that is what Traffic Commissioner is for - he has the power (even if he dosn't use it much) to resolve this in a matter of days. Maybe the ultimate answer is for ONE operator to run the busses AND the trams as a combined, integrated system (no... that'll never happen either -perish the thought that logic should prevail) If Manchester cannot resolve this issue, then it doesn't deserve any more funding for local transport, of whatever mode; as quite frankly the people in control of public transport are big on "ideas" but lack the ability to effectively initiate and manage OUR PUBLIC TRANSPORT And thats the crux of it - its OUR money which is paying for trams to take 61 minutes to do what they should do in 4 or 5, whilst nearly empty busses sit on Mosely Street churning our dirty exhaust gasses onto passing pedestrians Intergrated public transport .... if only !
Michael, City Centre
16/06/2006 at 16:13

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

The problem needs to be tackled at source. Why are buses queuing to get down the Oxford Rd? Is it possibly because the Ox Rd is running at capacity and has too many cars on it? My experience of the Ox Rd is that it is plagued with large voumes of cars making dangerous and illegal parking/turning manoeuvres. Only a form of congestion charging would cut down on high levels of car traffic. Why is it buses are being seen as the problem? As the correspondant from the US suggests, Mancunians should be pleased that they have such an intensive bus service. BTW I am familiar with Central Manchester, before anyone criticises me for having the temerity to live down south!
Noam Bleicher, Oxford
16/06/2006 at 15:11

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

I agree with TrueManc and Alan.. the answer is to extend the metrolink, get more trams and get the buses off the road. They are dirty and the companies that run them do not care about getting passengers around, only their own profit margins.
Sue Andrews, Manchester
16/06/2006 at 15:09

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

Theres an easy answer, let the council take back control of the buses... no more fighting, no more buses in a dangerous condition, an organised timetable, non profit routes supported ...simple solution ..lets do it.
Andy, Wythenshawe
16/06/2006 at 14:06

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

As an expat, who is interested in public transportation - particularly Manchester's and how it has changed over the years -I have read with interest the comments from those currently experiencing the frustrations. It appears to me that the ultimate solution if discovered would take time to implement and still wouldn't please everyone. It is obvious that Piccadilly Gardens has surpassed its capacity and an immediate even if only short term solution is needed. It's not that long ago that services from the north terminated at Stevenson Sq / Lever Street. People had to walk into Piccadilly. Those arriving today at the new Shudehill do likewise [I know metroshuttles/metrolink are options].Therefore some services from the south/Oxford Rd could terminate at Princess St.- eg St Peter Sq/Moseley St then right onto Princess St OR via Mount Street / Albert Sq & Princess Street. This would free up the top part of Moseley Street for the metrolink trams. If any Buses need to get nearer to the Gardens then these routes should go via Mount St /Albert Sq/Cross and King Streets ending on York street behind Piccadilly. If parking is currently allowed on York then this would need to change to allow buses to stop along the full section. In addition Buses MUST obey all road "signs" and if found blocking intersections etc should be reported with both the driver and company receiving fines.
Roy Oldham, London / Ontario / Canada
16/06/2006 at 00:51

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

Caroline I take it that you are a bus driver. please please please remember this Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic.
Jamie, Salford
15/06/2006 at 22:16

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

Living in Virginia Beach, the problem here is lack of buses; there is no mass transportation of buses, so using your car is the only way to get around. I miss Manchester's bus system.
Ken, Virginia
15/06/2006 at 19:23

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

If they extended the metro link this could replace some busses and cut the amount of busses, oh I forgot the government banned that idea by not giving their funding, I think we need to give this government a kick to give the funding needed to invest in public transport, also I think cars should be banned from the city center to cut the congestion more, this would also give more space for the trams and busses. I would like to hear your opinions on my view.
Alan, Denton
15/06/2006 at 17:56

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

Other than the other points raised here it would also be nice to have the busses turn up on time, rather than wait ages and see 3 turn up at once. I'm looking at YOU princess parkway route!!
JD, Manchester
15/06/2006 at 15:03

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

Simple solution.... replace the buses with Trams down Oxford Road!
TrueManc, Chorlton
15/06/2006 at 14:57

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

What an utter joke! The redevelopment of Piccadilly Gardens has been a disaster - the city council have tried to "get a quart into a pint pot"! Over developed, fume ridden & dangerous! The people told the city council at the time, that the proposed scheme just wasn't "good enough" for Manchester! Bizarrely though, they castigated anybody who complained about their daft plans, as a "Middle-class t****r"!!!
Mark, South Manchester
15/06/2006 at 14:44

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

Ron - most of the buses on Moseley Street are empty as the passengers have already asked if they can get off! We don't like being stuck either! Closing Cross Street to traffic was a ridiculous idea and has aggrevated the congestion problem at Piccadilly no end.
Caroline, Manchester
15/06/2006 at 14:20

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

I don't use the buses or the trams - but as a pedestrian I am fed up with not being able to cross Mosley Street at the lights by the tram stop because the buses are stuck there bumper to bumper, obstructing the crossing and not leaving enough room for people to cross the road in between them. This is not the only crossing that gets obstructed in this way. I don't think the drivers realise how much room they're taking up (or more likely don't care).
Susan, City centre/train conmuter
15/06/2006 at 14:02

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

It is the ignorant "we rule the road" bus drivers at fault, jockeying for position and flouting the Highway Code. Been going on for years, road rage rules amongst GM Buses and damn the passengers and other transport. They should be fined.
Law Abider, Manchester
15/06/2006 at 13:45

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

As a Metrolink season ticket holder I am regularly disgraced that I have to wait over 20 minutes for a tram due to buses blocking the road. I find it hard to believe that GMPTE have no control over how many buses are entering Piccadilly gardens. Surely this is their problem and they should be regulating how many services are entering the area. The buses should be penalised for blocking the trams path as they are disrupting tram users at no fault of Metrolink.
Jane, G Manchester
15/06/2006 at 13:23

The whole concept of intergrated transport is a myth in Manchester. By nature bus companies in competition with each other can not be intergrated in terms of service, why would they want to be? Manchester urgently needs a regulatory system as they have in London. The area under supposed control of the GPMTE is large enough for it to be possible. A city wanting to compete on an international stage should be able to organise a bus system. GMPTE must be relieved that all the old tram ways were dug up, how would they cope managing a large tram system AND a bus system together.
AC, Manchester
15/06/2006 at 13:20

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

I catch the tram from eccles to the centre everyday and it is a complete nightmare! The other week we were stuck on mosley street for 20 mins, and then the passengers started getting aggro with the driver and eventually broke the safety button to open all the doors, immobilising the tram. there must have been 5 trams and god knows how many buses backed up down the road yet when you go o cross street nowadays it's like the marie celeste. mcc and gmpte need to do something and quickly.
Manc, city centre
15/06/2006 at 13:16

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

What the people who comment about having buses stop outside the city centre dont think of is that there are people who need to travel as close to their destination as possible due to a disability or as they have young children with them not having buses come into the city centre is ridiculous , they should ban all traffic apart from Public transport from the city centre freeing up the roads for the people who actually care about the environment enough to commute on a bus even tho the car would be easier for them
Jen, Salford
15/06/2006 at 13:09

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

What starts it is when a so called PROFESSIONAL bus drivers blocks the YELLOW BOX as they enter Piccadilly bus station off Mosley Street because the STAGECOACH 142,143 and UK NORTH fight it out for passengers. If you made the bus drivers read the HIGHWAY CODE this would help. Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see Other road markings section). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without
Jamie, Salford
15/06/2006 at 12:57

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

The buses are to blame. As the bus companies are in competition with each other and operate the same routes they attempt to get whatever advantage they can on other buses. This does just happen on Mosely St but on Oldham St, Lever St and any other bus stops in the City. They block roads which in turn means queues of buses, taxi, metros or whatever happens to be on the road at the time. GMPTE and the council need to get a grip of the bus companies.
Darren, Manchester
15/06/2006 at 12:55

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

Louise - why not have the trams stopping outside the City Centre and let the passengers walk? As a regular bus passenger, I am getting fed up of having to walk further and further from where the bus stops to where I work. Fortunately, I will be moving out of this area in the not too distant future and will no longer have to put up with the disastrous traffic management of Manchester City Council and GMPTE
Annette, Manchester
15/06/2006 at 12:39

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

The problem is exiting the station, no busses can get onto Portland Street due ot the roadworks and therefore none can get into the station. This has been going on for weeks.
Rich, man.
15/06/2006 at 12:37

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

Did no-body see this coming? Surely there must have been planning for this situation as Piccadilly Bus Station simply isn't big enough to cope with the demand. I work at the university and the problems exist on Portland Street also with too many buses in the station at peak times. All parties involved need to get to the bottom of this in order to keep passengers flowing at all times. It's not just trams that are delayed, it is also buses trying to get into Piccadilly via Portland Street.
Dan, Manchester
15/06/2006 at 12:18

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

Can anyone shed light onto why most of the buses blocking the trams on mosley st are empty?
Ron, manchester
15/06/2006 at 12:12

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

Why not raise the trams off the road, like a monorail, so they aren't impeded by the road-bound traffic? Or lets have an underground. Mind you, with so many screw-ups on building projects of late (Wembley, whistling Beetham etc) I wouldn't be surprised if the whole of Manchester sunk into a hole if they started doing that...
Paul, Manchester
15/06/2006 at 12:11

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

why have buses coming right into the centre? It's bonkers. I thought we were trying to stop congestion and pollution. Buses could stop on the outskirts and people can walk etc.
louise, manchester
15/06/2006 at 11:35

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

The problem is that there are far too many buses using Oxford Road. I know that this is one of the busiest bus routes in Europe, but what angers me is that you will often see 3 or 4 buses all travelling in convoy with hardly enough passengers on them to fill one bus not only is this putting a strain on the road surface (it is full of pot-holes) it is also adding to the problem of pollution. The council needs to restrict the nmber of buses each of the numerous companies competing for passengers has on this route. Another idea would be to create services that go no further than the university as in term times most of the buses are empty by the time they reach the BBC.
doug, manchester
15/06/2006 at 11:34

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

Would it not make more sense for the traffic coming from Oxford road to divert this down Portland Street and enter Piccadilly Gardens this way as the Trams would not be affected during Rush Hour. Or maybe swap around so the route that the Southern buses use for leaving the gardens down Princess street now becomes the way they enter into Manchester. Whatever way they do decide something has to be done and quickly as this cannot carry on.
emily, manchester
15/06/2006 at 11:22

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

I have already sent letter to complain about the re routing of the buses from cross st,this increasing the log jam in Piccadilly still awaiting reply.Took an hour to get from m/c to Eccles trams were held up there.
pauline, greater manchester
15/06/2006 at 11:05

Most of these buses have no need what so ever to go anywhere near Piccadilly,, re-route them so people end the journey in say St Peter's Sq ,Shudehill ,Oldham St , London Rd ,Deansgate,Victoria ,ect . These people that insist on getting off at Piccadilly , need to be told to get off there fat arse's and FUCKING WALK

are we getting swanky new trams? the ones in sheffield are so nice an ours look like eg9 boxes ther disgusting, they looked so retro wen they were introduced an have aged like a square banana (ie quickly!) i heard rummors that there were to be 3 car units runnion through central on the existing lines. but then that would introduce problems for metrlink asin having difrent rolling stock.... hmmmm

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=311301

They look even better now. :cheers:

I don't get this obsession with the appearance of the trams, yes it would nice to have to best looking trams in the world, but in the scheme of things we have MUCH more important things to be worrying about.

To be honest, if it was the choice between 9 more trams like we have now, or 8 trams that look nice, presuming they have the same capacity then you go for the 9 older looking trams, it is a no brainer.

P.S. Currently sat on 1025 heading into Piccadilly, ain't web and walk great!

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=311301

They look even better now. :cheers:

looks like a psychadelic caterpillar. no chance of that beast crawling up your sleeve unannounced.

Dft announcement on Light Rail is imminent!...

Bollocks, just seen the BBC Breakfast news, they have a story saying briefly that the government will announce their decision within a month. Ohh well!

I have my Freedom of Information Request due back today, should find out what Phase 3a consists of.

Space - if nothing else, this entire scheme has taught us to be patient.

What MUST be remembered, the DfT do not want to give the impression it will get built (as with original Phase 3, Liverpool, Leeds and Portsmouth), they want to be 110% sure when they announce it will go ahead absolutely everything is in place for it to happen.

Peter Apostolou

Regional and Local Major Projects Division

Department for Transport

Zone 3/18

Great Minister House

76 Marsham Street

LONDON

SW1P 4DR


Email : peter.apostolou@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk


Our Ref: FOI/2239/Stephens



25 May 2006






By e-mail




Mr. Stephens


Thank you for your recent email to the department in which you made a request under the Freedom of Information Act in relation to the Manchester Metrolink scheme.


Your request has been allocated the FOI reference number 2239. Please quote this reference number in any future communications.


Your request was received on 24 May and I am dealing with it under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which allows me 20 working days to respond to your request, meaning the deadline expires on 23rd of June.


Yours sincerely




Peter Apostolou

Regional and Local Major Projects Division


I'll keep an eye on my email and the web, but as I'm off to York today may not pick it up, may be worth checking http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/divisionhomepage/611800.hcsp every so often.

Just seen the report on NW Today.

This has to be the first time the government have indicated an announcement was soon, previously it's all been coming from the Manchester end.


Announcement is therefore before the summer recess.

A decision on the future of the stalled expansion of Manchester's Metrolink will be made within a month, a government minister has said.
Plans to build three lines out to Manchester Airport, Oldham and Ashton-under-Lyne were put on hold in July 2004 because of increasing costs.

Since then, local transport authority bosses have been working on plans to reduce the estimated £900m bill.

The government has said it will not provide any more than £520m.

The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (GMPTE) has been lobbying the government to increase its share of the funding.

Transport Minister Dr Stephen Ladyman told the BBC that a decision on the future of the project would be made "fairly shortly".

"The Secretary of State and I are discussing the regional advice on the funding allocation and we are hoping to make our announcement before the summer recess," he said.

As part of attempts to cut costs, GMPTE axed the Wythenshawe hospital section of the proposed route out to the airport.

The decision was taken after the authority could not find any measures to reduce costs in the other two routes.

The expansion of the system, dubbed "The Big Bang", was announced in 2000 and homes, schools and offices were demolished in some areas to make way for the new lines.

The announcement in 2004 that the project would be scrapped provoked anger in the city and a working party was set up to try and salvage the scheme.

The House of Commons breaks for the summer on 25 July.

I don't like announcements just before recesses - the 2004 one was a couple of days before the recess (in the hope the outcry would have died down before the MPs returned to parliament.

I don't like announcements just before recesses - the 2004 one was a couple of days before the recess (in the hope the outcry would have died down before the MPs returned to parliament.

I agree Metrolink.

I would like to have seen more national publicity for this from the Libs and Tories, making this a national issue and not just a "local" one.

I don't like announcements just before recesses - the 2004 one was a couple of days before the recess (in the hope the outcry would have died down before the MPs returned to parliament.

But it didn't did Metrolink. :)

Don't think the Government will make the same mistake again.

I seem to remember a while back that June was always going to be the month the announcement was made.

Image the MEN front page. METROLINK BIG BANG GO / GETS GREEN LIGHT. :)

BBC Manchester.

Metrolink decision within a month

The total cost of the Metrolink expansion is an estimated £900m
A decision on the future of the stalled expansion of Manchester's Metrolink will be made within a month, a government minister has said.
Plans to build three lines out to Manchester Airport, Oldham and Ashton-under-Lyne were put on hold in July 2004 because of increasing costs.

Since then, local transport authority bosses have been working on plans to reduce the estimated £900m bill.

The government has said it will not provide any more than £520m.

Announcement due

The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (GMPTE) has been lobbying the government to increase its share of the funding.

Transport Minister Dr Stephen Ladyman told the BBC that a decision on the future of the project would be made "fairly shortly".

"The Secretary of State and I are discussing the regional advice on the funding allocation and we are hoping to make our announcement before the summer recess," he said.

As part of attempts to cut costs, GMPTE axed the Wythenshawe hospital section of the proposed route out to the airport.

July break

The decision was taken after the authority could not find any measures to reduce costs in the other two routes.

The expansion of the system, dubbed "The Big Bang", was announced in 2000 and homes, schools and offices were demolished in some areas to make way for the new lines.

The announcement in 2004 that the project would be scrapped provoked anger in the city and a working party was set up to try and salvage the scheme.

I've heard that within a month shit befour. If we do get a decision, it will be a miracle.

Andy, totally understand your concerns, however worth noting that this is the first time that central government have put a date on the announcement.

From MEN Online

Park and Ride scheme opens
Alan Salter

ON TRACK: Geoff Inskip .A NEW £1million park-and-ride scheme has opened in a bid to cut traffic on the roads between Manchester and Bury and to boost the number of Metrolink passengers.
The 127-space free car park at the Whitefield tram station replaces the old bus station in the town.
Built by Metrolink owners Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, it includes eight disabled spaces, eight motorbike stands, three cycle stands and five cycle lockers as well as two bus stands and a bus turning area.
Advertisement your story continues below

The stop is just five minutes from Bury town centre by tram and 20 minutes to the city centre.
Popular
It was officially opened by the Bury member of the authority Coun John Byrne who said: "Metrolink has been extremely popular since it opened in 1992, taking thousands of car journeys off the road every day. But some people are still driving to get to Bury and Manchester when it would be easier, quicker, and cheaper for them to use the tram.
"The new free car park at Whitefield will give an extra incentive to motorists to use Metrolink by saving them money on petrol and parking.
"It should reduce the number of cars parked on nearby residential streets as well. I hope Whitefield `park and ride' will encourage more people to leave their cars behind and use Metrolink instead."
Parking spaces
More than 3,500 free parking spaces are available at train and tram stations and stops across Greater Manchester and millions have been invested in developing park-and-ride sites at Metrolink stops along the Bury line.
Similar facilities were opened at Crumpsall and Besses o'th' Barn last year and parking is also available at Bury, Radcliffe, Prestwich and Heaton Park Metrolink stops.
The opening comes as officials prepare to award contracts for replacing the worn-out track between Bury and Manchester and supplying eight new trams to ease overcrowding.
Overcrowding

GMPTE deputy director general Geoff Inskip said: "The additional vehicles will help to tackle overcrowding in peak periods and improve the reliability and performance of services. We are also planning to refurbish all of the existing trams on the network.
"The track on the Bury and Altrincham lines is more than 50 years old in some places as they were used by trains until Metrolink took over the routes in 1992. The new track will provide passengers with a much smoother ride.
"We anticipate that the new track will be laid during summer 2007 and that the new trams will have begun operating by the end of 2008."

Moderators - although this thread is getting rather long, can it be left.

Since the announcement seems to be soon, that would be a good time to start a new (or several) new threads.

I have post, relating to the FOI request I put in about Metrolink....

So, announcement by 13th July (or will we have to wait until 25th July)???



Mr Stephens
I am writing to say we are undertaking Public Interest Tests on documents within the scope of request 2239, which relate to information concerning the proposed Phase 3 extensions to the Metrolink scheme.

The FOI Act obliges us to respond to requests promptly, in any case no later than 20 working days after recieving your request. However, when a qualified excemption applies to the information, the public interest test needs to be considered. We are not required to comply with your request until such a time as is reasonable in the circumstances.

We do, of course, aim to make all decisions within 20 working days, including in cases where we consider where the public interest lies in respect of a request of excempt information. Your request, however, raises complex public interest considerations which must be analysed before we can come to a decision on releasing the information.

The exemptions that apply to the information you have requested are sections 35 (Formulation of Government Policy) and 43 (Commercial Interests). In your case we need to extend our response time limit by 15 working days in order to access whether the public interest is in withholding the information or disclosing it. Therefore, we plan to let you have a a response by 13th July. If there is a need for any further delay we will keep you informed.

If you any queries about this letter, please contact me. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you are unhappy with the way the DfT has dealt with your request................